A Bravado Racist Chant Maybe, But A Real Act Of Racism?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/18/racist-chelsea-fans-push-black-man-paris-metro

Much has been said and reported about the Chelsea fans behaviour in France, mainly due to the Video obtained by the Guardian.

Well apart from the ridiculous chant from a football crowd, and many of us have become accustomed to these over the years, was it enough for calls for the perpetrators to answer to be banned and face the law?

As far as I could see from the video, the black man was walking along the platform, until he got to the open door of the carriage containing the football crowd.

Now what was said, perhaps we will never know, but instead of the black man trying to board the train was he actually trying to confront these football supporters in an aggressive way, and if he was isn't it obvious that they would try and push him away.

Yes we all know that the crowd were suppose to be shouting "We’re racist, we’re racist, and that’s the way we like it". (because the Guardian has told us that), but in the true football crowd tradition was this just to get back at their opponent.

I am in no way condoning an act of racism if that is what it was, but before you condemn me look at the video again.

[scowie]

I think AOG needs some help here so allow me to fight his corner...

When we see the black guy turning his back as he steps on the train, he is not really trying to board it. He is trying to leave a fart on the train just before the doors close. The farts of a french guy can be deadly to an englishman. It's cos of all the frogs and snails they all eat. Their guts contain nasty bacteria that we have no immunity to! Any sensible englishman should push away any frenchman who turns their back on them up close for the good of their health!

And when you hear them chant "we're racist and we like it, we like it, we like it, woah-oh-oh-oh-ohhhh!" even though the "woahs" appear to be perfectly in sync with the mouth of that guy who sticks his head out of the doorway, it's just a coincidence. You see, he is just one of those gormless morons who have their mouth open more or less all the time. He wasn't really chanting at all! It's all some evil conspiracy by Man City supporting journos to make the Chelsea fans look bad!

[Just to cover all bases: there may have been some sarcasm in the above post]

[Peter Pedant]

No no scowie you score 9 1/2 out of ten
because ( unlike Schweik) you looked at the clip of the event before commenting on it.

I had to read Schweik's comment once or twice before concluding that he hadnt seen the clip but that had not stopped him from blarting....

[Gromit]

BBC Update. Edited.

// Chelsea FC has suspended three people from attending its ground after a video appeared to show club fans stopping a black man from boarding a Paris train.

Life banning orders will be issued if there is deemed sufficient evidence of the fans' involvement in Tuesday's incident, the football club said

The 33-year-old, named as Souleymane S, told France's Le Parisien: "These people, these English fans... should be locked up."

The abuse has drawn widespread condemnation from the world of football.

Chelsea condemned the behaviour as "abhorrent", while Prime Minister David Cameron told LBC Radio on Wednesday that the footage looked "extremely disturbing and very worrying". //

[sp1814]

Svejk

You wrote:

"Someone got off a train. Shock. Horror.
I haven't seen any clips of this, yet. But it has 'set-up' all over it.
And AOG is right. You're, once again, behaving like a gang of bullies in the school-yard. Pathetic."

If you haven't seen any clips, how would you know it has 'set up' all over it?

In what way are the responders acting like bullies?

AOG has posited his reflections on the clip and got some details wrong and has elicited a number of robust responses.

I am sure that he is able to defend his position, but he is choosing not to. I think that in his position, I too would want to ignore this thread, because it's ill-thought out and his arguments are extremely easy to pick apart.

Note how he has given 'Best Answer' to dave50, who wrote:

"Name calling is now a more serious offence than any violent attack it seems."

Which is bizarre as the clip quite clearly shows that this was more than name calling.

I think it would be interesting to see whether you see this as a racist attack after watching the clip.

To summarise - AOG is not the victim here.

[ummmm]

How can disagreeing with someone make you a bully?

[sp1814]

ummm

It's the way of the world on AB.

Note - when some people make an argument (New Judge, andy_hughes, mikey4444 etc), they will do battle over several pages without once claiming they are being abused.

However - others claim to be bullied at the drop of a hat.

Sometimes the hat hasn't even hit the floor before they flounce off.

Incidentally - I'm not accusing AOG of claiming to be bullied on this thread.

[andy-hughes]

Bullying is a matter of perception - and I would agree that AOG has neither been bullied, or claimed that he has been bullied on this thread.

Other posters though, have a legitimate claim to being gratuitously insulted, and hopefully some redress will be forthcoming.

[Svejk]

Who removed my post about banging my head against the wall, and why?

[ummmm]

Dunno...strange, mines still there.

[Svejk]

Another mystery.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - "Who removed my post about banging my head against the wall, and why?"

It is AB policy not to enter into discussions about deleted posts / threads because it takes up valuable space with little worthwhile result.

Whomever removed your post is not going to advise you of their action.

[ummmm]

Posts like this where the majority disagree with the opinions of the OP cannot be viewed as bullying or ganging up. In the main the people posting are not the type to change their point of view to back up an AB friend. This isn't ChatterBank...

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - "Posts like this where the majority disagree with the opinions of the OP cannot be viewed as bullying or ganging up. In the main the people posting are not the type to change their point of view to back up an AB friend. This isn't ChatterBank... "

Absolutely.

The News Section tends to attract people who like a lively exchange of views, there are no shrinking violets here, and everyone stands their corner.

Bullying in my view is a specific intent, and simple disagreement and argument of a point does not constitute bullying - if it did, the News Section would cease to exist.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// Chelsea FC has suspended three people from attending its ground after a video appeared to show club fans stopping a black man from boarding a Paris train. ///

'APPEARED to show', nothing quite definite then?

/// Life banning orders will be issued if there is deemed sufficient evidence of the fans' involvement in Tuesday's incident, the football club said ///

'IF THERE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE', no certain evidence as yet then?

/// while Prime Minister David Cameron told LBC Radio on Wednesday that the footage looked "extremely disturbing and very worrying" ///

'THE FOOTAGE LOOKED EXTREMELY DISTURBING AND VERY WORRYING'

'LOOKED' not 'WAS' extremely disturbing and very worrying'?

It would appear that it is only those on AB who are 'DEFINITE' about matters.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// How can disagreeing with someone make you a bully? ///

There are certain ways of disagreeing with people, that I have come to accept, but if you read through the posts, you will see this has not been simple disagreement, but aggressive mob type bullying.

[Barmaid]

//you will see this has not been simple disagreement, but aggressive mob type bullying. //

Not dissimilar to the original subject then.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "It would appear that it is only those on AB who are 'DEFINITE' about matters."

Not necessarily.

I am quite sure that the media, the football club, and Mr Cameron have all seen and heard what we have all seen and heard, and their interperetation will be the same as the approaching twenty individual posters on here who disagree with your endless attempts to carry on trying to see something that is simply not there.

The difference is, they are constrained in different ways from simply stating their view - Mr Cameron has to be careful not to predjudice any potential legal action, and Chelsea FC are in a similar position.

So trying to add their careful legal language in as seeing things from your viewpoint simply adds to the ongoing fruitlessness of your position - even in the face of almost total disagreement.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "... but if you read through the posts, you will see this has not been simple disagreement, but aggressive mob type bullying."

I must retract my previous observation where I was keen to point out that you did not see yourself as bullied - because as a regular and robust debater, being 'bullied' is not part of your persona.

But it seems you do perceive the disagreements as 'aggressive mob type bullying'.

Next you'll be calling people trolls for disagreeing with you ... oops ... too late!

[-Talbot-]

Barmaid
//you will see this has not been simple disagreement, but aggressive mob type bullying. //

Not dissimilar to the original subject then.




Lol, easily the best answer.

[sp1814]

AOG

You've said that you were playing Devil's Advocate, but It assume you've had a chance to look at the video - what is your take on the actions of this mob?

What would they have had to do to make you think, "Okay, yeah - that's racist"?

Would it take direct verbal and/or physical abuss?

I think (like the majority of posters here), a crowd of white men chanting "We're racist and we don't care" whilst violently pushing a black man off a tube train would constitute racism. If you have a different understanding, it would be imteresting to hear what that is.