Problem Officer? Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 It made a mockery of what you said because your whole argument appeared to be: "Women shouldn't be allowed to officiate men's matches because it's always been this way". In other words, you weren't even capable of being consistent in the same post! This rendered your subsequent contributions null and void. But I also quite clearly said I never necessarily supported the use of technology? But was mearly stating a similar arguement that has been talked about in the past as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 But I also quite clearly said I never necessarily supported the use of technology? But was mearly stating a similar arguement that has been talked about in the past? In that case, you need to express yourself more effectively. Bloody men always waffling on inarticulately eh? Incidentally, for the record: 1. Football urgently needs video technology. That FIFA won't bring it in may well suggest deeply sinister motives on their part. 2. Any woman official should be judged in exactly the same way as male officials are. On their merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problem Officer? Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 In that case, you need to express yourself more effectively. Bloody men always waffling on inarticulately eh? ^_^ Anyway I'm outta here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 In that case, you need to express yourself more effectively. Bloody men always waffling on inarticulately eh? Incidentally, for the record: 1. Football urgently needs video technology. That FIFA won't bring it in may well suggest deeply sinister motives on their part. 2. Any woman official should be judged in exactly the same way as male officials are. On their merits. There is a sexist joke in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi must stay Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 In that case, you need to express yourself more effectively. Bloody men always waffling on inarticulately eh? Incidentally, for the record: 1. Football urgently needs video technology. That FIFA won't bring it in may well suggest deeply sinister motives on their part. 2. Any woman official should be judged in exactly the same way as male officials are. On their merits. sinister motives . Like what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 sinister motives . Like what? On the basis that they're an utterly corrupt organisation in every way imaginable, match fixing doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Anyone who watched Korea v Spain in 2002 would know where I'm coming from too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 He's also been sacked for sexual harassment. Those remarks to Charlotte Jackson would get a public face of any company fired in any other industry if proven Not quite. It's the sort of tacky OTT flirting that Jonathan Ross used to subject every single female guest to every Friday night ON AIR while he had his BBC show. He just about got away with it because he was 'funny' and self-aware. Obviously he got the sack in the end, but not for sexual harassment. I think the attack on women's ability to officiate was far worse. When I first heard the issue being reported, I assumed it would be banter. But no! He - and Keys - genuinely seem to think that a fully qualified referee's assistant is going to worse at their job because she's a woman! That she won't understand the offside rule! Like that wouldn't have been the first thing they covered at referee school at the age of 15 or whatever. It's just unbelievable. And it makes him unfit to carry out his work properly to my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 But I also quite clearly said I never necessarily supported the use of technology? But was mearly stating a similar arguement that has been talked about in the past as well? Even if it was a valid argument, goal line technology would only really cover disputable goals. Not offsides, which is a major remit of being an assistant, and one that this particular official got bang on the money on Saturday as well don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi must stay Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 On the basis that they're an utterly corrupt organisation in every way imaginable, match fixing doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Anyone who watched Korea v Spain in 2002 would know where I'm coming from too. you'd need to know every game where there would be a goal-line decision though. Which would suggest the game and everything in it is fixed, which is certainly not the case in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Sorry, but the Church of Rome is a completely separate institution from THE Church. None of the denominations, including my own, are THE Church. There are members of THE Church in every denomination, and together they constitute THE one, true universal Church.... blah, blah, blah. Colin, nobody cares about your silly beliefs. On the thread I am delighted by these developments. I look forward to the restoration of parity, with all references to men's inability to "do two things at once" or "man flu" or any objectifying of a man ceasing to be televised. We are all equal after all. I am also ecstatic that any female presenter that has said such things on television will be sacked. I also eagerly await the cancellation of the programme "Loose Women" as its frankly misandric views fly in the face of these new found morals. Oh, and by the way, I am astonished at Shaun's stance, honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Colin, nobody cares about your silly beliefs. On the thread I am delighted by these developments. I look forward to the restoration of parity, with all references to men's inability to "do two things at once" or "man flu" or any objectifying of a man ceasing to be televised. We are all equal after all. I am also ecstatic that any female presenter that has said such things on television will be sacked. I also eagerly await the cancellation of the programme "Loose Women" as its frankly misandric views fly in the face of these new found morals. Oh, and by the way, I am astonished at Shaun's stance, honest. If Gray was sacked purely for his comments on saturday then your post would be spot on, however he was sacked for this and another incident which I found very sleazy and which would have made many women feel uncomfortable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Colin, nobody cares about your silly beliefs. On the thread I am delighted by these developments. I look forward to the restoration of parity, with all references to men's inability to "do two things at once" or "man flu" or any objectifying of a man ceasing to be televised. We are all equal after all. I am also ecstatic that any female presenter that has said such things on television will be sacked. I also eagerly await the cancellation of the programme "Loose Women" as its frankly misandric views fly in the face of these new found morals. Oh, and by the way, I am astonished at Shaun's stance, honest. And we're back to that veracity thing again... Seriously, I'm fine with any football pundit/commentator/presenter being ditched for making any of those comments. I also look forward to the demise of Loose Women, although probably for different reasons than you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Colin, nobody cares about your silly beliefs. On the thread I am delighted by these developments. I look forward to the restoration of parity, with all references to men's inability to "do two things at once" or "man flu" or any objectifying of a man ceasing to be televised. We are all equal after all. I am also ecstatic that any female presenter that has said such things on television will be sacked. I also eagerly await the cancellation of the programme "Loose Women" as its frankly misandric views fly in the face of these new found morals. Oh, and by the way, I am astonished at Shaun's stance, honest. I'm with you on Loose Women too. Talentless bunch of bints, the lot of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The best reason to get rid of both Andy Gray and Loose Women is clearly that they are both shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The best reason to get rid of both Andy Gray and Loose Women is clearly that they are both shite. Word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If Gray was sacked purely for his comments on saturday then your post would be spot on, however he was sacked for this and another incident which I found very sleazy and which would have made many women feel uncomfortable Thing is pal, it's totally out of context. Are they friends? Could this be seen as "banter" between friends? Why has this just surfaced now and not when it happened over a month ago? Has Charlotte complained? Your brother has a running joke with a mutual friends wife, a joke that your bruv and the husband and wife in question would maintain. There is nothing sinister there and it is all a bit of a laugh. IF Charlotte felt it was an inappropriate act and complained about it, I have no issues with him being disciplined/sacked, if Sky have decided that it is inappropriate on their own, it's wrong. For me, Sky have used something else to engineer a reason to sack Gray. Is he still trying to sue Murdoch's newspaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 And we're back to that veracity thing again... Seriously, I'm fine with any football pundit/commentator/presenter being ditched for making any of those comments. I also look forward to the demise of Loose Women, although probably for different reasons than you will. Emboldened bit - The rest - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thing is pal, it's totally out of context. Are they friends? Could this be seen as "banter" between friends? Why has this just surfaced now and not when it happened over a month ago? Has Charlotte complained? Your brother has a running joke with a mutual friends wife, a joke that your bruv and the husband and wife in question would maintain. There is nothing sinister there and it is all a bit of a laugh. IF Charlotte felt it was an inappropriate act and complained about it, I have no issues with him being disciplined/sacked, if Sky have decided that it is inappropriate on their own, it's wrong. For me, Sky have used something else to engineer a reason to sack Gray. Is he still trying to sue Murdoch's newspaper? Yeah but my brother is a sexist perv,I could never be described as a prude,but if a colleague of mines partook in this banter I would feel a bit uncomfortable and embarassed,however if it was a close male friend I would laugh it off,I suppose it depends on their relationship and whether he crossed any boundaries within that relationship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thing is pal, it's totally out of context. Are they friends? Could this be seen as "banter" between friends? Why has this just surfaced now and not when it happened over a month ago? Has Charlotte complained? Your brother has a running joke with a mutual friends wife, a joke that your bruv and the husband and wife in question would maintain. There is nothing sinister there and it is all a bit of a laugh. IF Charlotte felt it was an inappropriate act and complained about it, I have no issues with him being disciplined/sacked, if Sky have decided that it is inappropriate on their own, it's wrong. For me, Sky have used something else to engineer a reason to sack Gray. Is he still trying to sue Murdoch's newspaper? Yes, and I'm quite sure it has a lot to do with it. NewsCorp are suffering badly from the fallout of the phone hacking business, and need a sacrificial lamb in order to demonstrate their "integrity" (no laughing at the back, now) as an organisation. Factor in that Gray is deeply unpopular at SKY, and has previous for this sort of thing, and there you have it. I don't think Sky have followed reasonable disciplinary procedures at all here. But they're in a position whereby the Court of Public Opinion matters a heck of a lot - hence their decision today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thing is pal, it's totally out of context. Are they friends? Could this be seen as "banter" between friends? Why has this just surfaced now and not when it happened over a month ago? Has Charlotte complained? Your brother has a running joke with a mutual friends wife, a joke that your bruv and the husband and wife in question would maintain. There is nothing sinister there and it is all a bit of a laugh. IF Charlotte felt it was an inappropriate act and complained about it, I have no issues with him being disciplined/sacked, if Sky have decided that it is inappropriate on their own, it's wrong. For me, Sky have used something else to engineer a reason to sack Gray. Is he still trying to sue Murdoch's newspaper? Couldn't agree more that the context is wrong BH - this happened in the workplace, it wasn't banter between friends in the pub or whatnot. You pick your friends, you pick where you go with them and you pick the boundaries. In the workplace it's very different, that's why laws exist to protect people from finding themselves in situations they don't want to be in. It might be banter to one person but someone else might find it intimidating and uncomfortable. That's not right. And how many women would feel comfortable complaining about stuff that makes them uncomfortable when they know that they're quite likely to face the, "Oh come on love, you're overreacting a bit are you not? It's just banter!" sort of reply.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well done Sky sports!!! Setting an example of those 2 vile ignorant sexist pigs. They need to show that woman are equals and know just as much about the game as men. Time to replace them, preferably with two birds with big tits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yes, and I'm quite sure it has a lot to do with it. NewsCorp are suffering badly from the fallout of the phone hacking business, and need a sacrificial lamb in order to demonstrate their "integrity" (no laughing at the back, now) as an organisation. Factor in that Gray is deeply unpopular at SKY, and has previous for this sort of thing, and there you have it. I don't think Sky have followed reasonable disciplinary procedures at all here. But they're in a position whereby the Court of Public Opinion matters a heck of a lot - hence their decision today. If it turns out to be true that Gray is up to his eyeballs in the phone hacking thing as well then this whole saga only stands to make them look even more slippery than they did before though. Mind you, integrity isn't something that anyone expects from them these days anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yeah but my brother is a sexist perv,I could never be described as a prude,but if a colleague of mines partook in this banter I would feel a bit uncomfortable and embarassed,however if it was a close male friend I would laugh it off,I suppose it depends on their relationship and whether he crossed any boundaries within that relationship Burst out laughing at the emboldened bit! Couldn't agree more that the context is wrong BH - this happened in the workplace, it wasn't banter between friends in the pub or whatnot. You pick your friends, you pick where you go with them and you pick the boundaries. In the workplace it's very different, that's why laws exist to protect people from finding themselves in situations they don't want to be in. It might be banter to one person but someone else might find it intimidating and uncomfortable. That's not right. And how many women would feel comfortable complaining about stuff that makes them uncomfortable when they know that they're quite likely to face the, "Oh come on love, you're overreacting a bit are you not? It's just banter!" sort of reply.... As for the rest of Lou and Redm's posts, both are perfectly sensible and on reflection very fair points. One quick thing though, Lou, I wasn't suggesting you were a prude and hope it didn't come across like that. NOW, can either of you explain the offside rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Burst out laughing at the emboldened bit! As for the rest of Lou and Redm's posts, both are perfectly sensible and on reflection very fair points. One quick thing though, Lou, I wasn't suggesting you were a prude and hope it didn't come across like that. NOW, can either of you explain the offside rule? Well, see if you go shopping and the till operator is gabbing to her mate while you patiently wait behind said gabbing mate..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Burst out laughing at the emboldened bit! As for the rest of Lou and Redm's posts, both are perfectly sensible and on reflection very fair points. One quick thing though, Lou, I wasn't suggesting you were a prude and hope it didn't come across like that. NOW, can either of you explain the offside rule? Not at all but was making the point that if I was uncomfortable with it,then some others may find it very offensive. From a womans point of view it is all very sleezy bearing in mind he is also 22 years older than her. I once heard someone explain the offisde rule to his wife using the example of a queue in Primark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well, see if you go shopping and the till operator is gabbing to her mate while you patiently wait behind said gabbing mate..... Not at all but was making the point that if I was uncomfortable with it,then some others may find it very offensive. From a womans point of view it is all very sleezy bearing in mind he is also 22 years older than her. I once heard someone explain the offisde rule to his wife using the example of a queue in Primark I get the impression I should have read the whole thread now! Quick question redm, what if the till operator gets up and walks down the queue to get a fresh, unbroken box of eggs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I get the impression I should have read the whole thread now! Quick question redm, what if the till operator gets up and walks down the queue to get a fresh, unbroken box of eggs? Still offside, till operator counts.....assuming you move your trolley while the till operator was away off down the aisle, of course. If the till operator was on their way back and passes you but has a gammy leg or something (possibly caused by bunions) and just moves a wee bit slower than your average shopaholic then it's a freebie. In short, depends how speedy a trolley operator you are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Still offside, till operator counts.....assuming you move your trolley while the till operator was away off down the aisle, of course. If the till operator was on their way back and passes you but has a gammy leg or something (possibly caused by bunions) and just moves a wee bit slower than your average shopaholic then it's a freebie. In short, depends how speedy a trolley operator you are.... I would say I'm a trolley dolly but I am fearful for my career! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I have no problem with females playing in mens teams if they are good enough. As long as men can then play in ladies teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'm Kickback's own Will Smith. But not quite as ubiquitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Pepper Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Question for all. If female footballers are good enough to play in your team would you have them in yes or no? It's not a different argument, it is a future possibility. So again.... If female footballers are good enough to play in your team would you have them in yes or no? I'm saying no. no, you couldn't actually tackle a burd without her screaming rape knowing that lot. Keys is a complete welt though, and I hope he does the right thing and steps down. Im not actually bothered about what was said, all men says those things, but this is not the first time he has acted the goat and been caught out. Cant stand the guy. Hairy *******. Grays behaviour is to be expected from someone who has spent his career surrounded by "lads", no reason to say things like that at your place of work though. I am all for female officials, they will have passed the same exams as males so why not. And while footballers are just neds with money, I am confident that most would have the manners to respect wimmin officials more than they would men. Saying that, if a burd lino was steaming up and down the line at Tynecastle she would be getting so much abuse. Could a women cope with such abuse without having a break down? Personally, I dont think so, but lets try it anyway to shut them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.