| Chelsea Tossers 09:05 - Jan 18 with 5963 views | WokingR |
Of all the vile things that club have done, caused or been connected with and have sat back and ignored or taken no action on they are apparently now so offended by the term 'rent boy' that they have been to court to have it registered as a homophobic slur to stop those nasty boys singing it to their players.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031427
|  | | |  |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:11 - Jan 18 with 4516 views | NW5Hoop |
Good for Chelsea. Unless you think that Kick It Out are also tossers for wanting it outlawed.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 9:35]
|  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:49 - Jan 18 with 4291 views | MrSheen |
I have to admit, there's a certain chutzpah about the club that resolutely defended John Terry, and rehired him this month, using hate-speech law to threaten critics of their loan policy with prosecution. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 9:54]
|  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:49 - Jan 18 with 4302 views | WokingR |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:11 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
Good for Chelsea. Unless you think that Kick It Out are also tossers for wanting it outlawed.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 9:35]
|
I'm not taking any view on the rights or wrongs of the chant.
I'm just finding it incredibly hypocritical that it is Chelsea, a club with a reputation for causing offence to absolutely everyone, that have taken this action. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:56 - Jan 18 with 4245 views | Hastings_Hoops |
Sorry, but even Ch€l$€a can be right every now and then… Have to say I agree with them 100% on this. Absolutely ridiculous chant and totally unnecessary. |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:56 - Jan 18 with 4242 views | NW5Hoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:49 - Jan 18 by WokingR |
I'm not taking any view on the rights or wrongs of the chant.
I'm just finding it incredibly hypocritical that it is Chelsea, a club with a reputation for causing offence to absolutely everyone, that have taken this action. |
If you look it up, Chelsea have condemned racist chanting by their own fans a bunch of times. I don't like Chelsea either, but complaining about them wanting homophobic chanting banned is really not a good look.
Chelsea have had plenty of problems. As have most clubs — though thankfully not to the John Terry extent — but they are doing the right thing here. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 9:59]
| | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:58 - Jan 18 with 4227 views | NW5Hoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:49 - Jan 18 by MrSheen |
I have to admit, there's a certain chutzpah about the club that resolutely defended John Terry, and rehired him this month, using hate-speech law to threaten critics of their loan policy with prosecution. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 9:54]
|
"critics of their loan policy"
No, they don't want critics of their loan policy prosecuted, they want homophobic pr1cks prosecuted. Good for them. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:02 - Jan 18 with 4187 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:58 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
"critics of their loan policy"
No, they don't want critics of their loan policy prosecuted, they want homophobic pr1cks prosecuted. Good for them. |
Chelsea reject is more than enough to be getting on with. I 100% support their move to get homophobic abuse out of the game. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:06 - Jan 18 with 4160 views | gazza1 |
We would never do anything like that....terrible!!! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:15 - Jan 18 with 4140 views | ed_83 |
Unless I’ve missed something they haven’t actually “been to court” to “have it registered”, have they?
“Chelsea have welcomed the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to define a chant that has been aimed at their players and fans as a homophobic slur.”
Horrible club, horrible fans, and the hypocrisy of them only taking a stand now is grating, but they’re absolutely right on this and their belated change of heart should be welcomed, not picked apart. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:43 - Jan 18 with 3976 views | MrSheen |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:58 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
"critics of their loan policy"
No, they don't want critics of their loan policy prosecuted, they want homophobic pr1cks prosecuted. Good for them. |
Three words, no violent intent. Sure, throw away the key.
For a quick immersion in the murky waters of hate speech law:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-56154542 [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 10:49]
| | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 10:58 - Jan 18 with 3898 views | Esox_Lucius |
Racial, religious & homophobic slurs are ALL intended to be hurtful towards the people they are directed at.
Perhaps a read through this article discussing greater risks of suicide among young LGBTQ+ may prove enlightening? Other articles are readily available if you care to research the subject further.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truth-about-exercise-addiction/20171 | |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 11:07 - Jan 18 with 3843 views | ed_83 |
There are plenty of nuanced, complex discussions required about hate crime laws, and the necessary balance to strike between freedom of speech and the rights of those most often targeted by contentious language to live free of harassment and abuse.
Quibbling about whether shouting "rent boy" at a football player is homophobic, when it is abundantly clear that it is, in both intent and effect, is not a grown-up conversation.
(Also, just as an aside - maybe worth thinking about precisely this issue the next time the perennial question about "why are there no out gay footballers?" comes up) [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 11:09]
| | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 11:15 - Jan 18 with 3782 views | EastR |
They can be commended on making a stand on this, but it should be to their undying shame that their moral stance did not extend to being unable to re-employ staff found guilty by the FA of racial abuse. | |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 11:17 - Jan 18 with 3770 views | NW5Hoop |
Who suggests throwing away the key? I don't imagine anyone is getting life with a minimum of 30 years for homophobic chanting. But of course they should be prosecuted. I don't see why shouting hate about minority groups in public is fine if it's in a football ground. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:09 - Jan 18 with 3584 views | izlingtonhoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 09:58 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
"critics of their loan policy"
No, they don't want critics of their loan policy prosecuted, they want homophobic pr1cks prosecuted. Good for them. |
Careful. If 'rent boy' is homophobic, then possibly using 'pricks' as a pejorative is misandrist... |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:24 - Jan 18 with 3512 views | stowmarketrange |
| Chelsea Tossers on 11:17 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
Who suggests throwing away the key? I don't imagine anyone is getting life with a minimum of 30 years for homophobic chanting. But of course they should be prosecuted. I don't see why shouting hate about minority groups in public is fine if it's in a football ground. |
Totally agree mate.How can people think it’s ok to sing that song these days?Plus it’s embarrassing.Almost as bad as mourinho is gay sh@t song.
Sooner it’s put to bed the better. |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:29 - Jan 18 with 3486 views | NW5Hoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:09 - Jan 18 by izlingtonhoop |
Careful. If 'rent boy' is homophobic, then possibly using 'pricks' as a pejorative is misandrist... |
I can sort this out easily.
Rent boy is homophobic.
Prick is not misandrist.
There. No one is trying to ban insults. Just insults that stigmatise victimised minorities. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:40 - Jan 18 with 3423 views | izlingtonhoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:29 - Jan 18 by NW5Hoop |
I can sort this out easily.
Rent boy is homophobic.
Prick is not misandrist.
There. No one is trying to ban insults. Just insults that stigmatise victimised minorities. |
"No one is trying to ban insults"
Not yet.
Why is it not misandrist? Using a part of a man's body of which most men are very fond to represent something contemptuous seems unfair to me.
And misogyny is all around and while they may be victimised they are not a minority. So, not quite sorted out.
Although, I use that (misandrist) language too, so don't take my comments too seriously.
It's when they ban taking the opportunity to bait a Guardian journalist I'll be truly upset.
And yes, I am NLondon lefty Guardian reader... | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:49 - Jan 18 with 3349 views | MrSheen |
| Chelsea Tossers on 11:07 - Jan 18 by ed_83 |
There are plenty of nuanced, complex discussions required about hate crime laws, and the necessary balance to strike between freedom of speech and the rights of those most often targeted by contentious language to live free of harassment and abuse.
Quibbling about whether shouting "rent boy" at a football player is homophobic, when it is abundantly clear that it is, in both intent and effect, is not a grown-up conversation.
(Also, just as an aside - maybe worth thinking about precisely this issue the next time the perennial question about "why are there no out gay footballers?" comes up) [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 11:09]
|
From the BBC article:
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, a hate crime is "criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity".
This implies that there needs to be a victim, and for the victim to be a member of a specified group, for a hate crime to have taken place. If the chant is directed at a group of Chelsea fans, it suggests that only those actually of that orientation can consider it a crime. If it is directed at a particular player, eg Gallagher or Gilmour, is it a hate crime if they are gay, but not if they are straight? That would appear to be the implication of the CPS statement.
Moreover, is it a defence to claim that the statement was not inspired by the shouter's hostility to the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, to which they might argue they are indifferent, but by their hostility towards Chelsea? If so, it might be covered by this part of the Merseyside Police statement:
It has since clarified that while hate crime is an offence, "being offensive is not in itself an offence".
A reasonable person might ask, "why say something like that unless you are inspired by homophobia?" However, people say all sorts of things at football matches that they don't mean. A small percentage of any group chanting, "You're gonna get your f***ing head kicked in" might actually mean it, but the police have long since given up on trying to prosecute for it given the long odds of securing a prosecution for something that would otherwise be taken extremely seriously.
I am clearly in a minority here, but so what? I don't agree with the concept of Hate Crime, applying to a limited part of the population only, and think protection from violence, intimidation and unequal treatment should be universal - though I have no defence to the claim, "he would say that, wouldn't he?" I also think private entities like football clubs have every right to set and enforce their own standards for behaviour on their customers, though good luck enforcing it. I do find it strange that those who are most suspicious and critical of the workings of the criminal-justice system in most other aspects are so keen to beef it up and point it in another direction. | | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:54 - Jan 18 with 3317 views | Metallica_Hoop |
Chelsea Exoletus, Chelsea Exoletus.... |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:03 - Jan 18 with 3275 views | BklynRanger |
This may be one of those where it's possible, sadly, for both conditions to be true. The Scum can still be scum but, in this case, correct.
But playing devils advocate a bit, is the term 'rent boy' definitively hate speech? Basically calling someone a male prostitute isn't necessarily singling out the gay aspect of it - it may hark back more to some of those stories/rumours from prior decades involving rent boys, head hunters and the like.
Still, yeah, I know it can be very easily seen as homophobia (either directly or indirectly). Not disputing that, but think we do need to have a good think about where we're going with some of these perfectly good intentions. |  | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:07 - Jan 18 with 3238 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:03 - Jan 18 by BklynRanger |
This may be one of those where it's possible, sadly, for both conditions to be true. The Scum can still be scum but, in this case, correct.
But playing devils advocate a bit, is the term 'rent boy' definitively hate speech? Basically calling someone a male prostitute isn't necessarily singling out the gay aspect of it - it may hark back more to some of those stories/rumours from prior decades involving rent boys, head hunters and the like.
Still, yeah, I know it can be very easily seen as homophobia (either directly or indirectly). Not disputing that, but think we do need to have a good think about where we're going with some of these perfectly good intentions. |
I think that's food for thought. I think yourself and Sheen make some strong points.
I'll have to think about it some more, to be honest, though in cases like this where I'm undecided I'm inclined to trust organisations like Kick it Out. |  |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:14 - Jan 18 with 3195 views | NW5Hoop |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:49 - Jan 18 by MrSheen |
From the BBC article:
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, a hate crime is "criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity".
This implies that there needs to be a victim, and for the victim to be a member of a specified group, for a hate crime to have taken place. If the chant is directed at a group of Chelsea fans, it suggests that only those actually of that orientation can consider it a crime. If it is directed at a particular player, eg Gallagher or Gilmour, is it a hate crime if they are gay, but not if they are straight? That would appear to be the implication of the CPS statement.
Moreover, is it a defence to claim that the statement was not inspired by the shouter's hostility to the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, to which they might argue they are indifferent, but by their hostility towards Chelsea? If so, it might be covered by this part of the Merseyside Police statement:
It has since clarified that while hate crime is an offence, "being offensive is not in itself an offence".
A reasonable person might ask, "why say something like that unless you are inspired by homophobia?" However, people say all sorts of things at football matches that they don't mean. A small percentage of any group chanting, "You're gonna get your f***ing head kicked in" might actually mean it, but the police have long since given up on trying to prosecute for it given the long odds of securing a prosecution for something that would otherwise be taken extremely seriously.
I am clearly in a minority here, but so what? I don't agree with the concept of Hate Crime, applying to a limited part of the population only, and think protection from violence, intimidation and unequal treatment should be universal - though I have no defence to the claim, "he would say that, wouldn't he?" I also think private entities like football clubs have every right to set and enforce their own standards for behaviour on their customers, though good luck enforcing it. I do find it strange that those who are most suspicious and critical of the workings of the criminal-justice system in most other aspects are so keen to beef it up and point it in another direction. |
By your logic, there is an awful lot of racist chanting that would be perfectly acceptable. If 2000 people sang "Town full of Pa*is*" at Leicester City, and there were no people of Pakistani descent at the ground — which is perfectly conceivable (4,000 people of Pakistani origin in Leicester, 72,000 of Indian descent), then by your logic no harm done. And I am sure you agree that would be wholly unacceptable racist chanting, even if the defence was they were only trying to offend Leicester. So why would you look to excuse homophobic chanting?
You are right there is no right not to be offended, but these chants go beyond that. I don't know if your final line is directed at me, but if it is, perhaps you can direct me to where I am suspicious and critical of the criminal justice system?
It just baffles me why people still defend homophobic chanting. Although I can think of one reason they would, and it's nothing to do with them having a thoroughly well reasoned stance on indivudual liberties versus social obligations. [Post edited 18 Jan 2022 22:43]
| | | |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:23 - Jan 18 with 3150 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:03 - Jan 18 by BklynRanger |
This may be one of those where it's possible, sadly, for both conditions to be true. The Scum can still be scum but, in this case, correct.
But playing devils advocate a bit, is the term 'rent boy' definitively hate speech? Basically calling someone a male prostitute isn't necessarily singling out the gay aspect of it - it may hark back more to some of those stories/rumours from prior decades involving rent boys, head hunters and the like.
Still, yeah, I know it can be very easily seen as homophobia (either directly or indirectly). Not disputing that, but think we do need to have a good think about where we're going with some of these perfectly good intentions. |
Context is all here. Call someone a f@gg0t and then defend it by saying you meant they were a tasty meat treat and I am fairly confident that you would get short shrift. | |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Chelsea Tossers on 13:26 - Jan 18 with 3128 views | ed_83 |
| Chelsea Tossers on 12:49 - Jan 18 by MrSheen |
From the BBC article:
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, a hate crime is "criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity".
This implies that there needs to be a victim, and for the victim to be a member of a specified group, for a hate crime to have taken place. If the chant is directed at a group of Chelsea fans, it suggests that only those actually of that orientation can consider it a crime. If it is directed at a particular player, eg Gallagher or Gilmour, is it a hate crime if they are gay, but not if they are straight? That would appear to be the implication of the CPS statement.
Moreover, is it a defence to claim that the statement was not inspired by the shouter's hostility to the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, to which they might argue they are indifferent, but by their hostility towards Chelsea? If so, it might be covered by this part of the Merseyside Police statement:
It has since clarified that while hate crime is an offence, "being offensive is not in itself an offence".
A reasonable person might ask, "why say something like that unless you are inspired by homophobia?" However, people say all sorts of things at football matches that they don't mean. A small percentage of any group chanting, "You're gonna get your f***ing head kicked in" might actually mean it, but the police have long since given up on trying to prosecute for it given the long odds of securing a prosecution for something that would otherwise be taken extremely seriously.
I am clearly in a minority here, but so what? I don't agree with the concept of Hate Crime, applying to a limited part of the population only, and think protection from violence, intimidation and unequal treatment should be universal - though I have no defence to the claim, "he would say that, wouldn't he?" I also think private entities like football clubs have every right to set and enforce their own standards for behaviour on their customers, though good luck enforcing it. I do find it strange that those who are most suspicious and critical of the workings of the criminal-justice system in most other aspects are so keen to beef it up and point it in another direction. |
Here are the CPS' own policies on reporting and prosecuting hate crimes:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
And here's the specific bit which most seems relevant:
"The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim *or any other person*, (my emphasis) to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Hope this clarifies why shouting "rent boy" at someone falls within that definition, in relation to offences covered elsewhere (football supporters act 1991 & CJA 1994 from memory)
The idea that societal harms caused to minority groups go no further than "violence, intimidation and unequal treatment" is absurd in and of itself, but also misses the point that calling someone a "rent boy" - which is, let's be clear, an attempt to disparage that person by painting them as gay, feminised, sexualised or subjugated - is by its very nature an act of intimidation.
Your closing point about scepticism towards the criminal justice system & support for anti-hate crime legislation makes no sense. The two are entirely consistent with other: it's precisely *because* so much of our social fabric still involves disdain for minority groups that specific protections are required for them to live on the same footing as everyone else. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
