On 22/11/2020 at 18:44, Nibs said:

Well it seems the BBC are about to dig it all up again with a one hour documentary - Anton Ferdinand: Football, Racism and Me. Look forward to our club and JT being castigated all over again.

Why FFS?

I'm all for the Black Lives Matter but the BBC seem to be going out of their way to to balance all the bad things that have happened to blacks throughout history.

The Paris Metro incident will probably get a mention , maybe a 10 episode documentary to follow

I heard on another forum the Paris incident wasn't quite what how it seemed.

The train was only half busy yet the chap decides to join the very busy section with Chelsea fans.

They had the impression it was a media set up.

32 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

I heard on another forum the Paris incident wasn't quite what how it seemed.

The train was only half busy yet the chap decides to join the very busy section with Chelsea fans.

They had the impression it was a media set up.

This is true. Obviously doesn't excuse the chanting, but it was certainly an incident that was manufactured to create footage to send to the Guardian.

The Mirror has slightly longer footage than the Clip the Guardian put on Youtube. It shows that the guy with the phone starts filming before the incident. If you're on a platform and notice an altercation you might get your phone out and start filming it. But noone would decide to film a black guy who they allegedly didn't know just wander along a platform before deciding to enter a packed carriage.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chelsea-paris-metro-racist-assault-6118099

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by Backbiter

15 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Quality is subjective, and there is barely anything on the BBC that I find to be quality tv and nothing that makes me feel it is worth paying £157 a year for, not even MOTD, so I don't see why I should have to keep funding them.

There’s one show worth the £157 alone....

8 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

There is no guaratee at all that protected sporting events would be put behind a paywall if the tv licence was abolished. It may happen, it may not, there is no way of knowing, but I would be willing to gamble it if it meant I didn't have to pay the tv licence.

Again, quality is subjective. You say programmes will get worse and adverts will become more frequent, well I simply don't care. It couldn't get any worse than it already is from my point of view, so if it somehow did get even worse, then so be it, it makes no difference to me because I don't watch any of it anyway.

The BBC may be worth it for you, but the number of people that don't feel it is worth it is growing, and by 2027, I expect those numbers to be too large to ignore. 

I fully expect the licence fee to disappear. I then expect all sport to fall behind a paywall and all tv to slowly become advertised based. 

Genuinely tv will become f**king sh*t in years to come and by 2027 the quality will be sh*t.

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

I fully expect the licence fee to disappear. I then expect all sport to fall behind a paywall and all tv to slowly become advertised based. 

Genuinely tv will become f**king sh*t in years to come and by 2027 the quality will be sh*t.

It's not already sh*t? I haven't watched TV in years, I couldn't tell you the last time I sat and watched a program. 

7 hours ago, Slojo said:

It's not already sh*t? I haven't watched TV in years, I couldn't tell you the last time I sat and watched a program. 

Then how would you know?

13 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I fully expect the licence fee to disappear. I then expect all sport to fall behind a paywall and all tv to slowly become advertised based. 

Genuinely tv will become f**king sh*t in years to come and by 2027 the quality will be sh*t.

The paywall concept you describe might happen yet if the quality deteriorates will people still pay for it?

6 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Then how would you know?

Do you know what a question mark is? You must have missed it. 

43 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Do you know what a question mark is? You must have missed it. 

Sorry thought it was a sarcy rhetorical question 

5 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Sorry thought it was a sarcy rhetorical question 

Do you work for the BBC or something? It's obvious I can know what's on TV and still not bother to sit down and watch something because nothing is interesting. If you want to watch something these days, you go online. Many others do the same. 

When I was a kid everyone watched TV, not so much today, that's just a fact you're going to have to accept. 

We'll get nothing out of this if we keep being so sloppy in possession

2 hours ago, Slojo said:

Do you work for the BBC or something? It's obvious I can know what's on TV and still not bother to sit down and watch something because nothing is interesting. If you want to watch something these days, you go online. Many others do the same. 

When I was a kid everyone watched TV, not so much today, that's just a fact you're going to have to accept. 

Yeah TV as we know it is basically dead and replaced by online content.

And thank god for that. Regular TV is horrible.

2 hours ago, Slojo said:

Do you work for the BBC or something? It's obvious I can know what's on TV and still not bother to sit down and watch something because nothing is interesting. If you want to watch something these days, you go online. Many others do the same. 

When I was a kid everyone watched TV, not so much today, that's just a fact you're going to have to accept. 

If you genuinely don't like watching anything on tv I would be shocked. For a start you must like watching some sport. You should also be keeping up with the news somehow. No idea how you don't like documentaries and this is also adding in the licence fee pays the BBC sport website and the radio. 

You can go online and watch things and if that's what you want to do then just don't pay the bloody licence and chuck your tv in the bin. 

I don't work for the BBC. Just care about it as an institution same as the NHS. 

 

Will watch the documentary later. Am wondering if they’ll drag JT down againIm fully behind BLM it’s about time we eradicated all forms of racsim. I accept JT isn’t a angel,but the treatment he’s received is unacceptable. In a Court of Law he was found Not Guilty thats a fact. The FA is a laughable organisation terrible run by selfish weak out of touch old men. How they can find him guilty after has always baffled me.

Funny how this documentary is coming out only a few weeks after the latest FA chairmen has had to resign 

The other reason the media and fans hate JT is the alleged affair with our ex player and the players Ex girlfriend. There has never been any proof of this tbh I’m not interested if JT did shag her, simply it’s none of my business.

How JT has been so vilified when Ryan Giggs shagged his brothers wife and now on a alleged wife beating charge. How he is still Saint Ryan again it’s baffling.

But the big thing for me is Drug Cheat Rio Ferdinand  How is this below not Racsit?? Will Ashley do a documentary soon saying how it’s affected him, my guess is not.

I feel double stands are in play

My take on the documentary, Be interesting for other point of view ?

It was pretty damming on JT, so you are going to be angry if you watch it. From the outset he is assumed guilty, Ferdinand says "he called me a F****** B**** C***"  It is  tempered a bit through out with him saying things along the lines of "it doesn't matter what context it was said", "this is bigger than just me and John"  "its more about the reaction"  ...he was also honest about what he said to John and they showed clips of John wearing a BLM t shirt and taking a knee.  But don't get me wrong there is one villain portrayed here., he emailed John towards the end but John didn't reply, a bit much was made of that, that was uncalled for in my opinion. 

I am a little torn though as I think the message is important and I did come away thinking that he is trying to do something about racism in football and more importantly speaking out about it which he felt he didn't at the time and he wants to encourage youngsters too.

Ferdinand did say of JT that he is "dammed if he does and damned if he don't" so even he agrees that it is difficult for John to speak out about this all he is going to do is repeat what he said in court so they will never agree on the incident.

Overall it is the type of documentary that will not linger in the memory but I hope the message does get across.  

1 hour ago, andy said:

My take on the documentary, Be interesting for other point of view ?

It was pretty damming on JT, so you are going to be angry if you watch it. From the outset he is assumed guilty, Ferdinand says "he called me a F****** B**** C***"  It is  tempered a bit through out with him saying things along the lines of "it doesn't matter what context it was said", "this is bigger than just me and John"  "its more about the reaction"  ...he was also honest about what he said to John and they showed clips of John wearing a BLM t shirt and taking a knee.  But don't get me wrong there is one villain portrayed here., he emailed John towards the end but John didn't reply, a bit much was made of that, that was uncalled for in my opinion. 

I am a little torn though as I think the message is important and I did come away thinking that he is trying to do something about racism in football and more importantly speaking out about it which he felt he didn't at the time and he wants to encourage youngsters too.

Ferdinand did say of JT that he is "dammed if he does and damned if he don't" so even he agrees that it is difficult for John to speak out about this all he is going to do is repeat what he said in court so they will never agree on the incident.

Overall it is the type of documentary that will not linger in the memory but I hope the message does get across.  

There was no way JT could go on that documentary and keep his job at Aston Villa. 

Either he went on and admitted he lied to the country about it and did call someone a black c*nt and he was sorry and wants to make amends. Or he goes on and says he said something else and then gets torn apart by the media for "lying". 

The backlash either way isn't worth it for him. Best for him to sit it out.

I've haven't watched the whole documentary I literally just skipped to the part where you hear Terry's interview with the FA and the part where the cover the trial and the FA's ruling. 

Without Terry contributing to the documentary it is extremely biased. As Ferdinand listens back to Terry's version of their altercation he's interjecting saying "that didn't happen" or "that doesn't make sense". So we, as a viewer, are being made to believe or be sympathetic to Ferdinand. Terry is portrayed as the liar and Ferdinand's recollection of events is gospel. 

Everything again hinges on the wonky camera angle of Terry when he says the offending phrase. That's what the whole thing is about. Ferdinand asks the prosecutor "why was he found not guilty when you can see on the clip what he said". So even now, 8 years later, that one clip is the entire basis of the argument against Terry. 

I won't rehash the arguments for and against Terry but documentary very much depicts Terry has the "villain" and that being found not guilty in a court of law is framed as an injustice. 

There is a lot of work to be done to eradicate racism, discrimination and bigotry not just from football but in society in general. I'm just not sure that focusing on one persons story, centering around one "alleged" incident of racism is really the means for good it is being dressed up to be.       

Was it mentioned that Rio has made racist remarks to Ash Cole in the past ? I won't repeat what he said as i'm sure most of you will remember, but it's amazing how that always gets completely forgotten. 

46 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

There was no way JT could go on that documentary and keep his job at Aston Villa. 

Either he went on and admitted he lied to the country about it and did call someone a black c*nt and he was sorry and wants to make amends. Or he goes on and says he said something else and then gets torn apart by the media for "lying". 

The backlash either way isn't worth it for him. Best for him to sit it out.

Yes, it was a lose-lose situation for JT. His stance from the day of the incident, and repeated under oath under tough cross-examination, is that he never racially abused AF, so he is never going to apologise to him for something he claims he never did. And yet not apologising is seen as yet another example of him being in the wrong.

I know the programme was made purely from AF's perspective - how the incident affected him personally, how he now feels he has to do more to tackle racism in the game and in society at large, after keeping pretty much silent for the past 9 years - so I wasn't expecting a balanced portrayal of the case, but a few things did bug me.

They showed footage of AF elbowing JT off the ball in the build-up to the incident, but made no mention of how that was dealt with at the trial. Under cross-examination, AF denied ever elbowing JT, so JT's defence team ran the footage, which showed him doing it twice. AF denies ever accusing JT of calling him a FBC, but the defence argument was his recall of elbowing JT was inaccurate so his recall of what words were exchanged could not be relied upon. The programme failed to deal with that, just as it didn't really analyse the fact that half of JT's words were obscured by another player. This was crucial in JT's defence and ultimately led to his acquittal, as it was plausibly argued that the missed words were "I never called you a". At the trial, the judge made the point that JT's defence remained consistent from day one, and none of the dozen or so cameras at Loftus Road has ever undermined his claim that he was not using the words FBC to racially abuse AF. There is no footage that reveals exactly what he said, and he could not have known that when he issued his initial statement after the game.

AF stated during the programme that he could see JT saying "You FBC", but in court expert lip readers were unable to state what word preceded "FBC". JT claimed it was the word "a", not "you", which again was crucial to the defence. The JT version does stand up to scrutiny, because he claims he said "you effing knobhead" after the words FBC. Adding "you effing knobhead" after calling someone a c**t would just be weird, to my mind, and only really makes sense if it's used imply someone is being stupid to think that he'd just racially abused him. The FA claimed at their hearing that knobhead was also a term of severe abuse, but in reality it's just a modern version of pillock.

Unsurprisingly the programme made no mention of Rio F liking and repeating a racial slur towards Ashley Cole for standing up in court to defend JT. 

Chris Foy, who was ultimately responsible for everything that went on due to his disgraceful managing of the game, did feature briefly in JT's interview at the FA. The FA investigator seemed to laugh at how bad his performance was that day and said something along the lines of "but we won't go into how the ref performed".

Edited December 1, 20205 yr by Backbiter

Forgot that Rio called Cole a “choc ice”. For someone trying to call out racism, it isn’t a good look at all. 

Goes to show that everyone has skeletons and no-one is pure. 

4 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Yes, it was a lose-lose situation for JT. His stance from the day of the incident, and repeated under oath under tough cross-examination, is that he never racially abused AF, so he is never going to apologise to him for something he claims he never did. And yet not apologising is seen as yet another example of him being in the wrong.

I know the programme was made purely from AF's perspective - how the incident affected him personally, how he now feels he has to do more to tackle racism in the game and in society at large, after keeping pretty much silent for the past 9 years - so I wasn't expecting a balanced portrayal of the case, but a few things did bug me.

They showed footage of AF elbowing JT off the ball in the build-up to the incident, but made no mention of how that was dealt with at the trial. Under cross-examination, AF denied ever elbowing JT, so JT's defence team ran the footage, which showed him doing it twice. AF denies ever accusing JT of calling him a FBC, but the defence argument was his recall of elbowing JT was inaccurate so his recall of what words were exchanged could not be relied upon. The programme failed to deal with that, just as it didn't really analyse the fact that half of JT's words were obscured by another player. This was crucial in JT's defence and ultimately led to his acquittal, as it was plausibly argued that the missed words were "I never called you a". At the trial, the judge made the point that JT's defence remained consistent from day one, and none of the dozen or so cameras at Loftus Road has ever undermined his claim that he was not using the words FBC to racially abuse AF. There is no footage that reveals exactly what he said, and he could not have known that when he issued his initial statement after the game.

AF stated during the programme that he could see JT saying "You FBC", but in court expert lip readers were unable to state what word preceded "FBC". JT claimed it was the word "a", not "you", which again was crucial to the defence. The JT version does stand up to scrutiny, because he claims he said "you effing knobhead" after the words FBC. Adding "you effing knobhead" after calling someone a c**t would just be weird, to my mind, and only really makes sense if it's used imply someone is being stupid to think that he'd just racially abused him. The FA claimed at their hearing that knobhead was also a term of severe abuse, but in reality it's just a modern version of pillock.

Unsurprisingly the programme made no mention of Rio F liking and repeating a racial slur towards Ashley Cole for standing up in court to defend JT. 

Yeah I hate agreeing with this and half typed out something similar but deleted it. I don't like making this argument simply because I am a Chelsea fan and wonder whether I am just being blinded to something. 

My whole problem with this incident is it is so grey and vague and just creates a tribal incident and makes the whole fight against racism worse not better. This shouldn't be the fight. It should be on getting BAME coaches into the game at every level, eliminating lazy stereotypes when describing black players and celebrating success. This hear say he said you said bullsh*t doesn't help anyone. 

 

And to be fair to Anton, a lot of the programme was focused on the real bullsh*t which was people racially abusing him after the game and the issues with social media. But once we make racism tribal that is a consequence unfortunately. 

Edited December 1, 20205 yr by bisright1

Also remember that the FA broke their OWN laws by finding JT not guilty as they state that if someone is found not guilty in court of law, they are cleared. 

It does become very tribal doesn’t it. You only have to read Red Cafe about their defence of Cavani when they were slaughtering Liverpool for backing Suarez. 

10 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Also remember that the FA broke their OWN laws by finding JT not guilty as they state that if someone is found not guilty in court of law, they are cleared. 

This is true. They had to claim that new evidence had come to light since the trial that would allow them to hold their own hearing. The supposed new evidence was the allegation that Ashley Cole changed his story after giving his initial statement. The facts are that he gave his statement to the FA, which they typed up and sent back to the club so he could check it and sign it. It is standard practice for a witness to review and if necessary amend a statement written up by a third party before they sign it. It is not evidence that someone has changed their story, but that was what allowed the FA to break their own rules after JT had been acquitted in the UK courts.

The FA was under massive pressure to take some action. They could have simply said that, whatever the context, JT was totally out of order in using the words FBC, and could have given him a big fine and a ban on that basis. In  fact they went much further, and went for a complete character assassination of both him and Ashley Cole, deciding that JT had not only racially abused AF but lied about it in court as well (thereby accusing him of perjury while branding him a racist, and consequently ending his international career). 

Edited December 1, 20205 yr by Backbiter