• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Joe Joe Oct 25, 2012 09:56 Flag

    Is it me...?


    Bare with me! I must apologise for getting slightly 'into' this subject.

    I agree, 'I really think you have to be careful with .....isms. What is and what isn't an '...ist' act - what is and isn't a justifiable '...ist' act.'

    In this instance , IMO Terry is guilty of using racially offensive language, I don't think he is a racist, but that does not stop his choice of language being racially offensive. He chose those words to offend. So does Terry think being called black is offensive? if not, why say it? He targeted Anton's race as a way to offend him, therefore implying that there is something wrong with being black, whether he believes that or not, that's the implication. Changing the word black for ginger, bald, gay doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it just makes it offensive to a different 'minority' group.

    Anything relating to race is going to be more emotive (than say gingerness), not least due to the recent history of slavery and vilification.

    IOf course laws are applied differently depending how rich you are, I don't like it, but the more money you have the more loopholes there are, sad but true and unlikely to change. Terry silenced the newspapers, by paying for a court injunction, he stopped the 'free' press, who else could afford to do that? Money changes the rules or at least allows you to bend them.

    Laws/rules are entwined with commercial operation IMO, look at most people employment contracts, its full of laws/rules, many of which are designed to protect the company and its commercial interests.

    Lance Armstrong broke many the laws/rules of cycling by blood doping, those laws are in place for many reasons, some which will be to protect the commercial integrity of sport and governing body and also to try and ensure the race was as 'fair' as possible. As we have seen business do not want to be associated with cheats or rule breakers, that's why Lance Armstrong has been dropped by Nike, Oakley and virtually everyone else and why people like Kate Moss were dropped, when pictures of her doing coke were published.

    IMO we as humans are obsessed with the concepts and ideals of fairness and integrity, which is why we find blatant cheating so unacceptable. Depending on where each of us place our values will depend how offensive or acceptable we find different infringements on these laws/rules. I think Armstrong is a shyte, but many people may look at his charity work and forgive his other actions.

    The fan who slapped Kirkland knew the rules before he ran onto that pitch. The punishment had to protect the values of the FA, and try and prevent a re-occurrence. Although I do think we all need to look at the way criminal records work. IE a kid caught in possession of drugs can be tarred for his entire life, IMO thats not fair (I digress).

    Prescott was egged, I believe? He punched a bloke, who threw an egg at his face. Even though Prescott knows he broke the rules by throwing the punch, it could be argued he was acting on instinct, to protect himself. The pitch invader was not protecting himself, he was acting out side of the laws/rules of football and society in general.

    EPIC- still awake?