Utter Fergie

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Swarbs said:
Actually Suarez claimed he said "Porque negro". Which roughly translates as "Why, blackie?". Whilst it may not be as offensive as Terry, realistically if a black man in the street called you a **** and you replied "Why, blackie?", I doubt it would all end with a handshake...
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the black guy is the injured party? Even after calling someone a "****"?
 
Page_Moss_Kopite said:
Is referring to someone by their skin colour instead of by their name racist?, as in 'come over here black'?
Click to expand...


Good point.
Is shouting over at an Irishman ''Come over here Paddy'' instead of calling them by their name racist? Irish people for years have been called ''Paddy'' by the English. On occasions their name may in fact be Patrick, Paddy, Pat or Padraig.
 
CCC said:
You can talk! Your avatar should be purple, but you've gone and blacked-it-up! Too far, Tony! For shame!

PS Kidding, mara! ;) <ok>
Click to expand...

Coming from the avatar stereotype of can only see the eyes.... <whistle>

<laugh>

An old Eddie Griffin joke from "Dysfunctional family"--- " Are there aliens out there? **** ya there are! Why do they not down and show themselves you ask? You see what happened to people of color right? THey up there like ' let's go down and show ourselves' " **** that are you crazy? You see what they did to the black people, we ****ing green tha **** you think they will do to us? "

<ok>
 
[video=youtube;4j2kilQTieY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j2kilQTieY[/video]
 
Bluff: it's night in my avatar, and the Cheshire Cat is renowned disappearing and its smile to go last. Nothing remotely racist about that ... I don't think so, anyway? <ok>
 
Rusholme Ruffian said:
He was wired up to his assistants and fourth official.

Do you still?


Or is this all about your utter disgust and outrage at Ferguson having the temerity to answer a question.

The reason Martin O Neil wasn't asked is because Chelsea weren't playing Sunderland.

Obviously.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The Suarez case has set the standard, which now is "If a black man says a white man abused him, the white man must prove his innocence". The fact that the assistants heard nothing does not prove innocence. The absence of evidence should not be taken as an absence of guilt. The FA have chaged the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt.

I do expect, however, that things will be different for Clattenburg as they're not as desperate for a convenient head-on-a-stick as they were last December with the media and a myriad of single-issue, "look-at-me-in-the-papers" race-mafia groups to appease. And it looks like Ferguson (and thus Gill) are on his side on this one, and that'll swing it even if Clattenburg had wore a Klan outfit and put a burning cross on Mikel's lawn.
 
donga darko said:
Irrelevant. The Suarez case has set the standard, which now is "If a black man says a white man abused him, the white man must prove his innocence". The fact that the assistants heard nothing does not prove innocence. The absence of evidence should not be taken as an absence of guilt. The FA have chaged the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt.

I do expect, however, that things will be different for Clattenburg as they're not as desperate for a convenient head-on-a-stick as they were last December with the media and a myriad of single-issue, "look-at-me-in-the-papers" race-mafia groups to appease. And it looks like Ferguson (and thus Gill) are on his side on this one, and that'll swing it even if Clattenburg had wore a Klan outfit and put a burning cross on Mikel's lawn.
Click to expand...


Well if Clattenburg acrtually did call Mikel a ''monkey'' then he is racist. It is a derogatory term and is as bad as ''Coon'' which is American slang for N****r. Suarez was done for racism, which is hard to determine, I doubt it if the FA actually know the difference between racism and discrimination. If Suarez used the word ''because'' he wasn't being racist, he was discriminating. However John Terry was being racist when he uttered the words ''****ing black ****''. However if Suarez used the word ''Why'' the entire statement doesn't make any sense. It must be checked again in translation whether Suarez said ''Because'' or ''Why''.
 
Swarbs said:
You mean on the balance of two Chelsea players, neither of whom were being spoken to by the ref, and who it now appears may have misheard his accent, versus the views of the ref, all three assistants, and both players who were apparently the target of the insults and yet heard nothing. Smacks of Kuyt telling the ref what Evra apparently said to his face....
Click to expand...

<laugh> misheard his accent? thats a good one! perhaps evra did too..<laugh>
 
No One Famous said:
No as calling someone Scottish isn't a racist insult. Calling someone blackie is. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Says who NOF? If you're referring to 'hate crimes' and the law of the land, there has to be intent. If you're not, it's simply a question of interpretation; but notice, if the mention of skin colour is your standard (as opposed to the FA's own rule that states nationality, creed, race, religion, ethnicity AND skin colour) then you have no ridiculous argument that Rio wasn't being racist when he talked about choc-ices. And thus, when people talk of charters whereby offenders are sacked for racist offences from their clubs, when we talk equality we mean equality and it must apply to everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back