Jump to content
IGNORED

Is racism a problem at City games?


Make a Sub

Recommended Posts

On 24/10/2019 at 18:48, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi @JulieH

We are still waiting on the legislation to which Cowshed and Ashton Park were referring,  the legislation that differentiates the chants I think it was. 

Indeed,  believe I heard a chant or 2 from the away end last night which referenced Wales or Welsh! Presumably this was aimed at us.

I am so sorry but it has been really busy work wise as I have had to deal with met police enquiries re haringay v Yeovil and also have had a court case to be present at. 

i am aware of the urgency and I am hoping ASAP to dig out the legislation and will post it here 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mix of genuine antipathy towards racism, education- and being perhaps steered that way through liaising with police, Kick it out etc. Added scrutiny means you need to be seen to be doing something.

I suspect so anyway.

Ah, misread that one- the organisation leafleting then? Presumably still a bit of truth in having to be seen to be doing something.

Hang on!! 3rd reading...seems to be some weird hybrid of club and organisation? Or at least fans of the club and organisation! Something in the view of the club having to be seen to be doing something however IMO.

Part of the education aspect that LJ referred to in last Monday's press conference- or wholly unconnected?

Quote

"That's a personal opinion, as time goes on. But any form of it is unacceptable. The more we can do as football players and managers to educate particularly young supporters that come through the turnstile, they've got to know that that's not acceptable.

 

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mix of genuine antipathy towards racism, education- and being perhaps steered that way through liaising with police, Kick it out etc. Added scrutiny means you need to be seen to be doing something.

I suspect so anyway.

Ah, misread that one- the organisation leafleting then? Presumably still a bit of truth in having to be seen to be doing something.

Hang on!! 3rd reading...seems to be some weird hybrid of club and organisation? Or at least fans of the club and organisation! Something in the view of the club having to be seen to be doing something however IMO.

Part of the education aspect that LJ referred to in last Monday's press conference- or wholly unconnected?

 

 
 

The design would suggest it’s not directly connected with the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

The design would suggest it’s not directly connected with the club.

Yes, I'd have thought not either- agree with you.

The second paragraph though makes for interesting reading:

Quote

"Our team and all the clubs staff are made up of people with different backgrounds and is all the better for it. Our fans come from all parts of the city and beyond and everyone should feel welcome. Let's not allow a minority of racists to tarnish our club's name and reputation. If we get an atmosphere in our club where the colour of your skin or your religion make you a target for attack, verbal or physical, we will ruin the club we all want to succeed".

Linked to any fans in some way- some fans know anything about this? Something jointly done?

Incidentally, I don't think anyone can disagree with the principles of the above paragraph really- racism, sectarianism etc no good- it's factually true too I suspect, a diverse set of employees, team- no doubt.

Unless a load of the Bristol activists are City fans, this paragraph is deeply misleading- not necessarily in sentiment but certainly in connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stunning irony here.

On 24/10/2019 at 02:41, SX227 said:

Step 1: Aggression - Nazi!!  Racist!!!  Scum!!

On 24/10/2019 at 02:41, SX227 said:

Rabid left wingers and Antifa types

On 22/10/2019 at 07:50, SX227 said:

So besides spout total bollox on here

Step 1: Check

On 24/10/2019 at 02:41, SX227 said:

Step 2: Be patronising - 'you ok Hun' , 'You off your meds' etc etc

 

On 22/10/2019 at 03:15, SX227 said:

All we need now is:

A statement of condemnation from the Peoples Front of Judea

A letter from Wolfie Smith

Step 2: Check

On 24/10/2019 at 02:41, SX227 said:

Step 3: Boast about your intellectual prowess (as the person with an opposing view is simply too stupid to understand the magnificence of your worldview)

 

On 22/10/2019 at 07:50, SX227 said:

It's like talking to a brick wall with some of you 'anti-fascists', it really is.

 

Step 3: Check

On 24/10/2019 at 02:41, SX227 said:

Step 4: I refuse to converse anymore as the insults and patronism aren't working  - fin

 

On 22/10/2019 at 03:15, SX227 said:

Could the mods lock this thread as the pathetic virtue signalling by so many new posters is unbearable. 

 

Step 4: Check.

 

Huh. Sounds like you're just as guilty as those you're trying to rather ham-fistedly call out, along with bizarre whataboutery. Just because awful things happen in the world doesn't have any bearing on other awful things - or should we never get annoyed, offended, or upset about anything because there may be someone worse off? Pathetic.

It's disheartening to even see the small number of people on here putting those saying they dislike people chanting Tommy Robinson's name or equivalent down to "virtue signalling" and "antifa". Rather than signalling virtue, whatever that even means now (to who, a bunch of strangers on a football forum?!?! for what possible reason?!) could they not just be genuinely upset or disappointed? What should people like me, who feels those things do in that case? Keep quiet?

Terms like "virtual signalling" are trotted out non stop now and have absolutely no meaning apart from smug derision and mockery for someones beliefs - while you then ironically also talk above about being unable to stand anyone with alternative views.

It's just an indication of those who have been indoctrinated by online only straight to source news. Try taking BreitBart, youtube, and facebook off your "news" bookmarks. You're not being clever and open minded, breaking the MSM bubble, you're willingly accepting an IV line of illicitly funded lies designed to drive wedges between us (amongst other things), and it's working. This is nothing to do with left v right, that's just lazy thinking.

 

Here's an idea: We all love this club, we're (almost) all shocked and disappointed by any racist chanting, this is something we can DIRECTLY affect and improve upon in our local community way more than emailing the Chinese embassy or whatever bizarre suggestion you had above. People telling each other they're upset, shocked, or disappointed, people spreading awareness, people condemning these actions - those are not bad things to be smugly mocked by people, and drawn into ridiculous debates about semantics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a look and re-read the Tweet again.

Quote

"@BristolCity worked closely with us & the response from fans was magnificent".

Now I wasn't there Sunday, but this is/was a key part I feel. Makes me think that yes, club having to be seen to be doing something wasn't too far off the mark.

2 other possibilities.

The club indeed willingly went along with it, regardless of the above.

Or, this organisation were/have been economical with the truth.

@exAtyeoMax the Tweet makes me wonder.

The above aside, the bit about response from fans is interesting to note- it confirms what we already know- which is that we as a club or fan base have NO problem with racism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2019 at 20:41, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wonder if @JulieH could shed a bit more light on the leafleting etc and club involvement or otherwise?

Given our Supporters Liaison Officer is under club instruction not to, er why would you believe, Liaise with Supporters on here, Julie H seems a good point of contact!

 the police had no involvement with the group and their attendance or leafleting .

only 2 football officers were on duty for that game and it would be fair to say we were busy elsewhere , mainly dealing with parking issues and blocked junctions  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JulieH said:

 the police had no involvement with the group and their attendance or leafleting .

only 2 football officers were on duty for that game and it would be fair to say we were busy elsewhere , mainly dealing with parking issues and blocked junctions  

 

Okay, thanks.

Sounds like a club led or club agreed, or I dunno just group led thing then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right as promised I have enclosed the legislation in relation to Racilist chanting at football matches, some definition of what is Racist  and also some stated cases.  Won`t attatch as a word document so cut and paste it is:

Also might need glasses!!!

Racialist chanting at football matches - Section 3 Football Offences Act 1991 (as amended)

This offence is committed when a group of people, or one person acting alone, chants something of a racialist nature at a designated football match. "Racialist" means the same as "racist".

To prove this offence, the prosecution has to show that the chanting, which means the repeated uttering of words or sounds, was threatening, abusive or insulting to another person because of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin.

It is not necessary to prove that the chanting was directed at a particular individual or group, although it will often be directed at a player or players from Black and minority ethnic communities.

If convicted, the accused person can be fined (level 3), and, in addition to any other penalty, banned from attending football matches both in this country and abroad.

 

Racist and religious crime - the legislation

Parliament has passed specific legislation aimed at outlawing crime where the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards the victim's race or religious beliefs (actual or perceived). A table setting out some of the more commonly used legislation is at Annex A. For conduct not covered by the specific offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it may be appropriate to remind the court of its duty to treat evidence of racial or religious hostility as an aggravating factor increasing sentence as provided by section 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

It is important that prosecutors are aware of the full range of available offences when deciding on the most appropriate charge to prosecute in a particular case.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended)

This Act created a number of specific offences of racially aggravated crime, based on offences of wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour. The Act defines "racial group" as a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

An amendment (December 2001) extended the scope of the Act by creating new specific religiously aggravated offences. The Act defines "religious group" as a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

S145 Criminal Justice Act 2003

S145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty upon courts to increase the sentence for any offence committed that involves either:

  • the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or

  • the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.

    Note that these are alternatives. This means that in a case where a demonstration of hostility can be proved, there is no need also to prove motivation, and vice versa.

    CPS application of s145

    A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to any offence. Much of the harassment experienced by racial or religious communities is persistent, low level offending. In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in all appropriate cases. This approach is intended to ensure that racially and religiously aggravated hate crime is punished properly and that justice is afforded to all.

    Definition of a "racial group"

    The Act says a "racial group" means a "group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

    The definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references. Gypsies and some travellers, refugees or asylum seekers or others from less visible minorities would be included within this definition. While Romany gypsies have long been recognised as an ethnic racial group (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1989] QB 783), in more recent times and certainly since the first instance discrimination case of O'Leary v Punch Retail (HHJ Goldstein, Westminster County Court, 29 August 2000), Irish Travellers have also been considered an ethnic racial group. Whilst this has not been considered by an appellate criminal court, the O'Leary case is regarded as being persuasive if the point is ever taken.

    Whilst there has been no case law around Roma in the UK, the European Court of Human Rights recognises that the community forms a distinct ethnic group and prosecutors are recommended to apply the definition provided by the legislation to argue for inclusion.

    Various cases in the past have considered what constitutes membership of a racial group. Some decisions have concluded that persons associated by their religious beliefs may also be part of a racial group. Prosecutors should consider on the facts of each case if the aggravating feature arises from hostility towards a religious belief or a racial group (or a combination of both).

    There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.

    Definition of a "religious group"

    The Act defines a religious group as, "a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief." This includes Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and different sects within a religion. It also includes people who do not hold any religious beliefs at all.

    Sectarian hostility is covered by this definition and hostility towards converts and apostates.

    Hostility

    Hostility is not defined in the legislation. Consideration should be given to ordinary dictionary definitions, which include ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike.

    Demonstrating hostility

    The words of the subsection require an indication by the offender of hostility towards the victim based on race or religion. The demonstration of hostility must be nearly contemporaneous to the conduct element of the offence (at the time of the offence or immediately before or after).

    The demonstration of hostility is likely, in many cases, to be something different from and additional to the conduct element of the offence. Mere evidence of the commission of the substantive offence against a victim is not sufficient.

    Motivated by hostility

    The second limb of section 145 is concerned with the offender's motivation, requiring proof that the substantive offence was wholly or partly motivated by hostility towards persons who are of a particular race or religion. Motive can be established by evidence relating to what the defendant may have said or done on other occasions or prior to the current incident. In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence.

    With reference to interpretation, it should be noted that section 28(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which refers to racial hostility, has been held to be wide enough to include hostility towards one member of such a group, since section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that "words in the plural include the singular" unless the contrary intention appears, and no such contrary intention appears in the provision.

    In addition, the circumstances include those where an offence is motivated by hostility towards a third party, based on the relevant characteristic, who is not present: see Taylor v DPP [2006] EWHC 1202 (Admin). Accordingly, an offence committed against one person (or many persons) but motivated by hostility towards another person or persons on the basis of their perceived disability would seem to satisfy the statutory test.

    Case law

    The following cases illustrate the approach that the courts have adopted when interpreting the law:

    Evidence of words (spoken or written) or actions that show hostility towards the victim will be required. "Demonstrations" of hostility often involve swear words, for example: "black bastard" (R v Woods [2002] EWHC 85) or "African bitch" (R v White [2001] EWCA Crim 216). In RG & LT v DPP [2004] EWHC 183 May LJ said "It may be possible to demonstrate racial hostility by, for instance, holding up a banner with racially offensive language on it".

    In R v Rogers (2007) 2 W.L.R. 280, the defendant was involved in an altercation with three Spanish women during the course of which he called them "bloody foreigners" and told them to "go back to your own country". The House of Lords, in upholding the defendant's conviction, held that the definition of a racial group clearly went beyond groups defined by their colour, race, or ethnic origin. It encompassed both nationality (including citizenship) and national origins. The statute intended a broad non-technical approach. Furthermore the victim might be presumed by the offender to be a member of a particular group, even if that was not correct. The House of Lords added that the fact that the offender's hostility was based on other factors in addition to racist hostility or xenophobia was irrelevant. The court also observed that the necessary hostility could be demonstrated by the wearing of swastikas or the singing of certain songs.

    The demonstration of hostility need not be based on any malevolence towards the group in question. Disposition at the time is irrelevant: see DPP v Green [2004] EWHC 1225 (Admin.) and R v Woods, in which it was irrelevant that the offender, who used racially abusive language to a doorman after being refused admission, might well have abused anyone standing in the victim's place by reference to any obvious physical characteristic.

    The victim's reaction to the hostility is not relevant. See R v Woods, in which the victim was called a "black bastard" but said in evidence that he was "not bothered" by such comments. The Administrative Court found that the use of racist abuse during the commission of the basic offence made out the test for racial aggravation

    However, in RG and LT v DPP May LJ said that, "an offender may demonstrate racial hostility by joining in the activities of a group of people where a sufficient number of members of the group are themselves demonstrating racial hostility, and where the defendant's adherence to the group is such as to go beyond mere presence within the group, but so as to associate himself or herself with the demonstration of racial hostility which the group as a whole is displaying".

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, AshtonGreat said:

So, by the sound of it, chants about Welsh people are deemed as equally offensive, as opposed to just banter

If the law is applied evenly.

 

20 hours ago, JulieH said:

Top man, technology not my greatest asset ??

Could I again ask what is the difference between singing small town in Asia and small town in Wales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...