The racist prick should be banned for life but to link one scum bag to all chelsea fans is a bit of a joke (comments like horrible club, horrible fans etc.) I've been to the lane and heard an isolated prick making **** racist comments ... that ain't a reflection on me as a spurs fan. I am mixed race, west indian, white and asian...I get plenty of racist ****e but wouldn't dream of blaming all white people (for starters it would piss mrs remembercolinlee off - she is white ) - the problem ain't chelsea fans imo... it's racist pricks who should be drowned in their own **** rather than being allowed to pollute our country with their filth... Now if that sentence don't piss off a racist I dunno what will
Sorry but if I'm understanding you right, your point is becoming tenuous at best. Disproportionately representing racist incidents in football in order to inform people who might want to go to the ground is bizarre. Sensationalising 1 racist incident from 1 fan out of the hundreds of thousands that have visited Stamford Bridge is not benefiting people making a choice whether to go there, plus surely the racists win if people from different ethnic backgrounds stay away. The fact is no club tolerates racism and they all work towards preventing it in the stadium, if a club is deemed not to be doing enough, to be underpunishing racism or to be trying to cover it up then you've got yourself a newsworthy story. Make no mistake this story is only getting so much time because racism in football has the spotlight on it at the moment but that's no reason to support the sensationalised reaction in the media and by rival fans using it to point score.
no it was an example to counter your claim that it is not neccessary to make it news when racists make themselves known during a football match. if you think your clever enough to make monkey signs in front of thousands and tv cameras then its just as viable that the same tv and media expose you. other incidents that you mention that go to court but dont become public knowledge on a national scale are still dealt with regardless. he wanted to be a smart arse on tv..so hes getting what he deserves. just because the others dont get the exposure doesnt mean this individual shouldnt have done.
The story is only receiving so much press as it corresponds directly after the weekends incident, these things happen around grounds on a regular basis and are dealt with accordingly but do not receive widespread media. As an example a Tottenham fan was banned today for racial abuse but received no press from major media outlets (that I can see). http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2123349_football_fan_banned_from_following_tottenham_hotspur_after_racist_abuse_to_steward I think you are spot on in all your comments
Sounds like a total twat, already convicted for dealing coke and robbery and decided to racially abuse a steward who he knew had a camera filming on him.
Locking up people for being mentally ******ed troubles me deeply. Probably even more than someone calling someone else a "little P*** f*****". He's a pleb, your Lordship, an uneducated commoner, a lowlife from the slums with imaginary mental disorders. His incarceration is "no cause for concern". What is an acceptable phrase of abuse these days? You, sir, are an idiot? Someone in their castle needs to let me and the rest of the general public know. This is all going beyond "PC gone mad" and into thought-crime and it scares me.
It's been suggested that the fan should get a 4 match ban and an undisclosed fine, as that's the standard punishment for such behaviour with regards to those connected to Chelsea!
There's nothing in the article to suggest that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong and the fact that this is his 3rd conviction supports this, I don't know why you're getting all sarcy and using class to try and defend him.
If some one looks at me or my kids and thinks "paki" then we will never know and are not insulted or threatened. If some one talks to me or my kids and refers to me as "paki" like some elderly people use coloured I would explain that the word is used to insult us by racists so I'd prefer them not to use it...anyone making an innocent mistake would apologise and not do it again. I would not feel insulted or threatened. I know people who refer to small shops as paki shop - they use the term without thinking about it so I have explained why I think it's insulting and they stopped using it. When I have been called a paki in an aggressive tone or some one has done it to take the piss then I do take offence and have felt threatened. People can think what they want but the minute they say these things they should be prepared to be challenged or shut the **** up...free speech is dependant on responsibility. Is it PC gone mad or thought crime to object to me shouting sexual obscenities at passers by in the streets...and you can bet your arse I'd be arrested.
remembercolinlee,I've read and enjoyed and agreed with a lot of your posts but your comment on this thread is the most disgusting I've ever read on a football forum.
Chelsea's case looks to be taking some body blows this morning . It appears they broke FA fules about going into the refs room too early after a game, apparently nobody is allowed in there for 30mins after a game. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/355818/Blues-to-face-FA-charge Also, the fact that firstly it was TWO incidents involving Clattenburg, and the one against Mata has mysteriously been dropped. So they are now left with an accusation by Mikel who doesn't speak great English, having been advised by Luiz who speaks less English, who was informed by Ramires who barely speaks a word of English. Flimsy at best, and whoever is legally advising Chelsea I reckon is looking at his legal costs at the end of it, rather taking on a case he knows he can win.
When it turns out the whole affair is just Chelsea trying to smear a ref instead of calling him biased or a shambolic excuse of a professional, The FA should bypass issuing them with a fine and deduct points.
Sounds to me like Abramovich trying to hurt Clattenberg by waving his chequebook around. The same method he always uses to try and get his own way.
I'm trying to get my head round it all. I would hope you were challenged before being arrested. A lot of people don't see the harm. It's just another label. It's no different to them than calling someone Ging, Wingnut, or Fatlad, if they focus on looks, which they do, because it's easy and instant. Other people see the harm, and it's only used as a mental weapon. They honestly don't give a **** about skin colour. It's not important. I think Terry falls into this category. Others, like you touch on with the elderly, know no better, but I'm still uncomfortable saying that. It implies they're ignorant and uneducated. My Grandmother used the word "coloured". It was a label. She was extremely fond of my cousin's husband, who was black. He was forever telling her, with a smile on his face, not to use it. "Get away with ya" was her reply. She meant no harm. He took no real offence. To this day, I feel he parroted his lines, not know what they meant. My skin used to crawl when he said "My brethren". Then there are Englishmen, with their small island mentallity, the "Island Monkeys" (Insel Affen), as the Germans call us. It's culture. It's what it is. It's what we are. The monkey reference; I'm struggling to find the major harm in it (See Insel Affen). Being primitive is the main definition, I understand that much. It's like being called a caveman; a Neanderthal. A lower form of human. I'm not going to demand imprisonment for someone who call me a caveman or mimes the act of hitting himself over the head with a stone club. That would be ridiculous. Cheeky monkey, dirty monkey, thieving monkey, northern monkey, saucy monkey. There's nothing racist there. All rude and insulting, except for the endearing last one. I fail to see the difference between those and horse face, sly dog, fat cat, vulture, chicken, or any other derogatory animal name. I do understand that people pushing these racism issues to the top of the agenda are the same people who are racist. To focus on race so much creates more separation and self-segregation. What sort of person looks for acts of racism at every turn? If racism is to be eradicated, it has to be forgotten about.
Surely you can see the difference between a generic use of the terms cheeky monkey etc and monkey chants only when black players have the ball - which surely implies that the black players are less than human, which is clearly racist abuse. Its a bit of a shame that we need to be careful in using long established phrases such as 'cheeky monkey' because of the actions of a few racists but that is of small consequence compared to the effects of racist abuse
that is your right mate...but how is what I wrote disgusting? I ain't arguing I am genuinely interested. I thought I was saying that people can think what they want but they don't have the right to spout racist or abusive filth. Am more than a little confused by your comment
