Marcus Bignot

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Quoted from darren9

I can’t believe the amount of blokes on here condemning the other party for not being lady like or for starting the abuse or whatever. She called him a sharp object. It’s an unpleasant term but one that’s used often and probably heard during most games. There’s clearly a degree of misogyny in that we don’t like “our women” to use bad language. But that’s another discussion for another time.

If the Bignot had responded in kind. Called her a girl private or similar then it’s just a touch line bust up. But he didn’t. He responded with a homophobic comment.

It’s established in the laws of the game that homophobic comments aren’t allowed. There isn’t a sliding scale of “it’s not that homophobic” it’s just not allowed. Bignots comments were demonstrably homophobic and he’s been rightly punished.

Quoted from darren9

I can’t believe the amount of blokes on here condemning the other party for not being lady like or for starting the abuse or whatever. She called him a sharp object. It’s an unpleasant term but one that’s used often and probably heard during most games. There’s clearly a degree of misogyny in that we don’t like “our women” to use bad language. But that’s another discussion for another time.

If the Bignot had responded in kind. Called her a girl private or similar then it’s just a touch line bust up. But he didn’t. He responded with a homophobic comment.

It’s established in the laws of the game that homophobic comments aren’t allowed. There isn’t a sliding scale of “it’s not that homophobic” it’s just not allowed. Bignots comments were demonstrably homophobic and he’s been rightly punished.

Still provocation.
If Bignot had said his first, and she second, total different skew.
I think she was laughing all the way after. Getting like East Germany and thought police.

Quoted from darren9

I can’t believe the amount of blokes on here condemning the other party for not being lady like or for starting the abuse or whatever. She called him a sharp object. It’s an unpleasant term but one that’s used often and probably heard during most games. There’s clearly a degree of misogyny in that we don’t like “our women” to use bad language. But that’s another discussion for another time.

If the Bignot had responded in kind. Called her a girl private or similar then it’s just a touch line bust up. But he didn’t. He responded with a homophobic comment.

It’s established in the laws of the game that homophobic comments aren’t allowed. There isn’t a sliding scale of “it’s not that homophobic” it’s just not allowed. Bignots comments were demonstrably homophobic and he’s been rightly punished.

Punished by losing his livelihood?  If someone called you a sharp object in a highly charged situation you would be able to think of the carefully worded, correct response at all times would you?

Its pathetic that two individuals who both used obnoxious terms about the other results in the aggressor getting off scot free, whilst Bignot faces an uncertain future. There has to be some leeway given for retaliation in a heated debate surely?

If he walks into her office and uses such a term then he would be fired. To use it in an argument which he didn't start is a different thing altogether.

Gov.uk gives details of “protected characteristics as follows;

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation


As you can plainly see sexual orientation is on that list.

It matters not who “started it” (because we’re not on the playground) or what the nasty person said. What matters in this case is that Bignot used an insult based on the other persons protected characteristic (their sexual orientation) and therefore his language was discriminatory. He hasn’t been punished for being obnoxious or aggressive. He’s been punished for being discriminatory.

Regarding my own personal opinion on this affecting his livelihood. My own belief is that he should be educated and rehabilitated. I think that’s what the fa have decided in this case with being ordered to attend a face to face education course along with his touchline ban. It is his employer who has decided to sack him. I don’t know why as the statement from Birmingham doesn’t really explain it. But he’s free to seek employment elsewhere and he should be allowed to do so.

The facts are that Bignot was called a sharp object. If he had responded by calling the other party a sharp object then there wouldn’t be an issue. He didn’t he responded by attacking a protected characteristic which isn’t allowed in UK law. He’s therefore been punished.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

If someone called you a sharp object in a highly charged situation you would be able to think of the carefully worded, correct response at all times would you? .

I probably don’t have the quickness or wit to come up with a carefully worded, correct response. But I also wouldn’t attack a protected characteristic because I’m not a Big(n)ot

See what I did there? I bracketed the n in the name Bignot to read Bigot. Maybe I do have a quick wit, though it has taken me a few hours to come up with it.

Tbh in a highly charged situation if I was called a sharp object I’d probably just cry because I’m a snowflake. Either that or Id mutter “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?” I’ve always had success with that before.

Quoted from darren9

Gov.uk gives details of “protected characteristics as follows;

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation


As you can plainly see sexual orientation is on that list.

It matters not who “started it” (because we’re not on the playground) or what the nasty person said. What matters in this case is that Bignot used an insult based on the other persons protected characteristic (their sexual orientation) and therefore his language was discriminatory. He hasn’t been punished for being obnoxious or aggressive. He’s been punished for being discriminatory.

Regarding my own personal opinion on this affecting his livelihood. My own belief is that he should be educated and rehabilitated. I think that’s what the fa have decided in this case with being ordered to attend a face to face education course along with his touchline ban. It is his employer who has decided to sack him. I don’t know why as the statement from Birmingham doesn’t really explain it. But he’s free to seek employment elsewhere and he should be allowed to do so.

The facts are that Bignot was called a sharp object. If he had responded by calling the other party a sharp object then there wouldn’t be an issue. He didn’t he responded by attacking a protected characteristic which isn’t allowed in UK law. He’s therefore been punished.

Yeah I'm no PC type but I can see why they've sacked him for what he's said. For a start how would any lesbian players or staff working for Birmingham women feel if they had to work with him knowing what he's said and feeling he us prejudiced against them.

However I do thinkbthe point made about the female who called him a sharp object not being punished is still perfectly valid. This was NOT a law court, debating language around the above law, it was an FA tribunal reharding breach of the improper and abusive language rules. She has also breached the improper and abusive language rule with her use of the word sharp object. Not as severely as him definitely but she has breached it. Of course normally if they both used that word nobody complains and it wouldn't be an issue but the fact she has chosen to make it an issue means her behaviour needs to be examined also, that's justice.

In order for justice to be seen to be done and in the interests of being seen as a fair and impartial body the FA really has to find her guilty as well here. She has broken the rules too. A small fine for her would suffice but justice has to be impartial. I think if roles were reversed and a man had started the exchange by calling a woman a 'f---y' in this situation he would definitely find himself being fined at the very least.

He’s been sacked for breaking the law and no doubt committed gross misconduct according to their HR policies.

You can cryarse all you want about her starting it or whatever but if his go to, his natural response is racist/homophobic/sexist or whatever then he’s not fit to do the job (he’s a flipping charlatan anyway).

I’ve been called significantly worse than a sharp object by kids I work with; by staff I work with in various situations but I haven’t responded with racist/homophobic/sexist and so on language…

Quoted from darren9

Gov.uk gives details of “protected characteristics as follows;

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation


As you can plainly see sexual orientation is on that list.

It matters not who “started it” (because we’re not on the playground) or what the nasty person said. What matters in this case is that Bignot used an insult based on the other persons protected characteristic (their sexual orientation) and therefore his language was discriminatory. He hasn’t been punished for being obnoxious or aggressive. He’s been punished for being discriminatory.

Regarding my own personal opinion on this affecting his livelihood. My own belief is that he should be educated and rehabilitated. I think that’s what the fa have decided in this case with being ordered to attend a face to face education course along with his touchline ban. It is his employer who has decided to sack him. I don’t know why as the statement from Birmingham doesn’t really explain it. But he’s free to seek employment elsewhere and he should be allowed to do so.

The facts are that Bignot was called a sharp object. If he had responded by calling the other party a sharp object then there wouldn’t be an issue. He didn’t he responded by attacking a protected characteristic which isn’t allowed in UK law. He’s therefore been punished.

The problem we’ve got is that we are entering a very black and white world when it comes to discrimination. It’s either discriminatory - racist, sexist, homophobic or it’s not. But these things are nuanced; there are varying degrees of offence, and yet the starting punishment is invariably some considerable way up the scale.

Was what Marcus Bignot said homophobic? It’s difficult to argue a case that it wasn’t, but I have to question whether his actions caused a level of harm to the victim, commensurate to the loss of his job and probable ending to his career.

And I do get the bigger picture, by the way. I get that it’s much bigger than hurt feelings. It’s about the pain, disadvantage and inequality that homophobia, racism, sexism cause on a much broader scale. I get that it’s easy for me to say its an overreaction, when I am a straight, white man - about as easy as it gets as a demographic in this country.

Archaic attitudes need stamping out for the benefit of everyone, not least those who are subject to discrimination. But in getting there, we need to remain sensible. There’s a danger that we allow the pendulum to swing that bit too far, and that we remove spontaneity from our daily human interactions, through an over-sensitive fear of offending.

Not because you intend to say anything offensive but because, in real time, it’s difficult to know where the line is and therefore the easiest way not to cross it is to not say anything at all. It can stifle the open sharing of ideas, and constructive criticism. It can suffocate humour and dull the atmosphere.

In summary, what I am not saying is that the world should not try to become a better, fairer, kinder, more loving world. Who, except sociopaths, wouldn't want that?

What I am saying is that there needs to be a degree of understanding that the world is on a learning curve. For at least 40 of Marcus Bignot’s 47 years, his comments would have raised few eye brows. In treating every misstep as evil, and worthy of such punishment, we in fact risk making the world an irreversibly poorer place to be. Kinder, perhaps. But beige and inauthentic too.

Bignot....

Anyone over 21 wearing skinny fit jeans akin to Max Wall trousers deserves sacking.

No sympathy from me.

I lived in an era when the comedy ' Love Thy Neighbour ' was very popular, it was funny and nobody took offence. The PC brigade had yet to be born.