Rio has a pop at Ashley Cole

[cunning fergus]

It is racist, and Rio should be charged and dealt with by a court of law..................BBC News - Bristol s conviction is upheld

I hope Mr Boyle has included courts of law and plenty of solicitors in his representation of modern Britain soon to be unveiled at the opening Olympic ceremony.................after all the law and legal profession are the iron fists in the velvet glove of diversity.

C'mon Team GB!!

 

[Triggaaar]

Did he use racist slurs in a derogatory way? Yes, but the judgment is calling it 'healthy verbal baiting' so in no way is Terry a racist.

That's not true at all is it. They are not saying it is healthy verbal baiting, they are saying "that while John Terry had used language that could amount to an offence, the player was not guilty because the crucial phrase may not have been said as part of an insult".
The judge said "It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him."

BBC News - The John Terry verdict explained

 

[Triggaaar]

It is racist, and Rio should be charged and dealt with by a court of law..................BBC News - Bristol s conviction is upheld

f***ing amen.

 

[Twizzle]

That's not true at all is it. They are not saying it is healthy verbal baiting, they are saying "that while John Terry had used language that could amount to an offence, the player was not guilty because the crucial phrase may not have been said as part of an insult".
The judge said "It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him."

BBC News - The John Terry verdict explained

It's not what I was trying to point out - but that racial slurs ("language that could amount to an offence") are interpretable to 'blur the lines' when they are talking about intent. The same applied with Suarez, that obvious racial references - that are surely unnecessary and therefore deliberately chosen - are argued to be passable according to their application as a response or a habitual terminology.
That these courts are over-ruling racial remarks because of some deemed excusable reason behind them is leaving a lot of grey area.
To be honest, it's a bit of a relief that banter or wind-ups are not becoming something to sue about every time, otherwise the list of accused is going to grow huge and likely vary to include many other slights - but there are no clear lines of definition, one person can be found guilty and another innocent for exactly the same offence.

 

[BadFish]

did someone say Naive assumptions?

 

[Triggaaar]

It's not what I was trying to point out - but that racial slurs ("language that could amount to an offence") are interpretable to 'blur the lines' when they are talking about intent.
...
but there are no clear lines of definition, one person can be found guilty and another innocent for exactly the same offence.

I disagree. I don't think the lines are unclear, and what evidence do you have of one person being found guilty and another not? Suarez and Terry were tried by different bodies for different things, and their excuses were different.

Your point:

combined racist slurs vs the implications behind them, is blurring the lines very much like the verdict on Terry. Did he use racist slurs in a derogatory way? Yes

is simply wrong. If the court had proved he used the slur in a derogatory way, he'd have been found guilty, but the court couldn't prove he wasn't telling the truth about why he made the comment - ie, not in a derogatory way, but in a questioning way.

 

[Southwick_Seagull]

Wayne Rooney ‏@WayneRooney
Ash cole your to funny. Legend

How long before a Twitter ban is imposed by Ferguson?

 

[Flavor Flav]

Rio Ferdinand is a stupid f***ing prick.

 

[Acker79]

What when he's been found not guilty? Ungentlemanly conduct for swearing that was caught on TV - players are always swearing.....

To be clear I don't like or condone what Terry has done or how he handles himself, but there needs to be transparency and consistency in any disciplinary measures....

Does Rooney get fined every time he is caught swearing on TV? Greer yesterday swore very loudly in the warm-up when a pass went astray - where do we draw the line?

It's not about swearing, it's about swearing at someone, and doing so with reference to someone's colour, ethnic origin or race. It's held to civil standard (balance of probability instead of beyond a reasonable doubt),

As an explanation, the FA panel said this in the suarez ruling, explaining the charge and the burd of proof:

III The Relevant Rules
47. There are two issues regarding the relevant Rules which arise for consideration in this
case: first, the meaning of Rules E3(1) and E3(2); and, secondly, the burden and standard
of proof. We shall consider each in turn.

The meaning of Rules E3(1) and E3(2)
48. The Rule pursuant to which Mr Suarez was charged is found in section E of the FA Rules
under the general heading "Conduct". Rule E1, with the sub-heading "Misconduct",
provides, so far as relevant:

"The Association may act against a Participant in respect of any "Misconduct", which
is defined as being a breach of the following:
...

(b) the Rules and regulations of The Association and in particular Rules E3 to 28
below;"

In the FA Rules, a Participant includes a player.

49. Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", provides as follows:

"(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use
any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening,
abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to any one or
more of a person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual
orientation or disability (an "aggravating factor"), a Regulatory Commission
shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the
following entry points:

For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory
Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.

For a second offence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory
Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.

Any further such offence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent
suspension.

These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are
not mandatory.

The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction
greater or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating
factors present in each case."

The issue: objective or subjective test?
50. In deciding whether there has been a breach of Rule E3, it is necessary to ask what has to
be proved in order to establish a breach. In particular, is it sufficient to prove that in a case
such as this, the words or behaviour are objectively speaking abusive or insulting in the
judgment of the Commission (the objective test)? Or is it necessary to go further and prove
that, in addition to the words or behaviour being abusive or insulting, the alleged offender
subjectively intended them to be abusive or insulting (the subjective test)? The Commission
invited the parties to address it on this particular issue.​

and regarding burden of proof

Rule E3(2)
72. Rule E3(2) provides that in the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to,
amongst other things, a person's ethnic origin, colour or race, a Commission shall consider
the imposition of an increased sanction. The wording of Rule E3(2) is clear. It is a question
of fact whether a breach of Rule E3(1) includes a reference to the protected characteristics.

No question of subjective intention arises here.

73. In some cases it will be possible to draw a clear dividing line between the conduct which
amounts to a breach of Rule E3(1) and the inclusion of a reference to a protected
characteristic of the kind listed in Rule E3(2). However, in this case, the element of ethnic
origin, colour or race is really inherent in the abusive or insulting words. If Mr Suarez did
not use the word "negro" towards Mr Evra, then abusive or insulting words are unlikely to
have been used. The only exception to that in this case might be in relation to Mr Suarez's
alleged pinching of Mr Evra's skin. That might be said to be abusive or insulting
behaviour in breach of Rule E3(1) in itself. If so, the separate question would then arise as
to whether that pinching included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race.

However, in relation to Mr Evra's other allegations, the first question of whether the
words used were abusive or insulting is inextricably linked to the second question of
whether they included reference to ethnic origin, colour or race.

The burden and standard of proof

74. The second issue regarding the relevant Rules which arises concerns the burden and
standard of proof.

The burden of proof

75. It is common ground between the parties that the burden of proving a breach of Rule

E3(1) and (2) lies on the FA. It is not for Mr Suarez to satisfy the Commission that he did
not breach the Rules. Rather, it is for the FA to satisfy us to the required standard that Mr
Suarez did breach the Rules.

The standard of proof
76. Regulation 7.3 of the Disciplinary Regulations is in these terms:

"The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of
probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the
Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence
required to prove the matter."​

77. There are two different standards of proof which can apply in legal cases. One is the
criminal standard which applies in criminal cases. The jury must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt, or as it is sometimes put, so that it is sure, that the accused committed
the alleged crime.

78. The other standard is the civil standard on the balance of probability. This is enshrined in
Regulation 7.3 set out above, and applies to this case. It is a lower standard than the
criminal standard. It is for the FA to satisfy us on the balance of probability that Mr Suarez
breached the Rules. Alternative formulations for the civil standard are sometimes used,
such as more likely than not to be correct, or probably correct.

79. Regulation 7.3 includes an important reference to the civil standard of proof being flexible.
This means, as the Regulation states, that the more serious the allegation, taking into
account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the
burden of evidence required to prove the matter. This is sometimes described in this way:
the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is to have happened, and therefore the
greater the burden of evidence required to prove that it did. This does not set the standard
any higher than the balance of probability. But, the more serious the allegation, the
greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter to that standard.

80. The FA accepts that the Charge against Mr Suarez is serious, as do we. It is for this reason
that we have reminded ourselves that a greater burden of evidence is required to prove
the Charge against Mr Suarez.​

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Rio Ferdinand is a stupid f***ing prick.

Most dislikable England back four of all time?

Johnson
Terry
Ferdinand
Cole

 

[Dave the OAP]

Uncle tom is probably the worst insult as black person can call another black person

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

As an explanation, the FA panel said this in the suarez ruling, explaining the charge and the burd of proof:

III The Relevant Rules

Thanks that's helpful.

 

[Seagull58]

I don't see it this way. It's very insulting, has a black/white cultural basis but not racist in my opinion.

It's racist, just like coconut.

 

[Albumen]

They're mates aren't they?

 

[DJ Leon]

And to answer the question, I would say 'no.' Cole is accused of being a turncoat / disloyal / not what he seems / fake. There is no implication that white people are in any way inferior, but that Cole is, simply for being different on the inside to outside.

It is surely undeniable that the choc ice insult specifically refers to the fact that choc ices are 'BLACK' on the outside and 'WHITE' on the inside. That's the point. The idea that the term refers just to something that is different on the outside to the inside is, frankly, laughable. Why not choose any of the other 10 billion things that fit the bill?

It's incomparable to the Wigga insult, because it clearly points out there is something negative about being a different colour on the inside. The nature of that negativity is where the debate over the term lies.

Ferdinand can squirm all he likes, it's obvious that he thinks that Cole has betrayed his colour and the choc ice insult confirms that.

 

[melias shoes]

It is surely undeniable that the choc ice insult specifically refers to the fact that choc ices are 'BLACK' on the outside and 'WHITE' on the inside. That's the point. The idea that the term refers just to something that is different on the outside to the inside is, frankly, laughable. Why not choose any of the other 10 billion things that fit the bill?

It's incomparable to the Wigga insult, because it clearly points out there is something negative about being a different colour on the inside. The nature of that negativity is where the debate over the term lies.

Ferdinand can squirm all he likes, it's obvious that he thinks that Cole has betrayed his colour and the choc ice insult confirms that.

Good point, well put,

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Interesting viewpoint from a former NBA player:

What does 'choc ice' mean?

John Amaechi
Former NBA basketball player, psychologist and educator
"It is the idea that a black person is black only in skin colour but inside they are really white. It's a highly derogatory term. It's a dangerous term because it allows black boys especially but black people in general, to believe that there is a way of being black that is somehow distinct from being white. There are people that think if you don't wear a certain type of clothing or listen to a certain type of music you're not really black. It's a really dangerous thing. There are black boys who do less well in school because they believe by doing well there, they are acting white. To me, this is devastating for black boys and black people everywhere. It's a deeply offensive term with racial connotations."

 

[Doc Lynam]

Interesting viewpoint from a former NBA player:

What does 'choc ice' mean?

John Amaechi
Former NBA basketball player, psychologist and educator
"It is the idea that a black person is black only in skin colour but inside they are really white. It's a highly derogatory term. It's a dangerous term because it allows black boys especially but black people in general, to believe that there is a way of being black that is somehow distinct from being white. There are people that think if you don't wear a certain type of clothing or listen to a certain type of music you're not really black. It's a really dangerous thing. There are black boys who do less well in school because they believe by doing well there, they are acting white. To me, this is devastating for black boys and black people everywhere. It's a deeply offensive term with racial connotations."

Read the same thing on the BBC, Rio should be old enough and mature enough to understand his action's. What a stupid guy!

 

[BadFish]

Most dislikable England back four of all time?

Johnson
Terry
Ferdinand
Cole

....and three of them are black you racist bugger!

What is wrong with Johnson?

 

[keaton]

@rioferdy5: What I said yesterday is not a racist term. Its a type of slang/term used by many for someone who is being fake. So there.

Brain dead.

His defence actually makes it more racist.


I also like Garth Crooks article saying that using the phrase "fbc" in any context was worthy of censure. In article which used the phrase three times.