Ian Wright says criticism of Raheem Sterling is racist

[Alpinestars]

Melchett1905 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.

I'm loving the hypocrisy from Alpinestars. LOL.

What hypocrisy would that be?

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

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.

I know what was said in court. You don't believe the court's ruling was correct , that's fine. But don't go stating for a fact he 'called' Ferdinand those words when the courts found he didn't.

Read what I’ve written.

You mean this bit ?

Abuse because he chose to call someone a fking black on the pitch? But good choice of “role model” who’s obviously victimised.

As I said , he didn’t ‘call’ him anything. He said those words in the context of questioning him. That’s a completely different use of the words and should invoke a different response.

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

You mean this bit ?

Abuse because he chose to call someone a fking black on the pitch? But good choice of “role model” who’s obviously victimised.

As I said , he didn’t ‘call’ him anything. He said those words in the context of questioning him. That’s a completely different use of the words and should invoke a different response.

Ah I see. And you know that how?


What the court decided is that a not guilty verdict had to be reached given the lack of evidence as there was no one who heard the words, so couldn’t put context around them - not that they believed the context. Note the big difference.

The Chief Magistrate - “The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong”.

"It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.”

"In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

That doesn’t mean a) he’s not racist or b) he didn’t use racist language.

You’ll also note that nowhere have I said the court’s ruling was wrong.

[Davos123]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Lewis Hamilton and Raheem Stirling v Anthony Joshua and N'Golo Kante. 4 young, rich, successful black men, 2 or whom are unpopular and 2 that are liked.

Yes, it's precisely because of racism that the latter two are held up and the former given st. Black men are allowed to be public figures if they act in a certain way but if they behave precisely the same as the vast majority of white sports stars, they get st for it whilst white people don't. Anthony Joshua not trash talking his opponents is newsworthy because he's black and his behaviour surprises racists.

[Davos123]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It was established that he never "called" Anton those words, he asked if Anton was accusing him of using those words.

This was absolutely not established, quit your bullst. It was used as a defence and provided reasonable doubt - that does not mean it was 'established'.

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

You mean this bit ?

Abuse because he chose to call someone a fking black on the pitch? But good choice of “role model” who’s obviously victimised.

As I said , he didn’t ‘call’ him anything. He said those words in the context of questioning him. That’s a completely different use of the words and should invoke a different response.

Ah I see. And you know that how?


What the court decided is that a not guilty verdict had to be reached given the lack of evidence as there was no one who heard the words, so couldn’t put context around them - not that they believed the context. Note the big difference.

The Chief Magistrate - “The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong”.

"It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.”

"In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

That doesn’t mean a) he’s not racist or b) he didn’t use racist language.

You’ll also note that nowhere have I said the court’s ruling was wrong.

No, but you are clearly implying you believe he was racist. Again , let me repeat this , you stated as fact that he called him with a racial slur ( it’s there in bold for you) Terry argued he was questioning , not calling. You’ve made it patently clear you think he is racist and your view is that the decision made at the end of a trial and after days of evidence was wrong.

Any one can see that.

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

No, but you are clearly implying you believe he was racist. Again , let me repeat this , you stated as fact that he called him with a racial slur ( it’s there in bold for you) Terry argued he was questioning , not calling. You’ve made it patently clear you think he is racist and your view is that the decision made at the end of a trial and after days of evidence was wrong.

Any one can see that.

You’re now scrambling around. Like Terry was.

And like the latest fan is.

[wjb]

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

No, but you are clearly implying you believe he was racist. Again , let me repeat this , you stated as fact that he called him with a racial slur ( it’s there in bold for you) Terry argued he was questioning , not calling. You’ve made it patently clear you think he is racist and your view is that the decision made at the end of a trial and after days of evidence was wrong.

Any one can see that.

You’re now scrambling around. Like Terry was.

And like the latest fan is.

Don’t go comparing me to a racist fkwit.

As far as scrambling around I’ve quoted what you said. It’s you doing that.

[Alpinestars]

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

I’ve read the court transcript again today and see no reference to Terry saying that. Do you have a link or are you , again, just making stuff up to suit your narrative?

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

I’ve read the court transcript again today and see no reference to Terry saying that. Do you have a link or are you , again, just making stuff up to suit your narrative?

Saying what?

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

I’ve read the court transcript again today and see no reference to Terry saying that. Do you have a link or are you , again, just making stuff up to suit your narrative?

Saying what?

Suggesting Terry claimed racism was not illegal. You do know wjb was referring to Terry in his post right ?

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

I’ve read the court transcript again today and see no reference to Terry saying that. Do you have a link or are you , again, just making stuff up to suit your narrative?

Saying what?

Suggesting Terry claimed racism was not illegal. You do know wjb was referring to Terry in his post right ?

Jesus, you really are struggling with the language. Where did I suggest Terry said that?

And can you post a link to the transcript please.

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Alpinestars said:

wjb said:

Getting a bit np&e in here.

Imagine being at work tomorrow and someone accusing you of calling them a racist/sexist or homophobic name.

Would you, immediately...

A) repeat what they accused you of saying back to them.

Or

B) say "I never called you that"

A).

And also state that racism is not illegal.

Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 11th December 19:37

I’ve read the court transcript again today and see no reference to Terry saying that. Do you have a link or are you , again, just making stuff up to suit your narrative?

Saying what?

Suggesting Terry claimed racism was not illegal. You do know wjb was referring to Terry in his post right ?

Jesus, you really are struggling with the language. Where did I suggest Terry said that?

Now you are embarrassing yourself. Read what wjb said. He was referring to Terry ( that is plainly obvious to anyone with a simple understanding of reading English) . You then replied and added your own A. Now, bearing in mind the original reference is to Terry then your addition, by implication, refers to him too.

Why is that so hard to understand ?

Edit: if you are not referring to Terry then wtf are you on about ?

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

Now you are embarrassing yourself. Read what wjb said. He was referring to Terry ( that is plainly obvious to anyone with a simple understanding of reading English) . You then replied and added your own A. Now, bearing in mind the original reference is to Terry then your addition, by implication, refers to him too.

Why is that so hard to understand ?

Edit: if you are not referring to Terry then wtf are you on about ?

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. Where’s the link?

Re my statement and response, the clue is in the post I responded to. No mention of Terry, and I responded to the bit that starts with “imagine.....”

Wtf am I on about? A statement made by the racist fan. Who isn’t racist of course because he said Manc , not black .

You’re getting a bit riled and defensive about Terry. Take a deep breath. Or two.

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Now you are embarrassing yourself. Read what wjb said. He was referring to Terry ( that is plainly obvious to anyone with a simple understanding of reading English) . You then replied and added your own A. Now, bearing in mind the original reference is to Terry then your addition, by implication, refers to him too.

Why is that so hard to understand ?

Edit: if you are not referring to Terry then wtf are you on about ?

No, you’ve embarrassed yourself. Where’s the link?

Re my statement and response, the clue is in the post I responded to. No mention of Terry, and I responded to the bit that starts with “imagine.....”

Wtf am I on about? A statement made by the racist fan. Who isn’t racist of course because he said Manc , not black .

You’re getting a bit riled and defensive about Terry. Take a deep breath. Or two.

Christ almighty. He didn’t have to mention Terry, it was obvious who he (wjb) was referring to.
Read it again or get an adult to then they will explain why , bearing in mind A refers to what Terry did, it refers to him

The stupid is strong with you tonight ! As far as a link - do your own research like I did. It’s easy to find.

Btw - I’d like to think it’s slowly dawning on you who wjb was referring to but, with you, I’m not sure

Edited by jcremonini on Tuesday 11th December 20:28

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

Christ almighty. He didn’t have to mention Terry, it was obvious who he (wjb) was referring too.
Read it again or get an adult to then they will explain why , bearing in mind A refers to what Terry did, it refers to him

The stupid is strong with you tonight ! As far as a link - do your own research like I did. It’s easy to find.

Btw - I’d like to think it’s slowly dawning on you who wjb was referring to but, with you, I’m not sure

Edited by jcremonini on Tuesday 11th December 20:25

Yes he was referring to the JT incident - very obviously. But didn’t refer to him, and put forward a “what if” scenario relating to a guy down the pub, at work, on the train etc. At no point did I say Terry said what you thought I had attributed to him. You clearly keep struggling with the language.

Now, that transcript please. Or did you make it up?

And please don’t try to take the sapiential high ground.

[jcremonini]

Alpinestars said:

jcremonini said:

Christ almighty. He didn’t have to mention Terry, it was obvious who he (wjb) was referring too.
Read it again or get an adult to then they will explain why , bearing in mind A refers to what Terry did, it refers to him

The stupid is strong with you tonight ! As far as a link - do your own research like I did. It’s easy to find.

Btw - I’d like to think it’s slowly dawning on you who wjb was referring to but, with you, I’m not sure

Edited by jcremonini on Tuesday 11th December 20:25

Yes he was referring to the JT incident - very obviously. But didn’t refer to him, and put forward a “what if” scenario relating to a guy down the pub, at work, on the train etc. At no point did I say Terry said what you thought I had attributed to him. You clearly keep struggling with the language.

Now, that transcript please. Or did you make it up?

And please don’t try to take the sapiential high ground.

I’m struggling with the language ? Lol - I’ll let the casual observer decide on which of us is doing that. He was not referring to a guy down the pub- he stated workplace because that is where the incident occurred ( at Terry’s place of work ). Read it again, slowly - do you see now ?

Again, do your own research. Try google as a start and you’ll see exactly what was said.

[Alpinestars]

jcremonini said:

I’m struggling with the language ? Lol - I’ll let the casual observer decide on which of us is doing that. He was not referring to a guy down the pub- he stated workplace because that is where the incident occurred ( at Terry’s place of work ). Read it again, slowly - do you see now ?

Again, do your own research. Try google as a start and you’ll see exactly what was said.

Link to the transcript please.