Or better still, you use the John Terry defence of saying to somebody "I'm not calling you a black ****" when you are indeed calling them a black ****. As Suarez never went anywhere that level of invective (though he got banned twice as much, which is fair enough). Btw, have people missed my extensive, unbiased analysis of the Suarez case? I could do it all again if there is a popular request (I still have a PDF copy of the official report of the case somewhere on a flash drive - something even the FA doesn't have anymore).
Putting "German" and"****" together makes it different. Nothing wrong with describing someone's skin colour, but try adding the word "****" to it....
Whatever we think about a sort of hierarchy of abuse, racism being the worst, the FA puts nationalistic, racial and ethnic slurs all in one category in rule E3.2. While racism is generally viewed as much worse, I think it's fair enough putting them all in together. The extra layer added to the slur by the speaker is intended to highlight a distinct difference, an 'othering'. While absolutely anyone, by the way they act, which they have control over, can leave themselves open to being called a ****, nobody has control over their race, ethnicity or where they were born and for me, that makes the addition of any one of those in any slur, worthy of harsher scrutiny.
Mike Dean is making out that David Coote is the victim in all of this. ****ing have that Liverpool, you victims.
Well according to the FA during the Suarez case, E3.2 is subjective in that if Evra believes it to be racist and discriminatory, it therefore is racist and discriminatory. Presumably, the FA will now be asking Jurgen for his viewpoint, and indeed the supporters of LFC and Scousers in general (I'm available to represent us all if you so wish - I consider it my civic duty ).
Point is though, under the precedence set by the Suarez case (and others), if Jurgen and LFC subjectively believe Coote's prejudice clouds his judgement - then it does. That was absolutely the FA conclusion of the Suarez case. This isn't a court of law - it doesn't even have the weight of workplace tribunal. It's almost the physical based reality of a kangaroo court. I just wish the whole PGMOL were on trial in there with him.
Indeed. The negativity gets transferred to the other adjective as well. When we call @luvgonzo a Welsh ****, we're clearly demeaning his Welshness. And when we call you a fat bald batard, we're demeaning your fatness and baldness.
It is pretty clear he was smashed off his face and taken advantage of. He's lucky he didn't wake up with his pants on backwards and a red raw ring piece tbh. Just cos he said what he was really up to and thought by accident doesn't mean he wasn't made an absolute fool of.
I see your point but by the standards being bandied around today I believe had he called Klopp a **** that would have been okay - to say German **** is now racist
Yes, but can we probe he screwed up? He is a referee, and referee word is always final, unquestionable and correct. Therefore he can't possibly have made a mistake.
Not sure if racist is correct. Xenophobic is probably more accurate. German isn't a race. I'm more German than English by ancestry, but most people call me an English ****.
I've led a very sheltered life it seems because while I've seen plenty of people drunk as skunks, I've never seen anyone high on cocaine so I'm unable to see that or come to that conclusion in the Coote video. He doesn't look drunk and he isn't talking incoherently or laughing hysterically or displaying any signs that would make me think he's under the influence but as I say, I have no experience. Journalists now poring over our games with him officiating, looking for obvious bias, are missing the point.
I don't think he is on cocaine just there. Maybe on the other end perhaps or mixed with a lot of other things such thst he doesn't know where he is. You can see it in his eyes that he is not there so I'd say he's on some form of down after the high and probably didn't know much or St least had no defenses up to not say what he really thought. This for me breaks into three things. A) people making out he should be fired are missing the point. There is literally zero there bar the timely release of this video to prove anything. They've not released it until he did something absolutely inexplicable in waving off a red card foul v lfc. What he said is no evidence of active bias. B) those defending are missing the point. He's not innocent in it, just led by the nose. We have seen lots of corruption in sports revealed via stings by undercover reporters luring corrupt players etc. He was lured into revealing bias. C) once he is punished (they cannot not punish him) and he's doen some drug rehab or whatever the usual stuff is to pretend he is better now he will struggle to come back as every club he makes a bad call against will be on his case for bias. What are you sniffing ref? The refs high. Careful of the white lines ref. Etc etc
He's 100% on cocaine in that video. No doubt whatsoever. Take it from an addict who sadly knows a lot about these things
