Pope tweets under investigation by FA

[Karl Pilkington]

In other news, grass is green.

[Santa]

On 03/02/2020 at 16:24, JohnJames said:

Wouldn’t have thought so.  It took them months to deal with his Crewe sex tweet

The FA acted far more swiftly and decisively over a tweet that made a glib reference to Crewe’s historic CSA than they did over the abuse itself. 

[robf]

I don't think he's been on his Twitter account since 5th Jan (the day this tweet was sent) has he? 

[PV1973]

Askeys off hand comment, saying something like the club need to see what they can do,  in one of his recent interviews when talking about popes disciplinary problems made me wonder if they would / could dismiss him for these constant bans?

[valefan16]

Club have issued a statement that Tom denies that it was a racial/ethnic tweet and will vigorously defend the charge.

[mattpvfc]

What a load of <ovf censored>.

[geosname]

FA Rule E3, which the governing body defines as making "a reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or religion and/or ethnic origin.

 

That's a hell of a broad brush

[robf]

On a slight tangent... Blimey, the national press really need to get better researchers. 

 

Independent- https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/tom-pope-port-vale-fa-antisemitic-tweet-latest-news-a9319186.html

 

(He's been suspended twice this season not once. Neither of the suspensions were anything to do with the John Stones comments)

 

Four Four Two - https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/port-vale-striker-tom-pope-charged-fa-over-social-media-post

 

(He's been suspended twice this season not once. Neither of the suspensions were anything to do with the John Stones comments)

 

Sky - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11738/11926831/tom-pope-port-vale-striker-charged-by-fa-over-tweet

 

(He's been suspended twice this season, not once)

 

At least the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/05/port-vale-tom-pope-charged-by-fa-over-rothschilds-tweet and the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51387376 appear to be fully researched and have the correct facts in their articles.

[robf]

5 minutes ago, geosname said:

FA Rule E3, which the governing body defines as making "a reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or religion and/or ethnic origin.

 

That's a hell of a broad brush

I agree 100%. While I think Tom should stay off Twitter and not risk FA bans, it's an odd rule wording. Sure if it was an implied "slur" about religion, race or ethnic origin then fair enough but what does "reference" mean???

[Newfield Valiant]

It's because he's bringing the game into disrepute as per the latest FA Handbook:

"GENERAL BEHAVIOUR 3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) A breach of Rule E3(1) is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following :- ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability."

[robf]

3 minutes ago, Newfield Valiant said:

It's because he's bringing the game into disrepute as per the latest FA Handbook:

"GENERAL BEHAVIOUR 3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) A breach of Rule E3(1) is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following :- ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability."

Thanks but while in danger of being a pedant I do think that second rule isn't clear. A reference to race or colour could mean anything.

It could mean me tweeting that "I think Robbie Earle and Darren Beckford were two of the best black players to appear for Port Vale and a credit to the club" - that's a reference to color and race but not an insulting one. 

I presume the rule means that it's an offence to make negative references but if it's a rule surely that should be obvious such as: "as it included a negative reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or religion and/or ethnic origin"

Either way and regardless of the clarity of the rule, I guess Tom Pope's defence relies on whether the FA sees his tweet as a negative comment to a specific religious group or not.

[philmpv]

17 minutes ago, robf said:

Thanks but while in danger of being a pedant I do think that second rule isn't clear. A reference to race or colour could mean anything.

It could mean me tweeting that "I think Robbie Earle and Darren Beckford were two of the best black players to appear for Port Vale and a credit to the club" - that's a reference to color and race but not an insulting one. 

I presume the rule means that it's an offence to make negative references but if it's a rule surely that should be obvious such as: "as it included a negative reference, whether expressed or implied, to race and/or religion and/or ethnic origin"

Either way and regardless of the clarity of the rule, I guess Tom Pope's defence relies on whether the FA sees his tweet as a negative comment to a specific religious group or not.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, you'd probably be brought to task yourself for a tweet like that for the very mention of colour. It seems to all depend on what the reader interprets it as, however ridiculous, not what the writer actually meant! To be black is one thing, to point out that someone is black is a different thing entirely it seems!

[Coyney Valiant]

A Crystal Palace player was photographed making a nazi salute to a German player at there Xmas party and defended himself by claiming he’d never heard of Adolf hitler and was only pointing to somebody  he got away with no action taken but then he’s a premier league player and Popey is a league 2 player    One rule for the haves and a different rule for the have nots

[Joe B]

We can defend the bloke all we want, and he's no anti-semite, but I simply cannot rationalise why he was tweeting such absolute nonsese at 3am on a Sunday, considering his very controversial past on the platform. I can't imagine the thought process that led him to press 'send tweet'.

He shouldn't have been on Twitter after his previous bans, let alone tweeting a trope which has historic links to anti-Semitism, despite there being no malicious intent. Its inarguable that the 'joke' he tweeted has anti-Semitic links; there's an entire Wiki article on Economic Anti-Semitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Nazi_Germany).

Adolf Hitler made repeated references to the Jewish people controlling the banks; "to make possible the sweating of the German working class under the yoke of Jewish world finance".

Obviously Pope didn't mean it like this. It was just an extraordinarily stupid thing to do.

Unfortunately his reputation now proceeds him, and all the FA need to do is pull up his tweets regarding Crewe, Radford, Transsexuals, relations with peoples' mothers, repeated uncouth language, previous bans, official hearings, warnings by his employers, and its case closed, throw the book at him.

Not saying I agree but there's only one person to blame. I don't know how much more Askey will take of this; he's in line to miss a third game this season, and Askey is hyper-vigilant on discipline,  especially when contrasted to Leon Legge and Scott Brown's excellent recent work on Epilepsy and Parkinsons.

[philmpv]

A Crystal Palace player was photographed making a nazi salute to a German player at there Xmas party and defended himself by claiming he’d never heard of Adolf hitler and was only pointing to somebody  he got away with no action taken but then he’s a premier league player and Popey is a league 2 player    One rule for the haves and a different rule for the have nots

I remember that. Can't believe that the FA bought it!