Jump to content

Pope tweets under investigation by FA


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The disappointing thing about it all is that in a weekend of such good publicity for how we played, the goal, the fans behaviour, the amount of people that went to the game.... It has quickly became o

When Pope was getting some stick, I started "Pope is a Legend Poll" here, 98%, agreed. I tweeted this to Pope. You know all supportive. His reply was "Who gives a f*** what you think". Charming. He is

Cullen should have kept his place anyway whether Popey was banned or not. 

Posted Images

On a slight tangent... Blimey, the national press really need to get better researchers. 
 
 
(He's been suspended twice this season not once. Neither of the suspensions were anything to do with the John Stones comments)
 
 
(He's been suspended twice this season not once. Neither of the suspensions were anything to do with the John Stones comments)
 
 
(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Joe B
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very telling that even in games where Pope is playing, Legge now has the captains armband. One is a charity ambassador and writes a blog highlighting epilepsy and the struggles he's gone through. The other is up till all hours abusing 14 year old Crewe fans on twitter.

Tom, you are and always will be a vale legend for your actions on the pitch. But in a season of such positives off the pitch, you've been the one big let down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popes been spending too much time on Faceache. It’s riddled with far right white supremacist propaganda.

One of his tweets in December quickly got deleted but it was the same sort of cack but more overt. Another one having a go at single parents got taken down the next after a few “ oh you think that your above us now” replies

Again it was from the same political spectrum.

He’s like a poor mans badly briefed Eric Cantona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FA agreed that Hennessey had never heard of Hit ler, then surely Pope not knowing the Rothschilds are Jewish is an even more believeable case. High school history teaches you about WW2. Nothing teaches you the religion of some semi-famous banking guy (in banking circles)

And even if Pope did, its hardly antisemitic. He repeated some nonsense that one person/family would take over banking...not the entire Jewish religion. In the same way that saying Bruno Ribeiro was one of our worst managers ever isnt a slight on the nation of Portugal and the ability of Portuguese to manage football teams.

Edited by DaneValiant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnJames said:

He can’t use I didn’t realise. Explain how you tweet about something you didn’t realise you were tweeting,

 

 

Take a look at the "Carol speaks out" thread.

It's quite simple really...... you may associate the name Rothschild with banking without knowing their religion.... the name used to be bandied about to denote wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DaneValiant said:

If the FA agreed that Hennessey had never heard of Hit ler, then surely Pope not knowing the Rothschilds are Jewish is an even more believeable case. High school history teaches you about WW2. Nothing teaches you the religion of some semi-famous banking guy (in banking circles)

And even if Pope did, its hardly antisemitic. He repeated some nonsense that one person/family would take over banking...not the entire Jewish religion. In the same way that saying Bruno Ribeiro was one of our worst managers ever isnt a slight on the nation of Portugal and the ability of Portuguese to manage football teams.

Some good points there, that’s a decent defence imo.

  • 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.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy