Indeed.
Anyway we know from experience that he needs a photo of him smiling alongside a black kid to prove he's not racist.
There's more than one definition of the word, though. I'm not sure... I think the meaning of the insult is probably well enough understood that you can hold a considered opinion of whether someone is one or not. But in this context, just dished out thoughtlessly as abuse, it's clearly not an opinion, whether combined with black or not.
I don't get why bringing colour in it not only elevates the status of the offence amongst moral arbiters, but also gets the law involved. It's kinda pathetic. I think it demeans black people more that the state feels the need to protect them from name calling, over and above name calling for any other physical attribute or cultural heritage anyone might have, than the likes of Terry calling them those names.
Where have I heard that before 🙄Don't quite understand the need for character witnesses. The case isn't to determine if he's racist, just if he used a racial slur. Right?
Well I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that the people presiding over the case know every possible meaning of the word .... but that is not how the law tends to look at it. And who is to say who is and who isn't a 'cunt' when in fact that is an opinion without a legal definition ? Therefore again we are back to a literal interpretation and it's a slur.
Oh fuck right off. Its words. And its not just black players who have rights. What about Zidane? A joke about his sister? Boom!
Your willingness to "take 'em out" means you've allowed yourself to be dragged down to their level. Congratulations.