Utter nonsense, the definition describes the atrocities so is not unrelated. What TC said was stupid, unproffessional and insensitive to a lot of people.
I don't like the guy, but I think a suspension would be more appropriate than a sacking. Poor choice of words, but as others have pointed out, it's not a word applied exclusively to the actions of the Nazis and he didn't use it in an intentionally offensive manner. I'd like to see the back of him, just because he's not a good commentator, but sacking him would be a bit harsh.
It would be stupid to sack him over something as small as that. I refuse to believe that any adult who lives in the real world was actually offended by that (unless they are jewish).
It seems to me that he didn't mean anything bad with that comment other than that Traore is useless and was having a sh1t game. Ok, his choice of words let him down, but I reckon that the ones at fault are them that always read something racist or otherwise into a completely innocent comment said in the heat of the moment. You should've heard what I was saying while watching the humiliation!
tony deserves everything he gets. His ignorance has finally caught up with him. But he was right about Chamakh though, not good enough.
a) It's an innocent comment in that he didn't mean it to be offensive. b) You misunderstood an apparently innocent comment and found it offensive when it wasn't meant to be. Does he deserve to lose his job due to being misunderstood?
Holocaust is totally the wrong way to describe the performance of a footballer, apart from it making no sense, he should never have used a word that is reserved for such a heinous atrocity. Innocent? Who in their right mind uses that word as an adjective in light-hearted cirumstances. Anyone that was offended by it has every right to be. He's not in the pub with his mates, he's supposed to be describing the match and providing footballing insight and if he doesn't know how to do that without offending viewers by inappropriately using words he clearly doesn't understand then as much as I hate to say it, I'd rather they gave Wilkins and Coleman more games.
Finally he has put his foot in it, Only a matter of time. I have no idea how this ill educated dullard has managed such a successful media career up to now. I expect Sky to remove him immediately.
Poor choice of words, no doubt. But then I always thought "holocaust" was a poor choice of a word to describe Hitler's genocide. It means "wholly burnt" and originally referred to a sacrifice to a pagan, Greek God. Shoah, which means something like "calamity" makes sense.
There's a difference here Holocaust means 'destruction or slaughter on a mass scale' Had the clown has said 'The Holocaust' or 'Jewish Holocaust' then he would have been very remiss in his choice of words. As it is its just a stupid and unfortunate faux-pas, give him a disciplinary and move on. The whole world's gone PC mad
I take it that you are outraged when commentators use the word 'murdered' to describe a defender being taken apart by an attacking player then? Or when a team gets 'mauled' you also become offended? Lighten up mate.
Where have I said or suggested that I was outraged? His comment didn't make sense and he made a provacative statement for no reason. It wasn't as off the cuff as you might think, he brought up Traore's performance himself and described it as a holocaust. Remember when Pardew said "he absolutely rapes him", that was totally inappropriate but you can see how it was more on the spur of the moment. Like I said he's on SSN to provide some commentry on the game and give you insight into the game, not act like he's down the pub with his mates having a laugh, use words he doesn't understand. Why not go the whole hog and just get Merson back on the sauce swearing his mouth off?
If you're honest with yourself when he used that word, THE Holocaust will spring to mind, you even capitalised it as a pronoun when you wrote it so that should tell you something
Well said. I never mentioned the Jewish Holocaust and yet all the people who say i'm over reacting all assumed i was which proves our point.
