Bowyer transfer listed!

Livvie · 18th December 2001, 17:20

Reading thru all these posts you could almost reach the conclusion that most people think racism is bad, but extreme violence is fine as that aspect seems to be a side issue.

If Bowyer and Woodgate were innocent, then they shouldn't have involved themselves in the initial chase.

By the way - Jo, get your cheque book out, you might get a good deal here.......

giggzy · 18th December 2001, 17:22

[quote]Originally posted by Livvie20:
Reading thru all these posts you could almost reach the conclusion that most people think racism is bad, but extreme violence is fine as that aspect seems to be a side issue.

If Bowyer and Woodgate were innocent, then they shouldn't have involved themselves in the initial chase.

By the way - Jo, get your cheque book out, you might get a good deal here.......<hr></blockquote>

AGREED 100%

Dans · 18th December 2001, 17:28

[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether:
Yes! The jury sat for 22 weeks and came to that conclusion. Who am I to argue with that?<hr></blockquote>

Did you agree with the jury who decided the Stephen Lawrence case?

Before you start on the race issue again though I'll say that perhaps we should stop and consider that it's possibly as a result of the perceived racism and injustices against the ethnic minorities such as in the Lawrence case, that the race card, as it's being termed, is being played.

The Lawrence case and the recent riots have made it all the more possible to play the race card.

Britain isn't a racist society, but it does have racist elements within it. The majority of people are sensitive to such matters, hence the emergence of the race card as a vehicle to prosecution.

Perhaps the victims in this case feel this is the only way to get justice.

18th December 2001, 17:31

What if that kid had died? Could have easily happened-imagine the repercussions to that. Leeds fans should be happy Bowyer's on his way out.

Marching · 18th December 2001, 20:24

It comes as no suprise that the case involving Bowyer and Woodgate has generated a lot of talk on here and in the newspapers. What has suprised me is the witchunt and refusal by people to accept the jurys verdict - I suppose in hindsight I can see it was never going to please everybody. Football is an emotive subject and we all have are favourites - having said that I have really tried to be as unbiased as possible throughout the trial and still feel I am not letting the fact I follow Leeds United to unfairly influence my thoughts on the subject.
The main issue here is somebody was badly beaten and put in hospital. It really does not matter, or it shouldn't, whether he or his attackers were black, white, Asian, Chinese or any other colour or creed - it should also not matter whether either party was rich and famous or poor and unknown.
Sadly the newspapers would have us believe it does matter. I question their motives - are they in the business of reporting impartially and fairly or are they here to make as much money by selling as many newspapers as possible? I go for the second option - the only people that have had access to all the evidence and heard every word spoken about the trial are the 12 members of the jury. It has to be remembered also they are ordinary members of the public with no connection to the victim or the accused, they do not have stories to sell and in no way can make money from acting as jury members.
They sat for 22 weeks and then took 4 days to decide the verdicts - I tend to believe their version rather than the fanciful versions the newspapers have told in order to make money.
There will probably be no agreement on here of what happened or what didn't and I suppose really we don't care - what I do care about is this does not get blown out of all proportion.
Yesterday Lee Fleet, a white 14 yr old schoolboy was beaten senseless and his head kicked like a football by 5 to 7 Asians. They have not been caught as yet and police are treating it as a racially motivated attack. I wonder how many people will remember this event in even a weeks time and I wonder what compensation Lee will get.

The Najeib lawyers are advising him to sue and will obviously take their cut for their services - I hope Safraz continues to recover and spends his money wisely - it has cost him a lot to get it.

As far as Woodgate is concerned he is moving to live in Leeds and will do his community service with his £100,000+ fine going to the innercity community too. He will get on and resume his career having learned a very hard lesson.
Bowyer should stop being an arse and pay his fine, get fit and get playing...for Leeds!

If I have offended anybody with my views on this subject I apologise.

giggzy · 18th December 2001, 20:28

'Bowyer should stop being an arse '..

the understatement of the decade.

Davo · 18th December 2001, 20:35

At the end of the day no one knows whether alleged racist bastard Bowyer part in the brawl was racially motivated or not...

But as been pointed out, the bloke got a pasting big time and the lack of evidence at individuals doesn't mean they played no part - it seems pretty clear that they were involved..

Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening....

And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then?

'kin nobends

18th December 2001, 20:46

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:


Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening....

<hr></blockquote>

IT WASNT FOUR ON ONE!!!!!!!!!

And Livvie, u reckon I should buy him? how does £150 sound?

Marching · 18th December 2001, 20:48

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:
At the end of the day no one knows whether alleged racist bastard Bowyer part in the brawl was racially motivated or not...
the pertinent words being alledged and no one knows...but still you have to get personal and call him a bastard

But as been pointed out, the bloke got a pasting big time and the lack of evidence at individuals doesn't mean they played no part - it seems pretty clear that they were involved..

Yet again you start off OK and then lose it...surely you must go on the evidence Davo...if Clifford was found guilty then surely if the evidence was there others would be too...even Sarfrazs brother said he could not put Bowyer or Woodgate at the scene - so how can you?

Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening....

true it shouldnt happen...and according to Najeib and the other evidence there was one person there doing the kicking and there were actually 5 of Najeibs party there too.

And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then?

The police and the prosecution agreed that the word Paki was not used and therefore it was not used in any way in the trial
[quote]

Davo · 18th December 2001, 20:59

Marchy

Wasn't wassiname convicted on evidence re the bitemark? Clear evidence that he was involved...

Such conclusive evidence was not available against the others....doesn't mean they weren't involved....you must have some doubts yourself??

Marching · 18th December 2001, 21:09

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:
Marchy

Wasn't wassiname convicted on evidence re the bitemark? Clear evidence that he was involved...

Such conclusive evidence was not available against the others....doesn't mean they weren't involved....you must have some doubts yourself??<hr></blockquote>

Clifford was resposible for the bite and other evidence proves he carried out the beating. No evidence was offered against the others and as I said Najeib could not say that Woodgate or Bowyer were at the scene. What more do you want?
I trust the jury to have carefully considered all possibilities and there verdict is based on the facts.
Surely thats enough.

By the way does my FAO Marchy thread not get a response from you?

Davo · 18th December 2001, 21:15

[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether:


Clifford was resposible for the bite and other evidence proves he carried out the beating. No evidence was offered against the others and as I said Najeib could not say that Woodgate or Bowyer were at the scene. What more do you want?
I trust the jury to have carefully considered all possibilities and there verdict is based on the facts.
Surely thats enough.

By the way does my FAO Marchy thread not get a response from you?

<hr></blockquote>

So your saying that Clifford did everything? And that you don't think the others were involved...the lies, the "celebrations" were all innocent..

And didn't you say the lads mates were there? They watched him take this hiding from one bloke yeah?

I'll have a look at the other thread now...

18th December 2001, 21:16

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:


And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then?

'kin nobends<hr></blockquote>

You never called anyone a bastard?

So, as I've have called people paki bastards, black bastards, ugly bastards, cockney bastards, thick bastards etc etc, I am a racist?

18th December 2001, 21:18

[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether:
It comes as no suprise that the case involving Bowyer and Woodgate has generated a lot of talk on here and in the newspapers. What has suprised me is the witchunt and refusal by people to accept the jurys verdict - I suppose in hindsight I can see it was never going to please everybody. Football is an emotive subject and we all have are favourites - having said that I have really tried to be as unbiased as possible throughout the trial and still feel I am not letting the fact I follow Leeds United to unfairly influence my thoughts on the subject.
The main issue here is somebody was badly beaten and put in hospital. It really does not matter, or it shouldn't, whether he or his attackers were black, white, Asian, Chinese or any other colour or creed - it should also not matter whether either party was rich and famous or poor and unknown.
Sadly the newspapers would have us believe it does matter. I question their motives - are they in the business of reporting impartially and fairly or are they here to make as much money by selling as many newspapers as possible? I go for the second option - the only people that have had access to all the evidence and heard every word spoken about the trial are the 12 members of the jury. It has to be remembered also they are ordinary members of the public with no connection to the victim or the accused, they do not have stories to sell and in no way can make money from acting as jury members.
They sat for 22 weeks and then took 4 days to decide the verdicts - I tend to believe their version rather than the fanciful versions the newspapers have told in order to make money.
There will probably be no agreement on here of what happened or what didn't and I suppose really we don't care - what I do care about is this does not get blown out of all proportion.
Yesterday Lee Fleet, a white 14 yr old schoolboy was beaten senseless and his head kicked like a football by 5 to 7 Asians. They have not been caught as yet and police are treating it as a racially motivated attack. I wonder how many people will remember this event in even a weeks time and I wonder what compensation Lee will get.

The Najeib lawyers are advising him to sue and will obviously take their cut for their services - I hope Safraz continues to recover and spends his money wisely - it has cost him a lot to get it.

As far as Woodgate is concerned he is moving to live in Leeds and will do his community service with his £100,000+ fine going to the innercity community too. He will get on and resume his career having learned a very hard lesson.
Bowyer should stop being an arse and pay his fine, get fit and get playing...for Leeds!

If I have offended anybody with my views on this subject I apologise.<hr></blockquote>

Marching, if you think Bowyer and Wwoodgate are victims of a witchunt, then try to imagine if it was Keano and Beckham in Bowyer's and Woodgate's place......

18th December 2001, 21:18

...didn't one of the investigating officers say that he suspected race was a motive, and it was soley the prosecutions decision to remove it from consideration?

Fergiesarmy · 18th December 2001, 21:22

[quote]Originally posted by 9od:
...didn't one of the investigating officers say that he suspected race was a motive, and it was soley the prosecutions decision to remove it from consideration?<hr></blockquote>

yeah live on tv right after the (joke) verdict.

elmo · 18th December 2001, 21:38

No one will ever know if it was racially motivated or not. However th original trial spent 6 weeks with no jury...just the lawyers and teh judge determining if it was racially motivated or not as the charge of GBH with racially motivated intent is higher. They came to the conclusion it wasn't racially motivated as there was no evidence to suggest this. The only evidence they had was that someone in a white shirt when the original brawl took chase yelled 'do you want some paki?'. However the Najeib witnesses said that the person in the white shirt was not part of the chase or fight and so were not even sure if we was with the Bowyer/Woodgate group. Thus they ruled out any racist intent by the chasing group as they hadn't expressed any racial intent.

This could have been the right decision or the wrong one. I don't agree that it can be clear cut either way. However a judge and lawyers spent a considerable amount of time and tax payers money determining this. The police officer is entitled to his opinion still but the judge/lawyers did not hold the same opinion.

As for this whole Bowyer transfer mess it's unbelievable that after the crap Leeds fans have taken for having him in their team for the last 18 months that once he is cleared of charges (rightly or wrongly...who really knows what happened?) that he will be sold by the club.

Can someone wake me up when this nightmare that is suppporting Leeds United ends? Because that's all it feels like these days

Davo · 18th December 2001, 23:01

[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect:


You never called anyone a bastard?

So, as I've have called people paki bastards, black bastards, ugly bastards, cockney bastards, thick bastards etc etc, I am a racist?<hr></blockquote>

I've never called anyone a paki bastard no...

But then I don't use people's race as a tool to knock them..

18th December 2001, 23:32

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:


I've never called anyone a paki bastard no...

But then I don't use people's race as a tool to knock them..<hr></blockquote>

That's good of you.

But does it make me and other who has said things like paki bastard etc racists?

Davo · 18th December 2001, 23:34

[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect:


That's good of you.

But does it make me and other who has said things like paki bastard etc racists?<hr></blockquote>

It's not good...its just normal decent behaviour

You're obviously racist to some extent to think of saying "paki bastard"

Why did his race have to come into it?

18th December 2001, 23:40

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:


It's not good...its just normal decent behaviour

You're obviously racist to some extent to think of saying "paki bastard"

Why did his race have to come into it?<hr></blockquote>

It doesn't come into it, it just stupid things one say when one is arguing. Just like I've called people ugly cunts lots of times when arguing.

Davo · 18th December 2001, 23:43

[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect:


It doesn't come into it, it just stupid things one say when one is arguing. Just like I've called people ugly cunts lots of times when arguing.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah a stupid racist remark made cos you were angry....

Great excuse that eh? I'm not racist, I just act like one when I've got a mood on..

Why was such a remark in your mind?

Pathetic

18th December 2001, 23:53

[quote]Originally posted by Davo:


Yeah a stupid racist remark made cos you were angry....

Great excuse that eh? I'm not racist, I just act like one when I've got a mood on..

Why was such a remark in your mind?

Pathetic<hr></blockquote>

That must mean that I hate people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Liverpool, Stockport, the North East, Birmingham, London, France, Italy, US, Australia, South Africa, Germany and Skegness, as well as everyone from Pakistan and all blacks......

You think what you want, but to me it doesn't matter what race or colour you are - I treat everyone the same. I don't think a racist does....

FresnoBob · 19th December 2001, 00:01

Davo:

Don't agree with the racially-oriented name-calling myself (and won't necessarily apply it to Bowyer) but I note that people (myself included) occasionally get very specific with the insults when really irritated with someone (such as the driver who cuts me off in traffic or the a-hole who takes a reserved parking place). Often the insults relate to anything one can identify about the other--including sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, geographical location of home, or any other info that can be found by observation of the person, license plate, bumper stickers, or other source of info. After all, the primary purpose of an insult to to aggravate or provoke the other party (usually as an individual and not as a member of the specified group). Under the circumstances, would that render the irate party a racist or bigot? Probably not--unless one finds a track record of actions to support the more extreme view.

Hence, the mere fact that one calls another a name (without more) would tend to lead me away from branding the person "racist," "xenophobic," "religiously intolerant" or whatever the epithet used might have indicated.

19th December 2001, 00:06

[quote]Originally posted by FresnoBob:
Davo:

Don't agree with the racially-oriented name-calling myself (and won't necessarily apply it to Bowyer) but I note that people (myself included) occasionally get very specific with the insults when really irritated with someone (such as the driver who cuts me off in traffic or the a-hole who takes a reserved parking place). Often the insults relate to anything one can identify about the other--including sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, geographical location of home, or any other info that can be found by observation of the person, license plate, bumper stickers, or other source of info. After all, the primary purpose of an insult to to aggravate or provoke the other party (usually as an individual and not as a member of the specified group). Under the circumstances, would that render the irate party a racist or bigot? Probably not--unless one finds a track record of actions to support the more extreme view.

Hence, the mere fact that one calls another a name (without more) would tend to lead me away from branding the person "racist," "xenophobic," "religiously intolerant" or whatever the epithet used might have indicated.<hr></blockquote>

Thank you Bob - exactly my point. Wish I was as good with words as you are!

True Treble Reds · 19th December 2001, 00:07

I'm sure Davo has never typed these words on this forum "Manc cnuts". But if he did, that's different right?

Manc = 1st four letters of Manchester
Paki = 1st four letters of Pakistan

BTW, before you start calling me a racist, don't bother. I have far too many friends from all over the world of many different nationalities, colours and creeds that would jump to my defence and render your comment unfounded.

19th December 2001, 00:11

[quote]Originally posted by True Treble Reds:
I'm sure Davo has never typed these words on this forum "Manc cnuts". But if he did, that's different right?

<hr></blockquote>

Awaiting some 'hilariously witty' response from Mr Dignified now.....

Marcus · 19th December 2001, 00:23

[quote]Originally posted by elmo:
No one will ever know if it was racially motivated or not. However th original trial spent 6 weeks with no jury...just the lawyers and teh judge determining if it was racially motivated or not as the charge of GBH with racially motivated intent is higher. They came to the conclusion it wasn't racially motivated as there was no evidence to suggest this. The only evidence they had was that someone in a white shirt when the original brawl took chase yelled 'do you want some paki?'. However the Najeib witnesses said that the person in the white shirt was not part of the chase or fight and so were not even sure if we was with the Bowyer/Woodgate group. Thus they ruled out any racist intent by the chasing group as they hadn't expressed any racial intent.

This could have been the right decision or the wrong one. I don't agree that it can be clear cut either way. However a judge and lawyers spent a considerable amount of time and tax payers money determining this. The police officer is entitled to his opinion still but the judge/lawyers did not hold the same opinion.

As for this whole Bowyer transfer mess it's unbelievable that after the crap Leeds fans have taken for having him in their team for the last 18 months that once he is cleared of charges (rightly or wrongly...who really knows what happened?) that he will be sold by the club.

Can someone wake me up when this nightmare that is suppporting Leeds United ends? Because that's all it feels like these days

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin...

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

19th December 2001, 00:28

[quote]Originally posted by Marcus:


Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin...

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

True Treble Reds · 19th December 2001, 00:56

[quote]Originally posted by Marcus:
Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> <hr></blockquote>
Ouch ... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

18th December 2001, 17:22	#162 (permalink)
giggzy The Fatter Bryan Robson Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: In my Mersey Paradise...... Posts: 20,013	[quote]Originally posted by Livvie20: <strong>Reading thru all these posts you could almost reach the conclusion that most people think racism is bad, but extreme violence is fine as that aspect seems to be a side issue. If Bowyer and Woodgate were innocent, then they shouldn't have involved themselves in the initial chase. By the way - Jo, get your cheque book out, you might get a good deal here.......</strong><hr></blockquote> AGREED 100%

18th December 2001, 17:28	#163 (permalink)
Dans First Team Elder Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 19,644	[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether: <strong>Yes! The jury sat for 22 weeks and came to that conclusion. Who am I to argue with that?</strong><hr></blockquote> Did you agree with the jury who decided the Stephen Lawrence case? Before you start on the race issue again though I'll say that perhaps we should stop and consider that it's possibly as a result of the perceived racism and injustices against the ethnic minorities such as in the Lawrence case, that the race card, as it's being termed, is being played. The Lawrence case and the recent riots have made it all the more possible to play the race card. Britain isn't a racist society, but it does have racist elements within it. The majority of people are sensitive to such matters, hence the emergence of the race card as a vehicle to prosecution. Perhaps the victims in this case feel this is the only way to get justice.

18th December 2001, 20:46	#168 (permalink)
jo Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong> Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening.... </strong><hr></blockquote> IT WASNT FOUR ON ONE!!!!!!!!! And Livvie, u reckon I should buy him? how does £150 sound?

18th December 2001, 21:09	#171 (permalink)
Marching Admin Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne Posts: 26,811	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong>Marchy Wasn't wassiname convicted on evidence re the bitemark? Clear evidence that he was involved... Such conclusive evidence was not available against the others....doesn't mean they weren't involved....you must have some doubts yourself??</strong><hr></blockquote> Clifford was resposible for the bite and other evidence proves he carried out the beating. No evidence was offered against the others and as I said Najeib could not say that Woodgate or Bowyer were at the scene. What more do you want? I trust the jury to have carefully considered all possibilities and there verdict is based on the facts. Surely thats enough. By the way does my FAO Marchy thread not get a response from you?

18th December 2001, 21:15	#172 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether: <strong> Clifford was resposible for the bite and other evidence proves he carried out the beating. No evidence was offered against the others and as I said Najeib could not say that Woodgate or Bowyer were at the scene. What more do you want? I trust the jury to have carefully considered all possibilities and there verdict is based on the facts. Surely thats enough. By the way does my FAO Marchy thread not get a response from you? </strong><hr></blockquote> So your saying that Clifford did everything? And that you don't think the others were involved...the lies, the "celebrations" were all innocent.. And didn't you say the lads mates were there? They watched him take this hiding from one bloke yeah? I'll have a look at the other thread now...

18th December 2001, 17:20	#161 (permalink)
Livvie Executive Manager being kept sane only by her madness Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Someone said that half of Caf members were thick. It's not true. Half of you aren't thick at all. Posts: 27,477	Reading thru all these posts you could almost reach the conclusion that most people think racism is bad, but extreme violence is fine as that aspect seems to be a side issue. If Bowyer and Woodgate were innocent, then they shouldn't have involved themselves in the initial chase. By the way - Jo, get your cheque book out, you might get a good deal here.......

18th December 2001, 17:31	#164 (permalink)
rz99 Posts: n/a	What if that kid had died? Could have easily happened-imagine the repercussions to that. Leeds fans should be happy Bowyer's on his way out.

18th December 2001, 20:24	#165 (permalink)
Marching Admin Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne Posts: 26,811	It comes as no suprise that the case involving Bowyer and Woodgate has generated a lot of talk on here and in the newspapers. What has suprised me is the witchunt and refusal by people to accept the jurys verdict - I suppose in hindsight I can see it was never going to please everybody. Football is an emotive subject and we all have are favourites - having said that I have really tried to be as unbiased as possible throughout the trial and still feel I am not letting the fact I follow Leeds United to unfairly influence my thoughts on the subject. The main issue here is somebody was badly beaten and put in hospital. It really does not matter, or it shouldn't, whether he or his attackers were black, white, Asian, Chinese or any other colour or creed - it should also not matter whether either party was rich and famous or poor and unknown. Sadly the newspapers would have us believe it does matter. I question their motives - are they in the business of reporting impartially and fairly or are they here to make as much money by selling as many newspapers as possible? I go for the second option - the only people that have had access to all the evidence and heard every word spoken about the trial are the 12 members of the jury. It has to be remembered also they are ordinary members of the public with no connection to the victim or the accused, they do not have stories to sell and in no way can make money from acting as jury members. They sat for 22 weeks and then took 4 days to decide the verdicts - I tend to believe their version rather than the fanciful versions the newspapers have told in order to make money. There will probably be no agreement on here of what happened or what didn't and I suppose really we don't care - what I do care about is this does not get blown out of all proportion. Yesterday Lee Fleet, a white 14 yr old schoolboy was beaten senseless and his head kicked like a football by 5 to 7 Asians. They have not been caught as yet and police are treating it as a racially motivated attack. I wonder how many people will remember this event in even a weeks time and I wonder what compensation Lee will get. The Najeib lawyers are advising him to sue and will obviously take their cut for their services - I hope Safraz continues to recover and spends his money wisely - it has cost him a lot to get it. As far as Woodgate is concerned he is moving to live in Leeds and will do his community service with his £100,000+ fine going to the innercity community too. He will get on and resume his career having learned a very hard lesson. Bowyer should stop being an arse and pay his fine, get fit and get playing...for Leeds! If I have offended anybody with my views on this subject I apologise.

18th December 2001, 20:28	#166 (permalink)
giggzy The Fatter Bryan Robson Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: In my Mersey Paradise...... Posts: 20,013	'Bowyer should stop being an arse '.. the understatement of the decade.

18th December 2001, 20:35	#167 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	At the end of the day no one knows whether alleged racist bastard Bowyer part in the brawl was racially motivated or not... But as been pointed out, the bloke got a pasting big time and the lack of evidence at individuals doesn't mean they played no part - it seems pretty clear that they were involved.. Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening.... And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then? 'kin nobends

18th December 2001, 20:48	#169 (permalink)
Marching Admin Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne Posts: 26,811	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: At the end of the day no one knows whether alleged racist bastard Bowyer part in the brawl was racially motivated or not... the pertinent words being alledged and no one knows...but still you have to get personal and call him a bastard But as been pointed out, the bloke got a pasting big time and the lack of evidence at individuals doesn't mean they played no part - it seems pretty clear that they were involved.. Yet again you start off OK and then lose it...surely you must go on the evidence Davo...if Clifford was found guilty then surely if the evidence was there others would be too...even Sarfrazs brother said he could not put Bowyer or Woodgate at the scene - so how can you? Yeah, I'd imagine most of us have been in brawls...but 4 on 1 beating the crap out of someone rendered defenseless?? That shouldn't be happening.... true it shouldnt happen...and according to Najeib and the other evidence there was one person there doing the kicking and there were actually 5 of Najeibs party there too. And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then? The police and the prosecution agreed that the word Paki was not used and therefore it was not used in any way in the trial [quote]

18th December 2001, 20:59	#170 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	Marchy Wasn't wassiname convicted on evidence re the bitemark? Clear evidence that he was involved... Such conclusive evidence was not available against the others....doesn't mean they weren't involved....you must have some doubts yourself??

18th December 2001, 21:16	#173 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong> And for those who have called someone a "paki bastard" etc in anger...but oh no, are not racist in any shape or form, why didn't you just call them a bastard then? 'kin nobends</strong><hr></blockquote> You never called anyone a bastard? So, as I've have called people paki bastards, black bastards, ugly bastards, cockney bastards, thick bastards etc etc, I am a racist?

18th December 2001, 21:18	#174 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by marchingontogether: <strong>It comes as no suprise that the case involving Bowyer and Woodgate has generated a lot of talk on here and in the newspapers. What has suprised me is the witchunt and refusal by people to accept the jurys verdict - I suppose in hindsight I can see it was never going to please everybody. Football is an emotive subject and we all have are favourites - having said that I have really tried to be as unbiased as possible throughout the trial and still feel I am not letting the fact I follow Leeds United to unfairly influence my thoughts on the subject. The main issue here is somebody was badly beaten and put in hospital. It really does not matter, or it shouldn't, whether he or his attackers were black, white, Asian, Chinese or any other colour or creed - it should also not matter whether either party was rich and famous or poor and unknown. Sadly the newspapers would have us believe it does matter. I question their motives - are they in the business of reporting impartially and fairly or are they here to make as much money by selling as many newspapers as possible? I go for the second option - the only people that have had access to all the evidence and heard every word spoken about the trial are the 12 members of the jury. It has to be remembered also they are ordinary members of the public with no connection to the victim or the accused, they do not have stories to sell and in no way can make money from acting as jury members. They sat for 22 weeks and then took 4 days to decide the verdicts - I tend to believe their version rather than the fanciful versions the newspapers have told in order to make money. There will probably be no agreement on here of what happened or what didn't and I suppose really we don't care - what I do care about is this does not get blown out of all proportion. Yesterday Lee Fleet, a white 14 yr old schoolboy was beaten senseless and his head kicked like a football by 5 to 7 Asians. They have not been caught as yet and police are treating it as a racially motivated attack. I wonder how many people will remember this event in even a weeks time and I wonder what compensation Lee will get. The Najeib lawyers are advising him to sue and will obviously take their cut for their services - I hope Safraz continues to recover and spends his money wisely - it has cost him a lot to get it. As far as Woodgate is concerned he is moving to live in Leeds and will do his community service with his £100,000+ fine going to the innercity community too. He will get on and resume his career having learned a very hard lesson. Bowyer should stop being an arse and pay his fine, get fit and get playing...for Leeds! If I have offended anybody with my views on this subject I apologise.</strong><hr></blockquote> Marching, if you think Bowyer and Wwoodgate are victims of a witchunt, then try to imagine if it was Keano and Beckham in Bowyer's and Woodgate's place......

18th December 2001, 21:18	#175 (permalink)
9od Posts: n/a	...didn't one of the investigating officers say that he suspected race was a motive, and it was soley the prosecutions decision to remove it from consideration?

18th December 2001, 21:22	#176 (permalink)
Fergiesarmy First Team Sub Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: pires is a cheat Posts: 5,251	[quote]Originally posted by 9od: <strong>...didn't one of the investigating officers say that he suspected race was a motive, and it was soley the prosecutions decision to remove it from consideration?</strong><hr></blockquote> yeah live on tv right after the (joke) verdict.

18th December 2001, 21:38	#177 (permalink)
elmo Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 574	No one will ever know if it was racially motivated or not. However th original trial spent 6 weeks with no jury...just the lawyers and teh judge determining if it was racially motivated or not as the charge of GBH with racially motivated intent is higher. They came to the conclusion it wasn't racially motivated as there was no evidence to suggest this. The only evidence they had was that someone in a white shirt when the original brawl took chase yelled 'do you want some paki?'. However the Najeib witnesses said that the person in the white shirt was not part of the chase or fight and so were not even sure if we was with the Bowyer/Woodgate group. Thus they ruled out any racist intent by the chasing group as they hadn't expressed any racial intent. This could have been the right decision or the wrong one. I don't agree that it can be clear cut either way. However a judge and lawyers spent a considerable amount of time and tax payers money determining this. The police officer is entitled to his opinion still but the judge/lawyers did not hold the same opinion. As for this whole Bowyer transfer mess it's unbelievable that after the crap Leeds fans have taken for having him in their team for the last 18 months that once he is cleared of charges (rightly or wrongly...who really knows what happened?) that he will be sold by the club. Can someone wake me up when this nightmare that is suppporting Leeds United ends? Because that's all it feels like these days

18th December 2001, 23:01	#178 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect: <strong> You never called anyone a bastard? So, as I've have called people paki bastards, black bastards, ugly bastards, cockney bastards, thick bastards etc etc, I am a racist?</strong><hr></blockquote> I've never called anyone a paki bastard no... But then I don't use people's race as a tool to knock them..

18th December 2001, 23:32	#179 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong> I've never called anyone a paki bastard no... But then I don't use people's race as a tool to knock them..</strong><hr></blockquote> That's good of you. But does it make me and other who has said things like paki bastard etc racists?

18th December 2001, 23:34	#180 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect: <strong> That's good of you. But does it make me and other who has said things like paki bastard etc racists?</strong><hr></blockquote> It's not good...its just normal decent behaviour You're obviously racist to some extent to think of saying "paki bastard" Why did his race have to come into it?

18th December 2001, 23:40	#181 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong> It's not good...its just normal decent behaviour You're obviously racist to some extent to think of saying "paki bastard" Why did his race have to come into it?</strong><hr></blockquote> It doesn't come into it, it just stupid things one say when one is arguing. Just like I've called people ugly cunts lots of times when arguing.

18th December 2001, 23:43	#182 (permalink)
Davo Still waiting for my team to make a title challenge. Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: It's Ours For Keeps Posts: 551,770	[quote]Originally posted by ChampionsElect: <strong> It doesn't come into it, it just stupid things one say when one is arguing. Just like I've called people ugly cunts lots of times when arguing.</strong><hr></blockquote> Yeah a stupid racist remark made cos you were angry.... Great excuse that eh? I'm not racist, I just act like one when I've got a mood on.. Why was such a remark in your mind? Pathetic

18th December 2001, 23:53	#183 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Davo: <strong> Yeah a stupid racist remark made cos you were angry.... Great excuse that eh? I'm not racist, I just act like one when I've got a mood on.. Why was such a remark in your mind? Pathetic</strong><hr></blockquote> That must mean that I hate people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Liverpool, Stockport, the North East, Birmingham, London, France, Italy, US, Australia, South Africa, Germany and Skegness, as well as everyone from Pakistan and all blacks...... You think what you want, but to me it doesn't matter what race or colour you are - I treat everyone the same. I don't think a racist does....

19th December 2001, 00:01	#184 (permalink)
FresnoBob First Team Sub Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Fresno, California USA Posts: 6,052	Davo: Don't agree with the racially-oriented name-calling myself (and won't necessarily apply it to Bowyer) but I note that people (myself included) occasionally get very specific with the insults when really irritated with someone (such as the driver who cuts me off in traffic or the a-hole who takes a reserved parking place). Often the insults relate to anything one can identify about the other--including sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, geographical location of home, or any other info that can be found by observation of the person, license plate, bumper stickers, or other source of info. After all, the primary purpose of an insult to to aggravate or provoke the other party (usually as an individual and not as a member of the specified group). Under the circumstances, would that render the irate party a racist or bigot? Probably not--unless one finds a track record of actions to support the more extreme view. Hence, the mere fact that one calls another a name (without more) would tend to lead me away from branding the person "racist," "xenophobic," "religiously intolerant" or whatever the epithet used might have indicated.

19th December 2001, 00:06	#185 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by FresnoBob: <strong>Davo: Don't agree with the racially-oriented name-calling myself (and won't necessarily apply it to Bowyer) but I note that people (myself included) occasionally get very specific with the insults when really irritated with someone (such as the driver who cuts me off in traffic or the a-hole who takes a reserved parking place). Often the insults relate to anything one can identify about the other--including sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, geographical location of home, or any other info that can be found by observation of the person, license plate, bumper stickers, or other source of info. After all, the primary purpose of an insult to to aggravate or provoke the other party (usually as an individual and not as a member of the specified group). Under the circumstances, would that render the irate party a racist or bigot? Probably not--unless one finds a track record of actions to support the more extreme view. Hence, the mere fact that one calls another a name (without more) would tend to lead me away from branding the person "racist," "xenophobic," "religiously intolerant" or whatever the epithet used might have indicated.</strong><hr></blockquote> Thank you Bob - exactly my point. Wish I was as good with words as you are!

19th December 2001, 00:07	#186 (permalink)
True Treble Reds First Team Sub Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 6,851	I'm sure Davo has never typed these words on this forum "Manc cnuts". But if he did, that's different right? Manc = 1st four letters of Manchester Paki = 1st four letters of Pakistan BTW, before you start calling me a racist, don't bother. I have far too many friends from all over the world of many different nationalities, colours and creeds that would jump to my defence and render your comment unfounded.

19th December 2001, 00:11	#187 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by True Treble Reds: <strong>I'm sure Davo has never typed these words on this forum "Manc cnuts". But if he did, that's different right? </strong><hr></blockquote> Awaiting some 'hilariously witty' response from Mr Dignified now.....

19th December 2001, 00:23	#188 (permalink)
Marcus Couldn't buy a clue Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: Cloud '99 Posts: 2,327	[quote]Originally posted by elmo: <strong>No one will ever know if it was racially motivated or not. However th original trial spent 6 weeks with no jury...just the lawyers and teh judge determining if it was racially motivated or not as the charge of GBH with racially motivated intent is higher. They came to the conclusion it wasn't racially motivated as there was no evidence to suggest this. The only evidence they had was that someone in a white shirt when the original brawl took chase yelled 'do you want some paki?'. However the Najeib witnesses said that the person in the white shirt was not part of the chase or fight and so were not even sure if we was with the Bowyer/Woodgate group. Thus they ruled out any racist intent by the chasing group as they hadn't expressed any racial intent. This could have been the right decision or the wrong one. I don't agree that it can be clear cut either way. However a judge and lawyers spent a considerable amount of time and tax payers money determining this. The police officer is entitled to his opinion still but the judge/lawyers did not hold the same opinion. As for this whole Bowyer transfer mess it's unbelievable that after the crap Leeds fans have taken for having him in their team for the last 18 months that once he is cleared of charges (rightly or wrongly...who really knows what happened?) that he will be sold by the club. Can someone wake me up when this nightmare that is suppporting Leeds United ends? Because that's all it feels like these days </strong><hr></blockquote> Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

19th December 2001, 00:28	#189 (permalink)
ChampionsElect Posts: n/a	[quote]Originally posted by Marcus: <strong> Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

19th December 2001, 00:56	#190 (permalink)
True Treble Reds First Team Sub Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 6,851	[quote]Originally posted by Marcus: <strong>Actually, your nightmare began when you made "that" enquiry about Denis Irwin... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote> Ouch ... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />