The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 3]
Discussion
TaylotS2K said:
'Rent boy' is a derogatory term aimed at people who aren't rent boys (well they might be, but doubt it).
We all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
Causing offence is not illegal. I can call a woman a wWe all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
e because she is actually a we. Or I can call a woman a we to insult them. That may be offensive, and unpleasant, but it's not illegal or a hate crime, because being a prostitute is not a protected characteristic, in the way that race or sexuality is. Sparkyhd said:
But honestly, does any Chelsea fan feel offended by the rent boy song?
Not in the least. In fact, we should embrace it and own it. We should have a "rent boy army" song. Which unlike Spurs and Y*d Army, would not be offensive to anyone. As said, it's not homophobic, as many gay men don't like rent boys. In the same way as many straight men take a dim view of hookers. smn159 said:
Liverpool seem to agree that the chants were homophobic
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/04/16/--che...
good,there is much worse but its a petty chant so happy the club criticize it, not sure how easy it is to clamp down on thoughhttps://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/04/16/--che...
sincerely hope the idiot who chucked the smoke bomb is identified and banned for life
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not in the least. In fact, we should embrace it and own it. We should have a "rent boy army" song. Which unlike Spurs and Y*d Army, would not be offensive to anyone. As said, it's not homophobic, as many gay men don't like rent boys. In the same way as many straight men take a dim view of hookers.
Only a few are offended by the "Yid Army" chant, including David Baddiel who, surprise-surprise is a Chelsea fan. And we all know who's fans do the hissing noise. This question has been put to the local Jewish community who have said it's not offensive because its a defensive posture, There is no race-hate involved. This is in stark contrast to when opposing fans taunt Spurs fans with the word. Daniel Levy (A Jew himself) has also OK'd it as have the vast majority of Spurs fans. The Police also don't prosecute because they have been advised by the CPO that it is not a winnable case - and they arrested a few fans to test that and had to let them go.TwigtheWonderkid said:
TaylotS2K said:
'Rent boy' is a derogatory term aimed at people who aren't rent boys (well they might be, but doubt it).
We all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
Causing offence is not illegal. I can call a woman a wWe all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
e because she is actually a we. Or I can call a woman a we to insult them. That may be offensive, and unpleasant, but it's not illegal or a hate crime, because being a prostitute is not a protected characteristic, in the way that race or sexuality is. "Liverpool FC condemns as 'inappropriate & offensive' the homophobic 'rentboys' chant in Sunday's game. Says it will ban those responsible for throwing a smoke bomb into the Chelsea section."
LoonyTunes said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not in the least. In fact, we should embrace it and own it. We should have a "rent boy army" song. Which unlike Spurs and Y*d Army, would not be offensive to anyone. As said, it's not homophobic, as many gay men don't like rent boys. In the same way as many straight men take a dim view of hookers.
Only a few are offended by the "Yid Army" chant, including David Baddiel who, surprise-surprise is a Chelsea fan. And we all know who's fans do the hissing noise. This question has been put to the local Jewish community who have said it's not offensive because its a defensive posture, There is no race-hate involved. This is in stark contrast to when opposing fans taunt Spurs fans with the word. Daniel Levy (A Jew himself) has also OK'd it as have the vast majority of Spurs fans. The Police also don't prosecute because they have been advised by the CPO that it is not a winnable case - and they arrested a few fans to test that and had to let them go.TaylotS2K said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TaylotS2K said:
'Rent boy' is a derogatory term aimed at people who aren't rent boys (well they might be, but doubt it).
We all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
Causing offence is not illegal. I can call a woman a wWe all know it's sung to be derogatory towards Chelsea fans.
You can call someone 'black' because they are. As soon as you put a negative connotation after it, it becomes offensive.
e because she is actually a we. Or I can call a woman a we to insult them. That may be offensive, and unpleasant, but it's not illegal or a hate crime, because being a prostitute is not a protected characteristic, in the way that race or sexuality is. "Liverpool FC condemns as 'inappropriate & offensive' the homophobic 'rentboys' chant in Sunday's game. Says it will ban those responsible for throwing a smoke bomb into the Chelsea section."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not in the least. In fact, we should embrace it and own it. We should have a "rent boy army" song. Which unlike Spurs and Y*d Army, would not be offensive to anyone. As said, it's not homophobic, as many gay men don't like rent boys. In the same way as many straight men take a dim view of hookers.
Only a few are offended by the "Yid Army" chant, including David Baddiel who, surprise-surprise is a Chelsea fan. And we all know who's fans do the hissing noise. This question has been put to the local Jewish community who have said it's not offensive because its a defensive posture, There is no race-hate involved. This is in stark contrast to when opposing fans taunt Spurs fans with the word. Daniel Levy (A Jew himself) has also OK'd it as have the vast majority of Spurs fans. The Police also don't prosecute because they have been advised by the CPO that it is not a winnable case - and they arrested a few fans to test that and had to let them go.This is also pertinent:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article...
'Metropolitan Police have reassured Tottenham they will NOT face prosecution over their own supporters use of the word 'Yid' in matchday chants.
The police have clarified their stance over whether the club's supporters could be investigated for making racial slurs given the anti-Semitic nature of the word 'Yid'.
Club supporters often sing songs featuring the expression, and on Thursday the club released a statement defending their fans right to use the expression.
And the Met have advised Tottenham chants such as 'Yid Army' will not lead to prosecution on the basis that it is used with no deliberate intention to cause offence'
A Tottenham club statement reads:
'The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting.
'Our guiding principle in respect of the "Y-word" is based on the point of law itself - the distinguishing factor is the intent with which it is used ie if it is used with the deliberate intention to cause offence.
'This has been the basis of prosecutions of fans of other teams to date. Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect anti-Semitic abuse. They do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it a chant amongst themselves.
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. TaylotS2K said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. ChocolateFrog said:
I would assume because it's clearly referring to someone's religion that yes that would be illegal.
Does your own religion have any bearing on the outcome? Are Jewish Chelsea fans shouting Yid and Chelsea Muslim fans shouting bomber safe from public prosecution and club punishment? ChocolateFrog said:
TaylotS2K said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. Lots of things are ignorant, crass, and downright ill informed stupidity without being illegal.
ChocolateFrog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. smn159 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LoonyTunes said:
'The club believes that real anti-semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.'
Can't argue with that. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just because you and Liverpool say it's homophobic doesn't make it true. I've given a legal argument at to why it wouldn't be prosecutable, because it isn't homophobic. I've not heard a legal argument to the contrary.
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/04/16/--chelsea-welcomes-liverpool-statement-on-incidents-at-anfield?cardIndex=0-1&fbclid=IwAR2pj8R1_3n_blXvpk7kRcQADNMU07b59JfVOGC5dkfSSVrUldqiM8-Uv4UFWIW Liverpool didn't say it was homophobic - they said it was "inappropriate and offensive"
and I agree
Chelsea chose to interpret it that way per the article, which is understandable given Liverpool's references to LGBT and inclusion
Edited by Adam B on Wednesday 17th April 15:27
Adam B said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just because you and Liverpool say it's homophobic doesn't make it true. I've given a legal argument at to why it wouldn't be prosecutable, because it isn't homophobic. I've not heard a legal argument to the contrary.
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/04/16/--chelsea-welcomes-liverpool-statement-on-incidents-at-anfield?cardIndex=0-1&fbclid=IwAR2pj8R1_3n_blXvpk7kRcQADNMU07b59JfVOGC5dkfSSVrUldqiM8-Uv4UFWIW Liverpool didn't say it was homophobic - they said it was "inappropriate and offensive"
and I agree
Chelsea chose to interpret it that way per the article, which is understandable given Liverpool's references to LGBT and inclusion
Edited by Adam B on Wednesday 17th April 15:27
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff