[Albion] Bong being abused all game.

[Thunder Bolt]

The lip-reading argument is one of various issues that I have seen Burnley fans misrepresenting. The lip readers couldn't make any decent suggestion of what was said, because JR's mouth was covered.

Here's what the FA said:

The "essential issue for us boiled down to one question - are we satisfied the player [Rodriguez] probably said to GB [Gaetan Bong]: "You're black and you stink'?

It said the two lip-reading experts "could not help" on this "core issue".

"The player's mouth was obscured, and neither could see sufficient to interpret his moving lips,"

"After much deliberation we were left in the position where the case distilled to the evidence of each player. We could not say that any of the other evidence or competing arguments lead us to prefer one over the other."

Two lip reading experts - one for the FA and one paid by Rodriguez for his defence. Neither could help the case.

Rodriguez was abusive and insulting to another professional player in front of the public, that much is not in doubt.

 

[ClaretMatt]

You’ve admitted that the booing was to do with what I’ve put in bold, not really sure what you’re on about.

No, you're using the same misleading tactics as Bong did in his tweet about Rodriguez's apology. Using the same approach I could say "A large number of Brighton fans are criticising Burnley fans for their involvement in a situation where their town may well have been abused as a town full of p****s"

It's equally true but equally bollocks.

 

[Seasider78]

Brighton ask police to look into 'monkey chants' at Burnley

As I've stated multiple times the booing from myself, and those around me, was nothing to do with taking the report out of context but for the continued accusations by Bong (and BHA) outside of the process of the tribunal.

Had these comments not been made then I would not have booed and I would predict that neither would the majority of fans. In fact I would have condemned it. Had the accusation been proven then, IMO, there wouldn't have been any booing at all (bar the odd moron or two who would have been challenged there and then).

Still desperately peddling this nonsense in the vain attempt it will rescue peoples opinions of what happened on Saturday. I get you and your fans don’t like being judged, vilified and accused of something you do not believe is a correct reflection of what happened.

Maybe you have more in common with Bong than you think

 

[Hillian1]

You seem to be suggesting that the equivalent of a not guilty verdict has been reached. It hasn’t. Rodriguez’ name has not been cleared.

Not worth even trying to explain this tbh.

Burnley fans are adamant that he has cleared his name, that the truth came out, that he has been found innocent, that Bong lied.

The fact that NOTHING even remotely like this appears in the Investigations report is meaningless to them.

Bless their little hearts.

 

[Mellotron]

No, you're using the same misleading tactics as Bong did in his tweet about Rodriguez's apology. Using the same approach I could say "A large number of Brighton fans are criticising Burnley fans for their involvement in a situation where their town may well have been abused as a town full of p****s"

It's equally true but equally bollocks.

Not apples with apples whatsoever. You did abuse a player for his behaviour in a situation where he may well have been racially abused. That is fact.

You don’t like being judged as (accidental) racists. Not my fault. Take it up with the FA, Kick It Out, Sky Sports, the BBC and most likely (on the balance of probabilities) the majority of football. No one made you boo. Just like no one made JR cover his mouth and say something stupid and childish to Bong. He and your fans have brought all of his upon yourselves.

 

[ROSM]

Probably not on the same scale, I didn't anticipate such a response from BHA. By the end of the game we'd all moved on to booing Murray anyway, that is in the area where I stand.

So despite what you now know.

- That bong wasnt alone in making comments pre the investigation

- that his after investigation comment (incidentally supported by a number of lawyers) was to defend against the wilful misprepresentation of the hearing findings

- the the fa specifically stated his allegation wasnt malicious, vexatious but was made in good faith

You would still have booed him!

That on itself would be enough for any civil hearing and most criminal hearings where the burden of proof is higher, that you were deliberately attempting to exact revenge against a complainant. This, as you know in any court or tribunal is illegal.

So in short whatever your stated ( misguided) motives he reality is that the reason you give cannot have been the real reason wbich i put to you was to attempt to bully someone who had the temerity to make a claim against one of your own and to not lie down and shut up when others aimed to spin the narrative to support someone who at the very least seems to be an unsporting, unprofessional and immature individual

 

[ClaretMatt]

Matt, simple question.

Do you think the reaction of Burnley fans directed towards a black player who made an allegation of racist abuse towards him, will encourage or discourage other players doing the same?

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

 

[ROSM]

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

Please answer the question honestly rather than the one you hoped had been asked

 

[sydney]

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

erm ...the agenda is/was ......why was he worth booing....exactly....?? why not boo the german midfielder , the argentine forward or the aussie goalie ....why boo bong..??

 

[dsr-burnley]

You seem to be suggesting that the equivalent of a not guilty verdict has been reached. It hasn’t. Rodriguez’ name has not been cleared.

It couldn't be cleared in that sense. These FA tribunals don't have a "not guilty" verdict - they have "Proven" or "Not Proven". Which means that no-one who ever comes up before one of these enquries is ever cleared - the mud always sticks.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

You are a ****ing moron

 

[Stato]

This is a big part of the problem of race relations. To what extent is it racial discrimination to treat a black man exactly as you would a white man? It's a possibly valid point that Rodriguez shouldn't say to a black man what he would say to a white man, but it's also a definitely valid point that race relations aren't helped if a white man has to stop and think before every word he says to a black man.

No, that is a big part of the problem with education in this area and race relations would be helped if all parties showed a better understanding of what it is like to be someone else. Too many people think that to avoid discrimination, all you have to do is not say anything overly racist and treat everyone the same. There is a lack of awareness of invisible barriers to equality, to implicit discrimination, to the cultural advantages unavailable to some minorities, but taken for granted by those in the majority. Too many people think it is not possible for them to discriminate or show prejudice unless they intended to do so and the reaction when challenged about this is often one of angry denial and defensiveness. It's a complex issue, but one bit of it that isn't complex is guessing what possible perceptions would be created by booing a black man over a race relations issue!

 

[dazzer6666]

So it's not possible for anyone to inflect a tone on a boo but you can 100% without fail identify the inference of a boo? Or are all boos, by definition, aimed at shaming someone for reporting racial abuse?

Because you can't have it both ways. Either the meaning of a boo is universal or it can have different inferences and if a boo can have different inferences then it can be misinterpreted, as is the case here.

Precisely why were the vast majority of your fans booing then ?

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

Ah, so now it's OK, it's only banter, innit............................

 

[dsr-burnley]

It wasn't a criminal trial so has no relevance. It could have course become one.

I'd imagine it would be very hard to prove a libel case on the basis of the inquiry evidence either way.

A libel case would be a crap shoot. There is no evidence about what Rodriguez said other than the two players concerned, and libel (being a civil offence) is decided on balance of probabilities. If A says yes and B says no, who would be believed? But the problem Bong would have in a libel case is that he has accused Rodriguez of a criminal offence after a tribunal has considered the evidence and has failed to find him guilty.

 

[ClaretMatt]

Not apples with apples whatsoever. You did abuse a player for his behaviour in a situation where he may well have been racially abused. That is fact.

And you're abusing Burnley fans in a situation where they may well have been racially abused. Unless you can prove said chant didn't happen?

As I said, equally true as a statement, equally bollocks.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I honestly think it'll make no difference. Has Bong been physically harmed by being booed? Has his stock as a footballer been harmed?

Does booing players with a reputation for diving change their behaviour and stop them diving? No. It's football pantomime which is having way too much significance attached to it by those with an agenda.

I think this is far more important than someone diving on a football field.

The fa and prem league efl etc are doing their level best to encourage the reporting of all sorts of abuse from racism, casual or other, to homophobia.

If this is the dog's abuse that he was subjected to a result of his reporting what he believed was said, unproven but not dismissed remember, do you seriously think other players wouldnt think twice about going down that route?

 

[A1X]

I'll give you a hint as to which way the wind is blowing nationally.

Chris Hughton (admittedly BHA manager but probably one of the most universally-respected English coaches in the game, no one ever has a bad word to say about the man) strongly condemned the Burnley fans
The FA condemned the Burnley fans
Kick It Out condemned the Burnley fans
Sky Sports also reported it in a negative manner concerning the Burnley fans.

Toughie, innit?

Now be fair, a lot of people with St George's flag avatars with "Brexit" in their name are discussing it a lot on Twitter and it seems Jay has their full support.

 

[dsr-burnley]

No, that is a big part of the problem with education in this area and race relations would be helped if all parties showed a better understanding of what it is like to be someone else. Too many people think that to avoid discrimination, all you have to do is not say anything overly racist and treat everyone the same. There is a lack of awareness of invisible barriers to equality, to implicit discrimination, to the cultural advantages unavailable to some minorities, but taken for granted by those in the majority. Too many people think it is not possible for them to discriminate or show prejudice unless they intended to do so and the reaction when challenged about this is often one of angry denial and defensiveness. It's a complex issue, but one bit of it that isn't complex is guessing what possible perceptions would be created by booing a black man over a race relations issue!

It makes it very hard to be non-discriminatory, though. If you were allowed to treat people all the same, then it would be a lot easier than having to treat them the same in some circumstances but not in others. Its a matter of knowing which circumstances. It must vary from person to person as well.

There was an equivalent (but obviously different) position on a south coast airline a year or two back. A lady pilot took them to an industrial tribunal and won a sex discrimination case, because the airline was unfairly discriminating against women pilots by treating them the same as men. They had the same pay, the same shift patterns, the same mix of long haul and short haul. This was held to be discrimination because it meant they couldn't get home to their children - the airline needed to treat women pilots differently from men to avoid accusations of treating women differently from men. Race relations has the same minefield, and if the minefield gets too hard to navigate, it risks people opting out of interaction with opposite races.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You might not condone monkey chanting, although as your REAL username "Das Reich" presumably to honour the SS panzer division responsible for executing British POWs and the massacre of 700 civilians, that's men, women and children...men shot women and kids torched in the village church at Ouradour Sur Glane indicates you have a peculiar moral compass. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nazi murderers you admire did the odd monkey chant whilst shooting civilians.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/Das Reich
regards
DR

 

[m20gull]

You seem to be suggesting that the equivalent of a not guilty verdict has been reached. It hasn’t. Rodriguez’ name has not been cleared.

"not guilty" is still not the same as innocent. Unless charges are withdrawn by the prosecution or thrown out by the judge all that can be said is the evidence is insufficient to confirm guilt beyond reasonable doubt.