onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Pope gets six game ban


Smugsy

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, NLVMalc said:


The problem for Pope was that the precedent was already in place, it had already been decided who the reasonable person is, therefore it was a battle he was never going to win.

It's reasonable to assume the man on the bus would associate the name Rothschild with wealth and probably banking... I'm not so sure the same could be said for wine, real estate, circumcision or mining.

Are we conditioned to see religion, race, sexuality etc ?

If someone dies in police custody does it matter what colour they are? If someone is assaulted does their sexuality matter? Etc etc. 

It may matter to the investigation but does it matter to the general reporting? Or is it simply an attention grabber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

It's reasonable to assume the man on the bus would associate the name Rothschild with wealth and probably banking... I'm not so sure the same could be said for wine, real estate, circumcision or mining.
Are we conditioned to see religion, race, sexuality etc ?
If someone dies in police custody does it matter what colour they are? If someone is assaulted does their sexuality matter? Etc etc. 
It may matter to the investigation but does it matter to the general reporting? Or is it simply an attention grabber?


There is a huge difference between two people who have an argument because, for example, one bumped into another or someone pushed in front of another person in a queue, and then one assaults the other, compared to someone who is is minding their own business and is assaulted because of their colour, religion, sexuality disability etc. In law these aggravated, hate crimes, can and do get tougher sentences. Pope was charged by the FA for an aggravated offence and therefore was always likely to get a larger ban than his previous ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the heart of the problem is that - as several posters have said earlier - ignorance is no defence. 
If you are caught speeding at 120 mph on the toll road it's no good claiming that you didn't know it was 70.
I don't think Pope understood fully what he was posting. And because he's been up before the beak 2-3 times before his past record is already poor, and if they're now saying he was still arguing the toss with them and showing no remorse then he will get the book thrown at him.
We all know that he should have got off Twitter years ago, ignored the WUMs, and focused on his football.


Absolutely, my fear is an appeal might only increase his ban. Vale need Pope available to play, he knows how to score goals and his overall play and work ethic is selfless for the team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NLVMalc said:

 


There is a huge difference between two people who have an argument because, for example, one bumped into another or someone pushed in front of another person in a queue, and then one assaults the other, compared to someone who is is minding their own business and is assaulted because of their colour, religion, sexuality disability etc. In law these aggravated, hate crimes, can and do get tougher sentences. Pope was charged by the FA for an aggravated offence and therefore was always likely to get a larger ban than his previous ones.

 

I was simply suggesting that most reporting highlights race/sexual preference/etc ..... ie black man dies in police custody...... lesbian couple assaulted on train etc..... which conditions readers to accept motivation.

The fact that someone dies in police custody or that 2 women are assaulted on a train doesn't grab headlines.

Owen Jones?  Was assaulted not long ago...... was he assaulted because he is gay? Because he is left wing? Because he is a gobshite? Or another reason?

If you had an argument 're parking with a gay black man and you assaulted him should you be charged with a hate crime? It seems if he thinks it was you will be charged accordingly.... it seems it's what the victim perceives not what the offender intended that counts.

Because the FA perceives racism doesn't mean it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geosname said:

I was simply suggesting that most reporting highlights race/sexual preference/etc ..... ie black man dies in police custody...... lesbian couple assaulted on train etc..... which conditions readers to accept motivation.

The fact that someone dies in police custody or that 2 women are assaulted on a train doesn't grab headlines.

Owen Jones?  Was assaulted not long ago...... was he assaulted because he is gay? Because he is left wing? Because he is a gobshite? Or another reason?

If you had an argument 're parking with a gay black man and you assaulted him should you be charged with a hate crime? It seems if he thinks it was you will be charged accordingly.... it seems it's what the victim perceives not what the offender intended that counts.

Because the FA perceives racism doesn't mean it is.

I think a person is offended if they think they are offended. That can happen in many situations and the person who has done the offending should apologize if they did not mean to cause offense and value the offended person's feelings. Many times, particularly on social media, people intend to cause offence or want to take their argument too far. Even if that happens, there is usually little protection or restitution available to the offended person in rules or law. So people who are racially abused, which is about as offensive as things can ever get, at least have better rights. There is legal action that can be taken where an offence is committed and there are definitions of what racial abuse is. 

But where I have a problem here with the FA is that Pope is deemed to have said something racial which the vast majority of the population don't know is racially offensive or isn't actually racially offensive at all. And that needs to be challenged. Exactly what criminal law has been broken; none. Exactly what intent was present; none. And did Pope apologize to the offended anyway; yes. 

There is another reason why this implied racism needs to be challenged. With Black Lives Matters we now have this symbolism that has come into being. The kneeling and requirement to join in with a protest that was originally linked to American protest against the US flag and racism in America. Not the UK. Nor anywhere else. So I am please to see Jonathan Isaac of the Orlando Magic and other staff representing this viewpoint; being against racism does not mean you have to go along with other peoples' movements and viewpoints. I see it in the way that to be an upstanding member of a community you do not have to be Christian and send your kids to Sunday School (close to a requirement in so called middle class England in the 1960's when I was young). You just need to obey the law and act in a kindly manner and non discriminatory manner to all other human beings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would have to be a reason for someone to be aggrieved. Thus, if it’s it’s said “you can’t drive and don’t even apologise” this would lead to an assault charge if they were then hit.
If they say something like “everyone knows blacks and gays can’t drive, you are twice as bad as all other drivers” then they were hit, that would be a hate crime.

Newspaper paper headlines, well they are a law unto themselves.

I’m not an apologist for the FA, they have many faults but, in Popes case, what a reasonable person might take as being racist has been documented in other circumstances and ‘they say’ is factual, whether you or I agree with it or not will make no difference. What Pope said was racist, he chosen to dispute that fact and ended up with a larger ban than perhaps we would have got anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warren said:

I think a person is offended if they think they are offended. That can happen in many situations and the person who has done the offending should apologize if they did not mean to cause offense and value the offended person's feelings. Many times, particularly on social media, people intend to cause offence or want to take their argument too far. Even if that happens, there is usually little protection or restitution available to the offended person in rules or law. So people who are racially abused, which is about as offensive as things can ever get, at least have better rights. There is legal action that can be taken where an offence is committed and there are definitions of what racial abuse is. 

But where I have a problem here with the FA is that Pope is deemed to have said something racial which the vast majority of the population don't know is racially offensive or isn't actually racially offensive at all. And that needs to be challenged. Exactly what criminal law has been broken; none. Exactly what intent was present; none. And did Pope apologize to the offended anyway; yes. 

There is another reason why this implied racism needs to be challenged. With Black Lives Matters we now have this symbolism that has come into being. The kneeling and requirement to join in with a protest that was originally linked to American protest against the US flag and racism in America. Not the UK. Nor anywhere else. So I am please to see Jonathan Isaac of the Orlando Magic and other staff representing this viewpoint; being against racism does not mean you have to go along with other peoples' movements and viewpoints. I see it in the way that to be an upstanding member of a community you do not have to be Christian and send your kids to Sunday School (close to a requirement in so called middle class England in the 1960's when I was young). You just need to obey the law and act in a kindly manner and non discriminatory manner to all other human beings. 

I don't agree with the apology.

Because someone takes offence dose not mean someone has caused it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NLVMalc said:

There would have to be a reason for someone to be aggrieved. Thus, if it’s it’s said “you can’t drive and don’t even apologise” this would lead to an assault charge if they were then hit.
If they say something like “everyone knows blacks and gays can’t drive, you are twice as bad as all other drivers” then they were hit, that would be a hate crime.

Newspaper paper headlines, well they are a law unto themselves.

I’m not an apologist for the FA, they have many faults but, in Popes case, what a reasonable person might take as being racist has been documented in other circumstances and ‘they say’ is factual, whether you or I agree with it or not will make no difference. What Pope said was racist, he chosen to dispute that fact and ended up with a larger ban than perhaps we would have got anyway.

If the black gay guy says he believed you hit him because he was black or gay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, geosname said:

I don't agree with the apology.

Because someone takes offence dose not mean someone has caused it.

Yes, I agree that making an apology is a choice. One consideration is whether the person offended should be offended and there is a considerable amount of subjectivity in that judgement. 

Going way off track. Some people as children adopt strategies to gain the attention and approval of their parents. One is to repetitively claim to be sick or bullied or some other needy type problem to create that attention. And the trouble with that is it continues into adulthood and throughout life. Hence there is no justification in pandering to a person who is unreasonably offended by something by making apology. Also, the so called offended person should take their own action. Why not just use ignore on social media for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about this whole recently. I watch quite a few documentaries of Police Interceptor types. They are often useful when having a lunch break and eating etc. But it has occurred to me there is a significant under representation of black dudes getting chased and arrested. As in, I can't recall any ever. I can recall Asians and I can recall a few women. I am contemplating what to make of this; maybe I am wrong and just need to pay attention. Or maybe these programmes are selective and deliberately not featuring arrests in the black community. In which case why? They don't want to show them because they would attract controversy? Or they are really bad arrests that should be kept off screen if the police forces concerned want to hide their systemic racism!

By the way, the best car chase ever is of a stolen red Morris Minor. It can do 0-60 in 26 seconds. But, it got away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NLVMalc said:


That’s for the courts to decide

It's the decision of the police or possibly CPS what charges are brought. Something that should be considered is that the charge will be recorded whether proven or not.

Sadly feelings are being introduced into the law.

If someone is accused of a hate crime which isn't proven is the accuser then charged with a hate crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...