In some people’s eyes they were do gooders they were after reform that’s the definition of a do gooder forcing your opinions on someone else either way it never ends well .
Let’s all take rainbow flags in solidarity next home game
Looks like he could be banned for Manny a Monthe if this is proven!
18 Likes
Lets see if the bloke is guilty before condemning him. Also if he is found guilty I hope the punishment is in the form of a fine as I don’t see why Walsall should be punished.
4 Likes
In a free society everyone is “presumed” innocent, we’re all guilty of hastily judging someone prior to knowing the facts.
I hope Manny didn’t do what is alleged, but he needs to own it if he did.
1 Like
How are people being discriminated against and abused who protest about being discriminated against and abused “do gooders”?
If you were on about someone not affected by something protesting about it just to appear “worthy” then you might have a point, but I don’t think Manny Monthe, any other black person, or indeed anyone of any other colour, race, creed, gender, etc who doesn’t agree that racial discrimination is acceptable (or indeed any other sort of discrimination) comes under that heading.
With regard to the charges that the FA are bringing against him - if he is genuinely homophobic this is just one of many such instances then I agree that I wouldn’t be comfortable with him remaining a Walsall player and an ambassador for the club as it goes against our proclaimed values. If he generally isn’t homophobic but took the usual sledging too far on purpose to rile someone (whether they be LGBT or not) then he needs to learn that such behaviour is not acceptable. He should be given a second chance to show that he has taken it on board or else again I would not be comfortable with him staying with us (the “no dick heads” approach). If it was accidental (by which I mean he did say it but in the heat of the moment and he he didn’t intentionally mean to upset the other player) then he needs to own up to it, show contrition, and be more careful in future. Same goes for any other of our players using any other sort of non-acceptable language or behaviour.
It’s not my job to judge him though, let’s wait to see what the FA conclude.
4 Likes
On the contrary, often it ends very well. Gay rights, environmentalists and racial equality supporters were considered to be do gooders when I was a young ‘un
6 Likes
There is one word in that regulation which worries me “implied”. I wonder how that can be defined. Also it could lead to a situation where someone makes a complaint about an “implied” insult when the other person mean’t no such thing. What a mess we are creating with all these regulations which seek to cover every eventuality.
2 Likes
Surely they have evidence he either did it or didn’t do it by now?
Should have been sorted months ago.
1 Like
Insulting others is just stupid, but cuz it takes months, I hope it was some remarks made in the heat of the game and nothing more.
1 Like
I think that in relation to the regulation “implied” covers using words or phrases that don’t actually make reference to a person’s sexual orientation but most people would take them to mean that. Using one of the many well known derogatory terms for various members of the LGBT community (the equivalent of the N-word with regards to black/non-white people) would be express, but saying something that inferred it without actually saying it would be “implied” (one such that springs to mind that you often heard in my younger day might be “Backs to the wall lads!” when another male approached who it was being implied was gay, whether in jest or not, without actually saying so).
I think what you may be taking it to mean though is the situation of offence being taken when none was meant. Some might describe that as being insensitive to others feelings (or putting your foot in it), but if someone is upset by something you say or do then whose fault is it - yours or theirs? The general rule now is that offence is judged on how it is taken by the recipient not how it is meant by the culprit. There is scope for debate on what the leeway on either side of that should be but we are getting more and more towards zero tolerance on the basis that casual discrimination of any sort (whether intentional or not) creates a climate where other with more extreme and reprehensible views feel empowered to express them.
1 Like
Where, I wonder, does “Big girl’s blouse” come in the pantheon of questionable phrases?
BTW Andy, are you a lawyer? Your analysis, above, is particularly stringent.
Only a barrack room one. 
2 Likes
Ah, but which barracks? 
But surely no one has a right not to be “upset” or “offended” .If we are moving into that territory it is a very dangerous time for free speech. I am often ridiculed on here for my religious beliefs but I am not offended. If I was offended however using your example I could make a complaint and have it investigated. Free speech is a very important part of democratic discussion and this trend of people taking action over remarks made by others is not a good thing.
2 Likes
Yes, I agree that is what I understand by “implied”.
Any remarks that are racist, homophobic or sexist should be unacceptable but, as others have said, we should not judge anyone until proven guilty.
I suppose one question is whether Monthe plays while under this shadow.
If ever you need someone to read and understand T and Cs, Andy is your man.
1 Like
It really does depend on context. Using someone’s supposed sexuality as a reason to abuse them is not about offending someone, it is about reflecting a culture that is unacceptable.
How did you feel about the Robbie Fowler/Graeme Le Saux incident? What about Justin Fashanu and his subsequent suicide?
As to your religious beliefs, it is OK to challenge them but you should not be ridiculed for having them. It can be a fine line but a line worth preserving. I do agree that someone being offended is not in itself a reason to take action; someone might be offended by the nakedness on a nudist beach but that is their problem.
1 Like
Why wouldn’t he play now?
He’s been playing all season and I can’t believe this has come completely out of the blue in the last 24-48 hours since he last played on Tuesday night.
2 Likes
I do agree with you, One, but in your comment do you actually mean
"no one has a right to be “upset” or “offended”??
Do you, in fact, mean everyone has the right to be offended? The double negative has thrown me a bit.