Rage Online

That last clause somewhat superfluous...

from Kelvin's statement on the club site Tuesday 30 December.

&quotI spoke to Sam in person .... he sincerely apologises to anyone offended by these comments and also to the supporters, management and his fellow players at Oxford United.&quot

Does that count as an apology? It seems to fit the bill to me. It would have made more impact if it was in the first person as a direct quote from SD, but there you go.

&quotScience Parker&quot wrote:The poll says withdraw the sponsorship unless he makes an apology. It seems he has made a private apology and also one on his facebook page. Moreover the club has also thoguht about educating younger players about racism

Except of course that there has been no apology and the club have said a line is being drawn under the matter, so no apology is forthcoming either. Thereby, the poll says withdraw sponsorship.

The poll has nothing to do with any actions that the club may or may not take and they should be educating younger players along these lines as a matter of course.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotScience Parker&quot wrote:The poll says withdraw the sponsorship unless he makes an apology. It seems he has made a private apology and also one on his facebook page. Moreover the club has also thoguht about educating younger players about racism

Except of course that there has been no apology and the club have said a line is being drawn under the matter, so no apology is forthcoming either. Thereby, the poll says withdraw sponsorship.

The poll has nothing to do with any actions that the club may or may not take and they should be educating younger players along these lines as a matter of course.

Another ignorant statement GY - see my post above.

An interesting take from Oxblogger:
[quote]I don’t think the Sam Deering is “a racist

[quote=&quotboris&quot]An interesting take from Oxblogger:
[quote]I don’t think the Sam Deering is “a racist

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotBrahma Bull&quot wrote:Well the poll seems to suggest that Rage Online sticks with the sponsorship, even with the response from Kelvin Thomas, based on Sam making a private comment and apology.

No the poll clearly says withdraw the sponsorship.

My opening paragraph would read true, if as I stated, Sam makes a private comment and apology.

I had dismissed the KT reference, on Sam's behalf, as I don't think that is an acceptable apology from SD. An apology should come from him directly.

&quotAn interesting take from Oxblogger:
Quote:
I don’t think the Sam Deering is “a racist

Well the KT reported apology from SD must have some basis. Even if it was along the lines of &quotthis is what the club will say on your behalf, do you agree or not? Also you are instructed to make NO further comment on the situation, whether in public or private or however&quot.

Or would you rather from the horse's mouth something like this &quotsoz wat i said on facebook, i was stoooooopiiiiiiddddd. lol&quot

(actually the latter would have been preferable to me - but is probably banned by the club as they called the matter closed)

I'm a long way away and jet-lagged, but I am not sure that I quite understand how being dim-witted excuses a phrase like &quotf**king pa#is&quot as not being racist. By implication, a significantly high proportion of the BNP and equivalent wouldn't be racist. And an, at best, second hand apology doesn't meet my relatively generous standards of contrition, either.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotScience Parker&quot wrote:The poll says withdraw the sponsorship unless he makes an apology. It seems he has made a private apology and also one on his facebook page. Moreover the club has also thoguht about educating younger players about racism

Except of course that there has been no apology and the club have said a line is being drawn under the matter, so no apology is forthcoming either. Thereby, the poll says withdraw sponsorship.

The poll has nothing to do with any actions that the club may or may not take and they should be educating younger players along these lines as a matter of course.

Another ignorant statement GY - see my post above.

I am already aware of KT's comments and your post above, and I still found it necessary to reply in the way I did, which should tell you that your post does not cut the mustard, and nor do KTs comments.

KT saying SD has apologised, is not the same as SD apologising publicly, or privately to those he has offended.

And so the poll says withdraw sponsorship.

And to reflect earlier comments in this excellent thread, apologies wouldn't be enough from SD.

You might see how ignorant you now look.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:Well the KT reported apology from SD must have some basis. Even if it was along the lines of &quotthis is what the club will say on your behalf, do you agree or not? Also you are instructed to make NO further comment on the situation, whether in public or private or however&quot.

Or would you rather from the horse's mouth something like this &quotsoz wat i said on facebook, i was stoooooopiiiiiiddddd. lol&quot

(actually the latter would have been preferable to me - but is probably banned by the club as they called the matter closed)

Neither, and slightly bizare that you feel the only option are one or the other and that one or the other might be acceptable. The words of KT are a PR excercise in the main.

Apology, contrition, education, action is what is required.

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:I'm a long way away and jet-lagged, but I am not sure that I quite understand how being dim-witted excuses a phrase like &quotf**king pa#is&quot as not being racist. By implication, a significantly high proportion of the BNP and equivalent wouldn't be racist. And an, at best, second hand apology doesn't meet my relatively generous standards of contrition, either.

No question that the comments were racist AC.

I think the distinction trying to be drawn is that there can be a difference between being a dimwit making an ignorant naive racist comment, and being a racist, and I would agree that such a difference can and does exist in some cases. Boris has for example indicated that such distinction applied to him in his youth.

The question I think we all need to know is whether that distinction applies to SD, and the apparent lack of apology and subsequent action doesn't help his case.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:from Kelvin's statement on the club site Tuesday 30 December.

&quotI spoke to Sam in person .... he sincerely apologises to anyone offended by these comments and also to the supporters, management and his fellow players at Oxford United.&quot

Does that count as an apology? It seems to fit the bill to me. It would have made more impact if it was in the first person as a direct quote from SD, but there you go.

Yes, unless he displays contrition either in public or private, in which case no
42% [ 12 ]

If the 42% who voted (for the above) felt that KT's statement on behalf of LSD is acceptable, then surely this is the majority view.

I think the issue of how this reflects on RO needs some consideration. Regardless of whether LSD is a racist or a dimwit, he made a very racist and offensive remark on what basically amounts to a public forum.

Surely as RO, and those who contributed sponsor money (I wasn't one), adopt a staunch anti-racism policy they will not wish to be represented by this person?

Perhaps, if the sponsorship is to continue, then RO may wish to consider making a press-release to confirm why. Something along the lines of 'we still support Sam as he is not a racist and is very sorry etc etc'. At least then if someone asks why the sponsorship remains then they can be pointed to the press release to save any future tricky questions.