Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
foxfanazer

Vardy's Punishment

By foxfanazer, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Merging Cultures

Merging Cultures

Posted
Posted

Wrong? What's "wrong" in the world is when a family doesn't get to see their mother again because some idealogical wacko has cut her head off. Why don't people carp off about things that really matter, not some unfortunate remark or some irritant bugging a bloke at the casino.

They do 'carp off' about those things.
ScouseFox

ScouseFox

Posted
Posted

I think it is double standards in the way the 3 sackings were portrayed, but tbh the 3 youth players being axed had absolutely nothing to do with racism or anything. The sole reason was the humiliation it brought the owners in their home country, which is something Vardy couldn't even hope to match.

the main reason they were sacked was cos they were all shit

RedSoxUK

RedSoxUK

Posted
Posted

Did you misread my post? I don't think anywhere I questioned the right of the club to decide who they retain and who they don't.

 

I don't understand why calling someone a slit-eye while they lick your arse is necessarily worse than calling someone a jap and threatening them while being drunk and gambling.

 

No I didn't mis-read, i'm simply saying the situations are different, and laying off the three thai bum boys set a dangerous precedent, they've rightfully punished Vardy in the right way and I disagree with you saying it's double standards.

Guest MarshallForEngland

Guest MarshallForEngland

Posted
Posted

No I didn't mis-read, i'm simply saying the situations are different, and laying off the three thai bum boys set a dangerous precedent, they've rightfully punished Vardy in the right way and I disagree with you saying it's double standards.

 

How could I be under an illusions about whether or not you disagree? All you're saying is "I disagree, they are different" in some way or another. You're not explaining your position, you're just restating it. Are they different in any material ways? Clearly they are not literally the same situation, but both involve the same sort of racist slur and laddish behaviour that people on here seemed to find so morally repugnant and sack-worthy before. Vardy's behaviour was outrageous and out of control, the guy was pissed up in a casino threatening a bloke he repeatedly called "Jap". Why is this any better than 3 lads getting their bums licked by a Thai woman while calling her a "slit eye"? They are different, but are the differences such that mean Vardy doesn't deserve the same punishment as the others? Where have all the righteous moralizers disappeared to?

Merging Cultures

Merging Cultures

Posted
Posted

Fat lot of good it seems to have done! Maybe Vardy's taken their eye off the ball.

To be fair, 'carping on' about stuff doesn't often result in much. More action is needed in this world.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

Posted
Posted

lol that is really splitting hairs now. "Jap" has been used as an insult for decades, and he meant it as an insult. He was pissed and shouting "oi, jap!" across the room. Come on that is ridiculous even for the standards of this forum.

I didn't know it was an insult until recently, more an informal term like Swede, Aussie, Thai etc. Now you're going to tell me it's on the same lines as "p**i" which is obviously isn't. Maybe it was an insult in WWII and years following, but me being of Jamie Vardy's generation it's not universally used as an insult these days. It was foolish, but it was no way as clear-cut as calling someone a slit-eyed longer and all the other shit the three were up to.

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

How could I be under an illusions about whether or not you disagree? All you're saying is "I disagree, they are different" in some way or another. You're not explaining your position, you're just restating it. Are they different in any material ways? Clearly they are not literally the same situation, but both involve the same sort of racist slur and laddish behaviour that people on here seemed to find so morally repugnant and sack-worthy before. Vardy's behaviour was outrageous and out of control, the guy was pissed up in a casino threatening a bloke he repeatedly called "Jap". Why is this any better than 3 lads getting their bums licked by a Thai woman while calling her a "slit eye"? They are different, but are the differences such that mean Vardy doesn't deserve the same punishment as the others? Where have all the righteous moralizers disappeared to?

Racism, misogyny, sex tape, club trip, owners hotel, owners homeland. V Leicester casino, angry man saying jap.

You really think it's comparable to the people who own this club?

Sacking three kids gets labeled an easy decision, but one was the managers son and it looks like we eventually lost him because it it, wouldn't say that was easy.

Merging Cultures

Merging Cultures

Posted
Posted

How could I be under an illusions about whether or not you disagree? All you're saying is "I disagree, they are different" in some way or another. You're not explaining your position, you're just restating it. Are they different in any material ways? Clearly they are not literally the same situation, but both involve the same sort of racist slur and laddish behaviour that people on here seemed to find so morally repugnant and sack-worthy before. Vardy's behaviour was outrageous and out of control, the guy was pissed up in a casino threatening a bloke he repeatedly called "Jap". Why is this any better than 3 lads getting their bums licked by a Thai woman while calling her a "slit eye"? They are different, but are the differences such that mean Vardy doesn't deserve the same punishment as the others? Where have all the righteous moralizers disappeared to?

We will speak slowly for you.

1. The three lads were misogynistic and treated the women poorly

2. They were racist

3. They filmed themselves and sent it to mates clearly bragging about their antics

4. They were on a work trip, paid for by the owners, in the owners country, where they are respected and have close relationships with the royal family and they were there to represent the club

In Vardy's case,

1. He was racist

2. He was abusive

3. He was filmed by someone else and doesn't seem proud of his actions

4. He wasn't on a work trip representing the club

Not sure if you can see the differences now.

Maybe a spot the difference picture would help if you are having problems with the long words? ;)

RedSoxUK

RedSoxUK

Posted
Posted

How could I be under an illusions about whether or not you disagree? All you're saying is "I disagree, they are different" in some way or another. You're not explaining your position, you're just restating it. Are they different in any material ways? Clearly they are not literally the same situation, but both involve the same sort of racist slur and laddish behaviour that people on here seemed to find so morally repugnant and sack-worthy before. Vardy's behaviour was outrageous and out of control, the guy was pissed up in a casino threatening a bloke he repeatedly called "Jap". Why is this any better than 3 lads getting their bums licked by a Thai woman while calling her a "slit eye"? They are different, but are the differences such that mean Vardy doesn't deserve the same punishment as the others? Where have all the righteous moralizers disappeared to?

 

Three lads appropriate lad culture while on an expenses paid holiday by their boss, while in a hotel paid by their boss in their bosses home country where their boss is one of the most decorated members and business men of Thai society. They ridicule prostitutes in the hotel paid for by their boss, laughing at Hopper's extremely racist slur of slit-eye while recording themselves on duty as Leicester City official personnel, having sexual relations with said prostitutes - then bragging about the incident, sending the video to mates as a laugh. The racial element of the three-thai's is not the defining factor, or the factor which got them the sack - it was their behaviour while on official Leicester City duty which brought the reputation of the football club in Thailand down a level humiliating the owners. 

 

Vardy has not done this while on an expenses paid holiday by his boss, or at a casino owned by his boss, in their bosses home country.. he's done it on his own accord at a private establishment, where he has had reason to become aggravated, where he reacted out of accordance. Vardy does not deserve the same punishment, the three lads were sacked for different reasons - Vardy was punished for his use of language, Hopper/Smith/Pearson were punished for their behaviour while on duty.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...