Captain... Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 For the billionth time... it was not just that chant, No one is denying that actual racism happened, and it shouldn't, that is why it is not getting much debate. What is up for debate is this chant, which was reported to the police, and as you say yourself, it probably didn't cause any offense on it's own. The issue with this chant is that it was usng by a lot of people so was it: a) a unified demonstration of racism sung by large sections of the crowd, most other incidents of racism have been small numbers of wankers, and if so is something that the club as a whole and the fan base as a whole must be held accountable for. or b) A crack at our ownership, may be with racial undertones but implied and not explicit and not true of the majority singing it and no worse than what is heard every week at all football grounds aimed at the welsh, scousers, sheepshaggers, etc. and actual incidents of racism were dealt with to the best of the capabilities of the stewards.
1964FOX Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 An initial complaint is usually to do with a single instance, once the investigation starts, statements taken and evidence gathered then in most cases other things are found. It would not surprise me if the OP wasnt contacted by the police to see if he wants to make a formal complaint. Not saying it will happen but if the investigation is thorough (and media attention would probably ensure that) then all things related to the original complaint will be taken into consideration. OP please forgive me if you have already stated in this thread that you have reported it directly to Notts Police.
Babylon Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 No one is denying that actual racism happened, and it shouldn't, that is why it is not getting much debate. What is up for debate is this chant, which was reported to the police, and as you say yourself, it probably didn't cause any offense on it's own. The issue with this chant is that it was usng by a lot of people so was it: a) a unified outpouring of racism sung by large sections of the crowd, most other incidents of racism have been small numbers of wankers, and if so is something that the club as a whole and the fan base as a whole must be held accountable for. or b) A crack at our ownership, may be with racial undertones but implied and not explicit and not true of the majority singing it and no worse than what is heard every week at all football grounds aimed at the welsh, scousers, sheepshaggers, etc. and actual incidents of racism were dealt with to the best of the capabilities of the stewards. I think you are simplifying it somewhat with an a) or a b). Callabinho posted earlier "I don't think they are paying much attention to the "used to be English chants" as I have said a number of times because I have spoken to someone dealing with the situation, They are looking into finding the Forest fans who racially abused a Leicester fan outside of the ground. You've all seen the video as it was posted on here, It's now gone off you tube. Both the Nottingham police and City ground staff are doing their up most to resolve it, can we not at least credit them for that?" So they are obviously looking into various things. And as pointed out by others, the other instances may come to light as part of the investigation if they haven't been pointed out.
flowwolf Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 Babylon / Captain thank you for explaining why you think the " you used to be English " is offensive , you put it much better than I could and I now understand it's full implications. As for the police looking into it , well look how long it took them to get Stephen Laurence's murderers it could be quite some time never.
Captain... Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 I think you are simplifying it somewhat with an a) or a b). Callabinho posted earlier "I don't think they are paying much attention to the "used to be English chants" as I have said a number of times because I have spoken to someone dealing with the situation, They are looking into finding the Forest fans who racially abused a Leicester fan outside of the ground. You've all seen the video as it was posted on here, It's now gone off you tube. Both the Nottingham police and City ground staff are doing their up most to resolve it, can we not at least credit them for that?" So they are obviously looking into various things. And as pointed out by others, the other instances may come to light as part of the investigation if they haven't been pointed out. I hope you are right, but there is a big difference between isolated incidents of racism which are being investigated (which I'm sure happens at other matches and often aren't investigated) and the accusation that large numbers of fans in the ground were singing racist songs. That a small percentage of fans at the ground are ignorant cvnts, is not a surprise, and they should be investigated, caught and have their balls cut off. I just worry that because of the video of the chant and the hysteria surrounding "race crimes" at the moment that innocent people who thought, like me, that the chant was about our owners and joined in will be tarred with the racist brush. I think that chant should be dismissed and the focus on the actual racists.
Babylon Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 a) a unified demonstration of racism sung by large sections of the crowd, most other incidents of racism have been small numbers of wankers, and if so is something that the club as a whole and the fan base as a whole must be held accountable for. As a slight aside, it only takes one person to start a song. Christ I accidentally started one during the game by just shouting "get in to him", loads of people then carried on with the rest!! Most others just follow without really thinking, so whilst most are guilty of being a bit ignorant. Only the one person who started the song knows their true intentions. And when you look at the other incidents that day it's not a stretch to imagine what they really meant by it. Nobody will get charged for that chant, you can't prove beyond all doubt what they meant. But I'm sure they will be trying to try and get to the bottom of the rest. ** Just saw your post above, I think I covered it in this...
Houdini Logic Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 And I suppose when we play Brighton away someone in the away end wont start the does your boyfriend know your here chant? Once again the left wing brigade sounds there victory horn. I dread the day we ever have a civil war over here cause chances are we wont win! Thinking this is about politics worries me more than any chant I heard at the game
L1HT Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 The Crime and Disorder act provides the power to convict people who commit offences that are racially aggravated so if you commit a public order offence which is what would cover this situation and it's compounded by the fact it's racially motivated then a power of arrest exists. The penalties for these offences on conviction are greater than the normal offence. In this instance the worst case scenario for the offenders would be six months in prison, they would almost certainly also get a lengthy ban from any games. This really isn't an offence you want to be convicted of as the punishments are harsh. So the basic answer to your question is there is a lot of law for the police to enforce in these cases, and it also includes homophobic offences so chants at Brighton fans could fall into the same category. Thats the law...but how can the Chants that were done go into that law? Its a public order offence to say 'small town in Bagdad'?
stillwater Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 It was mentioned on BBC East Mids news yesterday morning and the presenter talking about it was allowed by the BBC to say what the fans where chanting in the video "you used to be English your not anymore" If the chant had been "Your just a town full of Pakis" I doubt they would have allowed him to repeat it. So it would appear the the BBC did not take it as a racist comment!!!! maybe time to move on
1964FOX Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 Thats the law...but how can the Chants that were done go into that law? Its a public order offence to say 'small town in Bagdad'? Quite simply yes it is a public order offence to take part in any racist chant at a designated football match. In fact there is a test case in which the chant 'town full of pakis' was used for a conviction and there does not even need to be any of the racial group present or anyone present to be offended.
Guest Bilo Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/sport/football/s/60/60862_paki_football_chant_ruled_racist_by_court.html Also, if you Google 'Town full of Pakis,' you'll see plenty of references to those who've sung it to us over the years. Genuinely vile how long it's dragged on for by a variety of 'fans.'
L1HT Posted 11 January 2012 Posted 11 January 2012 Quite simply yes it is a public order offence to take part in any racist chant at a designated football match. In fact there is a test case in which the chant 'town full of pakis' was used for a conviction and there does not even need to be any of the racial group present or anyone present to be offended. Just playing here.....but 'town full of pakis' includes the word paki. Everyone in England knows the word paki is used as a racist word. You say it, your using a racist word, everyone knows that. But they sang small town in Bagdad...
1964FOX Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Just playing here.....but 'town full of pakis' includes the word paki. Everyone in England knows the word paki is used as a racist word. You say it, your using a racist word, everyone knows that. But they sang small town in Bagdad... Probably only be decided as a test case at the court of appeal but initially I could see the CPS going with it as a racial chant but of course the court would decide one way or the other, and would depend on what the suspect actually says. So the answer to your question is there is no definative answer.
flowwolf Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Paddy/ Paki whats the difference ? Sweaty sock ( jock ) Limey, Tiddly wink ( chink) heard them all and yes they are all derogatory why is Paki so special then ? this is a serious question not a piss take.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Paddy/ Paki whats the difference ? Sweaty sock ( jock ) Limey, Tiddly wink ( chink) heard them all and yes they are all derogatory why is Paki so special then ? this is a serious question not a piss take. Have to agree with this.
Dr The Singh Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Paddy/ Paki whats the difference ? Sweaty sock ( jock ) Limey, Tiddly wink ( chink) heard them all and yes they are all derogatory why is Paki so special then ? this is a serious question not a piss take. It's the power of the word, and it's created intended use, the word 'paki' , short for pakistan maybe, but it's use was during the british empire days where people from the indian subcontinent were 'subjects'/slaves, and were taunted, marginilised and treated with hatred using that word. Britiah Empire was very cruel, even after the empire britsh still treated people from the indian subcontinent as slaves, that mentality of abuse is associated with slavery, and torment.
flowwolf Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 It's the power of the word, and it's created intended use, the word 'paki' , short for pakistan maybe, but it's use was during the british empire days where people from the indian subcontinent were 'subjects'/slaves, and were taunted, marginilised and treated with hatred using that word. Britiah Empire was very cruel, even after the empire britsh still treated people from the indian subcontinent as slaves, that mentality of abuse is associated with slavery, and torment. Don't know how you come to that conclusion because Pakistan was never a country under British rule , in fact it did not exist until India got it's independence in 1947. So it would have been impossible for any British in the India to have called anyone a Paki as it did not exist.
Dr The Singh Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Very true and apologies!! But the roots do lie with empiracal slavery, with the movement of ex colonial Inidans moving to Britian!
Fez of Mahrez Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Have written a bit about it here: http://theseventytwo.com/football-league/championship/2012/01/12/nottingham-forest-leicester-city-and-the-racism-question/
Captain... Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Don't know how you come to that conclusion because Pakistan was never a country under British rule , in fact it did not exist until India got it's independence in 1947. So it would have been impossible for any British in the India to have called anyone a Paki as it did not exist. From wiki dictionaries: Usage notes The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England. In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word, such that it can be used within the young British Pakistani community but not by outsiders, including Indians and Bangladeshis. Anagrams kipa pika Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Paki&oldid=15345348" I can't actually access the main wiki page on that word because it is blocked by work, that is how naughty that word is. The difference to me is that it has no meaning other than to be offensive, I have only ever heard it used as being offensive, Paddy for example, is common and can be affectionate and you hear it on TV and and other media, whereas "Mick" is considered a lot more offensive*, I think because of it's use in the past, or it has just not been "reclaimed". It is interesting to read that there have been movements to try and reclaim the word, much like Nigger has been reclaimed in some ways by the US black communities, but that still doesn't make it an acceptable term to use. I guess it is all about intent, and very few people will use the word Paki without intent to offend someone, by virtue of the fact that it is only offensive, when people stop being offended it will stop being offensive, then people will just find another way to be a cvnt. You have to remember we give the words the power they have they are just 4 letters and hold no actual harm in them but they have been bestowed with power to offend by history, society and intolerance. *or maybe not http://replyz.com/c/7251582-ps-is-mick-racist-when-referring-to-irishmen-can-someone-please-confirm-either-way
1964FOX Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 The point is the word 'paki' has never had a positve meaning it has always been used as an insult or put down. Having grown up in the bad old days when racism was accepted and asians in this country were treated as second class citizens I can tell you it was awful (I am assuming you are younger or you wouldn't need to ask the question) Every single asian I know my age considers it racist and it reminds them of those awful days.
flowwolf Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 A bit like Honky and limey and whitey and snowflake then.
flowwolf Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 Very true and apologies!! But the roots do lie with empiracal slavery, with the movement of ex colonial Inidans moving to Britian! Ok Dr i do get your point. So really it has only become derogatory since it has been used here then.
1964FOX Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 A bit like Honky and limey and whitey and snowflake then. I know a LOT of what you write is for reaction or tongue in cheek but no it's different due to the fact of who had the social power although I think you may know that. I used to like the series Love my Neighbour by the way, shame it is no longer shown as it shows just how stupid racists are.
Captain... Posted 12 January 2012 Posted 12 January 2012 A bit like Honky and limey and whitey and snowflake then. ..and POM? I got called a POM in Australia, didn't think anything of it, until the guy came up to me after and apologised, I said why, he said cos he'd called me a pom, I said oh, I didn't realise it was offensive. As a honky, limey, whitey, cracker I can choose to be offended by that if I want, but it makes no sense, now if my ancestors had been enslaved for being white and I was made to feel like a second class citizen because of the colour of my skin it might be different.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.