Inter Fined £12500 for Racism

First topic message reminder :

Wow thats a serious deterant...and going to break the bank eh??!!!!

If they are going to fight racism it needs to be millons of pounds for a fine...that'll get their attenion

Duty281 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24206296

According to that link, AC Milan have been ordered to close one of their stands for their next home match due to racist chanting. How can you have racist chanting from fans when at least one player, probably a few more, of AC Milan's is black?

Clearly, the answer is that they are not football fans and just scum of the lowest order. Why, oh why does football attract the lowest common denominator? The lot of them should be put down, as they're clearly a waste of oxygen and living space.

The problem is that they are racists and they have a hatrid for other races that is so immense it angers them. Punishing the club by fining or shutting down stands will not stop them from being racist and if the club is punished and not the individual then the individual is free to be racist again either at the same stadium or another stadium.

A major problem is in lower league football in foreign countries where there is next to no media attention such as live coverage of games but there is a lot of racism and homophobic abuse from the fans dirrected at the players. Fifa don't fine these clubs etc because there is no media news of the incidents and the police don't arrest anyone.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Most of these 'fans' clearly did nothing with 15 years of free state education 35 hours a week.  Not sure how Fifa can better that.

We are lucky in the UK because racism is nearly eradicated. In Israel there is a club that was nearly burnt down by its own supporters because they recruited 2 muslim players. Clubs in Russia who are held an ransom by their fans not to sign any black players or the fans will boycott the club.

Exactly, cultural attitudes vary by country, so if you actually want to do anything about ridding racism from football it has to be done at a supranational level by a global/regional over-arching body, not just left to the local tin-pot police force who don't give a damn.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Exactly, cultural attitudes vary by country, so if you actually want to do anything about ridding racism from football it has to be done at a supranational level by a global/regional over-arching body, not just left to the local tin-pot police force who don't give a damn.

Fining the club does nothing to eradicate racism. Clubs have been getting fined for decades yet racism is still massive. Also Fifa are only interested in fining big clubs to get positive media attention. Do you think they are going to fine some tiny club in the 5th tier of Greek football?

But we are just going around in circles. I believe that individuals should be held responsible for their actions and you think a 3rd party should be held responsible.

Clubs being fined the equivalent of 50p has achieved nothing. And in other news, bears sh*t in the woods.

You believe in something that's conveniently totally irrelevant and an unworkable solution. A club that does nothing about its fans' racism is not a third party, it is a direct party, an accessory to the crime.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Clubs being fined the equivalent of 50p has achieved nothing.  And in other news, bears sh*t in the woods.

You believe in something that's conveniently totally irrelevant and an unworkable solution.  A club that does nothing about its fans' racism is not a third party, it is a direct party, an accessory to the crime.

But it is not unworkable, it is very easy to track fans using cctv and their seat booking information and to arrest them after the game.

Quote the uk law which says not doing anything makes you an accessory to the crime and then quote Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Israeli, Brazillan, Dutch law which says that it is a crime in their country to do nothing when a crime is taking place. Like I said it is better if we keep this debate purely general rather than making it a legal debate.

Also we have already discussed how clubs try to prevent racism so I don't know why you are bringing it up again.

And if Fifa or Uefa were serious about stopping racism or serious about stopping players being the victim of racism then they could get the referee to abandon games far quicker and far more of often than he does and after the game is abandoned fifa or uefa can review the fans behaviour and dock points etc. I am not a fan of the above but it is better than fining but Fifa won't abandon games that often because they lose money from advertisements and sponsorships if games end early.

If fans know that other clubs that they don't support will be fined or docked points if their fans are racist then fans of club A can pretend to be fans of club B and attend Club B games and sing racist chants knowing that they will cause Club B to be fined or docked points.

But as I said above stop repeating issues we have already debated otherwise the debate will stagnate and will result in us just churning out the same answers until you get a fit of rage which you normally get and start posting insults (something you have already done in this debate).

Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory. If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You are turning this debate into a legal debate which is not someting I have any interest in debating with you. And driving someone to commit a crime is different to letting a fan enter a stadium. But like I said I have no desire to debate legality with you because you do not know UK law or international law, you are just saying what you THINK the law is which does not mean it is the law.

i remember a debate on here about the Haye v Chisora brawl and I argued Haye acted in self-defence and quoted law and case law but yet people were still saying it is not self defence because they didnt think it was and they totally ignored the law and based everything on what they think the law should be rather than what the law is. So if you wish to debate about the law then you need to quote the law but like I said I have no desire to do so because it would take up my time researching statute law and case law and I can't be bothered for a debate as small as this.

Legal debate? I don't want a legal debate. It's you the keeps chucking the law in, and then retracting it as it totally undermines your argument. And it's is your argument/solution that requires the law to play a part. Mine does not.

Facilitating is facilitating. You want to excuse it, of course you do, because it also undermines your argument.

In fact, has any other poster ever undermined themselves as much as you on a forum?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:i remember a debate on here about the Haye v Chisora brawl and I argued Haye acted in self-defence and quoted law and case law but yet people were still saying it is not self defence because they didnt think it was and they totally ignored the law and based everything on what they think the law should be rather than what the law is. So if you wish to debate about the law then you need to quote the law but like I said I have no desire to do so because it would take up my time researching statute law and case law and I can't be bothered for a debate as small as this.

I genuinley struggle to believe you completed the LPC/LLM etc. Your prose/style isn't like that of any lawyer I know.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You need to quote multiple country's laws because you said that doing something is a criminal offence so post the UK law which proves your point and quote the spanish, italian dutch etc law because those countries dont follow uk law but they have footbalol grounds and racism.

You keep saying I have failed to offer an alternative when I clearly have. I shall repeat it again because I know you like to repeat things. Arrest individuals after the game using CCTV and ticket info and issue bans.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Legal debate? I don't want a legal debate.  It's you the keeps chucking the law in, and then retracting it as it totally undermines your argument. And it's is your argument/solution that requires the law to play a part. Mine does not.

Facilitating is facilitating. You want to excuse it, of course you do, because it also undermines your argument.

In fact, has any other poster ever undermined themselves as much as you on a forum?

Does it?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:i remember a debate on here about the Haye v Chisora brawl and I argued Haye acted in self-defence and quoted law and case law but yet people were still saying it is not self defence because they didnt think it was and they totally ignored the law and based everything on what they think the law should be rather than what the law is. So if you wish to debate about the law then you need to quote the law but like I said I have no desire to do so because it would take up my time researching statute law and case law and I can't be bothered for a debate as small as this.

I genuinley struggle to believe you completed the LPC/LLM etc.  Your prose/style isn't like that of any lawyer I know.

But you have taken the AZ style of debating where you keep repeating the same stuff over and over in an attempt to bore me into not replying anymore so you can take some kind of victory from having the last post.

If you want to debate me then stop repeating the same arguments.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You need to quote multiple country's laws because you said that doing something is a criminal offence so post the UK law which proves your point and quote the spanish, italian dutch etc law because those countries dont follow uk law but they have footbalol grounds and racism.

You keep saying I have failed to offer an alternative when I clearly have. I shall repeat it again because I know you like to repeat things. Arrest individuals after the game using CCTV and ticket info and issue bans.

You said people are breaking the law and the police should deal with it, not clubs. Therefore law is your argument.

I don't need to quote law because my argument does not rely on law.

It is quite simple really, but alas you're doing your supidity wum thing again by refusing to connect to obvious dots to incite a response. However I've learned just to laugh at you now in acknowledgement of that being the best you've got I must be doing ok.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Legal debate? I don't want a legal debate.  It's you the keeps chucking the law in, and then retracting it as it totally undermines your argument. And it's is your argument/solution that requires the law to play a part. Mine does not.

Facilitating is facilitating. You want to excuse it, of course you do, because it also undermines your argument.

In fact, has any other poster ever undermined themselves as much as you on a forum?

Does it?

Yep, because you don't want any of the blame residing with the clubs. In my view inaction is facilitation therefore some responsiblity resides with the club.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:i remember a debate on here about the Haye v Chisora brawl and I argued Haye acted in self-defence and quoted law and case law but yet people were still saying it is not self defence because they didnt think it was and they totally ignored the law and based everything on what they think the law should be rather than what the law is. So if you wish to debate about the law then you need to quote the law but like I said I have no desire to do so because it would take up my time researching statute law and case law and I can't be bothered for a debate as small as this.

I genuinley struggle to believe you completed the LPC/LLM etc.  Your prose/style isn't like that of any lawyer I know.

But you have taken the AZ style of debating where you keep repeating the same stuff over and over in an attempt to bore me into not replying anymore so you can take some kind of victory from having the last post.

If you want to debate me then stop repeating the same arguments.

Pahahahaha, love it when people come out with such hysterically ironic comments. N&CA was shut down because of you taking that EXACT approach.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You need to quote multiple country's laws because you said that doing something is a criminal offence so post the UK law which proves your point and quote the spanish, italian dutch etc law because those countries dont follow uk law but they have footbalol grounds and racism.

You keep saying I have failed to offer an alternative when I clearly have. I shall repeat it again because I know you like to repeat things. Arrest individuals after the game using CCTV and ticket info and issue bans.

You said people are breaking the law and the police should deal with it, not clubs.  Therefore law is your argument.

I don't need to quote law because my argument does not rely on law.

It is quite simple really, but alas you're doing your supidity wum thing again by refusing to connect to obvious dots to incite a response.  However I've learned just to laugh at you now in acknowledgement of that being the best you've got I must be doing ok.

My argument was using the law in a very simplistic manner. Your argument also used the law because everything involves the law. To buy a ticket to enter the stadium is the law of contract. Fifa having permission to fine clubs would be business law/ international law. Saying that clubs should be fined for racism is also saying that fans of the club breached discrimination laws etc.

The above is very simplistic laws. You wanted to turn the debate into a complex law on negligence and 3rd party liability etc something which you have 0 knowledge of and would need to know the laws of all countries to create an argument for it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:i remember a debate on here about the Haye v Chisora brawl and I argued Haye acted in self-defence and quoted law and case law but yet people were still saying it is not self defence because they didnt think it was and they totally ignored the law and based everything on what they think the law should be rather than what the law is. So if you wish to debate about the law then you need to quote the law but like I said I have no desire to do so because it would take up my time researching statute law and case law and I can't be bothered for a debate as small as this.

I genuinley struggle to believe you completed the LPC/LLM etc.  Your prose/style isn't like that of any lawyer I know.

But you have taken the AZ style of debating where you keep repeating the same stuff over and over in an attempt to bore me into not replying anymore so you can take some kind of victory from having the last post.

If you want to debate me then stop repeating the same arguments.

Pahahahaha, love it when people come out with such hysterically ironic comments.  N&CA was shut down because of you taking that EXACT approach.

It was shut down because people were getting too emotional and just resoring to insults, something you did hence why your status as mod was removed.

People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise. People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You need to quote multiple country's laws because you said that doing something is a criminal offence so post the UK law which proves your point and quote the spanish, italian dutch etc law because those countries dont follow uk law but they have footbalol grounds and racism.

You keep saying I have failed to offer an alternative when I clearly have. I shall repeat it again because I know you like to repeat things. Arrest individuals after the game using CCTV and ticket info and issue bans.

You said people are breaking the law and the police should deal with it, not clubs.  Therefore law is your argument.

I don't need to quote law because my argument does not rely on law.

It is quite simple really, but alas you're doing your supidity wum thing again by refusing to connect to obvious dots to incite a response.  However I've learned just to laugh at you now in acknowledgement of that being the best you've got I must be doing ok.

My argument was using the law in a very simplistic manner. Your argument also used the law because everything involves the law. To buy a ticket to enter the stadium is the law of contract. Fifa having permission to fine clubs would be business law/ international law. Saying that clubs should be fined for racism is also saying that fans of the club breached discrimination laws etc.

The above is very simplistic laws. You wanted to turn the debate into a complex law on negligence and 3rd party liability etc something which you have 0 knowledge of and would need to know the laws of all countries to create an argument for it.

Pahahaha, oh my days, so now law is back in, but only in a sufficiently simplistic manner as to allow your view/argument to prevail.....?? I genuinely have never seen someone implode so spectacularly.

TopHat24/7 wrote:People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise.  People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

you was removed as a mod before it was closed

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Who's CCTV? The clubs?? You said the club shouldn't be involved, it has nothing to do with them.

Accessory: If you drove someone to somewhere so they could murder someone, you'd be charged as an accessory.  If a club lets a known racist continue to attend and subject people to racist abuse and does nothing about it then it is similarly facilitating a crime and therefore equally an accessory.

Funny that you ask about quoting multiple country's laws - it's not relevant to my point. You're the only one coming up with an argument/solution that depends on local law.

The only reason for repetition (which you yourself are equally guilty of) is that you have still failed to offer a workable alternative, to the point where you're even now beginning to undermine your own arguments!

The fact you've had to chuck in fans playing fancy dress and attending matches in enemy colours to get points docked shows the straws your clutching at.

And why are walk-offs better than fining? Now you're punishing innocent fans for the guilty minority...!!

Love arguing with you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You need to quote multiple country's laws because you said that doing something is a criminal offence so post the UK law which proves your point and quote the spanish, italian dutch etc law because those countries dont follow uk law but they have footbalol grounds and racism.

You keep saying I have failed to offer an alternative when I clearly have. I shall repeat it again because I know you like to repeat things. Arrest individuals after the game using CCTV and ticket info and issue bans.

You said people are breaking the law and the police should deal with it, not clubs.  Therefore law is your argument.

I don't need to quote law because my argument does not rely on law.

It is quite simple really, but alas you're doing your supidity wum thing again by refusing to connect to obvious dots to incite a response.  However I've learned just to laugh at you now in acknowledgement of that being the best you've got I must be doing ok.

My argument was using the law in a very simplistic manner. Your argument also used the law because everything involves the law. To buy a ticket to enter the stadium is the law of contract. Fifa having permission to fine clubs would be business law/ international law. Saying that clubs should be fined for racism is also saying that fans of the club breached discrimination laws etc.

The above is very simplistic laws. You wanted to turn the debate into a complex law on negligence and 3rd party liability etc something which you have 0 knowledge of and would need to know the laws of all countries to create an argument for it.

Pahahaha, oh my days, so now law is back in, but only in a sufficiently simplistic manner as to allow your view/argument to prevail.....??  I genuinely have never seen someone implode so spectacularly.

Like I said the law is used in every argument unknowingly. Even talking about football clubs involves business law and sport law to create that club in the first place and contract law etc.

You want a debate on a complex are of law you have no knowledge in. That is the difference.

TopHat24/7 wrote:People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise.  People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

Something you are doing now

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise.  People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

you was removed as a mod before it was closed

Nope, was simultaneous.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise.  People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

Something you are doing now

Because I don't need to say anything else. I haven't made any glaring errors, there are no huge disconnects in how I've constructed my arguments. All the problems are you end of things, which is why this is so funny.

You two sooooooo need to get a room.

A weekend in a Premier Inn would ease all of that tension you both have.

Admin should probably lock this thread.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:People got wound up because you enacted the style you're now trying to criticise.  People were driver oil tankers through the holes and disconnects in your arguments so you just went with repeat, ignore, repreat, repeat, ignore, repeat.....

And I was only ever Mod of that section so when it closed my status was rescinded automatically.

Something you are doing now

Because I don't need to say anything else.  I haven't made any glaring errors, there are no huge disconnects in how I've constructed my arguments.  All the problems are you end of things, which is why this is so funny.

the biggest error is that your idea that clubs should be fined to stop racism is in full effect right now and it doesn't work. You are arguing for the status quo which has proven for decades to have no effect in staming out racism.

Duty281 wrote:You two sooooooo need to get a room.

A weekend in a Premier Inn would ease all of that tension you both have.

I honestly think he fancies me. Ever since he saw that video of me he has been searching out my attention on the forum. I try to move debates on to a natural end and he keeps repeating the same things so the debate stagnates and doesn't end. He then also brings up old debates with me in an attempt to start a conversation with me on that issue.

So... that earthqauke in Pakistan was horrid huh?

(Probably as relevant as anything written on in the last fifteen comments)

Ah Chris Dior.