Guardiola fined £20,000 for wearing yellow ribbon (p140)

[oakiecokie]

Well let's bring it back. Rob Harris of Associated Press is a journalist I've got a lot of time for and he's published an article which I think makes a very salient point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85d234-1b26-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html

I and others have said that the owners are happy to use City as a sort of lightning conductor to deflect attention away from criticism of the UAE. Of course there will be some but on the whole they have been successful in creating a division between the club and the country. That helps to explain why they're seemingly tolerant of almost defamatory media articles about City yet clamp downget the lawyers involved when Abu Dhabi or the Sheikh is brought in. Harris makes the point that Pep, by bringing attention to the situation in Catalunya, is bringing the spotlight onto Abu Dhabi. That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

FFS don`t let SWP read that !! ;)

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

Well let's bring it back. Rob Harris of Associated Press is a journalist I've got a lot of time for and he's published an article which I think makes a very salient point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85d234-1b26-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html

I and others have said that the owners are happy to use City as a sort of lightning conductor to deflect attention away from criticism of the UAE. Of course there will be some but on the whole they have been successful in creating a division between the club and the country. That helps to explain why they're seemingly tolerant of almost defamatory media articles about City yet clamp downget the lawyers involved when Abu Dhabi or the Sheikh is brought in. Harris makes the point that Pep, by bringing attention to the situation in Catalunya, is bringing the spotlight onto Abu Dhabi. That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

Very good article PB, thanks

 

[Shaelumstash]

Well let's bring it back. Rob Harris of Associated Press is a journalist I've got a lot of time for and he's published an article which I think makes a very salient point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85d234-1b26-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html

I and others have said that the owners are happy to use City as a sort of lightning conductor to deflect attention away from criticism of the UAE. Of course there will be some but on the whole they have been successful in creating a division between the club and the country. That helps to explain why they're seemingly tolerant of almost defamatory media articles about City yet clamp downget the lawyers involved when Abu Dhabi or the Sheikh is brought in. Harris makes the point that Pep, by bringing attention to the situation in Catalunya, is bringing the spotlight onto Abu Dhabi. That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

From what I can gather, it was Rob Harris who asked the question in the press conference? I personally thought the question was completely misplaced and ridiculous. The rest of the press in attendance didn’t follow up that line of questioning at all.

I’ve read your thoughts on the “lightning rod” theory before and it does seem that bad press of the club is completely accepted, while bad press for Abu Dhabi is not tolerated whatsoever. Perhaps that is why none of the other journalists followed up that line of questioning?

I’ve not seen any other media outlet run with the UAE human rights issues off the back of the yellow ribbon, but even if they have, it’s not gained any traction and I wouldn’t expect it to.

It’s a bit awkward now because Pep is probably going to get asked about the ribbon in every press conference now. I couldn’t see the owners asking him to stop wearing it, that could end up backfiring as Pep doesn’t seem the kind of man to take those kind of orders and keeping quiet about it.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Well let's bring it back. Rob Harris of Associated Press is a journalist I've got a lot of time for and he's published an article which I think makes a very salient point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85d234-1b26-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html

I and others have said that the owners are happy to use City as a sort of lightning conductor to deflect attention away from criticism of the UAE. Of course there will be some but on the whole they have been successful in creating a division between the club and the country. That helps to explain why they're seemingly tolerant of almost defamatory media articles about City yet clamp downget the lawyers involved when Abu Dhabi or the Sheikh is brought in. Harris makes the point that Pep, by bringing attention to the situation in Catalunya, is bringing the spotlight onto Abu Dhabi. That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

I imagine they will reign Pep in now that he has cleverly played the FA into amplifying his message to a much larger audience beyond football.

I would go a step beyond Harris’ assessment, though, and assert that this sort focus may actually serve the boys in the Gulf in a less obvious fashion. That is, they may be able to use the “unwanted” attention as means for further marginalising more hardline elements of the regime (that many among the Sheik’s camp have long attempted to remove or diminish for varying reasons) and serve as a call to action for some foundational reforms, among them the continued tightening of the ruling family’s (and national) perse strings, restructuring of media markets, and slow liberalisation (of a sort, anyway).

Now, whether that results in positive outcomes for UAE citizens and non-citizens alike is another discussion entirely, but I would not be surprised if several members of the management circle that also have governing duties leverage these international discussions and critiques to raise clout for their and the Sheik’s less public projects.

I do not in any way think that Pep’s public position and efforts were manipulated for that purpose, of course, but prudent people strike while the iron is hot and our ownership (and affiliated parties) rarely doddle when an opportunity presents itself.

 

[SebastianBlue]

From what I can gather, it was Rob Harris who asked the question in the press conference? I personally thought the question was completely misplaced and ridiculous. The rest of the press in attendance didn’t follow up that line of questioning at all.

I’ve read your thoughts on the “lightning rod” theory before and it does seem that bad press of the club is completely accepted, while bad press for Abu Dhabi is not tolerated whatsoever. Perhaps that is why none of the other journalists followed up that line of questioning?

I’ve not seen any other media outlet run with the UAE human rights issues off the back of the yellow ribbon, but even if they have, it’s not gained any traction and I wouldn’t expect it to.

It’s a bit awkward now because Pep is probably going to get asked about the ribbon in every press conference now. I couldn’t see the owners asking him to stop wearing it, that could end up backfiring as Pep doesn’t seem the kind of man to take those kind of orders and keeping quiet about it.

The Guardian, the NY Times, and several other outlets have all raised the “hypocrisy” argument when reporting Pep’s advocacy and yellow ribbon wearing.

Here is one of the Guardian’s pieces that actually takes a different line to Harris’ and asks how Pep squares his current convictions with his previous role as a Qatar World Cup ambassador:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/feb/26/pep-guardiola-qatar-world-cup-yellow-ribbon

I don’t think those questions, or the discussion, is inappropriate or misplaced, personally, as public figures that choose to be advocates or agitators should be held accountability (even—and probably especially—when I happen to agree with their position). However, I do agree with your and @Prestwich_Blue ’s previous assertions that they can’t be raised in isolation and the sheer void of similar exploratory pieces about other club ownership groups is a fairly obvious nod to underlying racism and xenophobia that is so pervasive in current culture.

Pep, in many respects, has called that reality out with his yellow ribbon actions. And, as part Spanish (who tries not to get into that side of things on here as I am likely far to close to it for what passes as an objective discussion these days) I applaud his work and conviction.

While I think Pep will eventually quiet down about it, partly on the request of our ownership, I do agree it is certainly an awkward place for everyone involved to find themselves. But there are also opportunities for progress from this situation and I believe the Sheik and his advisors will cease them.

 

[aguero93:20]

Well let's bring it back. Rob Harris of Associated Press is a journalist I've got a lot of time for and he's published an article which I think makes a very salient point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85d234-1b26-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html

I and others have said that the owners are happy to use City as a sort of lightning conductor to deflect attention away from criticism of the UAE. Of course there will be some but on the whole they have been successful in creating a division between the club and the country. That helps to explain why they're seemingly tolerant of almost defamatory media articles about City yet clamp downget the lawyers involved when Abu Dhabi or the Sheikh is brought in. Harris makes the point that Pep, by bringing attention to the situation in Catalunya, is bringing the spotlight onto Abu Dhabi. That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

It's great to see Rob Harris show such consistency here by continuing his career long pursuit of improved human rights across the globe, unlike all those other journalists that just fight over clicks.

 

[SWP's back]

But we keep being told by certain people that is isn`t a political stance by Pep.

Oh look, Martin Samuel is aware of the UEFA and FIFA rule change:

“Is this where the FA are heading? The most compelling presence to arrive in the English game in decades and we drive him out, or at least to the stands, over a yellow ribbon because nobody at the FA had the common sense to update the rulebook.

UEFA did. Not solely because of the FA’s victory over poppies, but in part. Europe’s governing body decided symbols were permissible unless they were considered offensive. Swastikas and other emblems of oppression remain outlawed. Poppies and yellow ribbons are fine.

What are the rainbow laces that signify support for gay rights, if not a political symbol?”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5437783/How-FA-tied-knots-Peps-ribbon.html

Wonder if you’ll now accept he’s not breaking fifa or UEFA rules?

 

[SWP's back]

Good point.

Knowing the FA, I suspect there is some other motive here. Whether they have been put under pressure by the Spanish FA and need a favour off them or something, I'm sure there's more than meets the eye.

The rainbow laces campaign is another campaign that the FA support, that they would argue is non-political.

Let me just say, I completely support the rainbow laces campaign and I'm sure most sensible minded people do. But I am sure there are people on the fringes who because of their extreme political / religious beliefs, don't support the campaign.

It's a similar situation with Pep's yellow ribbon for me. Pep has said he is wearing it in a peaceful, respectful way supporting the right to free speech and self-determination. Similar to LGBT rights, I wouldn't really call those political beliefs, they're just the beliefs of all sensible minded people.

The FA are on very tricky ground if they start trying to determine what counts as a political view and what doesn't. The poppy, rainbow laces and yellow ribbon all fall in to the same category for me. They are peaceful, humanistic symbols which aren't intended to be offensive to anyone. I'm supportive of them all being promoted in football.

But if the FA try to ban the yellow ribbon, they're in grave danger of opening a can of worms for themselves, it looks very hypocritical.

Another fantastic post.

 

[SWP's back]

That probably wasn't his intention but the boys in the Gulf aren't going to be happy if that's happening. I suspect he'll be quietly but firmly told by Khaldoon that he's made his point and is free to pursue his political beliefs in every other way but he must stop using the public platform afforded by City to pick fights.

Well according to Martin Samuel City are taking legal advice before replying to the charge and support his stance.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Lol!

I think you'll find in a mature democracy like Britain, you don't need the "right to free speech" we don't need a "first amendment". The right to free speech is implied. It's a given. Like oxygen.

Everyone has the right to free speech since Magna Carta, there is no need to have it written down because we don't have a written constitution of commandments / rules. Thank god.

We do have laws that prevent hate speech and speech that insights mass violence. So if you racially abuse someone, you will face consequences. If you insight a large group to insight mass violence, you can be prosecuted.

That doesn't make us less "free". You shouldn't be able to verbally abuse someone, just like you shouldn't have the right to physically abuse someone. What's the difference? Are you suggesting we're oppressed because we can't go out in to the street without screaming obscenities in people's faces and abuse them for being gay, black, a woman, or whatever, without facing any consequences? That's a right I don't want, thank you very much. If someone is racially abusive, I want them to be punished. I know that's probably different to how many American's think.

Now ask yourself this, would you prefer the right to racially abuse someone, or would you prefer the right to be protected from racial abuse? Similarly, would you prefer the right to be able to insight mass violence, or the right to be protected from people who insight mass violence? I know which I value more.

I think American's often make the mistake of thinking their constitution grants them rights that most other countries don't have. It's actually incorrect. The rights laid out in the US constitution are available to citizens of pretty much every mature democracy. Other than the right to have guns, which is a right none of us want, thank you very much. I'm absolutely delighted Britain doesn't have a formalised written constitution of rules like the US has. It's inflexible, it's out-dated, and ultimately it's dangerous.

That constitution is 300 years old and not fit for purpose in the modern world. It's why you have a school shooting every three days in 2018. It's impossible to change the law because so many people believe so fervently in a 300 year old document.

The law in the UK is constantly changing and it's adept at moving with the times. So after Dumblaine, gun laws can be changed quickly with no fervent defence by right wing zealots of a 300 year old document protecting firearm rights in perpetuity. Guns were probably needed 300 years ago in Britain. They're not any more. We've moved on. We've become more civilised as a society. We banned guns, no more school shootings. Very simple.

Gun laws will never be changed in the US, because there's this cult like obsession with the constitution which are adhered to like a sacred text. It's the same with "free speech" / the first amendment. It doesn't actually grant American's any more rights than we have in Britain. It just means you are more vulnerable to being on the end of hate speech / mass violence.

Lots of Americans thinks it makes them "free" being able to own a gun. But the reality is, it just makes your kids more vulnerable to be slaughtered at school. There's nothing "free" about that.

So to conclude, just because we don't have a formalised constitution set in stone, please don't make the mistake of thinking that means we don't have rights. There is no appetite for a formalised set of rules and constitution here. We don't want or need it.

Lovely rant, well done.

Now, stop conflating issues (First and Second Amendments, which really weakens your argument) and concentrate on what I said...or more accurately, the refutation I made.

There seems to be something in the water in England that makes you believe that you don’t need legal freedom of speech, because freedom of speech is only needed if you plan to racially, or in some other manner, abuse others. Again, well done! You have distilled down a rather complex issue tobeing able to call people the N word!

I hope you enjoy all that freedom you have and are never ensnared in the PC agenda that is sweeping the nation, and many places in the world.

Just for clarity, I really don’t care whether you THINK you have the freedom cited and don’t need it codified in law or not. What I’m saying is that you do not and the incessant creep of do-gooders is something you should be wary of. Watch the news, I do. I see it all the time.

As a simple example, from the Independent (June 2016):

The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.

So, know anyone who fits that ridiculously broad LEGAL DEFINITION of “illegal communications”......on this Forum?!!!

You see, when LAWS are written by people seeking to control you, they make them as broad as they can get through the legislative process, and all done by supposedly well-intentioned people. However, once the hammer is written into law, everything starts to look (or sound) like a nail. All kinds of people find all kinds of reasons to slide whatever they want into that ridiculously broad legal definition and you quickly find out where YOU stand when that hammer thinks YOU look like a nail.

Ever written anything on the internet that has caused annoyance? How about inconvenience? What about needless anxiety?

Just because it hasn’t happened to you YET, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened to anyone else, or that they won’t get to you IF THEY WANT YOU.

Oh, and “mature democracy?” Funny stuff...oh wait, that caused me “annoyance,” as I felt you were demeaning me and the history of the country in which I live! Hahaha!