You can clearly make out many more than 3-4 people in the video. There is a big difference between questioning and water boarding you know.
Looks like its only Catholics that are discriminated against, still in this day and age its ****ing draconian. "Under the Act of Settlement anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries one, becomes disqualified to inherit the throne. The act also placed limits on both the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to the Parliament of England, though some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation."
There are more than 3-4 people on the train yes, but how do they identify them? Do you know their names? So why should the french police, the mertropolitan police, or Chelsea FC be able to see the face and go "Oh yeah, thats Jeff!"
Thats the police's job, not mine. Although if you think one of them is Jeff, then let them know... Anyway, what shocks me about it, is how everybody just stands by and watches it happen.
I thought that at first, but upon reflection, most of the people on the platform were most likely french and wouldn't have a clue what kind of exchange of words was happening.
My point was, it will take more than just a clear photo of the person to identify them. They will most likely be relying on other people dobbing them in or other things ,like CCTV footage of them at games, in order to find clues as to who they are. They are getting there....
How are they not football fans? Where does it say that football fans can't be racist, homophobic etc. ? They are massive football fans because they are following their club away to Paris. They are racist football fans, its nothing new and its actually quite common.
This incident does show how little regard clubs have for their supporters though. John Terry is racist toward someone and he gets top legal protection, full backing from the club & a massive new contract. These fans are racist and they get thrown straight under the bus by the club with no support at all. Not condoning their behaviour at all but its funny how clubs can change their stance from one minute to the next.
I think the main difference is that John Terry's guilt was never proven unequivocally. You can't destroy a mans life and livelihood on the word of Anton Ferdinand. These guys cannot contend their innocence, as they are bang to rights. (plus I am sure the fact that John Terry was worth millions to the club and these guys aren't may have a bearing on why JT was given the benefit of the doubt, its hardly the same thing)
Well he admitted to saying "****ing black ****", which basically means he's admitting his guilt. And it doesn't matter what Terry is worth, I'm just making the point that fans are expected to pay for the privilege of following their club all over the land for massive ££ and behave impeccably while players get paid massive ££ to do whatever they want and still have the club back them. Its funny that fans are treated with such little regard by clubs even though there would be no Chelsea FC without the fans who follow the club week in week out.
Actually he admitted to saying "I didn't call you a ****ing black ****, ya knobhead" But regardless if you think "it doesn't matter what Terry is worth" then you have been watching a different sport to me for the last 20 years. John Terry claims not to have racially abused anyone (whether he is telling the truth or not is another matter), why people find it so hard to grasp I don't know.
Whoa there, no it doesn't, at least not in a criminal court where INTENTION has to be proved and the measure of evidence is objective. Not saying I believe Terry, but you're basically taking Fistian's line (and that of the FA and the media) that as Suarez never denied using the word negro then the case is closed, without looking for any context.
Considering him, a South American and Rio got found guilty of breaking the same FA rule how come the none English player was punished more harshly than the other two. #fadoublestandards
When you said 'have children' I took that literally - if you meant adopt why not say adopt, nobody says when they're adopting that they're having a baby! But seeing as you have now maybe realised what you said was misleading ......... It wasn't just gay couples who couldn't adopt it was any unmarried couple so your bigotry comment is wrong.
A few points: 1) 500 years? James II of England was a Roman Catholic and he ruled until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (so you're only 200 years out. The Act of Settlement 1701 secured the accession of protestant monarchs. 2) Prime ministers have only been around since 1721 (less than 300 years) 3) Queen Mary and James II left a poor impression of catholic rulers and the exclusion of catholics from supreme power in England (and subsequently the UK) was, like it or not, based on the assumption that the pope was usually in the pocket of France or Spain. 4) Catholicism isn't a race. My wife is a catholic and I'm certain that she is the same race as me. I'm pretty sure there's no official bar to a black protestant(or atheist) becoming PM. Otherwise, you're spot on!
As Clueless as ever. Children absorb what they are exposed to from peers, teachers, parents, media and family members. A child who is brought up by parents who are completely not racially biased, can turn out to hold racist views and vice versa. My old man is a complete bigot (a product of his era) and I am the complete antithesis
