Tonev - Racist Scum

[Pull My Strings]

I've no idea what the John Terry refers to, but are you saying using pejorative racist language is not a criminal offence?

I've already stated using the probabilty argument that Tonev most likely said what he is accused of, I'm saying personally when it's one persons word against another with no other evidence then I'd give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

Re the rape scenario, it's not impossible to convict without third party evidence, think that's obvious every week, anyway I don't think that's what I was saying

Using pejorative racist language isn't a criminal offence. If it incites (or is likely to incite) hatred or violence it's an offence. It's use in conjunction to another crime is an aggravation of that crime. On it's own - no.

[aDONisSheep]

Whore FC fans, neither "credible or reliable". Just like Tonev.

[Rugster]

"On the Monday morning there was quite a reaction in the papers.

I sent Dougie a text to ask what he thought of the fall-out.

He called immediately and told me he had talked with Hugh the night before and decided to come clean.

Dougie told Hugh lies were told to the supervisor. He then told Hugh the truth - that I had not shouted for him to come over.

I was then urged to tell Hugh the truth when he called me. I was happy to do so and felt quite relieved.

When Hugh phoned he asked me to talk over the penalty. He said: 'So what happened after you called out for Dougie to come over? You called out, "Dougie, Dougie, Dougie?"

My wife was in the room and I told him that was not the case. I told Hugh he now knew the truth.

The truth was the version Dougie had told him over the phone.

But Hugh repeated: 'What are you talking about, you said Dougie, Dougie, Dougie and called him over' but I told Dallas I did no such thing.

Dougie came clean and so did I. But Hugh didn't seem to accept that.

I phoned Dougie back and told him Hugh tried to make out this wasn't true and denied having the conversation with Dougie on the Sunday night." - Steven Craven

Course, it's not like the SFA to conspire against Celtic, those fine witchfinder generals down at Park Gardens are perfectly decent, trustworthy chaps, so why would they resort blatant bigotry, when they're clearly above all accusations of bias?

The SFA aren't bigots, noooooo, but Tonev is definitely a racist, no doubt about it.

:/

Feed the, troll, let him know it's victim time.

[aDONisSheep]

Who said this and which club was he at;

"We are an open club and we have been since the club was formed 125 years ago. I have a zero-tolerance rule. I have spoken to the players about this before. Any sign of any sort of racism against colour, religion, background, will be an instant sackable offence."

The proof of the pudding however.......

Yours

aDONis

[LordHawHaw]

Using pejorative racist language isn't a criminal offence. If it incites (or is likely to incite) hatred or violence it's an offence. It's use in conjunction to another crime is an aggravation of that crime. On it's own - no.

Then do I stand corrected or updated even, my understand is that the criminal charge of racially aggravated harassment could be filed where the harrasment was pejorative racist language otself, comment?

[Pull My Strings]

Then do I stand corrected or updated even, my understand is that the criminal charge of racially aggravated harassment could be filed where the harrasment was pejorative racist language otself, comment?

Sorry, but that's a really badly phrased question. You can be charged with any offence for doing anything or nothing. Being charged is neither here nor there.

What I was commenting on was the law. If you're asking whether on it's own and in the absence of any other criminal offence the use of pejorative racist language is a crime then no, it's not. If you're asking whether in the course of harassing someone the offence can be aggravated by the use of racist language then yes but simply saying to someone "you black c**t" would not ordinarily be an offence (and it wouldn't be the offence of harassment because harassment requires a course of conduct rather than an individual event). I say "ordinarily" because you can imagine circumstances in which the words spoken could amount to a breach of the peace for example, but the same could be said for any unpleasant comments.

You need to draw a distinction between a potential aggravation and a crime itself. Racial hatred (as evidenced by racist language) is an aggravation but on it's own (even with the use of racist language) it isn't a crime (unless, as above it incites or is likely to incite hatred or violence).

Edit to add: In this case, what Tonev said wouldn't be a crime unless it placed Logan in a state of fear or alarm or incited Broonie to get stuck into him.

[LordHawHaw]

Sorry, but that's a really badly phrased question. You can be charged with any offence for doing anything or nothing. Being charged is neither here nor there.

What I was commenting on was the law. If you're asking whether on it's own and in the absence of any other criminal offence the use of pejorative racist language is a crime then no, it's not. If you're asking whether in the course of harassing someone the offence can be aggravated by the use of racist language then yes but simply saying to someone "you black c**t" would not ordinarily be an offence (and it wouldn't be the offence of harassment because harassment requires a course of conduct rather than an individual event). I say "ordinarily" because you can imagine circumstances in which the words spoken could amount to a breach of the peace for example, but the same could be said for any unpleasant comments.

You need to draw a distinction between a potential aggravation and a crime itself. Racial hatred (as evidenced by racist language) is an aggravation but on it's own (even with the use of racist language) it isn't a crime (unless, as above it incites or is likely to incite hatred or violence).

Edit to add: In this case, what Tonev said wouldn't be a crime unless it placed Logan in a state of fear or alarm or incited Broonie to get stuck into him.

Thanks...just did some googling there

http://www.chrisfyffesolicitoradvocate.co.uk/tag/racially-aggravated-harassment/

And the act itself..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/39/section/50A

from the act ...

A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—

(a)pursues a racially-aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of a person

and further down

conduct” includes speech;

Still a no ?

[jagfox]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/oct/07/say-yes-to-racism-banner-levski-sofia-bulgaria

[d31]

Tonev to return to Villa in January. Celtic hoping to announce it on Monday evening providing Rangers go in to Voluntary Liquidation

[jagfox]

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."

[LordHawHaw]

Tonev to return to Villa in January. Celtic hoping to announce it on Monday evening providing Rangers go in to Voluntary Liquidation

Is that your wishlist or you heard something

[hellbhoy]

Transcripts are on the SFA website.

"Don't touch me, you black c*nt" said the GLASGOW CELTIC FC player.

I would be interested to hear from Johnny, Dhenboy, Romeo etc on the subject after they have relentlessly defended their racist hero for the past three months.

Celtic apparently have an anti racism policy, Tonev should have had his bags packed and sent back to Birmingham after the first tribunal and taken the match bans with him to show the club won't stand for racism of any sort being it either corroborated or not. They have taken it way too far IMO and can't backtrack to maintain even a morsel of dignity from this embarrassing omni-shambles. My conclusion is that Ronny has decided that the racist b'stard is suitable as player to sign to the club and suits Ronny's plans for his style of football ???, hope this is not the case ffs.

Still it gives the orcs & diddies something to seethe like fcuk on the longer he stays at the club.

If I was the Celtic manager I'd have told Tonev to say he said "Don't touch my back, you cnut", but then I'm not the Celtic manager.

AW read all the way through the 15 pages to see if Dhenboy had posted on it.

[THE KING]

Tonev: "I know what happened..."

Has he actually put forward an alternative form of words? I didn't see it during my cursory glance at the notes.

Yes he said black b*****d not c**t.

[Pull My Strings]

Thanks...just did some googling there

http://www.chrisfyffesolicitoradvocate.co.uk/tag/racially-aggravated-harassment/

And the act itself..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/39/section/50A

from the act ...

A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—

(a)pursues a racially-aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of a person

and further down

conduct” includes speech;

Still a no ?

Just to be clear, are you being obtuse or do you genuinely not get it? I really can't be arsed if it's the former.

Pro tip: you're going to need to keep reading so that you understand what 'harassment' means and also the significance of there being a 'course of conduct'.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Celtic fans know fine well that Tonev is guilty. Their greatest concern is that Rangers fans have been given a stick to temporarily beat them with. This is all they care about. Tonev is an irrelevance.

[Jacksgranda]

So if a judge, panel or jury are convinced in a two witness incident that one is clearly lying and the other appears honest, they should let the liar off?

Only if he's "Celtic minded"...

[LordHawHaw]

Just to be clear, are you being obtuse or do you genuinely not get it? I really can't be arsed if it's the former.

Pro tip: you're going to need to keep reading so that you understand what 'harassment' means and also the significance of there being a 'course of conduct'.

No, not being obtuse, I genuinely don't get it ..... on the example I gave above re the telephone call the sheriff found that the one call containing racist language was enough to find the person guilty under that particular part of the act...wondering if that transfers to being called just once a Black C or not?

Just interested in people who do understand these things explaining it to me, as an outsider the law can look as far away from justice as you can get.

[Jacksgranda]

No, not being obtuse, I genuinely don't get it ..... on the example I gave above re the telephone call the sheriff found that the one call containing racist language was enough to find the person guilty under that particular part of the act...wondering if that transfers to being called just once a Black C or not?

Just interested in people who do understand these things explaining it to me, as an outsider the law can look as far away from justice as you can get.

Neither do I, the law can be damn tricky, and lawyers/advocates/QCs make their money arguing about the meaning of words, the context in which they are placed, and in written documents, the placing of punctuation.

However, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not going to argue about it - the investigative process in this case has taken place, and the verdict(s) announced.

Agree with you that "law" does not always equal "justice".

[Ross.]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/oct/07/say-yes-to-racism-banner-levski-sofia-bulgaria

Didn't read the full article, but that banner could be taken at face value as the Bulgarians saying UEFA condone racism.

ETA, obviously in the context of who was flying it, it's clear what the message is, but the flag in itself could easily be used either way.

Out of interest, with you linking it to this story, are suggesting Tonev is more likely to be racist because he is Bulgarian?

[printer]

or incited Broonie to get stuck into him.