Vardy's Punishment

[Larry_LCFC]

This is achieving absolutely nothing

[Manwell Pablo]

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.

 

You reckon? I think alot more people have been done for curb crawling than making idle threats during gambling disagrements in this country. His behaviour is really not that threatening he is just visible annoyed and to be fair if someone was trying to cheat during what was probably a fairly high stakes game of poker I wouldn't be best pleased either. It is a granted over the top and uncalled for reaction but it is at least a human reaction not pre meditated calculated and something he felt he could boast about afterwards by sending videos out to his mates.

 

He is clearly shouting Oi Jap at him to gain his attention and when he get's he tells him to walk on, comapred to calling someone a slit eyed minger whilst paying them so you can degrade them it's different ball park racism. And your the one with the moralitty problem if you can't see the two situations for what they are. He is clearly out of order and I don't for a second think he meant in a netural context but is fractionally offensive as the term used in the sex video and it does not deserve a sacking, he should be delt with in accordance with his crime.

 

I can't believe you really think the two situations are so similar unless you are trolling if so good troll.

[cambridgefox]

This thread is an abomination

is that like Bigfoot?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I think that analogy doesn't work as you have a quantifiable breach of the law. The racism issues are a lot more complex and intricate so can't be trivialised like that.

 

It's disappointing the amount of people that refuse to acknowledge the similarities in the situations. I'm not saying if you think the punishment is fair then this applies. But the amount of times I've seen conjecture like 'Vardy isn't a racist' plucked out of thin air to try and justify a position is fairly astonishing. It's like venn diagram. But people have their opinions and have to try and narrow it down to black and white - it's either one circle or two circles that aren't touching.

Better than I could put it mate, spot on.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Apparently....

Hopper was set to be sacked with JP and AS set for their own hearings but instead the club sacked all three instead without any mention of these supposed seperate hearings and that was what infuriated Pearson.

And then Cambiasso signed a contract extension?

[Babylon]

I think that analogy doesn't work as you have a quantifiable breach of the law. The racism issues are a lot more complex and intricate so can't be trivialised like that.

You're doing it again, you're trying to lump everything under the hat of racism. There were more things going on than that, which I have pointed out about a dozen times already. The decision makers are the owner, in this situation they are the law, it doesn't matter what you find most offensive. With them being so personally linked to several things in the first incident it's likely to upset them more.

 

Quite clearly to most people that the owners would likely see mild racism + throwing a bit of a wobbly, not the same as sex tape, prostitutes, clear racism, misogyny, club tour of owners homeland, owners hotel.

[Manwell Pablo]

Not hard enough apparently. This thread is a psychologist's wet dream. You've given up on making an actual argument ages ago and have done nothing but name-call and make silly comments. Here is my position in summary:

1. Neither Vardy nor the 3 lads should have been sacked. Both deserved fines and final warnings.

2. The moral outrage on here was disproportionately vehement after Rim-gate. A lot of it was about finding the sex acts themselves a bit icky, and much of it was about the racial slur used. I found the whole thing quite pedestrian. Wrong, maybe, but pedestrian certainly.

3. People set the bar for moral outrage at a level they did not expect to have to meet again. When they did, they could either admit the real reason why it is different (we need Vardy), or make factual distinctions based on incidental characteristics. Most have done the latter, resulting in some cringe-worthy mental gymnastics and outright dishonesty.

 

We had absloutley no choice but to sack them, as has already been mentioned there was fcking up roar in Thailand and we stood to lose quite a lot of money over it.

[Guest bennytwohats]

You're doing it again, you're trying to lump everything under the hat of racism. There were more things going on than that, which I have pointed out about a dozen times already. The decision makers are the owner, in this situation they are the law, it doesn't matter what you find most offensive. With them being so personally linked to several things in the first incident it's likely to upset them more.

 

Quite clearly to most people that the owners would likely see mild racism + throwing a bit of a wobbly, not the same as sex tape, prostitutes, clear racism, misogyny, club tour of owners homeland, owners hotel.

 

Can you not see that you are painting a different picture for the two incidents? This is exactly the kind of dressing up I'm talking about... And I'm not 'lumping everything' under the hat of racism. I focus on that because that is the main similarity in the two incidents and in my opinion the most pertinent.

 

 mild racism + throwing a bit of a wobbly = clear racism and being violent, drunk and out of control.

 

You could trivialise the other incident if you were so inclined to illustrate a point. But that's just it - some of us are trying to say look at the two incidents with the same objectivity and discuss that. Not look at one objectively and the other subjectively dismissing it as a non-issue.

 

The fact that the racism is directed at the owners nationality is playing exactly to the point. It's double standards to say racism towards Japanese people (although I would argue contextually it was actually towards people of Asian appearance - another element I would say is fairly significant that people seem unable to comprehend) is okay but racism to Thai people is not acceptable.

[Manwell Pablo]

Can you not see that you are painting a different picture for the two incidents? This is exactly the kind of dressing up I'm talking about... And I'm not 'lumping everything' under the hat of racism. I focus on that because that is the main similarity in the two incidents and in my opinion the most pertinent.

 

 mild racism + throwing a bit of a wobbly = clear racism and being violent, drunk and out of control.

 

You could trivialise the other incident if you were so inclined to illustrate a point. But that's just it - some of us are trying to say look at the two incidents with the same objectivity and discuss that. Not look at one objectively and the other subjectively dismissing it as a non-issue.

 

The fact that the racism is directed at the owners nationality is playing exactly to the point. It's double standards to say racism towards Japanese people (although I would argue contextually it was actually towards people of Asian appearance - another element I would say is fairly significant that people seem unable to comprehend) is okay but racism to Thai people is not acceptable.

 

Ok one more time

 

Can you honestly not see the difference between the term "jap" and the term "slit eye"

[filbertway]

I can only imagine this fella is having a right old tug over the amount of times he keeps getting replies .

[Guest bennytwohats]

Ok one more time

 

Can you honestly not see the difference between the term "jap" and the term "slit eye"

Can you honestly not see the similarities?

 

You say something intended to degrade someone based on their ethnicity or nationality I would say the actual words are of little relevance compared to the intent to single that aspect out and use it to offend.

[Manwell Pablo]

Can you honestly not see the similarities?

 

You say something intended to degrade someone based on their ethnicity or nationality I would say the actual words are of little relevance compared to the intent to single that aspect out and use it to offend.

 

The word Jap isn't degrading though is it, it is generalising that is why it is offensive. (as well as a few historical reasons)

 

Slit eye on the other hand is degrading.

 

Well done you have inadverntly answered your own question.

[Guest bennytwohats]

The word Jap isn't degrading though it is, it is generalising that is why it is offensive.

 

Slit eye on the other hand is degrading.

 

Well done you have inadverntly answered your own question.

 

As has been explained multiple times its about the context in which the term 'Jap' was used.

[Manwell Pablo]

As has been explained multiple times its about the context in which the term 'Jap' was used.

 

It doesn't matter it's a much less offensive term than slit eye end of story

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

It doesn't matter it's a much less offensive term than slit eye end of story

 

is it the same as calling someone a pussy or a ****?

[Manwell Pablo]

Also context "Lick it you slit eye minger" hows the context there?

[Carl the Llama]

I have a question:

 

Does anybody actually believe Vardy holds anti-Japanese views based on that video?

 

Marshall, Benny, your answers to that will speak volumes.

[Merging Cultures]

Describing someone as black is not offensive

Aggressively shouting oi black at a black person is offensive

Describing someone as a Jap is not necessarily offensive

Aggressively shouting oi Jap at a Japanese person is offensive

Hence, whether the word 'Jap' is offensive or not is immaterial, it can be either or depending on the context.

Did the world stop spinning?

Has the rapture occurred?

Why does this post make sense??????

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You reckon? I think alot more people have been done for curb crawling than making idle threats during gambling disagrements in this country. His behaviour is really not that threatening he is just visible annoyed and to be fair if someone was trying to cheat during what was probably a fairly high stakes game of poker I wouldn't be best pleased either. It is a granted over the top and uncalled for reaction but it is at least a human reaction not pre meditated calculated and something he felt he could boast about afterwards by sending videos out to his mates.

He is clearly shouting Oi Jap at him to gain his attention and when he get's he tells him to walk on, comapred to calling someone a slit eyed minger whilst paying them so you can degrade them it's different ball park racism. And your the one with the moralitty problem if you can't see the two situations for what they are. He is clearly out of order and I don't for a second think he meant in a netural context but is fractionally offensive as the term used in the sex video and it does not deserve a sacking, he should be delt with in accordance with his crime.

I can't believe you really think the two situations are so similar unless you are trolling if so good troll.

What has the number of offenders got to do with it? Are you sure you feel comfortable debating the law here? Kerb crawling gets you a maximum £1000 fine and/or a driving ban. Common assault, on the other hand, can receive a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison. I guarantee at this point you and everyone else who is speaking well beyond their legal knowledge is saying 'But he didn't touch him!' Common assault is committed if a person "causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant". Now whether or not the 'jap' did apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence is not known, but do you at least see how the law treats the offences in general? The law simply does not deem paying a prostitute to be equally as serious as threatening somebody. This is a fact, read up on it.

[Manwell Pablo]

What has the number of offenders got to do with it? Are you sure you feel comfortable debating the law here? Kerb crawling gets you a maximum £1000 fine and/or a driving ban. Common assault, on the other hand, can receive a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison. I guarantee at this point you and everyone else who is speaking well beyond their legal knowledge is saying 'But he didn't touch him!' Common assault is committed if a person "causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant". Now whether or not the 'jap' did apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence is not known, but so you at least see how the law treats the offences in general? The law simply does not deem paying a prostitute to be equally as serious as threatening somebody. This is a fact, read up on it.

 

are you actually saying Jamie Vardy committeed Common Assault.

 

And you're accusing other people of making more out of an incident than is actually there .

 

I don't need to read anything to know that's not common assault.

 

Even if it is you openly admit you'd have no evidence.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I have a question:

 

Does anybody actually believe Vardy holds anti-Japanese views based on that video?

 

Marshall, Benny, your answers to that will speak volumes.

Nope, and do you believe any of the 3 Rim-gate lads have anti-Thai views? Your answer will speak volumes.

[BlueJoe]

Case in point - what the hell are you basing that on?

Only he knows that - I can't comprehend how anyone else would use that to try and backup a position?!

Because he is using the term the same way he would use 'Oi', 'Mate', 'Twat', 'Speccy', 'Spotty', 'Love'

He isn't thinking what he is saying. He has looked up and starting shouting the one description he can see of the person he is arguing with. That isn't racism. That is human nature and whether you are a Brit, Japanese an Arab an Australian an Indian it's exactly the same.

When you have a disagreement with anyone you immediately point out in your own head how is that person different to you and that is the first word that tends to blurt out. We are just allowed to call someone a fat c#nt but not a Jap!

I also happen to think there are a lot fewer racists than everyone claims and I think a lot of things aren't racist that we are told are. Like this incident. If he wasn't angry or possible hadn't been drinking (not sure if he had) then he would never have called him that.

[Guest bennytwohats]

I have a question:

 

Does anybody actually believe Vardy holds anti-Japanese views based on that video?

 

Marshall, Benny, your answers to that will speak volumes.

 

Based on that video? No. It's not really enough to try and get any read of his views - which is why I can't comprehend people jumping out and saying they don't think Vardy is a racist - I don't think there is enough evidence to say anything, but what evidence there is certainly doesn't point to that.

 

But whether I think Vardy is a racist or not isn't really relevant. The video shows him racially abusing some guy. Whether he is racist or whether he is just ignorant isn't something I will ever know.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

are you actually saying Jamie Vardy committeed Common Assault.

And you're accusing other people of making more out of an incident than is actually there .

I don't need to read anything to know that's not common assault.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. You really do need to read up on it because you've shown how little you know about UK criminal law. Read a first-year undergraduate law book on the subject and you'll find out how wrong you've managed to get it. In fact, just google it, find it on Wikipedia, anything.

[Larry_LCFC]

Nope, and do you believe any of the 3 Rim-gate lads have anti-Thai views? Your answer will speak volumes.

Why do you keep defending those 3 lads? They deserved to be sacked. Their actions were disgusting. If you don't think they were worthy of the sack, you need to seriously look at yourself.