guyellow
Active member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 518
Only one team in that table had automatic spot chasing form.
Only one team in that table had automatic spot chasing form.
I actually would like some Wycombe fans coming on here . Be good to see their views.
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'?Just seen this and apologies if it’s posted elsewhere or is in the wrong thread.
View attachment 4045
OMG how wounding. He does look fat but maybe it's all muscleJust seen this and apologies if it’s posted elsewhere or is in the wrong thread.
View attachment 4045
From BBC Sport: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'?
Phew! This is going to be a tense week. Im going to constantly flapping like a big girls blouse..Straight from the horse's mouth.
DICKIE IS NOT BANNED ☺?
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.
That is the law though on racist commentsAnd 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.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?
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.
It’s racist if its perceived as such by the victim, or any other person.
Phew! This is going to be a tense week. Im going to constantly flapping like a big girls blouse..
Don’t what legislation you’re quoting there?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.