Racist Chanting

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few brief points:
(5) Anyone born in England is English - though they may have other identities as well. However, people can be born elsewhere and still be English. I cannot resist pointing out that Leicester's own great Englishman Simon De Montfort was born in France. He arguably spoke for England like no other patriotic Englishman of his age. It would be a foolish person who told Amir Khan (born in Bolton) or Dame Kelly Holmes (born in Kent) that their race stopped them being English.

Great post, but without wishing to be a pedant, anyone born in England is British in my mind - that's the nationality on our passports, along with the Welsh, Scots and those born the northern part of Ireland.

I will stand to be corrected, but apart from the country, England (per se) is there a valid nationality of (being classed as...) English?
Anyway, good post David!
 
This numpty's only contribution to the debate "If this forum makes you feel jumpy, then you know what to do!"

What an ignoramus!

What would he say to the fans in the away end at City Ground? "If you are offended by the racist chants, leave the ground!"???

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
2 people that seem to want to take the high moral ground (yourself and Chris Filter) have to resort to insults &/or swearing because you don't agree with a persons view.
 
How about this scenario then? A bunch of drunken Somalian woman attack – on film, a white woman whilst screaming “kill the white bitch” ? Is this a racist attack ?

No ? Thought not.

Right, the Daily Mail said this gang screamed "kill the white slag"; in the Leicester Mercury report from two weeks earlier, the victim said she was called a "white bitch".

There were allegations of racial abuse from both sides. There were no independent witnesses. The video footage was CCTV footage with no sound. The Somalian girls pleaded guilty to the assault, but denied it was racially aggravated. Based on this, I can see why the CPS decided not to press charges of racially aggravated assault, however it's clear you disagree, and would rather see taxpayers money used on a trial to decide whether or not an attack was racially motivated based on two peoples' words against four people.

Links to the reports can be found here.
 
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
2 people that seem to want to take the high moral ground (yourself and Chris Filter) have to resort to insults &/or swearing because you don't agree with a persons view.

I don't mind taking the higher moral ground, but I apologise if I have offended anyone with insults/swearing.....other than you and the Nottinghamshire idiots! oops, there I go again...
 
Right, the Daily Mail said this gang screamed "kill the white slag"; in the Leicester Mercury report from two weeks earlier, the victim said she was called a "white bitch".

There were allegations of racial abuse from both sides. There were no independent witnesses. The video footage was CCTV footage with no sound. The Somalian girls pleaded guilty to the assault, but denied it was racially aggravated. Based on this, I can see why the CPS decided not to press charges of racially aggravated assault, however it's clear you disagree, and would rather see taxpayers money used on a trial to decide whether or not an attack was racially motivated based on two peoples' words against four people.

Links to the reports can be found here.
Wasn't Suarez (sp) done on one man's word against another?
When racial aggravation is done to a white person, it does appear harder to stick than if the white was the aggressor.
 
Wasn't Suarez (sp) done on one man's word against another?
When racial aggravation is done to a white person, it does appear harder to stick than if the white was the aggressor.

Not in a criminal court he wasn't. The fa can take whatever evidence it likes but the British criminal legal system requires beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Wasn't Suarez (sp) done on one man's word against another?
Unless I've heard or read incorrect information there were many witnesses called to give evidence of what was said. Suarez also admitted making a racist comment.
 
Wasn't Suarez (sp) done on one man's word against another?

I think this F365 response to the Liverpool letter sums it up quite nicely:

Liverpool FC were founded in 1892. They've been in existence for nearly 120 years. One would expect a club of such history and tradition to react to even the biggest setback with a degree of dignity, maturity and responsibility.

However, their statement in response to the Luis Suarez verdict read like it was written by a nine-year-old child whose ice cream has just been knocked out of their hand.

Let's take it point by point:

'We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone...'

Well, we'll stop you right there. Thanks to interviews given by the man himself and information very well leaked to the media by we don't know who (but can take a decent guess), Suarez admitted calling Evra 'something his team-mates at Manchester call him', so the use of the word was never in question.

'It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.'

Jesus, we thought this was just the domain of ill-informed idiots on the internet. For what is hopefully the final time, Evra has been caught up in racism rows twice before this incident. On neither of those occasions did Evra make the accusation.

'It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.'

We'll say this slowly - the FA did not charge Suarez with 'being a racist'. They charged him with using racist language. A man does not have to be 'a racist' to use racist language.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black...He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends.'

Seriously? The 'some of my best friends' argument? And as some have already pointed out, claiming a man cannot be racist because his grandfather was black is a little like saying he cannot be misogynist because he had a grandmother.

'We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.'

Ah, the classic trick of trying to flip around the blame. Are you trying to defend your man or simply say the other guy was just as bad? Also, we're handing out credit for 'not lying about hearing something you didn't' now, are we?

Football365 has not taken a stand on this matter because we have no idea what actually happened and without all of the evidence, it's a far too complex issue to take lightly.

Liverpool are a fine football club, but please, have some dignity. It's hardly a surprise when an element of their support reacts in a certain manner when the club behaves in this way.
 
Wasn't Suarez (sp) done on one man's word against another?
When racial aggravation is done to a white person, it does appear harder to stick than if the white was the aggressor.

Forgive me if I find it difficult to take the opinion, on race issues, of somebody who pins their colours to the BNP flag seriously.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
2 people that seem to want to take the high moral ground (yourself and Chris Filter) have to resort to insults &/or swearing because you don't agree with a persons view.

It's not about the moral high ground, it's about right and wrong.

Are you a BNP voter? Brilliant - a self-confirmed idiot. I'll leave you to your own devices.

BTW, have you seen the 'babes of the BNP' interview in Vice Magazine? Cream of the crop, you lot.
 
It's not about the moral high ground, it's about right and wrong.

Are you a BNP voter? Brilliant - a self-confirmed idiot. I'll leave you to your own devices.

BTW, have you seen the 'babes of the BNP' interview in Vice Magazine? Cream of the crop, you lot.

"What, to you, symbolises Britain best?
Um, I'd say maybe St George's flag, partly because my favourite film is This Is England – it's about skinheads, but they're not really racist, because one of them is a black kid. They turn on him in the end, but because he was one of the gang they're not really racist. They just believe in what they believe in."

Brilliant. Absurd. Amazing.
 
..... have we signed anyone yet?

We're trialing two blacks, 9 poms, 3 Somalians (or somewhere), 2.3 members of the BNP (one of whom has a black friend), a woman, half of Baghdad and Peter Canero.

And it's not looking good for Canero.
 
...
(3) English is not a race - English is a nationality. Groups like the English Defence League pervert the word. When Brian Deane played for his country he was just as English as when Gary Lineker did.
...

Actually David, that's not quite correct. English can also be a race, given that the word itself does not have a precise meaning. Science has no definition for what constitutes a race, it is an entirely social construct. Any social grouping can constitute a race and it has **** all to do with skin colour, or any other phenotypical difference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top