Why can´t you accept that what you feel may actually not be right, however strongly you feel it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept the N word coud be used in jest - I recall a gir on big brother saying it a few years ago. She was subsequently kicked out but if you saw it she wasn't saying it in a racist way and I wouldn't consider her racist. There are people out there who would play the racist card on that, I am not one of them and I think you have to be realistic. However, in the case of Suerez I'm sorry but I would call that racist. He persistently picked on a players colour and did it to wind him up. When there is aggression I feel that is racist. But like I say, you say those words and you run the risk of being casitgated and branded a racist.
Whole thing is of diddly squat importance.
But like I say, you say those words and you run the risk of being casitgated and branded a racist.
----------------------------
This is true, which is why I won't defend Terry if he is found guilty, even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
Guilty once of racial abuse in no way equates to person being a racist. Having racist tendencies, I can agree with even though I don't fully understand what that means. But Just because I have the tendency to become a killer doesn't mean I should be locked away.
even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this context I assume you mean, " I didn't call you a N Anton". In that context I agree. In the context of what the allegation is I disagree as my understanding is that he called him the N word.
I agree that being stupid enough to utter such runs you the risk of UNFAIRLY being branded a racist. As has been said numerous times, the context is yet to be revealed.
For all we know, Terry could have been saying 'Why on earth would I call him a f cking black c t?'
comment by carrickature (U12844) posted 16 seconds ago
even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this context I assume you mean, " I didn't call you a N Anton". In that context I agree. In the context of what the allegation is I disagree as my understanding is that he called him the N word.
-----------------------
I mean either context.
The allegations made against Suarez are that he continued his argument with Evra with an increased level of racially based provocation.
for example he is alleged to have said twice that "he does not speak to black men"
I feel that sort of alleged remark is far more racially motivated than an explosion of anger which leads to calling someone a BC.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
I feel that sort of alleged remark is far more racially motivated than an explosion of anger which leads to calling someone a BC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. However, and I'm not playing the race card here, but if someone calls you a N or BC once if you haven't experienced how that feels then I don't think you can sit on a moral highhorse and say it's not racist. You can have an opinion that it's not but I think that's wrong and we should live in a society where both terms are eradicated from the language. They are racist words by definition and if you say them then you must be preparared, rightly, to be called a racist.
I'll once again try to take off my blue tinted glasses and admit that I can sympathise with the FA over the position they found themselves in once the court case was adjourned to July.
In a sense the captaincy issue wasn't about Terry, it was about the other twenty odd players in the squad and whether the case hanging over the Captain would have any kind of detrimental effect on the camp.
It always seems that harmony in the England dressing room is generally in short supply, even at the best of times. We hear stories that the Chelsea players form one clique, the United players another, Liverpool's another etc. Add in a racial division between players and captain and you are left with a fairly toxic mix.
And I think whilst this story was perhaps slow to get going, due mainly to the Suarez incident taking the headlines, it does seem to have intensified lately. With cryptic twitter messages from Rio and column inches devoted to the thoughts of Ian Wright and others, the idea of Terry remaining as the figurehead for the team was becoming more and more difficult to justify.
And what would he and the team have faced if he remained as captain? A media frenzy every time he appeared in front of a microphone. Photographers, TV cameras, pundits and body language experts analysing every interaction between Terry and the black players in the team. Every inevitable poor display being blamed on the skipper and a whole series of 'I told you so' comments coming from so called experts in TV studios and newsrooms.
And so all in all I think the FA probably called this right, even if I think they way they achieved it is questionable. If only they can find a way of banning Gerrard, Lampard, Barry, Ferdinand and all the other tired old international has beens, then the England team might actually stand a chance of rising above mediocrity.
Well said Chelseanuts. Whilst I'm not the FA's biggest fan I think they had little choice. It could have been handled better though. Surely there was some chat with Terry before they took the captaincy offerring him the chance to stand down?
Surely there was some chat with Terry before they took the captaincy offering him the chance to stand down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would like to think so, but, knowing the FA, probably not. I also think it was poor for them not to include the manager in the decision process, even if their minds were already made up and they planned to simply out vote him.
As someone said the other day, could you imagine the Man Utd board doing that to Ferguson?
The FA did not call this right for the following reasons:
a) If Terry should be suspended the FA should have done it at the moment the CPS charged Terry and they should have suspended him from the team,not just as captain. They did neither of these things.
b) When the court case was set for July and the FA saw fit to review the Terry captaincy they should have involved Capello in the decision making process. The decision would have still been the same, but at least Capello would have had his chance to air his own views, which as team manager was his absolute right. It would have then been easier for him to accept the deicision.
c) Having made the decision to remove the armband from Terry they should have informed him in a face to face meeting,not via a phone call. The issue is complicated and having told a guy he was innocent till proven guilty, then having had a change of heart,the least the FA could have done was explain this to Terry in person.
Yes the FA were in a horrible position and yes they made a difficult decision under public scrutiny, but the way they made, implemented and communicated their decision was appalling and totally unprofessional.
This hasn't happened recently Omelette but I totally agree with every one of the points raised. We can agree to disagree on whether the captaincy should have been taken or not but as it has been taken the FA should have done all three of the things you have stated.
Well on this rare moment of agreement I am off to bed as I am knackered.
Good night!
I didn't mean it. Just said it to get rid of you.
Mourinho's Omelette
The FA did not call this right for the following reasons:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. I don't disagree with your comments as automatic suspension is common in most workplaces following allegations of this type. What I suppose we don't know is whether this was their first reaction but they were convinced to hold fire by the manager on the basis that it would be sorted before Euro 2012.
b. Totally agree and I alluded to this point in my reply to Carrickature.
c. Similar to your point a. again we do not know what happened behind the scenes. Did a representative of the FA meet with him to offer him the chance to voluntarily step down? Much as the FA have form when it comes to making duff decisions, you would think that some sort of effort would have been made to get Terry to step down of his own accord, as that would have been the best solution for both parties. If they did try to reason with JT and he point blank refused to relinquish the post, then he would have known the next step and a phone call to confirm it would have sufficed.
The trouble with asking Terry to step down is that it then looks as though the FA are trying to get the decision they want without having the guts to come out with it up front. As it is, they've decided what they want, they've taken the decision themselves, they've done it publicly, and they've taken responsibility for it. I think that's fair enough.
To me it's the right decision, although perhaps at the wrong time. It parallels the Huhne case. Once Huhne had been charged he resigned his post. Terry should have resigned, and if not then been sacked, once he had been charged. It's not a question of innocent until proved guilty. It's a question of holding a position of public responsibility, and stepping aside, for the public good, from the position until a verdict has been given.
Sign in if you want to comment
John Terry´s England career over!
Page 3 of 3
posted on 8/2/12
Why can´t you accept that what you feel may actually not be right, however strongly you feel it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept the N word coud be used in jest - I recall a gir on big brother saying it a few years ago. She was subsequently kicked out but if you saw it she wasn't saying it in a racist way and I wouldn't consider her racist. There are people out there who would play the racist card on that, I am not one of them and I think you have to be realistic. However, in the case of Suerez I'm sorry but I would call that racist. He persistently picked on a players colour and did it to wind him up. When there is aggression I feel that is racist. But like I say, you say those words and you run the risk of being casitgated and branded a racist.
posted on 8/2/12
Whole thing is of diddly squat importance.
posted on 8/2/12
But like I say, you say those words and you run the risk of being casitgated and branded a racist.
----------------------------
This is true, which is why I won't defend Terry if he is found guilty, even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
posted on 8/2/12
Guilty once of racial abuse in no way equates to person being a racist. Having racist tendencies, I can agree with even though I don't fully understand what that means. But Just because I have the tendency to become a killer doesn't mean I should be locked away.
posted on 8/2/12
even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this context I assume you mean, " I didn't call you a N Anton". In that context I agree. In the context of what the allegation is I disagree as my understanding is that he called him the N word.
posted on 8/2/12
I agree that being stupid enough to utter such runs you the risk of UNFAIRLY being branded a racist. As has been said numerous times, the context is yet to be revealed.
For all we know, Terry could have been saying 'Why on earth would I call him a f cking black c t?'
posted on 8/2/12
comment by carrickature (U12844) posted 16 seconds ago
even if I believe just saying the word in this context does not necessarily make him a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By this context I assume you mean, " I didn't call you a N Anton". In that context I agree. In the context of what the allegation is I disagree as my understanding is that he called him the N word.
-----------------------
I mean either context.
posted on 8/2/12
The allegations made against Suarez are that he continued his argument with Evra with an increased level of racially based provocation.
for example he is alleged to have said twice that "he does not speak to black men"
I feel that sort of alleged remark is far more racially motivated than an explosion of anger which leads to calling someone a BC.
posted on 8/2/12
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/2/12
I feel that sort of alleged remark is far more racially motivated than an explosion of anger which leads to calling someone a BC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. However, and I'm not playing the race card here, but if someone calls you a N or BC once if you haven't experienced how that feels then I don't think you can sit on a moral highhorse and say it's not racist. You can have an opinion that it's not but I think that's wrong and we should live in a society where both terms are eradicated from the language. They are racist words by definition and if you say them then you must be preparared, rightly, to be called a racist.
posted on 8/2/12
truth hurts
posted on 8/2/12
I'll once again try to take off my blue tinted glasses and admit that I can sympathise with the FA over the position they found themselves in once the court case was adjourned to July.
In a sense the captaincy issue wasn't about Terry, it was about the other twenty odd players in the squad and whether the case hanging over the Captain would have any kind of detrimental effect on the camp.
It always seems that harmony in the England dressing room is generally in short supply, even at the best of times. We hear stories that the Chelsea players form one clique, the United players another, Liverpool's another etc. Add in a racial division between players and captain and you are left with a fairly toxic mix.
And I think whilst this story was perhaps slow to get going, due mainly to the Suarez incident taking the headlines, it does seem to have intensified lately. With cryptic twitter messages from Rio and column inches devoted to the thoughts of Ian Wright and others, the idea of Terry remaining as the figurehead for the team was becoming more and more difficult to justify.
And what would he and the team have faced if he remained as captain? A media frenzy every time he appeared in front of a microphone. Photographers, TV cameras, pundits and body language experts analysing every interaction between Terry and the black players in the team. Every inevitable poor display being blamed on the skipper and a whole series of 'I told you so' comments coming from so called experts in TV studios and newsrooms.
And so all in all I think the FA probably called this right, even if I think they way they achieved it is questionable. If only they can find a way of banning Gerrard, Lampard, Barry, Ferdinand and all the other tired old international has beens, then the England team might actually stand a chance of rising above mediocrity.
posted on 8/2/12
Well said Chelseanuts. Whilst I'm not the FA's biggest fan I think they had little choice. It could have been handled better though. Surely there was some chat with Terry before they took the captaincy offerring him the chance to stand down?
posted on 8/2/12
Surely there was some chat with Terry before they took the captaincy offering him the chance to stand down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I would like to think so, but, knowing the FA, probably not. I also think it was poor for them not to include the manager in the decision process, even if their minds were already made up and they planned to simply out vote him.
As someone said the other day, could you imagine the Man Utd board doing that to Ferguson?
posted on 8/2/12
The FA did not call this right for the following reasons:
a) If Terry should be suspended the FA should have done it at the moment the CPS charged Terry and they should have suspended him from the team,not just as captain. They did neither of these things.
b) When the court case was set for July and the FA saw fit to review the Terry captaincy they should have involved Capello in the decision making process. The decision would have still been the same, but at least Capello would have had his chance to air his own views, which as team manager was his absolute right. It would have then been easier for him to accept the deicision.
c) Having made the decision to remove the armband from Terry they should have informed him in a face to face meeting,not via a phone call. The issue is complicated and having told a guy he was innocent till proven guilty, then having had a change of heart,the least the FA could have done was explain this to Terry in person.
Yes the FA were in a horrible position and yes they made a difficult decision under public scrutiny, but the way they made, implemented and communicated their decision was appalling and totally unprofessional.
posted on 8/2/12
This hasn't happened recently Omelette but I totally agree with every one of the points raised. We can agree to disagree on whether the captaincy should have been taken or not but as it has been taken the FA should have done all three of the things you have stated.
posted on 8/2/12
Well on this rare moment of agreement I am off to bed as I am knackered.
Good night!
posted on 8/2/12
I didn't mean it. Just said it to get rid of you.
posted on 8/2/12
Mourinho's Omelette
The FA did not call this right for the following reasons:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. I don't disagree with your comments as automatic suspension is common in most workplaces following allegations of this type. What I suppose we don't know is whether this was their first reaction but they were convinced to hold fire by the manager on the basis that it would be sorted before Euro 2012.
b. Totally agree and I alluded to this point in my reply to Carrickature.
c. Similar to your point a. again we do not know what happened behind the scenes. Did a representative of the FA meet with him to offer him the chance to voluntarily step down? Much as the FA have form when it comes to making duff decisions, you would think that some sort of effort would have been made to get Terry to step down of his own accord, as that would have been the best solution for both parties. If they did try to reason with JT and he point blank refused to relinquish the post, then he would have known the next step and a phone call to confirm it would have sufficed.
posted on 9/2/12
The trouble with asking Terry to step down is that it then looks as though the FA are trying to get the decision they want without having the guts to come out with it up front. As it is, they've decided what they want, they've taken the decision themselves, they've done it publicly, and they've taken responsibility for it. I think that's fair enough.
To me it's the right decision, although perhaps at the wrong time. It parallels the Huhne case. Once Huhne had been charged he resigned his post. Terry should have resigned, and if not then been sacked, once he had been charged. It's not a question of innocent until proved guilty. It's a question of holding a position of public responsibility, and stepping aside, for the public good, from the position until a verdict has been given.
Page 3 of 3