should fury be removed from bbc sports personality of the year?

received a email this morning petitioning that tyson fury be removed from the above award to his homophopic views and rants.

im torn on this one, think on a sporting level what he did against wlad would put him as my favourite, but thats purely sporting reasons. but then this person has rightly been offended by some of what tyson has said. should the bbc remove him? after all the award is strangely named personality of the year and its not the greatest of advertisement some of what tyson has had to say. or you do just take tyson spouting it as nonsense to increase his profile and strum up some interest.

should this person be ignored and let the sport do the talking, i mean ali was given a big award by the bbc and all he had to say wasn't exactly PC, dont remember too much fuss given back then.

over to you lot convince me

No he shouldn't it's a sports prize and we are supposed to have freedom of speech anyway..

Don't agree with what he said but I believe he has the right to say it..

PC gone crazy again..

Are they going to strip the likes of Gazza and Ryan Giggs for their subsequent transgressions?

Tiger Woods? Lance Armstrong? Carl Lewis?

6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Others have been nominated despite distasteful things being said/done So really it comes down to your own feelings. Personally think Fury should get the nod as he upset the applecart big time and on a purely sporting achievment (Would Hamilton, Rooney, Bale etc have great personalities) don't think it can be beat.

hazharrison wrote:Are they going to strip the likes of Gazza and Ryan Giggs for their subsequent transgressions?

Tiger Woods? Lance Armstrong? Carl Lewis?

the likes of gazza and giggs made poor life choices not statements about gay people going to hell, having a agenda and making a mistake are two very different things

same with woods, but most have taken armstrongs titles away

Very true it's hardly comparable to Giggs and the other guy.

Freedom of speech is still relevant to this argument...

Let the public decide.

freedom of speech only goes a certain when it comes to the media and celebrities truss, if a celeb started spouting all that isis nonsense i dont think it would be entitled to freedom of speech as he's preaching murder. furys homophopic remarks are a bit more murky but still the message is wrong to anyone with a brain

Scottrf wrote:Let the public decide.

for a start the bbc need to rid of the personality name of the award, it just causes confusion. if its a sporting award then i think fury should win it.

He wouldn't win it anyway. but I think he should still be allowed on the shortlist.

I don't agree with his views, but he as done something amazing as a sportsman.

Let people not vote for him then !!

Don't be denying me my right to vote for someone because a minority thinks it is the right thing to do..

I would vote for him. He did something, when many said he hadn't a prayer. Not a pretty fight, but a deserved winner. Britain hasn't had many Heavy champs, especially undisputed.

I always thought the "personality" part was just an elaborate way of saying "person"? i.e. "sportsman of the year" would be considered sexist. Maybe not, but the personality of the guy winning it doesn't ever really come into it.

On the debate itself, I'm a bit torn. On one hand freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but has obvious limits, and IMO Fury has quite clearly crossed the line: comparing gay people to paedophiles is hate speech, and dangerous considering the abuse the LGBT community has suffered from over the years. Having said that, the award is about sporting prowess, and in sporting terms Fury's remarkable win over Wlad clearly earns him a spot. The problem comes whether, should he win, you are then giving him the platform to air his hatred views.

I think on balance, I would leave him in.

I think Fury deserves to win it based on his sporting achievement against the odds, also the fact that he's one of the few people on the shortlist with a personality.

People may jump on the bandwagon and vote for him just to urine off 'the man'. Like when random people started voting for Corbyn and Rage Against the Machine for xmas number 1.

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. There is a long, long list of exemptions including abusive/insulting behaviour, anything intended to cause distress or offence, incitement to hatred, corruption of public morals...

Let's not pretend to defend a right that he doesn't actually have.

Although on purely sporting terms, he deserves to be shortlisted. HW champ of the world... he has to be in there.

lambertm100 wrote:I think Fury deserves to win it based on his sporting achievement against the odds, also the fact that he's one of the few people on the shortlist with a personality.

People may jump on the bandwagon and vote for him just to urine off 'the man'. Like when random people started voting for Corbyn and Rage Against the Machine for xmas number 1.  

What song did Corbyn collaborate with Rage against the Machine on?

Rightly or wrongly Fury is entitled to his opinions, whether or not people agree or disagree with them, so no he shouldn't be removed.

Great achievement from Fury when many (myself included) gave him no chance of beating Klitschko.

Scottrf wrote:

lambertm100 wrote:I think Fury deserves to win it based on his sporting achievement against the odds, also the fact that he's one of the few people on the shortlist with a personality.

People may jump on the bandwagon and vote for him just to urine off 'the man'. Like when random people started voting for Corbyn and Rage Against the Machine for xmas number 1.  

What song did Corbyn collaborate with Rage against the Machine on?

F*ck Tha Police

Least it won't be that royal horse rider no one had heard of...I voted for her horse it was better to look at it and had more personality !!

Should be a great interview between Claire Balding and Fury. Doubt Fury cares or even wants to win this.

As heavyweight champion of the world he should be elligable for sports personality. People can choose whether to vote for him or not after that.

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Are they going to strip the likes of Gazza and Ryan Giggs for their subsequent transgressions?

Tiger Woods? Lance Armstrong? Carl Lewis?

the likes of gazza and giggs made poor life choices not statements about gay people going to hell, having a agenda and making a mistake are two very different things

same with woods, but most have taken armstrongs titles away

devout catholic. does that mean we ban them all?

3fingers wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Are they going to strip the likes of Gazza and Ryan Giggs for their subsequent transgressions?

Tiger Woods? Lance Armstrong? Carl Lewis?

the likes of gazza and giggs made poor life choices not statements about gay people going to hell, having a agenda and making a mistake are two very different things

same with woods, but most have taken armstrongs titles away

devout catholic. does that mean we ban them all?

i was brought up catholic and dont remember the preists teaching hate to me, lunatics can always take meanings out of a book thats been doctored for the wrong reasons just look at isis. but im pretty sure thats not the basis of catholic faith

People tend to take their political and religious leanings from their parents though don't they......

You seem very sensitive on this topic Compy..You won't be offended If I enquire whether you're gay ??

i dont mind, no im not gay. i actually not against fury being up for the award. just saw the email this morning and thought it was a intresting point, played devils advocate abit but a sports award should be about sport, but can certainly see why gay people wouldnt be happy about him winning it

I won't bother asking you out then...

It is an interesting topic and whilst I understand people not being happy about it.

I'm very anti censorship..

Can you play devil's advocate about going to hell?

It's one of those things, you can know someone and think they're an ok guy, then they come out with something that's so removed from your values you're forced into a rethink.

Over time I've concluded that it is actually be possible to be likeable and generally decent but hold some prehistoric views on sexuality/race whatever. Often it's just upbringing, background etc. In this case we're seeing religion as the reason, he was from traveller fighting stock so that might play a part (billy Joe Saunders and his team were making schoolboy homophobic comments about Eubank being from Brighton etc)

Bottom line is, such views don't have a place in this country in the 21st century, whatever the excuse.

Maybe nominating him will highlight that. It's going to generate debate. 

It's the biggest pile of junk of backslapping tosh anyway. I gave up watching it the year they managed to get personality and Nigel Mansell in the same sentence, never mind on the same trophy.

Politically correct liberal extremists are destroying our society, At school you are tight sticks and stones can break bones but words don't hurt, and for most of the part that is very true.  Freedom is the right to offend and the right to stick your two fingers back at people who offend, not speaking your mind because it offends does not remove the thoughts or desires to say those thoughts, it creates more resentment and division. And sometimes a tease or jibe actually makes things less tense and serious, even if a little ignorant sometimes..

He should be front runner for personality of the year for not being a robotic politically correct media prostitute.

What a load of old crap, you can't believe a single word of that?

it's possible to like characters who speak their mind, to think we live an overly political correct nanny state... and still think that being vocal about bracketing homosexuality with paedophilia is blatantly offensive.

not sure i'd call his rant a tease or a jibe

compelling and rich wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Let the public decide.

for a start the bbc need to rid of the personality name of the award, it just causes confusion. if its a sporting award then i think fury should win it.

you're taking it too literally. it's never been about the personality so why all this confusion now? it's a word they used instead of having to call the award 'sports man or woman of the year'

40,000 people are supposed to have signed the petition to have Fury removed from the award shortlist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3344957/Tyson-Fury-entitled-rest-say-thinks-based-achievements-shouldn-t-banished-SPOTY-shortlist.html

I would leave him on the shortlist but then I'm not the target of his comments. I can easily see how some could be offended though.

I'd expect nothing less in this day and age Atila where we have people complaining the likes of Air conditioning is sexist as is certain words.

We've become far too sensitive on everything and whilst what he said wasn't very nice/PC or decent. Leave him in the vote and let the actual public decide.

He's a prat for saying it but think it would be better to try and educate him (and others) on why it's wrong rather than shut them down completely

He shouldn't be allowed simple as. He didn't make a throwaway comment, he made a point and then expanded on it. Eloquently. He's a homophobe. Or at least believes that the presence of homosexuals is a precursor sin to the rapture, on par with pedophilia.

A person has a right to their opinion, which is why he wasn't arrested on the spot for saying what he said. But that doesn't mean a person with a backwards view on society should essentially not only be given a platform to preach the gospel according to homophobes but then also be made to feel that publicly shaming a large portion of the population has no bearing on how he is perceived

He seems to be a rather close-minded man. If a 2,000 year old book says x is wrong, then x is wrong, and there is no deviation from that - that is his opinion and outlook.

Remove him for that? No. Just no.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of old crap, you can't believe a single word of that?

I edited it so it was shorter...

milkyboy wrote:it's possible to like characters who speak their mind, to think we live an overly political correct nanny state... and still think that being vocal about bracketing homosexuality with paedophilia is blatantly offensive.

not sure i'd call his rant a tease or a jibe

Its only offensive if you don't get the whole idea of whats being said.

Defending Gay rights is completely fine and of course they should not be pigeon holed in the same place as pedos...

But thats not really the case, its more a case of certain bodies who have been defending Gay rights also move painfully close to defending the rights of pedos. And this is only when the two connect, on the political spectrum not the moral or social one.

Teresa May recently stated that she would have no problem with convicted pedos post sentence working with Children. this is all due to lobbying from certain ultra liberal movements who are sympathetic to pedos.
Or that labor women (cant remember her name) saying there was no evidence pedo victims suffer damage, and she also tried to slip in laws that would bring the age of consent down to 10.

Seems to me Tyson, while not very tactful and politically careful in how he points it out, knows thats going on here.

That being said Im sure you get bigots who eagerly lump the two together and do not bother to read between the lines, not sure Tyson is one of the those though.

so tunes, if i'm interpreting what you're saying correctly... it's about context, he was arguing that people are defending paedophilia and implying that they might legalise it. He used legalising homosexuality and abortion as examples of things that in earlier times people would never have believed would happen.

Let's buy that, as just a slightly deranged example delivered in a, 'the devil is coming and the world will end soon' rant. It's this bit that's the problem, likening abortion and homosexuality to paedophilia...

‘There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries,'

That was the context Tunes. He connected the dots. I've always found Fury's dingbats persona mildly entertaining, I'm certainly no hater. No defending his comments I'm afraid.

They should allow him to remain in the running and then announce how many votes he's received. We can then see just how many supporters there are of a bi-polar, homophobic cretin who threatens to have a person's jaw broken and head stamped on. Fury's claiming to have been misquoted in the Mail yet it seems the recording of the conversation has emerged and, as annoying as some people find Oliver Holt, it appears he hasn't misrepresented Fury at any stage.

To be fair Dave, you've offered to do far worse to people on here... 

DAVE667 wrote:They should allow him to remain in the running and then announce how many votes he's received. We can then see just how many supporters there are of a bi-polar, homophobic cretin who threatens to have a person's jaw broken and head stamped on. Fury's claiming to have been misquoted in the Mail yet it seems the recording of the conversation has emerged and, as annoying as some people find Oliver Holt, it appears he hasn't misrepresented Fury at any stage.

But he smiles and takes photos with people so must be a nice guy!

milkyboy wrote:To be fair Dave, you've offered to do far worse to people on here... 

And I've yet to be nominated for a prize...it's a bloody fix!

I nominate you as a prize w*nker Dave, does that count?

In lieu of any better offers Milky, I'll take it!

This could be a great opportunity for Tyson to turn up with a bunch of gay people and poke fun at himself.

He said something that is completely ignorant and shouldn't be defended for the statement but hopefully since the comments someone has educated him enough for him to now feel differently.

We've all said stuff in the past that we don't believe any more, just because your in the public eye it shouldn't be held against you forever.

I once stated that Simon Cowell is responsible for the music industry being a pile of crap and that he is a completely untalented w4nker, one day I may not think this is true.

huw wrote:This could be a great opportunity for Tyson to turn up with a bunch of gay people and poke fun at himself. LEWIS HAMILTON WILL BE THERE

He said something that is completely ignorant and shouldn't be defended for the statement but hopefully since the comments someone has educated him enough for him to now feel differently. HE'S ALREADY BEEN FINED BY THE BBBC FOR HOMOPHOBIC COMMENTS MADE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. HE CLEARLY HASN'T LEARNED

We've all said stuff in the past that we don't believe any more, just because your in the public eye it shouldn't be held against you forever. I'M SURE ROLF HARRIS WOULD AGREE

I once stated that Simon Cowell is responsible for the music industry being a pile of crap and that he is a completely untalented w4nker, one day I may not think this is true.

I VERY MUCH DOUBT IT

I myself was brought up in the Catholic faith. The Pope answers to my mum!

Seriously though, the Church has had a lot of bad s..t, (could write a book) but it definitely does not preach hate.

AdamT wrote:I myself was brought up in the Catholic faith. The Pope answers to my mum!

Seriously though, the Church has had a lot of bad s..t, (could write a book) but it definitely does not preach hate.

Certain parts don't preach tolerance though do they? Even one of the original 100+ Commandments is "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

Leave her in the forest with her cat and her cauldron and go about your day, sir

The whole thing is a money racket. Politics and religion's are crooks and gangsters.

DAVE667 wrote:

AdamT wrote:I myself was brought up in the Catholic faith. The Pope answers to my mum!

Seriously though, the Church has had a lot of bad s..t, (could write a book) but it definitely does not preach hate.

Certain parts don't preach tolerance though do they? Even one of the original 100+ Commandments is "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

Leave her in the forest with her cat and her cauldron and go about your day, sir

depends how you look at the bible. my family were of a denomination I forget which believes that for all intents and purposes, the Teachings of Jesus + the 10 Commandments are basically the gospel. Most mainstreams versions of Christianity are generally New Testament heavy. Some take the words of ST. Paul to be a part of the Gospel, others take it to be a mere colouring in of the founding years of Christianity