MrMortimer,

I totally agree with the points you make on Jontys post.

Try and keep up Jud, I looked at both sides of the coin, I analysed it.

By the way Jud, what category would you put calling me re-tarded in?

I looked at both sides of the coin, I analysed it
--------------------
All of your "analysis" (both "lets say he did" & "lets say he didn't" defend Bellusci.

If YOU actually read YOUR OWN analysis:

This is in the "lets say he did make a racist slur" section.

"Jerome is a big lad, he's also a professional player, he couldn't just get on with game like a good little professional. He's also obviously insecure about the colour of his own skin if, and I say if the slur was colour related."

This is not analysis. This is you saying, that is Bellusci DID make a rasict remark, then it is because Jerome isn't comfortable with the colour of his own skin.

Also under the "lets say he did"

"Jerome's been in game long enough to know why these type of slurs happen, if it actually happened."

Again, defending Bellusci, your are saying "if he did make a racist remark, hes played long enough to ignore it"

Again not analysing.

You are hiding your opinion behind the word analyse.

Knowhere on the post do you actually "look at both sides of the coin"

What you actually do is make the same argument (Bellusci cannot be guilty) under 2 different headings.

So try to keep up

This is the worst thing to be posted on this site.

Truely outdone yourself here Luvr.

Jud - I think there are some points to be discussed here...

For example when players are victims of sledging, are they expected to go to the referee and complain? Are referees expected to go to the managers and explain what has happened? Had the abuse not been racial would Jerome have been expected just to deal with it as a professional? I think that is the point being made.

At the moment it is appropriate to keep referring to it as an 'if' - since he is innocent until proven guilty.

Judd is a very good footballer!

Good technique, great shot...

Under the:

"Let's say Bellusci didn't make the slur."

Given Bellusci's command of the English languish, would he know how to make a racist slur in broken English and, would he actually know the "N" word or the "black barsteward" phrase, and what it means.

Do you think, if Bellusci made a racial slur then his first thought of action would be to instantly say it in his native tongue? which means Jerome probably wouldn't understand any way and probably misinterpreted something else.
-------------------
Neither of these comments are "both sides of the coin" analysis.

So either stop trying to sound more intelligent than you are, or grow some balls and actually say what you want to say.

And calling you <retarded> is an observation ive made based on your previous 100 comments. But mostly based on this article.

Awwwh thanks NJS

MrMortimer,

I personally think it should be proven, or dis proved beyond doubt, this should hopefully, and I say hopefully with hope, prevent any fall out or backlash towards the innocent party, or, show there was genuine evidence showing a racist slur occurred, and the perpetrator punished accordingly.

As they say, guilty or not guilty, in some cases mud sticks.

When you look at the Terry case, being found guilty by the FA on the basis of probability is not an actual statement claiming the offence occurred or didn't occur, but more of a "it could'ave happened but we're not sure due to lack of evidence".

However, it didn't stop Terry from playing football.

Also, if the case was dealt with in a court of law, do you think the FA should'ave left it at that, instead of creating their own case and finding what they did without solid proof?

There is a law in Britain that says, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence, there's obviously more to it, but that's the basic.

Good intelligent comments MrMortimer, I enjoyed reading them and debating them with you.

Jud, it's called hypocrisy on your part.

"And calling you <retarded> is an observation ive made based on your previous 100 comments. But mostly based on this article"

The defender's reputation has been damaged... a not guilty will do little to repair his image.

Terry did get a ban didn't he?

My problem with the FA trying Terry is that their own rules say they cannot unless fresh evidence comes to light.
To me the case smacked of needing to be seen to be doing something on racism (as they were hugely critical of Sepp Blatter at the time on that subject) - and it was a little bit of a farce.

MrMortimer,

If Bellusci is found not guilty it may well leave an unwanted image hanging over him, but I think this is more to do with people who want that image to stick, rather than accepting there was no proof to find him guilty.

If he's guilty then he'll be punished appropriately, and may well return to Italy if he thinks it's to uncomfortable to stay here.

Farce, well, the first 2 letters are FA and end with rce .

Our FA and FL are full of hypocrisy. One of our problems in Britain is we still have many of the G+T mob running things at top.

Can't say nothing about the PL yet cos we ain't got in that league yet.

Unfortunately Sepp Blatter does what's right for Sepp Blatter

I can't fully recall but vaguely I think you might be right and Terry may have got a ban.

I remember reading about it, but didn't take a lot of notice because it wasn't Leeds United.

I also remember some where it was said later that Terry still hadn't apologised or something.

I'm a firm believer that if someone is innocent, or strongly believes they're innocent then they should take it as far as they can to prove it.

Maybe, and I'm only summising, but maybe Terry thought, or was advised not to continue with the case as it would just prolong things unnecessarily and could cause more unwanted damage.

I know Rio complained that Terry didn't apologise to him... (this is the same Rio Ferdinand that was found guilty of racist tweeting soon after).

Difficult because Terry was found not guilty in a court of law... it had already gone further than the FA... he could have appealed but I don't think it is a sign of guilt that he didn't.
There is the PR element to all of this... remember.

To all those who decided to belittle me with their comments after not reading my post properly.

Read the post properly.

If Bellusci is found not guilty, you're going to look very small after what you've written.

Is this article some kind of sick, pathetic joke?

comment by LeedsLuvr (U11844)
posted 18 minutes ago
To all those who decided to belittle me with their comments after not reading my post properly.

Read the post properly.

If Bellusci is found not guilty, you're going to look very small after what you've written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?

That's not the point we are making Luvr!

We all hope he is innocent at the end of this, and is innocent until proven guilty. We know that.

The issue on this thread is the way you have tried to defend his actions regardless of whether he said it or not.

The evidence is still on the front page of your post. You wrote it!!!

Under the heading:

"Let's say Bellusci DID make a racist slur"

Then you go on to give reasons as to why he has used unacceptable racist language. You are defending his actions. YOU BLAME JEROME FOR THIS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION!!!

Then under the heading:

"Let's say Bellusci DIDN'T make the slur"

Now, not a lot of this makes sense. Because (under your heading, we are assuming he DID NOT use racist remarks) you go on to say Jerome wouldn't be able to understand him, Bellusci wouldn't know the words, our players don't speak proper English.


You obviously don't understand what people are trying to say to you.

You are not arguing the point that your article makes!

Well said Jud.

This LeedsLuvr loser is an ignorant pr-ck.

Champers - it is interesting you feel the need to use insults. Why is that?

There is a genuine debate to be had over whether insults of a racial nature are necessarily worse than insults on other subjects.

Jud - thank you for debating the points sensibly!

Examining both sides of the coin? Regardless of age and condition there's only one conclusion possible - it's heads on one side and tails on the other. Hardly rocket science, and totally unsuitable. The author has decided to choose what HE might like to be true and accurate, without a shred of evidence available. Nobody outside the clubs and officials know what was allegedly said.

Nobody outside the individuals know... and he is innocent until proven guilty.

There is scope for a discussion on a general level about our understanding of abuse and sledging though.

Discussion is all well and good, but surely we have to have more information before deciding who is in the wrong. I listened to the game but was oblivious of anything other than the commentator saying there was a confrontation between the players, so it would be rather silly of me to jump to the support of either.

comment by MrMortimer (U8234)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
Champers - it is interesting you feel the need to use insults. Why is that?

There is a genuine debate to be had over whether insults of a racial nature are necessarily worse than insults on other subjects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'll just stick to the subject matter of the OP if it's all the same with you MrMortimer. An OP which is pretty vile in my opinion.

Racism is racism. I'm not particularly bothered whether one insult is worse than another

Champers, who was the recipient of the "Pow! Right in the kisser"?

Would be so easy to type "your mom" but given I'm not 11 years old or mentally challenged, I'll just be honest and say it's been adopted from Family Guy and it's widely used amongst my group of mates for any time when you get one over on someone.



Ya know what? I may actually be a tad mentally challenged after all

OK no defence of Bellusci.............but, it's been said by some that Bellusci had the better of Jerome all game, what better way to get a player to back off than this.
When it comes down to it, who are the FA going to believe, despite which one is telling the truth ?
maybe I'm oversimplifying things but it's a possibility.