A Reply

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Good evening

Firstly allow me to apologise for what is blanket response to individual e-mails.

Secondly thank you for taking an interest in www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk. We try to make a website which engenders debate and discussion and on this occasion we have no doubt done that. While it is not apparent to the group of respondents I am presently addressing, this discussion has been as much concerned with positive reaction to the article as negative.

The article in question concerns Southend United in only two paragraphs and is a criticism of the F.A. for a failure to take into account racism when dealing with the suspension of Donovan Ricketts.

The first mention of Southend is factual. The second mention – and I can not stress this too clearly – is very much targeted at “Racist Southend supporters”. Indeed that phrase is used to make an exact delineation between the supporters accused by Ricketts of racist abuse and other supporters.

Given this precise and clear language I am surprised that so many Southend fans have taken offence. I know that should somebody address “racist Bradford City fans” I would not feel that I was being referred to.

Should a misunderstanding have occurred then I appreciate your mistake and trust you have no problem with me attacking racists, even if they are contained within the group of Southend supporters.

Some mails pointed out that Essex police had released the man arrested but released without charge, and that evidence for the racist abuse had not been forthcoming. Indeed one writer suggested there were no witnesses. He is wrong.

Donovan Ricketts witnessed the abuse and was subject to it. It is important to remember that Ricketts is the victim of a crime and only a perpetrator of breaking the rules of football. Ricketts – like any victim – has the right for his views to be considered. Many mails I have received accuse Ricketts of lying about being racially abused in a cold, calculating manner to avoid punishment under the rules of the game.

To make such an assumption against the victim of an alleged crime is offensive to me and to suggest that Ricketts word has less validity – that he can not be trusted to tell the truth – has worrying overtones.

Returning to the point in hand I do not believe that all Southend fans have been offended by this article – just those who fall under the term “racist Southend Supporters”. I have no problem offending racists.

The article in question comments on the F.A.’s treatment of Ricketts making a broader point than the Southend United game. It also speaks out against racist football supporters. I trust that none of those I am addressing believe a website should not question the F.A. or attack racists.

There has been suggestions that steps will be taken to have this article and the website removed. If you believe that the best course of action is that then by all means do so. Until such a time I shall continue to use this platform to attack racists and racist behaviour.

Some writers sought an apology for Southend fans and a retraction. I will not be apologising to those who feel they are “racist Southend supporters” nor shall I be retracting my criticism of those racists. If you are offended because you believe I was labelling all Southend fans racist I can only suggest you re-read the article not as the attack on a club as some would portray it, but as an attack on the racist in clubs (including Southend) and on F.A. policy in this matter.

*If you feel football is improved by suppressing freedom of speech and freedom to attack racists then please get in touch and I will forward my web hosts details to you.

With this clarification I consider this matter closed. If you wish to contact me seeking an apology for “racist Southend supporters” then you will not get one. Otherwise thank you for your interest.

Yours,

Michael Wood

*I don't understand his comment about freedom of specch though as I didn't mention it ...

WS

 

[Barmy Army]

There's already a thread where people have posted their replies...

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Quote[/b] ]“Racist Southend supporters”. Indeed that phrase is used to make an exact delineation between the supporters accused by Ricketts of racist abuse and other supporters.

Surely that's a case of guilty before being proven so? Ricketts accused therefore they must be racist.

Secondly, had it been a crowd of black fans, and some had been idiots, am I to take it that the phrase "idiotic blacks" wouldn't be taken as offensive by the entire crowd? I somehow feel it would have and rightly so. By saying "Racist Southend supporters" an implication is being made that both parts are relevant to the arguement. ie it's relevant that they're Southend supporters as well as being racist.

Sorry, the bloke's a tit and is trying to avoid losing face.

 

[weststander]

I too have received the same response from Michael Wood and it seems to me that he doesnt understand the situation.
Firstly, let me say that i abhore Racism in any form and if the Southend Supporter is found guilty then I will be one of the first to condem it. However, until he has been found guilty of this crime he is innocent and the any abuse racial or otherwise can only be alleged and Mr Wood must make this clear in his article or he is committing liable, to which any Southend supporter may seek redress. Mr Wood seems to think that as Ricketts said it happened then it definately did, i'm sure that Mr Ricketts can only clear this one up after searching his conscience. All that i have asked from Mr Wood is that he acknowledges the fact that it may not have happened and apologise for tarring all of the Southend support with his wide sweeping brush. I will be interested to see how this progresses if any charges are not forthcoming.

 

[Lucas D]

Interesting post..... However I would like to point out that 'we' as Southend supporters and witnesses to last Saturdays events are not undermining Ricketts because he is simply a player from the opposing team. He is simply lying.

I have read numerous sources and Ricketts/Todd are admitting to only showing one finger, this is NOT true. Ricketts quite clearly gave the right arm over his left to insinuate an 'up yours' to the fans of the south stand. That is why we think Ricketts is playing the 'race card'. Why would Ricketts lie about the other gesture? Because he is trying to cover his back!

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ Dec. 14 2005,21:47)]There's already a thread where people have posted their replies...

Where ... ?

WS

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Xàbia Shrimper @ Dec. 14 2005,20:29)]The first mention of Southend is factual.  The second mention – and I can not stress this too clearly – is very much targeted at “Racist Southend supporters”.  Indeed that phrase is used to make an exact delineation between the supporters accused by Ricketts of racist abuse and other supporters.

Given this precise and clear language I am surprised that so many Southend fans have taken offence.  I know that should somebody address “racist Bradford City fans” I would not feel that I was being referred to.

Should a misunderstanding have occurred then I appreciate your mistake

I will email Mr. Wood tomorrow, but I am afraid that he is wrong.  His unrepentant tone is, as we might have suspected, entirely consistent with the arrogance shown by someone with the crass insensitivity to write such an article in the first place.

His article says:

<span style='color:blue'>"The Football Association have turned down Donovan Ricketts's appeal against the red card he received for reacting to racist abuse from Southend United supporters and in doing so have given racists a victory.

"Racist Southend Supporters claimed a point for the Shrimpers by pushing Ricketts into reacting and getting sent off. They will be laughing now and could be given the Freedom of the Town should they go up/stay up by the single point they got through racially abusing our keeper."</span>

The first paragraph is not factual.  Mr. Wood cannot yet prove that racist abuse was made. The allegation of racist abuse is based on a single statement which is currently wholly unproven and relies entirely on the testimony of one man, Donovan Ricketts, who is either:

a) correct (in that he was racially abused)
b) innocently mistaken (in that he genuinely believes that he was racially abused, but he is mistaken in that genuine belief in that he misheard / misconstrued something)
c) fraudulently mistaken (in that he knows that he was not abused, but trumped up the charge in order to try to excuse his own abusive behaviour).

Ricketts's claim remains, however, as yet unproven.  Until such time as it is proved or disproved, Mr. Wood is wrong to say that the statement is factual.  It is anything but.  It is his, and his keeper's belief, in what may or may not have said; whether it is a fact is yet to be established.

* * *

The second paragraph is, of course, a question of interpretation - but only the most insensitively egotistical of writers ever believes that the meaning of a phrase is what he intended it to mean.

When one commits oneself to print, it is one's readership who determines what a particular phrase means.  He could have expressed himself more clearly by saying "A group of racist supporters at Southend" - since that appears to be what he meant to say.  That would have been the precise and clear thing to say, rather than a phrase which seemed clear to Southend supporters to contain a deliberately inflammatory innuendo.

Instead, he used the phrase "Racist Southend supporters".  Quite reasonably, given the fact that Mr. Wood had already demonstrated his partisanship and his tendency to factual inaccuracy in the previous paragraph, that was interpreted as a statement by him that all Southend supporters are racist.

It is notable that he does not seek to apologise for any inadvertent misinterpretation that his choice of phraseology caused - further proof, were it needed, that the primary aim of his article was to provoke and insult.  His desire to insult rather than to appease is also demonstrated by his choice of phrase "I appreciate your mistake" - as self-satisfied and self-approbatory choice of wording as one might wish to see in the circumstances.

He considers the matter closed, and so be it.  I will, of course, point out to him that he is wrong tomorrow morning, but we all have better things to do than communicate with people whose only desire is to provoke and inflame.  Thank heavens we don't have to play them again this season, if all we get is unpleasantness from the likes of Michael Wood.

Matt

 

[Sebastian Weetabix]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Dec. 14 2005,21:27)]

Quote[/b] (Xàbia Shrimper @ Dec. 14 2005,20:29)]The first mention of Southend is factual.  The second mention – and I can not stress this too clearly – is very much targeted at “Racist Southend supporters”.  Indeed that phrase is used to make an exact delineation between the supporters accused by Ricketts of racist abuse and other supporters.

Given this precise and clear language I am surprised that so many Southend fans have taken offence.  I know that should somebody address “racist Bradford City fans” I would not feel that I was being referred to.

Should a misunderstanding have occurred then I appreciate your mistake

I will email Mr. Wood tomorrow, but I am afraid that he is wrong.  His unrepentant tone is, as we might have suspected, entirely consistent with the arrogance shown by someone with the crass insensitivity to write such an article in the first place.

His article says:

<span style='color:blue'>"The Football Association have turned down Donovan Ricketts's appeal against the red card he received for reacting to racist abuse from Southend United supporters and in doing so have given racists a victory.

"Racist Southend Supporters claimed a point for the Shrimpers by pushing Ricketts into reacting and getting sent off. They will be laughing now and could be given the Freedom of the Town should they go up/stay up by the single point they got through racially abusing our keeper."</span>

The first paragraph is not factual.  Mr. Wood cannot yet prove that racist abuse was made.  The allegation of racist abuse is based on a single statement which is currently wholly unproven and relies entirely on the testimony of one man, Donovan Ricketts, who is either:

a) correct (in that he was racially abused)
b) innocently mistaken (in that he genuinely believes that he was racially abused, but he is mistaken in that genuine belief in that he misheard / misconstrued something)
c) fraudulently mistaken (in that he knows that he was not abused, but trumped up the charge in order to try to excuse his own abusive behaviour).

Ricketts's claim remains, however, as yet unproven.  Until such time as it is proved or disproved, Mr. Wood is wrong to say that the statement is factual.  It is anything but.  It is his, and his keeper's belief, in what may or may not have said; whether it is a fact is yet to be established.

* * *

The second paragraph is, of course, a question of interpretation - but only the most insensitively egotistical of writers ever believes that the meaning of a phrase is what he intended it to mean.

When one commits oneself to print, it is one's readership who determines what a particular phrase means.  He could have expressed himself more clearly by saying "A group of racist supporters at Southend" - since that appears to be what he meant to say.  That would have been the precise and clear thing to say, rather than a phrase which seemed clear to Southend supporters to contain a deliberately inflammatory innuendo.

Instead, he used the phrase "Racist Southend supporters".  Quite reasonably, given the fact that Mr. Wood had already demonstrated his partisanship and his tendency to factual inaccuracy in the previous paragraph, that was interpreted as a statement by him that all Southend supporters are racist.

It is notable that he does not seek to apologise for any inadvertent misinterpretation that his choice of phraseology caused - further proof, were it needed, that the primary aim of his article was to provoke and insult.  His desire to insult rather than to appease is also demonstrated by his choice of phrase "I appreciate your mistake" - as self-satisfied and self-approbatory choice of wording as one might wish to see in the circumstances.

He considers the matter closed, and so be it.  I will, of course, point out to him that he is wrong tomorrow morning, but we all have better things to do than communicate with people whose only desire is to provoke and inflame.  Thank heavens we don't have to play them again this season, if all we get is unpleasantness from the likes of Michael Wood.

Matt

Nothing to add to those sentiments but I think you may be wasting your time Matt. Don't hold your breath for a suitable reply from Mr Wood, I think he has already made his mind up, namely Southend United supporters in the South Stand are racist. Wrong but never the less, damage done. Justice isn't going to be done on this one.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Seb, you are - as so often is the case - spot on.

He&#39;ll get my email (cos I&#39;ve typed it already - above&#33;), but I&#39;ll expend no energy waiting for a response...

 

[C&#39;mon you Blues]

I got Michael&#39;s reply. He of course is right in saying his comments were directed towards Southend&#39;s racist supporters. Each club has a small number of racist supporters. However he fails to give any corroborative evidence from any source at all that what Donovan Ricketts said happened actually did or am I missing the point . Has anyone seen in print or read on another another website or spoken to anyone in the South upper or lower who heard one racist comment made to Ricketts or indeed anyone else. If they had they should say so. To an man/woman everyone seems to be saying it just didn&#39;t happen. That is the point.

 

[Angell Delight]

The article this pillock wrote is suggesting racist abuse definitely HAPPENED, which we know of course now that it did not. Has anyone relaid this to him?

 

[Smiffy]

What a tit the bloke is, he is believing one blokes claims over several hundred others that were near enough to even hear any alleged racist taunts, simply because he is a player in the team he supports, simple as that.

I dont see any other Bradford players coming out saying Ricketts was racially abused, funny that.

Also this tit was the best part of 150 yards away, if he was even there full-stop, he wouldnt of heard anything if it was said anyway, which we all know is not the case, so not only does he have no personal evidence, he has none from anyone except the bullsh&#33;tting keeper.

If any SUFC supporter did mention anything even slightly racist, he would of been shopped by many people, we are a family club and have NEVER had any problems with racists in my experience&#39;s anyway.

As the law states the world over, innocent until proven guilty...

Well where&#39;s your evidence Mr Wood and Mr Ricketts?...

We&#39;re waiting....

It&#39;s a shame Ricketts ban isnt a longer one, which he deserves for potentially inciting public disorder and basically lying through his back teeth, lets face it, if it was a fan that gave the old salute he would of run the risk of ejection and a three year banning order, why is it different for Ricketts...

I&#39;ll say it again, you pair of tits&#33;

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ Dec. 15 2005,00:50)]Has anyone relaid this to him?

Plenty of people have but he has dismissed the complaints with an arrogant flick of the wrist ...

WS

 

[Keep The Faith]

Cant be bothered with reading the boy from brazil, but i feel its about 1 man, and if he is happy like that then so be it

 

[canveyshrimper]

The email he has sent is a blanket email to all those that have emailed him in the first place.

He has not considered individual points raised in those. Furthermore he seeks justification in playing with words in his response.

Good luck with your message Matt, but as others have said and you have acknowledged, don&#39;t hold your breath.

 

[CANV]

i dont read the BfB as someone once told me they made racist comments.. obviously this isnt directed at the non racists at BfB only the racists there, so obviously all the good non racists will not take offence and in no way feel offended at all..

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

The man is an absolute idiot, pure &amp; simple.
If we continue a dialogue with him then he&#39;s just going to foam at the mouth more &amp; more as he hides behind his keyboard.
He obviously thinks he has a way with words and that&#39;s why he&#39;s sent that blanket response to everyone who mailed him yesterday.
Let him get on with his twisted little life, it&#39;s time for us all to take the moral higher ground&#33;

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Having seen Mr. Wood&#39;s article about Nick&#39;s arrest, there is no point in communicating with him any further. He is a liar and appears to enjoy writing articles which play fast and loose with the truth.

I suggest we treat his contemptuous website with the disdain that it richly deserves.

Matt