Bernado Silva misconduct charge: one game ban, £50k fine

GortonBlue62 said:
Douglas Murray, in his book 'The Madness of Crowds', describes St George in Retirement syndrome...

St George slew the dragon and liked the approbation that resulted. So much so that he went around the country slaying more dragons and enjoying the kudos that came his way. As time went by the beasts became fewer in number and smaller in size. At the end of his life St George was swishing his sword at thin air.

... the young people who find offence (and racism and misogyny and homophobia) everywhere, are looking for dragons that don't really exist anymore. Thanks to the civil rights, women's lib and gay rights movements we live in a tolerant society where people are not prejudged on the colour of their skin, or their gender or their sexuality. Instead of recognizing the benign situation we find ourselves in, we are looking for smaller and smaller indiscretions to punish. Even Barack Obama recently made a speech on the subject, in which he urged tolerance and a recognition that people make mistakes but should be allowed to recover.

Young people have an excuse, they are young and they don't yet know their arse from their elbow. It's older people who should know better than allow this madness to continue. Your opinion, as expressed above, is part of the problem. In the specific case of Bernardo Silva, he did fuck all wrong and there should be no action other than an apology from the FA.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that we have eliminated racism and bigotry from this country?
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Douglas Murray, in his book 'The Madness of Crowds', describes St George in Retirement syndrome...

St George slew the dragon and liked the approbation that resulted. So much so that he went around the country slaying more dragons and enjoying the kudos that came his way. As time went by the beasts became fewer in number and smaller in size. At the end of his life St George was swishing his sword at thin air.

... the young people who find offence (and racism and misogyny and homophobia) everywhere, are looking for dragons that don't really exist anymore. Thanks to the civil rights, women's lib and gay rights movements we live in a tolerant society where people are not prejudged on the colour of their skin, or their gender or their sexuality. Instead of recognizing the benign situation we find ourselves in, we are looking for smaller and smaller indiscretions to punish. Even Barack Obama recently made a speech on the subject, in which he urged tolerance and a recognition that people make mistakes but should be allowed to recover.

Young people have an excuse, they are young and they don't yet know their arse from their elbow. It's older people who should know better than allow this madness to continue. Your opinion, as expressed above, is part of the problem. In the specific case of Bernardo Silva, he did fuck all wrong and there should be no action other than an apology from the FA.
Click to expand...


Very well said I listened to a podcast with a “black American pastor” that was saying people can say things without intention or harm & shouldnt be targeted for it, we need to allow slips of the tongue. The intolerance has swung the other way.
 
threadkiller said:
So you're saying that we have eliminated racism and bigotry from this country?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all, but I can see why someone with your mindset would choose to see things in an all or nothing fashion.

We haven't eliminated racism or bigotry, and we shouldn't be complacent, but we've come a long way and that needs to be recognized.

Young people today would love to have been on the march on Washington in 1963 with Martin Luther King, but they weren't and instead of recognizing the progress made and being grateful for the amazing situation they find themselves in, they are looking to be activists in a world without a real enemy.

Where racism exists it should be tackled. Where it doesn't, as in the case of Bernardo Silva, it should be called out for the bollocks that it is.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
I'm not saying that at all, but I can see why someone with your mindset would choose to see things in an all or nothing fashion.

We haven't eliminated racism or bigotry, and we shouldn't be complacent, but we've come a long way and that needs to be recognized.

Young people today would love to have been on the march on Washington in 1963 with Martin Luther King, but they weren't and instead of recognizing the progress made and being grateful for the amazing situation they find themselves in, they are looking to be activists in a world without a real enemy.

Where racism exists it should be tackled. Where it doesn't, as in the case of Bernardo Silva, it should be called out for the bollocks that it is.
Click to expand...

So your saying that even though we've not eliminated racism and bigotry, we've done enough, and should just let it go now?
 
I've thought about this quite a bit before posting in this thread. I also took time to read the independent panel's reasons for imposing the penalty they did.

We all get that Bernardo isn't racist by nature and didn't intend anything more than a pisstake of his mate. I think what throws us perhaps is how people have reacted to what seems at first to be an innocuous cartoon. I think if (lets say) John Stones had posted a picture of (lets say) a young Leroy Sane and then posted a picture of the old Robertson's marmalade golliwog and said 'guess who' or something similar, it would be easier to understand the outrage. Why? Because we are more attuned to how the golliwog symbol can be interpreted, whereas none of us had ever heard of the cartoon Bernardo posted. In other words, we get that although Leroy Sane himself might have known it was a laugh, and John Stones might not have intended to do anything more than take the piss out of Leroy's hair when he was 10, there are people out there who would have twisted his message, and there are others who (not knowing John Stones) would not have known that he didn't mean any offensive beyond normal piss taking between mates.

What's interesting about the FA's reasons is that they accept no offence was intended, and none was taken by the target of the comment, but the fact remained that bernardo said something that could be interpreted as having racist undertones. He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute. What was regarded as an aggravating feature was that he has 600k followers on his insta account. In other words, Bernardo's crime was to say something that could be taken the wrong way, and say it in front of a very big audience. He will learn from that.

By the way, I'm disappointed in the ban, but plainly they felt they couldn't let it go without a ban at all. The written reasons make it clear that the starting point where an 'aggravated breach' occurs - in other words, one where whatever the misconduct is, there is an element of racist conduct in it - is a six game ban. Plainly, if they'd really wanted to throw the book at him they could have left it at that.
 
Chris in London said:
I've thought about this quite a bit before posting in this thread. I also took time to read the independent panel's reasons for imposing the penalty they did.

We all get that Bernardo isn't racist by nature and didn't intend anything more than a pisstake of his mate. I think what throws us perhaps is how people have reacted to what seems at first to be an innocuous cartoon. I think if (lets say) John Stones had posted a picture of (lets say) a young Leroy Sane and then posted a picture of the old Robertson's marmalade golliwog and said 'guess who' or something similar, it would be easier to understand the outrage. Why? Because we are more attuned to how the golliwog symbol can be interpreted, whereas none of us had ever heard of the cartoon Bernardo posted. In other words, we get that although Leroy Sane himself might have known it was a laugh, and John Stones might not have intended to do anything more than take the piss out of Leroy's hair when he was 10, there are people out there who would have twisted his message, and there are others who (not knowing John Stones) would not have known that he didn't mean any offensive beyond normal piss taking between mates.

What's interesting about the FA's reasons is that they accept no offence was intended, and none was taken by the target of the comment, but the fact remained that bernardo said something that could be interpreted as having racist undertones. He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute. What was regarded as an aggravating feature was that he has 600k followers on his insta account. In other words, Bernardo's crime was to say something that could be taken the wrong way, and say it in front of a very big audience. He will learn from that.

By the way, I'm disappointed in the ban, but plainly they felt they couldn't let it go without a ban at all. The written reasons make it clear that the starting point where an 'aggravated breach' occurs - in other words, one where whatever the misconduct is, there is an element of racist conduct in it - is a six game ban. Plainly, if they'd really wanted to throw the book at him they could have left it at that.
Click to expand...

I think you've summed it up very well, but as a point of clarification, the 6 game minimum only applies to incidents on the pitch. The minimum for Bernardo's charge was 2 games.
 
Chris in London said:
I've thought about this quite a bit before posting in this thread. I also took time to read the independent panel's reasons for imposing the penalty they did.

We all get that Bernardo isn't racist by nature and didn't intend anything more than a pisstake of his mate. I think what throws us perhaps is how people have reacted to what seems at first to be an innocuous cartoon. I think if (lets say) John Stones had posted a picture of (lets say) a young Leroy Sane and then posted a picture of the old Robertson's marmalade golliwog and said 'guess who' or something similar, it would be easier to understand the outrage. Why? Because we are more attuned to how the golliwog symbol can be interpreted, whereas none of us had ever heard of the cartoon Bernardo posted. In other words, we get that although Leroy Sane himself might have known it was a laugh, and John Stones might not have intended to do anything more than take the piss out of Leroy's hair when he was 10, there are people out there who would have twisted his message, and there are others who (not knowing John Stones) would not have known that he didn't mean any offensive beyond normal piss taking between mates.

What's interesting about the FA's reasons is that they accept no offence was intended, and none was taken by the target of the comment, but the fact remained that bernardo said something that could be interpreted as having racist undertones. He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute. What was regarded as an aggravating feature was that he has 600k followers on his insta account. In other words, Bernardo's crime was to say something that could be taken the wrong way, and say it in front of a very big audience. He will learn from that.

By the way, I'm disappointed in the ban, but plainly they felt they couldn't let it go without a ban at all. The written reasons make it clear that the starting point where an 'aggravated breach' occurs - in other words, one where whatever the misconduct is, there is an element of racist conduct in it - is a six game ban. Plainly, if they'd really wanted to throw the book at him they could have left it at that.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that apart from the last bit. I think it was specific that the 6-game minimum does NOT apply, as it's not on-field (paraphrased). Haven't read it today to find out, but there is a clause in the regs (and I think the statement) that there is no minimum penalty for social media.

Might be wrong though.
 
From here:
http://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefac...019-20/fa-media-essentials-guide-2019-20.ashx

From page 33 {my comment - clearly the timeframe was waived here)
PROCESS for FA RULE E3[1] MEDIA COMMENTS
• This does not apply to media comments cases charged under FA Rule E3[2];
• Within three working days of The FA being aware of the comments, it may charge or contact the individual and seek their written observations before deciding whether to issue a charge;
• The participant will have three working days to provide any requested observations;
• The FA will have three working days from the deadline for the provision of the observations to decide whether to issue any charge;
• The participant will have three working days to reply to any charge;
• The Regulatory Commission hearing will take place within 10 working days of receipt of the reply.
SANCTIONS
There are no set sanctions for media or social media charges that are found proven. It is for the Regulatory Commission to decide what punishment it deems appropriate for the offence.

(my bolding)
 
cheekybids said:
You don’t deal with Bernardos intent of a laugh with a mate, with a hypothetical situation that someone may intend to send that tweet to cause offence. Tolerance & understanding are valuable commodities.
Click to expand...

But, like I've been saying, if no action is taken, the person intending to send that tweet, with malicious intent, now can justify his or her actions as 'just a joke' and point to Silva's tweet as being perfectly fine.
So what does the person being bullied do now? Because you can't really complain can you? when everyone has already said its perfectly fine, no racism here. Now you're just being a spoil sport, not being able to take a joke, which opens you up for more abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top