Does that mean I've progressed from being a pedantic c*** ? - but he's so easy to wind up, doesn't know what he's talking about & he makes me laugh ( sounds a bit like my wife )
I'd say it is in the same league, racism is racism at the end of the day, anyone who does it is scum. But I guess we should all accept that every club has it's scumbags notso? It's useless arguing about fan chants because every football club attracts people from all walks of life.
Please, let us not descend into this whole "you do it so it's okay if we do it" argument. Two wrongs do not make a right. Furthermore, racist fans is one thing (and not something that any decent fan should condone), but racism from professional footballers, let alone the one-time captain of the England team, is something else entirely.
All I'm saying is that this post is about us supposedly causing football's darkest day. You are saying that the actions of players count more than the actions of supporters. Are the actions of JT( who was cleared in a court of law) more responsible for "footballs darkest day" than say the Heysel disaster?
Professional footballers should set an example to the fans. If they, who are idolized by many (including a disproportionate number of thick, unintelligent, unsophisticated morons), cannot refrain from hurling abuse at their fellow professionals (as JT admitted to using during his trial), then how can any of us expect the racist bigots in the crowd to refrain from doing so? Further, JT held himself up as being the man most qualified to lead his country. Therefore, a greater responsibility lay on his shoulders, and he let down not only you Chavs, but every single England fan. Yes, it is a very dark hour for English football. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in what JT did for any of us to be proud of.
Remind me, when Harry was acquitted in February, how many Chelsea fans were on here saying that didn't mean he wasn't a tax dodger?
Except that, now, most of us Spurs fans agree with you Chavs, that Harry's acquittal does not mean that he didn't dodge his taxes, merely that the jury refused to accept that the CPS had proved he had.
Apart from the fact that Redknapp wasn't on film dodging his taxes. Terry's legal team may have managed to get him off, but anybody who sees this and think's it's a "sarcastic exclamation" or an "enquiry" is delusional. [video=youtube;2FmHdVzHk6M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FmHdVzHk6M[/video] I don't agree with the bulk of HIAG's article and it shouldn't have gone to court, but it should've been handled by the FA immediately. The alternative view is that in virtually any other walk of life Terry would be out of a job now, of course.
That's the point I've been making, you numpty! We (the people, as represented by the CPS) could not prove guilt, therefore the court found verdicts of "not guilty" in each case. Neither Harry nor Terry had to prove their innocence. Get it, now?
And there you stumbled across the point - there is a huge difference between being found not guilty, and being found innocent, but the pro-Terry camp are trying to equate one with the other, even though the summing-up states that Terry did call Anton Ferdinand a "****ing black ****" (which Terry had been denying), and also stated that Anton Ferdinand was a reliable witness (which Terry's legal team were trying to say otherwise)
