its one word against the other so reality is there will be no evidence to suggest which story stacks up!

my only issue is the media..... Its like Bellushci is already proven guilty if he is then fair enough he deserves the stick and abuse he will recieve.

In my opinion watching the games ive seen him blow his lid a few times but i can't see it being true for some reason.

Soooooooooperkrust

highlander!!

This article is just so shockingly bad its untrue.
I know that we are nearly 60 comments in and plenty of people have torn apart what you are saying, but lets have a look in detail.
The fact you are now hiding behind claims that people just want to insult you rather than you actually responding to the glaring holes in the points you are trying to make is in itself telling.

Lets start by first saying that of course he is innocent till proven guilty, that we hope he is innocent and that evidence comes to light that completely shoots apart any claims being made against him.

And that I would hope that of anyone, as I want to believe that racism and/or the use of racist language is something of the past.


1, if it was a racist slur it would'ave been more tactical than Bellusci being racist; as Steve Baird said, Bellusci now has Jerome in his pocket after Jerome's yellow card.
----------------------

Tactical racism?
That is just shocking, to try and defend someone using racist language because "hey saying it might have helped us win the game" is just beyond anything, surely nothing you write can be any worse than this...

2, Bellusci has Duke and Austin as team mates, I can't see Bellusci being racist.
-----------
Oh wait here is something. What point are you actually trying to make here?
Its like saying to someone did you kill those that guy and them responding "How could I have killed them? Some of my co-workers are living, what more evidence do you need that I am not a killer than that?

3, Bellusci has had previous opportunities to make racist slurs against players from other teams, but he never has.
--------------
And?
You do realise that you can use racist language towards someone without having done so before?
I mean seriously you do understand that right?

4, As Shaun mentioned, if it's one on one then how can they prove it.
------------------
Then they cant, simple as, all people are innocent until proven guilty so he would be innocent.

5, Why did Jerome react after the original incident was over.
-------------------
I don't know you would have to ask him that wouldn't you. However I don't know how you expect him to react to it before it happened.

Its pure speculation at this point but maybe if it did happen maybe he heard it though no I'm not going to report it and just want to get on with the game before deciding you know what, no I'm not I need to do something about this.
Only cause you don't report or act on something straight away it in no way diminishes your credibility that the thing happened to you.

6, Bellusci is Italian, you can actually distinguish that by the colour of his skin, isn't eyesight amazing.
-----------
What point are you trying to make here?
Is it that because the guy is not blonde hair and blue eyes or an Englishman he cant say something that is racist. Cause that's just silly.

While we are on it, the fact that Luis Suárez got the book thrown at him means that in no way could the defense its a word they use in their language be used. Suárez tried that, and sorry didn't work, racist language is racist language.

I'm not going to speculate what should be done if evidence backing these claims comes to light, I just dont think thats fair on the player.

However, what you need to understand is that no one is attacking Bellusci or pre determining his guilt. People are responding to your ridiculous claims and defense of things that it should be clear have no defense.

This boils down to one thing as far as insults go, it wasn't to long ago when the at the time so called best footballer in the world decked a bod for insulting his mother!..

That's enough to start a war for some people!..

But where one is defending his mother, the race thing is challenging human nature, and that being the case it brings the worst out of man, and the worst man has to offer is worst than any animal on this planet!..

If something was said and its proven, then someone should except responsibility and get what he deserves!..

If nothing was said and its proven, then the other should except it and get the same!..

Here's hoping it was nothing, because sport is no different to the street with this sort of thing, and on the street there's no room for it!..

Let the people looking into it do what they have to, and just hope they get it right one way or the other!..

Complete and utter disgrace of an article

I've actually found the reaction of a lot of Leeds shocking.

There seems to be this under current of blindy back the club no matter what, because it's cellino in charge

Shamefull
------------------------------------------

I've noticed there seems to be this under current of blindly slagging the club no matter what, because it's cellino in charge

Shameful

Champers - yes racism is racism.

But the discussion is about racial abuse though isn't it? That is what the accusation is.


LUFC Germany - "But where one is defending his mother, the race thing is challenging human nature, and that being the case it brings the worst out of man, and the worst man has to offer is worst than any animal on this planet!.."
What???
If someone is offended by something does it matter what the subject matter is?

VOF

It isn't blindly slagging the club no matter what, because it's cellino in charge... that's an intentional thing.

That's sad, not shameful.

"This boils down to one thing as far as insults go, it wasn't to long ago when the at the time so called best footballer in the world decked a bod for insulting his mother!..

That's enough to start a war for some people!.."

MrMortimer, you forget to read that bit or just missed it?..

Racism, Germany, I know as much as what needs to be known what it is and what it does!..

There is no room for anyone slagging your mother off, ask any soldier, because it was a favorite in training when you had to stand there and hear/take it!..

I came close but managed to play their game and hold my temper!..

One man and his mother, that isn't going to bring tribes against eachother!..

"But where one is defending his mother, the race thing is challenging human nature, and that being the case it brings the worst out of man, and the worst man has to offer is worst than any animal on this planet!.."

So, one man and his mother, or a insult thrown at race!..

Tell me, if any which could start a war?..

Insults are not wanted, but believe it or not, some insults are worst than others!..

LUFC - I read it but, no offence, it was written in such a way to make it difficult to understand.

Just to clarify - you think that an insult on the pitch regarding race is more offensive because it could start a war?

I have a couple of issues with that argument. Firstly - I don't think either insult will start a war. Secondly - I don't think there is an automatic correlation between the broadness of an insult and the offence taken. For example I would be more offended by a more personalised/specific insult that relates to me... general insults would offend me less.

I agree that some insults are worse than others but I would argue that they should be judged on the actual offence caused rather than a random scale.
It is interesting that you are trying to relate the severity of the insult with the amount of offence caused (could start a war)... this surely means if an insult was of a racial nature and no offence was taken then it is less serious than insulting someone's mother, if the latter causes greater offence.

MrMortimer...I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I may have skimmed too fast and missed a point somewhere...but...

Let's say I'm out somewhere and I bump into you and your friend. Your friend is black, and you are an overweight geezer with a shock of red hair (for the sake of the example only!).

I've had a few beers and I'm getting brave. I launch a verbal attack on both of you. I call you a fat ginger tw-t and this makes you very angry and upset. However, despite drawing reference to the colour of your friends' skin in a derisory manner, he just laughs and shrugs it off. Just because you got upset doesn't mean that insult is worse than the racist one.

Why? Because fat/smelly/ginger/ugly (delete as applicable) people haven't been subject to oppression on a huge scale throughout history. Ginger people were not taken out of Africa and forced to work as slaves for the rich white man. Fat people weren't forced to give up their seats on buses. Smelly folk weren't subject to heavy handed policing....you see what I'm getting at?

You say in your own words "I would argue that they should be judged on the actual offence caused rather than a random scale." Surely you can't be so short-sighted as to believe that? Surely?

Hurting one persons feelings pales in insignificance to what black people have been subject to throughout history. How are you not getting that?

"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."

you say we should say he didn't say it and then put forward another argument for if he had said it

"6, Bellusci is Italian, you can actually distinguish that by the colour of his skin, isn't eyesight amazing."

I genuinely don't understand this. Are you saying that because hes a different nationality he can't be racist?

"2, Bellusci has Duke and Austin as team mates, I can't see Bellusci being racist.

3, Bellusci has had previous opportunities to make racist slurs against players from other teams, but he never has."

This is ridiculous. Because he has black teammates he can't be racist or say something racist? moronic.


Now I am also going to say this. I feel that whatever happened with jerome has been grossly overblown in terms of the issue. I support bellusci and my team no matter what. I merely wanted to point out how poorly your arguments were structured and why a lot of them make no real sense or are completely irrelevant

Champers - thank you for your response, I think we are getting to the crux of the matter here.

You are assuming a racial insult has links to historical racism - like the slave trade. But what about these examples:
1) If two children (unaware of the historical events you mention) are playing in the park and one teases the other for ginger hair the other for dark skin - then would you punish one child more than the other? They are both teasing appearance/genetic make up - and they are not referencing any historical events so why are they not equal?

2) If a white man is racially insulted by a black man, would that be as bad as white on black racism because there is a greater historical precedent of black subjugation? Or is all racism equal in spite of the historical links you describe?

3) Pol Pot killed people because they wore glasses... does this historical fact mean that any comments such as "four eyes" should be on the special list too?
Research shows that those with 'poor' teeth are less likely to get jobs or promotions - so there is an active discrimination against people whose appearance is not aesthetically pleasing... why are all insults on appearance not on this list?

I don't think it is short sighted to judge how offensive something is based on the amount of offence it causes. That is just common sense.

"Hurting one person's feelings pales into insignificance to what black people have been subject to throughout history. How are you not getting that?"

I think you are missing the point.
Yes - saying something offensive to someone is insignificant compared to slavery (for example). But we aren't comparing verbal abuse with the slave trade... we are comparing one form of verbal abuse with another. We are comparing one person's hurt feelings with another person's hurt feelings. Surely the degree of hurt caused is a good measure to judge how offensive something is?!

http://www.suttoncoldfieldobserver.co.uk/Defender-centre-racism-storm-play-Wolves/story-23396136-detail/story.html

Bellusci plays against Wolves

So he should. He's not guilty of anything as the matter stands.

Mr M - that's quote a thought-provoking post and I certainly see the point you were making more clearly now.

I think what we have to consider strongly in a case such as the Bellusci/Jerome matter however, is that the authorities, clubs, players and fans have campaigned tirelessly to rid the racist disease from our game with the "Kick it Out" initiative.

I'm not doubting the validity of the points you've made, as I say you argue those very well and it's tough to disagree with anything you've raised there, but I think we need to look at things in perspective and realise why the authorities have spent so much time, money & focus on stamping out racism.

My oldest and dearest friend is a girl of mixed race, though anyone who didn't know her would probably assume she was black given her skin tone. I've witnessed so much abuse directed at her in our lifetimes as both children and adults. I'm not claiming this makes me any kind of expert on the issue, but it does give you some insight and understanding as to what black people have had to suffer in their lives. She's no issue if someone calls her a b-tch (boy she can be!) but when people prefix it with the word black, I can get why it upsets her so much. The colour of her skin plays no part in the make up of her personality, yet she's had to grow up feeling different to the majority because of the ignorant minority attaching a stigma to a person's colour.

Thanks for your response and sorry if I came off short to you. I was struggling to understand your point and was still riled up at the attitude of the original poster, who I maintain is an ignorant pr-ck, but I can see you were just looking at things from a different angle, which is fair enough. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate

"I have a couple of issues with that argument. Firstly - I don't think either insult will start a war. Secondly - I don't think there is an automatic correlation between the broadness of an insult and the offence taken. For example I would be more offended by a more personalised/specific insult that relates to me... general insults would offend me less."

MrMortimer, I don't think a war will come of this either, the thing is, as much as both insults to the recipriant are no better than each other, it is a known fact that one will start a fight, and the other outside of the sports stadiums could start a riot,(has happened more then once!)or even wars!..

Racist remarks have been known to start riots, and insults to the mother have been known to start fights!..

If this was on the street then which could start the most trouble?..

It is a known fact that whatever might have happened in the wrong place could have caused a riot but at the same time people would go to war over it!..

Both could cause death in the heat of the moment, but which would cause the most?..

People insulting one another, or people insulting a nation, both are man kind thing's, but on a scale one is worst than the other because of what could follow it!..

And like Champers says, I see what your saying, but looking at it from the scale of things as to which could be classed as worst!..

The mother insult is as bad to the man/woman recieving it, the same as for the people recieving insults for what you have mentioned!..

But the racist thing is dragging more than just your mother into it!..

No place for any, and healthy debate, well said Champers!.

And here's hoping that the right outcome comes of it and justice is brought to whoever is in the wrong!..

Pleasantly surprised by the responses here, too often when the subject of race is mentioned the responses seem to be a competition to show off poster's ignorance - (that is on both sides).

I find the example of the mixed race friend interesting, and it throws up some more problems I think. My own brother is very dark skinned and when we were at school he was sometimes called offensive names because of that. Was that racist? He is white... so the names didn't actually refer to his race, but they did mention the colour of his skin... is that still racism?

I still doubt whether a general insult is more offensive than a specific one... personally I would be far more affected by something that is definitely only about me than a general one - but even if that is the case, I still think it is important to emphasise that the insult should be judged on how offensive it is, and not just because it happens to reference a certain subject.

Racism has been, and still is, a huge problem in the world. I don't think elevating race in importance is a way of ending racism. In many ways I think it is counter productive. If someone is denied a job just because of the colour of their skin that is scandalous... is it less scandalous for someone to be denied a job just because of the colour of their hair? If someone is stabbed for being black... again is that a worse crime than being stabbed for being ginger? I don't think it is. Equally if someone is abused for the colour of their skin that is unacceptable, just as abuse for many other subjects are. Now of course thankfully there aren't many cases of people being denied a job for being ginger, or being stabbed for the 'wrong' colour hair... but there is abuse for all manner of subjects, and it is wrong that one should be singled out.

I hope justice is served, though I fear the racist tag will be with the defender for the rest of his career... even if he is found not guilty

I hope justice is served, though I fear the racist tag will be with the defender for the rest of his career... even if he is found not guilty

---

That's because in cases where it's one persons word against another, not guilty doesn't really mean not guilty, it just means it can't be proven either way.

This allows individuals to be racist to other individuals and get away with it, and allows individuals to claim racism by other individuals falsely.

Nobody has any idea which scenario this case falls under, so blind club support is pointless.

The best thing to do is hope someone else heard something, either way, and then justice can be served, either way.

The thing is. No Leeds player will come forward if Bellusci did say something racist and no Norwich player will come forward if he didn't.

It also allows false accusations to be used as a weapon, if someone is guilty by rumour and another's word. History is littered with people who make false accusations (ask the Hamilton's) to make a profit, or suit their own agenda. Absolutely not saying that here - but right now there's a load of BS being spouted about a subject where bottom line it appears to be one person's word against another.

Without concrete evidence or visual images which support what was uttered, then this has to be parked as insufficient evidence. I'd rather that, than an innocent person be branded for life, because of what "might" have been said or understood.

Nobody in there right mind wants racists in the game, or in the country - but at the same time, I don't want a culture or environment where you can be branded (and it sticks for life) as being any particular low life, without some real evidence and facts to back it up.