RugbyRebels

I'd rather be a leper than 'precious'

Billyfish wrote:

Nightynight wrote:

UKHamlet wrote: Missing the point much?

No, the law is an ass. Status of race for what is a life style choice, I'm a fecking Jedi, what about my rights? I want to walk around in brown cloak and a kimono making whoosh, whoosh noises while waving a plastic lighted tube you Cnut, why I should be stopped by the police or told to leave ikea be cause I'm apparently a twat? Discrimination you bastards

And again, this little rant lite is beside the point.

(yawn) ohhhhh at least now you can claim you were robbed I suppose

Nightynight wrote:I'd rather be a leper than 'precious'

Says someone being totally precious.

If anyone feels that Marler has been hard done by, you can visit a Just Giving page and help fund his £20K fine.

Please try not to rush all at once...

Get

off

my

land.

Nightynight wrote:I'd rather be a leper than 'precious'

How's your scabs today?

As someone wrote somewhere if he does his tax return correctly he will be able to claim most of it back as a taxable allowance and it will only cost him about £8k

gthedog wrote:As someone wrote somewhere if he does his tax return correctly he will be able to claim most of it back as a taxable allowance and it will only cost him about £8k

I suppose its the thought that counts.

Would have been better if he'd been made to do some community service helping some people of the travelling community lay a few driveways

Fletch' would be a retired leper.It's a small point but I thought I'd mention it,....
...and that's what she said. Try the fish.

2,3,4.'Fly me to the moon,.....'

UKHamlet wrote:

Nightynight wrote:I'd rather be a leper than 'precious'

Says someone being totally precious.

Pppppffffffff

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -education

Worry about being called gypsy boy, fucking least of the problems they have. Ffs precious, but marler got a 2 week ban yeeaarrgghh!

Justice 4 Marler!

#except in the heat of the moment.

Err no.... Umm...

The RFU - kicking the six nations out of sport?

Umm... No..

Or is it Jedi?

It's definitely not racism though.

I'm confused!

cadofyddol wrote:Justice 4 Marler!

#except in the heat of the moment.

Err no.... Umm...

The RFU - kicking the six nations out of sport?

Umm... No..

Or is it Jedi?

It's definitely not racism though.

I'm confused!

Rfu - 6 nations out of sport? .... Eh? Wtf

Straight question ... Do you think travelers deserve the term ' a race' and on what justification?

Not that is the law! On what case do You see they have a case?

Nightynight wrote:Straight question ... Do you think travelers deserve the term ' a race' and on what justification?

Not that is the law! On what case do You see they have a case?

I guess seeing that as you have been pretty candid and open about your views, you deserve an honest answer from me.

Do I think they deserve to be considered a race?...

I'm not sure is the honest answer, to answer that truthfully I'd have to define what I considered to be a race and how that compared to the legal definition.

Having said that, if we ignore race and instead ask do I think that Travellers deserve to be be given extra protection under law then I would say yes. The reason for that is that as plenty of people demonstrate day in day out, Travellers are probably more prejudiced against in society than any other 'race' and to make matters worse it is still seen as acceptable. How many people wouldn't trust a traveller or gypsy without having met them? Loads, how many people would feel the same about Blacks, Indians, Chinese etc as a whole. Much less I would say. People will judge a Traveller on their reputation in society rather than individually.
There was a time when black people weren't trusted as a whole, were prejudiced en mass and were all accused of negative actions. Eventually that was seen as unacceptable in society and opinions changed. For Travellers it hasn't.
I'm aware of a lot of the issues that there are with Travellers, where I live they have to employ security staff during the day on a Sunday to stop the Travellers that visit from running riot. I have also had a number of other first hand experiences but does that mean that every single Traveller is like that, no. Even if it was 90% of them, don't the remaining 10% deserve to be protected from such prejudice?
Does Samson Lee rip people off, leave rubbish everywhere, cause trouble wherever he goes? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. Does he deserve to be labelled negatively and 'racially' abused because of the actions of the minority/majority?

So for those reasons I think that they deserve just as much protection as a black person does with regards to 'racial' abuse.

If you were going to consider things in a completely removed and logical manner, you could ask why is it OK to abuse someone about the colour of their hair but not the colour of the skin.
It is the historical actions of society that have formed what is acceptable with regards to Equality.

cadofyddol wrote:

Nightynight wrote:Straight question ... Do you think travelers deserve the term ' a race' and on what justification?

Not that is the law! On what case do You see they have a case?

I guess seeing that as you have been pretty candid and open about your views, you deserve an honest answer from me.

Do I think they deserve to be considered a race?...

I'm not sure is the honest answer, to answer that truthfully I'd have to define what I considered to be a race and how that compared to the legal definition.

Having said that, if we ignore race and instead ask do I think that Travellers deserve to be be given extra protection under law then I would say yes. The reason for that is that as plenty of people demonstrate day in day out, Travellers are probably more prejudiced against in society than any other 'race' and to make matters worse it is still seen as acceptable. How many people wouldn't trust a traveller or gypsy without having met them? Loads, how many people would feel the same about Blacks, Indians, Chinese etc as a whole. Much less I would say. People will judge a Traveller on their reputation in society rather than individually.
There was a time when black people weren't trusted as a whole, were prejudiced en mass and were all accused of negative actions. Eventually that was seen as unacceptable in society and opinions changed. For Travellers it hasn't.
I'm aware of a lot of the issues that there are with Travellers, where I live they have to employ security staff during the day on a Sunday to stop the Travellers that visit from running riot. I have also had a number of other first hand experiences but does that mean that every single Traveller is like that, no. Even if it was 90% of them, don't the remaining 10% deserve to be protected from such prejudice?
Does Samson Lee rip people off, leave rubbish everywhere, cause trouble wherever he goes? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. Does he deserve to be labelled negatively and 'racially' abused because of the actions of the minority/majority?

So for those reasons I think that they deserve just as much protection as a black person does with regards to 'racial' abuse.

If you were going to consider things in a completely removed and logical manner, you could ask why is it OK to abuse someone about the colour of their hair but not the colour of the skin.
It is the historical actions of society that have formed what is acceptable with regards to Equality.

Now, here's the issue.

A large proportion of the traveller community do not contribute, i. e. Socially, Income tax etc, etc. Please don't try and defend this by quoting 1 or 2 example that they do, they don't on large ..... Period, well documented, Shiite in my experience, they openly brag about it.

Sorry, but you do not deserve to have the same 'rights' if you by having made a life style choice, you have decided to exclude yourself on one hand but want all the frills and oppurtunities on another. There are examples of this behaviour in Asian communities as well, the obvious being certain groups of Muslims. Fuckall to do with their skin colour

If you don't contribute to it, you do not deserve its protection, call it harsh but that is my opinion.

It's got nothing to do with Lee, sure he's a good guy. He didn't make an issue out of it, credit to him for it. Shows character to take high road above such petty stuff, in an abusive verbal exchanges you shout 'cnut' at somebody as 'alleged' and the guy abused you back.... What a shocker! At least He's a grown a up.

As for the wider racist issue, from what I have seen, plenty of blacks, Indians, Chinese can be just as racist as any white trash and some, like the Arabs are off the scale compared to what a lot of people are greeting bent out of shape about on this. It's a 'human condition' problem, doesn't excuse it, it is an issue.

All you are doing is underlying my argument. You are judging all Travellers on the actions of a percentage of them.
That is prejudice.

A large proportion of the non travelling community are selective with what they declare with regards to tax, do we judge them en mass? There are some morals that the majority of Travellers hold dear, that the non travelling community would do well to copy.
In China there is a huge issue with the hunting of endangered species for traditional medicines, if you strongly object to that is it OK to label all Chinese that way and discriminate against them?

Just because you write FACT or PERIOD it doesn't mean that your opinion is correct or holds more weight. At the end of the day it only is and ever will be your opinion!

I've asked you before about this, but you continue to persist without any evidence so I can only assume that you are making it up to suit your argument....

Who has claimed that it was Samson Lee that abused Marler?
And who has claimed that Marler was abused first and his conments were in reaction?

You're trying to paint Marler as the victim without any evidence, when it might have been a different player to Samson Lee who 'abused' Marler in reaction to what Marler had said to Lee, or it might have been at a completely different point in the game, or maybe it didn't happen at all!

You are speculating, unless you have evidence to show otherwise!

And you continue being selective on your arguments.

1 Do the majority of travelers assist, contribute to the wider community or choose not to under the principle of being 'different' to doing main stream...yes or no?answer the question don't side step?


2 The majority as you have said don't on tax alone, the question then still stands, they choose not to contribute but want the same rights and treatment. Do you think that it's a fair system. Yes or no?


Do the people who think eating rhino and tiger bits is a medical remedy, do they outside of that madness do they parcipitate in their society is another bringing that into it is simply side stepping and a straw man argument to the question.


No marler is not a victim other than being dragged through a concept of racism based on a group who, and yes my opinion, don't deserve the status of being classed in those terms because of their own behaviour....just answer yes or no for questions 1 & 2 please.


Oh an what morals do travelers hold to solely that we would hold dear.... Great comment without any substance or explanation or backup to support your view, yeeattthhh!

Seems to me that some people are confusing the point about the fact that is English law and whether a comment over gypsies should be covered by that same law. 2 very different issues. I might not like the fact that the speed limit in a town centre is 30MPH,if I break it I can expect to be fined etc; my personal opinion is irrelevant.

Likewise, if I don't like the Traveling Community but make discriminatory comments, in public then you can expect legal repercussions. Marley made what is legally a discriminatory comment in his workplace. That is why he was investigated and eventually punished. The key issue that blew this out of all proportion was the lack of process used by the 6N committee.

Arguments over whether e should all consider gypsies to be different or not, or legally protected or not, has no bearing over what happened in that match and subsequently.

Sandydragon wrote:Seems to me that some people are confusing the point about the fact that is English law and whether a comment over gypsies should be covered by that same law. 2 very different issues. I might not like the fact that the speed limit in a town centre is 30MPH,if I break it I can expect to be fined etc; my personal opinion is irrelevant.

Likewise, if I don't like the Traveling Community but make discriminatory comments, in public then you can expect legal repercussions. Marley made what is legally a discriminatory comment in his workplace. That is why he was investigated and eventually punished. The key issue that blew this out of all proportion was the lack of process used by the 6N committee.

Arguments over whether e should all consider gypsies to be different or not, or legally protected or not, has no bearing over what happened in that match and subsequently.

Yes it fucking does you moron, you can't have both ways. If you open a debate on a comment, you open the debate on why is it racism.


Maybe some people should wear yellow stars on their jackets, that's the law and shouldn't be questioned

Nightynight wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Seems to me that some people are confusing the point about the fact that is English law and whether a comment over gypsies should be covered by that same law. 2 very different issues. I might not like the fact that the speed limit in a town centre is 30MPH,if I break it I can expect to be fined etc; my personal opinion is irrelevant.

Likewise, if I don't like the Traveling Community but make discriminatory comments, in public then you can expect legal repercussions. Marley made what is legally a discriminatory comment in his workplace. That is why he was investigated and eventually punished. The key issue that blew this out of all proportion was the lack of process used by the 6N committee.

Arguments over whether e should all consider gypsies to be different or not, or legally protected or not, has no bearing over what happened in that match and subsequently.

Yes it fucking does you moron, you can't have both ways. If you open a debate on a comment, you open the debate on why is it racism.


Maybe some people should wear yellow stars on their jackets, that's the law and shouldn't be questioned

Don't be so ridiculous. Bringing the Nazi treatment of Jews into the picture is a huge straw man. The English law is anti-discriminatory; thats the key difference you seem to be missing in that comparison.

In terms of whether the law is fair, there is a history of discrimination against Gypsies in the UK and across Europe. Whilst they may not be a different race, they are different group in society and past history has shown that they deserve some protection in law. Your argument about lifestyle choice could be cut and pasted from an argument making homosexual comments unlawful. Many homosexuals could chose to appear to be heterosexual to avoid discrimination, but why should they?

Gypsies/ Travellers deserve the same protection as anyone else i this society. Not because they may or may not pay taxes (plenty of non-Gypsies don't pay tax) but because they are people and like you or I they shouldn't be discriminated against because of race or anything else.

Your arguments to the contrary thus far seem to revolve around the fact that you don't like gypsies and they don't pay taxes. Neither of which is a compelling argument against the enforcement of legislation and workplace rules governing conduct.

Oh, one last thing Nighty, much of the original debate was over whether Marler should be banned and the process. The debate wasn't over whether the law in England and Wales is fair or reasonable, only over why it wasn't followed.

Nightynight wrote:And you continue being selective on your arguments.

1 Do the majority of travelers assist, contribute to the wider community or choose not to under the principle of being 'different' to doing main stream...yes or no?answer the question don't side step?

I have no idea what the answer is as I have no idea what your definition of 'contribute' or 'wider community' is, and also as I do not know the majority of travellers or have an in depth knowledge of what they 'contribute' and to who, I would just be speculating. Just as you are.

2 The majority as you have said don't on tax alone, the question then still stands, they choose not to contribute but want the same rights and treatment. Do you think that it's a fair system. Yes or no?

Maybe if you calmed down a bit and actually read what people wrote, you would have noticed that I wrote 'A large proportion of the non travelling community are selective with what they declare with regards to tax'. So do I think that the Travellers who don't pay tax should have less rights on 'racial' prejudice than non travellers who don't pay tax? Then no. Their 'race' is irrelevant. Should a Chinese person who avoids tax forfeit their right to 'racial' protection? Then why should a traveller? Because in your opinion more than half of them avoid tax??

Do the people who think eating rhino and tiger bits is a medical remedy, do they outside of that madness do they parcipitate in their society is another bringing that into it is simply side stepping and a straw man argument to the question.

I have no idea what you are trying to articulate above!!

No marler is not a victim other than being dragged through a concept of racism based on a group who, and yes my opinion, don't deserve the status of being classed in those terms because of their own behaviour....just answer yes or no for questions 1 & 2 please.

As I said before your opinion is irrelevant. Both the law and World Rugby show that his comments were racist in nature and as a result he was punished. What their tax status is, is irrelevant.

Oh an what morals do travelers hold to solely that we would hold dear.... Great comment without any substance or explanation or backup to support your view, yeeattthhh!

I'm still waiting for your evidence to show that Samson Lee abused Marler first. Any chance of it??

And you accuse me of being precious!

Sandydragon wrote:Oh, one last thing Nighty, much of the original debate was over whether Marler should be banned and the process. The debate wasn't over whether the law in England and Wales is fair or reasonable, only over why it wasn't followed.

Which opens the debate, Jesus wept.

The video of the match shows a verbal exchange between Lee and Marler, Lee is clearly speaking at Marler and visa versa, both are clearly aggressive, so why is one comment a banning/sanction? It's the law? Says who and why is it an offence a fair question to ask.