Jump to content
IGNORED

PSG Vs Istanbul Basaksehir postponed due to comments made by 4th official


phantom
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

Whilst ranting and being rude to others , have a look at the initials on their identical jackets - subs and staff alike

 

1B7B4DC0-4914-477B-AB3F-6831772CE092.jpeg

OK, I'm probably going to be criticised for this, but, if I was asked to reply quickly, immediately to the question:

'Who did it?', 

I suspect my hurried, immediate response (without thinking of the connotations or consequences of my words) would be something like, going from left to right:

The black guy; the grey-haired guy; the bloke wearing the hat; the bloke on the far right with his hands out.

Honestly and sincerely, that is what I see from the photo.

If my view is considered racist, then I can only apologise to anybody I may have offended, no matter their colour, but I assure you that was not my intention.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

OK, I'm probably going to be criticised for this, but, if I was asked to reply quickly, immediately to the question:

'Who did it?', 

I suspect my hurried, immediate response (without thinking of the connotations or consequences of my words) would be something like, going from left to right:

The black guy; the grey-haired guy; the bloke wearing the hat; the bloke on the far right with his hands out.

Honestly and sincerely, that is what I see from the photo.

If my view is considered racist, then I can only apologise to anybody I may have offended, no matter their colour, but I assure you that was not my intention.

 

Good post

If you asked a black person the same question in the same context, would they give the same answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

OK, I'm probably going to be criticised for this, but, if I was asked to reply quickly, immediately to the question:

'Who did it?', 

I suspect my hurried, immediate response (without thinking of the connotations or consequences of my words) would be something like, going from left to right:

The black guy; the grey-haired guy; the bloke wearing the hat; the bloke on the far right with his hands out.

Honestly and sincerely, that is what I see from the photo.

If my view is considered racist, then I can only apologise to anybody I may have offended, no matter their colour, but I assure you that was not my intention.

 

I don't believe your view is racist as to me racism is about hatred and treating someone differently because of their skin colour/heritage.

The thing is, 'the black guy' is the only one you have described using his skin colour and you've done that because he looks different.

He probably would prefer to be known by his name or that guy there, rather than the black one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 054123 said:

So is the basis of guilt based purely on the feelings of the accuser, or does there have to be some element of intent behind it, which it could be demonstrated would in some way contravene a law? Honest question 👍

I was upset someone hurt my feelings 😭 Ok, you have a right to be offended but that does not mean you are 'right' it just makes you a victim

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 054123 said:

So is the basis of guilt based purely on the feelings of the accuser, or does there have to be some element of intent behind it, which it could be demonstrated would in some way contravene a law? Honest question 👍

"In Human Rights law intentionality is irrelevant. It is the effect of the action on the target person/group that is to be considered and takes precedence" 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Good post

If you asked a black person the same question in the same context, would they give the same answer?

As in put a group of black coaches together, but stick one white guy in the middle and then ask another black person to identify them individually and see what they say when then get to the white person?

Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 054123 said:

As in put a group of black coaches together, but stick one white guy in the middle and then ask another black person to identify them individually and see what they say when then get to the white person?

Interesting.

I was thinking more along the lines of would the black observer still say the black guy but yes another good way of looking at it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, !james said:

"In Human Rights law intentionality is irrelevant. It is the effect of the action on the target person/group that is to be considered and takes precedence" 👍

So the fourth official is in breach of a human rights law?

Should context be allowed to determine whether in helping to describe the offender,  the fourth official showed intent to either discriminate, prejudice, or antagonise them?

Its interesting isn’t it? When you remove context or intent from a legal standpoint, it starts to get messy. 

Im sure we have lawyers and solicitors who post on here, more well versed than you or I 👍

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Good post

If you asked a black person the same question in the same context, would they give the same answer?

And a good response - such as I was hoping for.

I believe there are many black and other BAME posters on this forum, and I shall look forward and be interested in reading their views.

I do believe it is extremely important, however, to acknowledge that, whilst, personally, I wouldn't consider it racist in the slightest to describe/distinguish one of the four men by saying he was black, a black person might consider it racist: accordingly, I understand totally why we must all try and choose our words carefully.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

You don’t see that as a problem then I take it?  

No, I wouldnt.

What more obvious way could there be to identify that person, in those particular cicumstances.

Of course some black loons, and white loons on their behalf, will take offence. Why wouldnt they, its what they do, the professionally offended.

I'd prefer to go along with the views of a black person with half a brain, John Barnes for example, in fact a switched on black man with very much a full working brain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

And a good response - such as I was hoping for.

I believe there are many black and other BAME posters on this forum, and I shall look forward and be interested in reading their views.

I do believe it is extremely important, however, to acknowledge that, whilst, personally, I wouldn't consider it racist in the slightest to describe/distinguish one of the four men by saying he was black, a black person might consider it racist: accordingly, I understand totally why we must all try and choose our words carefully.

 

 

I would like to see the views of the BAME posters as well, it’s a very interesting subject and it’s good not to be shouted down and called racist because you don’t completely agree or understand 


I agree with choosing words carefully and I have done in the past to the point where I’m actually very conscious of saying the wrong thing, which is probably wrong in itself 

Things in this country have improved dramatically in the last 30 years. In my first couple of years supporting City (late 80’s)I remember the booing of black players and that seems to have completely gone 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

I was thinking more along the lines of would the black observer still say the black guy but yes another good way of looking at it 

Agreed.

I listen to a few nfl and NBA podcasts and to be fair the descriptive term ‘white guy’ or ‘black guy’ are not uncommon. I think most black people would use the term ‘white guy’ when describing what can be a sole white personal in a starting 5.

It’s interesting. If you know your NFL, Marcus Allen describes Howie Long as the ‘toughest white guy I ever met’. It’s meant as a real compliment, but is it that far removed from saying the ‘smartest black guy I ever met’.

If you argument is, Howie Long wasn’t offended so no wrong has been done, think that through. 

Either it’s wrong or it’s not. If it’s not because the intent is clearly not discriminatory, then that helps set a fair legal precedent to work by in everyday common law I suppose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, grifty said:

I don't believe your view is racist as to me racism is about hatred and treating someone differently because of their skin colour/heritage.

The thing is, 'the black guy' is the only one you have described using his skin colour and you've done that because he looks different.

He probably would prefer to be known by his name or that guy there, rather than the black one.

Of course he looks different - he is the only 'black guy' in the photo.

Equally, if I knew his name and, in this instance, believed that the referee knew his name also, I would have used his name out of respect, not just of his colour, but as a person.

Staying within a football context, and using people of different colours to demonstrate my point, when asked the same question 'Who did it' from a photo showing Pele, Maradona, Bobby Charlton and Son Heung-min, I would have described the culprit as being Pele, but his face is well known to everybody so there would have been no risk of confusion - actually, I would have said it was that fat cheating Argentinian bastard, but that sort of defeats my argument 😉.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phantom said:

To throw some context into these discussions  the below are all from John Barnes. 

I'd bet the majority (if not all) of the people taking issue in this thread are white!

20201209_140327.jpg

20201209_140314.jpg

20201209_140303.jpg

20201209_140251.jpg

20201209_140229.jpg

20201209_140215.jpg

20201209_140159.jpg

 

He's got a very fair point, providing the words and context were exactly as described in his tweets.

It could well be a massive misunderstanding.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

 

He's got a very fair point, providing the words and context were exactly as described in his tweets.

It could well be a massive misunderstanding.

I watched it live, switching between the Leipzig/ManUtd game, and I believe, depending on whether or not you consider referring to somebody as 'the black guy' is racist, it was just that  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PHILINFRANCE said:

I watched it live, switching between the Leipzig/ManUtd game, and I believe, depending on whether or not you consider referring to somebody as 'the black guy' is racist, it was just that  

 

As a necessary descriptor in a potentially confusing situation, it clearly is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

He's got a very fair point, providing the words and context were exactly as described in his tweets.

It could well be a massive misunderstanding.

Except, reading through this thread, the disagreement doesnt arise entirely through misunderstanding.

Some people have explicitly recognized that the description "black guy" was used, with no other description, positive, negative or otherwise, and yet are very exercised about it. Have explicitly said that to use that description, rather than another means of identification, is racist. Where will this madness stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting take on things from John Barnes who clearly thinks that IN THE CORRECT CONTEXT it is perfectly reasonable to refer to somebody by their skin colour and to be honest, given his experience of being on the receiving end of overt racism and his well documented views on the subject, I would take his opinion over that of any enraged white person on this forum. It would be a bit cheeky, in my view, for any white person in particular, on here, to say that Barnes is wrong although no doubt he will labelled by a minority with the term (I won't use it) which means white mind in black skin..............probably by white people too!! 

His comments obviously don't necessarily provide a definitive answer on what happened last night and if it is established that comments were made in a racist context then it's very simple, the guy gets sacked no argument whatsoever. No place in football or anywhere in society for that. However, a huge misunderstanding MAY have occurred. In that scenario would it be better for the Referee and 4th Official to know the names of the staff and prevent such misunderstanding? Of course it would and that has to be a learning point for UEFA moving forwards. Education is what will stop this problem. On the subject of education would it also be better for the offending coach to keep his trap shut in future and prevent the incident occurring in the first place? Of course it would and that's a learning point for him moving forwards. He has no god given right to go round abusing people particularly when he expects to be treated with the utmost respect himself.

Edited by Numero Uno
  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

I would like to see the views of the BAME posters as well, it’s a very interesting subject and it’s good not to be shouted down and called racist because you don’t completely agree or understand 


I agree with choosing words carefully and I have done in the past to the point where I’m actually very conscious of saying the wrong thing, which is probably wrong in itself 

Things in this country have improved dramatically in the last 30 years. In my first couple of years supporting City (late 80’s)I remember the booing of black players and that seems to have completely gone 

 

And the rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

I would like to see the views of the BAME posters as well, it’s a very interesting subject and it’s good not to be shouted down and called racist because you don’t completely agree or understand 


I agree with choosing words carefully and I have done in the past to the point where I’m actually very conscious of saying the wrong thing, which is probably wrong in itself 

Things in this country have improved dramatically in the last 30 years. In my first couple of years supporting City (late 80’s)I remember the booing of black players and that seems to have completely gone 

 

I always remember when we had an issue with it down the Gate and a warning was sent out by the club about what would happen to offending fans if it happened at future matches. The next Home match was Orient (as they were known back then) at home and in the days when the teams ran out separately Orient came on first with 6-7 black players in their team and the crowd literally laughed......................that is where we were 40 years ago!!

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, NickJ said:

No, I wouldnt.

What more obvious way could there be to identify that person, in those particular cicumstances.

Of course some black loons, and white loons on their behalf, will take offence. Why wouldnt they, its what they do, the professionally offended.

I'd prefer to go along with the views of a black person with half a brain, John Barnes for example, in fact a switched on black man with very much a full working brain.

I disagree with using skin colour as a description, (unless it’s relevant I.e. police issuing a description as long as they do the same for all races) just because you can’t think of anything else, as this, for me, reinforces the thinking that back people are defined by skin colour and that overrides everything else.

ive worked in Financial Services for 20 years, and completed many D&I training sessions, and if for example somebody said to me ‘I’ve got Dave on the phone’ and I said ‘who’s Dave?’ And they said ‘the black bloke’ then they would be potentially on a disciplinary for breach of D&I policy and rightly so.  

Edited by Tinmans Love Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Except, reading through this thread, the disagreement doesnt arise entirely through misunderstanding.

Some people have explicitly recognized that the description "black guy" was used, with no other description, positive, negative or otherwise, and yet are very exercised about it. Have explicitly said that to use that description, rather than another means of identification, is racist. Where will this madness stop.

 

 There are times that you'd not use that phrase.

Eg: "Ref: Can you stop this black guy getting in my face".  That would be a quite unnecessary use of skin colour.

If it was purely to identify the one black member of the coaching staff that's totally understandable. I'm sure we've all had to do likewise in a workplace with colleagues of different races.

As Barnsey says, I wonder if it was the Negru that got Ba worked up. A case of linguistic understanding from a person bilingual in French and English, but not in Eastern European languages.  In Russian, the non-derogatory word for a black person is negr, which sounds even worse to someone only used to English colloquialisms.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I disagree with using skin colour as a description, (unless it’s relevant I.e. police issuing a description as long as they do the same for all races) just because you can’t think of anything else, as this, for me, reinforces the thinking that back people are defined by skin colour and that overrides everything else.

ive worked in Financial Services for 20 years, and completed many D&I training sessions, and if for example somebody said to me ‘I’ve got Dave on the phone’ and I said ‘who’s Dave?’ And they said ‘the black bloke’ then they would be potentially on a disciplinary for breach of D&I policy and rightly so.  

Rightly in your opinion.

And I have to say, the suggestion that describing somebody as black, on the basis that is the most readily identifiable characteristic of that person, is akin to defining that by person by their skin colour is, to me, slightly amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with what john barnes has said but at the same time, he doesnt speak for all non white people, i believe english footballers dont have it as bad as alot of footballers in these other European countries...

Like demba ba must see it every week so his first reaction would be to be offended and see the worst in the word..

But yet again, this guy shouldnt of been speaking romanian you have to speak english, if he would of spoke english then this situation probably wouldnt of happened.. now hes probably messed up his career all over something that was most probably innocent..  i dont think he would be that stupid to be racist on tv in front of that many witnesses but hey some people are!

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...