The Gooner Forum

augie wrote:

1989 wrote:Apparently the maximum punishment will be a £2500 fine, in the event the chav is found guilty.

Outrageous.

This is the crucial part - if you or me said when he did at a match then we would be banned from all football grounds for 3 years but this c**t will only get a fine ?? Wtf is a £2.5k fine to someone who earns more than that in an hour ? Why the fcuk don't they ban the c**t from all football grounds like they do with fans ? Is it the fa or law courts that hand out the 3 year bans ? Either way, there is no fcuking way in the world I would accept a 3 year ban if all that chav c**t gets is a fine

That's actually a great point, any fan found guilty of racist abuse would be banned for ages but when a supposed role model does it he won't suffer anything like the same treatment.

sorry but its all a load of crap. this is just a pointless show trial that will cost tens thousands and acheive nothing

Just heard that Ferdinand's mother turned up with the mother of Stephen Lawrence at the start of the trial. Absolutely ridiculous.

northbank123 wrote:Just heard that Ferdinand's mother turned up with the mother of Stephen Lawrence at the start of the trial. Absolutely ridiculous.

Get Rev. Jessie Jackson there too.

'I'm not a racist... I support charities in Africa':

I'm actually embarrassed for him

rodders999 wrote:'I'm not a racist... I support charities in Africa':

I'm actually embarrassed for him

One step from "I'm not a racist... I have black friends".

Looks like he's trying to get the case thrown out. Judging from what's been reported so far I'd be surprised if he was found guilty, the evidence does seem pretty tenuous. Seems similar to Redknapp's case, brought due to the weight of public expectancy and indignation despite relatively low prospects of convictions (regardless of actual guilt).

Don't agree with the portrayal of Anton Ferdinand as brave etc: looks like he's given several contradictory statements and been as unhelpful and unco-operative as possible with the investigation and the trial. I don't doubt for a minute that Terry is guilty but I dread to think of the money that has been sunk into bringing this to trial given that their only evidence was broadcast live on SkySports.

As much as I hate JT, this case seems akin to the Suarez/Evra situation.
Two grown men on a football field giving mouthfuls of abuse to one another, the only difference being that one of them used the word 'black'.
I know it's semantics but how do you weigh up 'you're a mother-f***ing, c**k-s**king, paedo scumbag with bad breath' versus 'you black c**t'. Is the latter so clearly a criminal offence while the former is just adult 'banter'?

It would have been interesting if Anton had called him a pikey, to see if that was construed as racist.

GranadaJoe wrote:As much as I hate JT, this case seems akin to the Suarez/Evra situation.
Two grown men on a football field giving mouthfuls of abuse to one another, the only difference being that one of them used the word 'black'.
I know it's semantics but how do you weigh up 'you're a mother-f***ing, c**k-s**king, paedo scumbag with bad breath' versus 'you black c**t'. Is the latter so clearly a criminal offence while the former is just adult 'banter'?

It would have been interesting if Anton had called him a pikey, to see if that was construed as racist.

Your first question = yes, racism is a criminal offence. It's also possible I'd imagine to get done for slander for using the term "peado"?
2nd question = there's a whole grey area regarding the term "pikey" as many put forward the case that Gypsies are not a race, and others that they are. People have been prosecuted for racial abuse of Gypsies but few and far between...

DB10GOONER wrote:

GranadaJoe wrote:As much as I hate JT, this case seems akin to the Suarez/Evra situation.
Two grown men on a football field giving mouthfuls of abuse to one another, the only difference being that one of them used the word 'black'.
I know it's semantics but how do you weigh up 'you're a mother-f***ing, c**k-s**king, paedo scumbag with bad breath' versus 'you black c**t'. Is the latter so clearly a criminal offence while the former is just adult 'banter'?

It would have been interesting if Anton had called him a pikey, to see if that was construed as racist.

Your first question = yes, racism is a criminal offence. It's also possible I'd imagine to get done for slander for using the term "peado"?
2nd question = there's a whole grey area regarding the term "pikey" as many put forward the case that Gypsies are not a race, and others that they are. People have been prosecuted for racial abuse of Gypsies but few and far between...

Yes, I guess you could done for slander in the case of paedo. One is racist, one is slanderous and perhaps one of the worst things socially that you can be called.. Perhaps you have to call someone a pikey c**t, rather than just a pikey - cos terry wouldn't be in the doc if he'd just called anton "black"

GranadaJoe wrote:As much as I hate JT, this case seems akin to the Suarez/Evra situation.
Two grown men on a football field giving mouthfuls of abuse to one another, the only difference being that one of them used the word 'black'.
I know it's semantics but how do you weigh up 'you're a mother-f***ing, c**k-s**king, paedo scumbag with bad breath' versus 'you black c**t'. Is the latter so clearly a criminal offence while the former is just adult 'banter'?

It would have been interesting if Anton had called him a pikey, to see if that was construed as racist.

Wheres frank when you need him for questions like this

I'm aware of the debate over whether 'gypsy' is a race or not, but 'black' isn't a race either, it's a colour.

Clearly JT used it with a 'racial' connotation, but is it, in and of itself, 'racist'? If so, then why? Racial and racist are not the same thing.

I hate the argument of some people who say, "it's racist because I say it is". We need to apply some logic or the thought police will take over. It's already very difficult to argue that you're not a racist without sounding like you've got something to hide.

A friend of mine, who is a teacher, was instructed to stop saying 'blackboard' in case somebody found it offensive, so it became the 'chalkboard'. Some years ago I arrived to collect my daughter from nursery school to find them all singing Baa Baa rainbow sheep. In both these instances 'black' is a colour. It shouldn't offend anybody.

I am very aware of the real pain that racism causes and I hate discrimination in any form but I don't believe that the word 'black' is automatically racist.
If somebody called me a 'white c**t' it's the second word that would anger me more.
JT is a c**t of the highest order but I'm not sure that the law courts are appropriate in this instance.

GranadaJoe wrote:I'm aware of the debate over whether 'gypsy' is a race or not, but 'black' isn't a race either, it's a colour.

Clearly JT used it with a 'racial' connotation, but is it, in and of itself, 'racist'? If so, then why? Racial and racist are not the same thing.

I hate the argument of some people who say, "it's racist because I say it is". We need to apply some logic or the thought police will take over. It's already very difficult to argue that you're not a racist without sounding like you've got something to hide.

A friend of mine, who is a teacher, was instructed to stop saying 'blackboard' in case somebody found it offensive, so it became the 'chalkboard'. Some years ago I arrived to collect my daughter from nursery school to find them all singing Baa Baa rainbow sheep. In both these instances 'black' is a colour. It shouldn't offend anybody.

I am very aware of the real pain that racism causes and I hate discrimination in any form but I don't believe that the word 'black' is automatically racist.
If somebody called me a 'white c**t' it's the second word that would anger me more.
JT is a c**t of the highest order but I'm not sure that the law courts are appropriate in this instance.

If you called somebody a *** c*nt then *** is generally held to be the basis on which you think they're a c*nt. If I called somebody a stupid c*nt it would be because their stupidity annoyed me, if I called somebody a selfish c*nt it would be because their selfishness annoyed me, that's why "black c*nt" is racist. There's no reason for reference to his skin colour to be there, it was either meant in a racist manner or to wind him up by pertaining to his skin colour. You can't really say he was just being descriptive or whatever, doesn't wash.

I'm still not sure the law courts are appropriate though, it's a case built on shaky evidence and a trial that the victim doesn't want to see and will likely end up costing the taxpayer to no avail.

Fucking ridiculous case, "Boo hoo he called me a black c unt" "Boo hoo he said I shag my team mates missus" they are both as bad as each other, both a couple of c unts who should just get the fuck on with their privileged lives.

GranadaJoe wrote:I'm aware of the debate over whether 'gypsy' is a race or not, but 'black' isn't a race either, it's a colour.

Clearly JT used it with a 'racial' connotation, but is it, in and of itself, 'racist'? If so, then why? Racial and racist are not the same thing.

I hate the argument of some people who say, "it's racist because I say it is". We need to apply some logic or the thought police will take over. It's already very difficult to argue that you're not a racist without sounding like you've got something to hide.

A friend of mine, who is a teacher, was instructed to stop saying 'blackboard' in case somebody found it offensive, so it became the 'chalkboard'. Some years ago I arrived to collect my daughter from nursery school to find them all singing Baa Baa rainbow sheep. In both these instances 'black' is a colour. It shouldn't offend anybody.

I am very aware of the real pain that racism causes and I hate discrimination in any form but I don't believe that the word 'black' is automatically racist.
If somebody called me a 'white c**t' it's the second word that would anger me more.
JT is a c**t of the highest order but I'm not sure that the law courts are appropriate in this instance.

The term "Black" is not racist. I have a black mate who refers to himself as a black man. It's when you qualify "Black" with a derogatory term like "bastard" or "c*nt" that is becomes racist.

As for being called a "white c*nt" that too is racist but it is not viewed as being as bad or insulting (rightly or wrongly) within modern society because of the historical context of racism ie; it being something that has historically been perpetrated against many many more black people than white people, so there is a cultural sensitivity involved in our perception too.

Agree the whole modern PC thing is just stupid. "Blackboard" is not a racially offensive term ffs.

And I can't wait until Hlebby sees "Baa Baa Rainbow sheep" - it just DOESN'T SCAN!!!

The defence are claiming he actually said "fcuking Bridge c.u.n.t" not "fcuking black c.u.n.t"


this stuff is better than Python!!