Reader comments · Lee Steele apologises for ‘tongue-in-cheek’ Gareth Thomas tweet · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lee Steele apologises for ‘tongue-in-cheek’ Gareth Thomas tweet

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “…it did not mean he was necessarily homophobic.”

    No? How about his insinuation that, because Gareth Thomas is gay, he must be a rapist and wants to f*** every a***hole that comes within 2 metres?

  2. For goodness sake Pink News – what type of story is this?

    The headline is that “Lee Steele apologises for ‘tongue-in-cheek’ Gareth Thomas tweet”

    Yet there is no mention of what the apology actually states.

    I suggest this article either gets rewritten to reflect the headline, or else get the headline changed to reflect the article.

    1. @dAVID

      I did wonder what the content of the apology was …

      I can see the validity of the story – if the apology was included, otherwise I can’t see how this story adds to the reporting PN have already made …

  3. And by the way the fact that this elderly bigot (well he’s elderly for a footballer) already has signed a new contract, shows that his ‘sacking’ by Oxford was merely a ruse.

    I mean how many middle-aged footballers are signed up to new clubs within a week of their sacking for bigotry.

    The fact that he is allowed to continue playing before it’s even detemined what his FA punishment should be, shows that his new club Nantwich doesn’t care about bigotry (although if Pink News had actually referenced the apology in the article we may have a better idea).

  4. The apology reads (amazing that this was not included in the article):

    ” “[The remarks] were made tongue in cheek at the time and Lee would like to apologise for this and any offence that this has caused and would also like to stress that he is not homophobic in any way.”

    So the classic non-apology. This guy is sorry if YOU were offended ie he is placing the responsibility for the offence on those who were offended, rather than acknowledging how bigotted his comments are.

    As for the statement that he is not homophobic in any way?

    Why did he make homophobic comments then?

    Steele has been charged with ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ and has until 23 January to answer the charge.

    Why would Nantwich sign him up before 23 January, unless they regard homophobic bigotry and minor and irrelevant?

    Looks like the FA are gathering around a their bigot like they always do.

    I dontt trust the FA to deal with homophobia in sport, seeing as it is such an institutionally homophobic group.

    1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jan 2012, 12:09pm

      Yep but shame it took so long.

      Maybe if he had earlier I would have believed it but as it’s to save his career it’s just mere words.

  5. I’m a regular poster on our team’s fan forums and was pleasantly surprised to read the reactions from fellow posters when this was discussed. The FA and the footballing establishment are very much trailing the views of ordinary football supporters, who in the main already see homophobic abuse in the same vein as racism. The general consensus is that Steele has been treated harshly, but that it was time for the message against this sort of bigoted banter to take hold. He’s rightly been made an example of.

    I honestly think we’re seeing a big change starting in the footballing world, and gay players will begin being open in public in a couple of years time. Long overdue.

    1. I hope there will be openly out gay players in the next few years – the FA and clubs need to act more positively to make this a reality, but I do accept there is a trickle process of LGBT issues in footbal improving … it needs to be more than a trickle though …

    2. “The general consensus is that Steele has been treated harshly”

      He has NOT been treated harshly. He is being treated more than fairly if he is allowed to sign up to another club while charges of bringing the game into disrepute hang over his head

      Yes he’s the 1st person to be ‘punished’ for his bigotry (although he has ot really been punished as he is allowed to keep playing football even before the investigation into his bigotry is completed).

      Considering how utterly USELESS the FA has been up to this date in addressing homophobia, I suppose people might think Steele is being treated harshly.

      But it only appears that way because the FA has failed so dismally to address homophobia in the past.

      1. There may be consensus amongst some that he has been treated harshly – I disagree …

        I feel that if he had made “bigoted banter” that was racist in nature there would have been little (if any) debate that dismissal was the likely outcome … If, football fans “see homophobic abuse in the same vein as racism” (and as a football fan myself, I do, and agree others should) then the punishment should be appropriate to the offence – if it was racist it should be dismissal (unless there are highly unusual circumstance – not that I can think of any such circumstances) and the same should occur if/when abuse if homophobic, etc etc

        1. I’m only attempting to summarise a multitude of views on the subject. The thoughts about the sacking being harsh is because in most employment transgressions the employee committing the offence gets a warning before being dismissed. The charge of harsh treatment comes from the FA’s suddenly singling out one player without warning in order to signify a change in policy. If this does indeed indicate that the FA has decided to recognise homophobia as an issue they ought to have made that public beforehand.

          As I posted earlier it appears we have a lot more friends amongst football fans that I would have previously expected. Keeping this goodwill going will get us where we need to be far quicker. Maybe a word in the right ear at the FA can get them to be a little more planned in their actions.

  6. Jock S. Trap 16 Jan 2012, 12:05pm

    ‘tongue in cheek’ my arse!!

    He’s only sory coz it’s cost him so much.

    Maybe advice would be engage brain before stick foot in mouth.

    1. HIs non-apology is actually as offensive as his original comments.

      Anyone who uses the ‘I’m sorry if YOU were offended’ non-apology is dishonest and pathetic and lacks the courage to give a real apology.

      And why have Nantwich signed this opportunistic bigot to their team before the FA investigation even begins?

      Clearly Nantwich reflects the larger FA which regards racism and homophobia as ‘harnless banter’.

      (Make not mistake that the FA remains institutionally racist as well as homophobic – they’ve merely spent some money on PR firms to pretend they take racism seriously).

      1. Jock S. Trap 16 Jan 2012, 1:55pm

        Indeed, it says alot about Natwich to be honest.

  7. Fan. Tastic.

  8. Don Harrison 18 Jan 2012, 10:23am

    Thank you Pink News. News like this is important.
    I grew up as a teenager in the 60s where such banter was continuous. Being gay it was difficult for me – do I just laugh? do I join in? etc.
    Now that homophobia is accepted and not just a joke, it is VERY IMPORTANT that must be contended very time.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.