I couldnt agree more. Folks are getting up in arms and angry over a few bloody text messages. Please people, get some perspective. This is just another distraction from issues that have far greater importance... No one was hurt, killed or otherwise due to some private conversations that took place many moons ago. Yet the world watches on whilst innocent people are being slaughtered in east Ukraine by their own government. Women and children are being blown to pieces in Gaza. But the silence is deafening... So if you would please excuse my demeanour but I frankly have better things to concern myself with than some private text messages being scrutinised by the thought police and judged by the court of public opinion.
Mackay's done an interview about the texts and I'm not sure what to make of it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28904368 He appears to be saying that some of the comments attributed to him were not sent by him, but he doesn't clarify which ones he did send. The article lists three, yet he's not heard making any such statement himself about those being the ones he's owning up to. He's now been accused of sending even more of them, though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28910805 He must have an idea that there's more of this to come, so why not just admit bad behaviour in the past and vow to change? Go on courses, make public appearances and donations at anti-racism charities and try to salvage his reputation. Stupid. He may face a low profile appointment back in Scotland after this whole debacle. I'd still like to hear the details of how this all got out, though. Looks like the Bond villain is finally living up to his reputation. "Do you expect me to text, Mr Tan?" "No, Mr Mackay, I expect you to die!"
I agree with Flaspur and others on this. These were a few private texts out of 1000's sent, that have been found to have been out of order. You hear much worse than this in any office or pub, it's a complete over reaction and typical of the PC world we live in nowadays. I'm not condoning racism or anything like that but I'm sure we have all said things in private we are not proud of. I actually think the LMA got it right in their first statement. I'm sorry if I am offending anyone on here thinking this but this is just my opinion.
Each to their own. But to say coz it was only a few texts and done privately means it isn't that bad is exactly the sort of attitude that means racism, sexism and anti-Semitic behaviour will never disappear.
I think the main point is that casual racism,sexism (or whatever else you want to mention) happens, and will always happen in private and often when people make a big deal of casual remarks (which are often said in humour) then they escalate into being much bigger, then needs be. Racism (for me) is how a person treats others (either verbally, physically) or judging someone based on their skin colour so that is how Malky should be judged, by how he has treated his players, If its proved that he has treated players (of different races)..... differently, then he has no defence, but if he hasn't, and its proved that he treats all players fairly then he has a case for the remarks being casual with no malice intended. As for Redknapp, out of every manager in the premier league, you couldn't ask for someone who is open to all races, not once has he treated someone different based on their skin colour and that should tell you something considering he is defending Malky, as if Malky was a racist then I very much doubt Redknapp would jump to his defence. And unless someone leads a sheltered life then you hear this every day, some of the attitudes up here in Scotland towards other races is appalling, but I've seen people say racist remarks, insult other races (in private), moan about the polish coming here to work yet I've then seen the same people befriend people of other races and actually be helpful so are you going to call that person racist because he has a sick sense of humour, but his actions are the complete opposite? I don't particularly like Malky (from what I've seen) but hope he gets a chance to redeem himself and Garth Crooks agrees, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28911114.
Well said Boss you put it far better than me. I almost think it's been made worse by the fact such a big deal has been made out of it.
There is a difference between ignorance, banter and abuse. I am not a woman or gay so do not know what it feels like to be either. As a result I might say something that offends someone who is gay or female...thats ignorance and I would apologise. If a gay or female mate makes a joke at my expense and I do the the same that is banter and we would laugh But that aint what he did. Calling someone a chink is abusive imo as is making ****ty comments about someone being jewish... it is unacceptable..if this is pc gone mad then the.the world is a better place for it Is racist name calling as bad as racist attacks or institutional racism? I would say no...but having being called a paki more times than I care to mention I have to say I ****ing hate it and it is stressful, belittling and it is always uncalled for. I would lay money on it that he has never called some a "white" something or other...so why bring race into it? He could have called him anything else...god knows there are enough insults he could have used without resorting to racism. Finally...I also agree that the way we've discussed this without being rude to one another is cool...there is no reason for us to agree with eachother but every reason to listen to reasoned points of the opposite view... On someother boards on this site this would have degenerated into a pointless slanging match
I would want him as a manager of my team. His lost his integrity and clearly there would be concerns over his objectivity. If I were footballer and he came in as my manager I wouldn't trust him especially if I was a minority or slightly different (religion/colour/etc). Without trust you can't lead. He will pay a heavy price with his career for this. And rightfully so. Pathetic really.
Bit it was a "private" text! Jesus it's such an over reaction. So the self righteous people on here having a go can you honestly say you have never sent a text slagging someone off?! Imagine how you would feel if someone went through all your texts looking for things to have a go at you for? And RCL you are one of the best posters on here and I mean no offence to you at all, but calling someone a paki to their face is completely different than calling someone a chink on a private text IMO.
But it wasn't a "private text", it was a text on a Cardiff City owned mobile phone sent between two employees both using their business phones. Because of this, I don't think Malky has a leg to stand on.
I don't think anyone posting here has condoned what Mackay said in the texts. What some of us have said is that you have to judge this kind of behaviour differently when it is in the context of a private conversation rather than a public statement. There is no polarisation of opinion about the issue, just a difference in the degree of disapproval. We all have thoughts, views, beliefs etc about many different issues and we don't all conform to the accepted viewpoint on every issue. Most of us wouldn't necessarily express our dissenting views in public, but we might in private. We are entitled to some degree of freedom of thought and opinion, however much others might disagree with our views in public. We might choose to keep those views private because we know expressing them might cause offence and we wish to avoid doing so. We might express our views in private in terms we wouldn't use publicly. This is a fundamental freedom; that is why we have privacy laws. We don't know what Mackay's views are on race, sexuality or religion. He might be a bigot. On the other hand, as many of us have said, he may just have been immature and idiotic in the way he expressed himself. It would be wrong to judge him too harshly from private comments.
This sums it up nicely. That they were using company property to send/swap derogatory texts to each other negates the "private text" defence. Both of them are up the proverbial creek without a paddle!!
As SC has pointed out though Lidls, he didn't do so in private. He may have expected those texts to stay out of the public eye, but he didn't send them using his own personal phone.
O Spurcat - my phone is a work phone but I still wouldn't want anyone reading my private texts. Sorry to me that makes no difference.
It was a private conversation. The ownership of the 'phone is a red herring. The comments were not intended to be read by anyone other than Moody. They only became public because Tan spent huge sums of money investigating and having 'phones interrogated.
The two points about it being private are being confused as one, as no the texts aren't essentially private if you're taking the view he has no defence as he was using a company phone and for that he was idiotic. However the other mentioning of the word private is about a persons view, as Malky isn't being attacked for using a company phone, he is being attacked for his views and being labelled a racist, which he may be (or may not be) that isn't clear yet. Just saying words in "private" when the conversation is between two people means people say will say certain words or use risky humour, or partake in risky "banter" which they perceive as banter because its between two individuals, yet so far the only accusation I would make at them, is that they where foolish for speaking that way on company phones yet in their minds the conversation was private.
