lads banter,or media lovie who wants attention,but he does seems to upset a few groups of people along the way.
Discuss........
He's an Irish Traveller. They have their views.
He's an Irish Traveller.
Born and raised in Manchester. Fights as British.
They have their views.
Yes, I imagine, they are a pretty homogenous group, all with the same views.
Il give him the K rematch where hel get panned... Then that new young fella Anthony Joshua......my God the speed and power for a big lad...
Born and raised in heysham..... Fights out of Manchester..... Heysham has a large traveller community.. Did you not see his cousins with him in the ring... Stereo type is underselling them
In an explosive ringside interview at one of his cousin Hughie’s fights he said those who had signed the petition were w**s and that his critics could “suck his bs.”
I'm not sure but he does sound a little confused, perhaps he's just looking for a nice man to hang out with....
I imagine its a mixture of banter, his religious views and "cultural" norms combined with the desire to be in the spotlight that combine to make him a non PC attention seeking troll/one of the lads/ gentle bigot as you see fit.
Personally I just see him as the next top gear host 😉
Jesus JY, he's not that bad.
Personally I just see him as the next top gear host
Lets hope for everyone's sake TG remembers to keep his meat warm.
Such a shame Klitschko was unable to rip him a new arsehole. Troll, media whore or genuine bigot - the world would be better off without him and his mouth in the limelight getting his 15 minutes of fame.
Personally I just see him as the next top gear host
Star in a reasonably priced cart.
Hopefully he'll get sparked out at the re-match.
Yeah, blokes just an arsehole to me.
If he gets anything out of spoty, it'll be a travesty.
Y'all just got sucker punch into a publicity stunt ...
So more money to him because his profile will be up now to drawn in more attention ...
Ya, y'all suckers! 😆
Can't see the problem. What happened to free speech? It isn't as if his views are all that outlandish.
Abortion for example. Last I heard abortion was against the law in Ireland in almost all circumstances. Homosexuality is considered a sin by some major religions.
I don't agree with him but he's entitled to his opinions.
"I'm not sexist. I believe a woman's best place is in the kitchen and on her back. That's my personal belief. Making me a good cup of tea, that's what I believe."
Thick as pigshit, misogynist, homophobe, racist and a bigot.
A mind like that belongs in the dark ages.
I don't agree with him but he's entitled to his opinions.
Quite, but by having those opinions the majority of right thinking people think he's a ****. Those people are also entitled to an opinion as you are seeing here.
What happened to free speech?
The thing about free speech is that he's free to say things and I'm free to think he's a complete ****.
HTH
He's an Irish Traveller. They have their views.
^^^^ This, ever seen "My big fat Gypsy wedding". Every thing he says is coloured by his upbringing and background. If you listen to him he says it's how he feels, not how everyone should feel. Just ignore him if he bothers you it's not difficult.
So at last Sports Personality of the Year will have a personality to vote for. Not by me though, its got to be Ms Armistead, though I reckon it'll Murray or Hamilton.
Fury's views are not so uncommon as some on STW think. It aint right what he said to me but I hear it often enough still (and worse).
I'm not sure but he does sound a little confused, perhaps he's just looking for a nice man to hang out with....
Lets hope for everyone's sake TG remembers to keep his meat warm.
well indeed
^^^^ This, ever seen "My big fat Gypsy wedding". Every thing he says is coloured by his upbringing and background. If you listen to him he says it's how he feels, not how everyone should feel. Just ignore him if he bothers you it's not difficult
Often referred to as tolerance and cultural diversity of course... though sometimes privileges like that only apply to the minority du jour.
Jeez. Did I just read that here of all places?
Being a traveller does not mean that holding those views is acceptable. I'm sure Jim Davidson and Bernard manning were bought up to have certain views, doesn't make it any less excusable than furys.
I find him a refreshing contrast to the media savvy politically correct dullness that's often out there. I also recognise some of his views will rightly be deemed unacceptable by many but a pinch of salt helps. Box office receipts will ultimately show whether his approach is profitable but I can't see Wlad beating him.
Being a traveller does not mean that holding those views is acceptable.
Acceptable to who? Either you have free speech or you don't. Are you saying the Pope's views on abortion or homosexuality are unacceptable? As far as I understand his views on some issues would be similar to Tyson Fury.
Saying a view is unacceptable is not saying he can't have it (or say it). He can expect to be called an arsehole for having some of the views he has by lots of people who are happy enough for him to speak his mind. It's quite a simple concept to understand. Hope that's clarified it for you irc.
EDIT: In fact, sometimes, I'm more then happy for arseholes to speak their minds. It makes it easier to tell who they are. As demonstrated daily on STW.
Freedom of speech isn't a right to an audience.
He can say what he likes. the rest of us can call him an obnoxious bigot who shouldn't be given the oxygen of publicity.
Very little time for him. I saw him fight in Belfast and it was like watching drunks in a pub car park. People were so bored they started rioting. Someone should tell the media boxing is dead.
Anyway, yeah he can say what he wants. I think he should definitely be allowed in SPOTY and be allowed to come last for being a prick.
I think the whole traveler thing is played up somewhat but if it is true his attitude is not surprising. In all my run ins with them I've found them to be horrible people. None of us would be effete intellectuals if we were raised in that culture.
Acceptable to who? Either you have free speech or you don't. Are you saying the Pope's views on abortion or homosexuality are unacceptable? As far as I understand his views on some issues would be similar to Tyson Fury.
Plenty agree with racism too. Is it acceptable to air those views as well? Plenty stick up for travellers when someone's having a pop, you'd think they'd know better.
I think the whole traveler thing is played up somewhat but if it is true his attitude is not surprising. In all my run ins with them I've found them to be horrible people. None of us would be effete intellectuals if we were raised in that culture.
Seen many a 'traveler' put down while gobbing off in prison, usually by some quiet, innocuous wee lad who's had enough of the shite they often spout about how 'hard' they are.
Plenty agree with racism too. Is it acceptable to air those views as well?
Yes. They'd be totally wrong and should be challenged on their views, but it is entirely acceptable to air those views.
Forgive me they are all like this fella just like all white english folk are like the EDL and all americans are like DOnald Trump I know better than refute that logic. 😕Plenty stick up for travellers when someone's having a pop, you'd think they'd know better.
Yes. They'd be totally wrong and should be challenged on their views, but it is entirely acceptable to air those views.
Imagine how some of these comments would go down now:
(not my title)
Forgive me they are all like this fella just like all white english folk are like the EDL and all americans are like DOnald Trump I know better than refute that logic.
You misunderstand, I am plying the logic that it's OK for Fury to hold these views just because he's a traveller (and apparently that's what they're like).
I have no idea what travellers are like or their beliefs, the only one I knew (fairly well) was a bit of a racist until he got a black girl pregnant. His racist brother disowned him, then he died. Actually they both died. There is no moral to that story.
He's well known around the area I live and work. Spoken to him a few times and this is the tip of the iceberg. Let's just say he's not the brightest button on the jacket. Also he's a very strange man, as are the people around him.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/father-of-boxing-champion-tyson-fury-853780
Grim.
It does not come as a [i]complete[/i] shock to me that a heavyweight boxer from a traveller family who calls himself "Tyson Fury" has some rather retro ideas about women and gay people, to be entirely honest.
I just can't believe that no one has used the word 'Pikey'!
[i] Rockape63 - Member
I just can't believe that no one has used the word 'Pikey'! [/i]
Umm....
I've heard the reports, but I haven't heard or read his actual words on the issues of Women and homosexuals.
It's quite a sad thing to stigmatize someone for being homosexual. In my opinion you might blame someone for being attracted to someone of the same sex, as much as you might blame someone for the colour of their skin. To do so is utterly ridiculous.
Then moving onto remarks regarding Women. If he thinks that servitude is all a Woman is good for then I genuinely pity him for lacking the ability to see and understand just how much more a Woman can be and indeed, people in general.
Perhaps time will enhance his views of life and his opinions about his fellow Human beings, is the best we could hope for.
[url= http://attitude.co.uk/watch-bbc-news-anchor-calls-tyson-fury-a-dkhead-live-on-air/ ]It's a knockout[/url]
Whats his position on dags?
A fellow hits another fellow's head harder than the other fellow hits his, and suddenly we turn to him for views on what sort of society we should live in?
The only surprise is that we got an answer that was in any way intelligible.
I just can't believe that no one has used the word 'Pikey'!
I'll choose to focus on the paradox of that statement, which I quite like, rather than the actual reasons, since they've been done to death many, many times before (summary: same reason other racist epithets don't get used much). That you choose to introduce the word perhaps says something about you, but otherwise, imo, adds nothing at all to the discussion.
I'm feeling a bit weird about this one - as one of the "lefty hand wringers" always up for challenging stigma on here (see my copious previous posting history on stigmatising the travelling community for instance) there's a big bit of me that's inclining towards that old "disagree with everything you say but fight to the death to defend your right to say it" cliche.
People are allowed their views, even "old-fashioned" ones and he (or whoever scripted it) gave an explanation of where he was coming from on 'homophobia' which, from the viewpoint of someone who abhors discrimation and prejudice, doesn't believe in God(s) and actively objects to much that organised religion brings to the world, nevertheless finds me reacting with something close to "fair enough, you're entitled to that view, although I vigorously disagree":
I didn’t say I hate homosexuals. Let’s make this clear. My Lord and my saviour is Jesus Christ. All he teaches is love. He didn’t come here to persecute homosexuals, myself and everybody else. Let’s not try to make me out to be an evil person, because I don’t hate anybody. Tyson Fury only has love for the world.I don’t think gay people are like paedophiles. Two adults consenting to love each other is a different matter to someone messing with a child. There’s lots of sins in this life. We’re all sinners. If you don’t believe in God and you don’t believe in the scriptures then we are on a different page.
At the end of the day, he seems to be saying, not always very well (but since when did eloquence become a prerequisite of sportspeople?), that he sincerely believes that homosexuality is sinful - a view which many in his religion agree. Others (including Christians) propose with varying degrees of vigour that this implies a duty to "do something" about it, which can vary from violent murder to not letting them stay in your B & B. Fury, however seems to stop short of this, and that is imo a crucial distinction - his recognition that (in his belief system) we are all sinners is a crucial context that people are, maybe deliberately, missing: yes he referred to paedophiles and homosexuals as sinners in the same context, but he also refers to himself as a sinner, so then he's "equating" himself with paedophiles and homosexuals then, if we're using the same logic that's calling for his removal from SPOTY etc.
By all means call him out on his views - he seems quite willing to be tackled and give his side of things, and by engaging in debate we all benefit, but "banning" him from a made up award from a telly station is silly and counter-productive.
Though I hate to say it, the one thing that really, really bothers me about Tyson Fury?
He talks about himself in the third person.
Ben Cooper would never do that.
bencooperThough I hate to say it, the one thing that really, really bothers me about Tyson Fury?
He talks about himself in the third person.
Ben Cooper would never do that.
The main thing Jimjam dislikes about Tyson Fury is that he's called "Tyson" Fury. To associate him with an actual boxer of such skill and ferocity is to piss on Iron Mike from such a great height as to be unforgivable. He should called Seamy McDonagh Stokes and that's all jimjam has to say on the matter.
Does anyone on here not think that their views might just be very similar to his if they had had his background?
The answer isn't to ban him from airing his views, it's better to give him the chance to be publically challenged, I'd love to bring Anthony Clare back from the dead for an episode of In the Psychiatrist's Chair.
avdave2 - MemberDoes anyone on here not think that their views might just be very similar to his if they had had his background?
I've already made that point and yes I believe we would.
Some sanctimonious sod was banging on about this on the radio yesterday saying that as 'A Role Model' he shouldn't be saying these things.
Eh? Role model? When did he get elevated to this status? I presume at the same time as premiership footballers?
This is clearly cobblers. If you went round the country and asked who they considered as role models, I doubt you'd get many takers for boxers or footballers, except for other reasons than boxing or football.
I don't think these people asked or expected to be role models. They don't want to be, and nobody outside the media considers them as such. So its a total nonsense. A completely bloody ridiculous misnomer
At the end of the day its a free country and he can say what the bloody hell he likes. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But he's not inciting violence against people. Far from it. He's going out of his way to say thats not the case, while sticking with his views.
I think this says a lot more about the people who are using this as a platform to high-handedly and self-righteously denounce him, than it does about him. At least he's being honest. Most of the usual PC suspects are just promoting their own cynical opportunistic agendas, from what I can see.
I did have a thought that maybe he should run for American SPOTY. He'd be a shoe in!
I did have a thought that maybe he should run for American SPOTY. He'd be a shoe in!
I'd of thought Vice President might be a better option, it's just finding someone suitable to run as President with similar views might be tricky.
You don't have to like it.
You don't have to keep giving him airtime either.
Why not? He's as entitled to his opinion as anyone else?
Theres no shortage of people criticising him.
He's been given a platform to answer them. Thats how free speech works.
It really annoys me this attitude of supporting free speech, until someone says something I don't like
He's been given a platform to answer them. Thats how free speech works.
It really isn't. Free speech is not putting someone in jail for saying something. It's not freedom to get airtime.
It really annoys me this attitude of supporting free speech, until someone says something I don't like
So how come he should have freedom of speech to say the stuff in the first place, but people shouldn't be allowed to give their honest opinion of what he says? 😕
I think this says a lot more about the people who are using this as a platform to high-handedly and self-righteously denounce him, than it does about him. At least he's being honest. Most of the usual PC suspects are just promoting their own cynical opportunistic agendas, from what I can see.
It really isn't. Free speech is not putting someone in jail for saying something. It's not freedom to get airtime.
Don't be ridiculous! Thats exactly what it is. Or should be!
He's answering his many critics. Its a debate. Whether you like it or not. You can't just shut down one side of an argument by depriving them of a platform, just because you don't agree with it. Thats anything but free speech!
His views on homosexuality and abortion, while not yours or mine, are representative of a section of society. They're perfectly entitled to hold these views and to voice them. You don't like them? You don't agree with them? So what! It doesn't make them any less valid
Therefore they have as much right to airtime as people who hold the opposite views. You can't start giving people airtime dependent on whether you agree with them or not. That isn't free speech at all.
Thats Fox News 🙄
He's answering his many critics. Its a debate. Whether you like it or not. You can't just shut down one side of an argument by depriving them of a platform, just because you don't agree with it. Thats anything but free speech!
So when someone says 'I don't think Tyson Fury should be on SPOTY' - surely that's them expressing their opinion using freedom of speech, and even though you don't like it, you defend their right to say it?
Otherwise you're just dealing in a somewhat hilarious level of irony/hypocrisy.
Well the BBC have called it...
So when someone says 'I don't think Tyson Fury should be on SPOTY' - surely that's them expressing their opinion using freedom of speech, and even though you don't like it, you defend their right to say it?
And where have I said that anybody shouldn't be allowed to say anything. I'm saying the opposite. They can say what they like. But in this case they're demanding something. They're demanding that a person whose sporting achievements put him up as a candidate for an award, is put out of the running for that award because he holds views that differ from theirs.
His views aren't illegal. His views don't incite violence. His views are shared by other people. Whether you like it or not
He's not being judged on his views. This is an award that supposedly about sporting achievement. His views on abortion are of no relevence.
If you don't like him. Vote for someone else. Start a campaign for other people to as well. We could call it something? How about democracy? Thats got a catchy ring to it!
But in this case they're demanding something.
Or in other words - saying things.
Things that you don't like. Things you seem to think they shouldn't be saying - just like other people think about what Tyson Fury has said.
Honestly your argument has zero logic to it whatsoever.
This is an award that supposedly about sporting achievement.
Well it has the word 'personality' in the title so not just about sporting achievement. I also find it amazing that people get so het up about such a meaningless popularity contest.
I also find it amazing that people get so het up about such a meaningless popularity contest.
Well at least we agree on something then
the Man's a dickhead, But he's not high up on my list of things to get wound up about TBH.
Therefore they have as much right to airtime as people who hold the opposite views.
Okay, I hold opposing views. So I have as much right to airtime as Tyson Fury?
He's had several hours on the TV, loads of newspaper and website articles, and is being invited to a televised awards evening. Do I have a right to the same coverage?
I just love it that the people who support free speech so much are normally the ones that say people cannot air an option when it is different to theirs. Having people air their views publicly is good as it makes you realise what work still needs to be done in society. We also need to understand that vast vast parts of the world do not agree with our views and what we say and do is not always best for the rest of the world. Look at our version of democracy, it doesn't also ways work in all other countries and cultures. We might wish it did, but it doesn't.
I love it when people mix up "free speech" with "broadcasters' obligation to broadcast speech".
People can say whatever they like, broadcasters aren't obliged to broadcast it.
They're perfectly entitled to hold these views and to voice them. You don't like them? You don't agree with them? So what! It doesn't make them any less valid
So a hate filled Nazi* [ not tyson obv just an example] who preached deaths to homosexuals has views just as valid as mine.. I beg to disagree
As for the other I have not noticed [ though not read the entire thread] anyone saying gag him/ stop him ever speaking. Folk have just said an opinion about what he has said which is perfectly valid.
* i am really not saying he is a Nazi it was juts a counter to Binners views that all views from Ghandi to ISIS from Hitler to Nelson Mandela From Thatcher to not Thatcher are all equally valid... they are not though folk are able to express them.
I just love it that the people who support free speech so much are normally the ones that say people cannot air an option when it is different to theirs
We've been through this.
Okay, I hold opposing views. So I have as much right to airtime as Tyson Fury?
Correct. Thats how it works.
You're getting it now, this free speech thing. Good innit?
I just love it that the people who support free speech so much are normally the ones that say people cannot air an option when it is different to theirs.
STraw man 🙄 - why do people keep repeating this falsehood?
You are just making stuff up here. NO one is saying he does not have free speech we are just exercising our right re what he has said.
Free speech may entail folk disagreeing with what you said...I know stunning revelation eh 🙄 However i think anyone who disagrees with me can suck my balls though which, I assume, is the way we express our respect for free speech
So a hate filled Nazi* [ not tyson obv just an example] who preached deaths to homosexuals has views just as valid as mine.. I beg to disagree
Thats called incitement to violence, and is illegal. So no. Not as valid. As it might well involve going to prison
I read that Dyson were having to rethink the name of their new 'most powerful yet' vacuum cleaner.
They felt the Dyson Fury was going to be a tough sell in certain demographics.
Thats called incitement to violence, and is illegal. So no. Not as valid. As it might well involve going to prison
Agreed so we have established not all opinions are equally valid. Cool
I dont disagree with your broad point* and the "traditional working class" fella can air his views just like we can air them about what we think of the god bothering pugilist
* can we please avoid the right to not be offended bit of this debate 😉
Correct. Thats how it works.You're getting it now, this free speech thing. Good innit?
Great, so how do I get the BBC to give me equal airtime to Tyson Fury?
You could tweet them?
They'd probably pay more attention if you'd just won a world title, in front of a global audience of millions, or something. They're funny like that
Ah, so free speech is contingent on how famous I am?
Not really an equal right then, is it?
[i]how do I get the BBC to give me equal airtime to Tyson Fury? [/i]
become world champion in a sport that gets wide media coverage?
Have a number one single?
Write a book?
lead a major political party?
What you're unlikely to get is air time *just* because you hold the opposite opinion to someone else who has other reasons to be in the media.
[edit] you're not asking for free speech, you're asking for equal distribution rights.
Okay, simpler example:
Do I have the right to be racist, sexist or homophobic on STW?
Is it infringing my free speech if I'm censored or banned from STW for that?
If Tyson Fury was a STW member, would he have the right to air his sexist or homophobic views on here?
'free speech is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of our democracy - I will defend it to the death, however unpalatable the views being expressed might be'
'unless they're saying Tyson Fury shouldn't be on SPOTY, that's just not on'
😕
Ah, so free speech is contingent on how famous I am?Not really an equal right then, is it?
Now you're struggling with 'rights' and 'expectations'
They're different
Now you're struggling with 'rights' and 'expectations'They're different
Yup. Anyone has a right to say anything (as long as it's not illegal). They don't have a right to expect airtime for their views.
They don't have a right to expect airtime for their views.
I doubt he asked for it. He's hardly actively saught out a platform for his views on homosexuality and abortion.
The mainstream media picked up the original remarks (after some digging, I'm sure) from some obscure website interview he did ages ago. Given the choice, I'm sure he'd rather there wasn't all the fuss, and probably regrets saying the things he said.
But once your opinions are 'The News', you have a right to reply
Carry on being indignant about your lack of TV coverage though, if you like
Ben, I've seen you on BBC television expressing your views.
Would I be right to set up a media campaign denouncing you and your business if I disagreed with you?