Jump to content
Vital Spark

Pope tweets under investigation by FA

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tomo said:

Same. Thought the comment was about them owning loads of banks, which they do don't they?

There have been conspiracy theories for years that the Rothschilds (a wealthy Jewish banking family) have so much hidden control that they have caused wars to profit from them. The implication is that all they think about is money and will do anything to get profits. It plays into the insulting stereotype of the heartless Jew only interested only in themselves and money. The sort of stuff Mr Hitler used to rant about in the 30's

So, Tom saying that the result of WW3 would be the Rothschilds owning all the banks (the implication being they will do well out of a WW3 situation) plays directly into that antisemitism/conspiracy theory.

EDIT: Wikipedia probably explains better than the above here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, geosname said:

I would argue that he named a very big banker who happens to be Jewish not a Jew who happens to be a banker..... he didn't mention religion.

If we are going to condemn for what he might mean or what someone percieves the meaning to be we are on a very slippery road.

I have an uncle named Tom..... I can call him uncle Tom..... what if he was black?..... and someone perceives that to be racist?..... am I guilty? 

I don't think it's the same.

Calling your Uncle by his correct title (and by coincidence that being a racist term) isn't really the same as trying to say that one of the most high profile, influential and richest Jewish families in the world would profit from a future war. I presume there are also aren't existing conspiracy theories about your Uncle wheras this very one about the Rothschilds has been around for years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories

p.s. We wouldn't even be debating this if Tom Pope had deleted his Twitter as he should have done months ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been conspiracy theories for years that the Rothschilds (a wealthy Jewish banking family) have so much hidden control that they have caused wars to profit from them. The implication is that all they think about is money and will do anything to get profits. It plays into the insulting stereotype of the heartless Jew only interested only in themselves and money. The sort of stuff Mr Hitler used to rant about in the 30's
So, Tom saying that the result of WW3 would be the Rothschilds owning all the banks (the implication being they will do well out of a WW3 situation) plays directly into that antisemitism/conspiracy theory.
EDIT: Wikipedia probably explains better than the above here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories
Did someone actually complain about Popeys tweet or is it just the FA being total jobsworths.

Sent from my LG-H340n using onevalefan mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, robf said:

There have been conspiracy theories for years that the Rothschilds (a wealthy Jewish banking family) have so much hidden control that they have caused wars to profit from them. The implication is that all they think about is money and will do anything to get profits. It plays into the insulting stereotype of the heartless Jew only interested only in themselves and money. The sort of stuff Mr Hitler used to rant about in the 30's

So, Tom saying that the result of WW3 would be the Rothschilds owning all the banks (the implication being they will do well out of a WW3 situation) plays directly into that antisemitism/conspiracy theory.

EDIT: Wikipedia probably explains better than the above here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories

Didn't Jesus rant about it when he threw the money lenders out of the temple?

Someone is interpreting the expected outcome of a 3rd world war to be similar to the 2nd..... it won't be, it would be total devastation with very few survivors.... the rich and the powerful will be as insulated as they can be but emerging from their bunkers..... can I mention bunkers because Hitler had one?.... to find a world where money has little to no value, nations leaders have no one to lead and nations that were are no more... having all the money would be pointless because there would be nothing to buy.

If a Rothschild claimed his/her family in the banking world would that be antisemitic?....... if a Jew had posted the tweet would it be antisemitic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, robf said:

p.s. We wouldn't even be debating this if Tom Pope had deleted his Twitter as he should have done months ago

👏👏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, geosname said:

Didn't Jesus rant about it when he threw the money lenders out of the temple?

No idea but not relevant as he doesn't use Twitter and isn't subject to FA rules. 😯

8 minutes ago, geosname said:

Someone is interpreting the expected outcome of a 3rd world war to be similar to the 2nd..... it won't be, it would be total devastation with very few survivors.... the rich and the powerful will be as insulated as they can be but emerging from their bunkers..... can I mention bunkers because Hitler had one?.... to find a world where money has little to no value, nations leaders have no one to lead and nations that were are no more... having all the money would be pointless because there would be nothing to buy.

Again irrelevant because that isn't what the tweet suggested. Tom Pope suggested that the Rothschilds (not all the "rich and powerful" but specifically a Jewish banking family) would control "all" (i.e. they don't own all banks now so the implication is they would gain more) banks after WW3. 

8 minutes ago, geosname said:

If a Rothschild claimed his/her family in the banking world would that be antisemitic?....... if a Jew had posted the tweet would it be antisemitic ?

Not relevant as Tom Pope is neither to the best of my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, geosname said:

I would argue that he named a very big banker who happens to be Jewish not a Jew who happens to be a banker..... he didn't mention religion.

If we are going to condemn for what he might mean or what someone percieves the meaning to be we are on a very slippery road.

I have an uncle named Tom..... I can call him uncle Tom..... what if he was black?..... and someone perceives that to be racist?..... am I guilty? 

What if I go round people's houses and start taking their possessions? Maybe I think their sofa looks better in my living room? Maybe I don't realise what I'm doing is theft. Ignorance isn't a defence. Especially for a person who has twice been convicted of similar offences (tweeting <ovf censored>).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pretend to understand the history leading to this issue (and suspect that Pope is the same). My take on it is simple - religion, race, gender etc etc mean nothing to me - so I simply don't comment on them unless its strictly necessary. I'd like to think that Popes comments can offend simply because he is either ignorant (in the nicest sense, as am I) or misinformed. Either way, if you don't have substantiating evidence and it could be offensive ... just keep your gob shut!

I think that the FA could be cracking down hard on him this time and while i love Tom to bits and will forever be grateful for what he has done for the club, area and supporters, he needs to show a bit more maturity in what he says and when he says it. I actually like his "banter" on Twitter but there are lines and he has to be a bit more careful imo.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, robf said:

I don't think it's the same.

Calling your Uncle by his correct title (and by coincidence that being a racist term) isn't really the same as trying to say that one of the most high profile, influential and richest Jewish families in the world would profit from a future war. I presume there are also aren't existing conspiracy theories about your Uncle wheras this very one about the Rothschilds has been around for years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories

p.s. We wouldn't even be debating this if Tom Pope had deleted his Twitter as he should have done months ago

I agree about pope on Twitter........

However the debate raises interesting points..... is pope responsible for a conspiricy theory? Should we not mention America and the moon? Or grassy Knowles?..... we could debate the intent as opposed to the perceived intent, which is a big free speech issue...... but I doubt that would aleviate popes dilemma of activating his fingers before his brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wrex said:

Especially for a person who has twice been convicted of similar offences (tweeting <ovf censored>).

For those of you who know the cricket barmy army "Mitchell Johnson" song:

He tweets all day
He tweets all night
That Tom Pope
He tweets a load of <ovf censored>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wrex said:

What if I go round people's houses and start taking their possessions? Maybe I think their sofa looks better in my living room? Maybe I don't realise what I'm doing is theft. Ignorance isn't a defence. Especially for a person who has twice been convicted of similar offences (tweeting <ovf censored>).

The difference is you are talking about a physical act not an interpretation of what you think someone may have meant because that's what you think it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, geosname said:

The difference is you are talking about a physical act not an interpretation of what you think someone may have meant because that's what you think it means.

Either way if you don't do it in the first place you won't get into trouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, robf said:

Either way if you don't do it in the first place you won't get into trouble

Although that statement is correct it's also wrong in many ways.

If someone exercising a legal right gets into trouble should they not exercise their right?........ isn't that a form of controle prohibited by the right itself ?

Which is in itself is another big issue.

Way bigger than the issue of popes inability to adhere to the rules he contracted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line here is there is established case law on Social Media which supports the disciplining of people who post stuff on Social Media likely to bring their Employer into disrepute. If he worked for Synetics he would have been sacked either first or second time around. To do it a third is majorly contributing to your own down fall and is sheer stupidity. Ask any TU rep or HR person and they’ll tell you the same.

The FA are under pressure to stamp out racism. Carol and PVFC have  been embarrassed by him. Her main business sells data to banks, possibly even  Rothschilds. This may jeopardise some of her business it may not.

This may not end well for him and he should think himself lucky if he only gets a one match ban and still has a job

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnJames said:

The bottom line here is there is established case law on Social Media which supports the disciplining of people who post stuff on Social Media likely to bring their Employer into disrepute. If he worked for Synetics he would have been sacked either first or second time around. To do it a third is majorly contributing to your own down fall and is sheer stupidity. Ask any TU rep or HR person and they’ll tell you the same.

The FA are under pressure to stamp out racism. Carol and PVFC have  been embarrassed by him. Her main business sells data to banks, possibly even  Rothschilds. This may jeopardise some of her business it may not.

This may not end well for him and he should think himself lucky if he only gets a one match ban and still has a job

 

 

Agree,, but the FA will have him marked down as a 'repeat offender' - not a good look - and all down to his Twitter behaviour ergo I think he will get more than just a 1 match ban. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have something in his contract about the use of social media.  
 

As John James has said if he worked at Synetics in all likelihood he would now be looking for a new employer - where many now review Social Media history as part of their selection criteria!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for Popey ,if found guilty,he may get himself  branded as anti-semitic ,which will obviously do the club no favours whatsoever.Difficult situation for the owners and management.You’d expect,at least,anymore and he’s toast.It could be taken out of the clubs hands anyway.Silly bloke.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People getting a bit uppity about the clubs reputation being at risk seemed to have had no problem celebrating goals scored by someone who ran off from an accident leaving a man to die...

Edited by Nofinikea
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy