This Weekends Matches 2017/18 - Page 81 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

This Weekends Matches 2017/18


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Very poor doesn't cover it. They're mocking someone with a disability. 

Would it just be "poor" if they mocked someone with Cerebral Palsy and the way they spoke? 

It's basically the same thing and anyone doing this is every hit as bad as the bigots that drag their knuckles through the gates at Ibrox. 

Disgusting individuals who deserve to be weeded out by the club. Have Falkirk started an investigation yet? 

No, this would also be very poor.  (Sounds like my "very poor" is worse than your "very poor").  In many ways, these actions are worse than bigotry.    

I have no idea if Falkirk have started an investigation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JasMc1973 said:

They're looking into it....

Where does the line get drawn these days, no more who ate all the pies chants? Gingers still fair game? Cowdenbeath fans still inbreeding?

Difficult to say precisely where the line is, but I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that this isn’t well and truly beyond it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JasMc1973 said:

They're looking into it....

Where does the line get drawn these days, no more who ate all the pies chants? Gingers still fair game? Cowdenbeath fans still inbreeding?

It's a fair point - it can be difficult to know where to draw the line.  The examples you have listed above though are perhaps not considered disabilities as such nor are they particularly personnel to individuals (Andy Goram might disagree).  However, going to the trouble of taking fake eyes to a game and throwing them at a player with one eye is well beyond the line of "banter".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

Difficult to say precisely where the line is, but I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that this isn’t well and truly beyond it. 

 

16 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

It's a fair point - it can be difficult to know where to draw the line.  However, going to the trouble of taking fake eyes to a game and throwing them at a player with one eye is well beyond the line of "banter".  

I think that’s the crux of the matter.

This goes way beyond “banter”.

People often try and use the grey area as justification for things, but if going to the trouble of doing this is in your grey area, you need to take a look at yourself.

It’s the pre-meditated element of taking the eyeballs that makes it so bad in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JasMc1973 said:

They're looking into it....

Where does the line get drawn these days, no more who ate all the pies chants? Gingers still fair game? Cowdenbeath fans still inbreeding?

If you can't see that this is well over any limit then you're part of the problem. 

Do you find it acceptable to mock people for their disabilities? 

Simple question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JasMc1973 said:

They're looking into it.... :worried:

Where does the line get drawn these days, no more who ate all the pies chants? Gingers still fair game? Cowdenbeath fans still inbreeding?

Those are all banter, throwing eyes is mocking a life changing tragedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Some high horses running loose in here tonight.

11 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Very poor doesn't cover it. They're mocking someone with a disability. 

Would it just be "poor" if they mocked someone with Cerebral Palsy and the way they spoke? 

It's basically the same thing and anyone doing this is every hit as bad as the bigots that drag their knuckles through the gates at Ibrox. 

Disgusting individuals who deserve to be weeded out by the club. Have Falkirk started an investigation yet? 

It’s not even close to the same thing. Losing one eye does not qualify you as disabled, while having cerebral palsy is a serious disability. Comparing the two is very wrong.

3 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

If you can't see that this is well over any limit then you're part of the problem. 

Do you find it acceptable to mock people for their disabilities? 

Simple question. 

I’m sure he doesn’t. But Dean Shiels isn’t disabled. Is he?

Simple question. 

3 hours ago, dandydunn said:

Those are all banter, throwing eyes is mocking a life changing tragedy. 

They are all mocking people for being different. I don’t see the difference, other than the obsessiveness about it which makes it very weird behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

Wow. Some high horses running loose in here tonight.

It’s not even close to the same thing. Losing one eye does not qualify you as disabled, while having cerebral palsy is a serious disability. Comparing the two is very wrong.

I’m sure he doesn’t. But Dean Shiels isn’t disabled. Is he?

Simple question. 

They are all mocking people for being different. I don’t see the difference, other than the obsessiveness about it which makes it very weird behaviour.

Losing an eye does qualify you as disabled. My brother in law lost his eye when he was 2 to cancer of the optic nerve and legally that's how it is. 

Comparing that with Cerebral Palsy is not wrong, that's your opinion, as both are life altering conditions. CP can be very mild up to utterly crippling (my brother is somewhere in the middle) and it affects you as much as you let it. 

You appear to know very little about disabilities or the law surrounding them. The people "mocking" Dean Shiels are in fact breaking the law. 

It's disgusting behaviour that shouldn't be tolerated by any intelligent and compassionate society. You obviously think differently. 

Perhaps if there were someone in your family who was disabled and was mocked and abused you'd understand better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Losing an eye does qualify you as disabled. My brother in law lost his eye when he was 2 to cancer of the optic nerve and legally that's how it is. 

Comparing that with Cerebral Palsy is not wrong, that's your opinion, as both are life altering conditions. CP can be very mild up to utterly crippling (my brother is somewhere in the middle) and it affects you as much as you let it. 

You appear to know very little about disabilities or the law surrounding them. The people "mocking" Dean Shiels are in fact breaking the law. 

It's disgusting behaviour that shouldn't be tolerated by any intelligent and compassionate society. You obviously think differently. 

Perhaps if there were someone in your family who was disabled and was mocked and abused you'd understand better. 

No, it does not. The Equality Act only defines as disabled those who are officially registered as blind or partially sighted (or those who ought to be). 

Being registered as such depends on your visual acuity in totality, which is largely unaffected by the loss of vision in one eye - as per registration guidance below. 

Dean Shiels is not disabled and in fact those mocking him are not breaking the law. On the other hand if he had cerebral palsy, it would be a hate crime. Therein lies the difference. 

The reality is that intelligent and compassionate people do need to tolerate lawful behaviour they find disgusting. All the time. And it would be a better internet if we did just that, rather than storming up twitter and everywhere else with moral outrage every second of the day.

We would all choose to draw the line in a different place, whether it’s at fat huns or one eyed gingers. The Falkirk mob are a bunch of weirdos and quite possibly cunts. But you’ll find those everywhere.

Dry your eye mate and move on. 

Some guidance from the RNIB -

‘Your ophthalmologist ... will not be able to certify you as sight impaired or severely sight impaired unless you have significant sight loss in your other eye. This is because your other eye will largely compensate for the loss of sight in the affected eye.’ 

https://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss/criteria-certification

Edited by Morrisandmoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

No, it does not. The Equality Act only defines as disabled those who are officially registered as blind or partially sighted (or those who ought to be)

Being registered as such depends on your visual acuity in totality, which is largely unaffected by the loss of vision in one eye - as per registration guidance below. 

 

Does the highlighted bit not really cause the problem? I know nothing of Dean's background, how he came to lose his eye, but what if he decided rather than letting himself be defined by the loss of his eye he decided to carry on playing football and chose not to register disabled then in the eyes (poor choice, I know) of the law Dean is not thought of as disabled as it is not official?? I also thought that having 2 eyes enabled depth perception, how would that work with only 1 eye??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, shaggycoo said:

Does the highlighted bit not really cause the problem? I know nothing of Dean's background, how he came to lose his eye, but what if he decided rather than letting himself be defined by the loss of his eye he decided to carry on playing football and chose not to register disabled then in the eyes (poor choice, I know) of the law Dean is not thought of as disabled as it is not official?? I also thought that having 2 eyes enabled depth perception, how would that work with only 1 eye??

Not really, as if he ought to be registered (and chooses not to) the law would still consider him protected (as disabled). The fact is even if he chose to register, he would be rejected as his sight is not poor enough. 

It does. Apparently, the other eye adapts and works harder - using shadows etc to make decisions on where things are. The fact he is a professional footballer kind of demonstrates how successful he has adapted. 

 

Edited by Morrisandmoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, shaggycoo said:

Does the highlighted bit not really cause the problem? I know nothing of Dean's background, how he came to lose his eye, but what if he decided rather than letting himself be defined by the loss of his eye he decided to carry on playing football and chose not to register disabled then in the eyes (poor choice, I know) of the law Dean is not thought of as disabled as it is not official?? I also thought that having 2 eyes enabled depth perception, how would that work with only 1 eye??

He lost sight in his eye as a wee laddie when his dad (Kenny) dropped a scraper into it. Think he only had the eye removed about 10 years ago though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/01/2018 at 12:27 PM, Pool Q said:

A Hibs fan in my office just pointed out to me that Hearts fans sang a song about Shiels (and his eye) when he was at Hibs. Can’t honestly say I remember it, but not doubting him for a moment.

Yeah I remember the idiots around me in section N at the time singing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/01/2018 at 8:13 PM, ShedTA said:

Believe McMullan got a red for an embarrassing dive too when we were 4-1 up? Unbelievable.

Looking forward to seeing Csaba Laszlo back in the Premiership. Enjoyed his comments on this incident 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

No, it does not. The Equality Act only defines as disabled those who are officially registered as blind or partially sighted (or those who ought to be). 

Being registered as such depends on your visual acuity in totality, which is largely unaffected by the loss of vision in one eye - as per registration guidance below. 

Dean Shiels is not disabled and in fact those mocking him are not breaking the law. On the other hand if he had cerebral palsy, it would be a hate crime. Therein lies the difference. 

The reality is that intelligent and compassionate people do need to tolerate lawful behaviour they find disgusting. All the time. And it would be a better internet if we did just that, rather than storming up twitter and everywhere else with moral outrage every second of the day.

We would all choose to draw the line in a different place, whether it’s at fat huns or one eyed gingers. The Falkirk mob are a bunch of weirdos and quite possibly cunts. But you’ll find those everywhere.

Dry your eye mate and move on. 

Some guidance from the RNIB -

‘Your ophthalmologist ... will not be able to certify you as sight impaired or severely sight impaired unless you have significant sight loss in your other eye. This is because your other eye will largely compensate for the loss of sight in the affected eye.’ 

https://www.rnib.org.uk/eye-health/registering-your-sight-loss/criteria-certification

Well there's a problem. I'd better tell him to give back his blue badge for the car then. He's going to be really annoyed with you stopping his preferential parking though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShedTA said:

You might expect that but we know on occasion that managers defend it

True. Just going by his interviews since becoming manager I thought it was meant he had a lot more to say about it 👍🏼

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got an email from Rangers with my away allocation for the rest of the pre-split games (only getting St Johnstone). It got me wondering who'd we play away after the split. If the top 6 stays as it is then we would have played each team in the top 6 at home twice and away once so 2 of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Killie would have to visit Ibrox 3 times.

Edited by theweestevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...