• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Firmino Holgate incident.

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any kind of harm I can do to someone that then justifies them using a racist term against me? Obviously assault with violent intent is not enough. Stabbing? But what if it's only a flesh wound? Broken bone? Gunshot wound? Seriously, if Firmino had (or any other professional footballer who had just been assaulted with the intent to injure) lashed out with a racist term in the heat of the moment it would be pretty tough to prove racism as the motive. Much different than if a racist term is used as part of the back and forth between players or on twitter etc.
 
What are talking about CT?
If a racist term is used after provocation then you can't say the guy is a racist?
Wouldn't they just be charged with racially abusing a person?
Same as a player punches someone in the head afters he's been fouled he's still. Charged regardless of the provocation
 
ctlovesred said:
Is there any kind of harm I can do to someone that then justifies them using a racist term against me? Obviously assault with violent intent is not enough. Stabbing? But what if it's only a flesh wound? Broken bone? Gunshot wound? Seriously, if Firmino had (or any other professional footballer who had just been assaulted with the intent to injure) lashed out with a racist term in the heat of the moment it would be pretty tough to prove racism as the motive. Much different than if a racist term is used as part of the back and forth between players or on twitter etc.
Click to expand...
Words fail me.
 
Atlas said:
What are talking about CT?
If a racist term is used after provocation then you can't say the guy is a racist?
Wouldn't they just be charged with racially abusing a person?
Same as a player punches someone in the head afters he's been fouled he's still. Charged regardless of the provocation
Click to expand...
I guess that's the right distinction. Use of the term is an abuse on the other person. Maybe I'm pushing against the inevitable blowback afterwards that brands the person a racist for something that was said after being violently assaulted. Say Firmino used a racial term and then is rightly banned. He'll be considered a racist forever, even if there isn't any evidence to suggest that is the case other than the one instance.

Do we call someone who punches someone in the face once a violent criminal for the rest of his life? I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud about it I guess.
 
We'd be quite happy calling an opposition player a racist if he called one of our players a racially charged word.
I mean Rooney gets called a granny shagger and he probably only shagged one granny. (correct me if I'm wrong itk's)
 
ctlovesred said:
Is there any kind of harm I can do to someone that then justifies them using a racist term against me? Obviously assault with violent intent is not enough. Stabbing? But what if it's only a flesh wound? Broken bone? Gunshot wound? Seriously, if Firmino had (or any other professional footballer who had just been assaulted with the intent to injure) lashed out with a racist term in the heat of the moment it would be pretty tough to prove racism as the motive. Much different than if a racist term is used as part of the back and forth between players or on twitter etc.
Click to expand...
No

I thought Bobby should be applauded for his self-restraint here - no player would have expected such an unprovoked and unprofessional dangerous act as that committed by Holgate - Bobby kept his hands by his side when every instinct must have been to punch Holgate's lights out.

The (pretty poor) referee heard nothing racist and lip-reading shows nothing racist. Either he did say something and it was not picked up or it didn't happen. If the former, then Bobby is 100% in the wrong, if the latter is true I wonder if Holgate wanted to divert the referee's attention away from reaching into his pocket for a red card and conveniently "misheard" what Bobby said.

I suspect we'll never know for sure.
 
ctlovesred said:
Is there any kind of harm I can do to someone that then justifies them using a racist term against me? Obviously assault with violent intent is not enough. Stabbing? But what if it's only a flesh wound? Broken bone? Gunshot wound? Seriously, if Firmino had (or any other professional footballer who had just been assaulted with the intent to injure) lashed out with a racist term in the heat of the moment it would be pretty tough to prove racism as the motive. Much different than if a racist term is used as part of the back and forth between players or on twitter etc.
Click to expand...

Consider an Islamic terrorist massacring several hundred people, in which you lost every limb of your body. From your hospital bed you'd be expected to talk about love and standing together, even the slightest inoffensive mention of their religion will see calls for your life support machine to be switched off due to being a racist scumbag. So obviously, there is no harm that would justify outright racism.
 
Nah, see that Millwall lad who got stuck in on the last one? Papers all loved him and he was covered in swastikas and they had to bleep out half his interview.
 
Woland said:
Nah, see that Millwall lad who got stuck in on the last one? Papers all loved him and he was covered in swastikas and they had to bleep out half his interview.
Click to expand...

That's when he was a hero and the fake news could use him to push their fake narrative. Once he opened his mouth on the street social justice was delivered http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millwall-fan-hailed-lion-london-10745482

It's fake news, but that's one of the greatest pieces of journalism I've seen in a long time, excellent piece of writing and use of quotes.
 
[article]
[bcolor=transparent]As the activists shout "we fight back when the racists attack", Roy continues to scream profanaties for the duration of the 1.44-minute film. [/bcolor][bcolor=transparent]At times, the rant is inaudible.[/bcolor]

[bcolor=transparent]"Shut up you c***," he shouts. "F*** off you spastic paedophile c***.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=transparent]"W****** - I'll smash the life out of you.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=transparent]"People like you stink like s***.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=transparent]"Motherless c***, from a c***, f*** off, keep moving, f*** off you foreign c***, f*** off you ape c***.[/bcolor]
[bcolor=transparent]"I'll f*** your mum, I'll f*** your mum."[/bcolor]​
[/article]

Hahaahhahaaaha, I think that might be a breach of FA rule E3.
 
[article]
[bcolor=transparent]The former girlfriend of the Lion of London Bridge has claimed her daughter's father is not a racist. Also today his ex-girlfriend Tracy Wicks, 54, said: "He takes the dogs out regularly, he is not a racist, not in my experience, you don't know what happened at the time.[/bcolor]​
[/article]

I don't know, that's the sort of argument the FA might uphold, he's white and english after all.
 
DHSC said:
Whats the holdup on the verdict?
Click to expand...

The 'investigation' has hardly begun. Firmino has been summoned to explain himself, and he's only just returned from a mini break in Spain, so he won't be available to travel and see them until next week at the earliest. Holgate's also been summoned but as far as I know he hasn't talked to them yet. Then there's the usual secretive 'deliberations' following those interviews before the verdict is announced. So I'd be surprised if there's any actual ruling for another fortnight or more.
 
Although I don't think thats actually offensive, unlike calling someone a faggot. (which Holgate shouldn't be getting a ban for anyway)
 
If we coordinate this properly, it's possible to go through our fixtures, grass them up, and get the best players of the team we're facing banned one after the next on a rolling basis.
 
My guess: they know there's f'ck all evidence to back up the allegation but can't figure out a way of saying so without (they think) making themselves look like they don't care about racism.
 
I think that's a good guess. It would mean that during the FA interviews in which they probably tried to go fishing for evidence to use against us, at least this time our club and player had enough sense to keep their mouths shut and never rat on their friends.
 
Anyone innocent would have good reason to feel pretty insulted to be questioned on racism by an organisation that's just been condemned by Parliament for its long-standing implicit tolerance of racism within its own community. That's the problem with the FA now in such cases - it's like asking Weinstein to chair an investigation into sexual abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom