F.A. Above the law?

[riise94]

Imagine the fuss "The Society of White Lawyers" would create if there was such a firm.

[tottenham28]

Imagine the fuss "The Society of White Lawyers" would create if there was such a firm.

Me and the missus saw a free magazine being offered out while on the way out of a Somerfield supermarket a few years back, it was called 'black peoples magazine'. We both looked at each other with slight shock and I said, "the white version would be classed as something by the BNP and would never be allowed".

[bertcocaine]

It would seem that the FA are above the law.

Bollocks. Most of the rest of what you said is spot on (although overly colourful language as per usual which just detracts from the points) but saying the FA consider themselves above the law is stupid. The law has nothing to do with who does what in football. The FA has nothing to do with the law. The FA decides who does what in football. While what they decide is often stupid, that doesn't mean they are acting 'above the law'.

Imagine the fuss "The Society of White Lawyers" would create if there was such a firm.

This - just read an interesting article the Beeb have done about this guy - and it makes a number of good points. Two things I disagree with what he's said - the idea that the solution to racism is to introduce segregation. Isn't that how racists tried to repress black people originally? Separation isn't the answer. Raising the concern that a group of players feel under-represented, is absolutely the right thing to do. The recent activism by players not wearing t-shirts makes that point nicely, but not one of them has come out in support of this idea, which speaks volumes.

The other thing he's said was the comment about Spurs fans. While he does make a point that language continues to be used, and then other use it abusively, he might want to start with talking to black rap stars or homosexuals, and tell them that use of 'nigger' and 'gay' by them respectively, is wrong because then others will have the language legitimised. Of course he wouldn't do that, because the rap stars might just shoot him. Strange that he's found a Jewish player from Oldham that agrees, but not bothered to find a Jewish Spurs fan, or even someone Jewish who lives in or near White Hart Lane that isn't a football fan, and gotten their views. Given that it's generally held that the Jewish community is divided on this issue, what has a black non-Jewish lawyer got to do with the subject?

Keep taking back the language you Spurs boys.

worth a read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20315169

Big point it makes (ignore the two I mention above )

But while Herbert's efforts to forge an organisation to represent black players may fail, there's little doubt he's made the game stop and ask itself:

• why there are so many black players, but so few black managers or directors;
• why the notion of reporting an allegation of racist abuse to the police without witnessing it yourself is, according to some, so outlandish, even when the landmark MacPherson Report enshrines the right of people to do exactly that;
• why so many think it so wrong for Chelsea to complain to the FA once one of their players has come to them with an allegation of racial abuse (does the fact that it involves a referee mean it should just be swept under the carpet?);
• why the mere concept of a body that would speak on behalf of a group of players that feel under-represented is regarded with such horror;
• why asking fans to cease chanting a term that many Jews find highly offensive is seen as unnecessary interference;
• why those in the grassroots of the game who complain to their County FAs about cases of racist abuse find themselves waiting months before anything happens;
• why, unlike the rest of society, those accused of racial abuse aren't suspended pending the outcome of their respective investigations.

[riise94]

I'm actually with the Spurs fans on this one too,

[cleanprophet]

Bollocks. Most of the rest of what you said is spot on (although overly colourful language as per usual which just detracts from the points) but saying the FA consider themselves above the law is stupid. The law has nothing to do with who does what in football. The FA has nothing to do with the law. The FA decides who does what in football. While what they decide is often stupid, that doesn't mean they are acting 'above the law'.

Well, when a court of law determines that a person is not guilty of racism (in other words, the evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove) and then the FA find that person guilty of racism. It is pretty hard to find a finer example of the FA considering themselves above the law.

[cleanprophet]

This - just read an interesting article the Beeb have done about this guy - and it makes a number of good points. Two things I disagree with what he's said - the idea that the solution to racism is to introduce segregation.

Herbert is a deluded.

I understand why there are things like the MOBO's and Society of Black Lawyers. I understand why they exsist. But all they do is propagate division. The problem is, these people in these organisations want to rid the world of racism today. That is simply not possible. It takes time to remove racism because you have to change people's opinions, not get them hide to hide them. In reality, racism will really only die with the racists. It fades with each generation and the main dynamic of this process is integration, not segregation. This is why I find any sort of organization that promotes racial difference as counter-productive and divisive. People like Herbert are tired of racism and want it to end today. This is why he promotes these hairbrain ideas.

[TheHurtLocker873]

Well, when a court of law determines that a person is not guilty of racism (in other words, the evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove) and then the FA find that person guilty of racism. It is pretty hard to find a finer example of the FA considering themselves above the law.

This is what baffles me, and why I asked the question in the first place.. So I would be leaning with full agreement.. Let's face it. If a normal working bloke was arrested for the same thing, it wouldn't be fair if that bloke gets sacked. It's happened before. So what does it say about our judicial system? When even They can't gather enough evidence, yet the FA can...... Maybe members of the FA should be judges and juries in the real world?

Berts explanation makes very plausible sense and says a lot. Like he said, 'While what they decide is often stupid, that doesn't mean they are acting 'above the law'.... Well yes and no.. The FA has nothing to do with the law and vice versa. However in my opinion and most others is; If the law finds you Not guilty for whatever, then the FA, (or employer), should keep their noses out and monitor future behaviour for a temporary period.

When players wade into each other on the pitch, they get Red carded, face a suspension and a fine. But you never see the police running on making arrests. Imagine a copper on the sidelines saying .... "It's ok lads, we won't get involved. Nothing to do with us. The FA will deal with it".....

Imagine that.

.

[bertcocaine]

Herbert is a deluded.

I understand why there are things like the MOBO's and Society of Black Lawyers. I understand why they exsist. But all they do is propagate division. The problem is, these people in these organisations want to rid the world of racism today. That is simply not possible. It takes time to remove racism because you have to change people's opinions, not get them hide to hide them. In reality, racism will really only die with the racists. It fades with each generation and the main dynamic of this process is integration, not segregation. This is why I find any sort of organization that promotes racial difference as counter-productive and divisive. People like Herbert are tired of racism and want it to end today. This is why he promotes these hairbrain ideas.

Absolutely agree with that.

Well, when a court of law determines that a person is not guilty of racism (in other words, the evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove) and then the FA find that person guilty of racism. It is pretty hard to find a finer example of the FA considering themselves above the law.

Berts explanation makes very plausible sense and says a lot. Like he said, 'While what they decide is often stupid, that doesn't mean they are acting 'above the law'.... Well yes and no.. The FA has nothing to do with the law and vice versa. However in my opinion and most others is; If the law finds you Not guilty for whatever, then the FA, (or employer), should keep their noses out and monitor future behaviour for a temporary period.

No. I understand exactly what you mean, but it's not a fair assessment of how it works.

The charges against Terry with the police were different from the FA charges. To say one found guilty, the other innocent, is comparing apples and oranges.

While it may at first glance appear unfair that an employer (or the FA) can punish when the law cannot, ignoring the fact that the two standards aren't the same and are under no obligation to be so, it's very simple. When you work for an employer (or in this case, sign a contract to play football for a team that has agreed to abide by the rulings of the league) you are agreeing, in advance, to abide by their terms of employment (or Rules of the Game). regardless of whether you broke the law in the eyes of a court, your employer can quite correctly find you in breach of contract.

For example - you work at a prestigious hotel, on reception. You are required to be dressed smartly and be of good appearance at all times when in view of the public. You decide to turn up in a Megadeath t-shirt and ripped jeans. You have broken no law, but your employer can quite rightly sack you for gross misconduct, which is a breach of contract. This is why JT hasn't sued the FA, because it's nothing to do with criminal law and he'd lose in the court.

Then there's the minor fact that a court of law, can take away your possessions, or your freedom. All the FA can do is say you're not allowed to play their game any more (and that doesn't even automatically apply to any other country). The fine is not enforceable - any player could basically say 'get bent' and the FA would have no legal way of recovering the money. Of course, they can then cancel the players registration and his club would sack him, so I guess players figure it's better to lose a fiver this week rather than never get paid again. But ultimately, if JT decided, "you know what? I'm rich, **** this for a game of soldiers.." then he would get away without paying a penny to the FA. Chelsea might be able to sue HIM for breach of contract though..


Don't get me wrong - I completely understand and agree with the frustration surrounding this issue. But I am compelled to point out incorrect assumptions.. and I'm far more concerned at different levels of punishment for the same offence.

[TheHurtLocker873]

and I'm far more concerned at different levels of punishment for the same offence.

I think we're all on the same page here.

Anyway If any employee of mine turned up for work in a megedeath t-shirt, I'd sack him aswell.......... Then have him arrested.

[bertcocaine]

If Herbert really thinks the Yid Army are anti-Semitic, I'd be fascinated as to what he thinks this is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20472742

Italy's FA sorry after Rome attack on Tottenham fans

Has he said anything about it? Given how he loves to comment.. but he's said nothing. What a surprise!