Jimzk5 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa_shere Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Dave whelan said Jews like to chase money just like us English do. Does that make Jews not English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sending those silly texts to his mate doesn't make him any more of a racist than saying you'd DHUTWU about a woman makes you a rapist. Well that analogy doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Whelan using the old defence and saying he has hundreds of Jewish and Chinese friends. He must have some amount of Facebook friends Loved his interview last night trying to defend himself and he still had to mention he played in an FA Cup final (sadly he forgot to mention his broken leg) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Whelan using the old defence and saying he has hundreds of Jewish and Chinese friends. Not anymore... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Whelan using the old defence and saying he has hundreds of Jewish and Chinese friends. He has a lot of previous, during the Suarez - Evra saga he said that Black players shouldn't report racist abuse. Old, deluded, senile, leg break recover-ee is a racist shocker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sorry Pete, I just can't agree with you. Like I said earlier, if you don't hold the views you don't send the text.... I agree that holding the views is likely to lead to sending that kind of text. I think though that it's not necessarily tha case to say that sending that kind of text means the sender automatically has those views. I'm pretty confident that most people can think of examples of someone adopting a set of behaviours and even apparent attitudes because that's the culture they work in. A not very good example, or perhaps it is, is gay footballers. There are surely some gay footballers in the premier league. Presumably they may adopt the same behaviours and "banter" as the straight ones. Or there may people in the Army who would never want to kill anyone, but who will talk the talk. I've probably put it very clumsily, but whatI'm trying to say is that sending a text with derogatory comments about women (or whichever group) does not mean, as Rob's post put it so well, that the sender (or recipient) genuinely holds those views. But even if he did hold those views, which I accept is entirely possible then the fact that he has and is undergoing diversity awareness learning tends to point to a willingness to be better informed about an area of which he was clearly previously uninformed and ignorant. It's like "I've sent a tasteless and ignorant text, I've been shown and understand how my attitudes were wrong and uninformed, and now I have that understanding, I'm a better and nicer person....but I can't have a job" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 What Whelan said back in 2011 Wigan chairman Dave Whelan has ignited a new football race row after he told a radio station that black players have "just got to get on with it". The Latics' chief believes that those who do complain about on-field insults are "a little bit out of order". His comments come following racism allegations against John Terry, and an alleged incident involving Patrice Evra and Luis Suarez. Terry and Suarez deny any wrongdoing. Whelan told radio station LBC 97.3: "If a white man insults a black man, that's big, big news. If, if, a black man insults a white man, that's nothing, and it's expected. "So I just think we should forget colour, and, you know, it doesn't bother anybody, I'm sure, colour and.... sometimes a footballer... erm, when they're playing at such a level... you know the stress is there. "And if, if, they call somebody white, if they call somebody black, you've just got to get on with it. Whelan added: "You know I think the players who come and complain sometimes, they're a little bit out of order. "The game is a game, the game is a football game, whether you're white, black, pink, red, it doesn't matter. We're all, we're all equal, and we all play football, and we should get on with it." http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/wigan-chairman-dave-whelan-says-3316237 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 Blimey, Whelan's going for the Sepp Blatter title as the biggest arse in football with some vigour, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 It just made sense how this appointment was praised for no reason by Arry as well. all 3 make Sepp Blatter look like a loveable rogue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sorry Pete, I just can't agree with you. Like I said earlier, if you don't hold the views you don't send the text.... I agree that holding the views is likely to lead to sending that kind of text. I think though that it's not necessarily tha case to say that sending that kind of text means the sender automatically has those views. I'm pretty confident that most people can think of examples of someone adopting a set of behaviours and even apparent attitudes because that's the culture they work in. A not very good example, or perhaps it is, is gay footballers. There are surely some gay footballers in the premier league. Presumably they may adopt the same behaviours and "banter" as the straight ones. Or there may people in the Army who would never want to kill anyone, but who will talk the talk. I've probably put it very clumsily, but whatI'm trying to say is that sending a text with derogatory comments about women (or whichever group) does not mean, as Rob's post put it so well, that the sender (or recipient) genuinely holds those views. But even if he did hold those views, which I accept is entirely possible then the fact that he has and is undergoing diversity awareness learning tends to point to a willingness to be better informed about an area of which he was clearly previously uninformed and ignorant. It's like "I've sent a tasteless and ignorant text, I've been shown and understand how my attitudes were wrong and uninformed, and now I have that understanding, I'm a better and nicer person....but I can't have a job" I still disagree. I think sexism in football is endemic for a whole host of reasons, but Mackay has been working in multi-racial environments for a great many years now, so the above just isn't an excuse. It's also not banter. Things like: 'not many white faces amongst that lot but worth considering' - it's not humour, it's straight up racism. And doing a couple of weeks of 'diversity training' just isn't enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sorry Pete, I just can't agree with you. Like I said earlier, if you don't hold the views you don't send the text.... I agree that holding the views is likely to lead to sending that kind of text. I think though that it's not necessarily tha case to say that sending that kind of text means the sender automatically has those views. I'm pretty confident that most people can think of examples of someone adopting a set of behaviours and even apparent attitudes because that's the culture they work in. A not very good example, or perhaps it is, is gay footballers. There are surely some gay footballers in the premier league. Presumably they may adopt the same behaviours and "banter" as the straight ones. Or there may people in the Army who would never want to kill anyone, but who will talk the talk. I've probably put it very clumsily, but whatI'm trying to say is that sending a text with derogatory comments about women (or whichever group) does not mean, as Rob's post put it so well, that the sender (or recipient) genuinely holds those views. But even if he did hold those views, which I accept is entirely possible then the fact that he has and is undergoing diversity awareness learning tends to point to a willingness to be better informed about an area of which he was clearly previously uninformed and ignorant. It's like "I've sent a tasteless and ignorant text, I've been shown and understand how my attitudes were wrong and uninformed, and now I have that understanding, I'm a better and nicer person....but I can't have a job" I still disagree. I think sexism in football is endemic for a whole host of reasons, but Mackay has been working in multi-racial environments for a great many years now, so the above just isn't an excuse. It's also not banter. Things like: 'not many white faces amongst that lot but worth considering' - it's not humour, it's straight up racism. And doing a couple of weeks of 'diversity training' just isn't enough. Having re-read some of the text's available in the media, I actually agree with you. The comments to me are more than inappropriate banter and do seem to suggest they are representative of his attitudes. That once exposed he has attended a course doesn't really mean much in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think Whelan is a bit on the slow side, I don't think I've ever known somebody to say, "OI MATE, YOU'RE BLACK!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 Yeah. The texts are horrible and clearly racist in nature.Patricks arguments are well made, and as I said in my first post, I don't actually disagree with the sentiment.In practical terms, what should society do when someone does something like send racist or sexist type messages on their phone or their twitter or their facepage?a.) prevent them from ever working again?b.) point out their ignorance, give them information and understanding of the idiocy they voiced and help them see with their racist blinkers removed?c) if they are famous or work in football, treat them competely differently to the non-famous and non-football people - "cus they're role models" or " because it sells papers"?The only thing that can be done to stop it is to educate and to inform and to direct people towards behavioural and attitudinal change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 I completely agree with that blandy, particularly the last line but only to the point that as you say that is all that can realistically be done. However I'm not sure that that is enough that someone in his position should then be able to simply return to a position they previously held. You seem to be suggesting that footballers/managers are held to different standards or judged differently because they are footballers/managers and while I think that is true, I perhaps think it is true in a different way. If I were to hold/express the views he seemingly has and be exposed for it within my company, industry I would be out of a job and I suspect I'd find it almost impossible to find another one at the same level. So regardless of if I went on a course I would be held accountable for my actions and punished in terms of my career because of them. So footballers/managers are treated differently because if anything they are actually able to get away with far more than many other people in society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Yeah. The texts are horrible and clearly racist in nature. Patricks arguments are well made, and as I said in my first post, I don't actually disagree with the sentiment. In practical terms, what should society do when someone does something like send racist or sexist type messages on their phone or their twitter or their facepage? a.) prevent them from ever working again? b.) point out their ignorance, give them information and understanding of the idiocy they voiced and help them see with their racist blinkers removed? c) if they are famous or work in football, treat them competely differently to the non-famous and non-football people - "cus they're role models" or " because it sells papers"? The only thing that can be done to stop it is to educate and to inform and to direct people towards behavioural and attitudinal change. B, certainly. Though it's interesting that the argument is being widely made, including in this thread, for c) in the case of Ched Evans, even though his was a one off incident, even though he is a lower profile figure, and even though he's actually served a custodial sentence. Mackay has not been punished in the slightest (albeit that there is an FA investigation ongoing, as useful as they ever are), he's walked straight back into work. For me that's not good enough. If the idea is really for him to change his perceptions he'll need a little longer than two months. Actually, though, my argument is not really about what 'society' should do (although if he's found to be guilty I'd like to see a 2-3 year ban from top-level management), it's about what Wigan should be doing. Employing him after 3 months is embarrassing for the club. Edited November 21, 2014 by PatrickCousens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 ...it's interesting that the argument is being widely made, including in this thread, for c) in the case of Ched Evans, even though his was a one off incident, even though he is a lower profile figure, and even though he's actually served a custodial sentence. Mackay has not been punished in the slightest (albeit that there is an FA investigation ongoing, as useful as they ever are), he's walked straight back into work. For me that's not good enough. If the idea is really for him to change his perceptions he'll need a little longer than two months...I think the comparison between a conviction and jail sentence for rape versus sending 3 private text messages to a mate is not a good one. It's a very, very, bad one.Furthermore one has committed no crime, expressed remorse, undertaken remedial education, acknowledged the stupidity and ignorance of t what he did and so on. The other ...well, it's been done to death elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 ...it's interesting that the argument is being widely made, including in this thread, for c) in the case of Ched Evans, even though his was a one off incident, even though he is a lower profile figure, and even though he's actually served a custodial sentence. Mackay has not been punished in the slightest (albeit that there is an FA investigation ongoing, as useful as they ever are), he's walked straight back into work. For me that's not good enough. If the idea is really for him to change his perceptions he'll need a little longer than two months... I think the comparison between a conviction and jail sentence for rape versus sending 3 private text messages to a mate is not a good one. It's a very, very, bad one. Furthermore one has committed no crime, expressed remorse, undertaken remedial education, acknowledged the stupidity and ignorance of t what he did and so on. The other ...well, it's been done to death elsewhere. The crime itself is not what's being compared here, not at all. But the issue in both instances is about the values of the person involved, and what it says to have somebody with those values at the organisation (and in Mackay's case heading it up). I'd rather have Evans training at my club than Mackay managing it, that's for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 I agree that the comparison with a convicted rapist is a very very bad one. But I think you are down playing or under estimating the conduct of Mackay as well. There were certainly more than 3 messages, just to recap them... On the arrival of South Korean international Kim Bo-Kyung: "Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There's enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around." On football agent Phil Smith: "Go on, fat Phil. Nothing like a Jew that sees money slipping through his fingers" On transfer target list: "Not many white faces amongst that lot but worth considering." On a player's female agent: "I hope she's looking after your needs. I bet you'd love a bounce on her falsies." On an official at another club: "He's a snake, a gay snake. Not to be trusted" To members of Cardiff's staff: A picture entitled 'Black Monopoly' - where every square was a "Go to Jail" square http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/malky-mackay-texts-messages-behind-4657318 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2014 Most of those were Moody's weren't they? I'm sure I read in my paper (an actual paper one, not an internet one) that there were only 3 from Mackay. But anyway it's incidental, really, whether there were 3 or 6 or 7.Other than that, I have nothing to add to what I've already said. Each to their own views etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts