Jump to content

Trevor Sinclair admits racially abusing police officer and drink-driving


GboroRam

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, rynny said:

You are questioning people's motives of asking what an anti racism organisation within football has to say about an ex footballer being charged with racism? Wonder if that would be the case if the race of the people involved were the other way around?

Duh. That's precisely why I raise it. Given that previous threads on Kick It Out have seen many comments along the lines of "white people are victims of racism from black people too. What have Kick It Out got to say about that???"

So now we have an example of a black footballer racially abusing a white police officer, so I would expect the reaction to be more along the lines of "oh thank goodness, our fears that Kick It Out are somehow THEMSELVES racist for ignoring racism against whites have been allayed. I can absolutely stop worrying about it".

Not seen any yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Duh. That's precisely why I raise it. Given that previous threads on Kick It Out have seen many comments along the lines of "white people are victims of racism from black people too. What have Kick It Out got to say about that???"

So now we have an example of a black footballer racially abusing a white police officer, so I would expect the reaction to be more along the lines of "oh thank goodness, our fears that Kick It Out are somehow THEMSELVES racist for ignoring racism against whites have been allayed. I can absolutely stop worrying about it".

Not seen any yet

Ousely or whatever his name is supports the Rooney rule in the UK which I do regard to be racist against whites. But trust you to turn a story about a black guy being racist to a white police officer into something about “another” (there’re 10 a penny apparently) thread about white people justifying racism.

Why aren’t there more black goalkeepers anyway? Racism probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Ousely or whatever his name is supports the Rooney rule in the UK which I do regard to be racist against whites.

But not in the eyes of the law. Not even remotely so. Are you campaigning to have the law changed to extend the definition of racism to include positive discrimination? Is anyone?

 

19 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

But trust you to turn a story about a black guy being racist to a white police officer into...

You know I'm doing it on purpose though right? In return for all those stories about racism against blacks that were turned on their head to highlight how "white people can be victims too".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

But not in the eyes of the law. Not even remotely so. Are you campaigning to have the law changed to extend the definition of racism to include positive discrimination? Is anyone?

 

You know I'm doing it on purpose though right? In return for all those stories about racism against blacks that were turned on their head to highlight how "white people can be victims too".

 

Yes. Lots of people disagree with that. Racism is racism.

Which stories? The stories that were blown out of all proportion to justify stopping us leaving the EU? Those ones? Yeah that’s comparable with a story that was so prominent in public it’s almost on its third whole page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

 

Yes. Lots of people disagree with that. Racism is racism.

Which stories? The stories that were blown out of all proportion to justify stopping us leaving the EU? Those ones? Yeah that’s comparable with a story that was so prominent in public it’s almost on its third whole page.

Not so much the EU thread. More the many threads over the years about racism in football, Kick It Out, the Rooney Rule etc.

This should be a short thread though - you are right.

And I didnt ask how many people agreed with the idea that racism laws should be extended to cover positive discrimination. I asked who was acively campaigning for the law to be changed. Because if you're not then you're just bleating on a football forum, and that achieves nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Not so much the EU thread. More the many threads over the years about racism in football, Kick It Out, the Rooney Rule etc.

This should be a short thread though - you are right.

And I didnt ask how many people agreed with the idea that racism laws should be extended to cover positive discrimination. I asked who was acively campaigning for the law to be changed. Because if you're not then you're just bleating on a football forum, and that achieves nothing

Oh ok. Well I’m oblivious to that.

Also, sharing your opinion with others doesn’t achieve nothing.

Some things I’ve never actively campaigned against,

Political correctness

Fascism

Communism

Aids

War

House prices

Rail prices

Marmite prices

Aids

There’s plenty more. I’m complicit in all these things really ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

Indeed, and it has been dealt with according to law. Interesting that he himself had been subject to racist behaviour in the restaurant beforehand. I wonder if that person was dealt with too?

 

Did Sinclair call the police about that? Did he ask them to sort it out you racist white *******.? Who knows?     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Duh. That's precisely why I raise it. Given that previous threads on Kick It Out have seen many comments along the lines of "white people are victims of racism from black people too. What have Kick It Out got to say about that???"

So now we have an example of a black footballer racially abusing a white police officer, so I would expect the reaction to be more along the lines of "oh thank goodness, our fears that Kick It Out are somehow THEMSELVES racist for ignoring racism against whites have been allayed. I can absolutely stop worrying about it".

Not seen any yet

So your main issue is that no one has said well done to Kick It Out for their "statement"?

The first part is just ridiculous.

Quote

Kick It Out can confirm Sinclair is not a Patron or Ambassador for the organisation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rynny said:

So your main issue is that no one has said well done to Kick It Out for their "statement"?

Not exactly an issue, but you;d expect some people to be slightly happier that the organisation they have consistently panned as counter-productive postive discriminators have not shied away from condemning black racism against a white person. Instead Stringer went with "why would anyone be interested in what they have to say?". Bit odd eh?

Why is that statement ridiculous?

You removed the preceding part of the sentence anyway

Quote

IN RESPONSE to articles published in the media today (2 January) relating to former Manchester City and England player Trevor Sinclair, Kick It Out can confirm Sinclair is not a patron or ambassador for the organisation.

It's self explanatory - they are responding to this article

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-man-city-star-trevor-sinclair-admits-racially-abusing-police-officer-and-drink-driving/ar-BBHMzSP

Which clearly stated

Quote

Sinclair, a patron of the charity Kick It Out, continued being racist after he was taken to the cells at Blackpool Police Station.

Why would they not seek to clarify that in the circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StivePesley said:

Not exactly an issue, but you;d expect some people to be slightly happier that the organisation they have consistently panned as counter-productive postive discriminators have not shied away from condemning black racism against a white person. Instead Stringer went with "why would anyone be interested in what they have to say?". Bit odd eh?

Why is that statement ridiculous?

You removed the preceding part of the sentence anyway

It's self explanatory - they are responding to this article

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-man-city-star-trevor-sinclair-admits-racially-abusing-police-officer-and-drink-driving/ar-BBHMzSP

Which clearly stated

Why would they not seek to clarify that in the circumstances?

There’s no such thing as black racism remember? Black people don’t have power and therefore can’t be racist as racism = power + prejudice. Even the ones who are presidents of the most  powerful nation on Earth can’t be racist.

Odd? I’m not interested in what they have to say on racism because in the past they have come across as a black advocacy group rather than an anti-racist group.

But the supposed anti-racist group actually condemn a racist! Do you want me to give them a goldfish or something? 

It is indeed very odd that I didn’t praise the ground they walk on for doing the most routine of things.  When this was brought to my attention I should have been nothing but full of praise for a group I have criticisms of. It’s like that old saying goes, one swallow always makes a summer, my opinion of them has now completely changed and all criticisms I have had have become void.

Remind me, who was it that linked that informative article? I’d like to thank them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Odd? I’m not interested in what they have to say on racism because in the past they have come across as a black advocacy group rather than an anti-racist group.

But the supposed anti-racist group actually condemn a racist! Do you want me to give them a goldfish or something? 

It is indeed very odd that I didn’t praise the ground they walk on for doing the most routine of things.  When this was brought to my attention I should have been nothing but full of praise for a group I have criticisms of. It’s like that old saying goes, one swallow always makes a summer, my opinion of them has now completely changed and all criticisms I have had have become void.

I'm not expecting anyone to praise them or applaud them. Admitting surprise and a morsel of contrition would be a start.

I guess that maybe the only reasons they come across as a black advocacy group are that

1) almost all racism in football is against ethnic minorities
2) white people fearing that it might lead to actual equality :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I'm not expecting anyone to praise them or applaud them. Admitting surprise and a morsel of contrition would be a start.

Why would I act surprised when I’m not surprised?

Contrition for what?

20 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I guess that maybe the only reasons they come across as a black advocacy group are that

1) almost all racism in football is against ethnic minorities
2) white people fearing that it might lead to actual equality :lol:

Apart from the proposed institutional racism that Kick it out advocate for you mean? Which would be why they come across as a black advocacy group.

How are minorities unequal? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to have successfully diverted attention from the rest of his actions.

police were called to his house, which suggests domestic violence or abuse. He fled in his car before they arrived whilst clearly sufficiently inebriated to subsequently wet himself. He was recorded as 2x over the limit but somewhere in there he had also refused to give a sample. Not only was he then drink driving he was also involved in a collision with a pedestrian. For the court case he hires mr loophole / famous lawyer. 

Half the charges are dropped in a subsequent deal, and the case becomes all about a momentary lapse - calling the police officer a white c--t with the supposed excuse that the whole thing was the result of having been referred to as a little chocolate man earlier in the evening.

mr loophole has managed to portray sinclair as the contrite victim of circumstance; has played the race card and showcased his anti-racism work; and has done a deal with prosecution to drop further charges which include assaulting a police officer and criminal damage. all of which distracts from the domestic incident; the fact that he was at least 2x over the limit - possibly more;  and the fact that an inebriated driver actually struck a pedestrian. 

Mr loophole has done a pretty good job of minimising and trivialising the incident so that it will subsequently all blow over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...