I think people are pointing out that you got caught posting some pretty offensive stuff re Hillsborough before.

He, like you has apologised but you have no sympathy with him?

No one is comparing you with him. The conversation is about people saying stuff then at a later date either apologising or deleting it - you've been outted on here for doing the same so obviously your views on it are of interest.

It's possible that Gray had forgotten he'd tweeted it. It was 4 years ago after all.

I have no sympathy with him, as he actually took the time to post what he did, my error was yes of course my own, but I did not actually write the article that I rewtweeted.

I think that there is a difference, small maybe, but still a difference, others may very well disagree.


I really, really, do not want this to be about me, this is about someone going out of their way to write and post some very horrible things.
What I did was make a simple error by retweeting something that I really should not have done at all, it was a huge error on my behalf to do so, and I have owned up to that on quite a few occasions.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that he did post it, and that he kept it up there until fairly recently.

Until we have all the information and decide how to deal with historic social media issue I don't think we should come up with a punishment.

Punish who? That's the problem here, Unless we are saying people cannot change and their views are set in stone that person might not be punishable. If he had said the comments last week its more of a simple issue or do we hold him as an example (don't have a problem with that if honest).

We are setting a precedent here for historic social media posts and when dealing with historic issues we have to tread very carefully.

There has never been a case like this before, Its new ground so we cannot just look at if from a FA issue but have to look at society in general and how we arrive at punishments has to be looked at in the same way and the persons attitude today and their remorse is often taken into account.

Are we saying with a 9 match ban that we as a sport do not accept that a person can change? Or their mistakes will follow you around for 4/5/6/7/8 etc etc etc years. It not just how we punish this one case but how we punish further cases (which I am sure will happen). If in 5 years time we find a player has said something similar today when everyone should be more aware of social media as we do in this case?

I just think at the moment we are looking at a massive issue in a black/white way and need to tread very slowly.

You can't sensibly make a conclusion based on that, whether they are or are no longer his views.

If a forum member had posted here 4 years ago such abuse, that had only just been found, would anyone use the alert button?

Why are you using such odd examples that have nothing to do with the actually discussion?

Why would someone be looking at post's from 4 years ago and how would they be missed?

There seem to be a number of Gray apologists on here, it does concern me has to why people would defend what he has said, and what more information do we need, it is out there now, whatever he has to say cant be taken has anything other than damage limitation.

There are no Gray apologists on here. He will be punished and I think everyone is in agreement.

What is being suggested is that it becomes difficult because the offence is so old and while he can still be punished for it its impossible to say whether he is the same person he was then. Maybe he is just a nasty piece of work who is saying sorry for something because he has been found out, but when he says he is a changed man, how do we disprove it? Had he been fined or banned at the time and gone on to have an unblemished record and make a career for himself he would be held up as an example of how people can change.

Also people plucking suspension lengths out of thin air based on how upset they are doesn't help the discussion at all.

Are they Gray apologists or are they people who think the mine field that is social media and how that is policed and governed has to looked in to and not just chuck around bans which might or might not solve the current issue and/or cause further issues down the line?

I dont see why we need to disprove it, it should be assumed he isnt a changed man, that peoples views may change slowly over the years but not that much in 4 years, it is still fairly recent.

Plus he was still a football player under FA code of conduct when he said them things, just because you get caught for a crime many years later dosent make you any less guilty of that crime

Who has said it makes him less guilty? I dont understand why you are inventing scenarios that no one is actually disagreeing with.

He said something that was fairly horrific and he will be punished for it but you have absolutely no right to assume he isn't a changed man when he says he is unless you have evidence to back that up. A lot can happen in 4 years.

Codeblue was right when he said that there is no place for this sort of thing in football - there isn't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be dealt with properly and with some form of context within the spectrum punishments.

The severity of the punishment shouldn't be determined by peoples outrage.

Really?

I would say people's views change massively over such a period of time more so then you consider he would have been around 21 at the time.

I have changed my views on many things over the last year never mind four and I left my twenties many years ago. A single year depending on life experience can just people's views massively

I have found most people's views from a age like 21 would be have a major difference to when they are there are in their mid twenty's, I would say they are very much formative years

I just cant believe people are prepared to take his word and believe he is a changed man with no proof to back it up.

If he has any sense we will never know because he will no doubt be more careful going forward in sharing his views.

Again no one is taking his word, just saying how do you disprove it? If there aren't any more outbursts from him and he says he is a changed man you may well think "bollocks" and that he is just saying it to lessen the punishment but thats just an opinion with no evidence either.

He will be punished and rightly so, but lets hope there is at least a bit of thought behind it.

You never answered my question before, why do you need to prove it? it is for him to prove he is a changed man, maybe do some outreach work with the LGBT

[quote=The_don1;83720548]Really?

I would say people's views change massively over such a period of time more so then you consider he would have been around 21 at the time.

I have changed my views on many things over the last year never mind four and I left my twenties many years ago. A single year depending on life experience can just people's views massively

I have found most people's views from a age like 21 would be have a major difference to when they are there are in their mid twenty's, I would say they are very much formative years[/QUOTE You've only got to look at some of the stuff people in their early 20s put on Facebook to know in a few years they'll look back and "I was a proper dick"

Did a 21 year old you have different views then a 25 year old you? (if you are of course those ages)? I know I did, I know most of the people I know the same is true.

He might or might not so all we can do is look at his actions over the last few years as you can do with any of us.

I am not willing to take his word for it that is why before we start handing out punishments we need to look in the situation. We need to look at his actions now, We need to get people who actually know him now and what they think of him as person.

Of course he might be more careful going forward about keeping his views to himself but what about over the last few years? Has be been doing that since 4 years ago? At the moment the FA (nor do we) have no idea, That is why you investigate something like this and don't jump to a conclusion.

You dont, but you dont know him any more than I do. Your stance that he couldn't possibly have changed is no more valid than my stance that its possible he has. Neither of us know the man so its guess work.

If he did outreach work would you not just say it was to curry favour?

I'm not very keen on this EFL Cup name..........

Partly because it makes it obvious every day that the matches are on that they were unable to find a sponsor which you'd think they wouldn't want to shout about

And if you're going to call it the EFL Cup why not just call it 'The League Cup' which 99% of fans probably do anyway !

........and I'm not even keen on the monikers EFL and EPL........we're in England. if we talk about 'the' Premier League it's obvious which league we're talking about. Surely you should only add a national adjective if you're talking about a foreign league

seemingly though you only apologised after it was pointed out to you? That makes it no different.

Ive no idea what this tweet of yours was but seems to be common knowledge among others here that it was highly offensive. If it wasnt pointed out id suspect it would still be there on your timeline

Yes, he says he thought it meant something else, whatever that means. And at first he denied he retweeted offensive stuff about the Heysel disaster, until screenshots were posted. So in his mind he didn't do anything wrong until it was pointed out. So it could well have been brought up four years later, and only felt the need to apologise in four years time.