htfc1908
David Wagner Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 2,779
|
Post by htfc1908 on May 23, 2019 13:42:37 GMT 1
Anyone know a 'John Brook' from Edgerton? According to the Examiner (yes, I know...) this arsehole has just acquired a 3 year football ban (plus a fine) for racially abusing a Liverpool player at Town's recent match at Anfield. What a c***. There used to be a poster on here called Quaver  |
|
|
|
Post by mids on May 23, 2019 13:45:57 GMT 1
Anyone know a 'John Brook' from Edgerton? According to the Examiner (yes, I know...) this arsehole has just acquired a 3 year football ban (plus a fine) for racially abusing a Liverpool player at Town's recent match at Anfield. What a c***. Is it possible for someone to be savory? Most definitely...but they may be nuts or want a pizza the action. Although it could all be pie in the sky  |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on May 23, 2019 13:46:03 GMT 1
Youre wasting your time with that one! Some people are just determined to not get their heads round that fact. Muslims are all sorts of races, just like Christians are all sorts of races. Believing in something isn't a race. Its like saying people who believe in little green men in UFOs are a race and if you insult them for it, youre being racist. Do people think if someones christian and they change to being muslim, they also change their race at the same time? But to be clear...just as it’s not acceptable to threaten, bully or incite hatred to another human of different ethnicity because of that ethnicity, it’s also not morally acceptable to direct hate and bile at an individual because of their religion. Or indeed, their sex, hair colour, body shape, smell, intelligence, licentiousness or any other facet which is different from your own that you decide to narrow mindedly attack. And...it happens to be a crime in the UK to direct hate or violence at someone because of their race OR religion. I do find it to be pretty nasty behaviour for a non religious person to belittle or ridicule someone’s belief system, whether that’s a following of a god or gods, dedication to Jedi lifestyle or worshipping little green men. What’s wrong with being nice to people if they don’t impact you negatively (and even if they do). I’m about as far away from religious as ifs possible to get, but I’ve had some really interesting debates on the subjects of Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity over the years. You don’t have to be religious to respect and appreciate that others might believe in fairy tales and that they use that to try and lead a better life. (by “you”, I don’t mean you Captainslapper , I mean a general random bigot ) Agree with that but the bit in bold is the killer isn;t it ( quite literally sometimes !) Thinking youre a Jedi knight or believing in little green men is one thing, but I don;t see religion as being so harmless. So long as so many of the world's horrors, hatred, bullying and intolerance is promoted, acted out in the name of, or even encouraged by religion ( some more than others) , I think it'll always promote the same attitudes on itself. . But anyway, my point was that attacking someone for what they think.. ie, for their religion in this case, is NOT racism, no matter how much some people like to pretend it is. |
|
|
|
Post by 28901 on May 23, 2019 14:03:31 GMT 1
Youre wasting your time with that one! Some people are just determined to not get their heads round that fact. Muslims are all sorts of races, just like Christians are all sorts of races. Believing in something isn't a race. Its like saying people who believe in little green men in UFOs are a race and if you insult them for it, youre being racist. Do people think if someones christian and they change to being Muslim, they also change their race at the same time? You are correct. You even corrected me on the issue the other day (to which I didn't respond then as it wasn't on topic, but it is now). But you cannot escape, that the two have become intertwined and right now, in our society, there is a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia (there are many, many examples of this). And, to use the subtext from a decent article on this very subject to make a point; "Racism is behaviour, not an informed academic position...[and] Islam might not be a race, but using that as a fig leaf for unthinking prejudice [can be considered] racist."* So you can continue your crusade to educate the masses and continue to be frustrated with 'some people', defining race by the dictionary, but in this instance (whether you like it or not) it brings nothing to this discussion in truth - its simply a point of clarification. *I wont go as far as saying that this prejudice "almost certainly is racist" as the original quote states and to be clear, I am not calling you a racist for clarifying the point: the quote of course has to be taken in the context of the discussion. ---- On another point, it would have saved a lot of shit chat and confusion had the OP taken the time to report the case properly i.e. "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." But then a gripe of mine is that people no longer take the time to inform themselves and are quick to make judgements based on a singular source - often a headline. Normally I would agree but in this case the OP wasn't making a quick a judgement; it had already been done in court:
'As well as his three year ban Brook was also fined when he appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bootle on Friday, May 17.'
He is therefore perfectly at liberty to pass comment.
|
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 14:15:00 GMT 1
You are correct. You even corrected me on the issue the other day (to which I didn't respond then as it wasn't on topic, but it is now). But you cannot escape, that the two have become intertwined and right now, in our society, there is a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia (there are many, many examples of this). And, to use the subtext from a decent article on this very subject to make a point; "Racism is behaviour, not an informed academic position...[and] Islam might not be a race, but using that as a fig leaf for unthinking prejudice [can be considered] racist."* So you can continue your crusade to educate the masses and continue to be frustrated with 'some people', defining race by the dictionary, but in this instance (whether you like it or not) it brings nothing to this discussion in truth - its simply a point of clarification. *I wont go as far as saying that this prejudice "almost certainly is racist" as the original quote states and to be clear, I am not calling you a racist for clarifying the point: the quote of course has to be taken in the context of the discussion. ---- On another point, it would have saved a lot of shit chat and confusion had the OP taken the time to report the case properly i.e. "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." But then a gripe of mine is that people no longer take the time to inform themselves and are quick to make judgements based on a singular source - often a headline. Normally I would agree but in this case the OP wasn't making a quick a judgement; it had already been done in court:
'As well as his three year ban Brook was also fined when he appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bootle on Friday, May 17.'
He is therefore perfectly at liberty to pass comment.
Oh I don't dispute that, that's a separate point. Where I was maybe unclear is that I inferred ill-formed judgements can also result in the embellishment of information when it is conveyed. What the OP did (for one reason or another) was report the case as a uniquely racially aggravated incident. They didn't report that the judgement was infact for racial and/or religious aggravated abuse. That's quite important because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments (though let's be honest, this is DATM) and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 14:49:31 GMT 1
The Examiner article also quoted the Liverpool police:-
"This was a despicable incident........Not have to tolerate any form of hate crime, which often leaves families and young people fearful.....We are doing all we can to eradicate such behaviour.......We will pursue all such incidents until offenders are brought to justice....." Very commendable.
The article was adjacent to the latest article on the grooming and mass rape of white children in Kirklees by (predominantly) Pakistani muslims. If only the police had displayed such commitment to the protection of those children.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jello Biafra on May 23, 2019 14:56:39 GMT 1
Normally I would agree but in this case the OP wasn't making a quick a judgement; it had already been done in court:
'As well as his three year ban Brook was also fined when he appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bootle on Friday, May 17.'
He is therefore perfectly at liberty to pass comment.
Oh I don't dispute that, that's a separate point. Where I was maybe unclear is that I inferred ill-formed judgements can also result in the embellishment of information when it is conveyed. What the OP did (for one reason or another) was report the case as a uniquely racially aggravated incident. They didn't report that the judgement was infact for racial and/or religious aggravated abuse. That's quite important because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments (though let's be honest, this is DATM) and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story. I posted exactly what I read on the Examiner site. Here, have a read - www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/huddersfield-town-fan-banned-after-16313691From the information in that article I concluded that the bloke is a c***. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on May 23, 2019 14:59:56 GMT 1
Youre wasting your time with that one! Some people are just determined to not get their heads round that fact. Muslims are all sorts of races, just like Christians are all sorts of races. Believing in something isn't a race. Its like saying people who believe in little green men in UFOs are a race and if you insult them for it, youre being racist. Do people think if someones christian and they change to being Muslim, they also change their race at the same time? You are correct. You even corrected me on the issue the other day (to which I didn't respond then as it wasn't on topic, but it is now). But you cannot escape, that the two have become intertwined and right now, in our society, there is a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia (there are many, many examples of this). And, to use the subtext from a decent article on this very subject to make a point; "Racism is behaviour, not an informed academic position...[and] Islam might not be a race, but using that as a fig leaf for unthinking prejudice [can be considered] racist."* So you can continue your crusade to educate the masses and continue to be frustrated with 'some people', defining race by the dictionary, but in this instance (whether you like it or not) it brings nothing to this discussion in truth - its simply a point of clarification. *I wont go as far as saying that this prejudice "almost certainly is racist" as the original quote states and to be clear, I am not calling you a racist for clarifying the point: the quote of course has to be taken in the context of the discussion. ---- On another point, it would have saved a lot of shit chat and confusion had the OP taken the time to report the case properly i.e. "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." But then a gripe of mine is that people no longer take the time to inform themselves and are quick to make judgements based on a singular source - often a headline. Sorry, missed your post earlier on. I suppose the counter argument to it having strong racial dimension to it, would be to compare islam to religions of other predominately ( in the UK ) asian religions such as Hinduism or Sikhism. If it was based on race ( so racist ) as you suggest, regardless of the dictionary definition , then these other religious groups would suffer equal amounts of this 'racism'. Do they? I doubt they do or anywhere even remotely close to it. Terms such as Sikhophobia or Hinduphobia don;t even exist as far as I know. So i think that is extremely strong evidence to show that the abuse is religiously motivated far more than it is racially motivated. |
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 15:36:38 GMT 1
Oh I don't dispute that, that's a separate point. Where I was maybe unclear is that I inferred ill-formed judgements can also result in the embellishment of information when it is conveyed. What the OP did (for one reason or another) was report the case as a uniquely racially aggravated incident. They didn't report that the judgement was infact for racial and/or religious aggravated abuse. That's quite important because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments (though let's be honest, this is DATM) and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story. I posted exactly what I read on the Examiner site. Here, have a read - www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/huddersfield-town-fan-banned-after-16313691From the information in that article I concluded that the bloke is a c***. You've just proven my point and supported my gripe (and coincidentally added weight to my argument with Captainslapper)! You took judgement from the headline and relayed the story without providing all of the information at hand. The headline isn't entirely correct/consistent with the charge: "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." This is not a report of a singular racially aggravated crime as you posted. As I said, this I quite important "because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story" (only the unexamind's inability to do the very same). Slogans and buses. |
|
|
|
Post by Jello Biafra on May 23, 2019 15:52:46 GMT 1
You've just proven my point and supported my gripe (and coincidentally added weight to my argument with Captainslapper)! You took judgement from the headline and relayed the story without providing all of the information at hand. The headline isn't entirely correct/consistent with the charge: "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." This is not a report of a singular racially aggravated crime as you posted. As I said, this I quite important "because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story" (only the unexamind's inability to do the very same). Slogans and buses. Read the article yourself - just like I did. Then stop pissing up the wrong tree. He may well have been charged with a 'racially/religiously...' offence, but it clearly states more than once that it was racist abuse that he was hurling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 16:08:11 GMT 1
Is it possible for someone to be savory? Most definitely...but they may be nuts or want a pizza the action. Although it could all be pie in the sky Stop butting in, trying to get a slice of the action |
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 16:34:29 GMT 1
You've just proven my point and supported my gripe (and coincidentally added weight to my argument with Captainslapper)! You took judgement from the headline and relayed the story without providing all of the information at hand. The headline isn't entirely correct/consistent with the charge: "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." This is not a report of a singular racially aggravated crime as you posted. As I said, this I quite important "because then some posters may not have been pilloried for their comments and the discussion on what is and what isn't race may not have surfaced - which has no bearing on the story" (only the unexamind's inability to do the very same). Slogans and buses. Read the article yourself - just like I did. Then stop pissing up the wrong tree. He may well have been charged with a 'racially/religiously...' offence, b ut it clearly states more than once that it was racist abuse that he was hurling.
John Brook, 54, of Imperial Road, Edgerton , was in the stands watching his side be comfortably beaten 5-0 at Anfield during the Friday night fixture on April 26.
But he is now starting a three-year footballing ban meaning he cannot set foot in any sporting event during this time.
Police said during game "a report was received of abuse being directed at a Liverpool player".
Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence.
The player on the receiving end of Brook's racist abuse has not been revealed.
As well as his three year ban Brook was also fined when he appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bootle on Friday, May 17.
Match Commander, Superintendent Paul White, said: "This was a despicable incident in which Brook verbally abused a player.
"Harassment, including that which is racially or religiously aggravated, will not be tolerated by police and we are doing all we can to eradicate such behaviour from sporting events and ensure those responsible are strongly punished.
"Spectators and participants at public events should not have to tolerate any form of hate crime, which often leaves families and young people fearful."
He also praised the role stewards played in bringing Brook to justice.
He added: "We work closely with management and staff from Liverpool FC and all our football teams, and this outcome was made possible by the diligence of officers and stewards on duty at this game.
"I would also like to warn anyone thinking about engaging in this type of behaviour that we will pursue all such incidents until offenders are brought to justice. It is vital that anyone who witnesses such offences reports them to stewards or the police immediately, and we can take the necessary action.
"We would also encourage any members of the community with information to speak with officers or stewards at the ground, or to call 101.
"Anyone with information who does not wish to speak with us directly can call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111."
Liverpool trounced Huddersfield thanks to two goals each from Sadio Mane and Mo Salah and an earlier strike from Naby Keita.When you consider the facts in that story, not once does it say what you claim. Nor does it say it repeatedly. I've taken the time to highlight the key facts, the parts that are not shit journalism on the Examiners behalf (the inconsistent bit in blue), from that article. Although, kudos, we're no longer talking about Mr Brooks.... |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on May 23, 2019 16:35:38 GMT 1
The Examiner article also quoted the Liverpool police:- "This was a despicable incident........Not have to tolerate any form of hate crime, which often leaves families and young people fearful.....We are doing all we can to eradicate such behaviour.......We will pursue all such incidents until offenders are brought to justice....." Very commendable. The article was adjacent to the latest article on the grooming and mass rape of white children in Kirklees by (predominantly) Pakistani muslims. If only the police had displayed such commitment to the protection of those children..... much less fear of offending some groups than others.. seems you cannot categorise child abuse as every section of our society has done it.. hate crime and the 'appalled reaction' seems more 'directed' when it appears to be aimed at certain sections.. Apologies and being 'taken out of context or simply misquoted' can be a get out card for some, for others the meaning being taken totally incorrectly, even when its bleeding obvious that the person did not mean it in an offensive way, is more than enough for sacking or resignation or even criminal proceedings? additionally saying they are not what 'I consider to be good muslims' is lauded but me and you saying these idiots at football are in no way anything other than a minority and we do not see them as fans, is just not enough and we must hand wring and apologise and take some of the blame??? Appears 'virtue signalling' is becoming a tiered system... |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on May 23, 2019 16:38:02 GMT 1
Youre wasting your time with that one! Some people are just determined to not get their heads round that fact. Muslims are all sorts of races, just like Christians are all sorts of races. Believing in something isn't a race. Its like saying people who believe in little green men in UFOs are a race and if you insult them for it, youre being racist. Do people think if someones christian and they change to being muslim, they also change their race at the same time? But to be clear...just as it’s not acceptable to threaten, bully or incite hatred to another human of different ethnicity because of that ethnicity, it’s also not morally acceptable to direct hate and bile at an individual because of their religion. Or indeed, their sex, hair colour, body shape, smell, intelligence, licentiousness or any other facet which is different from your own that you decide to narrow mindedly attack. And...it happens to be a crime in the UK to direct hate or violence at someone because of their race OR religion. I do find it to be pretty nasty behaviour for a non religious person to belittle or ridicule someone’s belief system, whether that’s a following of a god or gods, dedication to Jedi lifestyle or worshipping little green men. What’s wrong with being nice to people if they don’t impact you negatively (and even if they do). I’m about as far away from religious as ifs possible to get, but I’ve had some really interesting debates on the subjects of Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity over the years. You don’t have to be religious to respect and appreciate that others might believe in fairy tales and that they use that to try and lead a better life. (by “you”, I don’t mean you Captainslapper , I mean a general random bigot ) I don’t think it’s unfair to say that throughout history many proponents of all major religions have felt it acceptable to do far worse than "belittle or ridicule" those who don't agree with their views. Even today their are people who would consider it perfectly acceptable to kill people who don’t adhere to their faith and to impose their value systems on non believers. Indeed petty as it may be, we still can’t shop in a supermarket on Sundays before 10am because of laws derived from the religious beliefs of some citizens being imposed on all of us. Not sure how we determine if a belief system is being held up to ridicule or being challenged, but, whilst I wouldn’t go out of my way to personally belittle or ridicule someone’s private belief system, once a believe system is brought into the public domain I do think it is acceptable for it to be challenged. Any belief system based on sound evidence should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and even ridicule. I'm not sure unchecked religious zealotry wouldn't impact on me negatively - not sure why you think it would be wrong for us to challenge it in such circumstances? How do we define "being nasty"? Asking someone to explain their belief system and challenging it, is not nasty IMO, abusing or assaulting them because of their beliefs is IMO |
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 16:56:03 GMT 1
You are correct. You even corrected me on the issue the other day (to which I didn't respond then as it wasn't on topic, but it is now). But you cannot escape, that the two have become intertwined and right now, in our society, there is a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia (there are many, many examples of this). And, to use the subtext from a decent article on this very subject to make a point; "Racism is behaviour, not an informed academic position...[and] Islam might not be a race, but using that as a fig leaf for unthinking prejudice [can be considered] racist."* So you can continue your crusade to educate the masses and continue to be frustrated with 'some people', defining race by the dictionary, but in this instance (whether you like it or not) it brings nothing to this discussion in truth - its simply a point of clarification. *I wont go as far as saying that this prejudice "almost certainly is racist" as the original quote states and to be clear, I am not calling you a racist for clarifying the point: the quote of course has to be taken in the context of the discussion. ---- On another point, it would have saved a lot of shit chat and confusion had the OP taken the time to report the case properly i.e. "Brook was detained, arrested and charged with a racially/religiously aggravated public order offence." But then a gripe of mine is that people no longer take the time to inform themselves and are quick to make judgements based on a singular source - often a headline. Sorry, missed your post earlier on. I suppose the counter argument to it having strong racial dimension to it, would be to compare islam to religions of other predominately ( in the UK ) asian religions such as Hinduism or Sikhism. If it was based on race ( so racist ) as you suggest, regardless of the dictionary definition , then these other religious groups would suffer equal amounts of this 'racism'. Do they? I doubt they do or anywhere even remotely close to it. Terms such as Sikhophobia or Hinduphobia don;t even exist as far as I know. So i think that is extremely strong evidence to show that the abuse is religiously motivated far more than it is racially motivated. Not to worry. I'm not sure I follow the comparison, nor see the need for it in this instance - there are too many variables. However, though an ethnic group, not a race (just to muddy the water even further!), you could perhaps loosely consider the Rohingya, who face abuses because of both their religious and racial profile. Nor am I arguing it is a purely racial issue, it is much more complex issue than that that has been formed over time and events. I think I put my points on the matter across succinctly last time and I think I'll just end up repeating myself in a bloated fashion. But in the UK, the lines between race and religion, particularly with the Muslim faith, have become blurred. It is lazy and possibly born from ignorance and ill-education as I said earlier, but surely you recognise that is now ingrained by politicians, the media alike - even if it is incorrect by way of definition. Coincidentally, now's your chance to plead your case and correct the issue with a much larger audience so we can make sure we abuse people properly: you can start with the Examiners reporting of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on May 23, 2019 17:23:50 GMT 1
I haven't paid any attention to the examiner story or commented on it.
Doesn't really say what this individual said or who it was directed at, so who knows whether it was racist or anti- islamic or anti- Scottish if he was shouting at Robertson.
The comparison is because muslims, sikhs and hindus in this country are in the main all the same race, yet don't receive the same abuse or attack.
I do agree that it is now ingrained into the media ( and politicians ) that saying something anti-islamic is labelled as racism.
I doubt very much saying something anti- catholic is labelled in the same way.
There again they now see saying something anti- Israeli as being anti-Semitic ( kind of defending Corbyn here believe it or not ), when its actually likely to be anti- zionist.
They do like to muddy the waters but it doesn;t mean theyre right IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 17:25:16 GMT 1
But to be clear...just as it’s not acceptable to threaten, bully or incite hatred to another human of different ethnicity because of that ethnicity, it’s also not morally acceptable to direct hate and bile at an individual because of their religion. Or indeed, their sex, hair colour, body shape, smell, intelligence, licentiousness or any other facet which is different from your own that you decide to narrow mindedly attack. And...it happens to be a crime in the UK to direct hate or violence at someone because of their race OR religion. I do find it to be pretty nasty behaviour for a non religious person to belittle or ridicule someone’s belief system, whether that’s a following of a god or gods, dedication to Jedi lifestyle or worshipping little green men. What’s wrong with being nice to people if they don’t impact you negatively (and even if they do). I’m about as far away from religious as ifs possible to get, but I’ve had some really interesting debates on the subjects of Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity over the years. You don’t have to be religious to respect and appreciate that others might believe in fairy tales and that they use that to try and lead a better life. (by “you”, I don’t mean you Captainslapper , I mean a general random bigot ) I don’t think it’s unfair to say that throughout history many proponents of all major religions have felt it acceptable to do far worse than "belittle or ridicule" those who don't agree with their views. Even today their are people who would consider it perfectly acceptable to kill people who don’t adhere to their faith and to impose their value systems on non believers. Indeed petty as it may be, we still can’t shop in a supermarket on Sundays before 10am because of laws derived from the religious beliefs of some citizens being imposed on all of us. Not sure how we determine if a belief system is being held up to ridicule or being challenged, but, whilst I wouldn’t go out of my way to personally belittle or ridicule someone’s private belief system, once a believe system is brought into the public domain I do think it is acceptable for it to be challenged. Any belief system based on sound evidence should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and even ridicule. I'm not sure unchecked religious zealotry wouldn't impact on me negatively - not sure why you think it would be wrong for us to challenge it in such circumstances? How do we define "being nasty"? Asking someone to explain their belief system and challenging it, is not nasty IMO, abusing or assaulting them because of their beliefs is IMO I strongly agree & would categorise myself as agnostic, but I think you are being rather too polite & cautious with your choice of phrase in some situations. "Any belief system based on sound evidence should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and even ridicule." They are 'belief' systems because they are based on no evidence, as such they cannot stand up to scrutiny (their achilles heel) & should be brought into question, even ridiculed. I am obliged to bring into question & ridicule pseudo science, often promoted by belief or marketing, to prevent my profession & the public from being duped or even harmed! Should a similar standard not be expected of all claims people make? |
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 17:41:33 GMT 1
I haven't paid any attention to the examiner story or commented on it. Doesn't really say what this individual said or who it was directed at, so who knows whether it was racist or anti- islamic or anti- Scottish if he was shouting at Robertson. The comparison is because muslims, sikhs and hindus in this country are in the main all the same race, yet don't receive the same abuse or attack. I do agree that it is now ingrained into the media ( and politicians ) that saying something anti-islamic is labelled as racism. I doubt very much saying something anti- catholic is labelled in the same way. There again they now see saying something anti- Israeli as being anti-Semitic ( kind of defending Corbyn here believe it or not ), when its actually likely to be anti- zionist. They do like to muddy the waters but it doesn;t mean theyre right IMO. Fair point with respect to the Israeli / anti-semtic argument. However i'd argue that the sikh or hindu faiths have not (to my knowledge) committed atrocities in and against the western world in the name of their religion. Though they are racially stereotyped, so would wager that if they did, they would succumb to the same abuse as the Muslims. I would also argue that catholic / ant-catholic issue is more about religion and that the lines are a lot clearer (especially north of the wall). Though again, where it is not, it is more about ethnicity / xenophobia than race. Anyway, good chat. |
|
digs
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,141
|
Post by digs on May 23, 2019 17:47:05 GMT 1
Anyone know a 'John Brook' from Edgerton? According to the Examiner (yes, I know...) this arsehole has just acquired a 3 year football ban (plus a fine) for racially abusing a Liverpool player at Town's recent match at Anfield. What a c***. Is it ok to call someone an arsehole and a c*** and name him on a public forum,even though you only said according to the Examiner and even mocked the newspaper? i dont understand what you get out of it, |
|
|
|
Post by 28901 on May 23, 2019 17:57:54 GMT 1
The Examiner article also quoted the Liverpool police:- "This was a despicable incident........Not have to tolerate any form of hate crime, which often leaves families and young people fearful.....We are doing all we can to eradicate such behaviour.......We will pursue all such incidents until offenders are brought to justice....." Very commendable. The article was adjacent to the latest article on the grooming and mass rape of white children in Kirklees by (predominantly) Pakistani muslims. If only the police had displayed such commitment to the protection of those children..... He got a ban from football, the other scumbags went to prison for 132 years. I don't see a connection
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 18:06:30 GMT 1
The Examiner article also quoted the Liverpool police:- "This was a despicable incident........Not have to tolerate any form of hate crime, which often leaves families and young people fearful.....We are doing all we can to eradicate such behaviour.......We will pursue all such incidents until offenders are brought to justice....." Very commendable. The article was adjacent to the latest article on the grooming and mass rape of white children in Kirklees by (predominantly) Pakistani muslims. If only the police had displayed such commitment to the protection of those children..... He got a ban from football, the other scumbags went to prison for 132 years. I don't see a connection
He may be implying 1 incident 1 report football supporter in the dock, many incidents many ignored reports many muslims in dock eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by sabailand on May 23, 2019 18:56:13 GMT 1
Just a loudmouth loser trying to attract attention, much ado about nowt, compared to how things were in the 70`s and part of the 80`s things today are quite civilised, its extremely rare i hear racism at football matches, anybody would think he`d done something akin to bombing a pop concert full of teenage girls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on May 23, 2019 19:25:16 GMT 1
I haven't paid any attention to the examiner story or commented on it. Doesn't really say what this individual said or who it was directed at, so who knows whether it was racist or anti- islamic or anti- Scottish if he was shouting at Robertson. The comparison is because muslims, sikhs and hindus in this country are in the main all the same race, yet don't receive the same abuse or attack. I do agree that it is now ingrained into the media ( and politicians ) that saying something anti-islamic is labelled as racism. I doubt very much saying something anti- catholic is labelled in the same way. There again they now see saying something anti- Israeli as being anti-Semitic ( kind of defending Corbyn here believe it or not ), when its actually likely to be anti- zionist. They do like to muddy the waters but it doesn;t mean theyre right IMO. Fair point with respect to the Israeli / anti-semtic argument. However i'd argue that the sikh or hindu faiths have not (to my knowledge) committed atrocities in and against the western world in the name of their religion. Though they are racially stereotyped, so would wager that if they did, they would succumb to the same abuse as the Muslims. I would also argue that catholic / ant-catholic issue is more about religion and that the lines are a lot clearer (especially north of the wall). Though again, where it is not, it is more about ethnicity / xenophobia than race. Anyway, good chat. Kind of my point though, that. Muslims get abuse, not because of their race, but because of their religion.. the atrocities and many various other issues. Hindus and Sikhs ( the same race in the main ) don;t because people don;t tend to have an issue with their religions. So it tends not to be a racial thing, but a religion thing. Whilst its easy to have sympathy for the victim on an individual basis, I do find it hard to have sympathy for the religion as a whole for mockery , criticism or even abuse, as frankly they seem to go out of their way to bring it on themselves IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on May 23, 2019 19:33:19 GMT 1
Just a loudmouth loser trying to attract attention, much ado about nowt, compared to how things were in the 70`s and part of the 80`s things today are quite civilised, its extremely rare i hear racism at football matches, anybody would think he`d done something akin to bombing a pop concert full of teenage girls. its difficult to compare then to now.. the muslim religion did not have the influence it has here now, then.. the numbers were very different and the numbers across europe were minute in comparison with now.. We had just begun denigrating the indegenous religions and putting them into their rightful place in a modern 'progressive' society... it is a sad thing to note but in terms of media time and paper pages the 'shouted' abuse and the statements attributed to people have had more coverage than much more worrying incidents that were clearly 'race led'.(terrorist acts notwithstanding)... is there an offence of racially/religiously aggravated child rape? some of the evidence heard from victims would certainly fit into that offence if they ever create one..I still believe that would have been dropped to just rape if we did have it.. does the religious rights of parents in birmingham outweigh the civil rights of schools to teach young kids about LGBGT people and relationships?? who decides, how far do you go...? is religious freedom really a right or are we starting the tough process of enforcing civil law above any religious laws which will finally include Muslims?? gay Imans next?? gay marriages in churches, synagogues and mosques?? or worse, female Imans?? my we have a long, long way to go and being appalled by a tit shouting some rubbish who has been convicted is way down the list of my fears on the subject of race/religious relations.. |
|
Tiro
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,025
|
Post by Tiro on May 23, 2019 19:35:22 GMT 1
Fair point with respect to the Israeli / anti-semtic argument. However i'd argue that the sikh or hindu faiths have not (to my knowledge) committed atrocities in and against the western world in the name of their religion. Though they are racially stereotyped, so would wager that if they did, they would succumb to the same abuse as the Muslims. I would also argue that catholic / ant-catholic issue is more about religion and that the lines are a lot clearer (especially north of the wall). Though again, where it is not, it is more about ethnicity / xenophobia than race. Anyway, good chat. Kind of my point though, that. Muslims get abuse, not because of their race, but because of their religion.. the atrocities and many various other issues. Hindus and Sikhs ( the same race in the main ) don;t because people don;t tend to have an issue with their religions. So it tends not to be a racial thing, but a religion thing. Whilst its easy to have sympathy for the victim on an individual basis, I do find it hard to have sympathy for the religion as a whole for mockery , criticism or even abuse, as frankly they seem to go out of their way to bring it on themselves IMO. Then some way or another, we actually agree. Especially the latter para; but that’s a little different to the original point. |
|
|
|
Post by otium (EPBS) on May 23, 2019 23:21:44 GMT 1
I haven't read any details about this sad event. I am sure it is well documented but 'all the folk with rage in their eyes'...how do you know it was because the guy having us on a plate was muslim? How do you know it wasn't just because we were shit? Because they weren't shouting " we're shit " . They were racially abusing Mo Salah I was in the Town end and never heard a peep of that. I was also in the Wolves end in exactly the same spot a week later and heard loads of it. However...for the BILLIONTH time Chippy...Islam is not a race. Had someone shouted "you Arabian twat" you might have a minor argument....in the same puerile way someone might be described as a "bald bastard" or a "fat lump". Not good, no big deal. You really have embraced the hate crime myth. The perp is considered a prick, the victim hears nothing and sleeps well with £150k a week salary and the reality is no-one is even injured.....never mind dies. Its like hazard warning labels and risk assessments...largely futile but we accept the need for them. You love all the victimless crime shit but what about the Moslem grooming gangs and the junkies burgling old ladies....a thousand times more relevant than name calling but the "thought police" must be justified? Anyone owning a golliwog is evil and should be hung....those who would ban religious teaching must be burned alive but a hate preacher is a freedom fighter with access to free speech and a Romanian pick pocket just a geezer trying to feed his family. The liberals will be the death of us. |
|
|
|
Post by 28901 on May 24, 2019 0:17:54 GMT 1
Just a loudmouth loser trying to attract attention, much ado about nowt, compared to how things were in the 70`s and part of the 80`s things today are quite civilised, its extremely rare i hear racism at football matches, anybody would think he`d done something akin to bombing a pop concert full of teenage girls. It was a minor court report in an appalling not local paper which likes to sensationalise everything. It wasn't on the 10 o'clock news, Look North or any where else. If this hadn't been posted on here I would never have heard about it. There is no world wide outrage, no one is saying its comparable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 10:17:54 GMT 1
But to be clear...just as it’s not acceptable to threaten, bully or incite hatred to another human of different ethnicity because of that ethnicity, it’s also not morally acceptable to direct hate and bile at an individual because of their religion. Or indeed, their sex, hair colour, body shape, smell, intelligence, licentiousness or any other facet which is different from your own that you decide to narrow mindedly attack. And...it happens to be a crime in the UK to direct hate or violence at someone because of their race OR religion. I do find it to be pretty nasty behaviour for a non religious person to belittle or ridicule someone’s belief system, whether that’s a following of a god or gods, dedication to Jedi lifestyle or worshipping little green men. What’s wrong with being nice to people if they don’t impact you negatively (and even if they do). I’m about as far away from religious as ifs possible to get, but I’ve had some really interesting debates on the subjects of Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity over the years. You don’t have to be religious to respect and appreciate that others might believe in fairy tales and that they use that to try and lead a better life. (by “you”, I don’t mean you Captainslapper , I mean a general random bigot ) Agree with that but the bit in bold is the killer isn;t it ( quite literally sometimes !) Thinking youre a Jedi knight or believing in little green men is one thing, but I don;t see religion as being so harmless. So long as so many of the world's horrors, hatred, bullying and intolerance is promoted, acted out in the name of, or even encouraged by religion ( some more than others) , I think it'll always promote the same attitudes on itself. . But anyway, my point was that attacking someone for what they think.. ie, for their religion in this case, is NOT racism, no matter how much some people like to pretend it is. On the grander scale yes. But I aren’t the world police. The people I interact with on a regular or occasional basis don’t contribute to the worlds horrors, hatred and bullying (albeit some of them may have different standards & behaviours of living that I wouldn’t consider “normal” in comparison to my own, but not to the extent that I feel a need to implore them to behave in a different way). So...when I have a drunken consideration with Jonny the Buddhist (who doesn’t drink)...and the conversation goes to religion and it’s practices, it goes there because I’m interested in discovering what it’s about, in order to try and understand it, and him, better. I don’t “challenge” his beliefs and practices and he doesn’t try and convert me into his ways. It’s respect and tolerance...and yes it has to work both ways, but as a starting point, I always try and grant that respect and appreciate what others bring to the table which adds to the wonderful colour of the human race. There’s not really all that much wrong with most religions when you get down to it, despite the wars and suffering that happens in their name. |
|
ram
Andy Booth Terrier
delete account
Posts: 3,713 
|
Post by ram on May 24, 2019 10:49:03 GMT 1
Where there not live pictures on our TV screens of Iranians {women and men in full muslim garb} Jumping about and cheering at the sight of the twin towers of the Trade centre as they fell killing thousands of "non believers"
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on May 24, 2019 10:55:28 GMT 1
Agree with that but the bit in bold is the killer isn;t it ( quite literally sometimes !) Thinking youre a Jedi knight or believing in little green men is one thing, but I don;t see religion as being so harmless. So long as so many of the world's horrors, hatred, bullying and intolerance is promoted, acted out in the name of, or even encouraged by religion ( some more than others) , I think it'll always promote the same attitudes on itself. . But anyway, my point was that attacking someone for what they think.. ie, for their religion in this case, is NOT racism, no matter how much some people like to pretend it is. On the grander scale yes. But I aren’t the world police. The people I interact with on a regular or occasional basis don’t contribute to the worlds horrors, hatred and bullying (albeit some of them may have different standards & behaviours of living that I wouldn’t consider “normal” in comparison to my own, but not to the extent that I feel a need to implore them to behave in a different way). So...when I have a drunken consideration with Jonny the Buddhist (who doesn’t drink)...and the conversation goes to religion and it’s practices, it goes there because I’m interested in discovering what it’s about, in order to try and understand it, and him, better. I don’t “challenge” his beliefs and practices and he doesn’t try and convert me into his ways. It’s respect and tolerance...and yes it has to work both ways, but as a starting point, I always try and grant that respect and appreciate what others bring to the table which adds to the wonderful colour of the human race. There’s not really all that much wrong with most religions when you get down to it, despite the wars and suffering that happens in their name. tolerance is just one step away and its usually just a short one, away from intolerance.. Tolerance is almost exclusively forced on human beings by numbers, influence, power and the law.. If you are looking for acceptance of the Western Culture by some religions you will not find it given.. The wonderful 'colour' of the human race would only be seen if everyone and everything was 'accepted'.. Tolerance will only last with some religions or even other groupings whilst it is forced on them.. We took centuries to make our own religions into 'beliefs' rather than facts and to treat them accordingly.. If you ignore the fact that lots of nations across this wonderful earth are steadily moving towards reinstating 'religious' laws then your opinion above is solely based on the comparatively small number of people you meet who have 'religion'.. If you continue to ignore the fact that very large numbers of people of differing religions will assist in covering up offences committed by fellow 'believers' and as long as we continue to allow this because we think that most are 'moderate' in their views this will carry on. The religion being everything to them and its reputation and often blind belief will win out.. Moderates inevitably have more hardline fundamentalists within their belief and these more than not win out in the overall leadership battles. The bloke doing the preaching and running the ad hoc courts is always closer to gods teachings than a lot of the congregation. The moderates being moderate until they no longer have to be. A leader of a nation who lived a western lifestyle for a long time is now very close to returning to the fundamentalist side of things. Its there and its not hidden but we do ignore it or  it away, do we hope it goes away or that everyone over here will finally succumb to the freedoms we offer? |
|
it away, do we hope it goes away or that everyone over here will finally succumb to the freedoms we offer?