Police have launched an investigation into alleged homophobic remarks on Twitter which were directed towards rugby union referee Nigel Owens.
The comments were posted after he refereed the England v France Six Nations match at Twickenham on Saturday, police said.
Dyfed-Powys Police said in a statement: “This follows a number of complaints made by members of the public. The tweet concerned has now been removed from the page. The investigation is at an early stage.”
Some nutter says “botty boy” online and Plod gets involved?
Nowt to do with Owens, my comments, bloody good referee that he is. But Jebus, how has the Kingdom come to this, that mere insult is a matter for the law?
Apparently, they don’t like it up ’em.
But Jebus, how has the Kingdom come to this, that mere insult is a matter for the law?
I keep saying that liberal Britain is dead. Future generations will stand in awe of how fast we p!ssed our heritage away.
In other exciting illiberal news, Britain had a small sectarian riot between Kurds and Islamists:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/22/kurdish-fighters-kick-islamists-off-london-street/
Eventually a number of police back up vehicles arrive on the scene to drive the clashing hordes apart. But one of the young lads filming observes “No-one’s scared of the police”.
Good thing they didn’t tweet someone was a bum bandit innit? Then they might be in real trouble. At the risk of sounding even more prejudiced than usual, Britain has, collectively, dropped its trousers, bent over and asked to be these Vibrant, Diverse and Exciting minorities’ prison b!tch. So we should not be surprised when they treat us that way and when the police act accordingly.
A great referee. I was there at HQ and very glad to have invested 8 quid on ref link to listen to his feed. The way he said “Christopher!” To Robshaw was classic school master.
They are obliged to investigate because tweeting homophobic remarks is against the law.
It might be better to require the person actually insulted to make the complaint, but as the law stands anyone can denounce twitter to the plod.
Scotland are an advertisement for relegation / promotion in the 6 nations. Their No 8 thinks they can win the WC. I can see them finishing last in a pool of SA, USA, Samoa and Japan.
” how has the Kingdom come to this, that mere insult is a matter for the law?”
‘Cause you let it. Simple as that.
Owen’s case is a hate crime.
You and your family being assaulted by Guardian writers who never grew up is just jolly student japes…
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/22/farage-mob-leader-is-guardian-writer.html
It’s easy to trace and prove. Low hanging fruit. That’s all the police bother with now…
bif,
“They are obliged to investigate because tweeting homophobic remarks is against the law.”
No specifically, it isn’t. What they do is to selectively prosecute using a rather vague piece of legislation covering good behaviour on telecommunications, a law that was designed to stop prank callers swearing at people or sending obscene faxes. The same law isn’t used against NWA videos on YouTube or the BBC allowing people to watch The Thick of It on iPlayer, even though both infringe.
SMFS is correct save that he fails to make clear that the left has created this situation. The Police will have a go at twitters but are largely powerless against the antics of minority troublemakers because of the left and It is the left that must be destroyed if this country and indeed freedom itself is to survive.
It is because Owens is not a good referee : too interfering, arbitrary and fond of the sound of his own voice that he is always getting insulted.It is a case of reaching for any insult that comes to hand in the heat of the moment: if he were Chinese, irritated fans would develop a whole line of racist abuse.
“But Jebus, how has the Kingdom come to this, that mere insult is a matter for the law?”
Why not ask Gareth Thomas if it was ‘mere insult’ which led to his suicide attempt? Rugby has a rancidly homophobic culture, and it’s an entirely appropriate area for government intervention precisely because we’re talking about hate-crimes (and their lesser equivalents) rather than ‘mere insult’.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you stand in support of what was done to Edwards (and continues to be done to younger players today) or you stand in support of the proportionate measures taken to try and end the shameful irrelevance which blights the game.
Dave
“You can’t have it both ways.”
And why do you insist there are only two ways? There are an almost infinite variety of positions to be taken between your two extremes, one of which, funnily, you support. And as for ‘hate-crimes’, I think the word you are looking for is ‘crimes’; unless you can show me where in the statute book I can find ‘love-crimes’.
People commit suicide all the time. Are we now to have a situation such that any remark or sleight becomes a matter for the poxy law because it might upset someone and they might commit suicide? Or is it to be only trendy leftist causes that get such delicate consideration?
Recusant>
There are plainly only two ways. Just like the opposite of up is down, the opposite of allowing homophobia to flourish is not allowing homophobia to flourish.
Or were you rather ludicrously attempting to claim that a proportionate response is not justified? Or, even more ludicrously, that this is not a proportionate response?
As I said, go find Gareth Thomas and tell him about that. I’m sure that when you come-to again, he’ll explain to you why you are wrong.
Mr Ecks>
That’s a non sequitur combined with silly homophobia.
Dave – Alfie attempted suicide because his wife, who he loved deeply, left him after he came out to her.
When he came out to his team mates, the universal reaction was ‘So what, no worries mate’. He took some terrible abuse from RL fans at one game in particular, which came after his suicide attempts. In general the sport has been very supportive – to say rugby is ‘rancidly homophobic’ is bullshit.
Incidentally Nigel Owens said that the odd incidences of stick he has had from crowds was a recent development and not something he associated with rugby.
Dave,
“As I said, go find Gareth Thomas and tell him about that. I’m sure that when you come-to again, he’ll explain to you why you are wrong.”
Well, as (according to you), he’s someone who prefers violence to peaceful debate, I’m struggling to understand why you defend him against “hate speech”.
Dave – I don’t mean to be unkind to Gareth Thomas, but…
Gareth Thomas, the former rugby international, has spoken for the first time of the agonising pain of his wife leaving him after he came out as gay.
He says he was “secretly homosexual” during his five year marriage. But never mind the poor jilted wife. Feel his pain!
In a new book Thomas says that the night his wife left him, he dressed in his best grey suit issued by the Welsh Rugby Union and headed to the swimming pool of his home set upon drowning himself.
That’s not a proper suicide attempt. That’s attention-seeking drama-whoring.
In the book he describes the night he returned home from playing rugby, to find his wife had finally walked out on him.
He wrote: “A form of madness gripped me that first night after Jemma left. I needed her presence, so I invented it. I climbed into her wardrobe, and sprayed her favourite perfume, Chanel’s Coco Mademoiselle, around the interior.
“I pulled her clothes off the hangers and shelves, and buried myself in them. In my warped state of mind, it was my only way of getting her back. I sensed her spirit, savoured her scent. I was in her space, her sphere.
This guy has serious emotional issues that would still exist even if Twitter did not.
I see he was in the press recently posing in a bubble bath with his boyfriend. Is there anything sadder than a 40 year old man who craves attention?
If you’re gonna be gay, be gay. No need to make a big theatrical production out of it.
Dave: How a non-sequitur exactly? Or are only certain socialist-approved classes of “emotional torment” to be considered and everyone else can fuck off?
Homophobia: meaningless leftist neologism. But if it upsets you I’m pleased.
Dave
“There are plainly only two ways.”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0099579936?*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Why not ask Gareth Thomas if it was ‘mere insult’ which led to his suicide attempt?
Apparently not then, more to do with him being a selfish, deceitful bastard unhappy that his comfortable lie of a life had come to an end.
PS My lack of sympathy has much to do with one of my sisters being in the same boat, fair dues to Gareth though, at least he didn’t father five children before coming out.
DocBud – imagine how emotionally crushing that must have been for his wife. And she still stayed with him for years after he confessed to her.
Also, let’s not beat around the penis here – when Thomas says he was “secretly homosexual” and “visited gay bars and clubs behind her back”, he was cruising for strange cock while the little woman was at home, innocently thinking she had the perfect marriage with her childhood sweetheart.
She suffered three miscarriages while married to him.
We don’t tend to have a great deal of sympathy for men who romp with random sluts behind their wives’ back. But we’re supposed to feel terribly sorry for Gareth Thomas, because gay.
ENL>
A poor point, but at least it was well made.
As for the rest of you, thank you for amply proving my point. At best you’re a bunch of dinosaurs, at worse some of you are actively malicious. There’s no question but that this is one of the many areas where free speech is so abused that some legal limitations on it are necessary. You very evidently can’t be trusted to police yourselves.
Your leftist arrogance now stands revealed Dave. We can’t be trusted to “police” ourselves? And you speak of our malice?
How does one become stupid enough or so empty a vessel that leftist cant becomes ingrained in such a manner?
“… where free speech is so abused that some legal limitations on it are necessary” – that’s a more hateful concept than anything said in a homophobic tweet.
Dave – Too obvious. Troll softer next time.
I don’t have to imagine how emotionally crushing it was, Steve. As I said, my sister went through the same thing, including staying with her husband while the kids were still young. Another aspect, while he was engaging in sex in some male toilet up the A1, he risked HIV infection and then infecting my sister. He caused devastating hurt to my sister and the children, I’d feel nothing if the bastard committed suicide.
Dave, you build your case around a single devious, selfish, self-pitying, egotistical bastard. You are an A grade tosser.
Is it actually possible to insult someone for being gay nowadays anyway? Surely the insult comes from being gay being considered ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ (as it used to be)? Whereas nowadays the response to ‘Everybody, I’m gay!’ is ‘So what? Do you want a medal for it?’
If someone calls Nigel Owens a ‘botty boy’, apart from it being a rather crude description of homosexuality, how is it insulting, given a) he is gay, and b) being gay is considered no different to being straight, and carries no negative social stigma at all?
It seems to me that those who wish to criminalise anyone who draws attention to another’s homosexuality are actually saying that deep down they agree that being described as gay is in fact an insult, rather than a statement of fact, in the way being called heterosexual is.
“People comit suicide all the time”
I didn’t need to check who had written that shite did I.
Of course, to amend slightly, “a rather crude description of a homosexual” is the sort of thing generally accepted as ‘a insult’.
Rather like somebody calling me ‘short-arse’ or ‘midget’. The former is crude but factual, the latter can be crude and is incorrect.
Dave
Personally I think Steve above nails it, but following up with Jim’s point: if someone say calls me a breeder, which is clearly intended to be similarly derogatory, should some third party call the police, apparently on my behalf, as clearly some people “can’t be trusted to police themselves”?
Or should we all perhaps just grow a pair instead? And yes, that is a rhetorical question.
Nigel Owens is gay? Good God. I’d forgotten that because there hasn’t been an article for a fortnight about him “coming out”. Yawn.
“We don’t tend to have a great deal of sympathy for men who romp with random sluts behind their wives’ back. But we’re supposed to feel terribly sorry for Gareth Thomas, because gay.”
This.
Steve, we can at least agree that Gareth Thomas wasn’t much cop in ‘Blake’s Seven’, can’t we?
Nigel Owens is a decent ref, Gareth Thomas was a pretty good full back, that’s where my interest ends. Just can’t get worked up about who they shag, it’s up to them (though the idea of gay pride is ridiculous).
I do think the police getting involved is a disgrace – there will be little old ladies on shitty estates who would love a visit from a copper to deal with their burglary/criminal damage etc but they’re too busy looking at whether Nigel’s feelings have been hurt. I imagine Nigel is embarrassed. If he isn’t, he’s a twat.
Dave is a well-known cock who really should not be responded to.
/ends
JuliaM – maybe not, but that tight perm would have put a brillo pad to shame.
Ironman–
“I didn’t need to check who had written that shite did I”
I don’t know–you are the one claiming to be psychic.
Don’t worry about who wrote what –apply your fearless new psychic skills to knowing who is going to commit suicide and as a result of what stimuli. Then you could warn people about what not to say to who(m?) and everybody would be happy.
As I think I might have mentioned before, we used to play Battersea Ironsides until on season they turned up as Battersea Irons.
They were pretty useless, but then so were we. Not having a club house (unless it was the Vauxhall Tavern) they stayed and bought a lot of beer, which was nice for our finances,
No ball grabbing during the game either, which made a nice change.
Would I play against an all Muslim club? Sure. Would I think that a segregated club was unlikely to climb the league ladder. That’s obvious.
Will the police be investigating other actions at the weekend which were motivated by hate, caused fear and alarm, and were actually physically threatening?
Oh, no, that was just some Guardianistas in fancy dress having a jolly jape at Nigel’s expense. What larks.
The act is not wrong or criminal. Who does the act determines if it is wrong or criminal.
Mr Ecks – thank you once again for your thoughtfulness, your humanity and skillful use of language.
I have an idea for a sitcom, perhaps called The Odd Couple: Mr Ecks and Arnald share an apartment in which they amuse us with their repartee. I see it being really high – brow stuff.
So it goes on.
In the interests of equality, it seems I can make jokes about Green ladies getting breast cancer just like that slag Eva Braun, because, well, I really hate their policies.
Whoop-fucking-ee.
21st century philospohical debate at its best.
Dave – “Why not ask Gareth Thomas if it was ‘mere insult’ which led to his suicide attempt?”
I am sorry Dave, but you are suggesting that any statement that *may* cause someone, no matter their pre-existing state of mind, to attempt to commit suicide should be illegal? Suppose I am a teacher and I have a poor piece of work in front of me. But beknownst to me the student is a hyperventilating drama Queen, who, if faced with an honest mark, will go on to stage a suicide attempt. You are saying that it ought to be a crime to give an honest mark?
“Rugby has a rancidly homophobic culture, and it’s an entirely appropriate area for government intervention precisely because we’re talking about hate-crimes (and their lesser equivalents) rather than ‘mere insult’.”
Can you please explain the difference between mere insult and a hate crime for me? I would assume you mean that it ought to be a crime to criticise groups you like, but not groups you don’t (that is, heterosexual White males are fair game and no one else is), but you could not be that two faced about it.
Can you explain to me precisely what is wrong with Rugby’s “rancidly” homophobic culture? Not that it exists, but if it did what is wrong with some men holding an opinion about some other men that does neither side any harm at all?
“You can’t have it both ways.”
Well Edwards was certainly trying for a long time…..
“Either you stand in support of what was done to Edwards (and continues to be done to younger players today) or you stand in support of the proportionate measures taken to try and end the shameful irrelevance which blights the game.”
I do not accept it is a blight or that it can be ended. But let us assume I did. You have to accept there may be another way which is to slowly educate people that cyber-bullying is not nice. That is, there is another option besides jailing people.
Although of course if some spotty sixteen year is thrown in jail for his tweets and, faced with having his life ruined, commits suicide – and Gay teens are not a suicide risk but arrested teens are – no doubt you will be turning yourself in for the promotion of rancid policies, right?
Ironman – “I didn’t need to check who had written that shite did I.”
That is not fair. I like to think I could have written that.
But you did not respond to it. People do commit suicide all the time. For all sorts of reasons. I take it you think that anything that might cause someone to commit suicide should be against the law? No? Are you sure? Because divorce is a major cause of suicide. Clearly filing ought to be illegal. She needs to suck it up and stay with him. Just in case. Right?
I’m not disagreeing with the practicalities but this makes it really, really bad law.
“thank you once again for your thoughtfulness, your humanity and skillful use of language. ”
I do but stand upon the rhetorical shoulders of humanist giants like yourself.
As for drama –how about Ironman 4 –in which he discovers there’s nobody inside the suit.
The real nancy boy in this case is the tweeter.
Aside from making an exhibition of himself in public, he has committed the grave sin of blaming the ref (pronounced “bu’ weff”), or blubbing when things don’t go your way.
I don’t suppose he blubs quite so hard when England get the rub of the green.
He should have his bottom smacked and be sent to bed.
SMFS
Yes indeed, you could could well have written thay.
Jack C
Exactly right. There are other Nancy boys though: those who make the leap of logic from “It shouldn’t be a criminal offense” to “so it’s fine and you’re out of order objecting to it.”
Mike Brown has congratulated the French on making a game of it, even though they had nothing at stake.
The Scots have had a fit of the vapours:
“Don’t accuse us of not trying” = “Yes we really are that bad.”
I thought the twatter twat was a taffy that was upset that the taffy ref hadn’t ensured that England finished with a worse points difference than Wales. So committed the heinous crime against humanity of calling him names.
But beknownst to me the student is a hyperventilating drama Queen, who, if faced with an honest mark, will go on to stage a suicide attempt.
If beknownst to you, we’d conclude you were a bit of a git, SMFS.
Ironman – “There are other Nancy boys though: those who make the leap of logic from “It shouldn’t be a criminal offense” to “so it’s fine and you’re out of order objecting to it.””
Are there? It being fine and the fact it shouldn’t be a criminal offense look like two separate issues and no one but you is confusing them.
DocBud – “If beknownst to you, we’d conclude you were a bit of a git, SMFS.”
What gave it away? Was it the use of pretentious words like beknownst?
I don’t know though. Teachers have some sort of professional responsibility. Not sure what it is, but an honest opinion about a piece of work should be close to obligatory. It is one of the side effects of the decline of UK education – no one is willing to give an honest opinion any more in case it offends. What do you do with someone who has had 15 years of education but no one has corrected him? I tend to blame the feminisation of the teaching profession.
In the Ironman vs Ecks stakes on this thread, as an impartial observer I’d have to say that Ecks won that one hands down.
Ironman resorted, as he often does, to illogic and non sequitur, insult, and posturing/grandstanding.
Interested
Ok please. An impartial observer wouldn’t have bothered to write that comment.
One would, because I did.
I think you’re Ecksy’s borderline nuts and have often said as much to him.
On this occasion he trounced you, and I’m sorry to say that you resorted to wibble.
/out
No don’t out please. Not after aligning yourself with Ecks/SMFS (you don’t mind if I refer to yo all as Ecks/SMFS/Interested or just Interested do you? Because you are now the same person for this).
I suppose you have trounced me Ecks/SMFS/Interested because you use the word ‘beknownst’, which I have never used and in fact thought was ‘unbeknownst’ misprinted. What do I know eh?
BiW
I hadn’t realised that. He’s clearly still a twat, and still guilty of blaming the ref.
It’s scarcely his fault that Wales failed to hold out in Cardiff.
Just lookking at the world acording to Ecks/SMFS/Interested:
“Suppose I am a teacher and I have a poor piece of work in front of me. But beknownst to me the student is a hyperventilating drama Queen, who, if faced with an honest mark, will go on to stage a suicide attempt. You are saying that it ought to be a crime to give an honest mark?”
Well yes, I would say it should be a crime. If you are aware that your student’s mental state is such that the mark could induce a suicide attempt (and I am assuming you do mean “beknownst”) then you must be a criminally vile bastard to go ahead and induce that.
Interest, you disgust me.
Girls,
Whoever it is spoofing Ironman, too unsubtle.
No it’s me. And you can’t spoof me when I say I find this vile:
“Can you explain to me precisely what is wrong with Rugby’s “rancidly” homophobic culture? Not that it exists, but if it did what is wrong with some men holding an opinion about some other men that does neither side any harm at all?”
Let me explain really simply for Ecks/SMFS/Interested: because decent people don’t think it’s alright to go around behaving like vile pricks to others and they try to get rid of those that do. And decent organisations, including self-respecting sports like rugby, find it sick that a superb referee should face endless abuse for his sexuality while the quality of his work is ignored. They also act in their own self interest and recognise the commercial and reputational damage they would suffer from being associated with such vile practices and attitudes. And they would answer “what is wrong with some men holding an opinion about some other men that does neither side any harm at all?” with “are you kidding us?”
Now, they wouldn’t want the law brought in unless they thought the CONTINUED abuse amounted to a campaign of harassment, but they do recognise the damage caused by homophobic idiots and by the perception of a homophobic culture.
So Ecks/SMFS/Interested might not get it, but decent men do.
P.S. Beknownst? Really?
An SMF typo. Get over it.
ENL
I do believe that “typo” is the best you can do. And all in defence of online homophobic abuse.
Seriously?
unbeknownst or beknownst? Original context of sentence screams typo. Your response at 4.34 today then loses its mojo. I call spoof. I was wrong.
“defence of abuse”? Mr Ironman, you lost me.
Ironman – “Well yes, I would say it should be a crime. If you are aware that your student’s mental state is such that the mark could induce a suicide attempt (and I am assuming you do mean “beknownst”) then you must be a criminally vile bastard to go ahead and induce that.”
Actually I meant unbeknownst. But either way. You must be? Why? A nurse has just killed herself because she faced a minor disciplinary action. You seriously think that anyone who accuses a nurse of any minor disciplinary infractions ought to go to jail?
How do you know that this post is not going to trigger me to fall into such a state of depression that I might kill myself? I would think you don’t. You think you ought to go to jail for it? Because, come to think of it, I am feeling a little weepy.
Wrapping people in cotton wool does not work. Teaching children to be more robust does. You are not helping them if you make any criticism of them punishable by law. Even ignoring the massively illiberal nature of what you are arguing for.
Ironman – “because decent people don’t think it’s alright to go around behaving like vile pricks to others and they try to get rid of those that do.”
You are here behaving as a vile pr!ck every day. I don’t hear anyone complaining. You seem to think it is acceptable to do so as well. Can you explain to me why your abuse is socially acceptable but “botty boy” is not?
“And decent organisations, including self-respecting sports like rugby, find it sick that a superb referee should face endless abuse for his sexuality while the quality of his work is ignored.”
Endless abuse …. by people outside their organisation. The Rugby is being held responsible for what some random member of the public is doing on Twitter. That seems a little bit outside their area of responsibility. Can you explain to me why you think they are in any way responsible or why they have to do a thing?
“They also act in their own self interest and recognise the commercial and reputational damage they would suffer from being associated with such vile practices and attitudes.”
That’s the rub isn’t it? People like you are determined to smear them. Well, you are unlikely to be appeased and no matter what they do you will smear them, so there is no point trying to appease you. You cannot argue with CiF.
“And they would answer “what is wrong with some men holding an opinion about some other men that does neither side any harm at all?” with “are you kidding us?””
These days, perhaps so. But there is still no actual harm done to anyone. These are just words. No one was hurt, no one suffered reputational damage, no one had any bones broken. There is no reason to ban mere words without any immediate harm.
“Now, they wouldn’t want the law brought in unless they thought the CONTINUED abuse amounted to a campaign of harassment, but they do recognise the damage caused by homophobic idiots and by the perception of a homophobic culture.”
So now you can read their minds and know what they are thinking? That is the point about these sorts of witch hunts though isn’t it? It doesn’t have to be a sustained campaign. You are intent on smearing them for *one* random teenager.
What damage is being done?
“So Ecks/SMFS/Interested might not get it, but decent men do.”
A nice bit of self congratulations there. But you continue to miss the real point. These laws ruin lives. Some idiotic teenager makes a foolish comment and then he has a criminal record following him for the rest of his life. That is a real harm. But Social Justice Warriors like you don’t care about ruined lives. Because you are so Special, normal morals don’t apply, right?
Oh, God, I’m agreeing with SMFS. More whisky, Nurse!
SMFS
I would buy your explanation if you hadn’t doubled down on it later this morning and if it hadn’t taken you ten hours for the penny to drop. I just can’t help thinking you sply didn’t know what you were saying. And the Richard Murphy “That’s what I always meant” line doesn’t work.
As for the teacher/report/suicide line; why don’t you go back and read it again. I did use the word “AWARE”. I used it quite quite deliberately actually. And you go off making a long – winded point starting with “How do you know…?” Dear God you are a Thick.Racist.Prick.
And then I drew the distinction between the Law and lay rright n wrongs and you respond by telling me I miss the point and “These laws ruin lives”.
You know the reason, the real reason the rugby world won’t accept homophobia is because decent people aren’t homophobic. And you can accuse me of self-congratulation all you wish; it’s a charge I am more than happy to accept here. You may wish to believe that they are being hounded into this by people like me, but you won’t find the evidence for that.
Yes, I do feel.smug, I do feel all puffed up with my own morality …and I have you idiots to thank for that. If you had produced just one comment to the effect that the tweets directed at Nigel Owen were vile then you might have a point. You haven’t though have you Interest/Ecks/SMFS? And it really won’t wash if you try now.
Surreptitious Evil – “Oh, God, I’m agreeing with SMFS. More whisky, Nurse!”
There ain’t enough whiskey in the world to take away that pain
Ironman – “I would buy your explanation if you hadn’t doubled down on it later this morning and if it hadn’t taken you ten hours for the penny to drop.”
What explanation? What penny do you think has dropped?
“As for the teacher/report/suicide line; why don’t you go back and read it again. I did use the word “AWARE”. I used it quite quite deliberately actually. And you go off making a long – winded point starting with “How do you know…?” Dear God you are a Thick.Racist.Prick.”
And yet I continue with the original point – it is the job of a teacher to be honest. Even if there is a risk a student may make a suicide attempt. The idea that the teacher ought to go to jail for it is absurd.
And yet again we see your hypocrisy when it comes to lecturing others about manners or the correct way to use the internet.
“And then I drew the distinction between the Law and lay rright n wrongs and you respond by telling me I miss the point and “These laws ruin lives”.”
No you did not. Or at least if you did, I have not seen it. You are defending throwing people in jail if they say something on Twitter that might make someone else kill themselves. As you have from the start.
“You know the reason, the real reason the rugby world won’t accept homophobia is because decent people aren’t homophobic.”
Depends on how you define homophobic. But that is not why the Rugby world is being forced to act. It is because people like you smear them with the actions of a few spotty teenagers. It is not their fault. They don’t run twitter. They don’t employ said spotty boys but you want to ruin their sport anyway.
“And you can accuse me of self-congratulation all you wish; it’s a charge I am more than happy to accept here.”
Of course you are. Just as Ritchie is protected by his armour of invincible self-righteousness. You think you are justified in being an ar$e because you are so more morally superior to the rest of us.
Even though you throw homophobic insults that you seem to think you ought to go to jail for using.
“Yes, I do feel.smug”
We noticed.
“If you had produced just one comment to the effect that the tweets directed at Nigel Owen were vile then you might have a point.”
I don’t think they are vile. They are childish and rude. But they are not a crime calling out to Heaven for vengeance. They are simply words. Not worth sending someone to jail for. Although you clearly think otherwise.
Ironman – “There are other Nancy boys though”
1. Ironman thinks that someone should go to jail for using the phrase “botty boy”.
2. Ironman uses the equally homophobic phrase “Nancy boys”
Elementary logic is not Ironman’s strongest point, but does it follow that:
3. Therefore Ironman must think he should be in jail? Or just banned from using the internet for life?
1. Ironman basn’t said that. SMFS genuinely doesn’t doesn’t realise that after umpteen comments. SMFS is a Thick.Racist.Prick
2. Ergo SMFS… ah fuck it. The dunce just doesn’t understand.
Ironman – “Ironman basn’t said that.”
Ironman was quoted as using a homophobic slur. It is still there. No one has edited it. What do you think lying about it will do? Your on-going support for laws against this sort of thing is a golden thread giving your posts what little intellectual coherence they have. If you don’t think it is or should be a crime, what is your objection here? What has it got to do with the Rugby community?
“The dunce just doesn’t understand.”
Alas, we do, we really do. But nice to see further lessons in acceptable internet behaviour from you. Even though you cannot point to a single racist thing I have ever said.
So just for the record, Ironman (is that “Ironman” as in Goering’s Der Eiserner or as in Stalin’s Stalin?) would you care to condemn your homophobic remarks? After all, we wouldn’t want to foster a climate of Gay-Hate here would we.
Again Cretin (and Thick.Racist.Prick) Iron didn’t say that. I was responding to your ridiculous point 1. It diesn’t matter now. We all know you used ‘beknownst’ twice before it was pointed out and like your tennage girl bothered friend IanB you are a bit out of your depth using the English language.
You are also.using this blog as a safe haven to say the things you wouldn’t dare say on the streets of England. You and Interested and Ecks and IanB are sick little peas in a pod.
Ironman – “Again Cretin (and Thick.Racist.Prick) Iron didn’t say that. I was responding to your ridiculous point 1.”
So you claim it should not be against the law? But how is the Rugby community able to deal with this problem given that this was a comment on Twitter which they don’t control by a boy they don’t employ? They wouldn’t have known if the police hadn’t told them.
“We all know you used ‘beknownst’ twice before it was pointed out and like your tennage girl bothered friend IanB you are a bit out of your depth using the English language.”
It is coz I is a immigrant innit? So you are racist as well as homophobic.
“You are also.using this blog as a safe haven to say the things you wouldn’t dare say on the streets of England.”
How do you know what I would or would not dare say on the streets of England? Oh wait, we know you don’t. I tend to think the streets of England have more people who share my views than share yours.
By the way, Teenage. IanB has a thing about teenage girls. Not tennage.
SMFS, sure he meant teenage? Maybe it was a typo for ‘tonnage’; makes about as much sense either way.
On endles homophobic abuse aimed at Mr Owens. I have been at many games he’s reffed and never once heard anyone shout anything of that ilk at him. I have watched even more in rugby clubs up and down the ocuntry and, guss wjat? Never heard anyone comment on anything other than the quality of his refereeing, save quoting his admonition to a Quins hooker “I’m straighter than that throw-in was” as part of a general appreciation of his more entertaining admonitions to players. It seems to me the people attacking the spor tan dit’s supporters are the ones fixated on sexuality, not those being attacked. Not dissimilar to the people jumping on any word used by anyone tangentially related to football to prove fatball culture is irretrievably racist: – http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/footballs-fantasy-racism/16731
” fatball culture is irretrievably racist”
Fatball culture IS racist–I chase away crows, ravens and blackbirds every day and there is a “Not Welcome” sign up on the birdhouse as well.
I think we need a new rule. Its only racist/homophobic/sexist if the person insulted says it is, and no third party can report the issue to the police etc on behalf of anyone else.
Then if Nigel Owens gets called a ‘botty boy’ by some twat on Twitter, Ironman can’t frot himself in paroxysms of rage about it (in public anyway, he can do what he likes at home) unless Nigel himself wants to make an issue of it.
Thus a stroke cutting of the indignation brigade who love nothing more than to claim some ‘ism’ or other on behalf of someone who actually couldn’t care less 90% of the time.