I can absolutely guarantee you that if you examined half the text messages sent by other managers to friends, they'd be out of a job.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if you examined half the text messages sent by the BRITISH public we'd all be out of jobs!!
I must be in the good half then as I'd never text the stuff he said. We all think things on occasions but vocalising or writing those thoughts is too far and isn't just 'banter' imo.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if you examined half the text messages sent by other managers to friends, they'd be out of a job.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if you examined half the text messages sent by the BRITISH public we'd all be out of jobs!!
I must be in the good half then as I'd never text the stuff he said. We all think things on occasions but vocalising or writing those thoughts is too far and isn't just 'banter' imo.
And these weren't private texts to his mates down the pub, these were work related texts...
I would never, send a text that could ever be described as racist or homophobic and I'd be careful about texts that might offend women (even though they would not be receiving them).
I appreciate that conversions that take place, especially after a few drinks, can be inappropriate to all members of society but anyone that sends a text that would offend and/or be described as racist or homophobic would not, in my book, be able to justify it as banter or 'harmless fun between friends'.
Now I might not agree what constitutes racism or homophobia, but if anyone deliberately sends something that they think is then I think they have no defense.
That word 'context' springs to mind. You can't judge any words without it.
I don't know the context of the relationship, past conversations, the intent (e.g. whether irony was implied and inferred) so I'm happy to reserve judgement on the guy's actions. I can't condemn him on content without understanding context.
Of course when you're in the public eye it's ill-judged to have conversations that could be seriously misconstrued. The right course of action is to apologise and to educate yourself - which is what he's done. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is still the same. Despite Whelan's size nines not helping, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been offered or accept the Wigan job.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if you examined half the text messages sent by other managers to friends, they'd be out of a job.
Can't imagine many chairmen would care two hoots what their managers say as long as they're successful. When it turns sour and compensation is being negotiated it'll be a different story.
That word 'context' springs to mind. You can't judge any words without it.
I don't know the context of the relationship, past conversations, the intent (e.g. whether irony was implied and inferred) so I'm happy to reserve judgement on the guy's actions. I can't condemn him on content without understanding context.
Of course when you're in the public eye it's ill-judged to have conversations that could be seriously misconstrued. The right course of action is to apologise and to educate yourself - which is what he's done. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is still the same. Despite Whelan's size nines not helping, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been offered or accept the Wigan job.
I agree that he has apologised and appears to be educating himself.
However the context was him talking about current and future employers and people he was doing business with on behalf of his employers.
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
People can offer him jobs if they want, but I'm free to think everyone involved is a complete ****, and furthermore express this
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
I don't think anyone has said that, only that people wouldn't want him at Charlton which is a different thing.
I read the posts as saying "because a made up percentage of people may do similar" or "it was between mates" are no defences and doesn't make it OK or acceptable.
Mackay has really damaged his reputation, he has done so in a way that a few good seasons of him as a manager will still not mean it is repaired and all is forgotten.
He knows this and is suffering for it in a way that he knows he has to work bloody hard at all angles of being a manager for him to get back belief, trust and respect.
He has apologised, taken courses to educate himself and has learnt the hard way. Honestly what more should he do?
Makay has a chairman, fans and players (both current and future players he wishes to sign) to show he is a better man than what those texts suggest.
His reputation in the game before these texts was of a very likeable and well respected man within football. To go from that, to a man who people will always be whispering 'racist' or 'homophobe' behind his back, or from that stands, will hurt him. There is noeasy ride for him, no matter where he was to manage.
One of Wigan Athletic's shirt sponsors has ended its agreement with the club following the appointment of new manager Malky Mackay. Kitchen firm Premier Range - which carries a logo on the back of the Championship club's kit - said it was in an "untenable" position.
That word 'context' springs to mind. You can't judge any words without it.
I don't know the context of the relationship, past conversations, the intent (e.g. whether irony was implied and inferred) so I'm happy to reserve judgement on the guy's actions. I can't condemn him on content without understanding context.
Of course when you're in the public eye it's ill-judged to have conversations that could be seriously misconstrued. The right course of action is to apologise and to educate yourself - which is what he's done. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is still the same. Despite Whelan's size nines not helping, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been offered or accept the Wigan job.
I agree that he has apologised and appears to be educating himself.
However the context was him talking about current and future employers and people he was doing business with on behalf of his employers.
That's not the context, that's what he did.
For example, his use of the term 'chinkys' (sic) sounds like it's borne of frustration with Tan forcing Eastern players on him rather than 'one is too many'. I'm not justifying his use of that word in any way, for the avoidance of doubt, but the context changes the inference one should reasonably draw I think.
It would also be reasonable to observe that the texts reported are individual ones taken out of their conversational, environmental and (importantly) their relationship context, and accompanying articles with a distinct angle. I've read more raunch on here than in his supposed sexist text, frankly.
For me the real damning event was the 'black monopoly' image, which was entirely his choice to send. If he doesn't understand why that will always be offensive and inappropriate then diversity education is exactly what he needs.
@Talal, I couldn't disagree more strongly with your view that context is irrelevant. That is a lazy paradigm frankly and everything that's wrong with 'the PC brigade'. Look up Derek Bentley and understand why context - and intent - are absolutely vital to interpretation.
That word 'context' springs to mind. You can't judge any words without it.
I don't know the context of the relationship, past conversations, the intent (e.g. whether irony was implied and inferred) so I'm happy to reserve judgement on the guy's actions. I can't condemn him on content without understanding context.
Of course when you're in the public eye it's ill-judged to have conversations that could be seriously misconstrued. The right course of action is to apologise and to educate yourself - which is what he's done. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is still the same. Despite Whelan's size nines not helping, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been offered or accept the Wigan job.
I agree that he has apologised and appears to be educating himself.
However the context was him talking about current and future employers and people he was doing business with on behalf of his employers.
That's not the context, that's what he did.
For example, his use of the term 'chinkys' (sic) sounds like it's borne of frustration with Tan forcing Eastern players on him rather than 'one is too many'. I'm not justifying his use of that word in any way, for the avoidance of doubt, but the context changes the inference one should reasonably draw I think.
That's exactly what you're doing.
And it was 'fucking chinkies',there's a difference
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
I don't think anyone has said that, only that people wouldn't want him at Charlton which is a different thing.
I read the posts as saying "because a made up percentage of people may do similar" or "it was between mates" are no defences and doesn't make it OK or acceptable.
And from what Mackay has come out and said, he agrees that there is little defence that it is unacceptable. He has wholly admitted his mistakes, so I don't really understand what points some are trying to make by repeating what he himself has come out and said. He knows he has done wrong.
No, I stated that was exactly what I'm not doing. Now you're taking me out of context and making your own point based on that - thanks for illustrating my point so neatly.
The exact text, in isolation of any kind of context other than assumed or reported, is this: "Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There's enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around." Not very pleasant, I agree. However, this was his response to Tan signing a South Korean player Mackay clearly didn't want. It's objectionable as it is, unjustifiable frankly, but equally it's very different from saying it without the irritation at Tan's interference.
For what it's worth, I think Mackay was/is ignorant. He clearly needs the education he's now getting, so I think that was the right response and hopefully he'll value the mistake as an opportunity for lasting change. We get so swept away by political agenda and militancy we forget that the end is surely to take people out of their ignorance. Rather than begrudge it and stand in judgement in perpetuity, perhaps we should applaud it and encourage the change?
A note of caution for you: be careful not to judge me or anyone else without knowing our own contexts. You know nothing about me or my family background, and that context may well make you think twice about jumping to conclusions about what I say.
One of Wigan Athletic's shirt sponsors has ended its agreement with the club following the appointment of new manager Malky Mackay. Kitchen firm Premier Range - which carries a logo on the back of the Championship club's kit - said it was in an "untenable" position.
TBF the sponsorship wasn't working as expected and they didn't want to change their name to Championship Range or even League 1 range :-)
Serious question to all those who want Mackay hung, drawn and quartered - particularly those who gave a like to Redskin's earlier post at 10.39.
How many of you look at the Wouldya threads on here? Aren't they a bit sexist sometimes? If you can't answer no to the first question, how would your wife/partner/daughter/sister feel if it came out that you were spending your time on here looking at such threads?
In fact if you can't answer no to the first question, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be so critical of Mackay?
Serious question to all those who want Mackay hung, drawn and quartered - particularly those who gave a like to Redskin's earlier post at 10.39.
How many of you look at the Wouldya threads on here? Aren't they a bit sexist sometimes? If you can't answer no to the first question, how would your wife/partner/daughter/sister feel if it came out that you were spending your time on here looking at such threads?
In fact if you can't answer no to the first question, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be so critical of Mackay?
more of us than you may think have shown consistency in this regard, not that the comparison is quite direct
Serious question to all those who want Mackay hung, drawn and quartered - particularly those who gave a like to Redskin's earlier post at 10.39.
How many of you look at the Wouldya threads on here? Aren't they a bit sexist sometimes? If you can't answer no to the first question, how would your wife/partner/daughter/sister feel if it came out that you were spending your time on here looking at such threads?
In fact if you can't answer no to the first question, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be so critical of Mackay?
more of us than you may think have shown consistency in this regard, not that the comparison is quite direct
Leuth, respect to you if you haven't although I don't understand why you say the comparison isn't quite direct. A lot of people would find the Wouldya threads sexist.
I'm not defending Mackay - the guy is a fool to say what he did. The point I'm making is if you trawled through most people's texts, e-mails, web history you would find something that looks wrong. And in my opinion that would apply to all those who claim to be whiter than white if they are looking at what many would call sexist threads.
And what would be really interesting would be to see who has posted on them.
No, I stated that was exactly what I'm not doing. Now you're taking me out of context and making your own point based on that - thanks for illustrating my point so neatly.
The exact text, in isolation of any kind of context other than assumed or reported, is this: "Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There's enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around." Not very pleasant, I agree. However, this was his response to Tan signing a South Korean player Mackay clearly didn't want. It's objectionable as it is, unjustifiable frankly, but equally it's very different from saying it without the irritation at Tan's interference.
For what it's worth, I think Mackay was/is ignorant. He clearly needs the education he's now getting, so I think that was the right response and hopefully he'll value the mistake as an opportunity for lasting change. We get so swept away by political agenda and militancy we forget that the end is surely to take people out of their ignorance. Rather than begrudge it and stand in judgement in perpetuity, perhaps we should applaud it and encourage the change?
A note of caution for you: be careful not to judge me or anyone else without knowing our own contexts. You know nothing about me or my family background, and that context may well make you think twice about jumping to conclusions about what I say.
'...his use of the word 'chinkys' sounds like it's borne of frustration with Chan forcing Eastern players on him rather than one too many.' If that's not justifying his overt bigotry, I don't know what is.
As for your 'word of caution' for me:get over yourself man,and you can take that in whatever context you like.
So for those who are saying he has "no defense" and that "saying sorry doesn't make it OK", what would you suggest? That nobody should offer him a job?
People can offer him jobs if they want, but I'm free to think everyone involved is a complete ****, and furthermore express this
But I think if you express this opinion you should never work again I find it offensive in the extreme.
Political correctness has gone mad and Wigan's manager is being investigated, meaning he is not guilty yet! Besides, even if he is guilty what is the difference between Suarez being racist towards Evra and this?
Comments
I appreciate that conversions that take place, especially after a few drinks, can be inappropriate to all members of society but anyone that sends a text that would offend and/or be described as racist or homophobic would not, in my book, be able to justify it as banter or 'harmless fun between friends'.
Now I might not agree what constitutes racism or homophobia, but if anyone deliberately sends something that they think is then I think they have no defense.
I don't know the context of the relationship, past conversations, the intent (e.g. whether irony was implied and inferred) so I'm happy to reserve judgement on the guy's actions. I can't condemn him on content without understanding context.
Of course when you're in the public eye it's ill-judged to have conversations that could be seriously misconstrued. The right course of action is to apologise and to educate yourself - which is what he's done. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is still the same. Despite Whelan's size nines not helping, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been offered or accept the Wigan job.
However the context was him talking about current and future employers and people he was doing business with on behalf of his employers.
I read the posts as saying "because a made up percentage of people may do similar" or "it was between mates" are no defences and doesn't make it OK or acceptable.
He knows this and is suffering for it in a way that he knows he has to work bloody hard at all angles of being a manager for him to get back belief, trust and respect.
He has apologised, taken courses to educate himself and has learnt the hard way. Honestly what more should he do?
Makay has a chairman, fans and players (both current and future players he wishes to sign) to show he is a better man than what those texts suggest.
His reputation in the game before these texts was of a very likeable and well respected man within football. To go from that, to a man who people will always be whispering 'racist' or 'homophobe' behind his back, or from that stands, will hurt him. There is noeasy ride for him, no matter where he was to manage.
Kitchen firm Premier Range - which carries a logo on the back of the Championship club's kit - said it was in an "untenable" position.
For example, his use of the term 'chinkys' (sic) sounds like it's borne of frustration with Tan forcing Eastern players on him rather than 'one is too many'. I'm not justifying his use of that word in any way, for the avoidance of doubt, but the context changes the inference one should reasonably draw I think.
It would also be reasonable to observe that the texts reported are individual ones taken out of their conversational, environmental and (importantly) their relationship context, and accompanying articles with a distinct angle. I've read more raunch on here than in his supposed sexist text, frankly.
For me the real damning event was the 'black monopoly' image, which was entirely his choice to send. If he doesn't understand why that will always be offensive and inappropriate then diversity education is exactly what he needs.
@Talal, I couldn't disagree more strongly with your view that context is irrelevant. That is a lazy paradigm frankly and everything that's wrong with 'the PC brigade'. Look up Derek Bentley and understand why context - and intent - are absolutely vital to interpretation.
That's exactly what you're doing.
And it was 'fucking chinkies',there's a difference
The exact text, in isolation of any kind of context other than assumed or reported, is this: "Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There's enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around." Not very pleasant, I agree. However, this was his response to Tan signing a South Korean player Mackay clearly didn't want. It's objectionable as it is, unjustifiable frankly, but equally it's very different from saying it without the irritation at Tan's interference.
For what it's worth, I think Mackay was/is ignorant. He clearly needs the education he's now getting, so I think that was the right response and hopefully he'll value the mistake as an opportunity for lasting change. We get so swept away by political agenda and militancy we forget that the end is surely to take people out of their ignorance. Rather than begrudge it and stand in judgement in perpetuity, perhaps we should applaud it and encourage the change?
A note of caution for you: be careful not to judge me or anyone else without knowing our own contexts. You know nothing about me or my family background, and that context may well make you think twice about jumping to conclusions about what I say.
What would they possibly teach?!
How many of you look at the Wouldya threads on here? Aren't they a bit sexist sometimes? If you can't answer no to the first question, how would your wife/partner/daughter/sister feel if it came out that you were spending your time on here looking at such threads?
In fact if you can't answer no to the first question, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be so critical of Mackay?
Despite any get out clause in his contract, it would surely be very disruptive to have to replace him a few weeks down the line.
I'm not defending Mackay - the guy is a fool to say what he did. The point I'm making is if you trawled through most people's texts, e-mails, web history you would find something that looks wrong. And in my opinion that would apply to all those who claim to be whiter than white if they are looking at what many would call sexist threads.
And what would be really interesting would be to see who has posted on them.
If that's not justifying his overt bigotry, I don't know what is.
As for your 'word of caution' for me:get over yourself man,and you can take that in whatever context you like.