Campbell abuse filthy - Redknapp

[Marky]

Harry Redknapp has said Sol Campbell is in the right frame of mind to play in Portsmouth's first round, second leg Uefa Cup tie on Thursday night.

Hampshire Police are to investigate racial and homophobic abuse directed at the 34-year-old during Pompey's 2-0 win at home to Tottenham on Sunday.

And ahead of his side's trip to Vitoria Guimaraes in Portugal, manager Redknapp described the abuse as filthy.

"That's got no place in football what went on Sunday," he said.

"It's got no place in life, it's a disgrace. People chant filth, it's nothing to do with football.

"Some of the stuff that goes on is completely out of order.

"We're talking about awful abuse, some of this stuff is racist - it's everything. It's wrong and has no place in football.

"How do you that in front of your kids? What kind of a nutter must you be? What kind of human being must you be when you take your little kids to football and shout filth? It can't be right.

Of course he is upset about it and we are all disappointed about what's happened to him but he'll be fine. He'll move on and get on with his football. He's been terrific for us."


Striker Peter Crouch echoed his manager's sentiments and believes crowd abuse reached a new low with the chants directed in Campbell's direction.

"There is probably not a player in the Premier League who has not had some stick but there is a difference between banter and abuse. What happened to Sol really crossed the line," he said.

"But he showed against Tottenham on Sunday he can react with a fantastic performance. It has had no effect on his game and it won't affect it in the future."

Portsmouth hold a 2-0 lead going into Thursday night's second leg match and Campbell is likely to start alongside Sylvain Distain in defence after keeping a clean sheet on Sunday.

Despite his side having the advantage, Redknapp is looking for his side to attack as they look to book a place in the competition's group stages.

"Although we know they are still a dangerous side with great flair we have players who can cause them problems as well.

"We are certainly not coming here to sit back for 90 minutes and invite them on to us. That would be asking for trouble.

"It will be a tough game we know but we would love to get through this round at least and keep the excitement going for the fans.

"They've had a great time recently including winning the FA Cup last season and we want it to continue."

[Parm]

hmm, I have heard about some of the songs they chant at Campbell, it is vile and disgusting. I've not heard about racist abuse, but if true that is unacceptable/ the FA were quick to jump on Croatia for the abuse Heskey got, why arent they doing this to Spurs. Sol cant expcet the spurs fans to love him when he went to the Arsenal, but there is no need to abuse him like that.

[Red Chilli]

I doubt the "racist" claims by Harry Redknapp are true. If they were true the people would be prosecuted under the law as "insighting racial hatred" is illegal. No-one in their right mind condones that and people who indulge in racism are SCUM.
I'm sure the homophobia claims are true. If people want to shout that, it's up to them. It's a game of football, football is traditional a sport for adult men. It's only in the last few decades with corporate sanitisation of the game that kids have been brought in to increase revenue etc.


Personally I think it's part of the game. You pay your money to be a football spectator and part of that experience is being allowed to express your emotions vocally. If the abuse is within the law I don't see what the problem is. Sol's a grown up isn't he? Without the passion and support from the fans he wouldn't have been able to make millions of pounds from playing football. Unfortunately, he chose to become a professional footballer, at a time when things were a lot worse, he totally ****ed over the club that nurtured his career for his own selfish ends and now he wants to be patted on the back. Aint going to happen Sol, stop whining and man up

[Marky]

I doubt the "racist" claims by Harry Redknapp are true. If they were true the people would be prosecuted under the law as "insighting racial hatred" is illegal. No-one in their right mind condones that and people who indulge in racism are SCUM.
I'm sure the homophobia claims are true. If people want to shout that, it's up to them. It's a game of football, football is traditional a sport for adult men. It's only in the last few decades with corporate sanitisation of the game that kids have been brought in to increase revenue etc.


Personally I think it's part of the game. You pay your money to be a football spectator and part of that experience is being allowed to express your emotions vocally. If the abuse is within the law I don't see what the problem is. Sol's a grown up isn't he? Without the passion and support from the fans he wouldn't have been able to make millions of pounds from playing football. Unfortunately, he chose to become a professional footballer, at a time when things were a lot worse, he totally ****ed over the club that nurtured his career for his own selfish ends and now he wants to be patted on the back. Aint going to happen Sol, stop whining and man up

You're 100% wrong.


Sol, Sol, wherever you may be,

Not long now til lunacy,

And we couldn't give a f***,

When you're hanging from a tree,

Judas **** with HIV



how the **** can you defend that ****? like seriously?

[Aza]

Didn't agree with the **** Beckham took about his wife.

Don't agree with the **** Stevie G takes about his baby.

Don't agree with the **** Campbell is taking now ( although the fact that his name breaks down to 'Camp bell' is quite amusing ).

[Red Chilli]

You're 100% wrong.


Sol, Sol, wherever you may be,

Not long now til lunacy,

And we couldn't give a f***,

When you're hanging from a tree,

Judas **** with HIV



how the **** can you defend that ****? like seriously?

Only bit I have a problem with is "hanging from a tree"

That could be interpreted as racist.

Rest of it, don't see the problem to be honest.

Marky, we are coming at this from different perspectives. I support the right to free speech. If we don't have that, we have nothing. Once you start impinging on people's free speech, you're on a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
You should respect and defend your free speech with all your might. You obviously don't realise how important it is. You will, in time

[Warren]

Aren't the lunacy and hanging from a tree lines all about when he went missing and had depression? Just because he's black doesn't mean its racist, and no I don't condone or agree with what was chanted, just my opinion.

[Warren]

I doubt the "racist" claims by Harry Redknapp are true. If they were true the people would be prosecuted under the law as "insighting racial hatred" is illegal. No-one in their right mind condones that and people who indulge in racism are SCUM.
I'm sure the homophobia claims are true. If people want to shout that, it's up to them. It's a game of football, football is traditional a sport for adult men.

So racism is wrong and racists are SCUM but homophobia is OK?

I'm pretty sure that there is now a law in the UK called something along the lines of 'Incitement to homophobic hatred' putting homophobic chants in the same catagory as racist chants and being illegal

[badpiggy]

having the right to say whatever you wants and exercising this right to be a a vile cunt are 2 different things. and freedom of speech covers those who have an opinion on the ones chanting this ****.

[pondus]

Free speech victory over
'homosexual hatred' law
Lord Waddington

Lord Waddington tabled the successful free speech amendment.

Thursday, 8 May 2008

The Government backed down last night and allowed a free speech protection to be written into its proposed 'homophobic hatred' law.

The decision came after the Government was defeated for a second time in the House of Lords. Peers voted 178 to 164 in favour of the protection yesterday evening.

This marks the end of a lengthy battle to make clear that the new criminal offence should not interfere with free speech or religious liberty.

The protection underlines the fact that criticising homosexual practice or urging people to refrain from such conduct will not, in itself, be a crime.

Words or behaviour which are threatening and intended to stir up hatred will be caught by the offence, which carries a maximum seven year prison sentence.

The free speech amendment was tabled by former Home Secretary, Lord Waddington. He was supported by The Christian Institute throughout the campaign.

The amendment says, "for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

In recent years there have been several cases of overzealous police officers wrongly interfering with the right of Christians and others to express the belief that homosexual practice is morally wrong.

Speaking in last night's debate, Lord Waddington said: "My understanding is that the Government do not wish to see discussion stifled and people harassed, bullied, interrogated and sometimes arrested for expressing their views. However, if that is so, it really is time that they did something about it."

Senior Judge, Lady Butler-Sloss, supported the amendment.

"When people are harassed, interrogated and arrested as a result of wrongful action by the police as they follow up what is often a malevolent complaint-such as the one against Mr Hurst, who was handing out leaflets inviting people to his church's Easter service-it is little comfort to know that it is very unlikely that a conviction would have followed," he added.

Senior judge and 'gay rights' sympathiser, Lady Butler-Sloss, agreed that free speech needed protecting. She said: "...there are religious groups, not only Christians, not only bishops, but many Jews and Muslims, which share strong views that they gain from the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, or the Koran. Those people are potentially at risk."

She continued: "It is those people who will potentially be intimidated; they will certainly be bothered and may go through an extremely unfortunate experience before calmer heads point out that under the new clause, as under older clauses, they have not committed any offence."

Labour Peer, Lord Clarke, said: "I shall make one comment on the Minister's reference to the 'alleged' evidence of heavy-handed police. There is no allegation about the couple in Fleetwood.

"It was a fact that these two lovely old people, who described themselves as Christian pensioners, suffered 80 minutes of interrogation by two six-foot policemen.

"That was not an allegation, it is a fact, because within 12 months-only 12 months-they got the apology that they deserved. They had committed no crime. There was no reason for what went on. But someone did not understand."

The Government said the issue could be made clear by publishing guidance instead of inserting a free speech protection into the Bill.

But Lord Clarke said: "If we mean that we are to maintain the principle of free speech, we should make sure that it is in this Bill and not leave it to the interpretation of guidelines, which would become another lawyers' paradise."

Following the Lords vote, the Government backed down and the measure was passed by a substantial majority in the Commons. The offence will become law with the free speech protection included.

[pondus]

having the right to say whatever you wants and exercising this right to be a a vile cunt are 2 different things. and freedom of speech covers those who have an opinion on the ones chanting this ****.

[Red Chilli]

Re: Warren

1) Can't see anything homophobic in what was chanted
2) How do you define a chant as homophobic? It would have to be something that is anti-gays which doesn't include these chants.
3) Racism is completely different to homophobia. Gays have never been forced into slavery, gays have never been treated as second class citizens in the eyes of the law, the life of a gay has never been worth less than the life of a heterosexual.

Where does it end? Next it will be the banning of Anglo-phobia from Scottish (example) fans at Wembley. Then it will be the banning of Manc-o-phobia at Anfield.
There are cunts in society who will chant horrible abuse at football matches. Better they let their aggression/emotion out this way than channeling it into violence and crime. It's a reflection of society and censorship of the spoken word should not be undertaken frivilously.

I support free speech, that's my position, **** anything else.

[Warren]

[QUOTE=Red Chilli;1173773]Re: Warren

1) Can't see anything homophobic in what was chanted - I didn't say there was I was taking you up on the point you made

No-one in their right mind condones that and people who indulge in racism are SCUM.
I'm sure the homophobia claims are true. If people want to shout that, it's up to them. It's a game of football, football is traditional a sport for adult men.

2) How do you define a chant as homophobic? It would have to be something that is anti-gays which doesn't include these chants. Moot point as I never stated that the chant was homophobic
3) Racism is completely different to homophobia. Gays have never been forced into slavery, Are you serious? Do you know any person who has ever been a slave? No I didn't think so gays have never been treated as second class citizens in the eyes of the law, the life of a gay has never been worth less than the life of a heterosexual. homosexuality was against the law in the UK until 1967 and is still illegal in many countries with some countries punishing it with the death penalty, I'm not sure of any countries where it is illegal to be a certain colour is this enlightened day and age

[hertsred]

I don't know exactly what was chanted, but Redknap wouldn't go on like this if he wasn't sur eit was racist. And the Police have started an investigation to find out who was chanting what. They must think there's something in it, or they wouldn't waste their time. The vile stuff needs stamping out, it isn;t big and it isn't funny. There's plenty of room for having a go in a witty if somewhat abusive way without crossing a line.

[badpiggy]

You're 100% wrong.


Sol, Sol, wherever you may be,

Not long now til lunacy,

And we couldn't give a f***,

When you're hanging from a tree,

Judas **** with HIV


how the **** can you defend that ****? like seriously?

ironically given my opinion on this type of thing i can't stop singing this. just totally stuck in my head. the devil really does have the best tunes.