RWC SF: England v Springboks
-
-
"we don’t live in a world where race based insults are accepted, on that basis they should all be treated the same with the same level of commitment to investigation."
Are you saying race base insults are accepted in South Africa?
-
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
I'm guessing the accusation of racism bites deeper for you Saffer brothers and I can understand your reaction but you're conflating two issues which really can't be conflated. Now I'm not saying here that Bongi is guilty (I can't be arsed typing Mbonambi all the time) and it really wouldn't surprise me if the confusion over some Afrikaans terminology is how things happened. My thoughts though are, and leaving aside any sensationalism from the UK press, is that normally staid, toe the line stakeholders like the RFU and Borthwick are not just pissed off but have come out strongly and said as much. These people do not stick their heads over the parapet on a whim. Are they pissed off with Bongi or are they pissed off that WR have not investigated the issue fully - I'd say the latter, but that is just my view of things.
As an aside if it turns out that Bongi IS guilty of the racial slur, it should be remembered that it is the actions of an individual and not a team, let alone a nation.
Check my post above where I tried to explain why it bites deeper.
And re my bolding - I can understand you guessing, but the RFU know that it does.
I didn’t expect the RFU to soberly apologize for the damage its bullshit has caused and to examine its inherent biases and affirm that celebrates the boks ongoing success in fighting racism. They’re a bag of rancid ratKants. I’d hoped for better from Borthwick. But incentives when you’re under pressure are bloody difficult to resist.
I do hope for better from ferners. WR conducted a thorough investigation looking at all available evidence including footage, audio and evidence from both teams. Borthwick, Curry and the RFU got their chance to put their best foot forward and couldn’t produce sufficient evidence to merit putting it before a disciplinary panel.
As Tim explains clearly here (link text, WR conducted an investigation according to its protocols which determined there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges. Curry got due process. If he’d had an ounce of sense or reasonable advice he wouldn’t have sought it, but having done so the sensible course was to apologize and commit himself to examining his own prejudice.
I’ve got some sympathy for him.
But bugger all for Borthwick and the RFU who knew they were making an inflammatory, stigmatizing allegation, all the more so because of SA’s racist history and what this team and Bongi represent to South Africans working to overcome that awful legacy. They also must’ve known there was a good chance Curry was mistaken.
So while we should and must deal with all discrimination, given the obvious frailties in the evidence, it was cynical to push it in the first place given how little was actually at stake for Curry.
This was hardly a Rosa Parks (or William Wilberforce meeting the PM under an Oak) type of moment. A man who fought his way to the pinnacle of his sport through the structural racism of SA rugby from Bethlehem’s townships calling an Old Oundelian a white fluffybunny just doesn’t register as derogatory.
Anyway, I’m off to go relax in a gentleman’s way whilst watching the 36-0 game, or maybe the scrums from the 2019 final. Who am I kidding? Won’t take any longer than Pollie’s kick on Sat that got this whole shameful episode started.
And here in a nut shell, is the bullshit hypocrisy of the 21st century. Cynical to report it, disgusting of Borthwick and RFU shouldn’t make a fuss because of South Africa’s legacy, doesn’t matter anyway as Curry is white etc etc.
Refreshing lack of kant. Kant blame you for being afraid to consider any other kants of view. Especially given the Kant inviting you to give it a go.
-
This thread is highly illuminating.
-
@Duluth said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
Why not just admit your first post was incorrect and move on? No one gives a shit
My reading of it seems to be.
-
I thought long and hard about replying and picking on what is clearly and understandably a very raw scab. I have also considered the "this pissboiling storm in a fine bonechina heirloom teacup" comment and further wondered whether to reply.
Anyway, wine has been drunk and reason is the innocent victim, so...
I did take on board your previous post and had hoped that I'd conveyed that but maybe I fell short - apologies if that is the case. It is difficult as an outsider to really understand what goes on in another country, you can have a view but it is not a lived experience view.
I've looked at your argument and tried to take the emotion out of it and I guess where we differ on this is our interpretation of the process that has taken place. If we consider our own biases then on the one hand WR has undertaken an independent review and has found insufficient evidence to take Bongi to task. On the other hand we have a view that WR has not undertaken a proper review and has not taken direct testimony from either Bongi or Curry despite protestations from the England camp. Now I - and I'm guessing you and everyone else on here does not know the truth of this either way. The link you provided from Tim's text is just a tweet, an opinion piece and the view anyone would take from that is dependent upon which part of it they wish to believe.On the one hand WR had their due process, on the other hand England feel they did not get due process. Again, neither me, you or anyone else here really knows.
Looking at the posts on here in regard to this issue I don't think anyone is hanging Bongi out to dry in any respect. I am certainly not. However I agree with you that is not up there with Rosa Parks or Wilberforce and much is being made of it, maybe too much, but this is the world we now live in. What we should expect though is clarity and consistency and clearly, England and Borthwick feel very strongly that we have not seen this. Maybe they're right and maybe not. Openness from WR would clear this up. Well at least I hope it would.
Anyway old chap enjoy the re-watch of the 36-0 game, I think I must be a little older than you as I'm going to re-watch the November 2002 match...
Totsiens!
-
@Catogrande said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Billy-Webb said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
The big question is why the RFU are doubling down. Could be that they're still salty about the SF, but they really have zero to gain from doing this. Before I was firmly in the camp that it there was nothing in it and that Curry should have focussed on the biggest game of his life and not bad words hurting his feelings. Now I not so sure. Again, why double down?
We're talking about the RFU here.
Not really the paragon of a thoughtful well run organization with a bunch of geniuses at the top of late are they?Whilst I agree with you view on the RFU, what makes me wonder is that they have effectively broken ranks with the status quo and that is not really in their DNA.
That's what intrigues me. If it were Comical Eddie I'd say he was shit-stirring. But Borthwick doesn't strike me as a bloke to play games.
-
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Billy-Webb said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
The big question is why the RFU are doubling down. Could be that they're still salty about the SF, but they really have zero to gain from doing this. Before I was firmly in the camp that it there was nothing in it and that Curry should have focussed on the biggest game of his life and not bad words hurting his feelings. Now I not so sure. Again, why double down?
We're talking about the RFU here.
Not really the paragon of a thoughtful well run organization with a bunch of geniuses at the top of late are they?Whilst I agree with you view on the RFU, what makes me wonder is that they have effectively broken ranks with the status quo and that is not really in their DNA.
That's what intrigues me. If it were Comical Eddie I'd say he was shit-stirring. But Borthwick doesn't strike me as a bloke to play games.
Certainly not rugby!
But yeah, he’s a straight up sort of bloke and as I’ve alluded to previously, the RFU aren’t known for rocking the boat, more sit back, drink the gin and it will all blow over sort of thing. For both to come out as strongly as they have, there must be a perceived grievance. Whether that is lack of due process or a belief that Bongi is a serial offender I don’t know. But something ain’t right.
If it is related to Bongi, I’m thinking that it would be an issue but it might be getting over inflated. But maybe that’s my age showing.
-
@OomPB said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
"we don’t live in a world where race based insults are accepted, on that basis they should all be treated the same with the same level of commitment to investigation."
Are you saying race base insults are accepted in South Africa?
No I’m saying that in this day and age we (and especially South Africa) don’t accept race based insults.
I’m also saying that race based insults aimed at white people seem to carry less risk than the other way around and that if Bongi was white and Curry was black the level of controversy would be way higher.
-
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
Interesting what a cynical media strategy can do. The RFU’s statement does misleadingly insinuate that Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story.
But he did have the opportunity to do so. The RFU statement says so of you parse it carefully. We know he was interviewed because the RFU says that Curry told WR about the alleged Nov 22 abuse. Which tracks with WR’s statement that it took evidence from both teams.
So how has Curry been denied the opportunity to tell his story?
Well, only because the evidence (including Curry’s testimony) is too weak to reasonably bring a misconduct proceeding against Mbonambi.
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Catogrande I’m glad you engaged.
I’m probably telling you stuff you already know, but it looks like the matter was referred to WR’s disciplinary officer by the match Citing Commissioner, as they’re entitled to do where they think it’s more appropriate for WR to deal with it.
Under WR reg 18 WR’s discipline officer with the assistance of the CC are fully empowered to take whatever investigatory steps they deem fit to determine whether any alleged misconduct needs to be brought before a disciplinary panel. Players, staff, broadcasters and unions are required to cooperate with them.
Curry & Co got the chance to put their evidence before the DO. It just didn’t convince them. From WR’s press release:
“ Any allegation of discrimination is taken extremely seriously by World Rugby, warranting a thorough investigation. Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams, the governing body has determined that there is insufficient evidence at this time to proceed with charges. Therefore, the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light.” link text
And yet the RFU have suggested Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story of what happened. That’s weird no? Either weird that he didn’t have the opportunity, or that he did and they claimed he didn’t.
Interesting what a cynical media strategy can do. The RFU’s statement does misleadingly insinuate that Curry wasn’t given the opportunity to tell his story.
But he did have the opportunity to do so. The RFU statement says so of you parse it carefully. We know he was interviewed because the RFU says that Curry told WR about the alleged Nov 22 abuse. Which tracks with WR’s statement that it took evidence from both teams.
So how has Curry been denied the opportunity to tell his story?
Well, only because the evidence (including Curry’s testimony) is too weak to reasonably bring a misconduct proceeding against Mbonambi.
So has he or has he not been interviewed about why he said what he said to the ref?
-
@Catogrande does he strike you as an ALL CAPS user? Or the gin guzzlers either for that matter?
-
@Smuts said in RWC SF: England v Springboks:
@Dodge He was. The RFU say so. They just don’t like the DO’s assessment of his testimony.
The more interesting question is why did the RFU put out a statement that left reasonable English supporters confused.
Where does it say that? I’m not disagreeing, I just don’t understand where it’s been said he’s had his voice heard?
-
It obviously doesn't need to be explained that this is an ultra, hyper sensitive issue. There are appurtenant and reasonable questions to ask about why the English camp are putting their neck out like this. Simply slagging them off with accusations of sour grapes and manipulating the press is pretty damn weak.
