Zoopla will finish with W. Brom over Anelka's "Quenelle"

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

keane2097 wrote: »

I literally guffaw at your username every time I see it. I've actually told people about it in real life because it's such a bizarre and hilarious collection of words.

haha, cheers

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

He has said himself that he didn't mean it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. There will be a hearing, at the hearing he can and should elaborate on exactly what he did mean by it, other than showing some kind of support for Diuedonne. The hearing presided over by the FA is where this incident should be judged. Due process should apply and the judgement should not be pre-empted by commercial interests like Zoopla attempting to garner publicity for themselves from the incident, and potentially prejudicing the outcome of the hearing.

I'd imagine after all this they'll give Anelka a ban of some sort, but I can't see how they could arrive at a judgement that he meant it to be anti-Semitic, if he is saying himself that he didn't mean it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. It's a curious case for lots of reasons and a lot of heat and not much light has been drummed up around this incident.

If that is the logic you want the FA to follow then they would never find anybody guilty under this charge unless the defendant confessed. Read Father Tod's post (96) for an example if you can't wrap your head around this idea.

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

What he thinks is his opinion. The definition of the gesture hasnt changed and the context of what Anelka did doesn't make his gesture anti-semitic.

You were happy to hold up Cukierman's original statement as evidence for your definition of the quenelle not being anti-semitic. Now that he has clarified what he meant, that he does indeed think that the quenelle is an anti-semitic gesture, you say it's just his opinion. You are a hypocrite.

Dempsey wrote: »

You say it is on the basis of guilt by association which is bull imo

If Anelka did not know who the inventor of the gesture was he might be able to plead that he was just doing the gesture as an anti-establishment gesture, ie plead his innocence through ignorance of the inventor of the gesture and what that inventor uses it for. But Anelka has said that Dieudonne is his friend and that he was showing support for him. Therefore Anelka's association with Dieudonne is fully intentional. It is the association of support. Supporting racist political figures on the football pitch is, thankfully, something the FA do not allow.

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

If that is the logic you want the FA to follow then they would never find anybody guilty under this charge unless the defendant confessed. Read Father Tod's post (96) for an example if you can't wrap your head around this idea.

Father Ted's post you are referring to is a supposition that he made up himself, it has no bearing on this case, don't be ridiculous. The FA might ban Anelka for performing an unauthorised political gesture on the field - I think they've done that before - Robbie Fowler being fined for wearing a t-shirt supporting dockers comes to mind.

I can't see how they'll be able to definitively accuse him of performing an anti-Semitic gesture, because the quenelle is a gesture that can be used in circumstances that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Even if Anelka's only defense is that he did it in support of Dieudonne, he can still claim he didn't intend it to be anti-Semitic. Anelka in the hearing I'm sure will reiterate that he didn't intend it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. They wont be able to prove otherwise unless they employ thought police, so wrap your head around that.

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

Father Ted's post you are referring to is a supposition that he made up himself, it has no bearing on this case, don't be ridiculous. The FA might ban Anelka for performing an unauthorised political gesture on the field - I think they've done that before - Robbie Fowler being fined for wearing a t-shirt supporting dockers comes to mind.

I can't see how they'll be able to definitively accuse him of performing an anti-Semitic gesture, because the quenelle is a gesture that can be used in circumstances that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Even if Anelka's only defense is that he did it in support of Dieudonne, he can still claim he didn't intend it to be anti-Semitic. Anelka in the hearing I'm sure will reiterate that he didn't intend it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. They wont be able to prove otherwise unless they employ thought police, so wrap your head around that.

Of course Farther Tod's example has a bearing on this case. It is a hypothetical example that shows the flaw in the logic you are using.

Can you describe for me any possible situation where the FA could find a player guilty of "making a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper" if the defendant's plea of not intending it to be abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper is always a sufficient defence?

Fr Tod Umptious

Lennonist wrote: »

Father Ted's post you are referring to is a supposition that he made up himself, it has no bearing on this case, don't be ridiculous. The FA might ban Anelka for performing an unauthorised political gesture on the field - I think they've done that before - Robbie Fowler being fined for wearing a t-shirt supporting dockers comes to mind.

I can't see how they'll be able to definitively accuse him of performing an anti-Semitic gesture, because the quenelle is a gesture that can be used in circumstances that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Even if Anelka's only defense is that he did it in support of Dieudonne, he can still claim he didn't intend it to be anti-Semitic. Anelka in the hearing I'm sure will reiterate that he didn't intend it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. They wont be able to prove otherwise unless they employ thought police, so wrap your head around that.

I did not expect to have to explain my post but seems I have to.

My post showed an example of how a person can be offensive without necessarily planning to be.

I should know better than to call all black people n##gers.
Just like Anelka should know better than to use that gesture, regardless of his intentions.

TAnd just like the word n.... is no less offensive because of my ignorance the gesture is no less offensive because of Anelka's

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

Of course Farther Tod's example has a bearing on this case. It is a hypothetical example that shows the flaw in the logic you are using.

Can you describe for me any possible situation where the FA could find a player guilty of "making a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper" if the defendant's plea of not intending it to be abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper is always a sufficient defence?

You're just ramblin now.

cathalio11

dreamers75 wrote: »

Millions of other fans IE not WBA fans see it.

Suppose it comes down to your opinion on it. Meh or CBA ????

It's really just a basic understanding of commerce here, not my opinion.

Sponsors pay big money, normally dictated by the amount of people who will see it. It was a great day for Zoopla when their logo was flashing on every news channel, and an even better day when the hit the news for announcing that they wouldn't renew sponsorship.

Such firms spend so much time thinking about how to raise their profile, and I don't think they mind that non-WBA fans saw their logo. They'd have their logo everywhere if it didn't cost so much.

cathalio11

In reply to you Pro. F, I accept what you've said and there's not much I can say in reply.

You cited a fact that I was unaware of, and it has changed my opinion.

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

You're just ramblin now.

So that's a "no" then.

The flaw in your logic is so basic it is idiotic.

Lennonist

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I did not expect to have to explain my post but seems I have to.

My post showed an example of how a person can be offensive without necessarily planning to be.

I should know better than to call all black people n##gers.
Just like Anelka should know better than to use that gesture, regardless of his intentions.

TAnd just like the word n.... is no less offensive because of my ignorance the gesture is no less offensive because of Anelka's

I know exactly what your hypothetical post meant, you didn't need to explain it and it's not analogous to this incident. The point I'm making is the FA are charging Anelka and may indeed issue a ban for using an unauthorised political gesture. However the suspension if it happens wont necessarily be connected with anti-Semitism, because the "quenelle" is not a political gesture exclusively connected with anti-Semitism. Anelka will be able to dispute the anti-Semitism angle and I can't see how they could prove otherwise even if they wanted to.

Pro. F

cathalio11 wrote: »

In reply to you Pro. F, I accept what you've said and there's not much I can say in reply.

You cited a fact that I was unaware of, and it has changed my opinion.

Fair play.

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

So that's a "no" then.

The flaw in your logic is so basic it is idiotic.

No it's not a no. The FA might suspend Anelka for using an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play, but it's highly unlikely that they will be able to definitively say that his potential suspension is connected to a political gesture that is exclusively anti-Semitic. I hope that's clear enough for you.

Fr Tod Umptious

Lennonist wrote: »

No it's not a no. The FA might suspend Anelka for using an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play, but it's highly unlikely that they will be able to definitively say that his potential suspension is connected to a political gesture that is exclusively anti-Semitic. I hope that's clear enough for you.

But a gesture does not have to be 'exclusively' anything to be offensive.

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

No it's not a no.

So you can describe for me a possible situation where the FA could find a player guilty of "making a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper" if the defendant's plea of not intending it to be so is always a sufficient defence?

Well go ahead and do it then. Because if you can't think of any such situation then that shows how the logic of your argument is flawed.

Lennonist wrote: »

The FA might suspend Anelka for using an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play, but it's highly unlikely that they will be able to definitively say that his potential suspension is connected to a political gesture that is exclusively anti-Semitic. I hope that's clear enough for you.

I would not like to predict anything that the FA will do because they have shown themselves to be incompetent many times in the past. But, if they act competently, they will easily be able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the quenelle gesture that Anelka did is intimately linked with anti-semitism.

That doesn't mean that they will have proven the quenelle to be exclusively anti-semitic, they don't need to. They will have proven that Anelka's use of it was anti-semitic.

That also doesn't mean that they will have proven that Anelka is anti-semitic, they don't need to. They will have proven that Anelka's actions in this case were anti-semitic in nature.

Lennonist

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But a gesture does not have to be 'exclusively' anything to be offensive.

Robbie Fowler was fined for displaying support for striking dockers. His t-shirt support of the dockers was hardly offensive to anyone bar the dockers employers perhaps. He was fined for an unathorised political display on the field.

In this instance the FA might suspend Anelka for using an unauthorised political gesture, but it's highly unlikely they can connect that potential suspension directly with anti-Semitism. They wont be able to prove his "quenelle" was meant to be anti-Semitic, even if they wanted to, and I doubt they care.

The FA will likely ban Anelka after all the extra attention that has been brought the incident, but I'd imagine they may have suspended him anyway after due process. Zoopla probably think they're the big winners in this incident, what with the extra publicity they've got from it.

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

So you can describe for me a possible situation where the FA could find a player guilty of "making a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper" if the defendant's plea of not intending it to be so is always a sufficient defence?

Well go ahead and do it then. Because if you can't think of any such situation then that shows how the logic of your argument is flawed.



I would not like to predict anything that the FA will do because they have shown themselves to be incompetent many times in the past. But, if they act competently, they will easily be able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the quenelle gesture that Anelka did is intimately linked with anti-semitism.

That doesn't mean that they will have proven the quenelle to be exclusively anti-semitic, they don't need to. They will have proven that Anelka's use of it was anti-semitic.

That also doesn't mean that they will have proven that Anelka is anti-semitic, they don't need to. They will have proven that Anelka's actions in this case were anti-semitic in nature.

Very unlikely I would say. I reckon if the FA ban him - which is likely - it will be for use of an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play. The FA wont be able to say it was anti-Semitic in nature, and they wont need to prove that it was in order to issue a potential ban for an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play.

I'd say they'll take the safe option. Anelka will get a ban for an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play, anti Semitism wont be mentioned because they can't definitively prove it. Zoopla will be happy with their publicity stunt, and that will be the end of it.

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

Very unlikely I would say. I reckon if the FA ban him - which is likely - it will be for use of an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play. The FA wont be able to say it was anti-Semitic in nature, and they wont need to prove that it was in order to issue a potential ban for an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play.

I'd say they'll take the safe option. Anelka will get a ban for an unauthorised political gesture on the field of play, anti Semitism wont be mentioned because they can't definitively prove it. Zoopla will be happy with their publicity stunt, and that will be the end of it.

You haven't read the FA charge have you?

"It is alleged that, in the 40th minute of the fixture, Anelka made a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3[1].

It is further alleged that this is an aggravated breach, as defined in FA Rule E3[2], in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief." thefa.com

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

You haven't read the FA charge have you?

"It is alleged that, in the 40th minute of the fixture, Anelka made a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3[1].

It is further alleged that this is an aggravated breach, as defined in FA Rule E3[2], in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief." thefa.com

Yes thats the charge. Like I say he might get suspended but it wont necessarily have to include everything mentioned in the charge. They might suspend him for whats in the first paragraph, as in an improper gesture. Fairly wide reaching charge, he'll likely be suspended by the looks of it.

Pro. F

Lennonist wrote: »

Yes thats the charge. Like I say he might get suspended but it wont necessarily have to include everything mentioned in the charge. They might suspend him for whats in the first paragraph, as in an improper gesture. Fairly wide reaching charge, he'll likely be suspended by the looks of it.

You have been flitting between two similar but distinct arguments in this discussion, what you think the FA should do and predicting what they will do.

You predict the FA will only find him guilty of using a political gesture, but that they will make no reference to anti-semtism. Well the FA are fully capable of incompetence, so that is a slight possibility I agree.

You also have an opinion on what the FA should do. You think that they should not charge Anelka with expressing anti-semitism. Your defence of that point is that Anelka said he did not mean the gesture to be anti-semitic. That defence is idiotic.

eagle eye

I'd never heard of Zoopla before this so well done them.

Dempsey

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I've been reading this thread and I genuinely can't get over your sheer ignorance

Anelka is friends with this comedian. The gesture has massive anti-Semitic conitations (see the clowns doing it in Aushwitz) and all the BS about it being anti establishment is a smokescreen

Drivel tbh, most of the people in this thread just want to take the worst case scenario rather than the context used and Anelka is guilty by association etc

pickarooney

It'd be a laugh if a few players made up some new ridiculous gesture and performed it next week then sit back and watch the world and his wombat scramble to identify and condemn the heinous if hitherto unknown salute.

dreamers75

pickarooney wrote: »

It'd be a laugh if a few players made up some new ridiculous gesture and performed it next week then sit back and watch the world and his wombat scramble to identify and condemn the heinous if hitherto unknown salute.

This needs to happen!!!!

Pro. F

pickarooney wrote: »

It'd be a laugh if a few players made up some new ridiculous gesture and performed it next week then sit back and watch the world and his wombat scramble to identify and condemn the heinous if hitherto unknown salute.

Yeah, because that's what's happening here. People rushing to condemn meaningless gestures. It's political correctness gone mad sure.

Tony EH

keane2097 wrote: »

Does this not all apply to Suarez calling Evra a niglet?

Suarez called Evra a "Negrito", which he defended as a colloquial term of affection. In fact, the term refers to numerous people of South East Asian cultures and is not necessarily racist.

I'm not defending his use of the word to Evra and I certainly think the he should have thought twice before saying it, in case the word be interpreted wrongly. But, he doesn't come across as a particularly intelligent chap. A fantastic man in front of the net, but probably shouldn't open his mouth.

...and I say that as a Liverpool fan.

dreamers75

BBC saying if he is found guilty WBA will sack him.

Tony EH

Guilty of what exactly?

Unless Anelka specifically says he meant the gesture as anti-Semitic, then there is really no case for either banning him, or sacking.

A simple caution will do.

Agent Coulson

5 game ban and £80,000 fine and ordered to complete a compulsory education course

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26326484

Lennonist

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11698/9187626/west-brom-suspend-nicolas-anelka-after-guilty-verdict-in-quenelle-case

West Brom have suspended him now as well while waiting a potential appeal. Crucially - as far as Anelka is concerned - the FA did not find him guilty of anti-semitism.

"The club acknowledges that the FA panel 'did not find that Nicolas Anelka is an anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle'.

"However, the club cannot ignore the offence that his actions have caused, particularly to the Jewish community, nor the potential damage to the club's reputation."

I'd say it's probable he wont play for West Brom again.

mike65

Breaking

Nicolas Anelka says that he has terminated his West Brom contract …