Jump to content

Callum Hudson-Odoi


Recommended Posts


20 hours ago, Patch said:

You've actually just proven my point. I don't think you have been reading what I've been saying either as you've backed up what I'm saying.

I was very clearly told Bruto's case was racism and I had to believe it. That's what I take issue with. If you accept that not all wrongful arrests of black people aren't racially motivated, then you have to accept my view that Bruto's being searched doesn't have to be because he was black based on the information given.

My whole point is you have to judge each case individually and not just assume that because a black person was searched it was a racist event like Valerie claimed. 

So thank you for backing up what I've been saying the whole time.

 

The football season is starting up again. Let's get back to football.

I think the trouble here is that it's impossible to dig into the police officers' brains and ascertain their reasons for stopping him. Our biases are often subconscious and are difficult to acknowledge. This is an interesting paper on the topic of implicit and subconscious biases I recently read. 

When you look at the broader statistics - eg. black people are something like 40 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people - the inference that Brutos's ethnicity had a part to play seems a sensible one.

None of my white friends have ever been stopped and searched by police. Many of them frequently carry things they shouldn't - as do many "respectable" professionals in the City. If they were stopped, searched and charged for possession, there would be serious ramifications for their personal and professional lives. On the other hand, black friends and colleagues have told me that being stopped and searched by police is routine to them. If that's not a systemic issue then I don't know what is.

 

Back to CHO:

Glad that his legal troubles are behind him, and I'm glad that he kept a dignified silence until charges were dropped. Hope he gets his head down and performs now. Was looking off the pace before the break, but he was coming back from a pretty nasty injury so it's understandable. He's going to have some tough competition for his place in the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Samdwich said:

I think the trouble here is that it's impossible to dig into the police officers' brains and ascertain their reasons for stopping him. Our biases are often subconscious and are difficult to acknowledge. This is an interesting paper on the topic of implicit and subconscious biases I recently read. 

When you look at the broader statistics - eg. black people are something like 40 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people - the inference that Brutos's ethnicity had a part to play seems a sensible one.

None of my white friends have ever been stopped and searched by police. Many of them frequently carry things they shouldn't - as do many "respectable" professionals in the City. If they were stopped, searched and charged for possession, there would be serious ramifications for their personal and professional lives. On the other hand, black friends and colleagues have told me that being stopped and searched by police is routine to them. If that's not a systemic issue then I don't know what is.

 

Back to CHO:

Glad that his legal troubles are behind him, and I'm glad that he kept a dignified silence until charges were dropped. Hope he gets his head down and performs now. Was looking off the pace before the break, but he was coming back from a pretty nasty injury so it's understandable. He's going to have some tough competition for his place in the team.

We are all aware that black people get stopped more than white people, and using the stats would have been a sensible argument that I would have agreed with. Instead all that was provided was a couple headlines (which didn't show anything) and anecdotal evidence about being searched once when he was 15 years old. It's not even a horrible story. He just got searched once when he was 15. Hardly a big deal. They were awful examples to use to prove racism and I'm not going to be told that I have to accept a certain event was racism without evidence because the person feels it was racism, or because of the colour of my skin making my opinion not matter (which is an outrageous thing to say!). 

There is a chance is was racial, and the police stop black people too often, but that doesn't prove that Bruto's case was racial, and I'm never going to jump to conclusions and say his case definitely was. People were jumping to conclusions over CHO arrest in here and I said everyone should wait and not jump to conclusions. I don't jump to conclusions with anything as I know better then to make my mind up without the full story. Maybe that comes from people jumping to conclusions with my situation.

Now there is a problem a huge with the police stopping black people more than whites that needs to be dealt with, and there is systemic issue in the police. The evidence is clear on that and that needs to be dealt with.

That's not a debate, but that also wasn't what was being debated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Patch said:

I'm not going to be told that I have to accept a certain event was racism without evidence because the person feels it was racism

That is literally the legal definition of a racist crime as used by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

That is literally the legal definition of a racist crime as used by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Is that right? The CPS definition is that if a person thinks that something said to them is racist, that makes it racist.  I confess I haven't read all of this thread yet to get the full context, but is that correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Is that right? The CPS definition is that if a person thinks that something said to them is racist, that makes it racist.  I confess I haven't read all of this thread yet to get the full context, but is that correct?

I'm fairly sure, but I'll go and check now, just to make sure.

 

Right, I got it from a piece about how racially and homophobically offensive Johnson has been throughout his career.  The specific article said

"In a¬†piece written in 2000 for¬†The Guardian, Johnson said that a "bunch of black kids" made him ‚Äúturn a hair‚ÄĚ, and added:

If that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty.

Yes, Boris,  you are.

In the same column, he railed against the Macpherson reforms, which were proposed in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. Johnson wasn't keen, saying it was "Orwellian stuff" from the "PC brigade"."

Edited by yorkleyblue
Found my source
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yorkleyblue said:

I'm fairly sure, but I'll go and check now, just to make sure.

 

Right, I got it from a piece about how racially and homophobically offensive Johnson has been throughout his career.  The specific article said

"In a¬†piece written in 2000 for¬†The Guardian, Johnson said that a "bunch of black kids" made him ‚Äúturn a hair‚ÄĚ, and added:

If that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty.

Yes, Boris,  you are.

In the same column, he railed against the Macpherson reforms, which were proposed in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. Johnson wasn't keen, saying it was "Orwellian stuff" from the "PC brigade"."

A bit from an article in The Guardian from 2000. Really?

That's the definition the CPS use to flag a case as racially motivate, but they can't prosecute someone for it and flagging a case doesn't mean it definitely is a racial event and the other person was racist.

 

"Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes."

So someone can claim an event is racially motivated,  but that doesn't mean it was and I have to believe it.

Edited by Patch
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Patch said:

A bit from an article in The Guardian from 2000. Really?

That's the definition the CPS use to flag a case as racially motivate, but they can't prosecute someone for it and flagging a case doesn't mean it definitely is a racial event and the other person was racist.

 

"Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes."

So someone can claim an event is racially motivated,  but that doesn't mean it was and I have to believe it.

 

The fact that the source was a Guardian article detailing the racist statements said and articles written by our current prime minister is irrelevant to the point under discussion.

You can keep on digging as much as you like.  Neither you nor I have any right to tell a black or other minority person whether or not they have been racially abused.  And, as you seem to have difficulty in either reading or comprehension, the relevant part of my previous post was

"These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. "

Nothing to do with flagging, subjectivity or otherwise, and no-one but you has raised the concept of enhanced sentencing.  And again, you claim you have the right to decide whether any abuse is racially motivated or not.  That really does smack of the entitled, exceptionalism that is hugely on the increase in this country, very much to the detriment of all decent, caring people.

Don't bother replying, we are of opposite ends of the spectrum and will never agree on this, so lets get back to the football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2020 at 10:34, RIP Mourinho said:

I don't know where Brutos comes from but if its from the backwards country to our west then it probably was racism. USA is beyond saving. 

There’s certainly some systemic issues over here that need fixing. But don’t fall into a trap of believing everything the media spits out. They show the worst of the worst and really nothing else, which in my opinion isn’t very responsible. Not talking current events specifically, just in general over the past decade to two decades.

There’s places with bad police, places that are more dangerous than others, places where people are treated differently than others, places that are more political than others. But beyond saving? Harsh. I’ve found it to be a pleasant place to raise a family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/06/2020 at 15:10, yorkleyblue said:

I wasn't going to get into this but having a white bloke telling a black bloke about what is and isn't racism doesn't sit well with me at all, and is patronising and condescending at the very, very best.

Arguments from authority don't always work, I completely disagree with the idea of invalidating ones opinion just because of their skin colour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

 

The fact that the source was a Guardian article detailing the racist statements said and articles written by our current prime minister is irrelevant to the point under discussion.

You can keep on digging as much as you like.  Neither you nor I have any right to tell a black or other minority person whether or not they have been racially abused.  And, as you seem to have difficulty in either reading or comprehension, the relevant part of my previous post was

"These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. "

Nothing to do with flagging, subjectivity or otherwise, and no-one but you has raised the concept of enhanced sentencing.  And again, you claim you have the right to decide whether any abuse is racially motivated or not.  That really does smack of the entitled, exceptionalism that is hugely on the increase in this country, very much to the detriment of all decent, caring people.

Don't bother replying, we are of opposite ends of the spectrum and will never agree on this, so lets get back to the football.

It has everything to do with flagging! It's standard for police and prosecutors to use that definition to flag a case as racist, but that is all. They obviously won't try and prosecute for any racial crimes based on the victims word and no evidence. The fact the CPS might consider it a racist event doesn't actually mean anything.

The fact is the victim legally can't decide if a case is racist. This is a fact.  I follow the same standards as our legal system. 

My post was from the CPS Prosecution Guidelines.

Posting a bit from a 20 year old newspaper article is so stupid. 

Also, I didn't actually make the claim that I decided if any abuse was racially motivated or not. So all that stuff you said at the end is irrelevant You're putting words into my mouth again.  I said that someone claiming abuse was racist doesn't automatically make it racist. That's a very different thing to your lies you're making about what I'm saying.

I'm saying there has to be evidence and not just accepting the word of the person involved, especially when that person involved doesn't know himself if it was racially motivated. Exactly same standard as our legal system. 

Edited by Patch
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Arguments from authority don't always work, I completely disagree with the idea of invalidating ones opinion just because of their skin colour. 

Exactly. We should all be treated as equal and our skin colour shouldn't matter. The people in here seem obsessed with peoples skin colour. It's disturbing.

Just to add, the post you replied to said "a white bloke telling a black bloke what is and isn't racism doesn't sit well with me. No matter how much they keep saying that's what I'm saying, I haven't actually said this. All I said is I'm not going to find someone guilty of racism, or someone the victim of racism when there is zero evidence that is was racism. The victim thinking it was racism  isn't enough.

A perfectly sensible and reasonable position to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2020 at 09:30, WhiteWall said:

Is that right? The CPS definition is that if a person thinks that something said to them is racist, that makes it racist.  I confess I haven't read all of this thread yet to get the full context, but is that correct?

There is legislation about Hate crimes.

Racism comes under Hate Crime and it is subjective, which means if someone believes they have been abused they can lodge a crime.

I spoke with a policeman about this and he agreed it was opening up Pandora's box and could be abused due to is subjectivity.

The acid test is court and a jury trial , if a jury does not buy it the accused goes free.

Jurors are often a fly in the ointment of some prosecutions as they can go against the judges recommendation if they believe a miscarriage of justice is happening. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
50 minutes ago, Mr. President said:

Goodbye and good luck.

Is there anyone who still buys him as a great promise in the world of football?

Were you one of the ones outraged we signed Pulisic instead of Jovic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, abramovich said:

 

 

Very fair and straight forward from Frank.

He said almost the exact same thing about 9 months ago when Pulisic wasn't playing. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, haviet1 said:

Very fair and straight forward from Frank.

He said almost the exact same thing about 9 months ago when Pulisic wasn't playing. 

Let’s hope it has the same effect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comes down to mentality, whats his motivation to get in the team now? Does he want to be a superstar or is happy with his current role?

Next couple of years will tell us, Not saying it will happen but wouldn't be surprised if he just becomes a squad player and impact sub.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...