ARTICLE: Chelsea boss gets small fine

[ClaretTony]

Accepts the charge and gets standard fine

See link
http://www.uptheclarets.com/chelsea-bos ... small-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BigF]

I keep reading stories/ comments about our backroom staff using inappropriate language to Sarri and his staff. If there is any truth in this, (-and I repeat "if"), then I'd be a little disappointed with our staff. I always thought they were above such things. Whilst it might not be over the top to one of us to hear it, it does give others the opportunity to get at Burnley.

[Buxtonclaret]

Imagine that Danny Rose tips his least favourite waitress more than that fine.

[FCBurnley]

Whatever happened, Billy Mercer and Rudiger were very fired up after the game and both had to be big time restrained. Rudiger was clearly shown trying to confront Mercer. NBCSN showed the whole incident live.

[wilks_bfc]

Whatever happened, Billy Mercer and Rudiger were very fired up after the game and both had to be big time restrained. Rudiger was clearly shown trying to confront Mercer. NBCSN showed the whole incident live.

Whatever it was it has apparently been sorted

Club Statement:
Issues arising between both benches during Monday night’s @premierleague match at @ChelseaFC have been resolved between the coaches and clubs, and a line has been drawn under the matter.

[Burnley Ace]

We have been accused of making racist comments and this brushing it under the carpet is unacceptable. Chelsea should either retract their allegations or we should be held accountable. Mud sticks and our reputation is badly damaged.

[martin_p]

We have been accused of making racist comments

No we haven’t.

[Goalposts]

basically sari was disrespectful the whole first half encroaching our technical area, and never apologised, zola gave a he does not understand the traditions here and will watch it 2nd half at half time message to woany,,,he then encroached again in the 2nd half arms waving and was called an Italian ****, by someone on our bench, the fourth official then intervened and warned sari he would report him if it occurred again...

he didnt enter again but went on his rant down the line near the end and got sent off, someone on out bench commented about bloody time and it all kicked off

[Burnley Ace]

No we haven’t.

Yes we have, an accusation doesn’t have to come from the FA. It was reported in every newspaper that someone on the Burnley bench was calling Sarri a **** Italian. Chelsea should make a statement that this didn’t happen

[martin_p]

Yes we have, an accusation doesn’t have to come from the FA. It was reported in every newspaper that someone on the Burnley bench was calling Sarri a **** Italian. Chelsea should make a statement that this didn’t happen

He is Italian.

[Pimlico_Claret]

He is Italian.

Don't let facts get in the way of a fishing expedition.

[exilecanada]

I didn’t read the article, what was the small fine? Force fed fish n chips, 3 times/day for 2 weeks wrapped in 20 year old ‘News of the World’ sports pages, washed down with copious pints of lukewarm Masseys’ bitter?

[South West Claret.]

A small fine for a small man, has he gone yet.

[dsr]

The point about the "**** Italian" is that you aren't allowed to use foul language and racial identifiers in the same phrase. If they had called him a "**** manager", no problem. A "useless Italian", no problem. A "**** Italian", if proved, £20k fine and five match ban.

It's the same old "racism" ridiculousness. Calling someone a [deleted] Yorkshireman is not racist; calling him a [deleted] Englishman, is. You can refer to someone's origins all you like as long as it is by city, county, or state, not by country.

[yorkyclaret]

He's from Napoli, boy do they hold a grudge a long time.

[martin_p]

The point about the "**** Italian" is that you aren't allowed to use foul language and racial identifiers in the same phrase. If they had called him a "**** manager", no problem. A "useless Italian", no problem. A "**** Italian", if proved, £20k fine and five match ban.

It's the same old "racism" ridiculousness. Calling someone a [deleted] Yorkshireman is not racist; calling him a [deleted] Englishman, is. You can refer to someone's origins all you like as long as it is by city, county, or state, not by country.

Italian isn't a racial identifier.

[dsr]

Italian isn't a racial identifier.

I bet it counts as one.

Anyway, they all seem to have kissed and made up (Ashley Barnes as peacemaker? ), so it won't be an issue this time.

[houseboy]

What exactly IS a racist comment? Who defines what is or is not racist? For example if someone is an Italian (or any race) and born out of wedlock then calling them an Italian b*st*rd is actually a statement of truth, not an insult in the strict scheme of things, and yet those of the PC persuasion would say it is racist. How did we ever get to a point where making a factual statement becomes somehow illegal? The above, of course, is just one example, there are many more. How long before we have to consult Google before speaking to someone to make sure we are not saying something illegal or 'offending' them?

[bfcjg]

Easiest slur in the world hardest to disprove.
Edit....the race card not the being Italian,we've all seen the waiters with false accents mock Italian Mancunians that sort of thing.

[Bobzuruncle]

basically sari was disrespectful the whole first half encroaching our technical area, and never apologised, zola gave a he does not understand the traditions here and will watch it 2nd half at half time message to woany,,,he then encroached again in the 2nd half arms waving and was called an Italian ****, by someone on our bench, the fourth official then intervened and warned sari he would report him if it occurred again...

he didnt enter again but went on his rant down the line near the end and got sent off, someone on out bench commented about bloody time and it all kicked off

This now makes more sense - I couldn’t believe that anyone had called him a “....” Italian as it is just not normal parlance and implies there is some problem with Italians. However calling him an Italian “....” after provocation shifts the emphasis to him personally regarding his behaviour and not Italians in general.

[Burnley Ace]

What exactly IS a racist comment? Who defines what is or is not racist? For example if someone is an Italian (or any race) and born out of wedlock then calling them an Italian b*st*rd is actually a statement of truth, not an insult in the strict scheme of things, and yet those of the PC persuasion would say it is racist. How did we ever get to a point where making a factual statement becomes somehow illegal? The above, of course, is just one example, there are many more. How long before we have to consult Google before speaking to someone to make sure we are not saying something illegal or 'offending' them?

It’s really simple, it’s the context in which it’s said.

[houseboy]

It’s really simple, it’s the context in which it’s said.

Fair enough but in what context can a statement of truth be 'wrong'? Is a truth not a truth in any context?

By the way I'm not after an argument, I'm just genuinely interested in semantics.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Italian isn't a racial identifier.

The Idea of using White, Black... as racial identifiers has been largely discredited.

For two reasons - i) Scientifically we are all homo sapiens and humans don't come in races.

ii) Racial groupings are far too simplistic and not accurate.

Therefore it's recommend to use ethnic groupings of which there are thousands.

Italian for instance is a distinct linguistic ethnic group.

Most "White British" are part of the Germanic linguistic group whereas Welsh is a Celtic linguistic group.

Technically Welsh can be racist towards English and Vice Versa.

Most "White British" are actually mixed race. Being descended from Celts, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes...

[IanMcL]

basically sari was disrespectful the whole first half encroaching our technical area, and never apologised, zola gave a he does not understand the traditions here and will watch it 2nd half at half time message to woany,,,he then encroached again in the 2nd half arms waving and was called an Italian ****, by someone on our bench, the fourth official then intervened and warned sari he would report him if it occurred again...

he didnt enter again but went on his rant down the line near the end and got sent off, someone on out bench commented about bloody time and it all kicked off

That seems very plausible!

[houseboy]

The Idea of using White, Black... as racial identifiers has been largely discredited.

For two reasons - i) Scientifically we are all homo sapiens and humans don't come in races.

ii) Racial groupings are far too simplistic and not accurate.

Therefore it's recommend to use ethnic groupings of which there are thousands.

Italian for instance is a distinct linguistic ethnic group.

Most "White British" are part of the Germanic linguistic group whereas Welsh is a Celtic linguistic group.

Technically Welsh can be racist towards English and Vice Versa.

Most "White British" are actually mixed race. Being descended from Celts, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes...

Plus Vikings, of which there are apparently many, particularly in the North. My surname has it's root, apparently, in Nordic so therefore, so I have read, I may be decendent from them.
You make some interesting points here. Where, though, do we distinguish between 'racism' and 'religious discrimination'? People who have a hate or dislike of muslims (for instance) are called racists but Islam is not a race so therefore they cannot be racists can they? They are also often described as 'Islamophobic', which is also wrong is it not because that would mean fear of muslims?

[Burnley Ace]

Fair enough but in what context can a statement of truth be 'wrong'? Is a truth not a truth in any context?

By the way I'm not after an argument, I'm just genuinely interested in semantics.

Truth isn’t the issue. Taking you analogy - born out of wedlock - a ******* is factually correct (though in this era it is used more as an insult) and it may also be true that the person you are describing is black.

Now if you were writing an article about Oprah Winfrey you would be factually correct to write (in a very ham fisted way) that she is a black *******, but you wouldn’t as there is no need to say she’s black. Likewise if you walked up to her in the street and said Oprah you’re a black ******* most people hearing it would think it’s an insult. Walk up wearing your neo nazi uniform carrying a white power flag and say the same most people would think you’re being a tad racist rather than an opening gambit in a discussion about the circumstances of her birth.

[houseboy]

Truth isn’t the issue. Taking you analogy - born out of wedlock - a ******* is factually correct (though in this era it is used more as an insult) and it may also be true that the person you are describing is black.

Now if you were writing an article about Oprah Winfrey you would be factually correct to write (in a very ham fisted way) that she is a black *******, but you wouldn’t as there is no need to say she’s black. Likewise if you walked up to her in the street and said Oprah you’re a black ******* most people hearing it would think it’s an insult. Walk up wearing your neo nazi uniform carrying a white power flag and say the same most people would think you’re being a tad racist rather than an opening gambit in a discussion about the circumstances of her birth.

Well put. But, using Oprah as your example, if you were asked to give an accurate description of her you would include black, would you not? Again if you were asked to give an account of her birth situation (and I'll be lead by you here as I was unaware of it until just now) you would be right to call her a b*st*rd (an out-dated term I know but still technically correct) would you not? I'm not oblivious to context and I understand that truthful statements CAN be used as insults, I'm just fascinated as to how and when it became 'wrong' to descibe someone truthfully and yet somehow insult them.

Another one that fascinates me is the word Paki. This has obviously become a derogatory term over the years and understandably so, but I know many Pakisanis (many of them personal friends) who use the term in an everyday and apparently acceptable way. So then we have the rather odd situation where it is acceptable for one race (for want of a better term) to use a phrase but not another. Again we are talking context here but it is rather strange don't you think?

[Burnley Ace]

When a word has more than one meaning. Do you always prefix any description of someone by the colour of their skin/religion/nationality.