Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

Spurs Investigation


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, 054123 said:

If it was reported fairly at the time that wouldve been okay, but despite many witnesses stating to the contrary, it was portrayed at time as a definite ‘racist’ incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50797989

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/breaking-tottenham-police-end-investigation-21226485.amp
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/antonio-rudiger-in-right-frame-21163528.amp

Three articles. All say ‘alleged’. What are you on about?

Edited by Redinthehead
Edited second link to one from after the game
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

I felt the use of the word alleged was obligatory given no one had actually conducted an investigation.

Just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I felt the use of the word alleged was obligatory given no one had actually conducted an investigation.

Just my opinion.

It’s not really an opinion when you state a fact about how things are reported which is shown not to be how they were reported. 

They would have to legally put alleged but if they wanted to stir things up they could put it in the article and not the headline and get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redinthehead said:

It’s not really an opinion when you state a fact about how things are reported which is shown not to be how they were reported. 

They would have to legally put alleged but if they wanted to stir things up they could put it in the article and not the headline and get away with it.

That’s fair enough.

What do you think Gary Neville will say? 

Edited by 054123
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 054123 said:

That’s fair enough.

What do you think Gary Neville will say? 

I don’t know. He should probably re-clarify his comments if it’s brought up - given this triggered his rant but he had said something similar a few weeks before so not sure this will have changed much for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

They would have to legally put alleged but if they wanted to stir things up they could put it in the article and not the headline and get away with it.

As any journalist worth their salt will tell you the use of the terms 'allegation', 'alleged' or 'allegedly' provide no form of legal protection. In its use one is stating that an event or action TOOK PLACE yet one has no evidence to substantiate such action or event. If unable to substantiate, the subject to whom one has linked the event or action has every reason to seek recompense.

Consider had the report read: "...there was allegedly no racial abuse emanating from the terraces..." Implies there might have been or often is, or that there was but it wasn't observed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

I don’t know. He should probably re-clarify his comments if it’s brought up - given this triggered his rant but he had said something similar a few weeks before so not sure this will have changed much for him.

His sentiment was sound enough

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

What action? For a player mis-hearing? Possibly Chelsea or Rudiger could be expected to apologise to Spurs but I don’t think Spurs will care. I’d imagine they’d rather not put players off highlighting racism in the future.

What action? If you were wrongly accused of being a racist you don’t know what action you’d want to be taken against your false accuser?! Oh well, let’s end this here, cheers ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

What action? If you were wrongly accused of being a racist you don’t know what action you’d want to be taken against your false accuser?! Oh well, let’s end this here, cheers ...

A fan of the club was accused but not directly. So what action do you propose is taken against Rudiger or Chelsea for this? 

If the Man City fan from the derby proved he wasn’t being racist (which he hasn’t for the avoidance of doubt) - he would have had every right to ask for action given the impact on his life. This has had no impact like this and therefore I don’t understand who you are asking for action to be taken against or for what action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As any journalist worth their salt will tell you the use of the terms 'allegation', 'alleged' or 'allegedly' provide no form of legal protection. In its use one is stating that an event or action TOOK PLACE yet one has no evidence to substantiate such action or event. If unable to substantiate, the subject to whom one has linked the event or action has every reason to seek recompense.

Consider had the report read: "...there was allegedly no racial abuse emanating from the terraces..." Implies there might have been or often is, or that there was but it wasn't observed.

Alleged means someone has alleged that it has happened. A journalist has to make a judgement call on the validity of that claim to an extent but it no way means the event happened. They would have protection as long as they could justify the allegation itself had some evidence behind  it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

Alleged means someone has alleged that it has happened. A journalist has to make a judgement call on the validity of that claim to an extent but it no way means the event happened. They would have protection as long as they could justify the allegation itself had some evidence behind  it.

The trouble is Rudiger has made the motion/allegation that it happened. It was then pretty much taken as fact and reported as that from what I can recall. It is all good and well just adding the word "alleged" in every report but how many made a huge point of saying that this may not have happened on the news channels/newspapers etc? It was all over every media outlet in the morning "yet another alleged racist incident in football". 

Was the same amount of coverage given to say "Rudiger got it wrong and there was NO racist behaviour whatsoever"? We all know the answer to that.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wood_red said:

The trouble is Rudiger has made the motion/allegation that it happened. It was then pretty much taken as fact and reported as that from what I can recall. It is all good and well just adding the word "alleged" in every report but how many made a huge point of saying that this may not have happened on the news channels/newspapers etc? It was all over every media outlet in the morning "yet another alleged racist incident in football". 

Was the same amount of coverage given to say "Rudiger got it wrong and there was NO racist behaviour whatsoever"? We all know the answer to that.....

It’s been quite well covered today but no there won’t be the debate there was after the alleged incident. Don’t forget a lot of the fuss was on the basis of it being ‘another’ incident rather than the incident in isolation. 

In terms of the reporting - alleged means it may not have happened - I know people don’t read things like that but that’s how things roll in the country (will stop there before I get political).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

Alleged means someone has alleged that it has happened. A journalist has to make a judgement call on the validity of that claim to an extent but it no way means the event happened. They would have protection as long as they could justify the allegation itself had some evidence behind  it.

Matters not if one links the 'allegation' to an individual, the event or action referenced de facto is said to have occured, hence why it affords no legal protection. For example, if you reported that BTRFTG is alleged to have punched WeeLee you report that as fact that the assault took place. In case BTRFTG had not then you've repeated a defamation and caused further reputational damage, hence the use of alleged is wholly redundant and affords no protection. Similarly, if you reported that BTRFTG was linked to an incident in which WeeLee was allegedly punched you've created an association for if there was doubt the event had occured why establish the connection in the first place?

Your final sentence appears to agree as much, Journalists might have protection should there be substantive evidence to justify the allegation, which firstly requires the event to have occured.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Redinthehead said:

It’s been quite well covered today but no there won’t be the debate there was after the alleged incident. Don’t forget a lot of the fuss was on the basis of it being ‘another’ incident rather than the incident in isolation. 

In terms of the reporting - alleged means it may not have happened - I know people don’t read things like that but that’s how things roll in the country (will stop there before I get political).

 

 

But as there was no racist chanting, no incident actually occurred. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 054123 said:

That’s fair enough.

What do you think Gary Neville will say? 

I don’t think he really needs to say anything, his sentiments were put forward well and despite this one being unfounded I believe their have been several incidents either at a match or on social media, where footballers have been targeted with racist abuse.

maybe sky will force his hand to take back some of the comments though!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Investigation closed, neither the police or Spurs could find any evidence of the alleged racist chanting.  

So the police has spent presumably a lot of time and resource investigating something that was ultimately found to be false ?

We don't have the "not proven" principle in England so will the accuser be asked to explain himself ? Rudiger can't claim that its a language issue because that chant is universal.

Highly doubtful, and this "incident" may either encourage cynical claims as an act of gamesmanship, or far worse make players who do fall victim of such abuse to keep quiet about it.The initial media outrage made it clear that Spurs supporters were found guilty before being proven innocent.

On balance, I think Rudiger made it up which is shameful.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

So the police has spent presumably a lot of time and resource investigating something that was ultimately found to be false ?

We don't have the "not proven" principle in England so will the accuser be asked to explain himself ? Rudiger can't claim that its a language issue because that chant is universal.

Highly doubtful, and this "incident" may either encourage cynical claims as an act of gamesmanship, or far worse make players who do fall victim of such abuse to keep quiet about it.The initial media outrage made it clear that Spurs supporters were found guilty before being proven innocent.

On balance, I think Rudiger made it up which is shameful.

 

Its not been found to be false at all.

Chances are it did happen, but no one is speaking up. It does happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Its not been found to be false at all.

Chances are it did happen, but no one is speaking up. It does happen.

I disagree, if someone has been shouting the monkey chant then surely with the amount of cameras around it would be spotted (you don't need lip readers surely as it would be obvious). If Rudiger did hear it from the pitch I find it hard to accept nobody else heard it, and as for nobody reporting it I also cannot accept that, unless Spurs has a huge element of racists and they were all sat in the same area which is very very doubtful. People get offended by the smallest things and report them nowadays, to think that probably a couple of hundred people have heard that and not a single one reported it, I just cannot believe it for one minute. If just one single person reported it and they just couldn't find the culprit it would be reported.

Either Rudiger has made it up after getting some stick, or he has misheard the "cheat, cheat, cheat" chant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Its not been found to be false at all.

Chances are it did happen, but no one is speaking up. It does happen.

No one spoke up in a crowd of that size with cameras all over the place too ?

Why are the chances that it did happen by the way ?

I am sure that Rudiger has suffered abuse in his life and career, but perhaps, just perhaps he wasn't in this case, and his claims were false ?

He appears to have been the only one who may have misheard the chant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wood_red said:

The trouble is Rudiger has made the motion/allegation that it happened. It was then pretty much taken as fact and reported as that from what I can recall. It is all good and well just adding the word "alleged" in every report but how many made a huge point of saying that this may not have happened on the news channels/newspapers etc? It was all over every media outlet in the morning "yet another alleged racist incident in football". 

Was the same amount of coverage given to say "Rudiger got it wrong and there was NO racist behaviour whatsoever"? We all know the answer to that.....

Tottenham have not said Rudiger got it wrong and there was no racist behaviour. Tottenham and the Police have said they have found no evidence to either confirm or contradict the accusation. Tottenham have made it clear themselves that they do not know whether it happened or not, and are not accusing Rudiger or lying or being mistaken. They have just said they have not found any evidence so cannot take further action. 

Edited by LondonBristolian
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Wrongly accused of being a racist

I don't think the phrase 'wrongly accused' is correctly used in this instance.

A lack of evidence to prove something to be true doesn't mean it is proven false.

If there was evidence to prove Rudiger had maliciously invented the story, he would probably be charged, but there isn't.

Innocent until proven guilty. I.e. Spurs/Fans are innocent in the eyes of the law as no proof of guilt, but no proof that it was an invented claim either, hence Rudiger is also innocent of that.

Edited by Coxy27
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Natchfever said:

So the police has spent presumably a lot of time and resource investigating something that was ultimately found to be false ?

We don't have the "not proven" principle in England so will the accuser be asked to explain himself ? Rudiger can't claim that its a language issue because that chant is universal.

Highly doubtful, and this "incident" may either encourage cynical claims as an act of gamesmanship, or far worse make players who do fall victim of such abuse to keep quiet about it.The initial media outrage made it clear that Spurs supporters were found guilty before being proven innocent.

On balance, I think Rudiger made it up which is shameful.

 

The incident hasn't actually been found to be false - it hasn't been found to be true, which is a different thing.

Genuine question though. You obviously feel that the lack of evidence that racial abuse occurred means that, in all probability, no racial abuse occurred. That's a perfectly reasonable assertation and I'd be willing to agree that, on balance, Rudiger probably was mistaken and probably no racial abuse occurred.

But, just as there appear to be no evidence that racial abuse occurred, there is also no evidence to suggest Rudiger made it up. Tottenham and the police have been very clear they do not think he made it up and actively stated he did the right thing in reporting it. I can understand why you might think the player was mistaken but why are you accusing the player of deliberately lying, when you surely cannot have any evidence to base that on?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, wood_red said:

I disagree, if someone has been shouting the monkey chant then surely with the amount of cameras around it would be spotted (you don't need lip readers surely as it would be obvious). If Rudiger did hear it from the pitch I find it hard to accept nobody else heard it, and as for nobody reporting it I also cannot accept that, unless Spurs has a huge element of racists and they were all sat in the same area which is very very doubtful. People get offended by the smallest things and report them nowadays, to think that probably a couple of hundred people have heard that and not a single one reported it, I just cannot believe it for one minute. If just one single person reported it and they just couldn't find the culprit it would be reported.

Either Rudiger has made it up after getting some stick, or he has misheard the "cheat, cheat, cheat" chant.

Gut feeling tells me this is more likely, but certainly can't rule out being made up...lack of comeback on him makes me feel that it's unlikely he outright made it up though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 054123 said:

That’s fair enough.

What do you think Gary Neville will say? 

Why would he say anything at all? He made his comments after a number of incidents of racial abuse at football matches. Since the Rudiger incident, there have been several more incidents - fans ejected and arrested at Brighton v Chelsea, same at Peterborough v Doncaster, a Burnley fan arrested for abusing Son, I think a non-league game called off due to racism (but I can't find a new story to back that up), a report saying racist incidents at football have doubled in the last four years.

Even if the Rudiger incident was not found to be racism, it certainly does not invalidate any of the points Neville made about what is clearly an increasing problem of racism in football so why would he need to take back a single word?

Not often - or ever - I say this but I think the Daily Mail have hit the nail on the head here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7851947/So-Antonio-Rudiger-did-Reality-victims-ending-dock.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

No one spoke up in a crowd of that size with cameras all over the place too ?

Why are the chances that it did happen by the way ?

I am sure that Rudiger has suffered abuse in his life and career, but perhaps, just perhaps he wasn't in this case, and his claims were false ?

He appears to have been the only one who may have misheard the chant.

So you think, a premier league football who has played hundreds of games, is gonna suddenly stop playing football and pretend to get angry about something that didn’t happen? Come on now.

He’s heard something. It’s got him angry, but they haven’t been able to locate the person in a big crowd. It happens 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Riaz said:

So you think, a premier league football who has played hundreds of games, is gonna suddenly stop playing football and pretend to get angry about something that didn’t happen? Come on now.

He’s heard something. It’s got him angry, but they haven’t been able to locate the person in a big crowd. It happens 

 

 

Footballers lie and cheat all the time.

Some saying "unproven" others saying "false".

Agree to disagree on this one I think, but can probably agree that it certainly does happen, and when it does the perpetrator needs dealing with, whether thats in a football stadium or the street, and that the approach should be consistent wherever and whoever does it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rudiger clearly felt he suffered racial abuse while playing in Italy.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/31/roma-antonio-rudiger-racism-serie-a-italy-football

It may be was looking a bit too hard to find similar here to continue and highlight a justified grievance, and simply didn't take into account that opposition fans can give you stick and it doesn't have to be anything to do with race at all.

 

 

Edited by Nogbad the Bad
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Riaz said:

So you think, a premier league football who has played hundreds of games, is gonna suddenly stop playing football and pretend to get angry about something that didn’t happen? Come on now.

He’s heard something. It’s got him angry, but they haven’t been able to locate the person in a big crowd. It happens 

 

 

And he couldn't have misheard what was said/shouted and got it wrong? Why has no other player heard it? Why not many, many fans reporting it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Rudiger clearly felt he suffered racial abuse while playing in Italy.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/31/roma-antonio-rudiger-racism-serie-a-italy-football

It may be has was looking a bit too hard to find similar here to continue and highlight a justified grievance, and simply didn't take into account that opposition fans can give you stick and it doesn't have to be anything to do with race at all.

 

 

So you're telling me in the 60 odd games that Rudiger has played for Chelsea he's never had any abuse from opposition fans? That's the only the way the above makes any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

So you're telling me in the 60 odd games that Rudiger has played for Chelsea he's never had any abuse from opposition fans? That's the only the way the above makes any sense.

It may be on this occasion he completely misinterpreted the nature of the noise from the crowd, and, due to past occurrences abroad, jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...