Coco ban.

[Rev72]

Rev - only criminal cases are decided beyond reasonable doubt civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities so nothing strange in that

Right..thanks for pointing that out.

[Billyni]

Its probably a loada bollox

[Francewhite]

Support? For what for Christ's sake? Bunch of bl00dy snowflakes! https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/51750239

[Tichi1]

Spot on fella, You ever hear a bunch of black lads talking to each other? the N word seems okay if used among peers.. or so it seems - hear It first hand at the gym fairly regularly... not to mention the lyrics in most Rap music.....Racist misogenistic homophobic to say the least in most of it.

Leko seems to be more upset about an insult thrown at him during a "heat of the moment" argument than he is about having a season ending injury FFS!

[george_kaplan]

What Kiko should have said right from the off is; during the insults exchanged he called him a greasy Spanish ******* etc, etc. Then got a bunch of players who heard absolutely nothing as witnesses! Then “probably” it would have been sorted there and then, and everyone could get on with playing, no feelings hurt and allegedly become best friends ... happy ever after!

Am I accusing folk here as telling porkies.......is okay?!! I need therapy.

[Jezleeds]

Spot on fella, You ever hear a bunch of black lads talking to each other? the N word seems okay if used among peers.. or so it seems - hear It first hand at the gym fairly regularly... not to mention the lyrics in most Rap music.....Racist misogenistic homophobic to say the least in most of it.

Leko seems to be more upset about an insult thrown at him during a "heat of the moment" argument than he is about having a season ending injury FFS!

'Using it amongst peers' is a strategy used by many groups who perceive themselves to be victims of abuse.

Gay people often use the word 'poof'; black people 'ni gger', Asian people 'Paki' - the idea being that 'reclaiming' or 'claiming' the word means it is no longer offensive and takes the power away from those using it in an abusive way.

So using it amongst peers is very different to it being used by someone abusively.

[WTF11]

'Using it amongst peers' is a strategy used by many groups who perceive themselves to be victims of abuse.

Gay people often use the word 'poof'; black people 'ni gger', Asian people 'Paki' - the idea being that 'reclaiming' or 'claiming' the word means it is no longer offensive and takes the power away from those using it in an abusive way.

So using it amongst peers is very different to it being used by someone abusively.

Ok, but if (I know, big "if") it's used by someone not understanding its pejorative nature, simply knowing it indicates somebody is black, I.e. I tell someone new to English that blacks are all n*****s, and he says to a black, "hey you're a n*****r", is that abusive use if the word, or ignorance of context?

[Rev72]

Its probably a loada bollox

I that is a 'probability' billy.

[Jezleeds]

Ok, but if (I know, big "if") it's used by someone not understanding its pejorative nature, simply knowing it indicates somebody is black, I.e. I tell someone new to English that blacks are all n*****s, and he says to a black, "hey you're a n*****r", is that abusive use if the word, or ignorance of context?

So my understanding is that he hasn't denied using the f word and the n word towards the Charlton player? I may be wrong, but given the defence offered, it seems he is admitting doing it, just saying he didn't understand it was a problem?

But this defence that somebody who has lived his full life in western society and culture, in an environment where everybody is listening to modern music, where he will have been very aware of history and current affairs around race and the ongoing battle against racism of any type in both society and crucially, in a very high profile way in his working environment, can get to the age of 33 or whatever he is, and claim not to understand the meaning of the word he is alleged to have used, and to use it anyway, is bizarre and lacking in intelligence at the very least. Clearly the FA interpreted it as racist.

Additionally, he is an adult and adults (mostly) understand not to use words that they claim to not understand.

In claiming not to understand a word that is known to be offensive worldwide he is claiming stupidity.

I dunno the truth of all this, but the evidence seems to be that he has said it, but doesn't want to admit to knowing what it meant when he did say it.

Generally, in the football sense, i have to say the guy comes across to me as an arrogant individual who doesn't learn from his many mistakes - his 'defence' of this case just seems to be an extension of the characteristics that he's shown from day one with us - a huge ego, an unwillingness to learn and work hard to improve, an absence of humility and a self-belief that defies reality and seems to believe that if he does something it's because he's allowed to do it - like jumping over the ball as it heads into our net, or flapping around and claiming people are fouling him when actually it's about him not having the required skill level to catch a ball on many occasions.

To answer the question (in the end!) - ignorance is no defence. And that applies to Coco in both football and linguistic terms in my opinion.

[WTF11]

So my understanding is that he hasn't denied using the f word and the n word towards the Charlton player? I may be wrong, but given the defence offered, it seems he is admitting doing it, just saying he didn't understand it was a problem?

But this defence that somebody who has lived his full life in western society and culture, in an environment where everybody is listening to modern music, where he will have been very aware of history and current affairs around race and the ongoing battle against racism of any type in both society and crucially, in a very high profile way in his working environment, can get to the age of 33 or whatever he is, and claim not to understand the meaning of the word he is alleged to have used, and to use it anyway, is bizarre and lacking in intelligence at the very least. Clearly the FA interpreted it as racist.

Additionally, he is an adult and adults (mostly) understand not to use words that they claim to not understand.

In claiming not to understand a word that is known to be offensive worldwide he is claiming stupidity.

I dunno the truth of all this, but the evidence seems to be that he has said it, but doesn't want to admit to knowing what it meant when he did say it.

Generally, in the football sense, i have to say the guy comes across to me as an arrogant individual who doesn't learn from his many mistakes - his 'defence' of this case just seems to be an extension of the characteristics that he's shown from day one with us - a huge ego, an unwillingness to learn and work hard to improve, an absence of humility and a self-belief that defies reality and seems to believe that if he does something it's because he's allowed to do it - like jumping over the ball as it heads into our net, or flapping around and claiming people are fouling him when actually it's about him not having the required skill level to catch a ball on many occasions.

To answer the question (in the end!) - ignorance is no defence. And that applies to Coco in both football and linguistic terms in my opinion.

Your not a fan then?😏

Tbh I agree with all your points, just wondered if there any who thought the defence (which you summarised very well by the way!) was credible.