Andy Gray – Richard Keys
OK, explain it to me!
Not the offside rule – not interested. I want to know whether they were sacked/resigned for complaining that the linesman didn’t know the offside rule – or a woman didn’t know the offside rule – which is it?
If he had been a man and happened to be gay – would they have been sacked/resigned for homophobia?
If he had been a man and happened to be black – would they have been sacked/resigned for racism?
It matters because it defines whether you can’t suggest that a woman isn’t ‘ace’ at her job, or whether the time honoured tradition of loudly declaring that the referee/linesman has a white stick and a tin can has just been ruled offside…..
Whilst you are pondering – can anyone remember the name of the famous singer “Max” someone? who sang of rugby referees and white sticks and tin cans, can’t find it on Youtube for the life of me……
- January 29, 2011 at 13:41
-
It’s part of a bigger picture.
Andy Gray earns £1.5M a year working for Sky, he is suing the News of the
world for hacking his phone. A lawsuit including details that happen to have
led to the resignation of Andy Coulson this week as a senior figure of the
Conservatives.
So, bearing in mind Rupert Murdoch owns Sky and News of the World. Andy
Gray gets £1.5M a year from his boss, and is suing a company owned by his
boss. Which happens to have seriously fucked off the dominant political party
of the moment, at a time when Murdoch is lobbying to expand control of his
news empire.
Looks like they’ve looked for an excuse and used the thought-crime squad to
hang him. He is fucked, every football club depends on Murdoch and the BBC
will keep it’s distance since he pissed off the Tories. Who would employ
him?
-
January 27, 2011 at 03:54
-
EEK!
Now then , you’re being silly! Far too silly! Now stop this silliness…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI&feature=player_embedded
- January
26, 2011 at 22:08
-
Engineer: “the lineswoman really should have known better than to put
herself in such a position”
How could she do that? By acknowledging that football is a real man’s game
and not putting herself forward?
- January
26, 2011 at 22:04
-
In answer to your questions at the start of the post, I would imagine that
comments like “course he doesn’t understand the offside rule, he’s a poof,
they’re only interested in handbags” or “footballs rules are a bit technical
and too hard for jungle bunnies to understand” would have attracted equal, if
not more, criticism. The remarks were directed at her not because she was a
bad linesman, but because she was a woman, and that’s just stupid. The men
concerned are saloon-bar dinosaurs, and I couldn’t give a shit if they got the
sack or not. Mind you, I don’t give a shit about football either. It’s a
poof’s game.
- January
27, 2011 at 06:00
-
“The remarks were directed at her not because she was a bad linesman,
but because she was a woman, and that’s just stupid. “
You should hear the comments in my office when one of the men (unwisely)
states that he plans to do some cooking or washing.
‘Oh, do you know where the oven is?’
‘Remember not to put the socks in with the whites..’
Is that actionable?
- January
- January 26, 2011 at 21:59
-
Ah, Max Boyce….the Pontypool Front Row…OGGY OGGY OGGY!
Now football pundits could learn much from Rugby, a game noted for the
delicate language and alcoholic abstemiousness of it’s protagonists. Songs
might be sung, but heaven forfend that any might have rude words. I’m quite
sure that the four-and -twenty virgins that came from Inverness were quite
safe (to their deep chagrin, no doubt) and returned virgo intacta. There is
never any violence, and any punches that might be thrown are merely male
bonding rituals. Ladies of course, return the general compliment by averting
their gaze from sturdy thighs, and generally thinking pure thoughts.
Football, regrettably, attracts the coarser element. This was just an
accident waiting to happen, and the lineswoman really should have known better
than to put herself in such a position.
-
January 26, 2011 at 23:46
-
As they say :
“games for hooligans played by gentlemen, and games for
gentlemen played by hooligans”
Your choice which way round.
-
- January 26, 2011 at
21:09
-
It is amusing to read, se, & hear other ‘ journalists ‘ both print and
electronic rushing in to condemn these presenters. As there is ‘no honour
amongst thieves’ so is there no honour amongst professional
scribblers.
Pimps and Ponces have more moral integrity than this lot.
- January 26, 2011 at 20:42
-
What I don’t understand is if the remarks made in private were deemed to be
offensive why were they then broadcast by the media?
The assistant referee in question would have been unaware of the Gray/Keys
remarks at the time they were made so couldn’t have been offended by them.
The mainstream media has this strange idea that it just observes, (and
reports), but has no affect on the subjects of its observations.
- January
26, 2011 at 20:35
-
I think it depends.
If there is an official stood behind the last pundit when the remark is
made, then it isn’t offensive, even if the other pundit is behind the official
when they respond to said remark.
Of course they changed the rules about fifteen years ago, it used to be
offensive if the last pundit was stood alongside the official, but now if one
is level with the official, then it isn’t offensive.
It is all very confusing, especially when one factors in the consideration
of passive offensiveness. When the pundit is behind the official when the
remark is made, is he interfering with the broadcast or the career of the
official? If not, even though he is behind the official at the time the remark
is made, it is ruled inoffensive and the banter continues.
But of course, if the pundit isn’t interfering with the broadcast, then
what is he doing on the bloody telly?
-
January 26, 2011 at 20:32
-
There was fantastic banter about this at my work place today between the
respective “nuns” and “monks” (OK, I know, just bear with me). Various
comments stick in the mind, eg
Sister M: ” Well I don’t give a f**ck, women
don’t know the offside rule”
Brother M: “Well there’s the Equality
Nazi!”
Sister M (wearing short dress and crossing long legs) “I just hope
they get Jamie Redknapp on, he’s fit”
Brother P: “Hey! That demeans us
men”
Sister X: “It doesn’t demean you, we aren’t interested in
you”
Brother J: “I thought Sister M was the equal opportunity
officer”
Brother Z: ” She is, she’s equally rude about everyone”
Sister
M: “F***k off, where’s my cake”
Brother P: “If you don’t know by
now…”
Gildas: “They don’t have many mingers on Sky sports..ethical
dilemma”
All: “SHUT UP GILDAS!”
And so it went on…
And everyone was
happy
G
-
January 26, 2011 at 20:24
-
Max Boyce…….whatever happened to
{ 20 comments }