I don't agree with what you say Darko but I do have to say: you have completely owned and destroyed Chris Smith on this thread. C Smith: give up now.
No, I'm talking about Babel. When SAF called the ref's integrity into question in an interview, he got a five match ban and £30,000 fine. When Drogba did it on the pitch he got a six match ban with two suspended. When Babel did it on Twitter (the Howard Webb photo), he got a warning and a £10,000 fine. Which implies that FA takes Twitter posts less seriously than what happens on the pitch and directly after the match. I'm just wondering if they'll take the same stance with Rio.
Tbh it is the press blowing up a situation about a silly tweet. Waste of everyone's time. Although I am surprised SAf lets an idiot like Rio spend so much time tweeting The JT-Anton thing is more serious but also blown out of proportion by the press.
This Shows how out of proportion the press have it when Gillingham have just been found guilty of racially victimising one of their own players, but the papers would rather talk about what gobshite said what on Twitter. It does make me wonder if all this focus on relatively minor issues is distracting from the fact that there still is some significant discrimination, and even overt racism, at some levels in football. The FA would apparently rather pat themselves on the back that they have done what the media asked, rather than face up to the true challenge.
I am black but you allege I have no real association with black people? FFS where do we get people like you I defend the woman because she is a brave woman, has gone through a lot and her stance on racism has been formed by what she suffered by having the most precious thing in her life being destroyed just for being black. So I am being a racist for understanding that her life and attitude have been changed for ever by what happened to her son and to her and her family?
Agree. Although the Terry thing has been blown up out of all proportion into a silly family feud, he should be banned to send out a strong message. And as he was captain of England at the time, they should be severe on him (ie at least as long as Suarez). However he does seem to be protected by the Fa, so i reckon he wil get eight games or fewer
I assume you mean Suarez I think the difference between the Suarez and Terry case is that Terry has been forewarned by what happened to Suarez, and also helped by the police inquiry. Looking at the Suarez case, it seemed like Liverpool didn't expect anything to happen when the initial statements were given, and so they ended up contradicting and confusing themselves, and actually dropped Suarez in it with some of their statements. Had they been more consistent and organised from the start, they probably could have avoided getting such a severe punishment. Now Terry and Chelsea have had such a long time to prepare after the court case, I reckon they will put a much stronger case forwards, and tie up any loose ends well in advance. That will probably mean that, rightly or wrongly, Terry gets off with a lighter punishment.
That is probably the reality. Whether calling someone a xxxxx xxxx in the heat of the moment is worse than repeatedly using racial abuse to wind up a sensitive player to gain advantage is debatable. But Terry should be banned. If Rio is banned for agreeing with a tweet it is ridiculous; maybe a £5k fine to charity or something.
It sounds like you are suggesting that Suarez might have gotten away with it had the Lafferpool players all stuck to a story rather than tell the truth. One has to hope those aren't the morals you are teaching the little one in your arms.
Actually I'm suggesting the opposite. I think that if Suarez had told the truth from the start then he would probably have gotten a lesser punishment. As it is, he made initial statements and comments in the hearings which he later contradicted, which basically meant the DC didn't trust a word he said. I doubt the FA would have doubled the standard punishment from four to eight games had he been upfront about what happened right from the start, rather than claiming he didn't say what Kuyt, Commoli and Dalglish said he did, and claiming he was trying to be conciliatory. Besides which, the Terry court case has just clearly demonstrated that you can get away with something if you and your colleagues all stick to the same story, truthful or not. More than one criminal has gotten away with it because they had a consistent story backed up by witnesses. Nothing to do with morality, just common sense.
They did the same with John Mackie years ago, he got an 8 match ban for racist comments he made on the pitch but as he came straight out and publicly apologized and donated 2 weeks wages to the anti-racism campaign he was only made to serve a 3 match ban with 5 suspended.
"So I am being a racist for understanding that her life and attitude have been changed for ever by what happened to her son and to her and her family?" No. I'm a parent myself, what happened to her family was deeply vile and will have scarred her for life. But as I've now said FIVE fooking times, how anyone can equate to a poor, innocent teenager when set upon by pig-ignorant, racist bastards; and just as importantantly the half-arsed, possibly complicit racist response by the police who are supposedly there to defend us all: with, for the fifth time of stating, a pig-ignorant lout who got into a spat with another pig-ignorant and was called a racist name is demeaning and debasing to her epic struggle. Sickeningly so. And if you are really black, do you find some sort of moral equivilence between the two? Let's get this right, two yobs, for arguments sake let's call one Pat and the other Lou enter into a verbal argument on a football pitch one Sunday morning. Pat, who is black, runs across to Lou, who is a Latin American and of mixed race himself, and screams at Lou in his native Spanish tongue (Pat's third language) "Go fook your sister whore". For good measure he also calls him a 'Sudac', which pat well knows is slang for a south American immigrant, akin to being called a gypo in our culture. Lou, a known nasty piece of work himself, responds by telling him to behave. After other players and the ref intervene in the spat the ref tells them to calm down and play on.(It's important to state that at this stage Pat makes NO allegation of racism) As they go away Lou pats the back of Pat's head (possibly to antagonise him, for certain) to which Pat reacts for the first time in an agitated and furious manner and tells Lou that the 'Sudac' shouldn't touch him. Lou, in response to various taunts he's received so far and doubtless to gain a reaction again sneers "Why, negro?". A now hysterical Pat, (and remember he'd started the game questioning the referee's racial impartiality when he lost the toss) loses his temper, and later informs his manager he was called 'nigga' five times, a Frenchman who watched the game he'd been called black ten times, and a later pub team enquiry (after he's seen Lou's statement and been told by the landlord that those people who'd videod the game on camcorder and mobile phones had recorded nothing but his initial "Go **** your sister" remark) that it was indeed seven times and he'd been called negro after all. So at which point Christian, because I'm really interested to know another black man's view apart from my friends and workmates, did you a) think verbal abuse that contravenes the FA's rule 3a enter the story, and b) did racism enter into the scenario? But back to the Doreen Lawrence thing. I was only being half sarcastic when i said she'd want to be there to support Rio. Suarez, evra, Terry and Anton are all gobshights who said things (in three cases racially motivated insults) in the heat of an argument. That's not to make excuses for them, but they weren't calculated and thought through ... UNLIKE SITTING IN FRONT OF YOUR HOME COMPUTER AND ENDORSING THE POINT OF VIEW THAT A MAN WHO GAVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A WHITE MAN WHO OPPOSED YOUR BROTHER IN COURT WAS EFFECTIVELY A RACE TRAITOR. And how much more racist does it get in terms of rhetoric? Will Doreen be there because Rio is black and therefore must be right? Will you take the same line because you are black too? Is evra an innocent victim who did no wrong himself because he is the same colour as you, or is it because he plays for United or both? The KKK, btw CPoL, doesn't, from what I've seen on Discovery Channel, accept people of mixed/Chinese ancestory. And from what else i understand of them, they'd need a lot more racist credentials on my CV than "Upset some incoherent divies on an internet chatroom by continuously pointing out the absurdities and contradictions in the FA's stance on racism and the country's as a whole"'. And finally, today appeared a real, despicable case of racism (almost as bad a the one where a poor young white girl was set upon by a gang of drunken Asian girls and beaten to an inch of her life - which Doreen didn't turn up to, for some reason) whereby a non-famous, non-rich, non high-profile black player was treated disgutingly by his club in a racist manner that was found to be so by a PROPER court. Christian, Doreen, Rio, Clark Ridiculous Carlisle, Gordon proposterous Taylor, Luther Blissett (d!ckhead), Fatty Samuels, P!sshead Lawton, Des swarmy Kelly and all the other rent-a-right-on-quote merchants: it might not be as fashionable and high profile as joining the baggage train behind the rich and famous yobos of all races and creeds in the premier league, but THAT is the racial discrimination society should rail against.
"Actually I'm suggesting the opposite. I think that if Suarez had told the truth from the start then he would probably have gotten a lesser punishment.! Actually he'd have got no punishment at all if he'd taken the same defence position that Ferguson advised Schmeical to take over the Wright case; as the FA, desperate as they were at the time for some head to fit on stick they had ready for John Terry, had even less evidence than they had in the end on what they charged him with.
"No, I'm talking about Babel. When SAF called the ref's integrity into question in an interview, he got a five match ban and £30,000 fine. When Drogba did it on the pitch he got a six match ban with two suspended. When Babel did it on Twitter (the Howard Webb photo), he got a warning and a £10,000 fine. Which implies that FA takes Twitter posts less seriously than what happens on the pitch and directly after the match.2 Carlton Cole got a fine and a suspended sentence for his Ghana comments. That would appear a reasonable tariff, and should also make him think twice about being the oracle of all things racist and black-related. That's Christian's job - evidently.
It will be interesting to see the reaction from United fans IF Rio is found guilty of using racially abusive language. Seeing as Suarez was found guilty by the same authority of the same offence that Rio is partly charged with, will United fans (and fans of every other club it seems) sing..."Rio, you know what you are" at him when he plays? Will Fergie call for him to be sacked by himself? Will George Galloway suggest he should be deported back to Peckham? Will the Mirror publish a full page headline of RACIST after the possible guilty verdict? Will Piara Powar call for United and Rio to issue a full apology to Cole? Will the 'Black Action' groups that attacked LFC be as fervent with their condemnation of Ferdinand? Will Martin Samuel tell everyone that the FA's verdict was fully justified and sound enough to dispel any doubt about his guilt? Will United fans wholeheartedly support the verdict as being correct and without doubt? Anyway, I could go on, but I very much doubt any of that will happen...in fact, I am positive that none of it will happen! I also like the fact that some United fans are using Rio's culture, i.e. he is half black and thus it cannot be racist, as an excuse! It seems they have forgot that it doesn't matter what happens in your culture, if you use racially abusive terminology you are thus guilty, no context is allowed! It makes me laugh that this ridiculous idea (that is the notion that no context is allowed, if your comments reference skin colour then you are guilty) from the FA had the full support of most United fans during Suarezgate, but now that it is being used against Rio, it is all of a sudden a joke! How convenient........and ****ing embarrassing for any United fan who is now slating the FA as some out-of-touch old boy's club, just cos their man is in the spotlight! Hypocrites, the lot of them!
