And so to Wembley

Just seen this and apologies if it’s posted elsewhere or is in the wrong thread.

View attachment 4045
I'm not entirely convinced that needs investigating. The first part is fairly correct ('but it's all muscle') and the second part is a random animal which as far as I know has no racist connotations. Would calling him a 'fat meerkat' or a 'fat warthog' also need investigating? Is 'water buffalo' more insulting than 'bastard'?
 
I'm not entirely convinced that needs investigating. The first part is fairly correct ('but it's all muscle') and the second part is a random animal which as far as I know has no racist connotations. Would calling him a 'fat meerkat' or a 'fat warthog' also need investigating? Is 'water buffalo' more insulting than 'bastard'?
From BBC Sport:
"I believe it dehumanises me as a black man by associating me to a water buffalo, a dark animal, in a derogatory manner," Akinfenwa said in a statement.
 
From BBC Sport:
"I believe it dehumanises me as a black man by associating me to a water buffalo, a dark animal, in a derogatory manner," Akinfenwa said in a statement.

And there's the problem with ambiguous definition.

There's only one person who knows whether that was meant with racist intent, and that's the accused.

Or is it the right of the accuser to define the intent?
 
And there's the problem with ambiguous definition.

There's only one person who knows whether that was meant with racist intent, and that's the accused.

Or is it the right of the accuser to define the intent?
That is the law though on racist comments
 
And there's the problem with ambiguous definition.

There's only one person who knows whether that was meant with racist intent, and that's the accused.

Or is it the right of the accuser to define the intent?
It’s racist if its perceived as such by the victim, or any other person.
 
It’s racist if its perceived as such by the victim, or any other person.

Not strictly true. There is the assumption that an offence occurs if the "victim" perceives it as such, but that this should also reflect what others would deem as unreasonable.

Under these circumstances you would be hard pushed to prove racial intent, although it could be argued that it is clumsy, inappropriate and unnecessary.
 
Not strictly true. There is the assumption that an offence occurs if the "victim" perceives it as such, but that this should also reflect what others would deem as unreasonable.

Under these circumstances you would be hard pushed to prove racial intent, although it could be argued that it is clumsy, inappropriate and unnecessary.
Don’t what legislation you’re quoting there?
This incident will be recorded as a racist incident because Akinfenwa says it is.
What happens after that with the investigation and to what extent, is what I think you’re referencing.
 
Back
Top Bottom