WhereWereWeWhenWeWereWhat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 258
- Team supported
- City
So you’re saying... ;)How on Earth do you get that from the post you quoted?
It clearly said, "Where racism exists it should be tackled.
So you’re saying... ;)How on Earth do you get that from the post you quoted?
It clearly said, "Where racism exists it should be tackled.
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.
Obviously it wasn’t the minimum as he only got a one game ban..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.
Obviously it wasn’t the minimum as he only got a one game ban..
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.
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.
You must have missed the bit where I said 'we shouldn't be complacent'.