Oliver Holt aka Derbyshire

[LFC64]

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I missed his latest xenophobic pearl of wisdom ;

 

 

'Christoph Metzelder made a speech to the Qatar meeting today. Like most German footballers, very self-possessed, articulate and confident'

 

No sterotyping there then Ollie.

 

Same fake who pontificates with a jarg argument that calling someone a 'black cu.t' may not be racist simply because his Lionhearted English celeb mate is up in court for it whilst in the same breath dismissing the cultural complexities of a far more nuanced case as apologist and tribal.

 

Seriously why is this snake still employed to whip up faux moral outrage over Suarez, Dalglish, the club, you and I, or at least had to make a public apology which is what he claims he expects of Dalglish?

[The KillingMoon]

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I missed his latest xenophobic pearl of wisdom ;

 

 

'Christoph Metzelder made a speech to the Qatar meeting today. Like most German footballers, very self-possessed, articulate and confident'

 

No sterotyping there then Ollie.

 

Same fake who pontificates with a jarg argument that calling someone a 'black cu.t' may not be racist simply because his Lionhearted English celeb mate is up in court for it whilst in the same breath dismissing the cultural complexities of a far more nuanced case as apologist and tribal.

 

Seriously why is this snake still employed to whip up faux moral outrage over Suarez, Dalglish, the club, you and I, or at least had to make a public apology which is what he claims he expects of Dalglish?

 

 

can you name 5 good british sports journalists? I can t

[Major Tom]

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I missed his latest xenophobic pearl of wisdom ;

 

 

'Christoph Metzelder made a speech to the Qatar meeting today. Like most German footballers, very self-possessed, articulate and confident'

 

No sterotyping there then Ollie.

 

Same fake who pontificates with a jarg argument that calling someone a 'black cu.t' may not be racist simply because his Lionhearted English celeb mate is up in court for it whilst in the same breath dismissing the cultural complexities of a far more nuanced case as apologist and tribal.

 

Seriously why is this snake still employed to whip up faux moral outrage over Suarez, Dalglish, the club, you and I, or at least had to make a public apology which is what he claims he expects of Dalglish?

 

Let it go, mate. Who gives a shit? If you don't like him, stop reading his stuff and posting it on public forums. Just ignore it and stop giving him credence by commenting on what he has to say. Bad publicity is still publicity and that's all journalists and papers want.

[Horus]

Let it go, mate. Who gives a shit? If you don't like him, stop reading his stuff and posting it on public forums. Just ignore it and stop giving him credence by commenting on what he has to say. Bad publicity is still publicity and that's all journalists and papers want.

 

I think forums are places for sounding off though and I wouldn't call discussion on a message board as credence, either.

 

But there you go, these are the OP's opinions and all power to him for getting them out there. I don't agree with them, necessarily, but, these are the kinds of things that forums are for.

[Jairzinho]

Hope he falls down a well.

[sparta7]

can you name 5 good british sports journalists? I can t

 

Theres only one, Hugh McIlvanney.

[Jairzinho]

Sid Lowe.

Jonathan Wilson.

[Major Tom]

I think forums are places for sounding off though and I wouldn't call discussion on a message board as credence, either.

 

But there you go, these are the OP's opinions and all power to him for getting them out there. I don't agree with them, necessarily, but, these are the kinds of things that forums are for.

 

I have no problems with the OP's opinion because, as you say, that is what a forum is all about. And I wasn't commenting on his opinion anyway.

 

I guess my point is why continue to read a journalist you obviously have no time for? To each their own of course but it just seems a little strange to me.

[ngogswilly]

I have no problems with the OP's opinion because, as you say, that is what a forum is all about. And I wasn't commenting on his opinion anyway.

 

I guess my point is why continue to read a journalist you obviously have no time for? To each their own of course but it just seems a little strange to me.

 

What annoys me about people like Holt, is he poisons the minds of the masses with his shit. Him and plenty others.

 

The whole anti-Suarez movement was whipped up by cunts like him. That sort of shit can have a direct negative impact on a player. In this case it was our player.

 

Luckily, Suarez isn't the type to back down and crawl into his shell. Hes a fighter.

[Whelan]

Don't read Lawton today! In an article about Homophobia he manages to insert a paragraph about Evra being victimised and alludes to people like Kenny being the reason why men stay in the closet!

[Peflecan]

It's the same old boys network that it ever was.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

can you name 5 good british sports journalists? I can t

 

There are loads of good sports journalists, just not many decent football ones unfortunately. Most of the good ones write about foreign leagues or world football, as soon as they focus on the English league their colours come out.

[bouncebrigade]

This is sort of going back over old ground again but I found the following article interesting, taken from an Irish broadsheet a few weeks ago:

 

When is a remark racist? When spoken by a foreigner

The fight against racism in football has not been helped by the savaging of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, writes DAVID ADAMS

‘IS CALLING someone a ‘black c***’ racist? Spoke to a black player today who said racism is words like c**n, n-word, w**, etc. Don’t know.” This crass query was posted on Twitter less than two months ago. It refers to what the England and Chelsea football captain, John Terry, has admitted calling QPR’s Anton Ferdinand during a premiership game last October.

Terry will appear in court next month, charged with a racially motivated public order offence. He insists that his remarks were taken out of context, and must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The tweeter, however, appears to suggest that Terry’s outburst might not be racist at all, regardless of context.

Worryingly, the tweet was posted by the chief sports writer of the Daily Mirror, Oliver Holt (who has authored two books on Terry, under the pen names, Ollie and Oliver Derbyshire). Strange that a journalist, of all people, is not entirely clear on what constitutes racism. Stranger still that Holt and his newspaper, along with most of the rest of the British media, have of late been adopting what they imagine to be a high-minded, zero-tolerance approach to this issue.

They have been relentless in condemning Liverpool’s Uruguayan player, Luis Suarez, after he was found guilty by the English FA of “racially abusing” the Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra, by referring to him as “negro”. Aside from the fact that Evra’s South American team mates at Manchester United also call him Negro, I would have thought this word to be far less offensive than what Terry has admitted shouting at Ferdinand.

Increasingly, the media has also been savaging Liverpool and its manager, Kenny Dalglish, for continuing to insist that Suarez is innocent. Oliver Holt went so far as to suggest in a column last Saturday that their support for Suarez makes Dalglish and Liverpool partially culpable for a racist insult directed at a young Oldham player at Anfield the previous night.

Self-evidently, Holt et al believe that Suarez and Liverpool have no right to question an FA ruling. This is another strange position for journalists to adopt. They, of all people, should realise that even a proper court can get it wrong, never mind the FA’s “kangaroo court”, as Everton manager David Moyes recently described it. The FA secures a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent, as Irish sports lawyer (and Liverpool fan) Stuart Gilhooley has pointed out.

An unnamed sports lawyer has told the BBC that the FA acts as “police, judge and jury all rolled into one”. No wonder Suarez, his club and its supporters are up in arms.

Undeterred, the British media is presenting the FA’s handling of the Suarez affair as a shining example of best practice, while doing all it can to shift attention away from the finer details and on to the broader issue of racism. This involves making pantomime villains of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool.

In truth, even before the case was heard, the bulk of the media had made plain its position. Suarez was never afforded the same innocent-until-proven-guilty treatment that John Terry has (rightly) enjoyed.

From the moment Evra’s complaint emerged, hardly a day passed without it being highlighted. Yet within days of John Terry being charged, sportswriters and football commentators were commending the Chelsea captain for a “courageous performance”, “despite the pressures he is playing under”.

Suarez was fined €48,500 and banned for eight games by the FA. Somewhat conveniently, Terry was reported to the police by “a member of the public” and shuffled off to a criminal court where the evidential threshold for conviction is massively higher than that of the FA, and the maximum possible penalty decidedly lower (€2,500).

I am not a disinterested observer, having supported Liverpool for more than 40 years. But then, who is? (Lord) Herman Ouseley and Piara Powar, two of the most vocal and widely quoted critics of Suarez, Dalglish and Liverpool, and strident supporters of the FA’s ruling, are both invariably described by the media only as anti-racism campaigners. That the first is also a member of the FA and on the board of the Manchester United Foundation (Evra’s club), and the second is a director of the Chelsea Foundation (Terry’s club), is never mentioned.

Why has a basic tenet of good journalistic practice, highlighting possible conflicts of interest, been dispensed with? Ultimately, the FA has scored some imaginary political point against Fifa’s Sepp Blatter; anti-racism campaigners have had their (extremely important) issue raised to stratospheric heights; and the British media has been able to flaunt its supposed anti-racist credentials. That the reputation of a “Johnny Foreigner” has been destroyed in the process, and a great football club and its manager tarnished, is unfortunate. But at least it wasn’t an England captain.

[Whelan]

It's the same old boys network that it ever was.

 

I'd be careful phrasing it like that!

 

Wait until they do start taking homophobia seriously and, the accused is Black!

[LFC64]

Let it go, mate. Who gives a shit? If you don't like him, stop reading his stuff and posting it on public forums. Just ignore it and stop giving him credence by commenting on what he has to say. Bad publicity is still publicity and that's all journalists and papers want.

 

I don't read his stuff or anyone else's in the Mirror. I came across this quote on the internet which led me to this paragraph in one of his articles.

I give a shit and so do a lot of other people when journalistic double standards are exposed. Holt and the Mirror were embarrassed by his tweet and wish it could go away. It is not welcome publicity at all. It is outrageously hypocritical and deserves to be flagged up and thrown back at him every time the flighty little chancer starts preaching on the subject.

[xerxes]

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I missed his latest xenophobic pearl of wisdom ;

 

 

'Christoph Metzelder made a speech to the Qatar meeting today. Like most German footballers, very self-possessed, articulate and confident'

 

No sterotyping there then Ollie.

 

Same fake who pontificates with a jarg argument that calling someone a 'black cu.t' may not be racist simply because his Lionhearted English celeb mate is up in court for it whilst in the same breath dismissing the cultural complexities of a far more nuanced case as apologist and tribal.

 

Seriously why is this snake still employed to whip up faux moral outrage over Suarez, Dalglish, the club, you and I, or at least had to make a public apology which is what he claims he expects of Dalglish?

 

Holt is arguing semantics – as Suarez tried to do, unsuccessfully.

 

Terry’s case appears to be about him (improbably in my view) repeating an offensive phrase, rather than abusing with it.

 

If someone wants to take the view that calling someone a “Fucking black cunt” isn’t racist, then they will have to make a pretty powerful case about context, with a start point that the speaker is an obnoxious foul mouthed thug.

 

I agree with you that the German footballers dragged to Qatar will have been selected because THEY are very self-possessed, articulate and confident, not because they all are.

 

Luis was found guilty of abuse making reference to someone’s colour (by his own admission), Holt has not, hence he has no apology to make.

 

Holt is a sports journalist writing daily copy which is designed to invite debate. Far too much attention is devoted to what journalists write day by day, as is the case with what managers say at the interminable round of press conferences.

 

My own view is that his semantic defence for John Terry’s phrase does neither his reputation, nor his intellect, many favours.

 

It really doesn’t matter.

[clareinexile]

Don't read Lawton today! In an article about Homophobia he manages to insert a paragraph about Evra being victimised and alludes to people like Kenny being the reason why men stay in the closet!

 

Maybe he was making a subtle hint or not as to which foot Evra kicks with.

[goatboy59]

Wait until they do start taking homophobia seriously and, the accused is Black!

 

Type the word 'faggot' into Twitter's search engine.

 

It's frightening.

[beejay]

Theres only one, Hugh McIlvanney.

 

Manc loving Ferguson ring licking twat

[VladimirIlyich]

Manc loving Ferguson ring licking twat

 

You cant really blame them for fawning over his professional ability but it would be refreshing and balanced if one or two admitted that he's an odious cunt outside of the game too.

[Gym Beglin]

I bet if I asked Oliver Holt to meet me outside a pub at 5pm one night, he wouldn't turn up.

Voice of the people they are, except they don't mingle with them at all, and are actually scared of touching one.

[LFC64]

Holt is arguing semantics – as Suarez tried to do, unsuccessfully.

 

Terry’s case appears to be about him (improbably in my view) repeating an offensive phrase, rather than abusing with it.

 

If someone wants to take the view that calling someone a “Fucking black cunt” isn’t racist, then they will have to make a pretty powerful case about context, with a start point that the speaker is an obnoxious foul mouthed thug.

 

I agree with you that the German footballers dragged to Qatar will have been selected because THEY are very self-possessed, articulate and confident, not because they all are.

 

Luis was found guilty of abuse making reference to someone’s colour (by his own admission), Holt has not, hence he has no apology to make.

 

Holt is a sports journalist writing daily copy which is designed to invite debate. Far too much attention is devoted to what journalists write day by day, as is the case with what managers say at the interminable round of press conferences.

 

My own view is that his semantic defence for John Terry’s phrase does neither his reputation, nor his intellect, many favours.

 

It really doesn’t matter.

 

As I don't read Holt's articles regularly I can't say if he has written anything that attempts to elaborate on his twitter comment.

I agree with you that Holt has embarrassed himself by in my opinion playing the quasi-intellectual on twitter by posting a pub philosophy soundbite which I can understand a black person being offended by.

 

Perhaps if he was consistent in his argument then it wouldn't matter. If he can stroke his chin philosophically and pontificate that semantics, context, and connotation are crucial to whether the above mentioned phrase can be considered racist or not then one would expect him to apply this criteria to the Suarez case. He doesn't, he dismisses it as petty and trivial.

I would disagree that it doesn't matter and think that misrepresentation and distortion of the truth in journalism deserves to be highlighted.

[xerxes]

As I don't read Holt's articles regularly I can't say if he has written anything that attempts to elaborate on his twitter comment.

I agree with you that Holt has embarrassed himself by in my opinion playing the quasi-intellectual on twitter by posting a pub philosophy soundbite which I can understand a black person being offended by.

 

Perhaps if he was consistent in his argument then it wouldn't matter. If he can stroke his chin philosophically and pontificate that semantics, context, and connotation are crucial to whether the above mentioned phrase can be considered racist or not then one would expect him to apply this criteria to the Suarez case. He doesn't, he dismisses it as petty and trivial.

I would disagree that it doesn't matter and think that misrepresentation and distortion of the truth in journalism deserves to be highlighted.

 

Fair comment, LFC.

 

I don't think that it is a journalists job on a popular newspaper to be consistent though , it is to provoke, or catch a mood - I agree that has little to do with "the truth."

 

I am always fond of the Bevan quote:"This is my truth tell me yours."

[Pliskken]

Semantics again. Holt is not a journalist in my book, he is just a reporter.

[Iceman]

Holt is a fulltime cunt, who ghost-writes books for a racist.