I think Herbert's logic goes something like this... if we use the Y word then we kind of bring anti-semitism on ourselves (let me know if I'm wrong). So perhaps he would like to comment on whether using the N word among black people therefore means it's OK to be racist against them?
Before this muppet opened his mouth he should have considered that the very society he is a member of is in itself racist as The Society of Black Lawyers only represents the interests of black lawyers.
I'm waiting for Herbert's complaint to the police for the chanting from both West Ham and Spurs fans chanting yesterday. He promised us that we'd be reported and he's already shown that he doesn't have to know anything about a situation before reporting and alleged racist incident at a football ground so that should get the West Ham fans too. Come on Herbert, what's taking so long?
He didn't say that though. I'm not convinced that the attacks in Rome had anything to do with anti-semitism. If it had been any other British fans I think those thugs would have acted the same way. I think the danger for Spurs fans is that by framing that attack in an anti-semitic way, it's drawing more and more attention to the use of semitic references and Spurs are slowly falling into victim mode. Other fans - West Ham are now playing on it and the whole issue is becoming a headache for the FA. The danger is that if they do act on these issues, I think it's going to end up with ANY semitic chanting eventually being banned, because the argument will be that Spurs are inadvertently fanning the flames by their constant reference to it. That might not seem fair, but I think it's a possible outcome.
And, I suppose that the fact that this uninvited rabble rouser has been highlighting our Jewish connection, and the events of yesterday, and against Lazio, are entirely unconnected? The only people fanning the flames are Peter Herbert and his self publicising association!.
Yes, he did. "The link between the appalling incidents in Rome and the "Y" word chanting is obvious. The chanting of the word simply legitimises antisemitic abuse by other fans." - PH West Ham didn't play on anything, either. They've done this **** for years. Herbert's mouthing off has simply highlighted that game and the Lazio one and the media have jumped on it, as a consequence of both his remarks and the stuff in Rome.
The first half of his sentence is massive speculation, the second half whilst it doesn't legitimise it, certainly encourages it.
I suggest you read it again because that's exactly what he said. You can think what you like but the facts are that witnesses heard them shouting stuff about Jews before and during the attack. We can all second guess all we want and come up with excellent tenuous reasons as to why they attacked the Spurs fans and speculate what would have happened had it been another club's fans visiting but at some stage you have to look at the facts and accept it. Victim mode? You'll notice there was no assumption of anti-semitism in the thread about the violence until the evidence presented itself. What would you suggest we do to avoid being victims when West Ham fans celebrate the stabbing of our fans and start anti-semitic chanting? Would it be better if we stooped to their level? Or waited outside and battered them? Maybe then we couldn't act like victims, eh? We all know what you think on the issue so there's no need to continue to reinforce it when everyone already knows you take an anti-Spurs point of view at every opportunity. Lets not forget that you and your fellow mods allowed a user banned on JA to share his anti-semitic joke on your board totally unchallenged on this thread. Just give up the ghost and stop pretending to have an interest in anti-semitism when you're on our board and start modding your own properly
That's not what he said though is it? And so what if our supporting our club encourages racists to be racist, so does hijabs, Burkas, Turbans and being black! What it comes down to is fools like you and Herbert using every opportunity to take something that happens to Spurs and twist it into a stick to beat us with. The only debate that we should be having is whether calling ourselves the Yid Army and Yiddos is unacceptable or not. The reaction to our club taking pride in our Jewish heritage from the intolerant has no relevence as taking into account their actions is legitmising them instead of acting against abhorrent their views.
I'll ignore the obvious insult and misguided assumption and just reiterate that I'm not taking 'something that happens to spurs and twist it into a stick to beat' you with. I'm saying that upping the ante on the 'right' to use semitic chanting is going to encourage other fans to use it against you. The danger is that the FA will simply drop the axe on the whole issue and ban it entirely because it's too much of a headache to try allow one set of fans to use it and charge others for do so.
Because WE DON'T USE THE LANGUAGE THEY USE. We use the terms Yiddo and Yid Army, at no point do we call ourselves Jewish Tottenham in German or any of the vile abuse that's been thrown at us in the past. We were identified as a Jewish club long before we took up the Y term in our songs and the FA have already said they will not take action against our chants whilst they're about to investigate West Ham's. There's nothing to support your theories that our songs fuel anti-semites or that the FA will simply ban all chanting referencing our the Jewish part of Spurs' history so repeating these assertions at every opportunity, defending Herbert and disagreeing with us regularly without being able to back it up only serves to thin the veil on your motives for posting on this thread.
As I pointed out some time ago, it's known as Wumming. It went past the point where he could have claimed Devil's Advocate status some while back.
Using the same "logic" you can also say... * Poland are responsible for World War II because they got in the way * Stephen Lawrence got what he deserved for saying he was black The question, therefore, is if Herbert believes these to be the case.
Using the phrase "I'll ignore the obvious insult...." isn't ignoring it though is it it's actually drawing attention to it, however I doubt that it was an insult but more a statement of a perceived fact, or an expression of an opinion based upon observations drawn for your opinion, reputation and stance If someone acts foolishly or says something, that another thinks is a foolish thing to say, then that person has every right to call that person acting foolishly a fool. If you are so sensitive to truly feel that being called a fool is an insult then you can justifiably be called a fool.
It's easy to band around insults simply because you don't agree with me. But the point I'm making is that the more attention that's brought to this issue, the more of a headache it's going to be for the authorities to deal with. I understand the difference between the intent that Spurs fans and opposition fans are using the term in. But I think it's a problem for the authorities. I can't see how they will be able to reasonably justify allowing one set of fans to chant a derogatory word for Jews whilst being pressured to charge others for using the same words.
Because it's not a word with one, purely derogatory use, as you've been told a million times, Piskie. Don't believe me? Then why don't we ask someone who's actually Jewish: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ious-moral-crusaders-in-football-8301114.html "We should be very careful about policing language. The meaning of words is not always self-evident and depends on the context. Yes, the word Yid is usually used as a term of insult. However, it is sometimes used as a positive term of self-definition. So according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the 1874 edition of Hotten’s Slang Dictionary notes that the word Yid is used by Jewish people ‘very frequently’. In my own lifetime I have heard the word used positively, neutrally and as a term of venomous hate. But then I have also heard the word Jew used in a variety of ways. In any case anti-Semites do not need to use a specific word to communicate hate. As an undergraduate at a North American University in the late sixties I knew that references to someone as ‘really New York’ was a not too subtle way of saying that he was ‘too Jewish’. Fortunately SBL has not yet come up with the idea of zero-tolerance towards the word New York." Ban New York!
I understand the semantic peculiarities, but I think it becomes problematic when non-Jews use the word Yid, as is happening at Football grounds. I know he's not your favourite person, but Peter Herbert claims that there are bona fide Jews who are unhappy at Spurs fans chanting Yid at WHL, so reasonably you have to also take their views into consideration.
Oh no! It's Groundhog Day! Yes, of course, the more attention that is brought to the clubs Jewish connection, the more of a problem it becomes to deal with. That's why it would be better if rabble rousers like Herbert would just shut the **** up!!..
