Lee Steele on Twitter

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:05 pm

Can't get a link to the story to work on the computer I'm on, but the basic gist is that Oxford City have sacked Lee Steele after he posted a comment on Twitter about the gay rugby player currently appearing on Celebrity Big Brother &quot....I wouldn't fancy the bed next to him....$padlock my arse....&quot.

A-Ro · Post by **A-Ro** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:05 pm

I cannot believe my eyes, BBC news has this story as a headline accompanied by pictures of Steele walking out onto the Kassam pitch in a United shirt.

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:30 pm

If he had been good value he would have stayed. Can't see much difference in what he typed as this young man did.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/401022 ... acism_row/

Kernow Yellow · Post by **Kernow Yellow** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:56 pm

&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:I cannot believe my eyes, BBC news has this story as a headline accompanied by pictures of Steele walking out onto the Kassam pitch in a United shirt.

It's still appearing as news on the League 2 page of the BBC football website. I reckon the only reason this is big news (currently 2nd most read article on BBC News website) is that most people can't tell the difference between Oxford City and Oxford United. Especially when the person in question has played for both.

This story perfectly illustrates the dangers of social networking sites. If Lee Steele had said the same thing to his mates down the pub, it's unlikely anybody would have been offended. Putting it on twitter is just ridiculous stupidity, as obviously there are going to be people that see it that will be offended. And it shows him in a bad light, even if he just meant it as a silly joke.

Given the publicity it has generated, I think City are well within their rights to sack him.

joepoolman · Post by **joepoolman** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:27 pm

I would have liked an option for Steele was bang out of order and derserved trouble but a sacking is a little harsh.

The Boys from Up the Hill · Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:13 am

I think the the story was heavily sensationalised in the Oxford Mail and Oxford City could have been justified in keeping him if they had wanted to. It's already been posted, but the situation is not dissimilar to the Sam Deering incident a few years ago or the racism rows in the Premier League at the moment.

But I do think City were right to sack him. For so long people have turned a blind eye to homophobia in football when in other areas of society it has become totally unacceptable and it's about time that it was dealt with. Certainly Oxford City come out of this with their reputation intact and it's put the issue of homophobia in football into the national headlines, so good on them.

pottersrightboot · Post by **pottersrightboot** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:35 am

I've had two friends text me to ask why 'we've' sacked Steele. I told them forcefully that I don't support a non-league team.

Were City looking for an excuse to sack Steele I ask cynically? He is 52 after all.

Nowhere near as serious as say the Julian Alsop banana assault incident.

Lame, schoolboy humour, that should have been followed up with an apology.

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

&quotpottersrightboot&quot wrote:
Lame, schoolboy humour, that should have been followed up with an apology.

Agree. Sacking too harsh.

slappy · Post by **slappy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:40 pm

Sacking seems very harsh for what was a silly tweet, when it could have been dealt with by a fine/distancing from the comments. It seems Lee Steele has made a joke repeating the the old cliche that all gay men are rampaging sexual predators who will screw any man available. Quite whether Gareth Thomas would even be interested in an over the hill semi-professional footballer is another question altogether.

However, Oxford City FC are very much more of a community club than OUFC, getting millions from funding and the council, and probably decided to play safe and sack him, rather than risk any of their income disappearing.

Yankee Clipper · Post by **Yankee Clipper** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:45 pm

I think Deering's tweet about the nurses was far worse if you factor in tone and intent. What Steele did was stupid and thoughtless. Worthy of a fine and severe reprimand but not the sack. I think City have seen an opportunity and taken it. I'm sure Gareth Thomas will be sad and disappointed when he learns that a fellow Sportsman has lost his job over this.

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:03 pm

&quotYankee Clipper&quot wrote: I'm sure Gareth Thomas will be sad and disappointed when he learns that a fellow Sportsman has lost his job over this.

I know nothing about Thomas, other than having accepted a place in the CBB house implies that he is interested in/willing to be associated with the cause of overcoming issues of homophobia in sport...

...as such, then an example being made of someone who indulges in the kind of attitude that is most likely present in most sporting dressing rooms - and as such, the kind of thing that he is keen to see become a thing of the past - may be exactly the kind of thing he was looking for....or at least the kind of talking point that he was after?

The only thing I would say for Deering over Steele is from an age/'worldly experience' perspective, particularly in terms of the &quotshould have known better than say such a thing on Twitter rather than privately&quot aspect.
If I remember correctly, Deering's comment was a direct reply to a question from a friend about whether he fancied the nurses, whereas Steele's is more of a general pronouncement to the Twitterati (or whatever these people are called)...which could be seen to justify the &quotSevere talking to || public apology&quot vrs &quotsacking&quot responses.

However, I think both pale into insignificance in relation to the Julian Alsop incident (which recently featured in a top ten 'outrageous incidents in sport' list widely shown on Yahoo) , for which sacking does not seem anywhere near enough!

Also saw a comment on another site that suggested that the OM is particularly pro-United and anti-City and that their reaction - beyond their standard spin anything to make a story - was somehow based in revenge for him scoring the winner for Orient all those years ago....?

SWA · Post by **SWA** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:38 pm

all those years ago?! It was only 5.5 mate!!

JoeyBeauchamp · Post by **JoeyBeauchamp** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:47 pm

If you allow morons (footballers) to use an Internet site designed for morons (Twatter) this is what happens

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:55 pm

&quotJoeyBeauchamp&quot wrote:If you allow morons (footballers) to use an Internet site designed for morons (Twatter) this is what happens

Twitter is the internet really. A free for all and ultimately just a big message board.

I think it was one of the england cricket management team who when asked about twitter said it was like giving a machine gun to a monkey, seems quite apt.

I have some sympathy for Steele, as it seemed a throwaway comment even if it did reveal some homophobia, but at the same time I think it's good for football clubs to lead the way on changing attitudes and what is acceptable and what isn't.

Dr Bob · Post by **Dr Bob** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:02 pm

For me it is the key similarity between Steele and Deering that is the worrying thing here - that there are people who espouse (in these cases) racist or homophobic sentiments, that are quite happy to do so publicly, and who see nothing wrong in it. The fact that it was made via Twitter rather than a chat down the pub is irrelevant. My opinion, for what it's worth, is such views are more widely in this country held than many people care to admit - and I think City were absolutely right to do what they did as an expression of just how wrong such views are.

Rage Online

Lee Steele on Twitter

What do you think about City's reaction?

Lee Steele on Twitter

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: