Vardy's Punishment

[Larry_LCFC]

Both scenarios:

- Pissed up and out of control - check

- Racist slur - check

- Professional connection with targeted race of slur - check (apparently everyone thinks it is relevant that the owners are Thai but not that Vardy's new strike partner who has only just arrived at the club is a 'Jap')

Vardy was also aggressive and threatening and in a public place. He looked like an absolute thug and had to be held back after threatening a stranger. Rolling back the years to the days of drinking and gambling footballers thinking they own the venues they decide to bless with their presence and instructing people to leave when he has no right. Vardy is also a lot older and should know better.

How can anyone deny the similarities between the scenarios? Clearly they are different but you are picking non-defining characteristics to demonstrate how different they are. The core elements of Rim-gate that enraged so many people on here are present in Vardy's outburst too, but now the goalposts have moved and people's memories become a bit selective because they never expected to have their logical and moral consistency tested so soon.

You really are the worlds biggest drama queen aren't you! (Is that sexist?). Stop trying to blow things out of proportion. You're worse than Stringer. 

[Frank to be]

Oh right... in that case your two examples are poor then.

No, they're not. The point is that the use of a word can be offensive or inoffensive depending on the context. Whether the word is a shortened form of another word or not is irrelevant.

[Babylon]

You are either and idiot or being obtuse.

 

How can anyone deny the similarities between the scenarios? Clearly they are different but you are picking non-defining characteristics to demonstrate how different they are. The core elements of Rim-gate that enraged so many people on here are present in Vardy's outburst too, but now the goalposts have moved and people's memories become a bit selective because they never expected to have their logical and moral consistency tested so soon.

Nobody has said there are not similar elements.

 

As for the second part of that highlighted statement... WHAT THE ACTUAL ****. "picking non-defining characteristics to demonstrate how different they are" so we're listing all the things that are different to highlight how the two cases are completely different... yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it.

 

It's like asking someone to define the differences between an apple and an orange... and then moaning when they point out the 100 things that differentiate the two. Whilst you bang on about them being the same because they have pips and both grow on sodding trees.

[Frank to be]

To the people arguing with MarshallForEngland it's worth remembering that this is a guy who thought what the ex-players did in Thailand was basically fine. I wouldn't waste too much of your time on a person who holds views like that.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You really are the worlds biggest drama queen aren't you! (Is that sexist?). Stop trying to blow things out of proportion. You're worse than Stringer.

More intellectually dishonest nonsense. I am arguing that the 3 lads did not need to be dismissed, not that Vardy should have been. You are deliberately misrepresenting my stance - I think both events are pretty pedestrian, in my job I see ten times worse than both every week. I am simply noting the inconsistency in the reactions to each one, the things that outraged everyone before are apparently now excusable. I actually think 'But Vardy is valuable to us' is a much more honest and cogent and actually valid argument than desperately trying to redefine and reframe what he did so he looks almost saintly compared to the 3 beasts of Rim-gate.

[Manwell Pablo]

Both scenarios:

- Pissed up and out of control - check

- Racist slur - check

- Professional connection with targeted race of slur - check (apparently everyone thinks it is relevant that the owners are Thai but not that Vardy's new strike partner who has only just arrived at the club is a 'Jap')

Vardy was also aggressive and threatening and in a public place. He looked like an absolute thug and had to be held back after threatening a stranger. Rolling back the years to the days of drinking and gambling footballers thinking they own the venues they decide to bless with their presence and instructing people to leave when he has no right. Vardy is also a lot older and should know better.

How can anyone deny the similarities between the scenarios? Clearly they are different but you are picking non-defining characteristics to demonstrate how different they are. The core elements of Rim-gate that enraged so many people on here are present in Vardy's outburst too, but now the goalposts have moved and people's memories become a bit selective because they never expected to have their logical and moral consistency tested so soon.

 

Again, if you can't see the difference between the two situations you need to have a word with yourself, he was in no means out of control and was provoked. His response I agree was over the top but then as I've said, from what of seen and heard about Jamie Vardy as a person he seems to be an over agressive penis sober or not.

 

The only vague similarity that both have committed an offence could be deemed as racist, the difference in offence in the term "jap" and "slit eyed minger" is in it's self absloutley massive for one. Jap in itself is not an offensive term the history behind the word can mean it would offend a fair portion of the Japense population due to the yanks calling them that during the war, however if you ask them which one is worse I'm quite sure which one would be deemed more offensive

 

Secondly he didn't hire any prostitutes and make them lick his arse all to belittle them at the same time, although apparently according to you that is "non-defining" somehow . Thirdly he wasn't on a club tour being payed for by our owners. This is clearly not a sackable offence ( I see now you don't think it is either so fair enough)

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

MarshallForEngland has firmly grasped the baton for biggest loser on the forum

[The Railway Man]

I think it's quite obvious what has happened here. The very vocal cohort of righteous moralisers were quick to tell everyone how shocked and appalled they were at the 3 lads after Rim-gate, and they felt very comfortable arguing against people who said 'If this was someone important to the team they wouldn't be sacked', never truly expecting that hypothesis to be tested any time soon. Now that it has, the outraged folk are forced to make distinctions between the two situations, some of which are factually true but nonetheless irrelevant (e.g 'someone else filmed Vardy')

Now these people have the gall to say that people who recognise this inconsistency are over-reacting by calling for Vardy's head, when in reality the argument is that the response to Rim-gate was an overreaction and could have been dealt with without sacking them. I have truly never known a group of people so intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant as some of the people that post on here.

 

That's football fans for you, they'll scream blue murder when someone else does exactly the same things they'll defend if it's one of their own players (A valuable one of course).

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

To the people arguing with MarshallForEngland it's worth remembering that this is a guy who thought what the ex-players did in Thailand was basically fine. I wouldn't waste too much of your time on a person who holds views like that.

Wow, go and find a quote to support the claim that I said it was 'Basically fine'. What a clown. I never ever said such a thing you know it, I repeatedly said how stupid they were, but I took issue with the sanctimony and excessive outrage, much of which was based on people finding rimming a bit icky. Way to lie.

[Guest bennytwohats]

It's like asking someone to define the differences between an apple and an orange... and then moaning when they point out the 100 things that differentiate the two. Whilst you bang on about them being the same because they have pips and both grow on sodding trees.

 

Well isn't that the point?

 

There is clearly some disagreement about what the offensive parts of each incident are, or at least which are most pertinent. It's not a black and white issue and actually merits some discussion imo.

 

I think it's a bit unreasonable for either side to be calling the other idiots because their view doesn't necessarily line up with yours (not aimed at you specifically).

[The Railway Man]

To the people arguing with MarshallForEngland it's worth remembering that this is a guy who thought what the ex-players did in Thailand was basically fine. I wouldn't waste too much of your time on a person who holds views like that.

 

For someone who only says he wants to deal in facts you don't half mind making up total bollocks when you try to argue with someone who disagrees with you.

[Larry_LCFC]

More intellectually dishonest nonsense. I am arguing that the 3 lads did not need to be dismissed, not that Vardy should have been. You are deliberately misrepresenting my stance - I think both events are pretty pedestrian, in my job I see ten times worse than both every week. I am simply noting the inconsistency in the reactions to each one, the things that outraged everyone before are apparently now excusable. I actually think 'But Vardy is valuable to us' is a much more honest and cogent and actually valid argument than desperately trying to redefine and reframe what he did so he looks almost saintly compared to the 3 beasts of Rim-gate.

As much as a forum is for people to have their opinions heard, you are behaving like an idiot. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you're just talking out of your backside. How you can defend the Thailand incident, and then go one step further and compare it to Vardy, is ridiculous beyond belief. You are either a troll, deluded, or simply a fool. Give up while you have an ounce of self respect left.

 

I dread to think what the outsiders reading this forum must be thinking right now. This thread is doing nobody or the site any favours. Certain members are just showing themselves to be morons.

[MadridFox]

Outraged at the fact he was made to apologize.  Wasn't even that bad tbh.

(edit : typo)

[The Railway Man]

As much as a forum is for people to have their opinions heard, you are behaving like an idiot. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you're just talking out of your backside. How you can defend the Thailand incident, and then go one step further and compare it to Vardy, is ridiculous beyond belief. You are either a troll, deluded, or simply a fool. Give up while you have an ounce of self respect left.

 

I dread to think what the outsiders reading this forum must be thinking right now. This thread is doing nobody or the site any favours. Certain members are just showing themselves to be morons.

 

A quick scan around the offiec earlier this week and most people just think we are hypocrites for supporting a racist in Vardy and wanting one sacked in Hopper.

 

Not saying that's right or wrong btw before you jump on me.

[Manwell Pablo]

Outraged at the fact he was made to apologize.  Wasn't even that bad tbh.

(edit : typo)

 

You've clearly been in Spain awhile

[Guest bennytwohats]

As much as a forum is for people to have their opinions heard, you are behaving like an idiot. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you're just talking out of your backside. How you can defend the Thailand incident, and then go one step further and compare it to Vardy, is ridiculous beyond belief. You are either a troll, deluded, or simply a fool. Give up while you have an ounce of self respect left.

 

I dread to think what the outsiders reading this forum must be thinking right now. This thread is doing nobody or the site any favours. Certain members are just showing themselves to be morons.

 

Obviously that's your take on it. I think for a neutral it would be more amusing to watch the masses of people try to make this issue so 'clearly distinct' from the Thailand issue in order to try and maintain the view that the club hasn't acted with double standards.

 

I've got a lot of non-Leicester supporting friends and I can tell you the general view among them is that we have acted with double standards. Personally I find it hard to disagree. For me the similarities in the incidents were more stark than the differences. The worst part of the sex tape incident for me was the racism, as was the worst case of the Vardy incident. Starkest difference of course is the profile of the player(s) in question.

[Larry_LCFC]

A quick scan around the offiec earlier this week and most people just think we are hypocrites for supporting a racist in Vardy and wanting one sacked in Hopper.

 

Not saying that's right or wrong btw before you jump on me.

I would suggest your colleagues have probably been sucked in by the sensationalised media, and not actually read up the facts. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Again, if you can't see the difference between the two situations you need to have a word with yourself, he was in no means out of control and was provoked. His response I agree was over the top but then as I've said, from what of seen and heard about Jamie Vardy as a person he seems to be an over agressive penis sober or not.

The only vague similarity that both have committed an offence could be deemed as racist, the difference in offence in the term "jap" and "slit eyed minger" is in it's self absloutley massive for one. Jap in itself is not an offensive term the history behind the word can mean it would offend a fair portion of the Japense population due to the yanks calling them that during the war, however if you ask them which one is worse I'm quite sure which one would be deemed more offensive

Secondly he didn't hire any prostitutes and make them lick his arse all to belittle them at the same time, although apparently according to you that is "non-defining" somehow . Thirdly he wasn't on a club tour being payed for by our owners. This is clearly not a sackable offence ( I see now you don't think it is either so fair enough)

So paying a prostitute is worse than physically threatening someone? UK law tends to disagree with that proposition. How have you arrived at this moral comparison which apparently is so clear-cut to you? The 'jap' remark - you are being very disingenuous here. If you repeatedly shout 'oi jap!' at someone, I don't think people are obliged to assume you are using the word in a neutral context. I know you know this, but your intellectual dishonesty is stopping you from admitting it. You cannot be this ignorant, I refuse to accept it even by the horrendously low standards set by some of the other folk on here.

[Babylon]

Well isn't that the point?

 

There is clearly some disagreement about what the offensive parts of each incident are, or at least which are most pertinent. It's not a black and white issue and actually merits some discussion imo.

 

I think it's a bit unreasonable for either side to be calling the other idiots because their view doesn't necessarily line up with yours (not aimed at you specifically).

Eh... He's not an idiot because his view differs from my own. He's an idiot because what he's saying is idiotic... or he's just being obtuse as I said.

 

He has said there is an inconsistency in punishment, it's been pointed out to him several times that the first case was a lot more than about just racism. There were no prostitutes (breaking the law), no sex tape, no misogyny, no club trip etc etc etc. He then moans that people are using the differences in the two cases to point out to him that's the very reason for there being a difference in punishment... which is frankly one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard on here.

[Guest bennytwohats]

I would suggest your colleagues have probably been sucked in by the sensationalised media, and not actually read up the facts. 

 

Non-Leicester fans being brainwashed and Leicester fans having the truth of it?

 

Leicester fans being biased and non-Leicester fans having the truth of it more likely wouldn't you say?

[Frank to be]

Wow, go and find a quote to support the claim that I said it was 'Basically fine'. What a clown. I never ever said such a thing you know it, I repeatedly said how stupid they were, but I took issue with the sanctimony and excessive outrage, much of which was based on people finding rimming a bit icky. Way to lie.

You described it as "pedestrian" just now

Its obvious you don't find the racial abuse as offensive as most.

[Babylon]

Obviously that's your take on it. I think for a neutral it would be more amusing to watch the masses of people try to make this issue so 'clearly distinct' from the Thailand issue in order to try and maintain the view that the club hasn't acted with double standards.

 

I've got a lot of non-Leicester supporting friends and I can tell you the general view among them is that we have acted with double standards. Personally I find it hard to disagree. For me the similarities in the incidents were more stark than the differences. The worst part of the sex tape incident for me was the racism, as was the worst case of the Vardy incident. Starkest difference of course is the profile of the player(s) in question.

 

Who cares what non-Leicester fans think, they aren't privy to all the details and they are trying to boil the situation down to being just about racism. That was never the case in the first issue as we're told two of them were found not guilty of racism. It was an accumulation of factors.

[Guest bennytwohats]

Eh... He's not an idiot because his view differs from my own. He's an idiot because what he's saying is idiotic... or he's just being obtuse as I said.

 

He has said there is an inconsistency in punishment, it's been pointed out to him several times that the first case was a lot more than about just racism. There were no prostitutes (breaking the law), no sex tape, no misogyny, no club trip etc etc etc. He then moans that people are using the differences in the two cases to point out to him that's the very reason for there being a difference in punishment... which is frankly one of the most stupid statements I've ever heard on here.

 

Well I think it's a valid point because he is saying that the difference in profile between the offenders is the reason for the difference in the punishment, rather than the different characteristics in the incidents.

 

The first case was about more than racism but the racism alone would surely have been enough to see him dismissed.

 

People on here seem completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that the club had a much tougher decision to make due to it being Vardy and not some youth team player. Genuinely people think it's a ridiculous notion to suggest the youth players would have been dismissed had they committed Vardy's offence? I would say that is being more obtuse than the points Marshall is making.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You are either and idiot or being obtuse.

Nobody has said there are not similar elements.

As for the second part of that highlighted statement... WHAT THE ACTUAL ****. "picking non-defining characteristics to demonstrate how different they are" so we're listing all the things that are different to highlight how the two cases are completely different... yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it.

It's like asking someone to define the differences between an apple and an orange... and then moaning when they point out the 100 things that differentiate the two. Whilst you bang on about them being the same because they have pips and both grow on sodding trees.

Ok, great example. Using your own analogy:

You offer me am orange and I say no, I hate fruit. And I don't eat anything with seeds in it, and I don't eat anything that grows on trees. I then I get an apple out and start munching it down, and you rightly ask me why I am doing that given it matches all the characteristics of oranges I claim to despise. And I say are you blind? They are clearly different. The orange is orange but the apple is red, the orange is segmented whereas the apple isn't, and the skin on an orange is not edible but it is on an apple. And if you can't see why oranges and apples are different you need your head checking, look at them, they aren't the same are they mate? If you think oranges and apples are the same you are deluded pal.

See how intellectually dishonest your position is now? Surely you get it?

[Larry_LCFC]

Non-Leicester fans being brainwashed and Leicester fans having the truth of it?

 

Leicester fans being biased and non-Leicester fans having the truth of it more likely wouldn't you say?

The first one in this case. How many non-Leicester fans will have read "The Sun" for example, and taken it at face value - probably quite a lot.

How many Leicester fans will have actually taken the time to find out the facts, watch the video, discuss it with others - probably quite a lot.

If Vardy deserved to be sacked, regardless of who he is, I would have called for him to be sacked. There is no place for racism. However, I don't believe he is a racist. Uneducated and slightly stupid, yes, but that's about as far as it goes.