Gordon Strachan sad day.

[StephenH]

Sky need to take a look at themselves.
They do this to a good man who speaks up against all abuse and yet give a free pass to Carragher after his spitting.

Former Scotland manager Gordon Strachan will no longer be used by Sky Sports after controversial comments in which he appeared to conflate convicted sex offender Adam Johnson's situation with racial abuse.

 

[Moby]

Rest in peace, wee Gordon.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Sky need to take a look at themselves.
They do this to a good man who speaks up against all abuse and yet give a free pass to Carragher after his spitting.

Former Scotland manager Gordon Strachan will no longer be used by Sky Sports after controversial comments in which he appeared to conflate convicted sex offender Adam Johnson's situation with racial abuse.

I cant see there is any link other than verbal abuse, I abhor pedeophiles as they make a conconscious decision to commit terrible acts on children that will live with them their entire life and cant see how abuse of them can be compared with the abuse of an other human being based on the colour of their skin, which none of us have a choice in. If Johnston doesn't like it he knows what he can do. Anyway I cant stand Strachan at any price and I'm sure on his headstone it will say "That's what you think!" followed by "It weren't my fault"

 

[StephenH]

pedeophiles

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

 

[Moby]

I’ve just seen the video clip and genuinely have no idea what point he was trying to make.
I can’t tell if what he was saying was right or wrong, as I’m just head scratchingly confused!

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Fine so it would be ok if the girl was 11 or 12, too many people feeling touchy feely for pervs, Johnston is out of order and the sooner he fudges off the better, I'm sure there is a job on TV as a "victim".

 

[glasgowspur]

I think the point he is trying make is that you can't say that name calling is bad in one case but not in another.
He should have left the sex pest out of it, what if someone called Strachan a wee ginger jock? Although true all can be said to be abusive derogatory terms, but he'd be expected to laugh it off as banter.
If you want to eradicate it you need to educate, that starts with the young. Telling them that one set of name calling isn't allowed but another is won't work.
Tbh, I don't think you will ever totally kill it off. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Fine so it would be ok if the girl was 11 or 12, too many people feeling touchy feely for pervs, Johnston is out of order and the sooner he fudges off the better, I'm sure there is a job on TV as a "victim".

There can be some grey areas (not in Johnson's case though). The age of consent is 14 in France, 16 in the UK and 18 in America for example. Recently the straight and gay ages were still different in this country (gay men was 18), which is pretty ridiculous

To some extent age difference and power relations are more important that absolute age e.g. a couple of 15 year olds where one has a birthday a little while ahead of the other would never be prosecuted. Basically there needs to be some limited scope for context

 

[jts1882]

This seems like a clumsy attempt by Strachan to say all abuse of players is wrong. I doubt he was attempting to say the two cases are equivalent. He raises the question should any footballer be subject to abuse for crimes committed in the past after they have paid the penalty determined by the law. If we make exceptions, where do they stop?

Dumping him entirely seems an overreaction by Sky. Given their usual approach to the moral high ground I suppose they might have wanted him gone anyway and just used the opportunity.

 

[jts1882]

Fine so it would be ok if the girl was 11 or 12, too many people feeling touchy feely for pervs, Johnston is out of order and the sooner he fudges off the better, I'm sure there is a job on TV as a "victim".

He didn't say it was OK. He just gave the formal definition of paedophilia, which is the attraction to prepubescents. The terms for pubescent children are hebephilia (11-14) and ephebophilia (15-19). This doesn't excuse Johnson.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I think the point he is trying make is that you can't say that name calling is bad in one case but not in another.
He should have left the sex pest out of it, what if someone called Strachan a wee ginger jock? Although true all can be said to be abusive derogatory terms, but he'd be expected to laugh it off as banter.
If you want to eradicate it you need to educate, that starts with the young. Telling them that one set of name calling isn't allowed but another is won't work.
Tbh, I don't think you will ever totally kill it off. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I too think this was his point, badly made. But also badly timed I think, to try to broaden the racism discussion into something more abuse-generic at a time when it (the racism topic) is so high profile and gaining so much attention. I’d have preferred to see Sky take a more educative approach, somehow. Sacking Strachan only gives strength to the casual/sub-conscious racists who will just see this as someone getting shut down (sacked) for having an opinion.
Whilst any personal abuse is technically wrong, football treads a fine line and eradicating all abuse would very much change the match-going experience. Where is the line drawn as to what abuse is OK? Should calling the ref a w***** or a dirty player the c word be seen as abuse (not that I’d do either of course!) that should be eradicated? Or similar insults without the bad language. That’s a different discussion.
I think the starting point is differentiating abusing someone for something they have done (eg criminal offence) versus abusing someone for something they are (eg race). Not saying the former is right, but the latter is unarguably wrong.

(And on a more flippant note, to a non flippant subject matter, how unfortunate for Strachan that what he said could actually be understood this time!)
(And apologies if that is offensive to our Scottish posters but he does have a very strong accent).

 

[glasgowspur]

I too think this was his point, badly made. But also badly timed I think, to try to broaden the racism discussion into something more abuse-generic at a time when it (the racism topic) is so high profile and gaining so much attention. I’d have preferred to see Sky take a more educative approach, somehow. Sacking Strachan only gives strength to the casual/sub-conscious racists who will just see this as someone getting shut down (sacked) for having an opinion.
Whilst any personal abuse is technically wrong, football treads a fine line and eradicating all abuse would very much change the match-going experience. Where is the line drawn as to what abuse is OK? Should calling the ref a w***** or a dirty player the c word be seen as abuse (not that I’d do either of course!) that should be eradicated? That’s a different discussion.
I think the starting point is differentiating abusing someone for something they have done (eg criminal offence) versus abusing someone for something they are (eg race). Not saying the former is right, but the latter is unarguably wrong.

He undoubtedly picked a bad example, probably the worst he could have.
In the climate of the day there is no good example, even if he had said wee ginger jock he would have been pilloried for equating what is construed as a harmless bit of fun to racism. It would be easy for him to say the usual bland statements of condemnation and it would have all just drifted into oblivion, instead he has tried to make a point that could in the long run help and keep the conversation going and been vilified for it.