The emphasis should be on education rather than punishment. The guy should have been forced to apologise and to go onto some sort of education course so he might realise why what he said isn't acceptable.
@drcongo said: @DevC Assuming the Fleetwood employee was General Pinochet, but he'd previously had a clean record, but that clean record was because the FA just didn't fancy charging him every time he had someone disappeared, and assuming that he'd said something in jest but it was horrifically racist, but the people who heard hadn't realised it was in jest and some of them didn't even realise it was racist, but the referee noted it down in his book, and assuming several other things just for the sake of trying to start an argument on a football forum, and Bayo heard it, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty and which end do you think it should be taken?
Would VAR be involved in this hypothetical assumption?
@twizz, you will notice I have to date made no comment on what I think should have happened. I was interested to learn what those so critical of the FA thought the appropriate punishment should be.
For what it is worth though, I think my view would be
I agree totally with @Username that education is better than punishment wherever possible in life.
If no prior adverse record and if evidence suggests that this was ill-advised /careless choice of words rather than deliberate racist intent, I would not place the name of the individual concerned in the public domain. If it was he would be awarded by some the label "racist" which would potentially affect his future detrimentally which wouldn't seem appropriate in that scenario. If he had shown remorse in the investigation, I think a private "learn your lesson, don't let it happen again" warning would suffice.
If he had shown no remorse but there was no evidence of racist intent, I possibly agree with @Username that a course may be the appropriate next step.
If there was found to be racist intent OR there had been prior history, then I think that would be much more serious and I would say then it may well be appropriate to publicly name and (if the rules allow) fine him and/or the club.
In reply to @Chris, I don't think a rule change is required unless outcomes as above are not allowed.
The implication of the finding is that what happened was fine, and that it’s ok to abuse black players in this way. If I was the FA I’d want to get the rules changed as soon as I could.
The guy should have been made to apologize, if you are caught (at an unlikely best) saying something that you later find out is offensive to a group of people (for whatever reason) and are caught in the middle of having a childish pop at someones size while you are losing you apologize and agree to look at your conduct, shouldn't need the FA or even the club for that part. If it turns out it's part of a pattern of behaviour or was proven to have been meant in the way it's been taken then fines and bans start.
The idea it's ok to continue to call black people stereotypical names because you might not have meant it but it's unacceptable to imply someone might have done something racist in case anyone thinks they might be a racist is not great @DevC
Surely if, as claimed, the comment wasn't meant in a racist way but the target of the comment interpreted as racist, if I was the person who made the comment I would be rushing to apologise to the person who thought it was. No reasonable person would surely have to be 'made' to apologise - you just would. Wouldn't you?
I'm going to need to hack this site to allow me to add a thousand thumbs ups to @bookertease's post, which so beautifully and succinctly pokes all the holes in @DevC's straw man hypothetical assumption spectacular.
Ignorance is no excuse when education has been fully available for years and just ignored.
The excuse of ignorance is so far beyond acceptable now it must feel insulting to victims of racism who are in effect being told their complaints are less important than the inconvenience of the racists / ignoramuses to educate themselves.
Yes some people might be harshly treated, but racism is occurring every day and will continue to be a scourge on society until real action. The massive taboo of the word " racist" with the right is a huge problem in solving the issue, they think you have to be a white hood wearing EDL member, rather than simply having some racial prejudices - they object so much to being called racist they won't accept any fault, and until it's just made clear that any "borderline" racism is not acceptable regardless of intention, it won't stop as they'll still think it's acceptable.
What is Bayo meant to do now if he receives another racist comment that isn't 100% overtly racist? He can't go to the ref or the FA clearly?
Lots of black footballers and representatives believe the FA is failing to act with any sort of rigour on racism @DevC hence, for example, Les Ferdinand explaining why QPR don't take the knee anymore and he refuses to be interviewed about racism anymore as it is a waste of time and an empty gesture because still nothing is actually changing or being done. He said the fact they stopped doing it got more press than the racist attitudes it was meant to address ever do. So perhaps quite a few of of us (including Bayo as you point out) are not alone in thinking this decision is a poor one and shows an unwillingness to really and truly deal with the issue from the governing body.
@Wendoverman , I fully agree with your desire to eliminate racism from life and football.
I respect your view that this decision was poor and fails to deal with the issue. That was why I asked you what broadly you think they should have done instead and whether that varied dependent on whether the evidence showed that the statement was made with racist intent or not.
If you explained that and briefly why, it’s very possible I might agree with you or at least understand you better.
What punishment any of us would impose is the least important bit of this whole discussion. We don't know who it was, what position they hold and what sanctions are available
The last paragraph, offering the chance to be agreed with by you as if it's the online equivalent of the holy grail is laughable.
Though I live in fear you may never understand me @Devc I tell you what. You guess which one of the penalties/measures outlined by others in the previous three or four pages I might have favoured, with a brief explanation why I might have chosen it and I'll tell you if you're right or not.
Perhaps supporters of WWFC take a biased view of this incident, because of our connection to Bayo, and that's why we feel this can't possibly be the correct outcome?
However, I do wonder just where the FA feels it's response sits in relation to it's much publicised RESPECT campaign. Yes, the FA expert concluded that there was insufficient evidence to be certain the abuse was racist and so charges couldn't be brought. But surely there can't be any arguement that says the Fleetwood Town individual acted in a respectful way? And maybe that's the test which should be used?
For that reason an example could have been made that this behaviour simply will not be tolerated.
Maybe the FA should be reminded to use some joined up thinking in their campaign strategy.
My way of looking at life @Wendoverman is to avoid personal attacks wherever possible and if your opinion is that Organisation got a decision wrong, you need to have a broad opinion on what they should have decided instead.
I was interested in your alternative. I have failed to find out what it is. Never mind. Life goes on.
@DevC what confuses me is talking about sanctions when the FA didn’t find the person guilty of breaking the rules.
The key point of dispute here is not what should happen to the person if they had been found guilty, but whether they did break the rules as they stand. And if not, what is wrong with the rules as their behaviour is clearly not acceptable.
Comments
Here's Bayo's response to the matter by the way. Clearly he feels strongly
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8772765/Adebayo-Akinfenwa-slams-FAs-decision-clear-Fleetwood-staff-called-fat-water-buffalo.html
The proposed punishment seems a red herring to me given the FA have accepted what was said was said but found that it did not break their rules.
The more relevant question is what are the FA doing to change their rules to ensure that if the same thing happened again that it would be a breach.
Endlessly answering all of @DevC 's questions on the Gasroom would learn him.
The emphasis should be on education rather than punishment. The guy should have been forced to apologise and to go onto some sort of education course so he might realise why what he said isn't acceptable.
Would VAR be involved in this hypothetical assumption?
This one looks quite reasonable
https://untappd.com/v/the-well-irish-pub-restaurant/8405077/photos
Perhaps Guinness is the secret? I may be too old for Tokyo but I am willing to go into training immediately.
@DevC, what @username said at 3:33.
Or maybe you think that wouldn't be appropriate?
@twizz, you will notice I have to date made no comment on what I think should have happened. I was interested to learn what those so critical of the FA thought the appropriate punishment should be.
For what it is worth though, I think my view would be
I agree totally with @Username that education is better than punishment wherever possible in life.
If no prior adverse record and if evidence suggests that this was ill-advised /careless choice of words rather than deliberate racist intent, I would not place the name of the individual concerned in the public domain. If it was he would be awarded by some the label "racist" which would potentially affect his future detrimentally which wouldn't seem appropriate in that scenario. If he had shown remorse in the investigation, I think a private "learn your lesson, don't let it happen again" warning would suffice.
If he had shown no remorse but there was no evidence of racist intent, I possibly agree with @Username that a course may be the appropriate next step.
If there was found to be racist intent OR there had been prior history, then I think that would be much more serious and I would say then it may well be appropriate to publicly name and (if the rules allow) fine him and/or the club.
In reply to @Chris, I don't think a rule change is required unless outcomes as above are not allowed.
The implication of the finding is that what happened was fine, and that it’s ok to abuse black players in this way. If I was the FA I’d want to get the rules changed as soon as I could.
The guy should have been made to apologize, if you are caught (at an unlikely best) saying something that you later find out is offensive to a group of people (for whatever reason) and are caught in the middle of having a childish pop at someones size while you are losing you apologize and agree to look at your conduct, shouldn't need the FA or even the club for that part. If it turns out it's part of a pattern of behaviour or was proven to have been meant in the way it's been taken then fines and bans start.
The idea it's ok to continue to call black people stereotypical names because you might not have meant it but it's unacceptable to imply someone might have done something racist in case anyone thinks they might be a racist is not great @DevC
@DevC you could have said all that three pages ago.
Surely if, as claimed, the comment wasn't meant in a racist way but the target of the comment interpreted as racist, if I was the person who made the comment I would be rushing to apologise to the person who thought it was. No reasonable person would surely have to be 'made' to apologise - you just would. Wouldn't you?
I'm going to need to hack this site to allow me to add a thousand thumbs ups to @bookertease's post, which so beautifully and succinctly pokes all the holes in @DevC's straw man hypothetical assumption spectacular.
Ignorance is no excuse when education has been fully available for years and just ignored.
The excuse of ignorance is so far beyond acceptable now it must feel insulting to victims of racism who are in effect being told their complaints are less important than the inconvenience of the racists / ignoramuses to educate themselves.
Yes some people might be harshly treated, but racism is occurring every day and will continue to be a scourge on society until real action. The massive taboo of the word " racist" with the right is a huge problem in solving the issue, they think you have to be a white hood wearing EDL member, rather than simply having some racial prejudices - they object so much to being called racist they won't accept any fault, and until it's just made clear that any "borderline" racism is not acceptable regardless of intention, it won't stop as they'll still think it's acceptable.
What is Bayo meant to do now if he receives another racist comment that isn't 100% overtly racist? He can't go to the ref or the FA clearly?
That deserves another thousand @Username
Lots of black footballers and representatives believe the FA is failing to act with any sort of rigour on racism @DevC hence, for example, Les Ferdinand explaining why QPR don't take the knee anymore and he refuses to be interviewed about racism anymore as it is a waste of time and an empty gesture because still nothing is actually changing or being done. He said the fact they stopped doing it got more press than the racist attitudes it was meant to address ever do. So perhaps quite a few of of us (including Bayo as you point out) are not alone in thinking this decision is a poor one and shows an unwillingness to really and truly deal with the issue from the governing body.
@Wendoverman , I fully agree with your desire to eliminate racism from life and football.
I respect your view that this decision was poor and fails to deal with the issue. That was why I asked you what broadly you think they should have done instead and whether that varied dependent on whether the evidence showed that the statement was made with racist intent or not.
If you explained that and briefly why, it’s very possible I might agree with you or at least understand you better.
Like a dog with a bone
What punishment any of us would impose is the least important bit of this whole discussion. We don't know who it was, what position they hold and what sanctions are available
The last paragraph, offering the chance to be agreed with by you as if it's the online equivalent of the holy grail is laughable.
Though I live in fear you may never understand me @Devc I tell you what. You guess which one of the penalties/measures outlined by others in the previous three or four pages I might have favoured, with a brief explanation why I might have chosen it and I'll tell you if you're right or not.
Perhaps supporters of WWFC take a biased view of this incident, because of our connection to Bayo, and that's why we feel this can't possibly be the correct outcome?
However, I do wonder just where the FA feels it's response sits in relation to it's much publicised RESPECT campaign. Yes, the FA expert concluded that there was insufficient evidence to be certain the abuse was racist and so charges couldn't be brought. But surely there can't be any arguement that says the Fleetwood Town individual acted in a respectful way? And maybe that's the test which should be used?
For that reason an example could have been made that this behaviour simply will not be tolerated.
Maybe the FA should be reminded to use some joined up thinking in their campaign strategy.
My way of looking at life @Wendoverman is to avoid personal attacks wherever possible and if your opinion is that Organisation got a decision wrong, you need to have a broad opinion on what they should have decided instead.
I was interested in your alternative. I have failed to find out what it is. Never mind. Life goes on.
@Wendoverman I'm torn. It's either being hung by the neck until dead, or a season ticket at Pride Park.
@DevC what confuses me is talking about sanctions when the FA didn’t find the person guilty of breaking the rules.
The key point of dispute here is not what should happen to the person if they had been found guilty, but whether they did break the rules as they stand. And if not, what is wrong with the rules as their behaviour is clearly not acceptable.
I live in fear of @DevC agreeing with me. The horror.