Poll [Poll] Firmino - Holgate incident update
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Prefix for Poll Threads
- Status
I still think the end of puta could sound like the end of n****r, depending on accent. But that's clearly insane me, assuming the best in people.
But there you go. The magic of not immediately assuming someone is a lying cunt over a matter of great collective importance, when he's previously shown no evidence on a football pitch that he was one.
But there you go. The magic of not immediately assuming someone is a lying cunt over a matter of great collective importance, when he's previously shown no evidence on a football pitch that he was one.
It's a good question, but I actually suspect that most people looking at this will see exactly what's behind the FA's equivocation on the subject, hence also that Firmino's reputation won't actually suffer, except in what pass for the "minds" of a few oafs trying to wind him up from the stands.
You can't be pronouncing it right.
Unless you mean the last syllable. Well then Holgate should have complained that he thought he hear the syllable "er" and thinks that what proceeded it was "nigg". But that wasn't his complaint, he says he heard the whole shebang, and there is no way he could genuinely make such a mistake unless he is partially deaf or something.
I suspect that word "collective" encapsulates the problem here. You, and apparently the FA, are willing to sacrifice fair and just treatment of individuals in order to prioritise the wider cause of anti-racism, but it's a totally false dichotomy. Without either one, the other is meaningless.
What would solve that dichotomy is if Firmino can speak directly with Holgate, clear the air about the push, the reaction, shake hands, and move on. That can never happen in football precisely because of the FA, you have to keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer handle it just to avoid a three month ban for trying to explain the truth to them. I would guess this is also why Holgate had to maintain his lie to the end, lest he be banned himself.
The one question FA should ask Holgate is why anyone would call him a crazy son of a bitch or worse in the first place... why would anyone abuse him at all?
Ridiculous assertion against me Jules, that can quite rightly fuck off.
I think it is fair. As we can't prove holgate didn't hear that, And I'm treating firmino as an individual, and same as holgate. Both innocent. I didn't go in to it 5 minutes after the incident like yourself screaming he's a liar.
Firmino being innocent doesn't change the fact that holgate doesn't think he lied.
And for the people who believe holgate or see the fa taking action against someone raising a PERCEIVED racist action, that will harm the cause.
End of the day, you think within 5 second window he's decided to try and get a player banned, whereas I think he misheard
That's it. End.
In fairness I don't think the FA said Firmino was innocent. More like we don't have the evidence to prove him guilty. On the other hand they went out of their way to emphasise that Holdgate was genuire in his assertion.
Fabs, you gave "a matter of great collective importance" priority over the question of whether Firmino was wrongly accused. It's there in your own post.
And if you trouble to look back over the thread you'll find I wasn't the first to say I suspect Holgate's a liar, so you can stick the "screaming within 5 minutes" bit where The Lying Rag don't shine.
And if you trouble to look back over the thread you'll find I wasn't the first to say I suspect Holgate's a liar, so you can stick the "screaming within 5 minutes" bit where The Lying Rag don't shine.
Which is Fabio's point. why CAN'T Holgate be genuine in his assertion?
If they vindicate Bobby , it infers Holgate either rescinded his allegation and apologised for mishearing or the FA have to assume it was an improper allegation from the off.
This is the FA were speaking about, hardly virtuous and very much so needing to self-presevate post Aluko etc etc
If they vindicate Bobby , it infers Holgate either rescinded his allegation and apologised for mishearing or the FA have to assume it was an improper allegation from the off.
This is the FA were speaking about, hardly virtuous and very much so needing to self-presevate post Aluko etc etc
None of that comes even close to justifying denying Firmino the vindication he deserves after a serious allegation against him has been found to lack any evidence, and suggesting otherwise is just the kind of willingness to deny him fair treatment in the interests of a wider issue that Fabio's earlier post - and the FA's conduct of this whole thing - demonstrate. Holgate should have been investigated to the same extent as Firmino was, and would have been if the process had been even-handed as such processes should be. The fact that he wasn't tells its own story.
People are really missing the point, whatever your thoughts are on if Holgate bullshitted (it's plausible, because there was a precedent South American cultural difference previously). The real point and issue is whether the FA have taken an unnecessary side towards Holgate. They insinuated that Firmino did wrong but there was insufficient evidence to prove it, while concluding that during the same clouded event, Holgate irrefutably misheard and intended no malice. While simultaneously escaping punishment for actual malice.
It's pointless arguing about whether he tried to pull a fast one, because we'll never know. But those scoffing at the idea that he could have used it to divert attention from his rash push, are as in the dark as those (if any) who think he did.
He got away with it big time, either way.
It's pointless arguing about whether he tried to pull a fast one, because we'll never know. But those scoffing at the idea that he could have used it to divert attention from his rash push, are as in the dark as those (if any) who think he did.
He got away with it big time, either way.
There were 12 witnesses whereas majority probably his own teammates. The ref stood in between as it all happened. Lipreaders and other experts has done through this over 7 weeks and I can assure you the slightest evidence of the letter N alone being said would have lead to a conviction by these clowns. When none of the above backed up his "genuin mishearing" I don't believe for a second he misheard anything. The cunt wanted to place himself as the victim in a situation he should have received pumishment, and he succeeded.
I honestly think only yourself and JJ are missing the point here.
JJ wants some eye for an eye retribution bullshit whilst also suggesting conspiracy X is going on at the FA whilst you expect the AGGRIEVED party to apologise / the FA to offer some levity between the accusor and accused - they havent cleafed Firminos name, there was no FA apology to Firmino they are clearly holding Holgates version in equal waiting to Firminos given a) thats life b) its the FA + Racism C) its the Fucking FA here.
Get over it
JJ wants some eye for an eye retribution bullshit whilst also suggesting conspiracy X is going on at the FA whilst you expect the AGGRIEVED party to apologise / the FA to offer some levity between the accusor and accused - they havent cleafed Firminos name, there was no FA apology to Firmino they are clearly holding Holgates version in equal waiting to Firminos given a) thats life b) its the FA + Racism C) its the Fucking FA here.
Get over it
It's disgraceful the push hasn't been investigated publicly. But I reckon they did look at it, decided it would be a booking, and thought no more about it
Something I'm massively against, as it was a red to me, and most definitely dangerous play
That "eye for an eye" stuff really is a load of utter cowflop. Treating both parties the same is, or should be, central to any reputable complaint investigation process, and the clear disparity between what Holgate claimed he heard and what Firmino was proven to have said should have rung warning bells in any such process.
I'd answer, or possibly even agree with, the rest of the post if I could actually decipher it.
I'm 100% with Fabio on this.
A simple case of misheard that he probably still thinks he heard.
Move on.
The main thing is he didn't get a ban.
A simple case of misheard that he probably still thinks he heard.
Move on.
The main thing is he didn't get a ban.
From what I have seen, Firmino has not been proven to have said anything, just that it has not been proven he used racist language. We do not and will not know what he said when he was not on camera unless the FA decode to release the other footage, which won't happen - even if it did we can deduce it is inconclusive, if we believe the FA statement.
So now people complain the FA didn't say he is innocent, but rather that the case is unproven ... Well that is exactly what a Not Guilty verdict means in a court of law, which is why it is called 'Not Guilty' rather than 'Innocent'. And, yes, I know this isn't a court of law and the burden of proof isn't the same, but the analogy stands.
The only anomaly is that the FA state categorically that Holgate did not lie ... that, I think, is a measured move so as not to discourage others reporting racism in the future. If they didn't do that victims of racism could expect to be punished if they report abuse and it is not proven. I think that is a pragmatic approach that may not fall in the 100% 'fair' category in a black & white world, but does make sense from a bigger picture point of view
With respect, little of that is factually correct.
1. As explained on the previous page of this thread, we do now know what Firmino said. It has been established that his actual words were "Ce ta louco (twice), filho da puta". To confirm, there's no racist content in those words, which translate as "Are you crazy, you son of a bitch".
2. It's simply wrong to say a "Not Guilty" verdict means "unproven" - a "Not Guilty" verdict means "not guilty", no more, no less. To underline the point, in Scottish law there's actually a separate "Unproven" verdict. But in any case: no, the analogy doesn't stand, precisely because the burden of proof is different as you acknowledge.
3. It's equally wrong simply to say that victims of racism "could expect to be punished" if they reported abuse and it wasn't proven. Complainants could, and should, expect to be punished if their accusations were shown to have been knowingly untrue, but not otherwise. Each case should be looked at on its own merits.
1. As explained on the previous page of this thread, we do now know what Firmino said. It has been established that his actual words were "Ce ta louco (twice), filho da puta". To confirm, there's no racist content in those words, which translate as "Are you crazy, you son of a bitch".
2. It's simply wrong to say a "Not Guilty" verdict means "unproven" - a "Not Guilty" verdict means "not guilty", no more, no less. To underline the point, in Scottish law there's actually a separate "Unproven" verdict. But in any case: no, the analogy doesn't stand, precisely because the burden of proof is different as you acknowledge.
3. It's equally wrong simply to say that victims of racism "could expect to be punished" if they reported abuse and it wasn't proven. Complainants could, and should, expect to be punished if their accusations were shown to have been knowingly untrue, but not otherwise. Each case should be looked at on its own merits.
Last edited:
I think he made the whole thing up. You can’t just mishear something THAT specific and convenient. If he’s turned to Firmino and said “what the fuck does turkey roller skates mean?” I could believe it because that’s what it’s like to mishear things.
He'll be booed anyway. He's a bitter
Which is fair, if it's for those reasons
Move on? No one knows what the fuck happened, your version is as irrelevant as anyone elses.
And I actually agree with alot of what Fabio has said and the general point. I don't necessarily think he "mishead" something, the believable version of events would be that he got upset that Firmino ranted at him in Portuguese and Holgate was frustrated he didn't know what was being said, so reacted the way he did. That's more plausible than misinterpreting something that sounds nothing like ni**er.
Like I said, we'll never know, but read back the FA press release again, the wording suggests they didn't have the evidence to convict, it doesn't absolve Firmino of the accusation, yet it states that they don't believe Holgate deliberately lied. I'm not sure they could have reached either point satisfactorily and only a fucking idiot (or someone being cynical for the sake of some stupid "too cool for school" type bollocks) would think it's a fair or transparent concluding statement.
More like begrudgingly found not guilty. That's the message the FA statement sends out, which is no surprise to anyone.
Yup it's just conjecture really
Ultimately the fa don't want to be seen soft on racism or racism allegations, and unfortunately our bobby has been made to look a bit shit
Yep, scapegoat.
And as part of the whole "Kick" campaign, they've basically not wanted to tackle the idea of someone getting an accusation wrong, they didn't address that point at all or try to outline a way of talking about the notion of a misinterpretation and how that reflects on the accused party. Mud sticks and all that. They've done nothing to quash that, but quickly absolved Holgate because, being the shithouses they are, they didn't want to approach the subject because it's something they couldn't prove. The hypocrisy being that they also couldn't prove Firmino was a racist, but chose to insinuate there was no smoke without fire anyway. The benefit of the doubt went to the accuser, which sends out the wrong message for the integrity of the campaign.
Last edited:
If the counterpart was Harry Kane or another native star, they would have worded it differently and left no doubt that he was clear of all assucations. Hence FA are actually being racists in this case were they want to make some stand against racism.
- Status
