The speculation over something that allegedly was said that none of us can quantify is genuinely staggering.
How some of you have come to the conclusions you have and how you have shown your working out, in the interests of being polite, I think you are crediting both players with a lot more political, social and historical awareness.
I genuinely dislike Kelvin Mackenzie however the false outrage over him saying Wayne Rooney had the same dead look in his eyes as a gorilla was a watershed moment. It brought into play the fact that anyone is allowed to loudly be offended and you can lose your job (I have no sympathy for McKenzie) depending on how someone interprets something. Even if the interpretation is light years away from what was meant.
Wasn't it Ross Barclay he wrote that about, how happens to be mixed race? In which case he deserved the sack for being incredibly stupid. You'd think a basic google of the person you're writing about before publishing should be the bare minimum standard a journalist is held to. So he even didn't bother to do a basic part of his job before publishing the article, or did the research and decided that comparing a mixed race man to a gorilla was a good idea. Either way he shouldn't be surprised at getting the sack for it.
There's a really nasty undercurrent to this thread, and I feel a little but shitty for having read through it.
Is there? or is that your chosen perception of it, which has every chance of being misplaced/wrong?
Says the guy defending Kelvin fucking Mackenzie.
Nope. Not defending one of your own at all. I'm putting what he said in to context. The man's odious. I don't like him at all.
However, I wont incorrectly label something as being something it isn't purely because the individual is a massive c**t.
Unless you have direct access to his brain, I have no idea how you could possibly be so certain regarding what he meant. Much like a lot of the discussion in this thread, be it about Firmino, MacKenzie or Rodriguez.
I maintain that there's an undercurrent to this thread that makes me uncomfortable. Your nonsensical 'chosen perception' line hasn't changed that, but most of what you have said has enhanced it.
to justify trying to stigmatise people so that it closes down a debate because you feel uncomfortable discussing it.
Given that I haven't told you what I think, you're making some utterly ludicrous, or at least, incredibly defensive assumptions.
As for the nonsensical part - 'your chosen perception' - what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Again, I'd like to point out that you couldn't have the foggiest idea what my perception is, let alone whether I have consciously chosen to feel that way.
"There's a really nasty undercurrent" - Your exact words.
That implies that there IS an undercurrent, as opposed to you believing/thinking that one possibly exists. That was when the fog cleared and you stated something as though it's fact. That was your 'chosen perception' of the situation. You 'chose' to perceive that there was an undercurrent as you could not possibly have determined that factually from what has been said.
Apologies for not having read this whole thread, and it may already have been mentioned, but this event comes hard on the heels of Trump calling African countries 'shitholes', and of course shit mainly stinks. I am probably over wired to this kind of thing, but I interpreted the smell gesture as racist because of the recent behaviour of the President of the United States. Bong was born in Cameroon. It wasn't exactly a nice thing to do on the part of Rodriguez, and we also don't know what was said in addition.
You're probably right. Rodriguez, if he was American, would probably have voted for Trump. I came to this conclusion due to the concrete link you mention between Trumps comment and Rodriguez's common reaction when two people are in each other's faces. I mean it's the first thing that any balanced individual would, and should, think of when seeing that on a British football field. That and the fact that he exhibits all the traits of white supremacy. I wouldn't be surprised if they were related.
You can mock me, although I admitted that I am probably over wired on this, and made a connection I shouldn't have. You called my link 'concrete' where I explicitly avoided that, so you have misrepresented me, just as people misrepresent that old woman in that car with the little kid encouraging him to chant 'Millwall, fuck 'em all' ending with 'black cunt', as being anything to do with Millwall.
You took my 'concrete' reference as me being serious? I think you were/are the only person to do so. Misrepresentation, anyone?
I just tried to point out the ludricrous nature of the reasoning you gave for coming to your conclusion.
Re the video you mention, I think most people have represented that old woman fairly correctly. If someone wants to then claim it's the fault of MFC then they'd be wrong. Much in the same way that the racist train chanters aren't representative of CAFC.
To clear this up. You say my connection was ludicrous but I made an effort to point out it was a personal take rather than attempting to state my connection as fact...and the context was about current events including the Trump African shitholes remarks. If you like I was tapping in to an aspect of the zeitgeist of modern times.
Apologies for not being able to read your mind regarding your use of the word concrete, I was going by your words instead.
It wasn't my mind that required reading. It was my obviously sarcastic in nature response.
Look, you usually come across as quite a balanced individual but on this occasion I believe you to be wide of the mark and allowing emotion to cloud your reasoning. Shoe horning Trump in to this debate means you're assuming quite a lot of things. Not least Rodriguez knowing where Bong originates from and having the wherewithal, in that split second moment, to think of current political affairs and make a gesture along those lines. On television. In front of millions.
The speculation over something that allegedly was said that none of us can quantify is genuinely staggering.
How some of you have come to the conclusions you have and how you have shown your working out, in the interests of being polite, I think you are crediting both players with a lot more political, social and historical awareness.
I genuinely dislike Kelvin Mackenzie however the false outrage over him saying Wayne Rooney had the same dead look in his eyes as a gorilla was a watershed moment. It brought into play the fact that anyone is allowed to loudly be offended and you can lose your job (I have no sympathy for McKenzie) depending on how someone interprets something. Even if the interpretation is light years away from what was meant.
Wasn't it Ross Barclay he wrote that about, how happens to be mixed race? In which case he deserved the sack for being incredibly stupid. You'd think a basic google of the person you're writing about before publishing should be the bare minimum standard a journalist is held to. So he even didn't bother to do a basic part of his job before publishing the article, or did the research and decided that comparing a mixed race man to a gorilla was a good idea. Either way he shouldn't be surprised at getting the sack for it.
There's a really nasty undercurrent to this thread, and I feel a little but shitty for having read through it.
Is there? or is that your chosen perception of it, which has every chance of being misplaced/wrong?
Says the guy defending Kelvin fucking Mackenzie.
Nope. Not defending one of your own at all. I'm putting what he said in to context. The man's odious. I don't like him at all.
However, I wont incorrectly label something as being something it isn't purely because the individual is a massive c**t.
Unless you have direct access to his brain, I have no idea how you could possibly be so certain regarding what he meant. Much like a lot of the discussion in this thread, be it about Firmino, MacKenzie or Rodriguez.
I maintain that there's an undercurrent to this thread that makes me uncomfortable. Your nonsensical 'chosen perception' line hasn't changed that, but most of what you have said has enhanced it.
to justify trying to stigmatise people so that it closes down a debate because you feel uncomfortable discussing it.
Given that I haven't told you what I think, you're making some utterly ludicrous, or at least, incredibly defensive assumptions.
As for the nonsensical part - 'your chosen perception' - what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Again, I'd like to point out that you couldn't have the foggiest idea what my perception is, let alone whether I have consciously chosen to feel that way.
"There's a really nasty undercurrent" - Your exact words.
That implies that there IS an undercurrent, as opposed to you believing/thinking that one possibly exists. That was when the fog cleared and you stated something as though it's fact. That was your 'chosen perception' of the situation. You 'chose' to perceive that there was an undercurrent as you could not possibly have determined that factually from what has been said.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Do you really insist on people saying "in my opinion" on a message forum? You really need that to be made clear? On an opinion-based message board?
The speculation over something that allegedly was said that none of us can quantify is genuinely staggering.
How some of you have come to the conclusions you have and how you have shown your working out, in the interests of being polite, I think you are crediting both players with a lot more political, social and historical awareness.
I genuinely dislike Kelvin Mackenzie however the false outrage over him saying Wayne Rooney had the same dead look in his eyes as a gorilla was a watershed moment. It brought into play the fact that anyone is allowed to loudly be offended and you can lose your job (I have no sympathy for McKenzie) depending on how someone interprets something. Even if the interpretation is light years away from what was meant.
Wasn't it Ross Barclay he wrote that about, how happens to be mixed race? In which case he deserved the sack for being incredibly stupid. You'd think a basic google of the person you're writing about before publishing should be the bare minimum standard a journalist is held to. So he even didn't bother to do a basic part of his job before publishing the article, or did the research and decided that comparing a mixed race man to a gorilla was a good idea. Either way he shouldn't be surprised at getting the sack for it.
There's a really nasty undercurrent to this thread, and I feel a little but shitty for having read through it.
Is there? or is that your chosen perception of it, which has every chance of being misplaced/wrong?
Says the guy defending Kelvin fucking Mackenzie.
Nope. Not defending one of your own at all. I'm putting what he said in to context. The man's odious. I don't like him at all.
However, I wont incorrectly label something as being something it isn't purely because the individual is a massive c**t.
Unless you have direct access to his brain, I have no idea how you could possibly be so certain regarding what he meant. Much like a lot of the discussion in this thread, be it about Firmino, MacKenzie or Rodriguez.
I maintain that there's an undercurrent to this thread that makes me uncomfortable. Your nonsensical 'chosen perception' line hasn't changed that, but most of what you have said has enhanced it.
to justify trying to stigmatise people so that it closes down a debate because you feel uncomfortable discussing it.
Given that I haven't told you what I think, you're making some utterly ludicrous, or at least, incredibly defensive assumptions.
As for the nonsensical part - 'your chosen perception' - what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Again, I'd like to point out that you couldn't have the foggiest idea what my perception is, let alone whether I have consciously chosen to feel that way.
"There's a really nasty undercurrent" - Your exact words.
That implies that there IS an undercurrent, as opposed to you believing/thinking that one possibly exists. That was when the fog cleared and you stated something as though it's fact. That was your 'chosen perception' of the situation. You 'chose' to perceive that there was an undercurrent as you could not possibly have determined that factually from what has been said.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Do you really insist on people saying "in my opinion" on a message forum? You really need that to be made clear? On an opinion-based message board?
Around issues of this gravitas? Yes, most definitely.
Something like this happened in the Champions Cup Rugby this weekend, how if the refs mic picked it up, he didn’t, and didn’t show the player a straight red I don’t know.
So a man whose name is basically a French-ified version of the word bastard has abused someone playing for Benetton? That's a little on the nose isn't it?
My opinion for what it's worth is that he probably did say something he shouldn't. But unless new evidence emerges it's one man's word against another.
Something like this happened in the Champions Cup Rugby this weekend, how if the refs mic picked it up, he didn’t, and didn’t show the player a straight red I don’t know.
So a man whose name is basically a French-ified version of the word bastard has abused someone playing for Benetton? That's a little on the nose isn't it?
What does he say? I think I can make something out but I could be massively wrong
Something like this happened in the Champions Cup Rugby this weekend, how if the refs mic picked it up, he didn’t, and didn’t show the player a straight red I don’t know.
So a man whose name is basically a French-ified version of the word bastard has abused someone playing for Benetton? That's a little on the nose isn't it?
What does he say? I think I can make something out but I could be massively wrong
I'm struggling to hear anything... I think I hear him say "watch your swinging your arm....* ref talks*... play the flipping game"
It's truly, truly staggering that some people see racism and the race card as problems of equal magnitude.
A few days ago, one of the three or so most powerful people in the world (Trump) seemingly referred to places like Haiti as "shitholes". And yet, Gaetan Bong gets pelters on here.
Fucking hell. Come back to me, when you're called a chink, or slit-eye, or asked what takeaway your parents own, or get "I'll have a 53 please" shouted at you, and so forth, on (at least) a weekly basis.
-------------------
Equally I saw someone use rape/false accusations as an equivalence. Also bollocks. The former is, again, a much bigger problem than the latter. Rape and sexual assault is significantly under-reported for a variety of reasons (stigma, victim blaming etc), and that's a huge deal. Anyway. That's also a different topic.
Something like this happened in the Champions Cup Rugby this weekend, how if the refs mic picked it up, he didn’t, and didn’t show the player a straight red I don’t know.
So a man whose name is basically a French-ified version of the word bastard has abused someone playing for Benetton? That's a little on the nose isn't it?
What does he say? I think I can make something out but I could be massively wrong
I'm struggling to hear anything... I think I hear him say "watch your swinging your arm....* ref talks*... play the flipping game"
Something like this happened in the Champions Cup Rugby this weekend, how if the refs mic picked it up, he didn’t, and didn’t show the player a straight red I don’t know.
So a man whose name is basically a French-ified version of the word bastard has abused someone playing for Benetton? That's a little on the nose isn't it?
What does he say? I think I can make something out but I could be massively wrong
I'm struggling to hear anything... I think I hear him say "watch your swinging your arm....* ref talks*... play the flipping game"
It's truly, truly staggering that some people see racism and the race card as problems of equal magnitude.
A few days ago, one of the three or so most powerful people in the world (Trump) seemingly referred to places like Haiti as "shitholes". And yet, Gaetan Bong gets pelters on here.
Fucking hell. Come back to me, when you're called a chink, or slit-eye, or asked what takeaway your parents own, or get "I'll have a 53 please" shouted at you, and so forth, on (at least) a weekly basis.
-------------------
Equally I saw someone use rape/false accusations as an equivalence. Also bollocks. The former is, again, a much bigger problem than the latter. Rape and sexual assault is significantly under-reported for a variety of reasons (stigma, victim blaming etc), and that's a huge deal. Anyway. That's also a different topic.
So are we saying that Haiti isn’t a shithole?
I disagree when you say that rape is worse than false rape accusations. Both acts are as vile as each other and end in the victims life being ruined - if only temporarily.
It's truly, truly staggering that some people see racism and the race card as problems of equal magnitude.
A few days ago, one of the three or so most powerful people in the world (Trump) seemingly referred to places like Haiti as "shitholes". And yet, Gaetan Bong gets pelters on here.
Fucking hell. Come back to me, when you're called a chink, or slit-eye, or asked what takeaway your parents own, or get "I'll have a 53 please" shouted at you, and so forth, on (at least) a weekly basis.
-------------------
Equally I saw someone use rape/false accusations as an equivalence. Also bollocks. The former is, again, a much bigger problem than the latter. Rape and sexual assault is significantly under-reported for a variety of reasons (stigma, victim blaming etc), and that's a huge deal. Anyway. That's also a different topic.
So are we saying that Haiti isn’t a shithole?
I disagree when you say that rape is worse than false rape accusations. Both acts are as vile as each other and end in the victims life being ruined - if only temporarily.
For the leader of the free world to disparage another nation like that is pretty horrific. And maybe the wider context of Trump's comments might give you pause for thought - here is a great comment. Granted, I'm wrong in solely choosing the "shithole" bit given the comment I've just linked, but it's still basically fucking racist.
Some choice quotes:
"The most offensive part about Trump's comments today wasn't the word "shithole". It was the word "Why". ...
... How DARE he use my origin as an excuse to demand an additional reason to explain my presence here? Why is it up to me (but not say, a white Norwegian) to provide some extra level of justification for why I deserve the chance to be an American?
... If these places really are shitholes, shouldn't there be an even greater obligation to help people who come from there, specifically because they're in the most danger?"
I said rape is a much *bigger* problem. It's a more widespread thing than false accusations. So let's say they're equal in magnitude in terms of severity of act - as you believe they are - and then consider rape happens way more than false accusations, and rape is indeed still more of a problem.
Can't believe he's been charged. I hope there's more evidence to support the charge other than what's been made public, otherwise it's extremely harsh & sets a dangerous precedent
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
In which case it is the interpretation that Rodriguez is disputing. He doesn't say that he didn't anything but is defending the fact that his words were meant to be racist.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
In which case it is the interpretation that Rodriguez is disputing. He doesn't say that he didn't anything but is defending the fact that his words were meant to be racist.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
I guess that's the point of charging him - so they can have a thorough process to establish what happened, people seem to be getting confused between charging him with the offence and finding him guilty of it - the latter hasn't happened yet.
The fact that this isn't a criminal matter suggests that there isn't enough evidence for a reasonable chance of conviction in a court of law, which has a higher burden of proof requirement than a FA tribunal.
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
In which case it is the interpretation that Rodriguez is disputing. He doesn't say that he didn't anything but is defending the fact that his words were meant to be racist.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
No they don't, it's not a criminal court of law. If, having heard the accounts of both players and any other evidence, that they believe that it's more likely than not he made the remarks then they find him guilty.
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
In which case it is the interpretation that Rodriguez is disputing. He doesn't say that he didn't anything but is defending the fact that his words were meant to be racist.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
No they don't, it's not a criminal court of law. If, having heard the accounts of both players and any other evidence, that they believe that it's more likely than not he made the remarks then they find him guilty.
Point taken - but, if they think it's possible as opposed to probable (i.e. 50/50) then there should not be a warning issued. That is a "cop out" and taints the player.
An FA statement said it was alleged Rodriguez "used abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race".
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
Presumably they have more than just the Match of the Day highlights to go on?
In which case it is the interpretation that Rodriguez is disputing. He doesn't say that he didn't anything but is defending the fact that his words were meant to be racist.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
I guess that's the point of charging him - so they can have a thorough process to establish what happened, people seem to be getting confused between charging him with the offence and finding him guilty of it - the latter hasn't happened yet.
The fact that this isn't a criminal matter suggests that there isn't enough evidence for a reasonable chance of conviction in a court of law, which has a higher burden of proof requirement than a FA tribunal.
Well, quite. Although that of itself raises certain issues that are of concern I should think.
Anyway, something of interest to this matter is the Terry/Ferdinand ruling. It's a lengthy but interesting read. (If interested find it by googling "FA Tribunal burden of proof".) But of particular note is this from para 1.3: Mr. Terry called Mr. Ferdinand “a cunt” and made a gesture with his hand across his nose, implying that Mr. Ferdinand's breath smelt. The Referee intervened.....
Now, as far as I can tell that gesture was never again discussed in the tribunal and was not used in any way to underpin the FA's finding against Terry. Which is odd in a number of regards and may well come back to haunt the FA in this matter, if Rodriguez gets himself a decent lawyer.
Comments
That implies that there IS an undercurrent, as opposed to you believing/thinking that one possibly exists. That was when the fog cleared and you stated something as though it's fact. That was your 'chosen perception' of the situation. You 'chose' to perceive that there was an undercurrent as you could not possibly have determined that factually from what has been said.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
But unless new evidence emerges it's one man's word against another.
flipping replacing another f word.
A few days ago, one of the three or so most powerful people in the world (Trump) seemingly referred to places like Haiti as "shitholes". And yet, Gaetan Bong gets pelters on here.
Fucking hell. Come back to me, when you're called a chink, or slit-eye, or asked what takeaway your parents own, or get "I'll have a 53 please" shouted at you, and so forth, on (at least) a weekly basis.
-------------------
Equally I saw someone use rape/false accusations as an equivalence. Also bollocks. The former is, again, a much bigger problem than the latter. Rape and sexual assault is significantly under-reported for a variety of reasons (stigma, victim blaming etc), and that's a huge deal. Anyway. That's also a different topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/14/mathieu-bastareaud-six-nations-france-homophobic-slur
I see the comment was actually made by the other bloke that looked like he'd just been called something nasty himself!
I was very confused... LOL
What an arse. Him not me... maybe me also.
I disagree when you say that rape is worse than false rape accusations. Both acts are as vile as each other and end in the victims life being ruined - if only temporarily.
Some choice quotes: I said rape is a much *bigger* problem. It's a more widespread thing than false accusations. So let's say they're equal in magnitude in terms of severity of act - as you believe they are - and then consider rape happens way more than false accusations, and rape is indeed still more of a problem.
Charged by the FA.
It was his word against Bong's... Unless someone else heard no charges should have been given!!
Assuming that they're viewing the same footage as everyone else, how on earth can they charge him? It's just one mans word against another's.
The FA have to be 100% certain that he was being racist. If they aren't and don't find him guilty then there should not be any warning "as to his future behaviour" because that will only lead people to conclude that he was being racist. But, if he was and they can prove it, then they should throw the book at him.
The fact that this isn't a criminal matter suggests that there isn't enough evidence for a reasonable chance of conviction in a court of law, which has a higher burden of proof requirement than a FA tribunal.
Anyway, something of interest to this matter is the Terry/Ferdinand ruling. It's a lengthy but interesting read. (If interested find it by googling "FA Tribunal burden of proof".) But of particular note is this from para 1.3: Mr. Terry called Mr. Ferdinand “a cunt” and made a gesture with his hand across his nose, implying that Mr. Ferdinand's breath smelt. The Referee intervened.....
Now, as far as I can tell that gesture was never again discussed in the tribunal and was not used in any way to underpin the FA's finding against Terry. Which is odd in a number of regards and may well come back to haunt the FA in this matter, if Rodriguez gets himself a decent lawyer.
I hate these things, i am not talking too much on the verdict but how so many things get interpreted as racism these days.
Another example i might say something to my black friend in jest and they laugh, yet someone else can get offended by it? PC brigade