I heard from a Millwall mate that the 13 year old in question, shouted "you look like a fish" to Sordell and noting racist like he suggested. Not sure how true that is though.
Didn't the banner just say "sordell is a c**t" not saying it is right but it certainly isn't racist.
They were nicked for public order offences not because the banner was racist. Presumably the 6 of them kicked off when the stewards came in to take it down.
I bet they had to spell check it first too, there's some long words in there for that lot...
I heard from a Millwall mate that the 13 year old in question, shouted "you look like a fish" to Sordell and noting racist like he suggested. Not sure how true that is though.
If that's true then I'm a glamour model with 36dd's!
I heard from a Millwall mate that the 13 year old in question, shouted "you look like a fish" to Sordell and noting racist like he suggested. Not sure how true that is though.
If that's true then I'm a glamour model with 36dd's!
I heard from a Millwall mate that the 13 year old in question, shouted "you look like a fish" to Sordell and noting racist like he suggested. Not sure how true that is though.
If that's true then I'm a glamour model with 36dd's!
I suggest you read Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times and then make a decision about whether you need to buy some new clothes.
I have no interest in defending either the young man involved or Millwall FC, but if Liddle is correct in his article, and he confesses he may not be, then I'd draw two conclusions;
1) Marvin Sordell should also spend time on an "Educational programme". 2) The world of football is becoming a Madhouse.
Where the truth lies who knows. Nobody is telling.
What's that Grade A c*** Liddle got to say on it then. No - wait, don't tell me, I'm keen to guess. Is it a thinly-veiled bit of pseudo-working class rabble-rousing racism disguised as 'journalism' where he hand-wringingingly claims that Millwall are being picked on for past transgressions, and in fact, are a salt of the Earth working class club whose cheeky scamp fans' only crime is to engage in a bit of salty banter with opposition players and fans?
"Liddle married his longtime partner, Rachel Royce, a television presenter, in January 2004 at a ceremony in Malaysia. They had been living in Heytesbury, Wiltshire, and had two sons together, Tyler and Wilder.[44] Six months later, Liddle moved in with Alicia Monckton, a 22-year-old receptionist at The Spectator. It transpired that he had cut his honeymoon with Royce short so that he could be with Monckton.
On 5 May 2005, he was arrested for common assault against Monckton, who was 20 weeks pregnant at the time. "
Geezer needs a slap - and that's before you even start looking at his "iffy" comments on Spanners Online.
Liddle's article: PETER HERBERT is the kind of man who can show you racism in a handful of dust, or in the very air we breathe. The chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers has already excelled himself by reporting referee Mark Clattenburg to the police for uttering a supposed racist remark that he certainly did not hear (and neither, from the look of things, did anyone else). Now this self-aggrandising, self-important gentleman is waging a one-man war against Tottenham Hotspur’s supporters. If they continue to refer to themselves as “The Yid Army”, the police will be brought in, he has pronounced. “They just don’t get it,” he said, full of himself, a cut-price TK Maxx Martin Luther King for our times. Kicking racism out of football is a noble and necessary concern, but it will attract quite a few self-serving busybodies and troublemakers whose main concern is to make a name for themselves, or simply to vent spite. I look forward to the police arresting 25,000 Spurs fans for doing something that, hitherto, few cared about — while real racism such as the under-representation of black managers continues unabated. There will be a lot of hypocrisy associated with this obsessive campaign — which brings me to my own club, Millwall. If you remember, we were in the dock a few weeks back when a Bolton Wanderers player, Marvin Sordell, tweeted that he had been racially abused while warming up along the touchline at the New Den. The press piled in, because this is Millwall, and made the usual accusations against the club and the fans in general. One half-witted woman from a very low-circulation London broadsheet asserted that Millwall fans “always” acted “like animals” when black players were on the pitch; every week then, as half our team is black — although how she would know I have no idea. She was forced to apologise. But what of Sordell’s claims? Well, luckily it had a happy ending which pleased Millwall, Sordell, the FA, Bolton and the police. Last week Millwall announced that they had identified the culprit — a 13-year-old boy — who had been involved in an “exchange” with Sordell. He has now been banned for the “foreseeable future” from the ground. Millwall, further, were prepared to send the lad on an education programme “in the hope that we can change his outlook on equality, race and life in general”. Fantastic. The FA then put out a statement commending both Millwall and Bolton, and the boy has written a letter of apology to Sordell. All cleared up, then, everything for the best. But, if you read the various statements, nowhere do they assert that this young lad actually racially abused Sordell. There is no detail about their exchange. To get that, we turn to the boy’s uncle, who is hopping mad. He says that his nephew shouted at Sordell, who was warming up, that he was “ugly” and “looked like a fish”. Sordell took exception and allegedly replied: “You look like you need to go to the gym, you fat little ****.” This Socratic dialogue ended with the child suggesting to the player that he “**** off”. The uncle is adamant, as is the boy, that at no time was Sordell racially abused — and this would seem to be reflected in the absence of such a charge in the statements from Millwall and the FA. So quite why the kid should be packed off on a racial awareness course is a mystery, except that it’s a convenient catch-all answer to every form of transgression, I suppose. The family are also miffed that, while the boy had to write a letter of apology to Sordell, the player was not required to do the same in return. Of course, we only have the uncle’s word for this, along with his assertion that the family will be contacting various newspapers to make clear that racist abuse was not involved. You might well be of the opinion that a 13-year-old kid shouldn’t be abusing an adult in such a manner, racist or not. I think I’d agree with that. And I’d go so far as to suggest that having been abused, Sordell was entirely justified in responding in a similar manner, if indeed he did so. You give it out, you should be prepared to take it. But having then tweeted about his uncouth treatment at the hands of the lad, all hell was let loose. And one young lad, who was rude when he shouldn’t have been, and was in turn abused by a player (allegedly), has been branded a racist and banned from the club he loves. There is some anger about this among the fans. Is it true, though? Millwall wouldn’t tell me. An internal matter which we’ve dealt with satisfactorily, thank you very much. Now clear off, get stuffed. That was the subtext of the conversation I had with the press office. The club are right to worry that they are often unjustly labelled “racist”. Their panic at having once again been so described may have resulted in their behaving in a singularly unjust manner towards one of their own supporters.
Tbf IF the Liddle article is true, then that is out of order.
I would be pretty confident that nearly all clubs supporters, call players names.
If that had happened to one of our 13 year olds, I'm sure there would be a lot of indignation.
He says that his nephew shouted at Sordell, who was warming up, that he was “ugly” and “looked like a fish”. Sordell took exception and allegedly replied: “You look like you need to go to the gym, you fat little ****.” This Socratic dialogue ended with the child suggesting to the player that he “**** off”.
Millwall long ago forfeited any right to the benefit of the doubt. Lighning has struck The Toolbox so often that it's amazing it's still standing.
Liddle is a typical articulate South Berkmondsey apologist coming out with the usual ambivalent guff. My mate was also an expert at this. After some outrageous incident you could join in with the old familiar patter - " Well, yeah, people were upset and we're only human and things did get a bit silly ...."
The thing is I cannot imagine any 13 year old shouting you look like a fish as an insult. Not saying he said anything racist, but can anyone here imagine a self respecting wanna be hard nut shouting "You look like a fish!" ... something smells fishy about the Uncles response.
The thing is I cannot imagine any 13 year old shouting you look like a fish as an insult. Not saying he said anything racist, but can anyone here imagine a self respecting wanna be hard nut shouting "You look like a fish!" ... something smells fishy about the Uncles response.
I am concerned that they plan to educate this 13 year old. Where will it end? If a Millwall fan wants an education at 13 it normally means night school. Once one can read and write they will all want a piece of it.
A statement by their fan's director posted on the House of Fun.
At the moment there is a lot of debate around two issues the Sordell Incident and the Banner incident. Firstly the Banner. The banner went up for no more that 20 seconds I understand, I personally never saw it, it was picked up by the media and doing the rounds within minutes, it was seen by the club in the control room and it was decided to take no action. The police took the decision to go in and make arrests not the club. I can only think that after Marvin Sordell’s accusation that they never did anything when he was supposedly racially abused they thought they should do something. I have been speaking to the club over the last couple of days regards both issues and I am confident that no further action will be taken by the club (i.e. banning). As for the police that it out of my hands. I also understand the FA will take no further action. If the banner wouldn’t have had the word “C***” on it I am pretty sure there would have been no issue. Sordell This whole episode in my opinion has been blown completely out of proportion mainly by the media; the right way for this to have been handled if M Sordell had been racially abused would have been to brought the issue to the notice of the officials on the day, not to put unsubstantiated accusations on a social networking site. The club have investigated the claims and there were no witnesses to substantiate the claims of racial abuse. The club then checked the CCTV and saw an incident between M Sordell and a 13 year old boy, there was no audio evidence. The boy was interviewed (with a parent) by the club at which time the boy admitted to verbally abusing M Sordell, the boy also said that M Sordell reacted with abuse back. The boy wrote to M Sordell and apologised for the abuse and M Sordell accepted the apology. I would hope being a professional footballer M Sordell would be man enough if he did react to in some way give some sort of apology. In this case the FA are happy with the way it has been dealt with, I would hope they look at the whole accusation by social networking site and the reaction of the media especially with no firm evidence. Where are we now with it? The boy in question denies racially abusing M Sordell, there is no evidence to support the racially abused M Sordell either. If there was there would be no question that a lengthy ban should be put in place. We as a club have done more than any other in regards tackling racism in football at all levels. The club have put out a statement stating that the boy had admitted to abusing M Sordell, in the statement there was no mention that he had racially abused him, the statement then went on to talk about the boy doing a course run by Millwall for All (formerly run by the Anti Racist Trust) in my opinion this led a lot of people to believe the boy had admitted to the racial abuse when he hadn’t. I personally think the statement should have been a lot clearer that would have stopped a lot of the current speculation by the media. I have been in discussion with the boys family and the club and will be attending a meeting with them this week to see how we can move forward, I want to ensure that everyone is happy with the outcome, then we can put this to bed and move on as it is just another cloud over the club we could well do without especially as things on the pitch are looking rosy. The bottom line is the boy has accepted he has done wrong with the abuse and will take his punishment, I would like to see a statement of sorts clarifying the fact there was no admittance or evidence of racial abuse, I am personally sick to death of our club being wrongly accused. As I have always said and I am sticking by it I cannot come on and answer questions on here on a daily basis, I always reply to my mails so if anyone has a questions they wish to put to me or a criticism please write to me direct, if your unhappy with how I handle things either write to the MSC or the club.
Oh dear i do believe you lot need to read up on this issue.
Sordell was abused by the boy in the first instance whilst warming up as a sub. The boy admits to this and the insults were to do with a cartoon fish.
Sordell retorted and then abused the juvenile himself surrying the size of him. (It should be noted that other Bolton players warming up with Sordell were laughing at this time - probably due to the nature of the insults)
All of this was caught on CCTV, but unfortunatey no audio evidence was available in this instance. (It sometimes is hence why there have one or two bans this season with regards specific racist abuse).
Sordell for whatever reason then goes public, on twitter, informing the world, that Millwall fans, (note the plurality there and the impact that can have) were racially abusing him.
At no such time in investigations into this incident has any evdince been made available to that effect, or most probably is likely to be made available.
The upshot of this is that because in the latest political correctness climate and the fact that a racist is as bad as a nonce, a way out had to be found to protect the FA, Sordell and Millwall FC to an extent.
Upshot a 13year old boy is banned for his misdemenour, forced to apologise (note the lack of apology back) and the press have twisted it to look like there was racial abuse. When there in all probability was not.
The banner on Saturday was in support of that boy in effect and although unfortunately whoever made it should have used the words liar rather than cunt (although both are true).
It gets worse because the OB (not the club) nicked 6 people offf the back of it - 5 of which were innocent and had nothing to do with the banner - there crime being they were sat next to the person who unfurled the banner and it dropped on them....
If you believe this is all pie n sky, then go on either of the big Millwall forums and look what a director of the club, the fan on the board has stated what has happened.
I leave you to digest the content above, but its good to see that reading this thread there are a lot of predjuices alive and well from Charlton fans.
If you think its ok for a balck player to play a race card to suit him, when a amountable % of a clubs revenue is utilised to combat people who could attack him, then i'll leave Henry to fester in your ivorian tower.....which we all know will crack and crumble one day.
Comments
I bet they had to spell check it first too, there's some long words in there for that lot...
I have no interest in defending either the young man involved or Millwall FC, but if Liddle is correct in his article, and he confesses he may not be, then I'd draw two conclusions;
1) Marvin Sordell should also spend time on an "Educational programme".
2) The world of football is becoming a Madhouse.
Where the truth lies who knows. Nobody is telling.
Here are some extracts from his wikipedia page.
"Liddle married his longtime partner, Rachel Royce, a television presenter, in January 2004 at a ceremony in Malaysia. They had been living in Heytesbury, Wiltshire, and had two sons together, Tyler and Wilder.[44] Six months later, Liddle moved in with Alicia Monckton, a 22-year-old receptionist at The Spectator. It transpired that he had cut his honeymoon with Royce short so that he could be with Monckton.
On 5 May 2005, he was arrested for common assault against Monckton, who was 20 weeks pregnant at the time. "
Geezer needs a slap - and that's before you even start looking at his "iffy" comments on Spanners Online.
PETER HERBERT is the kind of man who can show you racism in a handful of dust, or in the very air we breathe. The chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers has already excelled himself by reporting referee Mark Clattenburg to the police for uttering a supposed racist remark that he certainly did not hear (and neither, from the look of things, did anyone else). Now this self-aggrandising, self-important gentleman is waging a one-man war against Tottenham Hotspur’s supporters.
If they continue to refer to themselves as “The Yid Army”, the police will be brought in, he has pronounced. “They just don’t get it,” he said, full of himself, a cut-price TK Maxx Martin Luther King for our times. Kicking racism out of football is a noble and necessary concern, but it will attract quite a few self-serving busybodies and troublemakers whose main concern is to make a name for themselves, or simply to vent spite. I look forward to the police arresting 25,000 Spurs fans for doing something that, hitherto, few cared about — while real racism such as the under-representation of black managers continues unabated.
There will be a lot of hypocrisy associated with this obsessive campaign — which brings me to my own club, Millwall. If you remember, we were in the dock a few weeks back when a Bolton Wanderers player, Marvin Sordell, tweeted that he had been racially abused while warming up along the touchline at the New Den.
The press piled in, because this is Millwall, and made the usual accusations against the club and the fans in general. One half-witted woman from a very low-circulation London broadsheet asserted that Millwall fans “always” acted “like animals” when black players were on the pitch; every week then, as half our team is black — although how she would know I have no idea. She was forced to apologise.
But what of Sordell’s claims? Well, luckily it had a happy ending which pleased Millwall, Sordell, the FA, Bolton and the police. Last week Millwall announced that they had identified the culprit — a 13-year-old boy — who had been involved in an “exchange” with Sordell. He has now been banned for the “foreseeable future” from the ground. Millwall, further, were prepared to send the lad on an education programme “in the hope that we can change his outlook on equality, race and life in general”. Fantastic.
The FA then put out a statement commending both Millwall and Bolton, and the boy has written a letter of apology to Sordell. All cleared up, then, everything for the best. But, if you read the various statements, nowhere do they assert that this young lad actually racially abused Sordell. There is no detail about their exchange.
To get that, we turn to the boy’s uncle, who is hopping mad. He says that his nephew shouted at Sordell, who was warming up, that he was “ugly” and “looked like a fish”. Sordell took exception and allegedly replied: “You look like you need to go to the gym, you fat little ****.” This Socratic dialogue ended with the child suggesting to the player that he “**** off”.
The uncle is adamant, as is the boy, that at no time was Sordell racially abused — and this would seem to be reflected in the absence of such a charge in the statements from Millwall and the FA. So quite why the kid should be packed off on a racial awareness course is a mystery, except that it’s a convenient catch-all answer to every form of transgression, I suppose. The family are also miffed that, while the boy had to write a letter of apology to Sordell, the player was not required to do the same in return.
Of course, we only have the uncle’s word for this, along with his assertion that the family will be contacting various newspapers to make clear that racist abuse was not involved. You might well be of the opinion that a 13-year-old kid shouldn’t be abusing an adult in such a manner, racist or not. I think I’d agree with that.
And I’d go so far as to suggest that having been abused, Sordell was entirely justified in responding in a similar manner, if indeed he did so. You give it out, you should be prepared to take it. But having then tweeted about his uncouth treatment at the hands of the lad, all hell was let loose. And one young lad, who was rude when he shouldn’t have been, and was in turn abused by a player (allegedly), has been branded a racist and banned from the club he loves.
There is some anger about this among the fans. Is it true, though? Millwall wouldn’t tell me. An internal matter which we’ve dealt with satisfactorily, thank you very much. Now clear off, get stuffed. That was the subtext of the conversation I had with the press office. The club are right to worry that they are often unjustly labelled “racist”. Their panic at having once again been so described may have resulted in their behaving in a singularly unjust manner towards one of their own supporters.
I would be pretty confident that nearly all clubs supporters, call players names.
If that had happened to one of our 13 year olds, I'm sure there would be a lot of indignation.
He says that his nephew shouted at Sordell, who was warming up, that he was “ugly” and “looked like a fish”. Sordell took exception and allegedly replied: “You look like you need to go to the gym, you fat little ****.” This Socratic dialogue ended with the child suggesting to the player that he “**** off”.
Liddle is a typical articulate South Berkmondsey apologist coming out with the usual ambivalent guff. My mate was also an expert at this. After some outrageous incident you could join in with the old familiar patter - " Well, yeah, people were upset and we're only human and things did get a bit silly ...."
Yawn - same old, same old ....
At the moment there is a lot of debate around two issues the Sordell Incident and the Banner incident.
Firstly the Banner.
The banner went up for no more that 20 seconds I understand, I personally never saw it, it was picked up by the media and doing the rounds within minutes, it was seen by the club in the control room and it was decided to take no action. The police took the decision to go in and make arrests not the club. I can only think that after Marvin Sordell’s accusation that they never did anything when he was supposedly racially abused they thought they should do something. I have been speaking to the club over the last couple of days regards both issues and I am confident that no further action will be taken by the club (i.e. banning). As for the police that it out of my hands. I also understand the FA will take no further action. If the banner wouldn’t have had the word “C***” on it I am pretty sure there would have been no issue.
Sordell
This whole episode in my opinion has been blown completely out of proportion mainly by the media; the right way for this to have been handled if M Sordell had been racially abused would have been to brought the issue to the notice of the officials on the day, not to put unsubstantiated accusations on a social networking site. The club have investigated the claims and there were no witnesses to substantiate the claims of racial abuse. The club then checked the CCTV and saw an incident between M Sordell and a 13 year old boy, there was no audio evidence. The boy was interviewed (with a parent) by the club at which time the boy admitted to verbally abusing M Sordell, the boy also said that M Sordell reacted with abuse back. The boy wrote to M Sordell and apologised for the abuse and M Sordell accepted the apology. I would hope being a professional footballer M Sordell would be man enough if he did react to in some way give some sort of apology.
In this case the FA are happy with the way it has been dealt with, I would hope they look at the whole accusation by social networking site and the reaction of the media especially with no firm evidence.
Where are we now with it?
The boy in question denies racially abusing M Sordell, there is no evidence to support the racially abused M Sordell either. If there was there would be no question that a lengthy ban should be put in place. We as a club have done more than any other in regards tackling racism in football at all levels.
The club have put out a statement stating that the boy had admitted to abusing M Sordell, in the statement there was no mention that he had racially abused him, the statement then went on to talk about the boy doing a course run by Millwall for All (formerly run by the Anti Racist Trust) in my opinion this led a lot of people to believe the boy had admitted to the racial abuse when he hadn’t. I personally think the statement should have been a lot clearer that would have stopped a lot of the current speculation by the media.
I have been in discussion with the boys family and the club and will be attending a meeting with them this week to see how we can move forward, I want to ensure that everyone is happy with the outcome, then we can put this to bed and move on as it is just another cloud over the club we could well do without especially as things on the pitch are looking rosy.
The bottom line is the boy has accepted he has done wrong with the abuse and will take his punishment, I would like to see a statement of sorts clarifying the fact there was no admittance or evidence of racial abuse, I am personally sick to death of our club being wrongly accused.
As I have always said and I am sticking by it I cannot come on and answer questions on here on a daily basis, I always reply to my mails so if anyone has a questions they wish to put to me or a criticism please write to me direct, if your unhappy with how I handle things either write to the MSC or the club.
Sordell was abused by the boy in the first instance whilst warming up as a sub. The boy admits to this and the insults were to do with a cartoon fish.
Sordell retorted and then abused the juvenile himself surrying the size of him. (It should be noted that other Bolton players warming up with Sordell were laughing at this time - probably due to the nature of the insults)
All of this was caught on CCTV, but unfortunatey no audio evidence was available in this instance. (It sometimes is hence why there have one or two bans this season with regards specific racist abuse).
Sordell for whatever reason then goes public, on twitter, informing the world, that Millwall fans, (note the plurality there and the impact that can have) were racially abusing him.
At no such time in investigations into this incident has any evdince been made available to that effect, or most probably is likely to be made available.
The upshot of this is that because in the latest political correctness climate and the fact that a racist is as bad as a nonce, a way out had to be found to protect the FA, Sordell and Millwall FC to an extent.
Upshot a 13year old boy is banned for his misdemenour, forced to apologise (note the lack of apology back) and the press have twisted it to look like there was racial abuse. When there in all probability was not.
The banner on Saturday was in support of that boy in effect and although unfortunately whoever made it should have used the words liar rather than cunt (although both are true).
It gets worse because the OB (not the club) nicked 6 people offf the back of it - 5 of which were innocent and had nothing to do with the banner - there crime being they were sat next to the person who unfurled the banner and it dropped on them....
If you believe this is all pie n sky, then go on either of the big Millwall forums and look what a director of the club, the fan on the board has stated what has happened.
I leave you to digest the content above, but its good to see that reading this thread there are a lot of predjuices alive and well from Charlton fans.
It's never their fault
Another Spanner apologist repeating the party line of "we didn't do nothing, it was the press what stitched us up"
The uncle comes out with some cock and bull story and the Spanners just lap it up despite it not tallying with what their own Club originally said.
If you think its ok for a balck player to play a race card to suit him, when a amountable % of a clubs revenue is utilised to combat people who could attack him, then i'll leave Henry to fester in your ivorian tower.....which we all know will crack and crumble one day.
Nicky could you enlighten us about that part of the situation?