Off The Ball - Is it good?

[Hendo]

9 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

It was, aye, and in that time Bartley has made regular media appearances on Sportscene and the like - shows with their own threads on this forum, giving you plenty opportunity for you to stress your concerns about Bartley's character. Yet the only times you have brought them up was when Bartley was in the news for speaking in support of Glen Kamara (who in turn was being targeted by the Czech government for having reported Ondrej Kudela's racist insults), you went wild in the Livi thread with that. Then the other time is now, again at a time when Bartley is in the news for speaking out on racism. 

It's almost like you weaponise Bartley's conviction as a way to dismiss the "uppity Black man" who's speaking out about racism. It's almost like you see strategic benefit in making the antiracism activist themself the issue rather than the racism they're trying to highlight. I doubt you have an alternate candidate to Bartley you can suggest to the SFA and I'm also sceptical any succesor to him wouldn't face similar pushback from you anyway.

Nice deflection. I shouldnt really have to justify my own record on this, but as you've seen fit to make a personal attack on me, here goes.

In the 90's, I challenged some wee ned Saints supporter for shouting racist abuse at Richard Cadette in a game v Falkirk and got him banned. I challenged Saints fans at Ibrox who racially abused Tugay, raised it with stewards who said I had the problem. More recently, I challenged Saints fans at Cappielow for racially abusing Jai Quitongo, and recieved abuse from other Saints fans for doing so. 

Back in the 80's and 90's I helped organise anti racist and anti facist demonstrations every St Andrews Day.  So dont fecking come on here and insinuate I am racist, simply because I point out the cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to challenge all forms of discrimination when they have a criminal conviction for threatening a woman, an act for which he has never apologised.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Nice deflection. I shouldnt really have to justify my own record on this, but as you've seen fit to make a personal attack on me, here goes.

In the 90's, I challenged some wee ned Saints supporter for shouting racist abuse at Richard Cadette in a game v Falkirk and got him banned. I challenged Saints fans at Ibrox who racially abused Tugay, raised it with stewards who said I had the problem. More recently, I challenged Saints fans at Cappielow for racially abusing Jai Quitongo, and recieved abuse from other Saints fans for doing so. 

Back in the 80's and 90's I helped organise anti racist and anti facist demonstrations every St Andrews Day.  So dont fecking come on here and insinuate I am racist, simply because I point out the cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to challenge all forms of discrimination when they have a criminal conviction for threatening a woman, an act for which he has never apologised.

Who you say you are is a wasted type and read as nothing is provable in an anonymous forum context. I can only go on your comments here. Bartley's criminal conviction only seems to be an issue you care about when he is in the media speaking out on racism. It's only on those two occasions you've brought it up. You've also compared him to Jimmy Saville. Like Cowan, you seem to prioritise attacking antiracism activists over supporting antiracism efforts. Bartley's conviction had been discussed at length in this thread long before you showed up in it. You're not providing the prescient moral clarity you think you are.

[Guest]

Now we're stuck on the topic of Bartley, though, I'll give my take. He demonstrably has a (criminally) nasty streak in him. Or at least did until the the event of his crime. He may have corrected that character flaw since, I've no idea. So having that conviction certainly does not make him the ideal candidate for the SFA role he was given. However, he must've been perceived to be the best candidate available by who appointed him. Of course, it's possible there weren't many other candidates as it's unlikely that SFA role is an especially sought after one. Not when high profile media figures publicly accuse you of lying just for carrying it out. 

[Hendo]

8 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Who you say you are is a wasted type and read as nothing is provable in an anonymous forum context. I can only go on your comments here. Bartley's criminal conviction only seems to be an issue you care about when he is in the media speaking out on racism. It's only on those two occasions you've brought it up. You've also compared him to Jimmy Saville. Like Cowan, you seem to prioritise attacking antiracism activists over supporting antiracism efforts. Bartley's conviction had been discussed at length in this thread long before you showed up in it. You're not providing the prescient moral clarity you think you are.

I didnt compare Bartley to Savile - I made a comparison between those like you who praise Bartley's very good work calling out racism but choose to ignore other aspects of him that undermine his anti discriminatory views, such as his conviction, similar to those, many in the establishment, who for 4 decades spoke highly of Saviles charity work while ignoring his child abuse (admittedly an extreme example but hopefully you follow the point).

Bartley was absolutely right to call out racism, as I have always done when i've heard it, and Cowan was over the top in his response, and who knows it may have been due to personal issues between him and individuals. I had hoped there could have been a more nuanced debate however about whether an SFA equality advisor should be allowed to have a conviction of the nature Bartley has, however sadly that appears to be lost on some here.

I would think the perspective on it may unfortunately differ depending if you are male or female.

[Hendo]

20 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Now we're stuck on the topic of Bartley, though, I'll give my take. He demonstrably has a (criminally) nasty streak in him. Or at least did until the the event of his crime. He may have corrected that character flaw since, I've no idea. So having that conviction certainly does not make him the ideal candidate for the SFA role he was given. However, he must've been perceived to be the best candidate available by who appointed him. Of course, it's possible there weren't many other candidates as it's unlikely that SFA role is an especially sought after one. Not when high profile media figures publicly accuse you of lying just for carrying it out. 

If a candidate had a conviction for a racially aggravated offence, could they have been appointed equality officer? What about someone convicted of a homophobic hate crime? Is abusive behaviour towards women viewed in football as a lesser crime that is acceptable?

Its about time the ethics, or lack of them, in football was scrutinised. 

Goodwillie is the perfect example. Raith rightly called out for his signing, dont play him, send him back to Clyde, another outcry, again rightly - but he'd been playing for them before that for 5 years without comment! Totally bizarre.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Hendo

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Hendo said:

I didnt compare Bartley to Savile - I made a comparison between those like you who praise Bartley's very good work calling out racism but choose to ignore other aspects of him that undermine his anti discriminatory views,

I don't "ignore other aspects" to Bartley and you know I don't because we interacted in the Livi thread a year or so ago discussing Bartley's conviction. I also commented on it in this thread back when Cowan's social media posting about Bartley began.

 

5 minutes ago, Hendo said:

If a candidate had a conviction for a racially aggravated offence, coild they have been appointed equality officer? What about someone convicted of a homophobic hate crime? Is abusive behaviour of women viewed in football as a lesser crime that is acceptable?

Bartley was convicted of threatening and abusive behaviour which is not a gendered crime and therefore not a discriminatory crime. If folk want to argue his actions were sexist then I'm sympathetic to that, I think they probably were, but the law didn't judge them so.

The problem with what you do is you only want to have this debate at a time when Bartley is speaking on racism. You need to recognise that is the worst time to have it. If there were countless other SFA advisors on racist incidents at football matches all raising the same issues publicly then great, Bartley's voice wouldn't be needed. But while his remains the lone voice, as it is now, then pick any other time of the year to discuss his past personal conduct. Don't keep picking the times he's speaking out on racism. And don't wield it in defence of Tam Cowan's Pinocchio emojis against him for highlighting a racist incident.

[Hendo]

2 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

I don't "ignore other aspects" to Bartley and you know I don't because we interacted in the Livi thread a year or so ago discussing Bartley's conviction. I also commented on it in this thread back when Cowan's social media posting about Bartley began.

 

Bartley was convicted of threatening and abusive behaviour which is not a gendered crime and therefore not a discriminatory crime. If folk want to argue his actions were sexist then I'm sympathetic to that, I think they probably were, but the law didn't judge them so.

The problem with what you do is you only want to have this debate at a time when Bartley is speaking on racism. You need to recognise that is the worst time to have it. If there were countless other SFA advisors on racist incidents at football matches all raising the same issues publicly then great, Bartley's voice wouldn't be needed. But while his remains the lone voice, as it is now, then pick any other time of the year to discuss his past personal conduct. Don't keep picking the times he's speaking out on racism. And don't wield it in defence of Tam Cowan's Pinocchio emojis against him for highlighting a racist incident.

The reason I raise it at times when he speaks out on racism is because its hypocritical for him to say he challenges all discrimination when there is this rather large elephant in the room that he's never spoken about. If someone else without his baggage was doing this, it wouldnt be an issue.

I work in social work - if I had received the conviction Bartley has, i'd lose my job and be struck off. You cant appoint someone with that record to the post of equality advisor.

[diegomarahenry]

8 hours ago, Clown Job said:

He’d be the first to call out racism mind apparently *
 

  Reveal hidden contents

*Unless it’s his mate doing it to get a cheap laugh

 

3 full days of commenting about how much you don't like Tam Cowan on here.  it's not healthy. 

[BFTD]

10 hours ago, houston_bud said:

He's never come across that way to me. I've always thought him a pretty decent guy, he's done a lot to help raise money for worthy causes.

Maybe the reason for the odd attack on Bartley was because of Eilidh Barbour. To be honest that makes it even stranger for me. He's not a stupid guy, why get involved in something as sensitive as that because you don't like someone's other half?

Surely that defence is more of a red flag now!  

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Hendo said:

The reason I raise it at times when he speaks out on racism is because its hypocritical for him to say he challenges all discrimination when there is this rather large elephant in the room that he's never spoken about. If someone else without his baggage was doing this, it wouldnt be an issue.

Indeed but there isn't a someone else at this moment. The Jair Tavares incident only came to the attention of the relevant people because Bartley publicised it. The pushback antiracism activists face, especially when Black, is significant. They face constant accusations of bad faith by random idiots and sometimes by media figures. Taking on such a role is an extra burden in someone's life that few people want. Maybe if we looked to curb this pushback they face then antiracism roles could become less stressful and more perfect candidates than Bartley would apply for them.

 

58 minutes ago, Hendo said:

You cant appoint someone with that record to the post of equality advisor.

The SFA would need to answer this but my guess is lack of alternatives.

[Ray Patterson]

The BBC will publicly consider the matter closed as another one (see Steven Thompson's Instagram post this evening) arises.

They won't do or say anything for a few months before dropping TC and possibly Cosgrove at the end of the season and bringing in some younger presenters for next season, probably Ray Bradshaw and Amy Irons - who both seem to be flavour of the month at Pacific Quay.

[Guest]

I don't think any type of official punishment is helpful in response to episodes like this. I'd rather someone just privately explained to Cowan why his social media posts were damaging to antiracism efforts. I'd also say this for Michael Stewart and his comments on the Glen Kamara - Ondrej Kudela incident (which were mentioned earlier in this thread). Get someone who knows what they're talking about to privately explain it to him. 

The vast majority of times its an honest ignorance behind these wrong-headed words or actions rather than genuine malicious intent. However, if someone still maintains their original position even after an intervention, then it'd obviously become a problem at that point.

[SlipperyP]

Poor show Tam, that apology was rather disappointing.

As a father of mixed race children and have racism in our lives, I thought  you could have sounded better.

We move on with my head shaking as always.

If you want to PM me, I'm more than happy to tell you stories of my son in tears.

Sad day for OTB

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by SlipperyP

[Rugster]

5 hours ago, Ray Patterson said:

The BBC will publicly consider the matter closed as another one (see Steven Thompson's Instagram post this evening) arises.

They won't do or say anything for a few months before dropping TC and possibly Cosgrove at the end of the season and bringing in some younger presenters for next season, probably Ray Bradshaw and Amy Irons - who both seem to be flavour of the month at Pacific Quay.

Thompsons account is private. What’s happened?

[houston_bud]

5 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

I don't think any type of official punishment is helpful in response to episodes like this. I'd rather someone just privately explained to Cowan why his social media posts were damaging to antiracism efforts. I'd also say this for Michael Stewart and his comments on the Glen Kamara - Ondrej Kudela incident (which were mentioned earlier in this thread). Get someone who knows what they're talking about to privately explain it to him. 

The vast majority of times its an honest ignorance behind these wrong-headed words or actions rather than genuine malicious intent. However, if someone still maintains their original position even after an intervention, then it'd obviously become a problem at that point.

I'm guessing someone already has. Given what Cowan said about needing to he 100% accurate before making an accusation about racism (I'm not sure that's how accusations work, but anyway) we'd be forgiven for believing that he thinks the accusation of racism is as bad as the racism itself. 

If someone was to privately explain to him, I'm not convinced he'd be that open to the idea he'd done anything wrong. I don't know the man, so I'm maybe being unfair.

I was disappointed with Cosgrove over all this. Surely he sees the issue and would have wanted to challenge it on air?

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

 Get someone who knows what they're talking about to privately explain it to him. 

As usual, there's plenty of experts on here. Martin Luther King would get his info from Pie and Bovril.

[Shandon Par]

Smacks of a lack of control at the BBC. Maybe underfunding? Really don’t think Cosgrove and Cowan should be taking potshots at Aluko and Richards from their show. Craig Levein the other day was allowed to pick a song from a favourite terrace chant so picked the “All Hibees are gay” one. Sacked in the morning had Colin Hendry on. The BBC are meant to be helping promote women’s football yet have another convicted woman-terroriser on the airwaves. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, Shandon Par said:

Smacks of a lack of control at the BBC. Maybe underfunding? Really don’t think Cosgrove and Cowan should be taking potshots at Aluko and Richards from their show. Craig Levein the other day was allowed to pick a song from a favourite terrace chant so picked the “All Hibees are gay” one. Sacked in the morning had Colin Hendry on. The BBC are meant to be helping promote women’s football yet have another convicted woman-terroriser on the airwaves. 

You've changed your tune...Vichy!

[Shandon Par]

26 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

You've changed your tune...Vichy!

Did a course on changing your ways at Napier.

[Arab_R_us]

55 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

As usual, there's plenty of experts on here. Martin Luther King would get his info from Pie and Bovril.