TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Richinns wrote:

Doh! :Oops:

Southampton Gull wrote:Matt hasn't been banned and if you read my posts carefully there should be no need for any further explanation. If you can't read properly that's not any fault of mine. As for Gullscorers juvenile attempt to insult me I'll refer him to his response to Emet recently when he felt insulted

Matt has my number and can call me anytime he wishes. We've done this subject to death already though and his post was not only deliberate but got him exactly what he wanted, it just happened to be hector who fell for it this time.

I've not accused Matt of being racist or using racist language .......

It wasn't an attempt to insult you, SG, it was a facetious, yet reverential, reference..

You've obviously misread what was in my mind, as you did Matt's.. :~D

Greybeardedgull wrote:A white guy? Chalky then, honky, blondie, Brit.
Be careful pal cos free speech is obviously very rapidly becoming a thing of the very beautiful and much missed past.

I take that with a pinch of salt. Matt isn't white. come on Matt. come out. admit it. YOU ARE ORANGE and have been for years.

Dave_Pougher wrote:Don't always agree, with Matt says but got to stand up for him here, how on earth can he be even considered a racist.

I'm fairly confident he hates everyone exactly the same regardless of their origins.

Mat dont hate me. he told me so. and if he's white i'll eat my hat. he's orange. And unless i am mistaken I am yellow. have been for 50 years this season and proud of it. so there NER

Can someone please lock this thread, we should be commenting on what was a great derby victory, yet it has now become very boring

dannyrvtufc4life wrote:If anyone is confused why Matt has had 7 days to reflect upon, read Dave's original post again.

It was quite clear that Matt didn't say anything racist, but the reason for the reflection was that he "knew exactly what he was doing and got exactly what he wanted turning a matchday thread into a thread on racism." I don't know if that was the case, but that was the judgement of the Admin team and the action of 7 days to reflect upon his deliberate actions has been taken place.

I don't get it though, a seven day ban to reflect on the fact he used an adjective that one individual (come on guys, hector is the only one who has made a fuss here is he not), took the wrong way......

Has anybody actually taken a second to ask Matt what his intentions were? Is it not possible he genuinely forgot the name of the "bl**k" (can I say that? :-| ) guys who played together. Had he said that 'x' player and the ginger kid who runs a bit funny were playing well today, would we be having this conversation?

Matt made a post which contained far more than the one phrase 'black guys'.

I just don't get it.

At the risk of further boring Lucy, I will just add that I was stood next to Matt & Pea for the second half; he is taking time to get to recognise the new players. He also does not fully appreciate the salubrious surroundings of the SJP Away End & in fact was complaining that he found the sightlines difficult from the depth of the first step !! The ginger kid who runs a bit funny did have a good game for the limited time that he was on. I don't want to take sides here particularly; I have already PMed SG as I was concerned for the fund=raising for Jazz losing momentum. I do think that Pea might have a point, but I don't know Matt well enough to be able toread his mind. It's a shame that this thread has been side tracked, because the game on Saturday was enjoyable !Apparently not so for the City players, who, according to Tis. were suffering from a virus, potentially caught in Brazil. (note to CH..don't run a pre-season session in Brazil, never sure what you may find there !)

Matt isn't banned, Ellie. He has however lost the privilege of his membership for 7 days. I would quite happily look him in the eye and tell him he knew exactly what he was doing just like he has on numerous occasions previously. I could have made a big deal about it or let one of the other admins dish out a far lengthier punishment than the nominal 7 days I gave him. Believe it or not one post like his uses up a lot of my time in answering complaints and explaining why he doesn't deserve a permanent ban to countless people. If any other admin feels I've overstepped the mark they can reverse my decision anytime.

As Lucy quite rightly says, a this has done is detract from a great performance by the team. Time to move on.

It wasn't a great victory - it was a friendly. Makes absolutely no difference whether we lost at Weymouth or won at Exeter. Means absolutely nothing.

kevgull wrote:Hector should take a self imposed 7 day ban for reacting to ferrari's provocation. I think 7 days is an appropriate black listing for this type of offence.

Oh , well done Torquay, good result!

Did Matt get a 7 day ban when he did make racist postings regarding Lloyd Macklin and black players some time ago? He has previous. If he is intentionally making provocative postings, then he warrants a ban. I don't think anyone picking him up on it is worthy of the same for pointing it out. But hell, what do I care? Is not being able to post on here for a week really going to concern me? (I'll be in France anyway, without internet access!!!)

brucie wrote:It wasn't a great victory - it was a friendly. Makes absolutely no difference whether we lost at Weymouth or won at Exeter. Means absolutely nothing.

Duh !!

I said great "performance", surely the performance is what a manager is looking for in the final pre-season game?

Southampton Gull wrote:
Duh !!

I said great "performance", surely the performance is what a manager is looking for in the final pre-season game?

I think Bruice was commenting on Lucy's post, Dave.

lucy6lucy wrote:Can someone please lock this thread, we should be commenting on what was a great derby victory, yet it has now become very boring

Pea wrote:
I don't get it though, a seven day ban to reflect on the fact he used an adjective that one individual (come on guys, hector is the only one who has made a fuss here is he not), took the wrong way......

Has anybody actually taken a second to ask Matt what his intentions were? Is it not possible he genuinely forgot the name of the "bl**k" (can I say that? :-| ) guys who played together. Had he said that 'x' player and the ginger kid who runs a bit funny were playing well today, would we be having this conversation?

Matt made a post which contained far more than the one phrase 'black guys'.

I just don't get it.

I was just stating why this action had taken place, due to some confusion by other members.

Time to put this to bed. Matt will be back before you all know it :} .

Time to put this to bed, maybe. This is only a minor matter in the great scheme of things, and Matt will soon be back, so I shall give the authorities on this forum the benefit of the doubt, just as I do for a referee on the pitch.

However, as SG has said, Matt was not suspended for turning the thread into one about racism. He was suspended, so far as I can tell, for what he was perceived to be thinking and intending when he wrote his post. But it may be that there's more to this than we are being told. We don't know.

And that may be the real controversy here. The same principles of due process to achieve justice must be observed in minor matters as in the greatest court trials: An accused person must be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. And justice must be seen to be done. That's the least we should expect, even here.

Rant over. Looking forward now to the first game of the new season..

Pea wrote:I don't get it though, a seven day ban to reflect on the fact he used an adjective that one individual (come on guys, hector is the only one who has made a fuss here is he not), took the wrong way.......

Why don't you ask him yourself? Or are you really Matt using Pea's profile?

Matt made a racist comment because he referenced a person by his skin colour and inferred that there was a natural connection between all people of that skin colour. You can use any dictionary definition you want (thanks Rooster) but the proof of the proverbial pudding is in its daily use and that use of a racial identifier is pejorative. To suggest that it is not racist is at best naive and, at worst, condoning its use. If he had said that Elliot Benyon worked especially well with the other white guys, the same charge could be levelled - but don't forget that we live in a predominately white society.

And don't even try the ginger hair analogy, it doesn't work.

So we'll put it to bed and allow Matt to return with his casual racism - he does have history as we all know. I don't really know whether an ethnic minority thinks that casual racism is better than overt racism: one person I know said that at least it wasn't aggressive while another person I've asked said that it's all racism, just to different degrees.

There's not a workplace in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol (and any other city in this country) that would allow an employee to comment that another employee gets on well with the other black guys without the first employee being invited into their supervisor's office for a lesson in racial equality. Anyone who really thinks that the phrase wasn't racist can't live in a particularly multi-racial environment.

Having said that, it was almost worth it for the best oxymoron I've seen for a long time: Greybeardedgull's "pure Anglo-Saxon." Simply brilliant!

Well done to Hector for refusing to allow it to pass by uncommented and shame on the any of you for trying to pretend there was nothing wrong with it. Torquayfans.com has managed to earn a reputation for racism over recent months and the response to Matt's comment is one of the major reasons why that reputation will be difficult to shed.