• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Football and Homophobia

JPBB said:
Of course. I am angry. Thank you for concern. I am rather touched by your small act of kindness.

Nevertheless it does not invalidate my argument that Aurier's comments were indisputably homophobic
Click to expand...
People are disputing that they were... you are in a long running thread where that is happening and he has disputed that they were.
 
r-u-s-x said:
People are disputing that they were... you are in a long running thread where that is happening and he has disputed that they were.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exhausting isn't it.

In nutshell, my problem with this issue is this.

Only one other person on this board is prepared to say that Aurier's words were homophobic. Instead everyone else (who has posted) has denied the words are homophobic and taken Aurier's explanation at face value.

Effectively this board is saying is that it is not reasonable to be offended by these words. (because they are not homophobic)

i say denying the nature of the words and the right to be offended by them is tantamount to homophobia.

There may be some people on the board that are homophobes, some that need educating, but they is a number on here that support Aurier's frankly ludicrous homophobic position (a position he has deserted himself) just to win an argument. And that is plain silly.

The board itself does need to address some of the views which I listed in my open complaint to Milo.
 
r-u-s-x said:
do you know what indisputable means?
Click to expand...

I do. i am arguing that in law his comments are indisputably homophobic. (I am sure beyond reasonable doubt)

You are arguing that obscure French semantics means that it is unreasonable for me (or others) to be offended by them.

I think you are wrong.
 
JPBB said:
I am speak with some authority on this. If this case, ever did get to a UK court, (assuming a complaint, jurisdiction etc), it is inevitable that he would be convicted. Here is why

taking your argument at it's highest, it is pathetically weak, because directly after his uses the word, he portrays a gay sex act negatively.

However, you would also be faced with the case law being read in open court concerning the test (repeated on here many times) and the N-word case law which would negate all your arguments.

You would lose in the magistrates courts.

You would then appeal to the crown court where you lose again. (you would be many ten of thousands of pounds in the hole by now)

Finally you might appeal to a higher court to effectively create new case law. However, your argument is so pathetic and with no realistic chance of success that I doubt they would allow it to save you from yourself and to stop wasting valuable court time.

Feel free to test this by using Aurier's words about me on twitter and i will make a complaint to the police and we'll see how far you get (this is not a serious suggestion)
Click to expand...

That's complete nonsense. First and foremost someone is innocent until proven guilty. A basic concept you find difficult; it undermines your belief in your own legal authority. If you took him to court, a defence lawyer would very quickly look at the the word "fiotte", open up a french dictionary and show examples of its use in everyday language with no LGTB connotations. They would also assert that a closer translation of "faggot" is "piede". A completely different word. The N-word association is not there. You're premise of a hate crime would dissolve rapidly.

You'd be left with someone miming a blow job? That's it? How many girls have done this with no hate involved? Why can't men? By the way how do you portray a gay sex act negatively? Are you saying he's bad at giving head?

If you needed any more they would take a statement from the accused to say he was questioning his manager, not suggesting he was gay. They would confirm that the comments had nothing to do with being gay in fact, and there was nothing homophobic. The judge wouldn't even bother hearing the case. It would be a waste of time. If it is such a cut and dry outrage, why didn't LGBT groups take him to court in France? Are French groups not on the case?

However, as you are completely consumed by this, and 100% certain of the law, why don't you make the case and take Aurier to court? My guess is you wouldn't get much further than you have on this open forum - an organic arena for pubic judgements.

There are many genuine issues, surely you could spend your energy actually helping someone?
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
That's complete nonsense. First and foremost someone is innocent until proven guilty. A basic concept you find difficult; it undermines your belief in your own legal authority. If you took him to court, a defence lawyer would very quickly look at the the word "fiotte", open up a french dictionary and show examples of its use in everyday language with no LGTB connotations. They would also assert that a closer translation of "faggot" is "piede". A completely different word. The N-word association is not there. You're premise of a hate crime would dissolve rapidly.

You'd be left with someone miming a blow job? That's it? How many girls have done this with no hate involved? Why can't men? By the way how do you portray a gay sex act negatively? Are you saying he's bad at giving head?

If you needed any more they would take a statement from the accused to say he was questioning his manager, not suggesting he was gay. They would confirm that the comments had nothing to do with being gay in fact, and there was nothing homophobic. The judge wouldn't even bother hearing the case. It would be a waste of time. If it is such a cut and dry outrage, why didn't LGBT groups take him to court in France? Are French groups not on the case?

However, as you are completely consumed by this, and 100% certain of the law, why don't you make the case and take Aurier to court? My guess is you wouldn't get much further than you have on this open forum - an organic arena for pubic judgements.

There are many genuine issues, surely you could spend your energy actually helping someone?
Click to expand...

Between you and me, I've heard he's terrible at it!
 
SpurMeUp said:
That's complete nonsense. First and foremost someone is innocent until proven guilty. A basic concept you find difficult; it undermines your belief in your own legal authority. If you took him to court, a defence lawyer would very quickly look at the the word "fiotte", open up a french dictionary and show examples of its use in everyday language with no LGTB connotations. They would also assert that a closer translation of "faggot" is "piede". A completely different word. The N-word association is not there. You're premise of a hate crime would dissolve rapidly.

You'd be left with someone miming a blow job? That's it? How many girls have done this with no hate involved? Why can't men? By the way how do you portray a gay sex act negatively? Are you saying he's bad at giving head?

If you needed any more they would take a statement from the accused to say he was questioning his manager, not suggesting he was gay. They would confirm that the comments had nothing to do with being gay in fact, and there was nothing homophobic. The judge wouldn't even bother hearing the case. It would be a waste of time. If it is such a cut and dry outrage, why didn't LGBT groups take him to court in France? Are French groups not on the case?

However, as you are completely consumed by this, and 100% certain of the law, why don't you make the case and take Aurier to court? My guess is you wouldn't get much further than you have on this open forum - an organic arena for pubic judgements.

There are many genuine issues, surely you could spend your energy actually helping someone?
Click to expand...

This is the same guy who accuses thousands of Liverpool fans of mass murder. Double Think rules!l
 
SpurMeUp said:
That's complete nonsense. First and foremost someone is innocent until proven guilty. A basic concept you find difficult; it undermines your belief in your own legal authority. If you took him to court, a defence lawyer would very quickly look at the the word "fiotte", open up a french dictionary and show examples of its use in everyday language with no LGTB connotations. They would also assert that a closer translation of "faggot" is "piede". A completely different word. The N-word association is not there. You're premise of a hate crime would dissolve rapidly.

You'd be left with someone miming a blow job? That's it? How many girls have done this with no hate involved? Why can't men? By the way how do you portray a gay sex act negatively? Are you saying he's bad at giving head?

If you needed any more they would take a statement from the accused to say he was questioning his manager, not suggesting he was gay. They would confirm that the comments had nothing to do with being gay in fact, and there was nothing homophobic. The judge wouldn't even bother hearing the case. It would be a waste of time. If it is such a cut and dry outrage, why didn't LGBT groups take him to court in France? Are French groups not on the case?

However, as you are completely consumed by this, and 100% certain of the law, why don't you make the case and take Aurier to court? My guess is you wouldn't get much further than you have on this open forum - an organic arena for pubic judgements.

There are many genuine issues, surely you could spend your energy actually helping someone?
Click to expand...

I have been involved in several of these type of cases and I have seen people equally convinced as you waste tens of thousands of pounds with these pointless arguments.

The issue is simple. Was the victim offended? And if yes, was it reasonable for them to be offended? The defendant's intention is mitigation. But that is all it is. He might use that to reduce his punishment.

I doubt Aurier could be brought to court in this country because I suspect UK courts do not have jurisdiction for an online offence committed in France. Also there needs to a complaint. And an agreement that it is in the interest of justice to charge him. Perhaps a caution would be the likely disposal (provided he admitted it) if he was in the UK system.
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
I have been involved in several of these type of cases and I have seen people equally convinced as you waste tens of thousands of pounds with these pointless arguments.

The issue is simple. Was the victim offended? And if yes, was it reasonable for them to be offended? The defendant's intention is mitigation. But that is all it is. He might use that to reduce his punishment.

I doubt Aurier could be brought to court in this country because I suspect UK courts do not have jurisdiction for an online offence committed in France. Also there needs to a complaint. And an agreement that it is in the interest of justice to charge him. Perhaps a caution would be the likely disposal (provided he admitted it) if he was in the UK system.
Click to expand...
do you have any specific cases you can point to - just interested to learn more. One specifically where a word can have more than one meaning and its just as reasonable to assume either if possible. Always wanting to learn more, I would like to read up on it.
 
JPBB said:
I have been involved in several of these type of cases and I have seen people equally convinced as you waste tens of thousands of pounds with these pointless arguments.

The issue is simple. Was the victim offended? And if yes, was it reasonable for them to be offended? The defendant's intention is mitigation. But that is all it is. He might use that to reduce his punishment.

I doubt Aurier could be brought to court in this country because I suspect UK courts do not have jurisdiction for an online offence committed in France. Also there needs to a complaint. And an agreement that it is in the interest of justice to charge him. Perhaps a caution would be the likely disposal (provided he admitted it) if he was in the UK system.
Click to expand...

I'm not a midget, but I'm small. I am offended that you are comparing small people to people who are in your view mass murderers and who not only condone mass murder but actively cover it up.

I find your apology insincere, condescending and does not show true contrition.
I am debating where to report your hate speech to the relevant authorities.
 
I think context is all important here, my Grandfathers generation used terms like Pansy, Poofter or arse bandit to describe homosexuals, my fathers generation similar used terms like Uphill gardener, Feygaleh, bender or Bum boy. Now we understand that in this generation those kind of disparaging words are totally unacceptable to most folk, so I think that you have to look at the time and place that Aurier used those words and give him the benefit of the doubt. As I said in the original thread He''s here now, so probably best left .
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
do you have any specific cases you can point to - just interested to learn more. One specifically where a word can have more than one meaning and its just as reasonable to assume either if possible. Always wanting to learn more, I would like to read up on it.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer and do not have access to those legal case studies

But i did find this which relates to race but I think would be applied to other hate crimes. Obviously I say he's guilty on (a) and (b) but even if I take your semantics case at it's highest I could rely solely on (b).

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
I am not a lawyer and do have access to those legal case studies

But i did find this which relates to race but I think would be applied to other hate crimes. Obviously I say he's guilty on (a) and (b) but even if I take your semantics case at it's highest I could rely solely on (b).

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Click to expand...

I think you need to be careful then because his comments would be very difficult to prove as stirring up hatred.
Your repeated anti Liverpool comments on the other hand......
 
After careful consideration I have decided that not only is JPBB guilty of being sizist, but because no one else on this forum his called him to book over it you're all sizist.
Taken together with constant videos of dancing small people for your own sordid gratification and shameful exploration of said, unless a significant "donation" to a charity to combat these abhorrent and outdated prejudices I will be informing the relevant authorities.
As soon as I have my charity set up I'll send the details.
 
glasgowspur said:
I think you need to be careful then because his comments would be very difficult to prove as stirring up hatred.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think realistically he would be charged under section 4a

But we are not arguing about whether he committed an offence but whether it was a hate crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back