5 match ban
£80k fine
Has to attend an educational course
Not racist either
£80k fine
Has to attend an educational course
Not racist either
Anelka
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
sad day for freedom of expression - the views maybe vile, but we need to tackle these views through dialogue
Strange decision.
If THEY think the gesture is anti-semitic, both 'punishments' are a piss take.
@red_maradona - check out where this 'freedom of expression' is done ... In front of Auschwitz, in front of synagogues, in front of the Jewish school where school kids were butchered by that Meron twat in France, by some cowardly youth donning a Hitler mask, in front of Anne Frank posters in Holland etc ... This 'comedian' who started this 'freedom of expression' is a holocaust denying anti-semite. He's supposedly now banned from the UK ... I don't think Anelka is an anti-semite, but I think he's an idiot for using this 'expression' ... He should be smarter ... Alas, a strange, shitty world we live in.
@red_maradona - check out where this 'freedom of expression' is done ... In front of Auschwitz, in front of synagogues, in front of the Jewish school where school kids were butchered by that Meron twat in France, by some cowardly youth donning a Hitler mask, in front of Anne Frank posters in Holland etc ... This 'comedian' who started this 'freedom of expression' is a holocaust denying anti-semite. He's supposedly now banned from the UK ... I don't think Anelka is an anti-semite, but I think he's an idiot for using this 'expression' ... He should be smarter ... Alas, a strange, shitty world we live in.
[article=FA]Independent Regulatory Commission – summary of decision
1. This is a written statement of the decision of The FA Regulatory Commission (chaired by independent Counsel Christopher Quinlan QC, Thura KT Win, Peter Powell) that sat on 25 and 26 February 2014 to consider charges brought against the player Nicolas Anelka (FA Disciplinary Regulation 9.1).
2. Arising out of his conduct during the Barclays Premier League match between West Ham United FC and West Bromwich Albion FC on 28 December 2013 he was charged as follows:
a. In or around the 40th minute of the match he made a gesture (known as the ‘quenelle’) which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3(1); and
b. That the misconduct was an "Aggravated Breach" as defined by FA Rule E3(2) in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief.
3. He denied both charges.
4. The Regulatory Commission heard from the player, two expert witnesses and submissions from Leading Counsel for The FA and Nicolas Anelka.
5. Charge 1 - the Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved.
6. Charge 2 -
a. The Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved
b. So far as the basis for our finding on Charge 2 is concerned, we did not find that Nicolas Anelka is an Anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote Anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle.
7. Sanction: having considered further submissions from Leading Counsel for The FA and Nicolas Anelka, the Regulatory Commission imposed
a. An immediate playing suspension from all club football until such time as West Bromwich Albion first team has completed five matches
b. Fined him £80,000
c. He will pay the costs of the hearing in full.
8. In consequence of the finding on Charge 2, the player will be subject to an education programme, the details of which will be provided to him by The FA (FA Rule 3(7)).
9. There is a right of appeal against this decision in accordance with FA regulations. Written reasons within the meaning of FA Disciplinary Regulation 9.3 will follow within seven days of the date of this written statement.
10. We order a stay of the five-match suspension pursuant to Regulation 8.11 of the Disciplinary Regulations until:
a. The expiry of seven-day period from receipt of our written reasons in which Mr Anelka has right of appeal against this decision, if no appeal is lodged during that period, or
b. Written notification to The FA of any decision by Mr Anelka not to appeal, if served prior to the expiry of period for appealing, or
c. The outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Anelka against this decision, if an appeal is lodged during the period for appealing.
[/article]
Aww it brings a tear to my eye to see that reasoning which formed the first seeds of me becoming a terrifyingly unbeatable advocate. Poor the Anelka.
1. This is a written statement of the decision of The FA Regulatory Commission (chaired by independent Counsel Christopher Quinlan QC, Thura KT Win, Peter Powell) that sat on 25 and 26 February 2014 to consider charges brought against the player Nicolas Anelka (FA Disciplinary Regulation 9.1).
2. Arising out of his conduct during the Barclays Premier League match between West Ham United FC and West Bromwich Albion FC on 28 December 2013 he was charged as follows:
a. In or around the 40th minute of the match he made a gesture (known as the ‘quenelle’) which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3(1); and
b. That the misconduct was an "Aggravated Breach" as defined by FA Rule E3(2) in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief.
3. He denied both charges.
4. The Regulatory Commission heard from the player, two expert witnesses and submissions from Leading Counsel for The FA and Nicolas Anelka.
5. Charge 1 - the Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved.
6. Charge 2 -
a. The Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved
b. So far as the basis for our finding on Charge 2 is concerned, we did not find that Nicolas Anelka is an Anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote Anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle.
7. Sanction: having considered further submissions from Leading Counsel for The FA and Nicolas Anelka, the Regulatory Commission imposed
a. An immediate playing suspension from all club football until such time as West Bromwich Albion first team has completed five matches
b. Fined him £80,000
c. He will pay the costs of the hearing in full.
8. In consequence of the finding on Charge 2, the player will be subject to an education programme, the details of which will be provided to him by The FA (FA Rule 3(7)).
9. There is a right of appeal against this decision in accordance with FA regulations. Written reasons within the meaning of FA Disciplinary Regulation 9.3 will follow within seven days of the date of this written statement.
10. We order a stay of the five-match suspension pursuant to Regulation 8.11 of the Disciplinary Regulations until:
a. The expiry of seven-day period from receipt of our written reasons in which Mr Anelka has right of appeal against this decision, if no appeal is lodged during that period, or
b. Written notification to The FA of any decision by Mr Anelka not to appeal, if served prior to the expiry of period for appealing, or
c. The outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Anelka against this decision, if an appeal is lodged during the period for appealing.
[/article]
Aww it brings a tear to my eye to see that reasoning which formed the first seeds of me becoming a terrifyingly unbeatable advocate. Poor the Anelka.
He was doing a bit of the old John McCirick tic tac. He's involved in betting scams and was sending a signal to a guy in the crowd.
He does have a nasty teutonic look about him there.
He'd just scored and did it as his goal celebration. After people clicked what he'd done, his lame excuse was 'errrr my goal celebration was me brushing dust off my shoulder' (!!!!!). And people went 'oh, ok then'. And that was that!!
Consistent FA obviously gave him no punishment. A bit like how they gave Suarez and Terry the same ban, and how they gave Defoe and Suarez the same ban for 'biting'.
I knew the context but is he meant to have neo-nazi sympathies or something or did he have a clue what he was doing?
Why is it strange?
Terry was guilty of racism though wasn't he?
LTW - I respect your views. But I have lived enough around the world to know that far too often the one thing that separates most free societies from those that aren't is the attitude to freedom of expression. Soon after trying to 'ban' this gesture you saw an appauling explosion of photos outside jewish sites. More worryingly it sets a trend of further inhibitions on what we say, whether they be right or wrong. Idiotic ideas need to be faced head on and their 'wrongness' revealed for what it is - banning things is the lazy approach which also attracts more idiots.
Sir, this is wrong. This came well before Anelka's gesture. You think this is new? This has been going on for years ... Look at his Dieudonne's rap sheet in France ...
The Quenelle is not banned in this country. People who used it ie Anelka have been punished for bringing it into sport.
But let's follow your free society thing. Let's all draw cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and see what the result is. It's an anti Semitic gesture, and Anelka has been rightly banned for using it.
Let's remember, Anelka is a Muslim who used a gesture that is widely known as an anti Semitic gesture. So either he's fucking stupid, or he's a snidey little twat who tried to hide behind the true meaning of the gesture.
I wonder if this had been an anti Muslim gesture, would their have been effigies burned in various hysterical countries, with Fatwahs laid down for Anelka. Knowing what the reaction normally is, I'd say yes.
I'm with LTW on this one. And free speech is what Anelka used. We're not stopping free speech, we're stopping idiots bringing stupid fucking crap into sport.
respect your views. but I passionately believe in expressing yourself in whatever fashion you want so long as you do not incite imminent violence.
don't care if its anti-muslim, anti-jew anti-reason - ideas need to be battled through dialogue not the thought police. once we create limits we slowly give fascists a foothold.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
