Quantcast
"Kick it Out" campaign - Page 3 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It can't be contractual. Can you imagine anyone inserting a line in a footballer's contract saying that not wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it is a disciplinary offence? I wonder if Kick it Out will ask for Luis Suarez and John Terry not to wear one next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can't be contractual. Can you imagine anyone inserting a line in a footballer's contract saying that not wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it is a disciplinary offence? I wonder if Kick it Out will ask for Luis Suarez and John Terry not to wear one next time.

 

I meant sort of like having to do media duties and that type of stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism in football reduced to a squabble over wearing tee shirts involving some of the biggest twats in the game and all being driven by the FA. It's like asking Jimmy Savile to look after vulnerable children , oh hang on a minute ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can't be contractual. Can you imagine anyone inserting a line in a footballer's contract saying that not wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it is a disciplinary offence? I wonder if Kick it Out will ask for Luis Suarez and John Terry not to wear one next time.

 

Chelsea swerved the embarrassing dilemma of Terry wearing one by saying that they'll 'take part in the campaign next week'...

 

Kick It Out is bollocks, and they employ seven people at their HQ. Bin it I say, leave it as a criminal proceeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be interesting to see if Ferdinand backs down, if he doesn't then it might become a bit tricky for Ferguson.

 

Whilst I wouldn't claim to be Ferdinand's biggest fan, it does seem to be rather bizarre that a campaign led by the FA is basically expected to be mandatory. Ferdinand as a black man and relative of a recent victim of racism at the hands of Chelsea's captain according to the FA might well be within his rights to reject the FA's claims and campaign given the feeble nature of the punishment handed down to Terry both from the FA and Chelsea. Terry sum punishiment adds up to little more than a couple of week wages and a short ban, that's hardly kicking racism out of football as the FA state.

 

It does seem to be rather questionable for Ferguson to order a black player to take part in an anti racism campaign the player clearly has legitimate reservations about.

Ginsoak will fine him and drop him.

Dosent matter who the player is if someone pisses him off he always does something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kick the kick it out campaign out of football. its a fucking load of tosh. do they have it in boxing? no. and ive seen loads of black men get battered by white men in that.

 

fucking media frenzy shit. fuck it. its not a problem in this country at all. defo not in footy anyway.

 

however, what is a problem, is the amount of fucking birds at the match. on there phones and yawning and shit.

 

kick snakes with tits out of football. ill be wearing that t-shirt next week. when i warm up for the met police. (pfft)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginsoak will fine him and drop him.

Dosent matter who the player is if someone pisses him off he always does something.

 

Hmm, not exactly a big call to drop the 33 year old, injury prone defender now is it?

 

When younger, less injury prone players like Rooney demand a transfer and make Ferguson look like a penis then he's not so quick to 'deal' with him.

 

Anyway, what do I care really what goes on at the gin palace, fucking no marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferguson's reaction is great proof of how much of a charade the campaign is. He's practically saying Ferdinand should put on the t-shirt and get on with it.

 

I fully understand why Ferdinand didn't wear it based on how he and Terry has been treated differently. Ferdinand was seen as the problem while Terry were allowed to go to the Euros and they even had his court case moved despite him being under investigation for something that anyone can see he actually said. Then he even had the fucking nerve to deny saying it until last week when he finally apologised for it. So, this has been going on for a year dragging English football through the mud.

 

What I disagree with is the childish manner they protest this without putting out a statement about the reason for it and just refusing to put on the shirt. Makes the whole thing seem a bit shallow and he doesn't even seem interested in joining the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I disagree that Suarez wasn't given the chance to defend himself. He was' date=' and did. I know that's not going to be well received on a Liverpool forum, but I believe it to be the truth.

 

The 'problem' was that the FA chose to find Suarez's view harder to believe than Evra's, and there were VERY questionable comments about Evra's good nature and that he came across as more genuine... it wasn't helped by Evra's better English language skills either.

 

What I'm saying is... he WAS given (and he took) his chance to defend. The FA just chose to believe Evra, for reasons that I still find incredulous.[/quote']

 

Nah the club didn't get him a QC, so he wasn't given the same opportunity to defend himself like Evra. Our fault big time.

 

Also the FA gave Evra support and coached him through the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Taggart is going soft:

 

Ferguson said: "I've spoken to Rio. There is no issue.

 

"There was a communication problem but it has been resolved."

 

"He felt I should have spoken to him on Friday and I didn't anticipate that he'd have a problem wearing the shirt.

 

"My advice is to him is that I always feel a union is stronger than an individual. It's important he airs his grievances to the right people, to the PFA or the FA.

 

"As a manager you lay down policy and you don't want that ignored and that's where my anger came from on Saturday. There are no lingering problems and we move on."

BBC Sport - Sir Alex Ferguson resolves Rio Ferdinand T-shirt dispute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kick It Out is caught in the crossfire of toxic John Terry affair

David Conn, The Guardian, Monday 22 October 2012 19.36 BST

 

There is something desperately sad about the anger of black footballers at racism in the game landing in a perceived boycott of Kick It Out, the organisation which for almost 20 years has battled to change attitudes for the better. Rio Ferdinand, although the most high-profile dissenter from wearing a T-shirt to mark Kick It Out's October fortnight of action, was far from the only refusenik.

 

Rio's brother, Anton, the target of John Terry's racial abuse in Chelsea's match at Queens Park Rangers which poisoned relations in football a year ago, also declined. His QPR team-mates Djibril Cissé, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Nedum Onuoha, and their opposing Everton players Victor Anichebe, Steven Pienaar and Sylvain Distin, did so too.

 

Manchester City's Joleon Lescott warmed up without Kick It Out's shirt, as did Stoke City's Kenwyne Jones. The Reading striker Jason Roberts, one of the most vocal black players in the battle against racism, turned the T-shirt down. No player on either of the Swansea or Wigan teams at the Liberty Stadium on Saturday wore it either.

 

This, then, is a substantial outpouring of protest. Yet because few of the players have explained themselves at any length, its reasoning is difficult to identify. Lord Ouseley, chairman of Kick It Out, who has led a distinguished career in anti-racism and equality work for decades, is clearly exasperated, believing the players are rounding on the wrong target. Gordon Taylor, chairman of the Professional Footballers' Association, robustly defended his organisation against criticism that it has not been outspoken or active enough on racism during this increasingly toxic year.

 

"This is proving very divisive," Taylor said. "I feel sorry for Herman Ouseley and the trustees of Kick It Out, Paul Elliott and Garth Crooks. The black players are turning on the bodies which have been looking to help them and illuminate the issue.

 

"The current generation is feeling very frustrated and angry, they want improvements and we are doing our best to accommodate them. The frustration is boiling over now and, if we're not careful, we are in danger of self-imploding."

 

Taylor confirmed that for months, ever since Terry was captured on film mouthing his obscene racial abuse to Anton Ferdinand, several black players have expressed strong feelings of dissatisfaction to the PFA. The union has been criticised for not progressing sufficiently quickly with moves to open up coaching and management to black players and there is some unhappiness at the widening of Kick It Out's role from anti-racism to general diversity.

 

Both Taylor and Ouseley suggested that the anti-racism cause itself is being undermined by the unhappy spectacle of black players being seen to turn against Kick It Out. Yet this silent demonstration signalled by not wearing a T-shirt is the public tip of profound fury, among many black players, revolving around the toxic Terry affair.

 

Among them there was fury at what Terry said, at the defence he ran denying he said those words to Anton Ferdinand as an insult, which the Football Association's disciplinary panel this month ultimately stated it did not believe. There was fury at the FA stepping aside for the criminal investigation to take place and so allowing Terry to be selected to play for England at the European Championship with the charge hanging over him, then Rio Ferdinand not being selected. There is a widespread view among black players that the four-game ban imposed by the FA panel was too lenient, then that Chelsea's stance, announced last Thursday, retaining Terry as captain, was wholly inadequate and gave no signal that the European champions considered what he had done was unacceptable.

 

With feelings running that high, the timing of Kick It Out's regular October fortnight of action was unfortunate. The organisation is funded by the FA, Premier League and PFA, so there was a sense among some players that wearing the T-shirt would be sanctioning the game's general approach to anti-racism, which they feel has been complacent and let them down over the Terry affair.

 

The former West Bromwich Albion and England centre-forward Cyrille Regis, who played through the abuse of the 1970s and 1980s, and is Jason Roberts' agent and uncle, explained: "There is a feeling that John Terry has been let off lightly. You are not going to stamp out racism with laws – it is intrinsic to some people. But where it rears its ugly head, the authorities have to stamp down and, if they don't do it with the right force, it gives the impression that it's OK."

 

Kick It Out has been, to some extent, the casualty of generalised outrage at the Terry affair and its handling, as well as impatience with the PFA. Taylor confirmed suggestions have been made by some players that there could be a separate black section of the PFA or even a new union for black players, licensed to be more outspoken about race. "Threats are being made," Taylor said, "but that would be very divisive."

 

Regis said English football needs to take this outpouring seriously: "Black players have been voicing their opinion for a long time but feel it hasn't been listened to. This is a different generation from mine," he said. "We had to put up with abuse. They are more articulate, they have more confidence and they want a clear and vehement message given."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “Kick it out Campaign” is fine. I, like many, do not believe that overt racism is a big problem in English football. The problem is the amorality of football clubs.

 

If a star player has committed any transgression, and he is worth more “dead than alive”, clubs, and generally fans, simply back the player.

 

Whether it was Man U and Rio, England and Chelsea with Terry, or our own cack handed handling of the Suarez affair, players are a commodity and as long as that commodity is not too tarnished, then morals come a long way behind business.

 

It is unfortunate that Suarez has been caught up in the panic. It is also pretty impossible to have any sort of balanced debate on the race issue. There is a distinction between an individual using a racist slur to bait, and being a racist ( although I do not condone the former and accept that it is part of the sordid slope into the gutter).

 

Where “the line” is no-one is quite sure, which is doubly difficult for non- native English speakers like Suarez. When I hear fans chant “You should have dies in that car crash” to Harry Redknapp I am sickened, when , during his tax trial, I heard some chant “You’re getting shagged in the showers” I thought it was funny.

 

I believe that some in the Kick it Out campaign overstate the problem sometimes- but when the FA, England and Chelsea backs a man who thinks it is acceptable to call someone “ a fucking black cunt” I think they have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sophistry of the highest order to concede that calling someone a "fucking black cunt" is a racial slur, but claim that the person using it is not racist, and especially repugnant when you see white folks using that line, albeit not as bad as those who claim it's not even a racial slur.

 

"I killed her, but I'm not a murderer."

 

Yeah John, it was all a big accident.

 

The fact is that people who aren't racist wouldn't even dream of saying that.

 

The Suarez case is more difficult, because it's tangled in cultural and linguistic complexity, and it's one man's word against another as to how many times it was used, but if the punishment is an eight match ban for even referring to someone's skin colour then that's a tough line, but you can accept it.

 

When the next man is caught bang to rights on camera using an out and out racist insult and only gets four, and is coincidentally the England captain, is it any wonder that black players perceive it as hypocrisy?

Edited by zigackly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's sophistry of the highest order to concede that calling someone a "fucking black cunt" is a racial slur, but claim that the person using it is not racist, and especially repugnant when you see white folks using that line, albeit not as bad as those who claim it's not even a racial slur.

I disagree.

 

My personal stance is that I simply never use racial, humiliating or belittling abuse, so never have any difficulty.

 

Football has long been a place where foul, demeaning and obscene abuse has been accepted on the terraces and on the pitch. language is used which would not be acceptable virtually anywhere else. Winding up, and baiting is all.

 

A racist may be defined as someone who believes in the supremacy of one race ( thier own) over another to varying extremes, from choosing not to integrate, to mass extermination. Does someone who uses a racial slur purely to bait automatically fall within that spectrum? Some do, some don't.

 

I don't know John Terry. I have read nothing to suggest that he is a racist in the "supremacy" sense. I have read much to suggest that he is an odious, amoral individual.

 

The problem with the catch all definition that you use is that it demeans and diminishes those who are racist in the far more seditious sense, because you are watering down the pool. I don't believe that John Terry would not be happy for Didier Drogba to live next door to him, I anticipate that Ashley Cole joins him for domestic and public socials, I don't think that he has any problem with black players in his team, nor do I belive that he thinks that any are inferior because of their race. Do you see the point? There is a distinction.

 

I wholy agree with you about the punishments meted out to Suarez and Terry and have argued passionately that the system needs changing. Curiously neither LFC nor CFC have made representations to do do- and that is part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your disagreement doesn't affect my position in the slightest. If we accept that insulting someone based on the colour of their skin is racist, then there is only one conclusion to draw about those prepared to do it.

 

Unless you're saying all footballers use language like that?

 

If you don't accept that calling someone a "fucking black cunt" is a racist insult, then you've got questions to ask yourself.

 

For starters, it's breaking the law. By definition, it's not acceptable in our society. Why should it then be so on the football pitch?

Edited by zigackly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zig, the flaw is in your opening premise; “that insulting someone based on the colour of their skin is racist.”

 

My point was that you then have to define what being a racist is. If you want to use the above definition, fine. I don’t think that it is as clear cut as that.

 

When Luis, in a derby match against our most bitter rivals, with abuse flying back and forth, used the word negro, the context is unmistakeable – does that make him a racist? No, not in my opinion.

 

I am no apologist for racial abuse and favour and support zero tolerance. I wholly agree that calling someone a “fucking black cunt” is an odious racist slur- whether that makes the person automatically a racist is a subtle but important distinction. It may do, it might not, as I have suggested.

 

Thanks for airing this, it is an important aspect of the debate which rarely gets discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I wouldn't ever insult someone in that way, and I imagine that the great majority of people wouldn't either. Those who would then, are using a different set of standards. I don't choose to make a distinction between "not a racist but has no problem flinging a racial insult" and "is a racist". I'm not interested in a sliding scale of morality on the subject.

 

Suarez comes from a different culture with a different set of standards. I'd imagine he's learnt something about the differences in what's acceptable in Uruguay and England from it. In his case though, there is some mitigation, in that it's a commonly used term of reference in his culture.

 

Terry has no such excuse. As a society, we have decided that racial insults are not acceptable, and enshrined it in law. That's the environment he's grown up in, same as me and you.

Edited by zigackly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Langley did a short piece on the BBC yesterday where he spoke of being racially insulted by a player who argued it was 'mind games'!

 

BBC Sport - Racism: FA 'loyalty' to Terry shows problem is still alive - Langley

 

I do think there is a difference between using Racially offensive words and being a racists, perhaps the former is more about ignorance than genuine racial belief's. But to call someone a black cunt is stretching this argument. You know full well what you are saying and the context it will be recieved - this isn't a fight where you lose sense of perspective or amongst friends, it was on the pitch and he must have known full well what he was saying.

 

The Richard Langley article is interesting particularl for the bit where he dissmisses David James' point of view, essentially because it doesn't side with his - for an anti-racism programme to be successful it has to gain concensus and, perhaps something black players may not have realised, this is involves white players.

 

But if Roberts et al do have a problem with John Terry then they have to say so, I support the right to not wear the t-shirt but you do have to explain why.

Edited by Whelan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think there is a difference between using Racially offensive words and being a racists, perhaps the former is more about ignorance than genuine racial belief's.

 

What is the difference? Would you use racially offensive language yourself?

 

Is it ignorance when a footballer gets plastered and drives his Ferrari, or drunk driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference? Would you use racially offensive language yourself?

 

Is it ignorance when a footballer gets plastered and drives his Ferrari, or drunk driving?

 

I was thinking more about the likes of Suarez, or referring to a stereotype which can be seen as offensive for example - referring to a muslim as a terrorist.

 

Using racial slurs would classify you as a racist, I agree with you I don't think the two can be separated.

 

I do use racially offensive language (and sexist, homophobic, and general offensive language), usually in company with my friends when we are in private. I know full well it is offensive, but my freinds know I would never use it in public or without their consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zig, I accept the validity of your argument. But you yourself point out that it can’t be an absolute argument by your reasonable point on Suarez. I am not prepared to call him a racist simply because he used racist language- and the FA made exactly that point in their judgement.

 

Terry is a serial odious human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davelfc

In all my years of going to the games I had never ever heard any racist abuse from any section of our crowd before the league cup final last year, and that was one drunken neanderthal. Who in fairness was hurling disgusting vile abuse at every player. Still sickening.

 

Who here really sees the colour of the skin of a player in a red shirt? (or for that matter any shirt) I don't, it doesn't matter to me. They're just a red as it's always been. Around 16 or so years ago I was chatting with someone I knew who was a red and he stated that there were too many coloured players in the team, I was genuinely shocked. It sickened me that this person was looking at the team in this way, I've never heard any fan say that before or after he did. I don't bother with that person any more, my opinion of them changed that day.

 

The kick to out campaign should be the 'ssshhh' campaign, in other words stay as racist as you like but just don't bring it here. John Barnes should be in charge of a new campaign because as he said, it won't stop racists going to the match, it will just keep them quiet.

 

Suarez, evra, terry and Ferdinands instead of being plastered over the newspapers and a different kind of abuse hurled at them. Instead of that they should have been educated. Suarez needed to be educated that while ok in his country it isn't here. Evra needed to learn that he was judging Suarez by standards set here and in his culture the word he used doesn't carry the same weight as here.

 

Both of them were wrong IMO but only one was punished, the one that got his complaint in first. The FA also fucking useless as dealing with anything but wanting to look like they actually knew what they were doing, as usual only made things worse.

 

Instead of making it about one being right and one being wrong they should have sat them both together and educated them both. Then actually got them to work it out between themselves.

 

The media too didn't handle it well, they've only made matters much worse. But then that's what agenda driven biased shite does.

 

The FA and clubs along with the media had an excellent chance to educate fans, to show how things could have been handled but didn't. Instead they just shouted loudly, made matters worse and took the words of a liar to make it look like they actually care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference?( I do think there is a difference between using Racially offensive words and being a racists, perhaps the former is more about ignorance than genuine racial belief's.Would you use racially offensive language yourself?

 

I have covered this.

 

Someone may use a racial slur purely for the purposes of baiting without holding any animosity more broadly towards that person, or their race, and hold no supremacist views of any description.

 

There are of course those for whom racial slurs and racism are part of what they are and believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×