SUN, 8:30AM ET
LEI
MUFC
SUN, 8:30AM ET
TOT
WBA
SUN, 8:45AM ET
ROM
CAL
SUN, 11AM ET
MCFC
CFC
SUN, 11AM ET
EVE
CRY
SUN, 3PM ET
LEV
BAR

Premier League News Links: John Terry Pleads Not Guilty of Racial Abuse Towards Ferdinand

john terry in court Premier League News Links: John Terry Pleads Not Guilty of Racial Abuse Towards Ferdinand

It’s not quite Judge Judy, but the Premier League news cycle today moves into a courtroom drama where you have Anton Ferdinand claiming racial abuse aimed at him by John Terry in the infamous QPR-Chelsea game from last season. Hopefully the court case can be over and done with pretty quickly. The sooner we move on from this, so we can return to real soccer talk, the better.

Here are today’s Premier League-related news headlines:

This entry was posted in Chelsea, Leagues: EPL, Queens Park Rangers. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Premier League News Links: John Terry Pleads Not Guilty of Racial Abuse Towards Ferdinand

  1. Mufc77 says:

    Anton Ferdinand isn’t claiming anything

    • The Gaffer says:

      “Mr Ferdinand told the court that initially he did not think any racist terms had been used. But after the match, his girlfriend at the time played him a YouTube clip and he changed his mind.” Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18760180

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

      • Mufc77 says:

        Yeah but is ferdinand responsible for the original charge being brought against Terry by the police, I thought that was from a complaint from a fan or something.

        • The Gaffer says:

          It was a complaint from a member of the public and not Ferdinand, correct.

          Cheers,
          The Gaffer

          • Mufc77 says:

            So then saying Terry is in court because Ferdinand is claiming racial abuse isn’t exactly correct. Either way
            hopefully it’s all sorted this week and we can all get back to the important stuff like pre season football.

  2. Paka*mish says:

    Thats good news for chelsea man. A captain wont do that silly thng

  3. Pete says:

    Public order offence, maximum penalty £2,500

    I’m sure this is cost 100 times that in barristers fees

  4. Pete says:

    I’m not sure how he can be found guilty of the Racially aggravated public order offence

    The offence requires racial hostility combined with the following:

    fear or provocation of violence (Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986)

    intentional harassment, alarm or distress (Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986)

    harassment, alarm or distress (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986)

    After what has come out, basically Ferdinand giving him crap about the affair with Bridge’s ex and Ferdinand not even hearing the alleged racial slur at the time, how can Terry be found guilty of any of the above? It could be argued Ferdinand started the harassment/distress by giving Terry crap about the affair

    • kkosher says:

      It sounds like you should have been his lawyer, from all the updates it sounds like its not going well. 5 days to wait and see i guess.

      • Pete says:

        LOL, well I do have a degree in Law but this seems more like common sense to me, I’m sure his Barristers will be able to argue the same and do a lot better job than I could ever do of it.

  5. Mufc77 says:

    If Terry is found not guilty does this mean the FA have no case to charge him or could he still face punishment from them regardless of the outcome?

    • Pete says:

      I don’t see how they could. Suarez’s case was not reported to the police but he was fined by the FA because he admitted it. Terry has denied it and if the court find him not guilty then I don’t see how the FA can punish him for it

  6. Dust says:

    With the video evidence for all to see, how can he honestly plead not guilty? Surely they will play the video evidence in court and just ask terry to repeat what he said, they will have a lip reader come in for when terry tries to claim he said something else. Once they have established what he said, I’m sure they will then move to show how he was aiming it at Ferdinand using footage they have that isn’t on YouTube from the networks.

    It’s not the money, it’s being convicted, having it on public record that he made racist remarks to someone and as a result will be labeled a racist.

    If he is found guilty, will he be treated differntly by black players on the chelsea squad? will there be addidtional punishemnt from the fa for brinng the game into disrepute? if not guilty, in the face of the clear video evidence there will be outcry, causing additional tension for certain games–it is a shame he doesn’t just go away, back to dagenham.

  7. Dust says:

    A great appointment by spurs today, since the AVB announcement there have been announcement almost everyday showing the club is going in the right direction…love it

  8. Pete says:

    The offence is not about video evidence, it requires the victim to feel that they have been abused racially at the time of the public order offence.
    When Ferdinand himself has come out and said he didn’t even know about it until his girlfriend showed him a youtube clip it’s going to be hard for the prosecution to argue he felt racial harassment, it would hard to argue for even the harassment side of it considering it was Ferdinand who starting the exchange by giving Terry crap about the affair he had

    • Dust says:

      we will see who actually started it, terry is claiming the abuse started from Anton, that doesn’t mean it did, and as the events allegedly aimed at terry are factual and not hearsay or rumor, it would not be hard to argue that irrespective of how Anton fraised it, be it with colorful language or not, the response is the sole responsibility of Terry.

      He could have responded with “industrial” language eg cus words, but he didn’t he made the color of Anton skin the focus of his retort, he did so consciously and is responsible for his actions. If some one insults you, you choose to respond or not, when you respond, you choose your words.

      So, it was either calculated and intentional or he was foaming at the mouth mad and offended at what was said and responded with out thought, which could be positioned as a more natural and true state of mind as it relates to his feelings on people of another color. Either way its at a place of work, it’s bad and unwelcome in society.

  9. Dust says:

    It also falls under workplace aggravation laws, with the football field being the place of work, some one saying that to you be it behind your back literally or figuratively changes the principle, the football ground is not a public place, it is closed to the public, Loftus road is Anton’s place of work.

    • Pete says:

      It doesn’t mean anything, the bottom line is you can’t claim to racially harassed when:

      1) you are the one doing the harassing in the first place

      2) You don’t even hear the racial slur

      For the purpose of the sections 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act it can be in a public or private place as long as it is not a dwelling (home) so employment laws and whether this took place in a private or public place doesn’t matter.

      To be honest a section 5 public order offence probably takes place every week up and down the country on every field because all you have to do is call someone a f**king fat pr**k to be guilty of it.
      The offence is there more for the police to chuck people in the back of the van when they start mouthing off at them. The racial aspect has a more serious penalty but even the max is only a £2,500 fine which for John Terry is like 10p to me.
      If they decide that saying it is enough then he may be found guilty. The Baristers must have something in mind though because if they felt he was going to be found guilty then they would have told him to plead guilty and pay the £2,500 and had this over and done with months ago

      • Fog says:

        I am not sure that Terry would ever plead guilty to anything. I believe that he thinks that he is above the law and is never in the wrong. I think that his past actions…the Wayne Bridge and stadium tour incidents…reflect that.

        Also, pleading guilty probably would have excluded him from Euro 2012.

      • dust says:

        The CPS isn’t compelled to prosecute anything on just hearsay, there must be strong evidence for a conviction for them to take the case forward.

      • dust says:

        The CPS has subsequently confirmed that additional evidence, thought to be new video footage of the incident that was not broadcast at the time, had come to light.

        Terry was visited by police at his house in Surrey at around 1pm on Wednesday and was told he has been charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998″.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/john-terry-racism-case-cps

        If so desired qpr/ the premier league could act on workplace harassment laws, irrespective of the cps.

        • dust says:

          from the same story a quote form the CPS

          “The decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and after careful consideration of all the evidence I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case. Mr Terry will appear before West London magistrates’ court on 1 February, 2012. He is now summonsed with a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial.”

          • Pete says:

            ‘realistic prospect of conviction’

            That is the standard the CPS has to have in every case. If there wasn’t a realistic prospect of conviction it would be a waste of time.

  10. MNUfan1991 says:

    Whatever the outcome is, I don’t see how Terry’s image would be affected.
    I mean, it’s not like people will think less of Adolf or Josef if it turns out they were child molesters, right?
    Carry on, then.

  11. Alex Wolcott says:

    I just know that the next time I am in the UK and get in trouble I probably want Pete to represent me. Seriously – good posts there.

  12. Pete says:

    Section 31(1)(c) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. A person is guilty of this offence if he commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (see harassment, alarm or distress) which is racially or religiously aggravated within the meaning of section 28.
    A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (s.29(3)).

    Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

    Harassment, alarm or distress.
    (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

    (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
    (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

    The final line is interesting, as it states ‘within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment…..’

    If Ferdinand didn’t hear it, can it be classed as ‘within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment…..’

    • dust says:

      not hearing because of the crowd noise or within a specific distance?

      • dust says:

        is it even defined? if not I’m sure they could argue the intent was for Ferdinand to hear it, but for the crowd noise he couldn’t, in which case much like any intent that is the ball game right?

      • Pete says:

        Well it’s open to debate, I think the type of Barrister John Terry will be able to afford (up there with the best in the country) will be able to put forward a very good case, based on Ferdinand not hearing it, the lip reader admitting that a lot of their work is guess work and Ferdinand supposedly starting the exchange of words

        These are some of the things that I as a very average law graduate could come up with, I have no idea how much spin the top barrister in the country could come up with.

  13. Pete says:

    BBC are now saying Terry’s Barrister is arguing that Terry was merely repeating what Ferdinand thought he said. I suppose along the lines of

    Ferdinand – Did you just call me a f**king black c**t

    Terry – What? You think I called you a F**king black c**t? Get real you pri*k

    I suppose this takes out all the lip reader evidence and whether Terry said what he said, it puts the emphasis on Ferdinand to prove he didn’t say anything. Have we even seen any evidence of what Ferdinand said from beginning to end? I haven’t seen anything. It wasn’t the tactic I was expecting but that’s why I’m sat in my house on EPL talk and he is in there defending J Terry

  14. brn442 says:

    I’m so glad I live in America. No one should be racially abused, I despise racism and do not condone public displays of such. However, the fact that someone can be criminally prosecuted by the State – subjectively, on accusations of such, is – quite frankly, scary…..

  15. Matthew says:

    I find this whole mess a joke. The state is charging John Terry for speech. I’m not sure what he said or didn’t say. I think that is beside the point. I know the United Kingdom doesn’t have a written constitution protecting free speech but it has been a long tradition going back centuries, where do you think the United States got the idea. The United States has had a trouble past with race relations since the creation of the colonies and the republic but we have moved forward putting in place for the most part sensible laws but no speech codes. The point of freedom of speech is to be able to say whatever you want and not have the government arrest and charge you. No matter how distasteful the language may be that is the foundation of free speech. Of course there are ones against inciting violence and yelling fire in a movie theatre. What I find interesting is that most European states including the UK have speech codes but still they are plagued with racial, ethnic and religious violence. I will give credit to the United States despite our history we have come a long without passing some many stupid laws. Even if Terry said what he is accused of doing it is still free speech. No matter how hard states want people to love each other humans will be humans and will decide for themselves. A free states over a communist or fascist state, I will always side with the free and open society no matter how distasteful the language might be.

  16. dust says:

    @brn442 & @Mathew I wasn’t going to respond, but felt compiled to. I have to say what a load of Cr@p. where to start…so… “No matter how distasteful the language may be that is the foundation of free speech. Of course there are ones against inciting violence and yelling fire in a movie theatre”

    You think hate speech and making racist remarks doesn’t incite violence? why don’t both of you try it, just walk to an african american and call them what John Terry called Ferdinand and see if it “Incites violence”. what a joke.

    “I will give credit to the United States despite our history we have come a long without passing some many stupid laws” — what? are you even aware of the function of the congress? Ever heard of “The Patriot Act”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act giving the state the right to strip any citizen of all rights…that sounds like communism and fascism to me.

    After officially degrading african americans in the constitution by valuing a negro as 3/5th Human, it needed a civil war to drop slavery and the 14th amendment, then fast forward 90 years because of the incredibly racist nature of the majority of american’s it took the civil rights movement, and Brown vs the board of education in 1955 to stop segregation and address public lynchings of people which continued up tll the mid 90′s. (lets not even get into the internment camps of japanese americans…Americans! or the motives behind the recent immigration laws in arizona)

    Hiding behind “Freedom of speech” to justify hate speech is ridiculous and insulting.

    “A free states over a communist or fascist state, I will always side with the free and open society no matter how distasteful the language might be.” easy to say if you are White,

    If hate speech was outlawed in Germany it would have saved millions of lives of jews and millions of soldiers lived that fought for them, Hitler wouldn’t have been able to rally and take hold of a country. Neither would Franco or Mussolini.

    If hate speech was outlawed and enforced after the american civil war it would have saved hundreds of thousands of african american lives.

    surely having anti hate speech laws are common sense?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    • Matthew says:

      Dust,
      First of all I don’t take people very seriously who quote Wikipedia, since anyone can add or edit such information. You state if hate speech had been banned there would be no Hitler, Franco or Mussolini. Please prove that, where is your evidence? Same goes for the Civil War. Can you prove that? Rather hard to prove since what you are trying to state never happened. Obviously you aren’t a historian or else you would know better than to put out theories that can’t be proven since they never happened. You must love those “What If’ history books.

      Plus, if you had read correctly I said mainly sensible laws not all the laws passed by US Congress have been. Again, if you had read what I said, since our foundation we have come all way in race relations to the present.

      Then lastly you pull the race card out. Sorry, but that is just a typical knee-jerk comment that doesn’t merit a response. I don’t hide behind free speech, I will defend it always. You want speech codes go read 1984, sounds like your ideal society.

      • Dust says:

        WoW, so many inaccuracies in your response, of course I read what you posted I quoted it and gave rebuttal. Before suggesting that the rest of Europe is wrong in identifying the hate speech of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini as they spoke to crowds. The fact you are unaware of the methods of the rise of nazi or fascist party is not surprising, but it doesn’t mean you are right. I strongly recommend you read up on this horrific piece of history before u make those statements.

        Your post is clearly not well thought out, it’s a shame you can’t see how stoping people openly rallying and inciting action against people because of their skin color would decrease the spread and actions proposed in the hate speech. As for the race card reference, not sure what you are referring to.

        As for your needles insult of Wikipedia, if you find any inaccuracies in the patriot act the you should “change it” (the joke of a law, not the wiki entry) The final reference is a summary of the countries that do have these laws aside from the uk to perhaps give you some perspective. While I read up on 1984, you should continue with your reading of McCarthyism another great example of American race relations.

        • Matthew says:

          Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote. You clearly stated that if hate speech had outlawed it would have prevent what Hitler and others did. However, that isn’t how history played out. Thus, you can’t prove that because it never happened. You can’t and I repeat prove that since it never happened. As a historian I just laugh at you becuase you are one of those “what if” people saying if that happened this would have happened, again you can only support historical events wtih evidence and you can’t do that.

          Next time I suggest you shouldn’t be so lazy and crack open a history book or at least an encyclopedia instead of using wiki.

          Also, where did I every say I was in favor of the Patriot, which by the way doesn’t deal with race issues.

          Lastly, I just completed teaching a course on the Second World War and I am very fimiliar with the horrors of the conflict.

  17. brn442 says:

    Dust,,, and I will say this with all due respect, as you are one of the few posters that usually write cohesive thoughts. What you just said, is a load of self-righteous, pandering, and ultimately utter nonsense.

    To say that every supposed racially tinged outburst is an automatic incitement to violence is ridiculous.

    And to put the power to criminally prosecute someone – based on what they say, in the hands of the state, via subjective and arbitrary means, is beyond the comfort zone of any rational democracy. If you can’t see the potential danger in that, I don’t know what to tell you.

    • Dust says:

      self righteous? Perhaps you are mistaking mine for your post…

      “I’m so glad I live in America. No one should be racially abused, I despise racism and do not condone public displays of such. However, the fact that someone can be criminally prosecuted by the State – subjectively, on accusations of such, is – quite frankly, scary…..”

      All my post does is point out the clear and present failings of America’s handling of racism, and that in your post you forget to acknowledge that America’s policy backed by you of allowing hate speech to continue has led to a continuation of percicution of people of color. That the pure free speech laws are the best way, clearly based on the events I pointed out along with the current state of race relations in the USA they are not.

      “To say that every supposed racially tinged outburst is an automatic incitement to violence is ridiculous.”.– Again I invite you to walk up to an African American and say to them what John terry said and see if you still hold the same opinion. Absolutely ridiculous–Iam done

      • CTBlues says:

        Telling a people they can’t use hate speech or racist words isn’t going to make them change there perspective of a people of a different color, creed, or sexual orientation.

      • brn442 says:

        Dust, let me get your logic. If I walk up to an African American or Mickey Mouse and I call him a black c____, and I get my arse handed to me. I should be arrested for incitement because the recipient of my poor choice of words couldn’t help but put his fist down my throat?

        Incitement to violence is a different matter but who defines hate speech? Do you trust your government to do so? If the point is to avoid incitement of violence, then why not expand it, not only to religion, but to gender. If someone calls a woman a c****t , as vile as it is, should they be arrested? How about class – if someone calls the Prime Minister or the CEO of Barclays – a thieving c****t, should they be arrested as well? How about rival football fans or rappers?

        I’m not defending what the former England captain allegedly did. If the FA wants to ban him for life or Chelsea wants to terminate his contract – all the power to them. However, it’s simply dangerous to put that power in the hands of the State, and based on the UK’s and Europe’s history of racism on the terraces, it clearly hasn’t worked.

        Hate speech is a despicable part of human nature. You mean well but you are rather naive to think it can legislated out of society. And I say that to you – respectfully, as a black man, living in America.

        • dust says:

          LOL It is international law, it’s not just me, America is one nation that doesn’t observe the law, Like i said read the paper published, and get a different perspective, one that the rest of the globe has, democracy isn’t effected. The fact you are scared of your government is exactly the reverse of what it should be.

          “You mean well but you are rather naive to think it can legislated out of society. And I say that to you – respectfully, as a black man, living in America.”

          Of course there will always be morons and violence, as it is human nature, but tell me where you start? You honestly believe that without people taking action, without the civil right movement and the laws that came from that, where it was railed against and had the same arguments that it was against freedom of speech, that your life as a black man in america would be what it is today without it? Is it going to change overnight? No, over 20 years? a little, over 50 years? even more so, yes it will change just like other laws have changed a society’s behavior for the better. America’s cries for individual freedoms are argued as the most important even if it is at the expense of other individuals, in-spite of what you think, real democracy doesn’t work like that.

          With all due respect…Unfortunately it is in fact your naive view that not addressing these issues, and “waiting for people to just be nice”, while the people on the receiving end of the “Free speech” should be fine with them feeling like s%$t and not have any way to defend their individual rights is the answer. seriously, read the paper. perhaps do some research? you will find the rest of the world disagrees with you.

          • brn442 says:

            Dust, research and international law my arse. I’m not scared of my government and it’s a shame that you want me to be.

            Laws are only as good as the people who enforce them – go ask the black panthers, who were prosecuted 10x more than the KKK, for their opinions.

            If you want to live in country where you can be thrown in jail for expressing your “non-violent” opinion on a tweet or simply walking down the street, I’m not going to stop you.

            As a person of colour and a human being, I’m all for anti-incitement laws and statutes that prohibit public discrimination (things the civil rights movement were all about) However, I can tell you that racist opinion s cannot be legislated out of society – good luck trying.

      • brn442 says:

        Yeah – I just skimmed through what is an obviously opinionated paper, written by a college student.

        “Hate speech is a vague concept with varying definitions. Generally, it includes speech that is abusive, offensive, or insulting that targets an individual’s race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.”

        “Vague concept” “varying definitions” – so, if I have an opinion on the Arab/Israeli conflict – I can go to jail either way? How about all those rappers that generously sprinkle the n & b word in their songs? Can I have them arrested? It offends me…really?

  18. Pete says:

    @Dust

    WW2 was not started for any race or religious reasons, Hitler invaded a few countries, countries he felt should come under German rule. Britain and France had a deal with Poland that if Hitler and Germany invaded Poland then they would step in. That is what happened and that is how it started. It was nothing to do with hate speech whether on race or religion, the fact is WW2 would have happened whether Hitler hated jews or not.

    As far as free speech is concerned, I don’t mind that race and religious hatred is excluded as I don’t think there’s any place for it. Whether calling someone a black c**t on a football field should end up with someone in court risking a prison sentence could be seen as taking it too far is debatable.

    • Dust says:

      “WW2 was not started for any race or religious reasons, Hitler invaded a few countries, countries he felt should come under German rule.”

      What? Did I you study any history? Unreal statement

      • Pete says:

        No, you must not have studied any history if you think that statement is wrong.

      • CTBlues says:

        I think you might want to go back to your school and tell them you want your money back because your history teacher obviously didn’t teach you what actually caused WWII. The allied nations didn’t even know about the mass killings of Jewish people until the concentration camps were found. Yes well known Jewish people left Germany prior to the outbreak of war, but England and France did not declare war on Nazi Germany because of hate speech it was because Hitler invaded Poland.

        • dust says:

          Read the post, let me help you join the dots…

          If you could be bothered to read up on how Hitler rose to power or were taught in history class you would know his main tool in uniting the german people was through hate speech and intimidation, assigning blame for the terrible state of the german nation to various peoples.

          ergo..if he is unable to use hate speech and rise to power, he is unable to invade anywhere.

          Of course the allies new what he was doing, just because the USA was ok with it until they were attacked doesn’t mean they didn’t know.

          why do you think Germany has hate speech law too?

          • Pete says:

            Actually Hitler had a desire to right the wrongs he thought Germany had suffered after WW1. Remember that at the time of WW2 99.99% of Europe was white so race wasn’t a big issue.
            After WW1 Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles which included military clauses and Territorial Clauses:

            German Military Clauses

            Army – was to be reduced to 100,000 men and no tanks were allowed
            Navy – Germany was only allowed 6 ships and no submarines
            Airforce – Germany was not allowed an airforce
            Rhineland – The Rhineland area was to be kept free of German military personnel and weapons

            Territorial Clauses

            Anschluss – Germany was not allowed to unite with Austria.
            Land – Germany lost land to a number of other countries. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, Eupen and Malmedy were given to Belgium, North Schleswig was given to Denmark. Land was also taken from Germany and given to Czechoslovakia and Poland. The League of Nations took control of Germany’s colonies

            This was Hitlers main problem and this promise to right these wrongs was what drove him and bought him to power. CT blues is right, The leaders such as Churchill and Roosevelt didn’t even know what was happening to the jews until 1943, most of the population didn’t know until after the war ended. The Holocaust is what most people remember from WW2 but it wasn’t the reason the war started.

            The allies actually gave a few things back to Germany prior to the war in the hope of preventing another war but that wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted all the land back including what had gone to Poland and that was one step too far for the British and French

          • dust says:

            This could clearly go on forever, your observations are partially correct, while those were contributing factors the real reasons become evident as time passes,you thinking they did not know what was join on is your naivety. This conversation needs more than just fractured posts over time. (especially about the race comment), $Hitler blamed the jews for the loss of the 1st world war, and of course race was an issue, he wanted an arian race, perhaps you should research his book “my struggle” to see his views, which he started to write while in prison. Anyways, while I found myself compiled to retort what I feel are uniformed opinions, this is not solving anything, its a shame you apparently can’t see the wood for the trees.

            lets just get back to football

  19. Pete says:

    Jews are not a race, they are white people who believe in a certain religion, well the ones in Europe at that time were anyway. Believing in a different religion or a variation of the same religion does not necessarily mean you are a different race. Catholics and Protestants have had a history of murder and war for 500 years but it doesn’t mean they are not necessarily a different race, look at Northern Ireland for example. Bloody Mary use to burn Protestants at the stake in London during the 16th Century, it doesn’t mean they all weren’t white.
    Estimated numbers of non whites in England during the second world war were less than 2000 people out of a population of 40 million or to put it another way more than 99.99% were white, this was the same all over Europe.
    To say world war 2 was about race is complete rubbish, race wasn’t an issue.
    The wrongs Hitler felt after WW1 are what started the war, Hitlers personal hatred of Jews and the Jewish religion led to the Holocaust during the war but again THAT IS NOT WHY THE WAR STARTED

    • dust says:

      I NEVER SAID IT STARTED THE WAR—-was that loud enough? I said that Hitler used hate speech as a way of gaining power. PERHAPS IF IT WAS IN CAPITALS YOU WOULDN’T HAVE MISS READ IT?

      The fact is the “Master race” Hitler wanted was blonde hair, blue eyed while germans. I have no idea why you are rattling on about the amount of whites in the uk population, focus on what I actually posted and not the diorama you have created in your mind.

      “To say world war 2 was about race is complete rubbish, race wasn’t an issue.” You sound extremely naive, and unable to grasp a lot of what actually happened and contributed to WW2. I also never stated hate speech was limited to color, or race. Hate speech used by one religion on another or by non religious people on religious people that have been the source of causing many many wars / terrorist attacks.

      As for the Jewish statement, even more misguided, the Jewish religion is observed my people of different ethnicity not just “white people”. I think you have watched to many Charlton Heston movies, you understand that the “Movie” about Moses was played by a white actor? (of scottish and english decent) Mosses wasn’t actually “White” I guess Jesus was white too? LOL, Isralites / Hebrews where white? can you just leave it there, I have some things to do….Jeez..just stick to football

  20. Pete says:

    You’re talking out of your arse, and you know nothing

    Learn the difference between race and religion. Christians, muslims and Jews come in all different colours, that’s is why they can’t be classed as a race. They are merely people who believe in a certain religion.
    However, people in Europe at that time were white, so it would only stand to reason that the jews in Europe at that time were white. There was a reason they were forced to wear a star and that was to distinguish them from non jews. If there was an obvious difference in race they wouldn’t have needed the star, it would be obvious who the jews were.

    Look at Netanyahu, is he white, arab, black or asian? would you be able to tell he was jewish just by the colour of his skin?

    Now if have to dumb this down any further so you can get your tiny brain around the facts I’ll be talking in baby language

    • dust says:

      So are you saying you didn’t learn from movies? I’m sure if you check Netflix you can continue your education with say…Ben Hur, or Spartacus (with Kirk Douglas), perhaps Braveheart, then move on to the X Files to round it out… it has to be better value for money that what you paid for your education…Just stick to football

  21. Pete says:

    LOL, so your argument has been reduced to Hollywood movies that have nothing to do with WW2?
    You should have given up a while ago, you’re just embarrassing yourself now.

    Like I said, you know nothing and now it seems that even your pathetic arguments have come to an end

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>