Walter Bishop Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For a Tweet!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2812993/Rio-Ferdinand-suspended-three-games-FA-following-misconduct-charge-sket-tweet.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabyarsebiscuit Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For a Tweet!!! http://www.dailymail...sket-tweet.html Rio Ferdinand is scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonic Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 one of the reasons i deleted twitter i could imagine signing in one night after drinkin or somethin and maybe sayin somethin inappropriate only to be locked up for it not worth it imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_R Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For a 'your mum' joke. Bit of a farse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Comes across as a complete fud, so for that reason I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He is crap, so I doubt QPR will miss him. The fuss and the punishment does seem over the top, though. I am not even convinced it should be a punishable offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noddy1874 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Thick footballers & Twitter is a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
151 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 the punishment shouldnt translate onto the football pitch. the fine is enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For a 'your mum' joke. Bit of a farse Think it's the sket remark he's been done more for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 anyone explain 'sket' please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 anyone explain 'sket' please? Supposedly a Caribbean term for a w***e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 QPR probably better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tams bird Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 What has it to do with his work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:shitwine: Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Genuinely one of the thickest men in football. A tremendous defender in his prime, but he is clearly a complete idiot. That seems a pretty ineffective fine for someone who I'd imagine makes at least 4 times that a week. Mind you, the tweet is pretty inoffensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notts1874 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 anyone explain 'sket' please? I asked the same question myself. Seems I was in the minority by not knowing. Either that or most folk Googled it and then decided to be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noddy1874 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It's like fining me or you ?2.50. Utterly pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Nowt wrong with the tweet. 3 match ban for that??? Game is a busted flush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It's like fining me or you ?2.50. Utterly pointless. Also over the top, for the 'crime'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavrentiy Beria Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He seems to be a media whore, problem is he aint very bright . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamdub Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Is not blessed in the intellectual department, but is a very large 'female's front bottom'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Anyone that forgets to attend a statutory drug test is not the sharpest tool in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHO Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I concur with the notion that he seems to suffer under the delusion that he has some intelligence and is a media personality. Personally I think he is just a thick as s**t fud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He basically responded by saying "your mother is a wh***" but in a slightly cleverer way. If I responded like that to a customer at my work on Twitter (whilst identifying myself as an employee of said company), I would be sacked. Football is a very different world in terms of the way the players are expected to put up with abuse, so I wouldn't suggest he should be sacked in this case but he is clearly in the wrong. I reckon the FA are annoyed because he didn't answer the charge and it would have just been the fine if he had apologised early on. I think the ban has come in to play for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Rio Ferdinand is scum. Thick, and full of his own self-importance, but he's hardly scum. Does a lot of very good work with under-privileged kids, both at home and abroad, does more than his share to eradicate racism from the game and i'm sure is either a UNICEF or Water Aid ambassador. Problem is that all gets swallowed up because of daft things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Anyone that forgets to attend a statutory drug test is not the sharpest tool in the box. forgets....mmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He's a ramjet. If this is unfair then at least it's happened to a complete weapon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Haggis Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Three game ban for being able to use the internet. ?25k fine just for being a bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canada Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Not a fan but the punishment is way over the top. In fact I'd go so far as saying there shouldn't have been a punishment at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Ban is fairly meaningless tbh. He's already been dropped after both being in poor form and telling a journo that he was retiring in January anyway. QPR got wind of the comment and dropped him. He probably wouldn't play again anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19/5HMFC12 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Even though it seems a bit harsh just imagine a football association actually investigating an incident and then actually punishing the player. They didn't even forget about it for a few months. It's almost unthinkable up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Supposedly a Caribbean term for a w***e. I had to google sket to find out what w***e was. the swear filter does not allow the word "prostitute"? sorry whore The world has truly gone mad. It matters not what you say or write as there is always someone who will be offended by it and that makes you a bad bad person and you must be punished. In the old days a swift kick in the stanes used to suffice. Now if you call someone a stane you end up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I asked the same question myself. Seems I was in the minority by not knowing. Either that or most folk Googled it and then decided to be offended. Despite my post saying it wasn't for stating 'yer mum' and was for the 'sket' remark. I had no idea what it meant and simply read the story which explained. Do I think it's (ban) excessive? Too right. Especially when you've got Uefa giving out 2 game bans to teams for racism. Ok he should lead by example but I don't think he should have been banned at all. If someone were to make a remark about the holocaust, which only Jewish people knew the meaning of. Does that mean people shouldn't have a right to be shocked or offended? Just because people don't know it's connotations doesn't necessarily mean they can't or shouldn't be offended or even think it's wrong. Very silly by Rio and a fine would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Thick, and full of his own self-importance, but he's hardly scum. Does a lot of very good work with under-privileged kids, both at home and abroad, does more than his share to eradicate racism from the game and i'm sure is either a UNICEF or Water Aid ambassador. Problem is that all gets swallowed up because of daft things like this. And what is the difference between calling someone a w***e on Twitter and scum on an message board? Where does this policing of words actually stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Where does this policing of words actually stop? When you're not a role model to millions of people, employed by an organisation doing everything to shake off it's sexist image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo89 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 When you're not a role model to millions of people, employed by an organisation doing everything to shake off it's sexist image? This. It's the role mode aspect that is most important here. As many people have pointed out on this thread, you really have to google what It means which is precisely what many of his young Twitter followers have probably done. It will be the new 'word' in the playground come this Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 When you're not a role model to millions of people, employed by an organisation doing everything to shake off it's sexist image? He is not employed as a role model, he is a professional athlete, so why deduct his wages? Surely we areall role models in our own small ways so the same should apply to what we say. And, as Bert le Clos mentioned, he does a hell of a lot of charitable work which is now undermined by one tweet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 He is not employed as a role model, he is a professional athlete, so why deduct his wages? Surely we areall role models in our own small ways so the same should apply to what we say. And, as Bert le Clos mentioned, he does a hell of a lot of charitable work which is now undermined by one tweet? The same does apply to what we say. The difference is, we are practically invisible when we post on social media because we are not famous. If I was taken on as an employee of Hearts in the commercial dept and became well known due to a combination of press releases, posting on here and having a big Twitter following among Jambos, I would need to watch what I said. And if someone tweeted me to say that Hearts needed some new faces in the commercial dept I would not reply by saying "let's get yer maw in, she ken's ae'body from her time on the street #hoor And if I did I'd expect some comeback from Ann Budge and quite possibly the SFA. The charity work is irrelevant. I didn't call him a dick or anything. I don't dislike the guy. Your charity work should have no bearing how you are punished for your conduct in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo_Jarman Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The punishment isn't really for the tweet, it's for failing to answer the charge. Remember, he has previous with "forgetting" important dates with football authority figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Khali Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 He's been merked mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Despite my post saying it wasn't for stating 'yer mum' and was for the 'sket' remark. I had no idea what it meant and simply read the story which explained. Do I think it's (ban) excessive? Too right. Especially when you've got Uefa giving out 2 game bans to teams for racism. Ok he should lead by example but I don't think he should have been banned at all. If someone were to make a remark about the holocaust, which only Jewish people knew the meaning of. Does that mean people shouldn't have a right to be shocked or offended? Just because people don't know it's connotations doesn't necessarily mean they can't or shouldn't be offended or even think it's wrong. Very silly by Rio and a fine would suffice. Concentrating on the bit in bold. I am not sure I have understood exactly what you are trying to say here but. If you hear, see and or read something that you do not understand how can you be offended by it? it strikes me as an impossibility. You can surely only be offended by the fact that you are unable to understand the content, so you are offended of yourself and nothing more. As I have said I may have not understood the sentence. However I do reserve the right to be offended by it and also think it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Concentrating on the bit in bold. I am not sure I have understood exactly what you are trying to say here but. If you hear, see and or read something that you do not understand how can you be offended by it? it strikes me as an impossibility. You can surely only be offended by the fact that you are unable to understand the content, so you are offended of yourself and nothing more. As I have said I may have not understood the sentence. However I do reserve the right to be offended by it and also think it is wrong. I was saying shocked or offended however I didn't really explain that it could essentially cover thinking it was wrong. I read it, I didn't understand it however once explained I immediately thought it was wrong and a very silly remark. I guess the point I was trying to put across was that just because you initially don't understand something it shouldn't mean you aren't entitled to change your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Concentrating on the bit in bold. I am not sure I have understood exactly what you are trying to say here but. If you hear, see and or read something that you do not understand how can you be offended by it? it strikes me as an impossibility. You can surely only be offended by the fact that you are unable to understand the content, so you are offended of yourself and nothing more. As I have said I may have not understood the sentence. However I do reserve the right to be offended by it and also think it is wrong. If someone called you a ^^^^ in Italian you probably wouldn't understand but it's still offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I was saying shocked or offended however I didn't really explain that it could essentially cover thinking it was wrong. I read it, I didn't understand it however once explained I immediately thought it was wrong and a very silly remark. I guess the point I was trying to put across was that just because you initially don't understand something it shouldn't mean you aren't entitled to change your view. Cool and it certainly makes a change from me not having a scooby what is going on, which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Cool and it certainly makes a change from me not having a scooby what is going on, which is nice. Sometimes it's better when you don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 If someone called you a ^^^^ in Italian you probably wouldn't understand but it's still offensive. Offensive to someone yes. However if I did not undestand the meaning of the word and it was said in perhaps a nice smiley pleasant way how on earth could I deem it offensive and therefore be offended by it? I can just picture me in court being cross-examined. So 7628mm you were deeply offended by the comment by my client were you? Yes absolutely! So 7628mm please can you tell me what the word that offended you meant? Absolutely no, I have no idea at all what the word means. However I do have the right to be royally offended if I feel like OK. No furhter questions my lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5,042
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.