I'm not wumming at all. I'm drawing attention to an issue that some Spurs fans seem to want to bury their heads in the sand over. I'll repeat again, I wouldn't want to see any action taken against Spurs or their fans over this as I understand the context that it's being used in. But I do think that the club need to take this issue seriously and start to address it, as it does cause offense to some Jewish people. The issue of racism is in sharp focus in football at the moment. The 'Yid' issue is something that Spurs fans may have used to empower themselves in the past, maybe now it's time to move on and respect the fact that it's not a particularly endearing term to be using. For themselves or for people of Jewish faith.
What's the source of your Daniel Levy quote, Piskie? Which members of the Jewish community have we offended?
This is the point I'm making. You are not in a position to decide who is offended by it. That is for the Jewish community to decide. PNP, the Levy quote was from the Evening Standard I believe but I don't have a link, so dismiss it if you choose. The Jewish writer in the quote I posted earlier found the chants offensive, as does David Badiel and I would suggest that they are not the only Jewish people offended by it.
Sorry ... wrongly used short hand - should have said - Piskie is making himself look like he is making cheap point scoring shots which is a shame as some of what he has said is valid. His view is valid but he cheapens them by deliberately misrepresenting spurs fans who disagree with him...No spurs fans think they are "empowering " them (presumably Jewish people) ... the chant was started because many opposing fans including those who support Piskies beloved arsenal used to hiss ( pretending to be gas chambers) at spurs fans and sing "spurs are on their way to Auschwitz" it was a case of spurs fans saying so what to the supposed insult of being Jewish... so apologies to Piskie and those I offended or put off
As LDL points out, as far as the law is concerned. The motivation or intent behind the language is irrelevant. Therefore Spurs as a club cannot really defend the chants as being benign I understand this, but the fact remains that Spurs are not in a position to determine who is offended by this. As I mentioned, it's not a defence to say something derogatory and then say ' Well, I didn't mean it' if the offended party is affected by your words.
Ok, I'll dismiss it and the offense taken by an unnamed Jewish writer, too. As for David Baddiel, he's clearly deflecting from the appalling behaviour of some of his fellow Chelsea fans and pointing the finger at the victim of their abuse, instead. Disgusting, I'm sure you'll agree. That he believes that the word Yid is rife amongst football supporters is merely a consequence of his poor choice of club. He basically admits as much and he would barely be aware of it if it weren't for them and West Ham, plus the occasional, ill-informed Arsenal player.
The part in the ground or the part outside the ground? The Jewish Community like any other group have their own individual opinions they do not have group think. I have a hard copy and an online copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it makes the difference about pronunciation very clear as I posted. The online edition even speaks the words so that there is no doubt as to the two very different usages. You cannot ignore the fact because it does not suit you argument Piskie. It stands and is therefore the basis of a very good defence by any Spurs fans or Officials if needed.
Well, you're making an incorrect assumption. I'm not misrepresenting Spurs fans who disagree with me. I'm trying to point out that whilst I understand the motives behind why Spurs have adopted the term 'Yid' I don't think they are in a position to 'claim' it from the Jewish community as their own and decide whether it's offensive or not, regardless of their intention. At the end of the day, the word is a politically loaded and racially motivated one and in the current climate of racism in football, I think Spurs would do well to address this issue a little more sensitively, rather than dismiss is by saying that 'They do not use the term to others to cause any offence'. That is a debate for your club to have if it chooses, or possibly be forced to have if this report gathers pace - but that aside, apology accepted
Firstly ... apologies for the Twat comment ... secondly ... David Basiel is in my opinion being disingenuous ... as I have already pointed out he has made a joke about one of our Israeli players not passing to a German player by stating the war was a long time ago. But if people want to give him the benefit of doubt ... how about this? https://www.google.co.uk/url?url=ht...jewish&usg=AFQjCNEUadR3ZEwhZJuaXjx8uyLwZiIBDQ
Both ? As for a defence in court. I think you would be on very tenuous grounds if you tried to assert that you shouted a derogatory term with a certain intonation to try and get you off the hook. Even so, surely then this would work both ways? An opposing fan who was clearly using the term in a derogatory way, could reasonably argue that he /she was using the non derogatory intonation ? In the same way that any fan could claim that they were using the word in the same way that Spurs fans are asserting that they are. Non Jewish Spurs fans chant it and claim that they are using it in a non derogatory way, so why couldn't a non Jewish fans of any team chant it ? He could reasonably claim that he is using it in the same way. If he were Jewish, it would muddy the waters further. I really think your club need to look at this issue, as it's not really a reasonable defence to say that as it's not meant offensively, therefore nobody is offended.
So all we are left with is PISKIE's opinion, based on...........................................PISKIE's opinion.
Terry's whole defence was his intent. As there's clearly no question about the intent of Spurs fans in this issue, there's no case. Where was Baddiel's rage about Terry, by the way? I think I missed it.
Yes, he conveniently missed that. I'd have to take a closer look at the law on intent. LDL is asserting that the law states that intent is irrelevant, although Terry did use it to get off the hook. For the record, I think Terry is a lying scumbag. But that is an opinion, not a point of law.
