BBC news just stated Rio was found guilty of making an improper comment on Twitter. They just CAN'T bring themselves to say it was a racially offensive comment (shall we put the verdict up again?) like they did every time Suarez's face was shown on every news broadcast for a month. just watch, when terry's verdict is announced there'll be Newsnight and Panorama specials comparing it with Suarez - Rio's won't even get a mention. And THAT is racism.
You know you're wasting your time with UIR donga. As for your post, i think the worst culprit has been Gordon Taylor, he knows how heavy he came down on Suarez(pre and post hearing)yet even after the shackles of the Terry court case are off he and his cronies(who have seen the evidence unlike in the Suarez case)have been hypocrites not to speak up for the 'victim' this time.
But that's the problem with legislating speech. Again this is the all or nothing we need to decide. Do we outlaw all forms of abuse because someone is insulted by it? That's a fairly authoritarian state you have there. But if not, how can you have a fair society where one group can make jokes or even insults but another can not. Using your Comedy example. The bbc when it repeats only fools & horses edits out the racial stereotype jokes. It won't even show alf Garnett or Steptoe because the humor is seen as unacceptable. Yet the same bbc actually made a several month long feature on one of its channels specifically for "black comedy" (their words not mine) I watched two shows(I forget the names of the comedians) which were littered with "white" jokes. I also watched a bbc programme dedicated to taking the p*ss out of red hair. It was a collection of "celebrities" making nasty comments or retelling what they did to the ginger kid back at school. Tell me; how can the bbc justify this double standard? Women's interest groups attempted to ban the lynx ads showing women running towards a man on a beach saying it was mysoginistic & demeaning. Not one complaint over the the Amanda Holden add where she uses scantily clad men as footstools. Put Andy grey in her place and women under his feet and see what happens. Again double standards. Either it is wrong for everybody or it is open season on everyone. my bugbear with the PC world is that it isn't correct at all. It's very heavily weighted to specific groups treated disgracefully in the past. It's not the politics of equality its the politics of revenge. It will just keep divisions alive.
I never said he would have been found guilty just that he might. I think you will find that not wrong. Saying he definitely wouldnt is just an opinion. Nobody know and we never will.
"The Commission decided that the comment was improper and brought the game into disrepute. In addition, the Commission found that the breach included a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race. Ferdinand was fined £45,000 and warned as to his future conduct." Even now Slurguson is trying to whimper about Rio being charged because of who he plays for... Typical Utd, always defending racists...
Taylor was a complete test in the Suarez case and he has only compounded that with his silence now. Edit: test??? TWAT
If he was charged in the first place (and there would be grounds for a judicial review into the CPS/DPP if he was) and then if a magistrate or a judge actually let it progress to trial I'd be confident my aunt, a retired conveyancing solicitor, would successfully defend him, let alone that sad sack McCormick who fooked up the FA inquiry.
He's a **** tt, the bellend represents 'all' players in England not just the French,English and black players and he gets paid handsomely to protect all of them.
And that's the point: a court case allows the accused to walk away saying "innocent" to sue the ass off all these commentators when they call them a racist. Trial by media allows them to continue to insinuate & empowers you to continue to "guess" at guilt. See how the papers are not as brave with Terry? They know he can sue them using his acquittal as his evidence. It's also why the FA will be very nervous reaching a "Suarez" decision. Terry at the end of his career has nothing to lose in Taking them to court (armed with that not guilty verdict )
Post 142 explains the difference between the charges against each. Rio's was a lesser charge hencevthe lesser punishment
"Again this is the all or nothing we need to decide. Do we outlaw all forms of abuse because someone is insulted by it? That's a fairly authoritarian state you have there." Just been watching Watership Down with my neice. I've decided to follow this god:- "El-ahrairah is a rabbit who lived long before Hazel and the rest of the Watership Down Warren were born. His sidekick and best friend is Rabscuttle. He was the Prince of the forest, with his people living in peace and harmony with the other animals of the forest. Until one day, when the rabbits started multiplying out of control, Lord Frith told El-ahrairah to control them, but El-ahrairah told Frith that his people are the strongest in the world. Lord Frith saw this as arrogance and told El-ahrairah that if he won't control his people, that he will do it. So, he gave a gift to every animal and bird in the forest. However, with these gifts came predators such as a dog, a cat, a wolf,a hawk, a fox and a weasel. To each of them, Frith gave them the desire to hunt and kill El-ahrairah's people. Then Lord Frith bestowed a gift upon El-ahrairah and his people. El-ahrairah was running when Frith came to see him, for he knew that Frith was upset with him. However, Frith gave him the gifts of speed, cunning, digging, and a good sense of hearing, and he told him that his people no longer cover the world, but as long as they use the gifts he gave to them, they will never perish." If anyone on here (or in work) takes the p!ss I'll be onto that harrassment hotline as soon as you cn say "valuing diversity".
Rio Ferdinand, Manchester United FC Twitter Comment FA Rule E3(1) – comment which was improper and/or brought the game into disrepute. It is further alleged that this breach of FA Rule E3(1) included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race within the meaning of FA Rule E3(2) http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2012/updates-charges-august Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1) the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2); http://nav.thefa.com/sitecore/conte...ary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/luis-suarez-20-12-11
This hiding behind charges is very sad both for the FA and those quoting it. So basically the FA and you believe that "racist" behaviour is somehow graded in scale depending on the method and geography of delivery. This gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you know we could have saved ourselves a lot of effort: The old adage "give them a rope long enough" really is true.
"It's actually a great book and film; you got to the crying bit yet? Sniff sniff" Fooking did when I first read the book as a teenager. I also read The Plague Dogs around the same time. So a few years ago I downloaded the film and watched it with my then 11 year old daughter - big mistake. Turns out the book has two different endings, but the film has the sad ending. Dunno if you've seen the film, but to compound things we have a black lab like Rowf. Daughter had nightmares...
