Glad to see I am not the only one who found the BBC’s response to the John Terry verdict a few days ago to be somewhat odd; A B-BBC reader notes;
“The BBC were clearly rather miffed that Terry was cleared, and ran a feature on the matter on The World Tonight, Radio Four. This consisted of an immigrant (I didn’t catch the name but he wasn’t a mother tongue English speaker), being invited to sound off about how wrong it was, how such behaviour needs stamping out and how much ‘hurt’ it causes. None of this was challenged by presenter Ritula Shah (surprised?) Nor was any other speaker invited on to give an alternative view or debate the matter. Terry has been found NOT GUILTY, yet the BBC are trying to stir up hatred.
The lefty nutters (BBC) would have prefered a guilty verdict, but they have won either way.. the finger has been wagged, we have all been told off and reminded that we are all genetically racist and are all guilty.
Can’t stand or understand modern footballers, they are a far cry from the £100 per week stars of the 60’s. However as far as I can see both Terry and Ferdinand came out with a string of abusive swear words, the only difference being that Terry introduced the word ‘black’. So if he was being racist it could only have been for using the term ‘black’ an adjective to describe the colour of an item (or person). So is Ferdinand black? Is he ashamed of being black and consequently is he offended by someone pointing that out ? I don’t think so.
It’s all beyond me. What a total waste of media time and the cost involved in going to trial.
James O’Brian on LBC this morning started along the line of what does “Choc Ice” mean. He is a lefty in every sense and I was actually suprised when he challenged a few people “of colour” in what being black meant as opposed to being white. They could only come up with not following the whit mans rules. No-one could put a finger on the difference between Black and White.
Could not believe that him, above all would pose the Question.
The whole affair is truly pathetic.
Sledging (as described in cricket) is and has been regarded as part of the process whereby one gets under the skin of an opponent for the express purpose of diverting their energy and concentration away from the job at hand and degrading their physical performance. Generally at competitive levels of sport it occurs quite commonly and is accepted as part of the game. The saying being “what happens on the field stays on the field.”
So are the lefties saying that on-field officials and players must play games within criminal statutes. Lets take this one step further and put verbal abuse to one side. Player A deliberately kicks Player B in an illegal challenge. Do the lefties now require the referee to now call the local Bobbies on to the field to investigate and take witness statements from all witnesses to this alleged GBH. Instead of a penalty, Player A is now arrested and charged for GBH and removed from the field of play.
This could bring a whole new dimension to sport in the UK. New addition to the support squad; defense lawyers and barristers.
Then we move on to rugby where every tackle would require a formal inquiry into whether the tackler could be charged with GBH. A game that should take 90 minutes could then be spread into days with the courts and jails full of criminals.
So the next time someone questions whether my parents were married when I was conceived I will then stop the game get the lawyers on to the field and get witness statements so that I can sue the guy for defamation.
New games for lefties played by lefty rules. Pathetic bunch of babies.
IIRC there have been a number of occations where ‘violence’ on the pitch has interested Inspector Knacker.
Usually it’s extreme tackles or fighting but it does happen with regular monotony in football.
Rugby, being organised violence, the game being a separate issue, is immune to this.
It is not unknown for a rugby union player to be investigated by the police for criminal violence on the pitch.
“This consisted of an immigrant (I didn’t catch the name but he wasn’t a mother tongue English speaker),”
That would Ekow Eshun who is British and who was born in London.
Maybe his mother is not.
I see. So to be British it isn’t enough to be born here? How far back does one need to go?
All depends on how you define nationality and ethnicity. He is obviously not of an ethnic British background. Just because your mother gives birth within a nations borders does not magically confer a new ethnicity on a person. Is Joanna Lumley an Indian because she was born India? You are welcome to believe yes if you so wish bo not expect everyone else to agree with you.
I certainly do not.
I don’t think British citizenship is acquired simply by being born here David Gregory(BBC), or any foriegn visitor who happened to produce prematurely while on holiday, would have a child who was a citizen, which would be ridiculous. So no ‘being born’ in a country is certainly NOT enough to make one a national, still less a native.
Ekow Eshun however is a citizen, but apparently one who has spent his time migrating between two countries, thus may reasonably be loosely
described as an ‘immigrant’.
He is not, of course, of British ethnicity, nor I suspect is English his mother tongue i.e. learned on mothers knee.
David Gregory says: I see. So to be British it isn’t enough to be born here? How far back does one need to go?
Funny, I always ask that last bit about slavery, seen as many naive black people and pathetic lefties only ever conveniently care to go back a century or two to black people being enslaved (black people sold on in Africa BY black people, but we won’t go there), as if that race is special and the only one to have ever been enslaved. – FAR from it!! Just need to be bothered to go “back” further.
In classical Athens citizenship was, to all intents and purposes, hereditary. Any immigrant – and they may have constituted half the population- had the status of a metic which mean that while they had access to the courts, they could not vote in the assembly. The human rights drawbacks in this system are obvious, but it had one very powerful argument in its favour.
Athenian politicians could be a pretty rascally lot but one underhand move was not open to them : they could not import large numbers of Boeotians in order to give themselves an assembly majority if the number of their homegrown supporters happened to be falling.
I think it’s probably easier for you to say “non white people can’t be British”. Less mealy mouthed. Still racist of course.
(And Joanna Lumley was born into British India, not born after independence)
LOL!
Always but always a case of convenience…..A leftie suddenly sounding okay with the British Empire!
But did they use his full title ‘Proven race liar Ekow Eshun’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekow_Eshun
The BBC: where calling someone a ‘black ****’ is racist but trading in bogus stories of racial persecution is just part of the game, init?
“Eshun was born in London, the younger brother of writer Kodwo Eshun. Although three years of his childhood were spent in Accra, his family are Fante from Ghana, for the most part he was brought up in London.”
So British born but not British bred – that would explain the foreign accent then.
If David Gregory(BBC)’s wife gave birth while were filming in Japan, then that child was raised partly in Japan and partly in Britain, I wonder if he would argue with a Japanese person who described their child (whose Japanese had a heavy English accent) as an immigrant?
Born here but obviously sounded a bit foreign, maybe? So if born here, you’d expect some kind of British accent, due to mixing with British people (school, work etc). But obviously not – somehow kept separate, thus sounds different.
The joys of multiculturalism, nations within a nation. Whatever that might bring us.
The fact that this “case” actually made it to court shows that the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum.
However the Beebs approach was interesting as they made this piddling event their lead story on the 6 O’clock news. Clearly two oiks swearing at each other is much more important (due to the race issue) than an elderly white man stabbed to death in enriched east London. No issue of race there of course, although the guilty party wasn’t a Brit. Oh, and of course, so much more important than the three British mountaineers killed in an avalanche.
Fiona Bruce had her Stephen Lawrence face on. You know the one I mean. Sit back, listen and feel really, really guilty.
Itsa only racism when the perp is white working class ! Muslims routinely call blacks sub-humans, but this doesn’t count as racism, apparently !
Ritula Shah : that’s the bird who tells you her name every ten minutes during Radio 4’s Ten O’Clock news programme … none of the others do it …
When does Not Guilty mean not guilty, BBC ? Obviously when your race agenda is unsatisfied and positive discrimination and related long term strategies must be promoted without pause .
“The race card, the British Left and John Terry.”
by Robin Shepherd.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1414/the_race_card_the_british_left_and_john_terry
“The Mfantsefo or Fante (Fanti is an older spelling) are an Akan people. This ethnic group is mainly gathered in the south-western coastal region of Ghana with some also in Côte d’Ivoire. Their main settlement is Cape Coast, Ghana. They are one of the Akan peoples, along with the “‘Asantefo'” or Ashantis, the Akuapem, the Akyem, the Guam, and others. Despite the rapid growth of the Ashanti Empire in historic times, the Fante have always retained their state to this day. Currently, they number about 2.5 million, the second largest grouping of Akan peoples. Inheritance and succession to public office among the Fanti are determined mostly by matrilineal descent, as is common among most Akan peoples.”
Hmmm, seems Ekow Eshun has inherited his “Fante” ethnicity from his mum, but David Gregory(BBC) would deny British people the right to regard OUR ethnicity as
heritable in this way! Racist or what?