[Albion] Bong being abused all game.

[ClaretMatt]

Booing doesn't really work like that though, does it? You can't inflect the boo with a certain tone to confirm which bit you're booing at.

At the end of the day, the truth is that a large number of Burnley fans booed a black player for his involvement in a situation where he may well have been subject to racist abuse.

That's the long and short of what actually happened on the day - you repeatedly booed a player for complaining about possibly being racially abused.

If you're cool to stand by that then there's nothing further to say, and as mentioned above we clearly couldn't be further apart as clubs culturally.

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.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Booing doesn't really work like that though, does it? You can't inflect the boo with a certain tone to confirm which bit you're booing at.

At the end of the day, the truth is that a large number of Burnley fans booed a black player for his involvement in a situation where he may well have been subject to racist abuse.

That's the long and short of what actually happened on the day - you repeatedly booed a player for complaining about possibly being racially abused.

If you're cool to stand by that then there's nothing further to say, and as mentioned above we clearly couldn't be further apart as clubs culturally.

He can’t work out or want to accept the truth that GB was merely responding to JR’s statement of innocence..

 

[Stato]

Drop this nonsense about who tweeted what first I will tell who started this whole affair some complete idiot called JR who thought it was a good idea to go up to a black man and tell him he stinks in a professional football match.

This appears to be the kind of action supported by you and other Burnley fans on here who are blind to his actions and defend him to the hilt joined by a mob of fans who call GB a liar and boo him at a football match.

The level of lack of understanding of racial politics in this has been fairly astounding.

Let's assume that Jay Rodriguez is 100% honest about the words he used and that Gaeten Bong misheard him. As far as I understand it this means that Rodriguez tried to wind up an opponent by telling him that his breath f'ing stank. He didn't give a thought to the fact that he was abusing a black African man and that race could become a factor. He went through an FA investigation and the case was not proven. After which he could have issued a statement saying something along the lines of 'I am sorry that I abused a fellow pro and I have apologised to Gaeten for any hurt caused. I should have been more sensitive to connotations that could be inferred by the insult that I threw at him.' He could have still maintained that there was no racist intent and that he had not used the words that he had been accused of.

It would be best for those actually involved if this is now just let to lie.

Burnley fans on Saturday then decided to weigh in. Despite the now thorough knowledge of the case shown by those who are coming on here after the event to defend these actions. It is evident from the comments on Up The Clarets, on Radio 5 and on Twitter that knowledge of the facts seemed, for most to have been limited to the level of 'Jay must be right because he's one of ours, let's boo the bloke who accused him.' None of those involved seem to have given a moment's thought to the optics of a crowd of mostly white men booing a single black man who had made an allegation of racial abuse. It must have soon become apparent to them when the Brighton crowd did not retort with 'Boo yourselves! It's nothing to do with you,' but with 'You're a town full of racists.' Some then chose to ring 606 or to speak to other media and to take part in what was obviously going to be perceived by some as victim blaming. When you're in a hole Burnley fans, stop digging.

 

[ClaretMatt]

Let me put this to you. I cover my mouth and you hear what you believe is me saying something truly horrific about your family. I mean, really quite awful. No one else heard what I said. Only we know what I actually said.

You tell people around you and they say "thing is, he covered his mouth so we have absolutely no idea what he said". You say "I know what I heard"

I then say "thank you. I'm glad the truth has come out"

You would just walk away and never say anything again? You would be COMPLETELY satisfied that the process is over and we can all move on now.

Oh, let me add, my other friends are now also calling you a liar for making up the allegation.

Seems fair?

If the above was in a loud environment, you spoke in my second language, in an accent I am unfamiliar with and the phrase I believe you uttered actually bares no resemblance to an actual insult in said second language. If footage of the incident was pored over by lip-readers, thoroughly investigated and your explanation made logical sense I believe I would accept there was a significant possibility I misheard. With those doubts in my mind I would not then publically continue to suggest there was absolutely no chance I misheard you and you were in fact a truly horrific person, though privately I may still hold the incident against you.

Though for your scenario to make sense in this context the JR/GB incident there would have to be a logical reason (within the context of what you were saying) for you to cover your mouth.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

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.

Christ read that back... Where the **** has this discussion taken us to eh?

Your fans booed a player because he reported being racially abused and you've decided he's a liar.

 

[seagulls4ever]

If the above was in a loud environment, you spoke in my second language, in an accent I am unfamiliar with and the phrase I believe you uttered actually bares no resemblance to an actual insult in said second language. If footage of the incident was pored over by lip-readers, thoroughly investigated and your explanation made logical sense I believe I would accept there was a significant possibility I misheard. With those doubts in my mind I would not then publically continue to suggest there was absolutely no chance I misheard you and you were in fact a truly horrific person, though privately I may still hold the incident against you.

Though for your scenario to make sense in this context the JR/GB incident there would have to be a logical reason (within the context of what you were saying) for you to cover your mouth.

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."

 

[Pantani]

If the above was in a loud environment, you spoke in my second language, in an accent I am unfamiliar with and the phrase I believe you uttered actually bares no resemblance to an actual insult in said second language. If footage of the incident was pored over by lip-readers, thoroughly investigated and your explanation made logical sense I believe I would accept there was a significant possibility I misheard. With those doubts in my mind I would not then publically continue to suggest there was absolutely no chance I misheard you and you were in fact a truly horrific person, though privately I may still hold the incident against you.

Though for your scenario to make sense in this context the JR/GB incident there would have to be a logical reason (within the context of what you were saying) for you to cover your mouth.

Gaetan Bong plays with a player from Workington and a player from Bolton. He also played for Wigan for half a season, and has played in England for three and a half seasons. I do not think Rodriguez's accent is going to be so far outside of what he can understand, frankly. But it really does not matter, you are flailing around using some he said she said bollocks from twitter and a badly translated interview on French television to justify booing a player for 90 minutes who was cleared by the same panel that cleared you beloved Rodriguez of any wrong doing. Until you concede that point, you are just acting disingenuously trying to justify Burnley's fans behaviour. Booing Bong was wrong, everyone thinks it apart from Burnley fans.

 

[Hungry Joe]

If the above was in a loud environment, you spoke in my second language, in an accent I am unfamiliar with and the phrase I believe you uttered actually bares no resemblance to an actual insult in said second language. If footage of the incident was pored over by lip-readers, thoroughly investigated and your explanation made logical sense I believe I would accept there was a significant possibility I misheard. With those doubts in my mind I would not then publically continue to suggest there was absolutely no chance I misheard you and you were in fact a truly horrific person, though privately I may still hold the incident against you.

Though for your scenario to make sense in this context the JR/GB incident there would have to be a logical reason (within the context of what you were saying) for you to cover your mouth.

Matt, I know you've swerved my previous questions twice (not sure why, they were reasonable questions), so I'll limit this, my last post on the subject, to just a comment to you.

You can intellectualise, 'whatabout' etc until you're blue (or claret) in the face, but the simple fact is that you and other Burnley supporters are still trying to defend singing the praises of JR, a man who at the very least made an offensive (stink) remark to a fellow professional who's only crime appears to have been blocking him during the game, just because he was born and bred in your town and used to play for your club, as well as trying to use this as justification for your fans to then boo GB for the ENTIRE GAME for making a complaint over something he 100% believes he heard. Please just stop, accept it was bang out of order, and then hopefully we can all move on.

There will always be low lifes that will continue to use this to further their own bitter and twisted agendas on Twitter, down the pub, wherever they can get an audience, it really doesn't need seemingly decent people to add fuel and justification to their sick little fires.

 

[Mellotron]

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.

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

 

[clapham_gull]

https://twitter.com/ND_Phillips/status/984883034951487490
https://twitter.com/JayRodriguez9/status/985926450648899586

Which were both after...

https://twitter.com/GaetanBong/status/984858646696943617

Why are you selectively picking statements up to back up your argument ?

Both players went public and as did their representatives.

JR: "Absolutely gutted and in disbelief at the situation I find myself in. I 100% deny the false allegation and will take the correct legal advice to prove my innocence."

Gary Mellor, Rodriguez’s agent, said: “I’m stunned. It’s a serious charge to be made without corroborating evidence. Jay’s upset that someone can make such serious allegations against his character.”

JR: "I am always a great believer that the truth always comes out and it has,"

All I read is GR reiterating his accusation and JR reiterating his defence. All both before and after the inquiry.

Everyone moved on, but on Saturday your actions got it back on the front page. Your defence ? JR and the fans booing (of an unconnected club) are the real victims here.

According to the inquiry conclusion there was no victim.

This gets more and more bizarre by the day.

 

[brightn'ove]

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).

This is utter utter bollocks and you know it.

Read the comments underneath every single tweet about this issue and all you will find are people calling GB a liar and stating that he should be punished for daring to call out racism.

YOU might have thought that you were booing because of some bollocks 'due process', but the majority of those booing were doing it because they think GB made it up and deserves to be punished. Whether that comes from stupidty or racism is another matter.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The level of lack of understanding of racial politics in this has been fairly astounding.

Let's assume that Jay Rodriguez is 100% honest about the words he used and that Gaeten Bong misheard him. As far as I understand it this means that Rodriguez tried to wind up an opponent by telling him that his breath f'ing stank. He didn't give a thought to the fact that he was abusing a black African man and that race could become a factor. He went through an FA investigation and the case was not proven. After which he could have issued a statement saying something along the lines of 'I am sorry that I abused a fellow pro and I have apologised to Gaeten for any hurt caused. I should have been more sensitive to connotations that could be inferred by the insult that I threw at him.' He could have still maintained that there was no racist intent and that he had not used the words that he had been accused of.

It would be best for those actually involved if this is now just let to lie.

Burnley fans on Saturday then decided to weigh in. Despite the now thorough knowledge of the case shown by those who are coming on here after the event to defend these actions. It is evident from the comments on Up The Clarets, on Radio 5 and on Twitter that knowledge of the facts seemed, for most to have been limited to the level of 'Jay must be right because he's one of ours, let's boo the bloke who accused him.' None of those involved seem to have given a moment's thought to the optics of a crowd of mostly white men booing a single black man who had made an allegation of racial abuse. It must have soon become apparent to them when the Brighton crowd did not retort with 'Boo yourselves! It's nothing to do with you,' but with 'You're a town full of racists.' Some then chose to ring 606 or to speak to other media and to take part in what was obviously going to be perceived by some as victim blaming. When you're in a hole Burnley fans, stop digging.

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.

 

[aolstudios]

It wasn't racist, accidentally or otherwise.

If it has been misinterpreted as such then I am happy to apologise and move on but I do not accept that my actions were, in any way, racist.

Why would you apologize for someone else's misinterpretation?
That's not an apology or the intent of one at all.
That's more wriggling

 

[dsr-burnley]

Why are you selectively picking statements up to back up your argument ?

Both players went public and as did their representatives.

JR: "Absolutely gutted and in disbelief at the situation I find myself in. I 100% deny the false allegation and will take the correct legal advice to prove my innocence."

Gary Mellor, Rodriguez’s agent, said: “I’m stunned. It’s a serious charge to be made without corroborating evidence. Jay’s upset that someone can make such serious allegations against his character.”

JR: "I am always a great believer that the truth always comes out and it has,"

All I can see it GR reiterating his accusation and JR reiterating his defence. All both before and after the inquiry.

Everyone moved on, but on Saturday your actions got it back on the front page. Your defence ? JR and the fans booing are the real victims here.

According to the inquiry conclusion there was no victim.

Christ - don't upset an ex-player of Burnley.

Possibly the issue is that if this was a criminal trial (and what Rodriguez was accused of would have been a criminal offence, so it has some relevance) Rodriguez would have been allowed to declare that he was not guilty in between the charge being made and the case being heard, and afterwards; Bong would not have been allowed to reiterate his evidence or any part of his case until after the tribunal, and would not be allowed to come out of a courtroom after a not guilty verdict or its equivalent and claim that he still thinks the man is guilty. Or if he did, a newspaper wouldn't print it for fear of libel.

 

[clapham_gull]

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.

I'd personally think twice before telling one he smelt in front of millions of global viewers.

 

[ClaretMatt]

Christ read that back... Where the **** has this discussion taken us to eh?

Your fans booed a player because he reported being racially abused and you've decided he's a liar.

Please point out where I've said I think GB is a liar. I think you'll find I categorically stated the opposite.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your myopic postings, eh?

 

[clapham_gull]

Possibly the issue is that if this was a criminal trial (and what Rodriguez was accused of would have been a criminal offence, so it has some relevance) Rodriguez would have been allowed to declare that he was not guilty in between the charge being made and the case being heard, and afterwards; Bong would not have been allowed to reiterate his evidence or any part of his case until after the tribunal, and would not be allowed to come out of a courtroom after a not guilty verdict or its equivalent and claim that he still thinks the man is guilty. Or if he did, a newspaper wouldn't print it for fear of libel.

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.

People get a bit confused about the John Terry case. He may as well have said what he did in a particular context (and deserved a ban) but that doesn't mean he technically broke the law.

 

[Dave the OAP]

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.

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?

 

[ROSM]

I must have missed the TV interview Rodriguez made whilst the investigation was ongoing...

He refuted the allegation and said he/they would be contesting it, with the absolute minimum of comment, as is within what would be expected during such a process. GB went on TV to reiterate (and contradict) his accusation, which clearly isn't.

If you can't see the difference between the two then there's really no point engaging with you.

Oh come on, dont get all huffy. Rodriguez is a burnley lad (albeit one who buggered off at the earliest oppprtunity). We get it. But please dont try amd maintain thay this is all because someone went on french tv to give background to tbe incident after a number of wba employees went on a charm offensive about what a nice guy j rod is and how he helps old ladies cross the road amd looks after wounded wild animals whilst being in touch with his metrosexual side.

What was said ahead of the investigation and afyer the hearing FROM BOTH parties has both right and wrong to it. Please dont try and make out that JRod is the togally wronged party in this.

 

[Mellotron]

Possibly the issue is that if this was a criminal trial (and what Rodriguez was accused of would have been a criminal offence, so it has some relevance) Rodriguez would have been allowed to declare that he was not guilty in between the charge being made and the case being heard, and afterwards; Bong would not have been allowed to reiterate his evidence or any part of his case until after the tribunal, and would not be allowed to come out of a courtroom after a not guilty verdict or its equivalent and claim that he still thinks the man is guilty. Or if he did, a newspaper wouldn't print it for fear of libel.

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.