Is this a sacking offence?

[d9f1c7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-oxfordshire-16511735
Do you think sacking is a little harsh here? No idea what he said but no doubt it was some off the cuff remark that someone has taken offence at.

[VHG]

How can we comment when we have no idea what the person said in his "tweet".

As an extreme example he may have said "All gay people should be killed" which would probably be a sackable offence.

But until we know we cant comment.

[Ankou]

"I wouldn't fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas"

presumably summink to do with big brother.

'The Oxford City board have decided to release Lee Steele in view of his recent comment via social media which is considered seriously contrary to the ethos of the club.'

their decision, why should we care ? it sends the right message that homophobia in any form will not be tolerated in football, or in their club.

[Philtaz]

I am still yet to fathom why anybody but particularly those more in the public spotlight than others feel the need to put write down just about every waking thought, daily activity, comment and opinion in print for the rest of the world to view.

When will sportsmen, politicians and wannabe 'celebrities' learn?

[Philtaz]

More details about what he tweeted here, VHG:

http://uk.eurosport.y...homophobic-tweet.html

[Nibble]

Ankou, 'fraid your excerpt from his tweet missed HIS objectionable words, I'd back his club for their stand. We could check, but I prefer not to sully my eyes with his stupidity.

However, twitter, FB, and others are notifiable sources for the media, hence he had to be sacked.

[jno]

Steele tweeted: 'I wouldn't fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmya**e'

Fool. Deserved what he got.

[ludwig]

// Oxford City Manager Mike Ford said they had no option but to dismiss the striker. //

Not strictly true. They also had the option to not dismiss him. He is an idiot, but it seems a bit harsh.

[Canary42]

The guy's ignorant, especially with the "padlock my @r5e" remark - far more ana1 intercourse goes on amongst hetereosexual couples than homosexual ones.

[Gromit]

I have no idea who this Steele person is, but this seems like the club have been desperately waiting for the feeblest excuse to sack him (or anyone else for very little reason).

If it were a fellow footballer who he might meet on the pitch, then it might be a problem. But a comment about someone in another sport, who everyone knows is Gay, then this is surely not a sackable offence.

Is "Padlock my ar5e" homophobic? If the Rugby player had said he was alcoholic, and Steele had tweeted "Padlock my drinks cabinet' would that have been any different? Would that have been a sacking offence?

I suspect if Steele had been any good, they would not have been so eager to reduce their wage bill.

[Philtaz]

I disagree Gromit. By his tweet, Steele has implied that if he were alseep in the same room as Gareth Thomas that Thomas would doubtless attempt penetrative sex without his consent.

Casting such aspersions smacks of homophobia, so why Steele decided to make those thoughts public is beyond belief.

[jno]

Gromit, I think the distinction is between accusing someone of being a thief and of being a rapist. Neither is pleasant; but the second allegation would be widely seen as very much more serious.

[flip_flop]

Crass? Yes.

Homophobic? No.

Didn't deserve to be sacked for this 'offence'.

Philtaz wrote "Steele has implied that if he were alseep in the same room as Gareth Thomas that Thomas would doubtless attempt penetrative sex without his consent"

He didn't imply anything of the sort. His remark was akin to "backs against the wall lads" It was meant to be humorous - it wasn't humorous, it was crass - but I don't think it was homophobic.

[anotheoldgit]

/// By his tweet, Steele has implied that if he were alseep in the same room as Gareth Thomas that Thomas would doubtless attempt penetrative sex without his consent. ///

That's rather taking it to it's extremes, almost like saying "we must get out one's foil helmet on" is suggesting we are close to WW3".

Have some lost all their sense of humour.

[emmie]

AOG, not funny though is it, aren't we supposed to be beyond the poof jokes, and racist humour.

[Philtaz]

flip-flop,

Would you care to elucidate on your 'backs against the wall lads' comment? I have my own ideas as to what it infers or the implications of it but I'd like to hear your explanation of it.

Or don't you realise that it is in exactly the same vein as Steele's tweet?

AOG,
Don't see your point. Implying that we may be close to war differs somewhat to inferring that one may be sexually assaulted by someone just by virtue of their sexuality, but you obviously see it differently. Fancy that.

[flip_flop]

Philtaz

Of course I realise it is in the same vein, which is why I used the word 'akin' to liken the two (I assume you missed the akin?).

I likened the two because both remarks are supposed to be humorous (which they are not) - both remarks are crass.

But these crass, unfunny remarks are not necessarilly homophobic, although granted it does depends on context of course.

In the context of the tweet, it is my opinion that Steele's comments were not homophobic, and the tweet most certainly does not imply, as you seem to think, that if he was sleeping next to Gareth Thomas he would be raped.

[jno]

afree with Philtaz.

[Philtaz]

In the context of the tweet, it is my opinion that Steele's comments were not homophobic, and the tweet most certainly does not imply, as you seem to think, that if he was sleeping next to Gareth Thomas he would be raped.
--------------------------------------------

So why would he feel the need to "padlock his @rse"?

Unless, as he implied, that Thomas might rape him?

Both remarks, by Steele and yourself suggets that once you enter a room where a known homosexual is present the likelihood is that you will be almost certainly be sexually assaulted.

[Philtaz]

...should read:

Both remarks, by Steele and yourself suggest that once you enter a room where a known homosexual is present the likelihood is that you will almost certainly be sexually assaulted.

[flip_flop]

"Both remarks, by Steele and yourself suggest that once you enter a room where a known homosexual is present the likelihood is that you will almost certainly be sexually assaulted"

It does nothing of the sort - your argument is a logical fallacy.

I'm out.