Ian Wright says criticism of Raheem Sterling is racist

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Alpinestars said:

TaylotS2K said:

TaylotS2K said:

Thought I'd revisit this as there was insufficient evidence to charge Chelsea fan Colin Wing.


"Having carefully reviewed the evidence, including advice from a lip reading expert, we have found insufficient evidence to prove that the words used by one of the individuals were racially aggravated."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/8950365/chelsea-fan...

No comment from Alpinestars and the others who had Mr Wing guilty........

Hope you’ve read what the club has done and the evidence used.

Yes, civil standard, balance of probabilities. No complaints from me though, club has done the right thing.

As an aside, I see Man U did finish top of the league.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/17/m...

[Alpinestars]

Dblue said:

I have, have you?
The evidence is no different to the CPS case, just as doubtful, the club is vague in its statement but the obvious difference between the 2 outcomes is that the club does not require to actually prove a case to the same standard.
I think the whole incident was unsavoury , the pictures look awful but I don't think the racist aspect is any more proven than before. Mr Wing is unlikely to have the resources to fight the decision and the club has undoubtedly played the correct PR card.

You understand how criminal courts work right? The bar to convict is much higher - the benefit of the doubt is with the defendant. Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It’s really that simple. The club believes he did, they don’t have to give him the benefit of the doubt and “be sure”.

As an example of the differences, under the POA, he had to have intended, or it was likely, that his words would stir up racial hatred. Calling Sterling a black initself is not enough to get a conviction. And I assume you agree that if he used those words, which the club presumably think he did via the two lip readers, he’s a racist?

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 30th July 23:06

[Davos123]

Alpinestars said:

You understand how criminal courts work right? The bar to convict is much higher - the benefit of the doubt is with the defendant. Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It’s really that simple. The club believes he did, they don’t have to give him the benefit of the doubt and “be sure”.

And similarly, you understand how civil cases work, right? The bar to convict is much lower - just because he was found guilty, doesn't mean he did it.

[Alpinestars]

Davos123 said:

Alpinestars said:

You understand how criminal courts work right? The bar to convict is much higher - the benefit of the doubt is with the defendant. Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It’s really that simple. The club believes he did, they don’t have to give him the benefit of the doubt and “be sure”.

And similarly, you understand how civil cases work, right? The bar to convict is much lower - just because he was found guilty, doesn't mean he did it.

Re read the above. Different bars and tests. Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist. That would not be enough in a criminal trial.

[Alpinestars]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, civil standard, balance of probabilities. No complaints from me though, club has done the right thing.

As an aside, I see Man U did finish top of the league.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/17/m...

Can’t see anyone supporting the behaviour of our fans. Can you?

What are the stats per capita?

[KJR]

Alpinestars said:

Re read the above. Different bars and tests. Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist. That would not be enough in a criminal trial.

Lip readers are now the arbitraries of what is racist - who knew?

[McGee_22]

KJR said:

Alpinestars said:

Re read the above. Different bars and tests. Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist. That would not be enough in a criminal trial.

Lip readers are now the arbitraries of what is racist - who knew?

That's completely misleading and disingenuous; the lip readers just gave their opinion on what was said - the Court decided it was racist.

[Alpinestars]

KJR said:

Alpinestars said:

Re read the above. Different bars and tests. Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist. That would not be enough in a criminal trial.

Lip readers are now the arbitraries of what is racist - who knew?

Did you miss the point?

Criminal;
Different test, eg, including intention (or likelihood).
Different bar, ie, “sure”

Civil;
No intent required. The words are enough.
No need to be “sure”

As an EXAMPLE, if he’s called RS a black , that’s not initself enough for criminal conviction. But it would be enough for civil purposes.

Did he call him a black ?, Chelsea will have looked at the evidence, and we know from reports that PART of that was using the evidence of 2 lip readers, note that Mr Wing could probably have been able to use an expert to prove his case as well. They thought the language was racist - ie, presumably Wing said black , and not what his defence was, Manc .

Do you think calling someone a black is racist?

[KJR]

Alpinestars said:

Did you miss the point?

Criminal;
Different test, eg, including intention (or likelihood).
Different bar, ie, “sure”

Civil;
No intent required. The words are enough.
No need to be “sure”

As an EXAMPLE, if he’s called RS a black , that’s not initself enough for criminal conviction. But it would be enough for civil purposes.

Did he call him a black ?, Chelsea will have looked at the evidence, and we know from reports that PART of that was using the evidence of 2 lip readers, note that Mr Wing could probably have been able to use an expert to prove his case as well. They thought the language was racist - ie, presumably Wing said black , and not what his defence was, Manc .

Do you think calling someone a black is racist?

I commented on the words you wrote "Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist."

Whether in a civil or criminal case the opinions of the lip readers as to whether the words he used were racist is neither here no there. The lip readers were there to agree on the word he used, nothing else.

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 15:52

[Alpinestars]

KJR said:

I commented on the words you wrote "Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist."

Whether in a civil or criminal case the opinions of the lip readers as to whether the words he used were racist is neither here no there. The lip readers were there to agree on the word he used, nothing else.

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 15:52

And? Your point?

If the point is, are they the arbiters? No. They provide their expert view. Presumably along with other evidence, Chelsea FC make the decision. BUT, their view that he used racist language is an important piece of evidence. What’s your issue with that?

[KJR]

Alpinestars said:

And? Your point?

If the point is, are they the arbiters? No. They provide their expert view. Presumably along with other evidence, Chelsea FC make the decision. BUT, their view that he used racist language is an important piece of evidence. What’s your issue with that?

"They provide their expert view" - to provide their expert view they would sit down and watch a video of the man making his comments and write down the words they thought he said. This would be passed to the court/hearing. Their expert view would not include them adding "I think this is really, really, really racist".

"BUT, their view that he used racist language is an important piece of evidence." As lip reading experts their view as to whether the language used is racist is of no importance and it is unlikely that they expressed such a view. You on the other hand said they did - "Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist."

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 16:36

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 16:47

[Alpinestars]

KJR said:

Alpinestars said:

And? Your point?

If the point is, are they the arbiters? No. They provide their expert view. Presumably along with other evidence, Chelsea FC make the decision. BUT, their view that he used racist language is an important piece of evidence. What’s your issue with that?

"They provide their expert view" - to provide their expert view they would sit down and watch a video of the man making his comments and write down the words they thought he said. This would be passed to the court/hearing. Their expert view would not include them adding "I think this is really, really, really racist".

"BUT, their view that he used racist language is an important piece of evidence." As lip reading experts their view as to whether the language used is racist is of no importance and it is unlikely that they expressed such a view. You on the other hand said they did - "Two lip readers agree the words he used were racist."

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 16:36

Edited by KJR on Wednesday 31st July 16:47

Jesus wept. It was a quote from the article. Hence the use of “. And “.

[Adam B]

Well done Chelsea FC.

Shame about the fans who continue to defend the culprit

[Alpinestars]

Adam B said:

Well done Chelsea FC.

Shame about the fans who continue to defend the culprit

But United.

But not guilty in court.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Alpinestars said:

Chelsea has always been the worst place to go and watch football in London. Attracts more than its fair share of scum fans.

I thought it was worth raising the United arrest stat, given you'd posted this.

[Alpinestars]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Alpinestars said:

Chelsea has always been the worst place to go and watch football in London. Attracts more than its fair share of scum fans.

I thought it was worth raising the United arrest stat, given you'd posted this.

No, it really wasn’t.

[Dblue]

Alpinestars said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Alpinestars said:

Chelsea has always been the worst place to go and watch football in London. Attracts more than its fair share of scum fans.

I thought it was worth raising the United arrest stat, given you'd posted this.

No, it really wasn’t.

oh i don't know, I was quite illuminating I thought.

As said a few times, all clubs have morons in their fan base, I really don't think Chelsea are different to other clubs in general and London in particular.

[Alpinestars]

Dblue said:

oh i don't know, I was quite illuminating I thought.

As said a few times, all clubs have morons in their fan base, I really don't think Chelsea are different to other clubs in general and London in particular.

Deflection. It’s not about Chelsea. It’s about Mr Wing.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Alpinestars said:

Dblue said:

oh i don't know, I was quite illuminating I thought.

As said a few times, all clubs have morons in their fan base, I really don't think Chelsea are different to other clubs in general and London in particular.

Deflection. It’s not about Chelsea. It’s about Mr Wing.

Wow, you've changed your tune.

[Alpinestars]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Alpinestars said:

Dblue said:

oh i don't know, I was quite illuminating I thought.

As said a few times, all clubs have morons in their fan base, I really don't think Chelsea are different to other clubs in general and London in particular.

Deflection. It’s not about Chelsea. It’s about Mr Wing.

Wow, you've changed your tune.

This particular incident is about Chelsea fan(s) being racist. It’s really not difficult. You deflecting to other clubs is poor.

Not sure why you feel the need to deflect.