Not sure about a retrospective ban, how far back does something have to be before it's no longer considered relevant?
Football Neutrals Thread - Part 2
319 of 443
Originally Posted by celesti:
“Not sure about a retrospective ban, how far back does something have to be before it's no longer considered relevant?”
“Not sure about a retrospective ban, how far back does something have to be before it's no longer considered relevant?”
If he'd deleted the tweets 4 years ago then it would have been a different kettle of fish I'd suspect. The point being that those tweets were still very much on his twitter page representing his views right up until Saturday evening.
For what it's worth, a York City player yesterday received a 5 match ban for racially abusing an opponent.
Originally Posted by Jamesp84:
“For what it's worth, a York City player yesterday received a 5 match ban for racially abusing an opponent.”
“For what it's worth, a York City player yesterday received a 5 match ban for racially abusing an opponent.”
Then that should be about what Gray gets then, plus a hefty fine.
Originally Posted by carefree_blue:
“I know that's aimed at codeblue but I think it's obviously just damage limitation from Gray. If you'd written some disgusting stuff on twitter and had since moved on from being that person then wouldn't you go back and delete those tweets before having it brought to your attention 4 years later? All he seems to be sorry for is that it's caught up with him.”
“I know that's aimed at codeblue but I think it's obviously just damage limitation from Gray. If you'd written some disgusting stuff on twitter and had since moved on from being that person then wouldn't you go back and delete those tweets before having it brought to your attention 4 years later? All he seems to be sorry for is that it's caught up with him.”
I would yes but we cannot judge everyone by that critia. I would not post anything on Twitter and I would not have said such things.
I don't use "twitter" but I know its very popular and people seem to spend their days posting on it. If he had posted lets just say 50,000 things on twiter i would not expect someone to remember everyone of them and if he had been a avid user 4 years ago yet now has not used it, I don't think its reasonable to be sitting at home thinking "oh 4 years ago i used twitter and said some stuff"
I don't think it makes that much of a difference if he "deleted" them or not after 4 years. The fact is he still posted them so should be dealt with.
As with any statement in issues like this we can only take it on face value.
He is
Either sorry for his statements
Or
He is not.
There are only two options now unless we have some actual evidence that he is not either from some recent comments from him or some personal knowledge of the person we have to take option 1.
We can create punishments on what we think, They have to be decided by set rules and procedures and what we have actual evidence off
Otherwise we just punish people because a mob have jumped on bandwagon and mob mentality rules and that is a very dark path
Originally Posted by carefree_blue:
“If he'd deleted the tweets 4 years ago then it would have been a different kettle of fish I'd suspect. The point being that those tweets were still very much on his twitter page representing his views right up until Saturday evening.”
“If he'd deleted the tweets 4 years ago then it would have been a different kettle of fish I'd suspect. The point being that those tweets were still very much on his twitter page representing his views right up until Saturday evening.”
Still not sure where I stand with this. Generally speaking, having offensive remarks remain visible on social media from years ago is massively stupid but isn't necessarily an endorsement of them today, but at the same time someone shouldn't be given any credit for removing the evidence. It may need to be one of those situations where you ignore the grey areas and just say 'all instances of X are punished with Y, no exception'
Originally Posted by Jamesp84:
“For what it's worth, a York City player yesterday received a 5 match ban for racially abusing an opponent.”
“For what it's worth, a York City player yesterday received a 5 match ban for racially abusing an opponent.”
The FA tends to be a bit more lenient with online stuff. That Coventry player got a one match ban and a couple of players escaped bans for homophobic stuff a few years ago. Gray will probably get more than them cos he posted worse stuff but i reckon it will be less than five.
Originally Posted by carefree_blue:
“I knew that as soon as codeblue posted that that Terry would get dragged into this by someone. I don't condone what Terry was supposed to have said but it was said in the heat of the moment after being goaded himself by Ferdinand. What Gray said was worse, not only in content itself but also the fact that it wasn't done on the spur of the moment and he had ample opportunity to retract it at the time but didn't.”
“I knew that as soon as codeblue posted that that Terry would get dragged into this by someone. I don't condone what Terry was supposed to have said but it was said in the heat of the moment after being goaded himself by Ferdinand. What Gray said was worse, not only in content itself but also the fact that it wasn't done on the spur of the moment and he had ample opportunity to retract it at the time but didn't.”
Heat of the moment is a nice excuse but it changes nothing.
Amazingly I've never felt the need to ever racially abuse anyone regardless of the situation as guess what I'm not racist.
What Terry did was in no way less severe than what someone tweets.
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“I would yes but we cannot judge everyone by that critia. I would not post anything on Twitter and I would not have said such things.
I don't use "twitter" but I know its very popular and people seem to spend their days posting on it. If he had posted lets just say 50,000 things on twiter i would not expect someone to remember everyone of them and if he had been a avid user 4 years ago yet now has not used it, I don't think its reasonable to be sitting at home thinking "oh 4 years ago i used twitter and said some stuff"
I don't think it makes that much of a difference if he "deleted" them or not after 4 years. The fact is he still posted them so should be dealt with.
As with any statement in issues like this we can only take it on face value.
He is
Either sorry for his statements
Or
He is not.
There are only two options now unless we have some actual evidence that he is not either from some recent comments from him or some personal knowledge of the person we have to take option 1.
We can create punishments on what we think, They have to be decided by set rules and procedures and what we have actual evidence off
Otherwise we just punish people because a mob have jumped on bandwagon and mob mentality rules and that is a very dark path”
“I would yes but we cannot judge everyone by that critia. I would not post anything on Twitter and I would not have said such things.
I don't use "twitter" but I know its very popular and people seem to spend their days posting on it. If he had posted lets just say 50,000 things on twiter i would not expect someone to remember everyone of them and if he had been a avid user 4 years ago yet now has not used it, I don't think its reasonable to be sitting at home thinking "oh 4 years ago i used twitter and said some stuff"
I don't think it makes that much of a difference if he "deleted" them or not after 4 years. The fact is he still posted them so should be dealt with.
As with any statement in issues like this we can only take it on face value.
He is
Either sorry for his statements
Or
He is not.
There are only two options now unless we have some actual evidence that he is not either from some recent comments from him or some personal knowledge of the person we have to take option 1.
We can create punishments on what we think, They have to be decided by set rules and procedures and what we have actual evidence off
Otherwise we just punish people because a mob have jumped on bandwagon and mob mentality rules and that is a very dark path”
If he did overlook some of the stuff he's previously said on twitter then he just has to deal with the consequences. The apology was the absolute least he could do, but shouldn't be a consideration when deciding the punishment. No-one's suggesting hanging him, but a reasonable ban is in order. It's a hard one to determine exactly what the length of that is as although players have posted stupid stuff on social media before this is even more offensive than the previous cases I can think of.
Originally Posted by carefree_blue:
“If he did overlook some of the stuff he's previously said on twitter then he just has to deal with the consequences. The apology was the absolute least he could do, but shouldn't be a consideration when deciding the punishment. No-one's suggesting hanging him, but a reasonable ban is in order. It's a hard one to determine exactly what the length of that is as although players have posted stupid stuff on social media before this is even more offensive than the previous cases I can think of.”
“If he did overlook some of the stuff he's previously said on twitter then he just has to deal with the consequences. The apology was the absolute least he could do, but shouldn't be a consideration when deciding the punishment. No-one's suggesting hanging him, but a reasonable ban is in order. It's a hard one to determine exactly what the length of that is as although players have posted stupid stuff on social media before this is even more offensive than the previous cases I can think of.”
But if you look at many decisions where punishments are being decided apologies are taking into consideration.
Issues such as this are very complicated as Social Media is still something very new. Its a very gray area and very complicated, I hear "well you would not say that to someones face" alot when it comes to this issue and I think at times that is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
Its something we are going have to deal with more and more and it needs very clear guidelines and rules
Social media is not that new, it has been around for a good few years now, so you would think the authorities would have rules and regulations surrounding the conduct of players and staff on it.
Originally Posted by misawa97:
“Heat of the moment is a nice excuse but it changes nothing.
Amazingly I've never felt the need to ever racially abuse anyone regardless of the situation as guess what I'm not racist.
What Terry did was in no way less severe than what someone tweets.”
“Heat of the moment is a nice excuse but it changes nothing.
Amazingly I've never felt the need to ever racially abuse anyone regardless of the situation as guess what I'm not racist.
What Terry did was in no way less severe than what someone tweets.”
I haven't felt the need to either, hence why I said that I didn't condone it.
Neither do I think that's an excuse. I mentioned that as a difference amongst others in the two cases and why I believe your comparison is somewhat flawed. Both were in the wrong, but one is worse than the other in my opinion.
On another note, it's interesting that you chose to bring Terry into this, and not Suarez - who actually did get a longer ban for racism more along the lines lengthwise of what codeblue was calling for Gray to get. If you're going to compare bans for on the pitch racism to twitter homophobia seeing as that's what you've done then why not use that incident?
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Social media is not that new, it has been around for a good few years now, so you would think the authorities would have rules and regulations surrounding the conduct of players and staff on it.”
“Social media is not that new, it has been around for a good few years now, so you would think the authorities would have rules and regulations surrounding the conduct of players and staff on it.”
Being around for a few years is nothing, it's foetal in terms of media and regulation.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“I was simply using it as an example of one of my past errors, I am sure that I have made plenty of errors in the past, however as I say, I don't take four years to apologise for them.
When I have said something wrong, I apologise almost immediately, (in fact shockingly I have been accused of saying sorry on too many occasions!) so nothing like Gray, so I am nothing like him at all, so it would be nice if the links could stop right now.”
“I was simply using it as an example of one of my past errors, I am sure that I have made plenty of errors in the past, however as I say, I don't take four years to apologise for them.
When I have said something wrong, I apologise almost immediately, (in fact shockingly I have been accused of saying sorry on too many occasions!) so nothing like Gray, so I am nothing like him at all, so it would be nice if the links could stop right now.”
It's not that people are linking you to him or anything, just saying that given that you've made similar mistakes in the past, when you were shown to be retweeting offensive stuff about the Heysel disaster, that you'd be at least a little sympathetic when it's his turn to have his social media activities coming back to haunt him. As I recall, you initially denied you retweeted those stuff until someone posted screenshots. And, like Andre Gray, you apologised after being exposed.
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“But if you look at many decisions where punishments are being decided apologies are taking into consideration.
Issues such as this are very complicated as Social Media is still something very new. Its a very gray area and very complicated, I hear "well you would not say that to someones face" alot when it comes to this issue and I think at times that is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
Its something we are going have to deal with more and more and it needs very clear guidelines and rules”
“But if you look at many decisions where punishments are being decided apologies are taking into consideration.
Issues such as this are very complicated as Social Media is still something very new. Its a very gray area and very complicated, I hear "well you would not say that to someones face" alot when it comes to this issue and I think at times that is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
Its something we are going have to deal with more and more and it needs very clear guidelines and rules”
I don't know if apologies are usually taken into consideration in football though, are they? We're not talking about sentencing a criminal in a court of law here.
For example if you apologise after getting a red card you don't get your ban reduced, do you? It's a set number of games for the offence regardless of any subsequent apology made, unless there's particularly mitigating circumstances. If it was that easy to get away with a lesser punishment by apologising then every player would do it for any misdemeanour on or off pitch.
It's all very well you criticising codeblue's suggestion of a 9 game ban for Gray, but what do you think would be a logical punishment yourself?
There is something about a person who looks back at their own actions, concludes they were unacceptable, and accepts the consequences with genuine remorse.
However, in my book it's different to someone who broadcasts the encouragement of a hate crime, puts their name to it, and waits for others to shame them into apologising for fear it will impact their earning potential, showing no remorse.
But that again is different to someone on one forum being sympathetic, and another publishing abhorrent content in direct contradiction to the first, where they have a different "persona". And when being exposed, denying it, weaselling out until evidence is provided.
Repeated homophobic tweets are like repeated racist tweets, and are like repeated sexist tweets. They do deserve a 9 game ban like Suarez received for being racist.
I don't think it will change grays attitude in the slightest, it would take perhaps education that is beyond his ability, but the ban would show everyone how unacceptable homophobia is in football. I don't think the fa do anywhere near enough, which us why there are no openly gay pl players.
However, in my book it's different to someone who broadcasts the encouragement of a hate crime, puts their name to it, and waits for others to shame them into apologising for fear it will impact their earning potential, showing no remorse.
But that again is different to someone on one forum being sympathetic, and another publishing abhorrent content in direct contradiction to the first, where they have a different "persona". And when being exposed, denying it, weaselling out until evidence is provided.
Repeated homophobic tweets are like repeated racist tweets, and are like repeated sexist tweets. They do deserve a 9 game ban like Suarez received for being racist.
I don't think it will change grays attitude in the slightest, it would take perhaps education that is beyond his ability, but the ban would show everyone how unacceptable homophobia is in football. I don't think the fa do anywhere near enough, which us why there are no openly gay pl players.
Originally Posted by TheMunch:
“It's not that people are linking you to him or anything, just saying that given that you've made similar mistakes in the past, when you were shown to be retweeting offensive stuff about the Heysel disaster, that you'd be at least a little sympathetic when it's his turn to have his social media activities coming back to haunt him. As I recall, you initially denied you retweeted those stuff until someone posted screenshots. And, like Andre Gray, you apologised after being exposed.”
“It's not that people are linking you to him or anything, just saying that given that you've made similar mistakes in the past, when you were shown to be retweeting offensive stuff about the Heysel disaster, that you'd be at least a little sympathetic when it's his turn to have his social media activities coming back to haunt him. As I recall, you initially denied you retweeted those stuff until someone posted screenshots. And, like Andre Gray, you apologised after being exposed.”
There is a vast difference between a retweet and actually posting something that you typed yourself.
Yes I made an error (I did think it was saying something different to what it was when it was pointed out to me, and when I knew that, I automatically disassociated myself with it asap), but I certainly did not wait four years to apologise.
So please stop putting me, or associating me with him, we are simply nothing alike at all, I certainly do not, I repeat, do not hold the same or similar views to him.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“There is a vast difference between a retweet and actually posting something that you typed yourself.
Yes I made an error (I did think it was saying something different to what it was when it was pointed out to me, and when I knew that, I automatically disassociated myself with it asap), but I certainly did not wait four years to apologise.
So please stop putting me, or associating me with him, we are simply nothing alike at all, I certainly do not, I repeat, do not hold the same or similar views to him.”
“There is a vast difference between a retweet and actually posting something that you typed yourself.
Yes I made an error (I did think it was saying something different to what it was when it was pointed out to me, and when I knew that, I automatically disassociated myself with it asap), but I certainly did not wait four years to apologise.
So please stop putting me, or associating me with him, we are simply nothing alike at all, I certainly do not, I repeat, do not hold the same or similar views to him.”
Retweeting is worse for me. If you post something nasty to your 100 followers then it's confined to them. The person who tweeted about Herself had already showed it to his followers. You then multiplied that and shared it all over again.
Originally Posted by carefree_blue:
“I don't know if apologies are usually taken into consideration in football though, are they? We're not talking about sentencing a criminal in a court of law here.
For example if you apologise after getting a red card you don't get your ban reduced, do you? It's a set number of games for the offence regardless of any subsequent apology made, unless there's particularly mitigating circumstances. If it was that easy to get away with a lesser punishment by apologising then every player would do it for any misdemeanour on or off pitch.
It's all very well you criticising codeblue's suggestion of a 9 game ban for Gray, but what do you think would be a logical punishment?”
“I don't know if apologies are usually taken into consideration in football though, are they? We're not talking about sentencing a criminal in a court of law here.
For example if you apologise after getting a red card you don't get your ban reduced, do you? It's a set number of games for the offence regardless of any subsequent apology made, unless there's particularly mitigating circumstances. If it was that easy to get away with a lesser punishment by apologising then every player would do it for any misdemeanour on or off pitch.
It's all very well you criticising codeblue's suggestion of a 9 game ban for Gray, but what do you think would be a logical punishment?”
But we are not talking about a on the field incident.
As for a suggested punishment, We have to take into account different factors for example what is the reason for the punishment? Is it to stop him doing it again? Is it to "teach him a lesson"? Is it to appease football fans? Are we "sending a message"?
Are we punishing the person from when it happened or the person today?
What has been the punishment in previous cases?
What are the rules regarding this issue?
At the moment a 9 match ban seems a rather knee jerk reaction with only basic information at hand.
Until we have looked at the entire situation and take into account all the information I not sure we can come to a reasonable punishment
Originally Posted by JoTaylor:
“Retweeting is worse for me. If you post something nasty to your 100 followers then it's confined to them. The person who tweeted about Herself had already showed it to his followers. You then multiplied that and shared it all over again.”
“Retweeting is worse for me. If you post something nasty to your 100 followers then it's confined to them. The person who tweeted about Herself had already showed it to his followers. You then multiplied that and shared it all over again.”
It was a genuine mistake on my behalf, and as soon as it was pointed out to me, I pressed the unretweet button, and took it down, I thought it was saying one thing, when it was saying something else.
I have since apologiesd for that error on quite a few occasions, as to me tragic events like that are to be respected fully.
I did not wait four years to apologise, so again please stop liking me with this person smd his horrible, disgusting views, they are most certainly not what I think nor do I at all agree with them.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Social media is not that new, it has been around for a good few years now, so you would think the authorities would have rules and regulations surrounding the conduct of players and staff on it.”
“Social media is not that new, it has been around for a good few years now, so you would think the authorities would have rules and regulations surrounding the conduct of players and staff on it.”
It is very new.
Just because something has been around for a while has nothing to do with anything.
Its new with regards how to police it and govern it and how to suggest way for different users to use it.
You cannot come up with rules and regulations right away. The day Twitter went live you cannot expect a industry to work out how to govern it, Also as with often happens with tools like this how they was used 10 years ago is very different to how they are used today.
No one has said you hold the same views as him. Just that you have also posted (or retweeted) offensive things, and apologised after being caught. No one is saying you're homophobic or even that you're as bad as him.
And there really isn't all that much difference between retweeting and saying something. Saying it is bad, but retweeting or sharing makes you as guilty for spreading such horrible things. If you retweet or share something then most of the time you agree with it, unless you share it to provide your own opinion on it. I don't know how you can retweet a couple offensive things like the Heysel stuff and think it means something different, but the fact is you did it, and later apologised. If it took four years for someone to point it out on DS then it would have taken you four years to apologise. Sharing it is just as bad because it spreads the horrible message.
All people have done is pointed out the irony of your reaction and having no sympathy when you've been exposed sharing offensive things on your own twitter account. No one has said you're actually like Andre Gray or share his views.
And there really isn't all that much difference between retweeting and saying something. Saying it is bad, but retweeting or sharing makes you as guilty for spreading such horrible things. If you retweet or share something then most of the time you agree with it, unless you share it to provide your own opinion on it. I don't know how you can retweet a couple offensive things like the Heysel stuff and think it means something different, but the fact is you did it, and later apologised. If it took four years for someone to point it out on DS then it would have taken you four years to apologise. Sharing it is just as bad because it spreads the horrible message.
All people have done is pointed out the irony of your reaction and having no sympathy when you've been exposed sharing offensive things on your own twitter account. No one has said you're actually like Andre Gray or share his views.
Originally Posted by codeblue:
“There is something about a person who looks back at their own actions, concludes they were unacceptable, and accepts the consequences with genuine remorse.
However, in my book it's different to someone who broadcasts the encouragement of a hate crime, puts their name to it, and waits for others to shame them into apologising for fear it will impact their earning potential, showing no remorse.
But that again is different to someone on one forum being sympathetic, and another publishing abhorrent content in direct contradiction to the first, where they have a different "persona". And when being exposed, denying it, weaselling out until evidence is provided.
Repeated homophobic tweets are like repeated racist tweets, and are like repeated sexist tweets. They do deserve a 9 game ban like Suarez received for being racist.
I don't think it will change grays attitude in the slightest, it would take perhaps education that is beyond his ability, but the ban would show everyone how unacceptable homophobia is in football. I don't think the fa do anywhere near enough, which us why there are no openly gay pl players.”
“There is something about a person who looks back at their own actions, concludes they were unacceptable, and accepts the consequences with genuine remorse.
However, in my book it's different to someone who broadcasts the encouragement of a hate crime, puts their name to it, and waits for others to shame them into apologising for fear it will impact their earning potential, showing no remorse.
But that again is different to someone on one forum being sympathetic, and another publishing abhorrent content in direct contradiction to the first, where they have a different "persona". And when being exposed, denying it, weaselling out until evidence is provided.
Repeated homophobic tweets are like repeated racist tweets, and are like repeated sexist tweets. They do deserve a 9 game ban like Suarez received for being racist.
I don't think it will change grays attitude in the slightest, it would take perhaps education that is beyond his ability, but the ban would show everyone how unacceptable homophobia is in football. I don't think the fa do anywhere near enough, which us why there are no openly gay pl players.”
How do you know what his attitude is?
You know his attitude from the past but unless you have information otherwise you do not know his attitude today
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“How do you know what his attitude is?
You know his attitude from the past but unless you have information otherwise you do not know his attitude today”
“How do you know what his attitude is?
You know his attitude from the past but unless you have information otherwise you do not know his attitude today”
I can only go on the Evidence,, he didn't remove the tweets until a few days ago, therefore we can only conclude that up until that time they were his views.
It's not as if he was a child when he told everyone that gay people should burn and die, as they make him sick. He was 21. He is now 25.
in my profession, if they were on my Twitter account ( which I don't have) I would be sacked. I'm not asking for gray never to play again, but that he should receive a 9 game ban.
He deserves to be punished, like any 25 yr old who committed a crime 4 years ago, and also made an example of. It is not acceptable. 9 games and keep your job sounds reasonable compared to what would happen in any other profession
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“But we are not talking about a on the field incident.
As for a suggested punishment, We have to take into account different factors for example what is the reason for the punishment? Is it to stop him doing it again? Is it to "teach him a lesson"? Is it to appease football fans? Are we "sending a message"?
Are we punishing the person from when it happened or the person today?
What has been the punishment in previous cases?
What are the rules regarding this issue?
At the moment a 9 match ban seems a rather knee jerk reaction with only basic information at hand.
Until we have looked at the entire situation and take into account all the information I not sure we can come to a reasonable punishment”
“But we are not talking about a on the field incident.
As for a suggested punishment, We have to take into account different factors for example what is the reason for the punishment? Is it to stop him doing it again? Is it to "teach him a lesson"? Is it to appease football fans? Are we "sending a message"?
Are we punishing the person from when it happened or the person today?
What has been the punishment in previous cases?
What are the rules regarding this issue?
At the moment a 9 match ban seems a rather knee jerk reaction with only basic information at hand.
Until we have looked at the entire situation and take into account all the information I not sure we can come to a reasonable punishment”
No we're not talking about an on field incident, that was purely an example, but we are talking about the FA and how they tend to work. You said that apologies are sometimes taken into consideration, so perhaps you can give an example of an off the field incident where this has been the case?
The punishment in previous cases is a difficult one. There's been homophobic tweets before this came to light, but not quite at the same extremity of this as far as I'm aware. So that would make a case for a bigger punishment this time around.
The punishment should have nothing to do with appeasing football fans, it should be to punish him for his actions, as a deterrent to others and showing that the FA are serious about tackling homophobia.
For what it's worth I agree that everything needs to be weighed up before determining the punishment but then if you're going to snipe at codeblue's suggestion then I think you should at least have some idea yourself of what you think would be more suitable.
319 of 443
