Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Terry saying he "welcomes" the investigation, and looks forward to clearing his name.


Perhaps a full investigation should be launched in to ALL suggestions of racism. It would help to get it out of the game, and it would clear names of anyone who was innocent, rather than having a cloud for ever hanging over them.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd love football to mike the refs up, like rugby.

> We would lean a lot, very quickly



This has been around a while - in fact Graham Kelly was advocating it over 8 years ago Independent Jan2003.


I think it would be entertaining (enlightening?) to train a wireless rifle mic on a player - like the camera in "Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait" - or 22 mics onto all the players so subscribers could flick from one to the other to see what any player was saying at any one time. You could hear every word said during the game - much like going to a Macclesfield home game.

Racism exists and it probably always will to some extent. Its a hate crime. Jon Terry needs to be properly tried in a law court, not a football associtaion diciplinary court, and assuming he is guilty, he needs to be banned for an appropriate period.


Then we move on until the next crime. But racism is not the biggest crime in the world. Each time it happens it does not need all the left wing liberals of the world crying foul as if its the worst thing that ever happened.

I find the article extraordinary. 90% of it is fairly sensible and then the guy loses the plot. Racism in UK football has declined precisely because it is no longer tolerated by players, clubs and fans, so to argue that players should now tolerate it is plain stupid.


I think this is a bit over the top, though:


"Its a hate crime. Jon Terry needs to be properly tried in a law court, not a football associtaion diciplinary court, and assuming he is guilty, he needs to be banned for an appropriate period"


Something that isn't a crime on the street doesn't become one on a football field. IMHO a better analogy is racism in the workplace. In most places, being found to have racially abused someone at work would get you fired. Footballers on the field are doing their jobs, and the same standards should apply (although sliding tackles are not allowed in my office, so there'd have to be some allowances made).

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think this is a bit over the top, though:

>

> "Its a hate crime. Jon Terry needs to be properly

> tried in a law court, not a football associtaion

> diciplinary court, and assuming he is guilty, he

> needs to be banned for an appropriate period"

>

> Something that isn't a crime on the street doesn't

> become one on a football field.



My research (albeit late at night after some wine) suggests it IS a crime to act on racism through actions or words.


If that is the case, that would apply on the steet or anywhere else for that matter.


"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[3]"

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 90% of it is

> fairly sensible and then the guy loses the

> plot.

>

> That is how I felt. I was reading, and wondering

> what the problem was, then I got to the end, and

> couldn't quite believe it.


Me too, it's like one of those films which happily ambles along aimlessly, then WHAM!..I thought someone must have hacked into it and this morning it would be corrected...nope, it's still there...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I may be a scrooge but to pay over £100 plus for a meal is a bit much. I understand that staff costs would be a high factor in this price and that being no transport on Christmas Day - pubs may have to pay car hire fees. The café in Christ Church will be doing a 3 course meal in the run up to Christmas for around £30 per head (Booking essential) so to charge an additional £60 plus seems somewhat unreasonable. The past few years, there have only been the 2 of us on Christmas Day, so we lash out and buy a lot of M & S food - ready prepared or with minimal cooking at a cost of between £30 and £40. We host the family Boxing Day onwards (8 - 10 people) spending around £60 on food and drink. Rather spend £100 for food etc over a couple of days rather than £200 for one meal. We are fortunate that we have the finances  to do this as many people are not able to do this. One family member with young children would find it hard to spend even £10 on a Christmas meal. Our kids come armed with plastic boxes to all family meals to take home any leftovers - so we are left with minimal waste- any veg and meat  get made into soup.
    • That would be Dulwich Wood ward wouldn’t it? One of the wards Southwark added Nov ‘23. Maybe the estate against didn’t get the memo. Oh man what a shit show. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...