Originally posted by S-RED
View Post
-
How old are you?Oh I don't know. -
old enough to know football before sky; I assume you are a child from the sky generation?Originally posted by dom9 View PostComment
-
Certainly not old bean.
Your turn of phrase is somewhat teenage though at times. I mean 'FERGUSCUM'. It sounds like an insult from pre-school.Oh I don't know.Comment
-
Anyway, enough about that.
We obviously disagree. We have different ways of expressing it. I'll leave it there.Oh I don't know.Comment
-
Maybe so, but i depise the person he is; his manipulation grates me to the coreComment
-
I refer to him as Beelzebub.Oh I don't know.Comment
-
This the Mail we are talking about here. They have exceeded themselves this time.Oh I don't know.Comment
-
2nd time in my life a newspaper article has enraged me so much as to feel a duty to complain.
That is completely ****ing outrageous.Hello mert.Comment
-
Don't think that is a Mail article
http://www.footballtransfertavern.co...in-circulation
http://www.footballtransfertavern.co...r/daniel-crossComment
-
Don't preach, try to teach... make racists Kop a lesson
By Martin Samuel
Last updated at 10:57 PM on 13th February 2012
It is a beautiful bit, Chris Rock on the OJ Simpson trial. ‘Black people too happy,’ he says. ‘White people too mad. I haven’t seen that many mad white people since they cancelled MASH.’
English football may recognise itself in that sentiment. Everybody is too mad about race these days; even the white guys. Not that the issue should be brushed over; but when racist abuse of black players on social media is actually rising, it may be time to look at the hammer being used to crack a few nuts.
John Terry’s trial for a racially aggravated public order offence against Anton Ferdinand sums up our confusion. It is widely presumed that, if found guilty, Terry’s professional life will effectively be over.
He has already lost the captaincy of his country, but his place in the England team, his position as captain at Chelsea, any future hopes of managing the club, all would be placed in jeopardy. It would be hard to imagine Terry pursuing a high-profile career in football, certainly for a good few years, with the stigma attached to his name. And we understand this.
The maximum penalty for his offence, however, is a £2,500 fine. So something is wrong. When the punishment and the consequences are so completely out of whack, the process must be flawed. Either a financial penalty is too weak or the ruination of a life too great. Both circumstances cannot be correct.
The resolution, as ever, is probably somewhere in the middle.
Racism could easily carry a brief custodial sentence, but in that time there should be a programme of education, one with contributions from the victims of racism, so that the offender could return to the community having grown, or learned, and would not be presumed to be the same person that stood in court. There has to be hope of rehabilitation if racism is not to be a crime that affords no escape. This is where we are now.
First, nobody would say sorry over Luis Suarez’s insult to Patrice Evra, then apologies poured from on high. The New England end of the Anfield operation appear to have woken up to the fresh wave of toxic effluent about to wash on to their shore and then Suarez, his manager Kenny Dalglish and the Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre all expressed contrition for Saturday’s disgrace.
We know Liverpool’s denial played a part in creating the Suarez monster, but the FA had a role, too. It is a giant hole in their process that a player found guilty of racist behaviour is not made to address his conduct in a constructive way, as happens when a player is found guilty of substance abuse.
There should be counselling. Not in a touchy-feely way, but in a way that makes the perpetrator face up to the realities of race, and the harmful spill from his actions.
If Suarez had attended sessions with race relations experts, particularly former footballers, he would not have been allowed to continue seeing himself as the injured party - which was clearly the case prior to Saturday’s match at Old Trafford.
Had he met and talked to the real victims of discrimination, it is almost unthinkable that he would not have moved to the next stage of rehabilitation, by saying sorry to Evra. Had Evra then seen an achievement in personal growth, given his conciliatory gesture, one presumes an apology would be accepted. And we move on.
That is the problem in our game right now. Nobody grows.
In our desire for a searing public judgment, the condemned stay condemned and the offended remain offended. It suits the news agenda. There is far less fun to be had on Twitter if we try to affect social change rather than the next appearance in the stocks.
Take the incident between Stuart Pearce and Paul Ince in 1994, exhumed the day Pearce was announced as England’s caretaker manager. We are told the reason the matter was long forgotten was that society was different then.
No it wasn’t: 1994 is not 2012 but it is not 1949, either. Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party in 1994. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. Kurt Cobain died. The first episode of Vicar of Dibley aired. We knew right from wrong on race in 1994.
And there were four black players on the field that day, Ince of Manchester United, plus three from Nottingham Forest: Des Lyttle, Bryan Roy and Stan Collymore.
Rolling television news was in its infancy, however, and there was no such thing as a firestorm on social media. Neither is particularly helpful in bridging the racial divide, only adding to the controversy and tension, helping to quickly create entrenched positions when more measured reactions are needed.
In Pearce’s case, Gordon Taylor, the head of the Professional Footballers’ Association, was instantly involved as mediator.
Pearce recognised he was wrong and apologised. Ince, an England team-mate on 13 occasions after the event took place, accepted.
Nobody is arguing that racism is cosily settled with a handshake, but a swift confession, apology and sincere attempt at reconciliation goes a long way.
The worry being that the more strident the zero tolerance approach has become, the worse the situation appears to get. There have always been racists lurking on Twitter - and its administrators should have done more to outlaw them a long time ago - but the recent controversies seem to be bringing extremists out in greater number, judging by the amount of complaints and account closures from black players. Micah Richards is the latest to withdraw.
This is not right. There is no point having an admirable, progressive policy if it achieves the opposite of what is intended.
Either football’s message on racism isn’t getting across, or it has become horribly skewed if white folk think they are the ones being persecuted, and the worst in their ranks are lashing out.
Yet without a proper avenue for rehabilitation, this false sense of injustice will spread. We make racism the only taboo at our peril.
The exchange between Suarez and Evra is believed to have started with a sexist remark about a member of Suarez’s family, although little was made of it at the time or subsequently.
Jenni Murray, the presenter of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4, certainly found that puzzling during a debate on misogyny in football. ‘The FA has a campaign called Kick It Out, which includes racism and homophobia, but why do sexism and misogyny go unchallenged,’ she asked, not without justification.
Those who equate racist insults to jibes about hair colour or girth are rightly dismissed - there is no historical persecution of the ginger-haired or portly - but the oppression of women cannot be so easily disregarded.
Part of the problem seems to be that if we set racism apart from all other forms of discrimination, we depart from the logical path and undermine our cause.
In football at least, it should not be hard to address this problem, considering that most dressing-rooms are harmoniously multi-racial. For Rio Ferdinand to state that he has perhaps been fooled in thinking the English game has made strides in the fight against racism is genuinely sad.
The Suarez incident and the accusation against Terry give a false impression of a sport in turmoil.
The Twitter abuse is then a product of that: a call to arms for the simplest of mind. There will always be trolls, always be vile little people spitting venom from a distance.
They can only win if their behaviour is perceived to be part of the mainstream and contributes to the isolation of minorities.
But racism is not mainstream: the British National Party are humiliated at general elections.
Ferdinand’s original instincts are right. Attitudes are evolving; there is improvement through generations. Now we must address the process of fruitful correction.
That is what was missing from the aftermath of the Suarez affair, and what is absent from the speculation around Terry’s trial, too.
Education, education, education. For English football to move forwards, it has to first provide a way back. We cannot live but not learn.Comment
-
I dont get that - is it a DM article or some blog referring to an article?Hello mert.Comment
-
Its a blogOriginally posted by Fivex View Post
Mail story is here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...ed-police.htmlComment
-
Might be worth deleting that post in cases it causes more misplaced confusion.Oh I don't know.Comment
-
Cheers Chazza. I read that the other day. The fact it even made it into print speaks volumes, what vile cunts they are.
And yes that blog post really doesn't need to be on here.
As for that blurt samuel
Hello mert.Comment
Comment