Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That report has sealed it for me.

Refusal to apologise (despite an academic expert making it very clear that the sentiments of the tweet were of an anti-semitic nature), refusal to accept that there were anti-semitic elements to what he said, and got it all from dodgy 9/11 conspiracy videos on Youtube.

No appealing, get the ban served and move on. Embarrassing for the club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In my view, I don't care about what bans other players got - Pope has only himself to blame for this one. This isn't an isolated incident. He had already been charged twice in a matter of months

I'm sure this will all lead to civil and well-informed debate on the matter 🙂

There's quite a lot to unpack from this whole affair and much of it won't be obvious to a lot of people, not just because Stoke-on-Trent isn't known for having a large Jewish community, but also becau

29 minutes ago, JRC said:

He 100% knows he has let down the directors and managers of the club. The club accept he is Vale through and through and I believe he accepts he has behaved stupidly, letting down the club and fans.

From many of your previous posts JRC, it would appear that you have more “inside” information than the majority of OVF followers and I mean this sincerely not sarcastically. But how many times have we heard this sort of sound bite from Tom  before ? 
 
I personally find it incredulous that he keeps on making the same mistakes time after endless time


I certainly have no personal axe to grind against Tom, because without his recent endeavors we we would most certainly be playing non league football now .But he frustrates me with his off field, or more precisely on line,  activity.

We finally have owners who genuinely care about the club, yet our most high profile player (not deliberately) undermines their efforts.

So a personal plea Tom, please stop these antics. Anyone with a sense of humour can see your point, but unfortunately we live an unenviable PC world where humour is not allowed. 

  

Edited by RailwayRowdy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give over some of you.  Pope didn't post it intending to be anti semitic, he isn't anti semitic and quite frankly this "mock outrage" is far more embarrassing than anything he tweeted.

If he believes what he put why should he apologise?  If he isn't being anti semetic why should he acknowledge that what he wrote is?  Just because some "expert" says that it was, does that make it fact?  I don't automatically think of all Jews when the Rothschilds are mentioned and I very much doubt many of you do if you are being honest.  

Pope is entitled to his opinion, even if it is ill advised and he has not been charged with any criminal offense so give it a rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

If you plead guilty to an offence in court you will get credit for that and be given a lighter sentence than if you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty. 

he wasn't in court though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, didnt make me think if jews just robbing, thieving bankers.

Give over some of you.  Pope didn't post it intending to be anti semitic, he isn't anti semitic and quite frankly this "mock outrage" is far more embarrassing than anything he tweeted.
If he believes what he put why should he apologise?  If he isn't being anti semetic why should he acknowledge that what he wrote is?  Just because some "expert" says that it was, does that make it fact?  I don't automatically think of all Jews when the Rothschilds are mentioned and I very much doubt many of you do if you are being honest.  
Pope is entitled to his opinion, even if it is ill advised and he has not been charged with any criminal offense so give it a rest.

Share this post


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

From many of your previous posts JRC, it would appear that you have more “inside” information than the majority of OVF followers and I mean this sincerely not sarcastically. But how many times have we heard this sort of sound bite from Tom  before ? 
 
I personally find it incredulous that he keeps on making the same mistakes time after endless time


I certainly have no personal axe to grind against Tom, because without his recent endeavors we we would most certainly be playing non league football now .But he frustrates me with his off field, or more precisely on line,  activity.

We finally have owners who genuinely care about the club, yet our most high profile player (not deliberately) undermines their efforts.

So a personal plea Tom, please stop these antics. Anyone with a sense of humour can see your point, but unfortunately we live an unenviable PC world where humour is not allowed. 

  

100% agree with what you say. Pope has been a complete tool on Twitter for too long. He's 34 not 17 and should know better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, credit where credit's due - he's seemingly been off twitter since January. Whether this is a result of him realising he's a tool on there or, more likely, he was told in no uncertain terms by JA/Carol that his future at the Club is in jeopardy if he carried on doesn't really matter, so long as he's off there (at least, under his official account).

The ban nor it's length doesn't surprise me at all. The FA were always going to throw the book at him following his previous indiscretions. I can't see any appeal shortening the ban, but can't blame the Club for trying.

He won't be missed all that much. Contrary to the majority view, I don't see him as a key player at all. JA was the first manager who dared to look beyond Pope last season and it did the team the world of good, both aesthetically and from a goals scored perspective. Previous managers, since he returned, overlooked his obvious limitations and the effect that these had on the team, resulting in us flirting with relegation for 2 seasons in a row. Cullen is clearly JA's striker of choice at the start of next season and, injuries permitting, I can't see pope playing anything other than a bit part anyway, quite rightly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slur originates from the Nazi Propaganda Film 'Die Rothschilds', lads. 'The Rothschilds' is a synecdoche which has historically been used to represent the entire Jewish faith. Pope got all this from dodgy Youtube conspiracies about how 9/11 was an inside job.

A synecdoche is when you represent the whole by referring to a part; for example, referring to a car as 'wheels'.

 

 

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joe B said:

The slur originates from the Nazi Propaganda Film 'Die Rothschilds', lads. 'The Rothschilds' is a synecdoche which has historically been used to represent the entire Jewish faith. Pope got all this from dodgy Youtube conspiracies about how 9/11 was an inside job.

A synecdoche is when you represent the whole by referring to a part; for example, referring to a car as 'wheels'.

 

 

sorry Joe but just because some "experts" say referring to Rothschilds is the same as referring to all Jews doesn't make it gospel.

When I think Rothschilds I think corrupt bankers, not Corrupt Jews.  Popes sources are questionable and he was ill advised to post what he did but it was not necessarily anti semitic.  The FA are not the arbitrators of law, just there own rules.  Pope has faced no criminal investigation or prosecution but don't let that water down the offense you have taken on behalf of others.

Its a very grey area, for example, scholars and experts say that being critical of the state of Israel is anti semitic.  I think they are wrong, and further more, there treatment of Palestine is disgraceful.  That makes me anti semetic according to the "experts", what do you think?  Am I anti semetic for criticising Israels treatment of Palastine?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

he wasn't in court though.

But the same principle applied:

"Mr Pope decided to contest the charge as is his right. He does however lose the credit that would otherwise have been available for an admission of breach."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can prove anything with facts. Facts smachts.

Credit to Tom though that he's been off Twitter since January. Wish the FA had got this sorted out in February / March rather than now but oh well.

Edited by Wrex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

sorry Joe but just because some "experts" say referring to Rothschilds is the same as referring to all Jews doesn't make it gospel.

When I think Rothschilds I think corrupt bankers, not Corrupt Jews.  Popes sources are questionable and he was ill advised to post what he did but it was not necessarily anti semitic.  The FA are not the arbitrators of law, just there own rules.  Pope has faced no criminal investigation or prosecution but don't let that water down the offense you have taken on behalf of others.

Its a very grey area, for example, scholars and experts say that being critical of the state of Israel is anti semitic.  I think they are wrong, and further more, there treatment of Palestine is disgraceful.  That makes me anti semetic according to the "experts", what do you think?  Am I anti semetic for criticising Israels treatment of Palastine?

Was Rothschild  a Jewish banker or a banker that was Jewish?  Does not the banking  angle  come from the  moneylenders being expelled from the Temple for charging high rates of interest? Nearly 2000 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Was Rothschild  a Jewish banker or a banker that was Jewish?  Does not the banking  angle  come from the  moneylenders being expelled from the Temple for charging high rates of interest? Nearly 2000 years ago?

In medieval times the Christian Church condemned usury - the charging of interest on loans, so no one did it.  If you wanted to borrow money you had to go to non-Christians, ie the Jews.  Jewish money lenders were regarded with contempt as a result.  Read "The Merchant of Venice" for the common view of Jews in Shakespeare's time.  It's probably one of the most anti-semitic works of literature in the English language and should have got Shakespeare a 12 game band!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Playa Amodores said:

Does anyone think that this will give the club a decision to make regarding Toms future at the club?

I don't think it will impact, but I think that this could be his last season as a Vale player. 35 in a few weeks.

Don't envisage him being offered another deal for 21/22 at the age of 36 

Great servant who has tarnished things for himself and the club with his stupidity and crass comments. 

 

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