Mellsblue wrote:
'British values' include things such as:
democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.
Doesn't sound too bad to me. Britain is one of the most tolerant, multi-cultural, integrated and outward looking countries in the world. To imbue those values in youngsters doesn't seem too mad to me. Even if you'd like to see it done by parents rather than by teachers who should be, well, teaching.
No-one's suggesting that those values shouldn't be promoted though.
Mellsblue wrote:
'British values' include things such as:
democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.
Doesn't sound too bad to me. Britain is one of the most tolerant, multi-cultural, integrated and outward looking countries in the world. To imbue those values in youngsters doesn't seem too mad to me. Even if you'd like to see it done by parents rather than by teachers who should be, well, teaching.
No-one's suggesting that those values shouldn't be promoted though.
Puja
Not in the main, no. There are some places where it will be resisted, and these places are the main reason this has been introduced, and there are even more places that will have the problem of them being labelled 'British'. In fact, members of various Unions have already stated as much as it might alienate immigrant students. I've always assumed immigrants moved here because of these British values rather than to be alienated by them. Supposedly, it's also a worry in case we vote in a far right government. There are two problems with this - the UK has never voted in a far right government and even in the highly unlikely event that we did then British values have obviously moved in that direction. No mention of worries over a far-left government, surprisingly.
Mellsblue wrote:
'British values' include things such as:
democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.
Doesn't sound too bad to me. Britain is one of the most tolerant, multi-cultural, integrated and outward looking countries in the world. To imbue those values in youngsters doesn't seem too mad to me. Even if you'd like to see it done by parents rather than by teachers who should be, well, teaching.
No-one's suggesting that those values shouldn't be promoted though.
Puja
That is what the NUT statement suggests to me, Puja, and I am openly admitting zero background knowledge of the 'prevent' business. Am I the only one ignorant of the subject in depth to interpret words as they are written? It strikes me that the NUT should take more care with its statements.
Which Tyler wrote:
I don't think anyone is particularly calling Marler racist, and (almost) certainly not knowingly so. I don't think anyone is saying that the insult was thought out beforehand and intended to hurt any more than any other insult.
However, one of the circles (but not all) in which gypsies are regarded as a race* is UK law.
You can insult someone as much as you like in public; but if you use a racial* slur, then you've stepped over a boundary; you haven't with words like "posh cunt" or "Saes bastard" etc etc. You've also done that whether or not you knew it was a racial* slur; whether or not you intended it that way; and whether or not you'd thought through your words before uttering them.
Is UK law relevant, absent of an authority rather different to World Rugby holding the hearing?
Marler is being called to a hearing based on rugby's code of conduct, and that certainly states race as one reason you can't discriminate, but it does rather read you can't be offensive so the posh <bleep> and the supposed racist comment rank more equal, given that the rugby code of conduct make no differentiation
Which Tyler wrote:
I don't think anyone is particularly calling Marler racist, and (almost) certainly not knowingly so. I don't think anyone is saying that the insult was thought out beforehand and intended to hurt any more than any other insult.
However, one of the circles (but not all) in which gypsies are regarded as a race* is UK law.
You can insult someone as much as you like in public; but if you use a racial* slur, then you've stepped over a boundary; you haven't with words like "posh cunt" or "Saes bastard" etc etc. You've also done that whether or not you knew it was a racial* slur; whether or not you intended it that way; and whether or not you'd thought through your words before uttering them.
Is UK law relevant, absent of an authority rather different to World Rugby holding the hearing?
Marler is being called to a hearing based on rugby's code of conduct, and that certainly states race as one reason you can't discriminate, but it does rather read you can't be offensive so the posh <bleep> and the supposed racist comment rank more equal, given that the rugby code of conduct make no differentiation
holy shoite, this could result in Lee being called in for a hearing by the end of this saga, now that would be ironic
Which Tyler wrote:
I don't think anyone is particularly calling Marler racist, and (almost) certainly not knowingly so. I don't think anyone is saying that the insult was thought out beforehand and intended to hurt any more than any other insult.
However, one of the circles (but not all) in which gypsies are regarded as a race* is UK law.
You can insult someone as much as you like in public; but if you use a racial* slur, then you've stepped over a boundary; you haven't with words like "posh cunt" or "Saes bastard" etc etc. You've also done that whether or not you knew it was a racial* slur; whether or not you intended it that way; and whether or not you'd thought through your words before uttering them.
Is UK law relevant, absent of an authority rather different to World Rugby holding the hearing?
Marler is being called to a hearing based on rugby's code of conduct, and that certainly states race as one reason you can't discriminate, but it does rather read you can't be offensive so the posh <bleep> and the supposed racist comment rank more equal, given that the rugby code of conduct make no differentiation
If the WR charge is for bringing the game into disrepute, then UK law is relevant, as it's that audience that were affected by it.
Has anybody ever seen a measure of the outrage? For example, I understand that the comment was heard via the ref mike (didn't hear it myself). Presumably, somebody then complained to ITN, the RFU or the 6N. Was it 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 . . . ?
Which Tyler wrote:
I don't think anyone is particularly calling Marler racist, and (almost) certainly not knowingly so. I don't think anyone is saying that the insult was thought out beforehand and intended to hurt any more than any other insult.
However, one of the circles (but not all) in which gypsies are regarded as a race* is UK law.
You can insult someone as much as you like in public; but if you use a racial* slur, then you've stepped over a boundary; you haven't with words like "posh cunt" or "Saes bastard" etc etc. You've also done that whether or not you knew it was a racial* slur; whether or not you intended it that way; and whether or not you'd thought through your words before uttering them.
Is UK law relevant, absent of an authority rather different to World Rugby holding the hearing?
Marler is being called to a hearing based on rugby's code of conduct, and that certainly states race as one reason you can't discriminate, but it does rather read you can't be offensive so the posh <bleep> and the supposed racist comment rank more equal, given that the rugby code of conduct make no differentiation
If the WR charge is for bringing the game into disrepute, then UK law is relevant, as it's that audience that were affected by it.
Puja
That sounds odd, not least as it's broadcast globally.
Players’ Association (RPA) has released the following statement in regards to Joe Marler.
RPA Group CEO, Damian Hopley, said: “Now that the World Rugby hearing date has finally been set, over three weeks since the matter was concluded by the 6 Nations, it is important to place on the record how we have watched the events around this ongoing disciplinary process unfold in a state of disbelief.
“As people throughout the game know, Joe is no racist. He made a comment when provoked and is now being hung out to dry in this excruciating media witch hunt whilst World Rugby have intervened against the RFU and the 6 Nations.
“To put Joe in this position after he apologised to the opposition player, admitted his error of judgement and also received a severe rebuke from the RFU and the Tournament smacks of double jeopardy. Everyone recognises there is no place in the game for these provocations but let’s be absolutely clear, Joe is not racially motivated and this matter should have been closed when it was originally dealt with three weeks ago.
“We will be watching the ensuing process extremely carefully but the thought of World Rugby calling for yet another hearing and therefore prolonging this episode defies belief. The apology was accepted, Joe held his hand up and it is now time to draw a line and move on.”
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That's generally now believed to be a backroom.
..and some used to call their front room 'Parlour'.
Ray Parlour was known of course as the 'Romford Pele' and it was Romford that we all remember coming to a standstill a few years back with a cortege of Mercs. heading to the cemetry after Bluey's funeral. He was one of the founders of Dale Farm traveller site, biggest in the UK at the time I believe.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That's generally now believed to be a backroom.
..and some used to call their front room 'Parlour'.
Ray Parlour was known of course as the 'Romford Pele' and it was Romford that we all remember coming to a standstill a few years back with a cortege of Mercs. heading to the cemetry after Bluey's funeral. He was one of the founders of Dale Farm traveller site, biggest in the UK at the time I believe.
Damn autocorrect. I meant to say backronym.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Two weeks is the surprise result to no one. Good for World Rugby to finally get tough on discipline, okay they've let drugs (including Peds), violent conduct on the field, high profile players assaulting woman in their lives, financial mismanagement, plenty of vile language go, and presided over a closed shop that skews the finances massively against the interests of growing the game - but when it came to a gypsy boy they stood up to be counted.
