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

[oakiecokie]

But I have to say, Pep is behaving like a pillock. Here in the UK, the FA make the rules, he knows the rules and he's flaunting the rules. He should stop being an arse and wear the ribbon out of view during match times, or do some other protest.

If it was any other manager at any other club, I think we'd have little sympathy.

Can you imagine the public outrage on here if it was Peg ??

 

[asahartford1]

It certainly doesn't look like Pep has any intention of backing down on this and he strikes me as the type of guy who, the more you push him, the more he'll resist. Why on earth the FA are so keen to get themselves into a fight over such a trivial matter is beyond me. I can't believe anyone's bothered by him wearing it and, as with any symbol, the more you see it, the less you actually 'see' it, so just let it go and say nothing. The FA have far more important issues that they could, and should, be addressing right now unless this is a way of focusing attention away from those issues.

Yes , like punishing a young referee who reported abuse.
But as was widely posted on this thread yesterday it is their game their rules so just put up with it.

 

[Henkeman]

The FA won't want this to escalate - it would make them look incredibly petty to keep ratcheting up any punishment, and the media would slaughter them for over-reacting. There'll be some kind of compromise even if he continues to flout the regulation and they still apply it, like a quiet, regular fine.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree with Pep. But the FA haven't got the balls to back off. However the FA hold all the cards at the end of the day. If Pep will not back down his only option will be to leave the English game. This will escalate I'm afraid.

The FA don't hold all the cards at all or City wouldn't bother seeking legal advice.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I was going to post about this too.
FA are quite rightly I'm supporting LGBT week (?)
A political cause. So what's the difference?

One is trendy - the other isn't.
It's called hypocrisy!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Can you imagine the public outrage on here if it was Peg ??

To be honest, I've though the same.

Behaving like you think you are above the rules is just not cool. Pep's stock is at a huge high right now, and this silly spat is a shame because it will only damage his image. The FA are in hole since they cannot be seen to have one set of rules for Pep and another one for everyone else. He's going to have to back down, so the sooner he gets on with it, the better imo.

 

[Henkeman]

To be honest, I've though the same.

Behaving like you think you are above the rules is just not cool. Pep's stock is at a huge high right now, and this silly spat is a shame because it will only damage his image. The FA are in hole since they cannot be seen to have one set of rules for Pep and another one for everyone else. He's going to have to back down, so the sooner he gets on with it, the better imo.

That's why I suspect there are a lot of conversations going on behind the scenes in order to extricate everyone from the mess with minimal loss of face all round. The club won't want it, the FA won't want it. Let's just hope Guardiola is open to that.

 

[bluemoon32]

Can you imagine the public outrage on here if it was Peg ??

There'd be hundreds of pages calling him a cnut

 

[oakiecokie]

That's why I suspect there are a lot of conversations going on behind the scenes in order to extricate everyone from the mess with minimal loss of face all round. The club won't want it, the FA won't want it. Let's just hope Guardiola is open to that.

Absolutely H.No-one will want to back down ... lets hope that common sense prevails all around.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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!

There was no offence intended with the “mature democracy” comment. It’s accurate. The US is 300 years old, it’s a very young country in relative terms, that’s not an insult, it’s just a fact.

America has achieved incredible things in a short period of time, probably aided by it’s constitution. But it’s causing huge civil unrest today because it’s outdated and not fit for purpose in the modern world.

You seem to be suggesting that Britain is some kind of North Korean distopian state where you can get thrown in jail for mildly inconveniencing people on an internet forum. I think it’s circular reasoning on your part, you assume we don’t have the right to free speech, so you go out and look for examples of us not having free speech, find an article from the Independent from 2016 and use this to back up your argument.

So if your goal is not to scream the N word in people’s face, what is your goal here? What do you think you’re allowed to say in the US that we’re not allowed to say here? I can call Theresa May a **** on here and fear no retribution whatsoever. I’m within my rights to say it if I wish.

If I racially abused her I could be prosecuted. That’s fair enough by me. If I gathered a crowd and insighted violence I could be prosecuted. Again, fair enough. If I send out 10 million spam messages a day, again I could probably be prosecuted, but again, I have no desire to spam, but I am happy that those that do can be prosecuted.

The “PC gone mad” stuff is just cringy and embarrassing. It’s the kind of thing Alan Partridge would say.

Again, you seem to be suggesting as a US citizen, there are rights you have to say things that I don’t. Can you give some examples of what they are? Because I can not think of a single thing I’ve ever wanted to say in my entire life that I’ve not said for fear of being prosecuted for saying it. Not one.