Comments on: Here we go again… http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/ Thoughts of Antonia, Labour activist and feminist in Oxford Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:39:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Paul Burgin http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2167 Paul Burgin Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:15:06 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2167 For me, this issue is not to do with sexuality, it's to do with the fact that someone has been accused of engaging in sexual romps with others when that someone is engaged to be married. Whether that is heterosexual or homosexual activity, the fact remains that people have been hurt and offended by these accusations and for what I think is good reason! For me, this issue is not to do with sexuality, it’s to do with the fact that someone has been accused of engaging in sexual romps with others when that someone is engaged to be married.
Whether that is heterosexual or homosexual activity, the fact remains that people have been hurt and offended by these accusations and for what I think is good reason!

]]> By: Tim Roll-Pickering http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2165 Tim Roll-Pickering Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:48:52 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2165 Surely the principle in a libel trial is to determine if a "reasonable" person would think less of someone because of what is stated. Leaving aside the cheating angle, the court basically has to determine if homosexuality is accepted in society (not whether it should be but whether it is) to such an extent that a reasonable person would not consider this a slur. This is a hypothetical case that has been debated by many and this could be the answer. Surely the principle in a libel trial is to determine if a “reasonable” person would think less of someone because of what is stated. Leaving aside the cheating angle, the court basically has to determine if homosexuality is accepted in society (not whether it should be but whether it is) to such an extent that a reasonable person would not consider this a slur. This is a hypothetical case that has been debated by many and this could be the answer.

]]> By: Lee http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2163 Lee Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:36:13 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2163 Consider for a moment that the footballer ISN'T gay. He has a girlfriend/partner/wife. Then a tabloid hints that he is gay. I think it would make people think worse of him because they would instantly believe the tabloid over the footballer (well that seems to be the trend in these situations: tabloid right, the person in focus is in the wrong) and so would think of him as a liar and fraud. However the footballer should just rise above it and say that they aren't gay (provided that they are not of course, I wouldn't encourage them to lie) and state that the paper is stupid and immature to say otherwise. So yes it could lead "reasonable" people to think worse of someone: spreading lies which people are too willing to believe will have that effect. But taking legal action just allows the paper to legitimise their claims. Consider for a moment that the footballer ISN’T gay. He has a girlfriend/partner/wife. Then a tabloid hints that he is gay. I think it would make people think worse of him because they would instantly believe the tabloid over the footballer (well that seems to be the trend in these situations: tabloid right, the person in focus is in the wrong) and so would think of him as a liar and fraud. However the footballer should just rise above it and say that they aren’t gay (provided that they are not of course, I wouldn’t encourage them to lie) and state that the paper is stupid and immature to say otherwise. So yes it could lead “reasonable” people to think worse of someone: spreading lies which people are too willing to believe will have that effect. But taking legal action just allows the paper to legitimise their claims.

]]> By: Tom http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2159 Tom Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:29:56 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2159 The point is it does not matter whether a footballer is gay or not. But if that footballer is worried that the making public of his sexuality could damage his career or reputation within the game then he is perfectly entitled to try and protect his privacy. The point is it does not matter whether a footballer is gay or not. But if that footballer is worried that the making public of his sexuality could damage his career or reputation within the game then he is perfectly entitled to try and protect his privacy.

]]> By: Sam http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2096 Sam Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:00:49 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/03/03/here-we-go-again/#comment-2096 The suggestion that he might be gay per se? I don't think so, not if you limit yourself to "reasonable" people. On the other hand, to suggest that someone is gay when he is known to be preparing for his marriage? That's the equivalent of claiming "$FOOTBALLER is a lying scumbag", which would certainly cause a reasonable person to think worse of him. Actually, I'm not sure - given the reported antics of many of our footballers, merely being a lying toerag might actually be a compliment :-) The suggestion that he might be gay per se? I don’t think so, not if you limit yourself to “reasonable” people. On the other hand, to suggest that someone is gay when he is known to be preparing for his marriage? That’s the equivalent of claiming “$FOOTBALLER is a lying scumbag”, which would certainly cause a reasonable person to think worse of him.

Actually, I’m not sure - given the reported antics of many of our footballers, merely being a lying toerag might actually be a compliment :-)

]]>