Jump to content

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

That's my point just because it meets your definition doesn't mean it meets others people definitions.   Your personal standards or morals certainly do come in to it.

 

Sadly we live in an age where faux outrage and accusations of racism are thrown about like confetti, a lot of them time where no racism exists. This is one of those cases. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying he tried to use the fact he is from Thailand to pretend he didn’t understand/ speak English properly and hence tell lies.

To me the only reason they can accuse him of that is because he is from Thailand and therefore they are making accusations based on race.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Sadly we live in an age where faux outrage and accusations of racism are thrown about like confetti, a lot of them time where no racism exists. This is one of those cases. 

 

LOL your not getting it... It might not have meet your standard but its meet other peoples standards.  

 

Why are you right and they are wrong?   

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Sadly we live in an age where faux outrage and accusations of racism are thrown about like confetti, a lot of them time where no racism exists. This is one of those cases. 

Perfectly clear where you stand

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S36 OWL said:

Sadly we live in an age where faux outrage and accusations of racism are thrown about like confetti, a lot of them time where no racism exists. This is one of those cases. 

I'll try to explain for you, best i can.

 

EFL, 'dear panel members, the sheffield wednesday chairman is a foookin idiot, he's took us round the corner, and he can't even speak foookin English'.

 

The panel, 'case not proven...'

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Sadly we live in an age where faux outrage and accusations of racism are thrown about like confetti, a lot of them time where no racism exists. This is one of those cases. 

 

I don't think this was overtly or intently racist, however, what do you think regarding whether there was an intent to discriminate against which was unjust, based on the below?

 

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:



It's about definition here though

It's definitively NOT racist OR discriminatory

So your personal standards or morals literally don't come into it

I think people are doing their best to shove and shoehorn racism and discrimination into this scenario when the very definition of both says it's not

Personal standards are irrelevant

 

57 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Discriminate:

make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

 

The EFL do appear to have tried to, without foundation, use the language barrier to discredit the honesty of Chansiri. As this was a false accusation made without proper justification it does appear to be discriminatory. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

Perfectly clear where you stand

 

The EFL have accused Chansiri of trying to pull a fast one by claiming he didn't understand what they were saying. 

 

How do you know Chansiri didn't deliberately do what the EFL are claiming.? 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

The EFL have accused Chansiri of trying to pull a fast one by claiming he didn't understand what they were saying. 

 

How do you know Chansiri didn't deliberately do what the EFL are claiming.? 

 

 

 

Wow. Who needs enemies?

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

The EFL have accused Chansiri of trying to pull a fast one by claiming he didn't understand what they were saying. 

 

How do you know Chansiri didn't deliberately do what the EFL are claiming.? 

 

 

 

 

There was enough for the commission to completely dismiss this claim - based on evidence! 

 

Not enough for you though not to support this though? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hotten Owl said:

Pinched from another site:

 

The #EFL said that Dejphon Chansiri gave evidence in a manner ‘apparently deliberately designed to make it difficult to follow or to assess his credibility’, and ’appeared to exaggerate his difficulty in speaking English’.

The commission disagreed on both fronts. #SWFC

 

Surely wide open to allegations of racism.

When I was working and involved in something legal with a foreign service user they were given an interpreter as a matter of course so things like this didn't happen and to prevent accusations from either party of not understanding what was said or asked. In some cases, it was a legal requirement.

Surely the EFL could be accused of negligence and as others have said racism /discrimination by not offering one.

Edited by darra
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

The EFL have accused Chansiri of trying to pull a fast one by claiming he didn't understand what they were saying. 

 

How do you know Chansiri didn't deliberately do what the EFL are claiming.? 

 

 

 

The commission said it was racist...if the cap fits

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

The commission said it was racist...if the cap fits

 

In which paragraph did they say it was racist?

Link to post
Share on other sites



Ok so now that those who want the racism/discrimination thing used feel vindicated we can now all agree that the chairman should go for it and sue them for it?

And we can all support the BLM thing that the players are doing by taking the knee etc?

Good


Glad we're all on the same page and that we all agree that all racism/discrimination is wrong, and that you're all supportive of all anti-racism movements


Let's move on now

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:



Ok so now that those who want the racism/discrimination thing used feel vindicated we can now all agree that the chairman should go for it and sue them for it?

And we can all support the BLM thing that the players are doing by taking the knee etc?

Good


Glad we're all on the same page and that we all agree that all racism/discrimination is wrong, and that you're all supportive of all anti-racism movements


Let's move on now


100% supportive of the club and Chansiri in taking on the EFL regards an appeal.

 

not because I don’t think we’re totally blameless in this but think the charge of 12 points is excessive due to the circumstances .. 9 points or less would of been understandable.

 

If Chansiri wants to take the EFL to task over racism or discrimination I am 100% supportive.
 

If the vindictiveness of the EFL against the club .. witnessed in the lack of investigation before accusing the directors of dishonesty, the happiness to treat Derby differently and the fact they went for us in a fashion to maximise the punishment which could of led to expulsion from league in theory doesn’t embolden your support for the club against the EFL .. then take a long look at other clubs in the region you could “get behind”.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...