Ian Wright says criticism of Raheem Sterling is racist
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
Melchett1905 said:
This is the equivalent of "you're white so can't possibly comment on racism?"
I'm just questioning whether it is an agenda in the media against black players, or just the individuals involved. I mean, look at Jadon Sancho, he's getting all sorts of positive press at the moment. If he's caught doing laughing gas as Raheem was, I'm sure he'll be in for some stick too. Just as Jack Grealish, who is white did when he was caught too.
By finding examples of black people who aren’t publicly subject to racism, doesn’t mean other black players are not subject to racism. There’s a logic fail. I'm just questioning whether it is an agenda in the media against black players, or just the individuals involved. I mean, look at Jadon Sancho, he's getting all sorts of positive press at the moment. If he's caught doing laughing gas as Raheem was, I'm sure he'll be in for some stick too. Just as Jack Grealish, who is white did when he was caught too.
Perhaps think of it as those that are the easiest targets are targeted - because not many want to be seen as overly racist in public.
I'm saying when you take like for like incidence that have been reported by the press for a similar thing which I've exampled. Obviously if Rooney comes in for a load of stick/abuse (which he has) it can't be racism. But when a black player comes in for similar stick/abuse it can be. So it's hard to know where and when the line is drawn.
Obviously I'm not talking about idiotic fans who clearly racially abuse players.
Alpinestars said:
Why did you pick Terry out as well? Why not any other white player? That’s says more about you than me I’m afraid.
Well pretty obvious really. He's a good example of a white player who got dog's abuse off the press and opposing fans. Find any tv clip of Terry falling on a hoarding by opposing fans., and you'll see the same kind of faces gesturing and contorted with rage.
If Stirling received racial abuse, then that's not on. If he didn't, and he just got general abuse, then he was treated much the same as many unpopular players by opposing fans. None of those fans knew Terry or Stirling, they'd just formed an opinion based on news coverage.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well pretty obvious really. He's a good example of a white player who got dog's abuse off the press and opposing fans.
Find any tv clip of Terry falling on a hoarding by opposing fans., and you'll see the same kind of faces gesturing and contorted with rage.
If Stirling received racial abuse, then that's not on. If he didn't, and he just got general abuse, then he was treated much the same as many unpopular players by opposing fans. None of those fans knew Terry or Stirling, they'd just formed an opinion based on news coverage.
Abuse because he chose to call someone a fFind any tv clip of Terry falling on a hoarding by opposing fans., and you'll see the same kind of faces gesturing and contorted with rage.
If Stirling received racial abuse, then that's not on. If he didn't, and he just got general abuse, then he was treated much the same as many unpopular players by opposing fans. None of those fans knew Terry or Stirling, they'd just formed an opinion based on news coverage.
king black on the pitch? But good choice of “role model” who’s obviously victimised. Alpinestars said:
Abuse because he chose to call someone a fking black on the pitch?
He was actually found not guilty of that in a court of law. It was established that he never "called" Anton those words, he asked if Anton was accusing him of using those words. But you're not bothered about that, because of the press reports. Which is fine, that's your prerogative.king black on the pitch? Context is key, you've just used those words on a website, but that doesn't make you a racist I assume.
Alpinestars said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well pretty obvious really. He's a good example of a white player who got dog's abuse off the press and opposing fans.
Find any tv clip of Terry falling on a hoarding by opposing fans., and you'll see the same kind of faces gesturing and contorted with rage.
If Stirling received racial abuse, then that's not on. If he didn't, and he just got general abuse, then he was treated much the same as many unpopular players by opposing fans. None of those fans knew Terry or Stirling, they'd just formed an opinion based on news coverage.
Abuse because he chose to call someone a fFind any tv clip of Terry falling on a hoarding by opposing fans., and you'll see the same kind of faces gesturing and contorted with rage.
If Stirling received racial abuse, then that's not on. If he didn't, and he just got general abuse, then he was treated much the same as many unpopular players by opposing fans. None of those fans knew Terry or Stirling, they'd just formed an opinion based on news coverage.
king black on the pitch? But good choice of “role model” who’s obviously victimised. Anyway - let's not get carried away and start using whataboutisms. The simple fact is that anyone using racist language should not be allowed near a football ground and anyone who feels the need to vent their spleen in the face of an opposing player, based purely on the fact they are opposition , needs to have a long hard look at themselves. It doesn't happen in other sports so it shouldn't happen in this one (and I don't care about all this 'working class roots' nonsense, it's 2018)
jcremonini said:
Did he ? The court of law in this country found him not guilty. As a result of that not guilty verdict Rio Ferdinand, by proxy, used a racial slight against Ashley Cole.
Anyway - let's not get carried away and start using whataboutisms. The simple fact is that anyone using racist language should not be allowed near a football ground and anyone who feels the need to vent their spleen in the face of an opposing player, based purely on the fact they are opposition , needs to have a long hard look at themselves. It doesn't happen in other sports so it shouldn't happen in this one (and I don't care about all this 'working class roots' nonsense, it's 2018)
The court of law has a different bar. Including intent. Anyway - let's not get carried away and start using whataboutisms. The simple fact is that anyone using racist language should not be allowed near a football ground and anyone who feels the need to vent their spleen in the face of an opposing player, based purely on the fact they are opposition , needs to have a long hard look at themselves. It doesn't happen in other sports so it shouldn't happen in this one (and I don't care about all this 'working class roots' nonsense, it's 2018)
He said there was no intent and what he said was said in sarcasm, but admitted using the words. If anyone thinks they can justify his words, I’m all ears.
You’ll also note the FA found him guilty (without the intent bar).
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He was actually found not guilty of that in a court of law. It was established that he never "called" Anton those words, he asked if Anton was accusing him of using those words. But you're not bothered about that, because of the press reports. Which is fine, that's your prerogative.
Context is key, you've just used those words on a website, but that doesn't make you a racist I assume.
He admitted using the words in court. Context is key, you've just used those words on a website, but that doesn't make you a racist I assume.
Alpinestars said:
jcremonini said:
Did he ? The court of law in this country found him not guilty. As a result of that not guilty verdict Rio Ferdinand, by proxy, used a racial slight against Ashley Cole.
Anyway - let's not get carried away and start using whataboutisms. The simple fact is that anyone using racist language should not be allowed near a football ground and anyone who feels the need to vent their spleen in the face of an opposing player, based purely on the fact they are opposition , needs to have a long hard look at themselves. It doesn't happen in other sports so it shouldn't happen in this one (and I don't care about all this 'working class roots' nonsense, it's 2018)
The court of law has a different bar. Including intent. Anyway - let's not get carried away and start using whataboutisms. The simple fact is that anyone using racist language should not be allowed near a football ground and anyone who feels the need to vent their spleen in the face of an opposing player, based purely on the fact they are opposition , needs to have a long hard look at themselves. It doesn't happen in other sports so it shouldn't happen in this one (and I don't care about all this 'working class roots' nonsense, it's 2018)
He said there was no intent and what he said was said in sarcasm, but admitted using the words. If anyone thinks they can justify his words, I’m all ears.
You’ll also note the FA found him guilty (without the intent bar).
But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
Alpinestars said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He was actually found not guilty of that in a court of law. It was established that he never "called" Anton those words, he asked if Anton was accusing him of using those words. But you're not bothered about that, because of the press reports. Which is fine, that's your prerogative.
Context is key, you've just used those words on a website, but that doesn't make you a racist I assume.
He admitted using the words in court. Context is key, you've just used those words on a website, but that doesn't make you a racist I assume.
But it's largely unimportant, as people are entitled to believe what they want. I know many people don't believe Stirling's justification for his gun tattoo. They think he made that up after the event. Again, people will believe whatever they choose to.
Lots of people don't like footballers at all, black or white, because they are generally working class, uneducated, and rich, and that annoys people who are middle class, educated and not anywhere near as rich.
jcremonini said:
Yes, and the context in which he used the words (ie asking Ferdinand if he believed he called him those words) meant that the use of the words was not considered racism. A fact which is lost on you as you've taken those words out of the context which Terry defended himself with and stated he 'called' him those words when the court found that he used the words in the way I described.
But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
The prosecution couldn’t prove he used the words with intent - that’s what’s required in law. It doesn’t mean he didn’t use the words or he didn’t use them (which he admits) with inten. Read what was said in court. You may believe that he used those words sarcastically. I don’t. But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He admitted using the words when asking Anton if that's what he was accused of? As said, you've just used the words. It's all about context. The FA found him guilty of using the words, but not of calling Anton those words.
But it's largely unimportant, as people are entitled to believe what they want. I know many people don't believe Stirling's justification for his gun tattoo. They think he made that up after the event. Again, people will believe whatever they choose to.
Lots of people don't like footballers at all, black or white, because they are generally working class, uneducated, and rich, and that annoys people who are middle class, educated and not anywhere near as rich.
The problem with your comparison is that it’s pretty easy to see Terry saying those words and admitting to using them (there’s a video so it’s hard to deny using the words). What you know about Sterling is what you take in from the press. He’s not done anything to justify his treatment that you have seen with your own eyes. Or have you?But it's largely unimportant, as people are entitled to believe what they want. I know many people don't believe Stirling's justification for his gun tattoo. They think he made that up after the event. Again, people will believe whatever they choose to.
Lots of people don't like footballers at all, black or white, because they are generally working class, uneducated, and rich, and that annoys people who are middle class, educated and not anywhere near as rich.
Alpinestars said:
jcremonini said:
Yes, and the context in which he used the words (ie asking Ferdinand if he believed he called him those words) meant that the use of the words was not considered racism. A fact which is lost on you as you've taken those words out of the context which Terry defended himself with and stated he 'called' him those words when the court found that he used the words in the way I described.
But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
The prosecution couldn’t prove he used the words with intent - that’s what’s required in law. It doesn’t mean he didn’t use the words or he didn’t use them (which he admits) with inten. Read what was said in court. You may believe that he used those words sarcastically. I don’t. But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
Alpinestars said:
jcremonini said:
Yes, and the context in which he used the words (ie asking Ferdinand if he believed he called him those words) meant that the use of the words was not considered racism. A fact which is lost on you as you've taken those words out of the context which Terry defended himself with and stated he 'called' him those words when the court found that he used the words in the way I described.
But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
The prosecution couldn’t prove he used the words with intent - that’s what’s required in law. It doesn’t mean he didn’t use the words or he didn’t use them (which he admits) with inten. Read what was said in court. You may believe that he used those words sarcastically. I don’t. But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
Alpinestars said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He admitted using the words when asking Anton if that's what he was accused of? As said, you've just used the words. It's all about context. The FA found him guilty of using the words, but not of calling Anton those words.
But it's largely unimportant, as people are entitled to believe what they want. I know many people don't believe Stirling's justification for his gun tattoo. They think he made that up after the event. Again, people will believe whatever they choose to.
Lots of people don't like footballers at all, black or white, because they are generally working class, uneducated, and rich, and that annoys people who are middle class, educated and not anywhere near as rich.
The problem with your comparison is that it’s pretty easy to see Terry saying those words and admitting to using them (there’s a video so it’s hard to deny using the words). What you know about Sterling is what you take in from the press. He’s not done anything to justify his treatment that you have seen with your own eyes. Or have you?But it's largely unimportant, as people are entitled to believe what they want. I know many people don't believe Stirling's justification for his gun tattoo. They think he made that up after the event. Again, people will believe whatever they choose to.
Lots of people don't like footballers at all, black or white, because they are generally working class, uneducated, and rich, and that annoys people who are middle class, educated and not anywhere near as rich.
As it happens, I've got nothing against Stirling. The only thing he's ever done to really annoy me was his lack of finishing skills in the WC, and then immediately scoring wonder goals for City upon his return. But since then he played great for England in Spain so he's on his was to redeeming himself.
E24man said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45177178
Really?
You now can't criticise Sterlings inability to cross a ball and worsening efforts to pass a man because it is 'racist'?
Let's not forget Ian Wright works for the BBC. The BBC who re-employed Trevor Sinclair as he was found guilty of racism towards a police officer. If he's annoyed that much about the treatment of Sterling by the media, I'm sure he'll be calling for the BBC to rip up Sinclair's contract......Really?
You now can't criticise Sterlings inability to cross a ball and worsening efforts to pass a man because it is 'racist'?
wjb said:
Well it's clear, racism doesn't exist, sterling has got it all wrong and JT was being sarcastic.
End thread.
Where has anyone said racism does not exist or that Sterling has got anything wrong ? End thread.
As far as JT being sarcastic is concerned - we've covered that and the fact is, regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks, a court found him not guilty of racist abuse.
jcremonini said:
Alpinestars said:
jcremonini said:
Yes, and the context in which he used the words (ie asking Ferdinand if he believed he called him those words) meant that the use of the words was not considered racism. A fact which is lost on you as you've taken those words out of the context which Terry defended himself with and stated he 'called' him those words when the court found that he used the words in the way I described.
But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
The prosecution couldn’t prove he used the words with intent - that’s what’s required in law. It doesn’t mean he didn’t use the words or he didn’t use them (which he admits) with inten. Read what was said in court. You may believe that he used those words sarcastically. I don’t. But you seem to know better. Ask yourself why that is. My money is on the reason for you forming that opinion of him, in this case, is due to what you read in the press compounded by the fact he doesn't play for the team you support.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff