Alleged Racism at Woking game

[hlane17]

I don't think being old is a defence.
Forty years ago bananas were thrown at the feet of John Barnes. We've learned from that. Age doesn't preclude change for the better.

I personally think there is a difference between that overt and vile racism (which still lives on in some spheres of football, look at the Brazil qualifier in Tunisia) and an ambiguous, archaic phrase open to interpretation. IMO it's much more nuanced than the awful treatment of years gone by.

 

[hlane17]

I agree, but with one caveat.
A racist statement IS malicious by definition.

A proven (or overt) racist statement is malicious, you're correct.

One caveat in return. It's alleged and therefore this guy is not currently guilty of anything.

It's not racist until proven such in the eyes of the law, or we may as well cut to the chase and put him in the stocks now.

 

[Jai]

It's interesting the polarised comments here.
Those using expressions like 'snowflake' and 'woke' are mostly sceptical of any racist incident.
The mods won't allow political comment and rightly so, but you would expect that in right wing commentary.
I agree with an earlier poster that I've never heard the expression 'get back in your cage.' Who rattled your cage, yes, but that's clearly different, no?
One thing's clear.
Enough folk heard the comment, so if deemed to be racist, a life ban is appropriate.

I was under the impression snowflake was a common term used by people on the left that is used to define right wing people who get incredibly upset and offended by things like mixed race couples on adverts and a female Dr Who. You live and learn.

Anyway, my gut feeling is it wasn't meant in a racist way but I can absolutely see why it was taken in that way, particularly given the way the match ended.

It's not a good look for the club but it's a good example of how language can be construed and how people should take care with it.

 

[blueblueblue]

I'm sorry, if that's all what was said, that's not Racist, I've said that to a few people in my time.

If we carry on like this, I fear in ten years time everyone will be walking around with their heads down with the fear of upsetting someone, just by looking at them

 

[Oakley1]

I look forward to the day when I can sit watching southend and I don't hear anyone throw any abuse like you Blind ****, you Welsh **** , you sheep shagging ****

keeps those stones close and aim at the glass roof or maybe next time you hear it report it

and make the club put out a statement with an appology

so Stan should be lucky 680 Wrexham fans didn't file any complaints about us otherwise the club would be in deep $hit

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

A proven (or overt) racist statement is malicious, you're correct.

One caveat in return. It's alleged and therefore this guy is not currently guilty of anything.

It's not racist until proven such in the eyes of the law, or we may as well cut to the chase and put him in the stocks now.

Yes, of course: innocent until guilty.
But a '...racist statement on its own doesn't appear to have been said with malicious intent'.
With respect, a racist statement on its own is malicious. You said so.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

I was under the impression snowflake was a common term used by people on the left that is used to define right wing people who get incredibly upset and offended by things like mixed race couples on adverts and a female Dr Who. You live and learn.

Anyway, my gut feeling is it wasn't meant in a racist way but I can absolutely see why it was taken in that way, particularly given the way the match ended.

It's not a good look for the club but it's a good example of how language can be construed and how people should take care with it.

...round the other way I think you'll find.
Right call 'lefties' snowflakes and woke because of their liberal awareness: hence, 'woke' as in aware or awoke.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

I'm sorry, if that's all what was said, that's not Racist, I've said that to a few people in my time.

If we carry on like this, I fear in ten years time everyone will be walking around with their heads down with the fear of upsetting someone, just by looking at them

One question: did you ever say that to a black person in recent times?

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

I personally think there is a difference between that overt and vile racism (which still lives on in some spheres of football, look at the Brazil qualifier in Tunisia) and an ambiguous, archaic phrase open to interpretation. IMO it's much more nuanced than the awful treatment of years gone by.

Sorry, but off topic.
I think you're original premise was being old let you off the hook?

 

[blueblueblue]

One question: did you ever say that to a black person in recent times?

I have actually yes.

 

[hlane17]

Yes, of course: innocent until guilty.
But a '...racist statement on its own doesn't appear to have been said with malicious intent'.
With respect, a racist statement on its own is malicious. You said so.

I said 'The alleged racist statement on its own' referring to and I quote 'get back in your cage' on face value doesn't appear to be racist to me, while also implying that there could be additional context outside of the phrase that aggravates it and makes it racist. Context matters.

Ironically in a situation where words might have been misconstrued last night, you are misrepresenting mine.

I'm talking in the context that the law provides and applying it to the situation. We already know regardless of this man's intent, if the victim wants to press charges it will happen and he will most probably be found guilty as this is how the law works.

 

[hlane17]

Sorry, but off topic.
I think you're original premise was being old let you off the hook?

Again misrepresenting my words. I now remember why I blocked you. If I remember rightly I was previously homophobic for disliking pink and suggesting my girlfriend who loves pink would like our 3rd kit

People of different generations speak differently, have different phrases, etc. I thought this was common knowledge.

My grandparents speak differently to my parents, my parents speak differently to me and my generation have totally different mannerisms, phrases, quotes etc.

There have been many occasions where a statement has been lost in translation, even sometimes where it's offended me.

I'm not even excusing this guy! Just saying we need to keep open minds rather than slaughter someone before the situation has been properly investigated.

 

[Texas Eslan]

Just in case anyone has an interest…

So had a quick look on Twitter to see if this phrase is commonly used. A simple search revealed endless results even over the last few days (ignoring those in reference to this incident). Were some of them used in a racist context…well yes they were. But it was generally used in the context of people considered to be talking out of turn or seemingly above their station. I obviously didn’t read them all so please don’t start quoting them at me!

So I think, contrary to others commenting on here, that this is still a well used generic phrase and at the moment is not deemed to have a specific racist context (twitter as a platform would certainly shoot people down if it did). Should you attach specific racist buzzwords to it though then of course it can easily become so.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Again misrepresenting my words. I now remember why I blocked you. If I remember rightly I was previously homophobic for disliking pink and suggesting my girlfriend who loves pink would like our 3rd kit

People of different generations speak differently, have different phrases, etc. I thought this was common knowledge.

My grandparents speak differently to my parents, my parents speak differently to me and my generation have totally different mannerisms, phrases, quotes etc.

There have been many occasions where a statement has been lost in translation, even sometimes where it's offended me.

I'm not even excusing this guy! Just saying we need to keep open minds rather than slaughter someone before the situation has been properly investigated.

"I think it could end up being quite unfair if he was using an old phrase as an older man."
Therefore, if he was old and used an older phrase: he's excused.
My case rests.

 

[Mad Cyril]

It's just a saying that people say. I think that this has been taken well out of context.

That's the danger of shouting abuse from a crowd.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

I said 'The alleged racist statement on its own' referring to and I quote 'get back in your cage' on face value doesn't appear to be racist to me, while also implying that there could be additional context outside of the phrase that aggravates it and makes it racist. Context matters.

Ironically in a situation where words might have been misconstrued last night, you are misrepresenting mine.

I'm talking in the context that the law provides and applying it to the situation. We already know regardless of this man's intent, if the victim wants to press charges it will happen and he will most probably be found guilty as this is how the law works.

You're avoiding the simple point.
'Alleged' I agreed with.
Words spoken or not, although Stan heard them, yes, again.
But in general, a racist statement is malicious.

 

[hlane17]

"I think it could end up being quite unfair if he was using an old phrase as an older man."
Therefore, if he was old and used an older phrase: he's excused.
My case rests.

I never said excused, I said unfair for a reason. The twisted burden of proof with speech laws tacitly assumes a perpetrator is guilty before proven innocent for one.

Also a throwaway statement may well have landed him in hot water, let's not pretend that we haven't all said something stupid once that offended someone.

What do we do at the footy now, avoid shouting anything at the game?

But at the end of the day if found guilty in the eyes of the law then that's that. I'm specific with my words for a reason, and I'll be leaving this discussion on that point.

 

[hlane17]

You're avoiding the simple point.
'Alleged' I agreed with.
Words spoken or not, although Stan heard them, yes, again.
But in general, a racist statement is malicious.

Not sure we're in disagreement then?

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Again misrepresenting my words. I now remember why I blocked you. If I remember rightly I was previously homophobic for disliking pink and suggesting my girlfriend who loves pink would like our 3rd kit

People of different generations speak differently, have different phrases, etc. I thought this was common knowledge.

My grandparents speak differently to my parents, my parents speak differently to me and my generation have totally different mannerisms, phrases, quotes etc.

There have been many occasions where a statement has been lost in translation, even sometimes where it's offended me.

I'm not even excusing this guy! Just saying we need to keep open minds rather than slaughter someone before the situation has been properly investigated.

CPM gets his knickers' on a twist a lot on here but the internet is made for folk like him, who are highly strung, and seem to take pleasure out of pulling people up for having a different way of thinking from himself.

The world is full of his type unfortunately.

 

[Stuart W]

"I think it could end up being quite unfair if he was using an old phrase as an older man."
Therefore, if he was old and used an older phrase: he's excused.
My case rests.

Any chance you can give me an up to date list of words/phrases which have been banned in the last twenty or so years?
I get very confused as there are some words like qu..r that was originally widely used, then it was deemed offensive, but then it came back into general use again.
Another one which causes difficulties to older people is the use of col.ured instead of bl..k.
Who actually makes the decision as to which words are “in”, and which words are “out”. I think we need to be told.