Tom Pope

[thevoid]

Jul 25, 2020 9:04:55 GMT leicspotter said:

Jul 25, 2020 8:00:02 GMT RedandWhite90 said:

With pleasure. The wording of his tweet was as follows,

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

This was in response to being asked, "Predict the WWIII result"

Now firstly it is important to remember that as part of his charge it was found that he had been watching hundreds of conspiracy theory videos surrounding 9/11 and predictions on invasions of 4 other countries and believed the Rothschilds banking business had somehow funded these attacks.

A quick bit of research will show you that this type of material surrounding Jewish bankers was heavily used in 1930's German propoganda in the lead up to mass genocide of 6m Jews.

Now economical anti-semitism, which for my money is exactly what this is and will more than likely be due to ignorance than a deliberate attempt to 'preach' has been described best by an American author called Gerald Krefertz.

"Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as Jews "control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses - of the community, of the country, of the world". He gives as illustrations many slurs and proverbs, in several different languages, suggesting that Jews are stingy, greedy, miserly, or aggressive bargainers. Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being "scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted", but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle and upper classes in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were "clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate" world finances."

Now finally the following is from the IHRA* (Internation Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) which, as an extension to its definition on anti-semitism also highlight this key point,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

*you may recall this being the statement(s) that Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to recognising as part of his Labour Leadership that was eventually approved.

So, in summary Tom's statement would have been in breach of the IHRA statement describing anti-semitism whereby his ignorance of a Jewish bank ending up in control of all world banks followimg a ficitonal WW3.

It is a tried and tested form of anti-semitism at worst or ignorance at best. My personal opinion is the latter when it comes to Tom Pope, but the charge is right, the punishment is right but he needs educating also.

Apologies for the long read but it can be a complex and complicated issue and I hope this explains why.

I think the above clearly explains why it is dangerous to take the "sound bite" headlines and social media 'shorts' as context for an opinion.

On the face of it, based on the headlines and Tom Pope's (known?) perceived lack of brain power, then it is just a storm in a tea cup. Poor Tom Pope, just another thick footballer being badly treated.

Dig deeper, understand just how much research went into his comments, then it looks far worse, hence the charge and verdict I would say.

It wasn't just an off the cuff remark, or attempt at humour, it was quite a thought out response based on hours of watching material on line. Pope may be an idiot, but he is a well researched idiot.

People often fall foul on Twitter for re-tweeting material they receive without really understanding what it is, where it comes from...seemingly they believe it 'cos it's on Twitter...dangerous and naive

Think twice before you press send!

With regard to your penultimate paragraph, one of those people is in the Shadow Cabinet 🤦

[leicspotter]

Jul 25, 2020 9:09:21 GMT thevoid said:

Jul 25, 2020 9:04:55 GMT leicspotter said:

I think the above clearly explains why it is dangerous to take the "sound bite" headlines and social media 'shorts' as context for an opinion.

On the face of it, based on the headlines and Tom Pope's (known?) perceived lack of brain power, then it is just a storm in a tea cup. Poor Tom Pope, just another thick footballer being badly treated.

Dig deeper, understand just how much research went into his comments, then it looks far worse, hence the charge and verdict I would say.

It wasn't just an off the cuff remark, or attempt at humour, it was quite a thought out response based on hours of watching material on line. Pope may be an idiot, but he is a well researched idiot.

People often fall foul on Twitter for re-tweeting material they receive without really understanding what it is, where it comes from...seemingly they believe it 'cos it's on Twitter...dangerous and naive

Think twice before you press send!

With regard to your penultimate paragraph, one of those people is in the Shadow Cabinet 🤦

Indeed, it isn't just *"thick footballers" who fall foul of this

* clearly I don't think all footballers are thick

Someone else in trouble...not a footballer...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53536471

[RedandWhite90]

Jul 25, 2020 9:04:55 GMT leicspotter said:

Jul 25, 2020 8:00:02 GMT RedandWhite90 said:

With pleasure. The wording of his tweet was as follows,

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

This was in response to being asked, "Predict the WWIII result"

Now firstly it is important to remember that as part of his charge it was found that he had been watching hundreds of conspiracy theory videos surrounding 9/11 and predictions on invasions of 4 other countries and believed the Rothschilds banking business had somehow funded these attacks.

A quick bit of research will show you that this type of material surrounding Jewish bankers was heavily used in 1930's German propoganda in the lead up to mass genocide of 6m Jews.

Now economical anti-semitism, which for my money is exactly what this is and will more than likely be due to ignorance than a deliberate attempt to 'preach' has been described best by an American author called Gerald Krefertz.

"Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as Jews "control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses - of the community, of the country, of the world". He gives as illustrations many slurs and proverbs, in several different languages, suggesting that Jews are stingy, greedy, miserly, or aggressive bargainers. Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being "scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted", but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle and upper classes in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were "clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate" world finances."

Now finally the following is from the IHRA* (Internation Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) which, as an extension to its definition on anti-semitism also highlight this key point,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

*you may recall this being the statement(s) that Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to recognising as part of his Labour Leadership that was eventually approved.

So, in summary Tom's statement would have been in breach of the IHRA statement describing anti-semitism whereby his ignorance of a Jewish bank ending up in control of all world banks followimg a ficitonal WW3.

It is a tried and tested form of anti-semitism at worst or ignorance at best. My personal opinion is the latter when it comes to Tom Pope, but the charge is right, the punishment is right but he needs educating also.

Apologies for the long read but it can be a complex and complicated issue and I hope this explains why.

I think the above clearly explains why it is dangerous to take the "sound bite" headlines and social media 'shorts' as context for an opinion.

On the face of it, based on the headlines and Tom Pope's (known?) perceived lack of brain power, then it is just a storm in a tea cup. Poor Tom Pope, just another thick footballer being badly treated.

Dig deeper, understand just how much research went into his comments, then it looks far worse, hence the charge and verdict I would say.

It wasn't just an off the cuff remark, or attempt at humour, it was quite a thought out response based on hours of watching material on line. Pope may be an idiot, but he is a well researched idiot.

People often fall foul on Twitter for re-tweeting material they receive without really understanding what it is, where it comes from...seemingly they believe it 'cos it's on Twitter...dangerous and naive

Think twice before you press send!

That is a fantastic addition to my post Leics.

It is also hugely important to remember that anti-semitism is hidden much more easily than other forms of racism and without education people can easily fall into the trap of retweeting/sharing this horrible rhetoric.

[thevoid]

Jul 25, 2020 9:22:12 GMT leicspotter said:

Jul 25, 2020 9:09:21 GMT thevoid said:

With regard to your penultimate paragraph, one of those people is in the Shadow Cabinet 🤦

Indeed, it isn't just *"thick footballers" who fall foul of this

* clearly I don't think all footballers are thick

Someone else in trouble...not a footballer...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53536471

Speaking of grime artists, didn't Stormzy make some homophobic tweets that were conveniently swept under the carpet because he was banging the Corbyn drum?

If he had a different political affiliation, no doubt a torch-wielding mob led by Sir Owen of Jones would have been on his case!

[OldStokie]

This is the second time I've written a long appraisal of what gone on with Tom Pope, and the second time I've deleted it before posting. Why? A nogger messageboard is not the right place to discuss anti-semitism. Everything is contextual, but I'll be buggered if I'll play devil's advocate for a thick sod like Popey.

OS.

[sheds1862]

The bloke is clearly as think as a plank of wood and hasn't learnt his lesson.

But it's not beyond probability that he hadn't a clue about the Jewish aspects of his tweets. Not clever enough.

Compare this to the Nazi salute by Wayne Hennessy who incredibly pleaded that he had no knowledge of the history of the salute and was not charged by the FA

Would a 10 year old know about the Rothschild dynasty, unlikely.
Would a 10 year old know what a Nazi salute was, quite possibly.

Consistency is needed by The FA whether it's a Premier League player or a League 2 player.

[matelot1996]

He thinks He is edgy or a comedian. He is neither. He is a bit of a juvenille, attention-seeking, bell-end.

[Squeekster]

It's a load of crap and although Pope does say some stupid things on twitter this in my opinion doesn't warrant the punishment and also as a 50 year I have heard of the name Rothchilds I wouldn't have a clue of what where who or what the hell they are about! I did go to Maryhill comp though so that might explain a few things.

[billc]

Pope makes anti semitic comment

That's Vatican 2 comprehensively undermined then.

[toppercorner]

Jul 25, 2020 10:31:59 GMT thevoid said:

Jul 25, 2020 9:22:12 GMT leicspotter said:

Indeed, it isn't just *"thick footballers" who fall foul of this

* clearly I don't think all footballers are thick

Someone else in trouble...not a footballer...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53536471

Speaking of grime artists, didn't Stormzy make some homophobic tweets that were conveniently swept under the carpet because he was banging the Corbyn drum?

If he had a different political affiliation, no doubt a torch-wielding mob led by Sir Owen of Jones would have been on his case!

Stormzy did have quite a few questionnable tweets. He has however, acknowledged them as wrong and publicly stated that he has kept them up on his page to remind him of how stupid he was when younger, and to still allow people to comment on those tweets, thereby constantly getting daily updates from the public on his outdated views from the past,and to make sure he doesn't fall back into such a mindset

[toppercorner]

Jul 24, 2020 22:19:37 GMT prestwichpotter said:

When he's not getting pissed in the Sneyd Arms he spends his time looking at 9/11 conspiracy theories it seems.....

the guardian article is a funny one. 

It's not defending him, but by printing his views and stance on the matter in detail, it's arguably been seen more times in MSM that on his twitter.

[scfcrmagic]

Who set the homework question ....and what’s next week’s question?? Da da daaaaa tune in next week for Tom Pope ...talks about Area 51, aliens and compares Nazca lines to the A500 ..
The twilight zone ...Happening in Burslem..

[fazza90]

6 game ban is really harsh, I believe there was no malice in it and ridiculous decision, if they really believed this tweet was so wrong, I don't see why they didn't deal with this privately instead of doing it like this and now as someone previously said, his tweet has been seen & discussed by many times the people that would have seen it originally.

[tosh]

Jul 25, 2020 14:44:52 GMT Squeekster said:

It's a load of crap and although Pope does say some stupid things on twitter this in my opinion doesn't warrant the punishment and also as a 50 year I have heard of the name Rothchilds I wouldn't have a clue of what where who or what the hell they are about! I did go to Maryhill comp though so that might explain a few things.

Has the world gone mad? According to the Guardian, the Commission found that :-

“the ordinary reasonable person knows very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people – maligning the family in discourse in order to malign all Jewish people”.

That’s lawyer speak.

Ask the “ordinary reasonable person” or indeed Tom Pope to explain that sentence! I doubt from that whether “ the Commission” has a clue what the the “ordinary reasonable person” does or does not know or understand.

Having said that he is very foolish as a professional sportsman, having involvement in Twitter and the like, and making such statements though.

[wearestoke80]

Him and vale go hand in hand

Wanker.

[spitthedog]

Jul 25, 2020 8:00:02 GMT RedandWhite90 said:

Jul 24, 2020 21:28:38 GMT spitthedog said:

Please explain precisely why?

You cannot just call someone anti-semitic on a whim. That is totally out of order.

In addition, those who have handed this punishment should be explaining precisely why and on what basis they have made this interpretation.

To me it is more anti-corporate than anti-semitic.

How can anyone prove that he is not criticising someone based on their unethical capitalistic approach?

With pleasure. The wording of his tweet was as follows,

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

This was in response to being asked, "Predict the WWIII result"

Now firstly it is important to remember that as part of his charge it was found that he had been watching hundreds of conspiracy theory videos surrounding 9/11 and predictions on invasions of 4 other countries and believed the Rothschilds banking business had somehow funded these attacks.

A quick bit of research will show you that this type of material surrounding Jewish bankers was heavily used in 1930's German propoganda in the lead up to mass genocide of 6m Jews.

Now economical anti-semitism, which for my money is exactly what this is and will more than likely be due to ignorance than a deliberate attempt to 'preach' has been described best by an American author called Gerald Krefertz.

"Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as Jews "control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses - of the community, of the country, of the world". He gives as illustrations many slurs and proverbs, in several different languages, suggesting that Jews are stingy, greedy, miserly, or aggressive bargainers. Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being "scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted", but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle and upper classes in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were "clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate" world finances."

Now finally the following is from the IHRA* (Internation Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) which, as an extension to its definition on anti-semitism also highlight this key point,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

*you may recall this being the statement(s) that Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to recognising as part of his Labour Leadership that was eventually approved.

So, in summary Tom's statement would have been in breach of the IHRA statement describing anti-semitism whereby his ignorance of a Jewish bank ending up in control of all world banks followimg a ficitonal WW3.

It is a tried and tested form of anti-semitism at worst or ignorance at best. My personal opinion is the latter when it comes to Tom Pope, but the charge is right, the punishment is right but he needs educating also.

Apologies for the long read but it can be a complex and complicated issue and I hope this explains why.

I appreciate your explanation but I still take issues with several points tbh

I don't accept the assumption that Pope's remarks are aimed at a 'Jewish' bank for example, there is no concrete evidence of this imho, they can equally be interpreted at being aimed at a multinational corporation owned by a specific family who apparently (though I take I your word for it, happen to have some affiliation with a particular religion, though I think that is irrelevent)

To me it would be like an assumption that if I criticise Raheem Stirling's free kicks I am doing so only because he of his skin colour, and that can be the only reason why I'm criticising his free kicks. Just because someone else might criticise him based on his skin colour does not make me guilty, or mean that I have no right to criticise his free kicks.


The fact that Pope has watched what are described as 'conspiracy theory' videos should not implicate him.
We should not be criminalising the watching of conspiracy theory videos, though this is actually happening. Its an extremely disturbing development imho.

I remember being thought of as nuts for watching a 'conspiracy theory' video 20 years ago by David Icke where he suggested that there was a network of paedophiles working at the BBC. He was mocked for that, but history has proved he was right. So not all so called conspiracy theory videos are smoke and mirrors. Now David Icke videos are being banned. It's not a matter of whether we agree with Icke it's a matter of freedom of speech and thought.
Similarly the smokescreen being used to ban Icke is anti-Semitism when he is questioning establishment and capitalism.

Are you really suggesting that no-one could ever criticise a Rothschild for any act without being anti-semitic? That seems to be the suggestion here?
That makes an extremely powerful group of people beyond criticism or analysis.

[magwitch]

Jul 24, 2020 17:21:47 GMT bayernoatcake said:

Jul 24, 2020 17:19:09 GMT Lakeland Potter said:

I'm no expert on Judaism, but I would have thought that the Rothschild family were one of the, if not the most, well known families of the Jewish Diaspora. I'd have expected a majority of adults in our country and in much of the Western World, were well aware of their religion.

I think you’re being too kind.

The Rothschilds are not Jewish by race and therefore the FA decision is invalid.
'The ruling elite of the Khazars was said by Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Daud to have converted to Rabbinic Judaism in the 8th century, but the scope of the conversion within the Khazar Khanate remains uncertain'[/b].[/i][/b]

They are Khazars who converted to Judaism in the 8th century in their home country north of the Caspian Sea in southern Europe in order to give themselves protection from Christianity on one side and Islam on the other. They are known as European Jews (Ashkenazi Jews) and try to cover up their own history to take advantage of the real Jews who are descendants of Abraham via the Israeli tribe of Judah, and the real beneficiaries of the promises of God in the pages of the Bible. This is a summary of historical fact, and would make the penalties incurred by Tom Pope a complete nonsense.

[SamB_SCFC]

Jul 25, 2020 9:04:55 GMT leicspotter said:

Jul 25, 2020 8:00:02 GMT RedandWhite90 said:

With pleasure. The wording of his tweet was as follows,

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

This was in response to being asked, "Predict the WWIII result"

Now firstly it is important to remember that as part of his charge it was found that he had been watching hundreds of conspiracy theory videos surrounding 9/11 and predictions on invasions of 4 other countries and believed the Rothschilds banking business had somehow funded these attacks.

A quick bit of research will show you that this type of material surrounding Jewish bankers was heavily used in 1930's German propoganda in the lead up to mass genocide of 6m Jews.

Now economical anti-semitism, which for my money is exactly what this is and will more than likely be due to ignorance than a deliberate attempt to 'preach' has been described best by an American author called Gerald Krefertz.

"Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as Jews "control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses - of the community, of the country, of the world". He gives as illustrations many slurs and proverbs, in several different languages, suggesting that Jews are stingy, greedy, miserly, or aggressive bargainers. Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being "scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted", but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle and upper classes in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were "clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate" world finances."

Now finally the following is from the IHRA* (Internation Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) which, as an extension to its definition on anti-semitism also highlight this key point,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

*you may recall this being the statement(s) that Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to recognising as part of his Labour Leadership that was eventually approved.

So, in summary Tom's statement would have been in breach of the IHRA statement describing anti-semitism whereby his ignorance of a Jewish bank ending up in control of all world banks followimg a ficitonal WW3.

It is a tried and tested form of anti-semitism at worst or ignorance at best. My personal opinion is the latter when it comes to Tom Pope, but the charge is right, the punishment is right but he needs educating also.

Apologies for the long read but it can be a complex and complicated issue and I hope this explains why.

I think the above clearly explains why it is dangerous to take the "sound bite" headlines and social media 'shorts' as context for an opinion.

On the face of it, based on the headlines and Tom Pope's (known?) perceived lack of brain power, then it is just a storm in a tea cup. Poor Tom Pope, just another thick footballer being badly treated.

Dig deeper, understand just how much research went into his comments, then it looks far worse, hence the charge and verdict I would say.

It wasn't just an off the cuff remark, or attempt at humour, it was quite a thought out response based on hours of watching material on line. Pope may be an idiot, but he is a well researched idiot.

People often fall foul on Twitter for re-tweeting material they receive without really understanding what it is, where it comes from...seemingly they believe it 'cos it's on Twitter...dangerous and naive

Think twice before you press send!

This is one of the things that people need to get their heads around with social media. Posting stuff on social media isn't the same as saying stuff to your friends and family using your voice because of the fact that it stays online for years, available for the whole world to see and is potentially capable of influencing the views of a lot of people.

It's publishing. The same as publishing an article in a traditional newspaper, magazine or journal or making a TV show. You are putting your views onto a publicly available format and just as people who publish articles in newspapers etc are subject to scrutiny and libel laws etc, the same applies to publishing on social media. Basically, if you wouldn't be happy for what you're saying to be printed in a newspaper or magazine etc with your name attached to it, don't post it online.

[RedandWhite90]

Jul 26, 2020 9:11:23 GMT spitthedog said:

Jul 25, 2020 8:00:02 GMT RedandWhite90 said:

With pleasure. The wording of his tweet was as follows,

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

This was in response to being asked, "Predict the WWIII result"

Now firstly it is important to remember that as part of his charge it was found that he had been watching hundreds of conspiracy theory videos surrounding 9/11 and predictions on invasions of 4 other countries and believed the Rothschilds banking business had somehow funded these attacks.

A quick bit of research will show you that this type of material surrounding Jewish bankers was heavily used in 1930's German propoganda in the lead up to mass genocide of 6m Jews.

Now economical anti-semitism, which for my money is exactly what this is and will more than likely be due to ignorance than a deliberate attempt to 'preach' has been described best by an American author called Gerald Krefertz.

"Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myths as Jews "control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businesses - of the community, of the country, of the world". He gives as illustrations many slurs and proverbs, in several different languages, suggesting that Jews are stingy, greedy, miserly, or aggressive bargainers. Krefetz suggests that during the 19th century, most of the myths focused on Jews being "scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted", but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle and upper classes in Europe the myths evolved and began to assert that Jews were "clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate" world finances."

Now finally the following is from the IHRA* (Internation Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) which, as an extension to its definition on anti-semitism also highlight this key point,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

*you may recall this being the statement(s) that Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to recognising as part of his Labour Leadership that was eventually approved.

So, in summary Tom's statement would have been in breach of the IHRA statement describing anti-semitism whereby his ignorance of a Jewish bank ending up in control of all world banks followimg a ficitonal WW3.

It is a tried and tested form of anti-semitism at worst or ignorance at best. My personal opinion is the latter when it comes to Tom Pope, but the charge is right, the punishment is right but he needs educating also.

Apologies for the long read but it can be a complex and complicated issue and I hope this explains why.

I appreciate your explanation but I still take issues with several points tbh

I don't accept the assumption that Pope's remarks are aimed at a 'Jewish' bank for example, there is no concrete evidence of this imho, they can equally be interpreted at being aimed at a multinational corporation owned by a specific family who apparently (though I take I your word for it, happen to have some affiliation with a particular religion, though I think that is irrelevent)

To me it would be like an assumption that if I criticise Raheem Stirling's free kicks I am doing so only because he of his skin colour, and that can be the only reason why I'm criticising his free kicks. Just because someone else might criticise him based on his skin colour does not make me guilty, or mean that I have no right to criticise his free kicks.


The fact that Pope has watched what are described as 'conspiracy theory' videos should not implicate him.
We should not be criminalising the watching of conspiracy theory videos, though this is actually happening. Its an extremely disturbing development imho.

I remember being thought of as nuts for watching a 'conspiracy theory' video 20 years ago by David Icke where he suggested that there was a network of paedophiles working at the BBC. He was mocked for that, but history has proved he was right. So not all so called conspiracy theory videos are smoke and mirrors. Now David Icke videos are being banned. It's not a matter of whether we agree with Icke it's a matter of freedom of speech and thought.
Similarly the smokescreen being used to ban Icke is anti-Semitism when he is questioning establishment and capitalism.

Are you really suggesting that no-one could ever criticise a Rothschild for any act without being anti-semitic? That seems to be the suggestion here?
That makes an extremely powerful group of people beyond criticism or analysis.

No problem spit. Its regrettable that you still feel that way but as I have mentioned before anti-semitism is a much more complex form of racism that any other.

It is not a case of using a derogatory term or making reference to skin colour.

Your first paragraph I cannot really comment on, when he names said family bank in his tweet and you argue that you don't feel it was aimed specifically at them I dont really know where to go with that.

Your Raheem Stirling example doesnt hold weight as you cannot compare anti-semitism to the racial prejudice experienced by BAME communities. This is why I have highlighted the IHRA statement and explained what econimical anti semitism is.

In terms of conspiracy theories, whilst the moon landing and area 51 have provided entertainment the majority are now far right propaganda. He has not been charged solely because he chose to watch them but due to the volume he had been watching and again due to them having anti-Jewish rhetoric about funding invasions this is part of the evidence that was used as part of his overall case.

Referencing David Icke to me is where I pretty much cash out. The man who believes he is 'son of a godhead' spending his latter years brandishing utter drivel about new age conspiracism. He's along the lines of all the QANON garbage and any credibility given to him makes any arguments all the weaker really.

I believe anyone can be criticised if they have done something wrong. How his statement can be taken as a criticism for something someone has done wrong as opposed to just lazy anti-semitism I will leave for you to explain.

Quick reminder of what he has tweeted:

“We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

You also hear this a lot by people defending anti-semitism by saying well cant you cristise Israel ever again? You critise any individual or organisation without lazily referencing the country or race. Benjamin Netanyahu for example, or Mossad. For balance Hamas.

I really hope you look to change your opinion on this, take the time to read the IHRA (adopted in 18 leading countries) it is much more complex on the surface but in terms of Tom he really has no defence.

[AlliG]

Jul 26, 2020 7:48:42 GMT fazza90 said:

6 game ban is really harsh, I believe there was no malice in it and ridiculous decision, if they really believed this tweet was so wrong, I don't see why they didn't deal with this privately instead of doing it like this and now as someone previously said, his tweet has been seen & discussed by many times the people that would have seen it originally.

Why is it harsh?

It is his 3rd offence (at least).

The FA will take into account his previous record and therefore for each new infringement the penalty will be more severe (a bit like for every red card in a season an additional game is added to the length of suspension).

The FA must be hoping that eventually he will get the message and stick to football, what he had for his tea etc.

[lordb]

Jul 26, 2020 8:32:23 GMT tosh said:

Jul 25, 2020 14:44:52 GMT Squeekster said:

It's a load of crap and although Pope does say some stupid things on twitter this in my opinion doesn't warrant the punishment and also as a 50 year I have heard of the name Rothchilds I wouldn't have a clue of what where who or what the hell they are about! I did go to Maryhill comp though so that might explain a few things.

Has the world gone mad? According to the Guardian, the Commission found that :-

“the ordinary reasonable person knows very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people – maligning the family in discourse in order to malign all Jewish people”.

That’s lawyer speak.

Ask the “ordinary reasonable person” or indeed Tom Pope to explain that sentence! I doubt from that whether “ the Commission” has a clue what the the “ordinary reasonable person” does or does not know or understand.

Having said that he is very foolish as a professional sportsman, having involvement in Twitter and the like, and making such statements though.

I'm genuinely surprised how may people have expressed that they hadn't heard of the Rothschild's or didn't know they are Jewish.

I'd class myself as an ordinary person.

[lordb]

Jul 25, 2020 6:12:16 GMT felonious said:

Jul 24, 2020 17:02:08 GMT lordb said:

For real?

I don't know what age you are Lord but as a kid it was a word used without malice to indicate wealth. I've no idea at what age I was before I became aware that this was a Jewish family and after that when I became aware of any links to anything more sinister.

48

[tosh]

Jul 26, 2020 15:35:15 GMT lordb said:

Jul 26, 2020 8:32:23 GMT tosh said:

Has the world gone mad? According to the Guardian, the Commission found that :-

“the ordinary reasonable person knows very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people – maligning the family in discourse in order to malign all Jewish people”.

That’s lawyer speak.

Ask the “ordinary reasonable person” or indeed Tom Pope to explain that sentence! I doubt from that whether “ the Commission” has a clue what the the “ordinary reasonable person” does or does not know or understand.

Having said that he is very foolish as a professional sportsman, having involvement in Twitter and the like, and making such statements though.

I'm genuinely surprised how may people have expressed that they hadn't heard of the Rothschild's or didn't know they are Jewish.

I'd class myself as an ordinary person.

So would I, and I am well aware of the Rothschilds as a mega rich Jewish family. I’ve met many people, especially younger people though, who seem surprisingly unaware of these sort of facts.
My real issue was with the words of the Commission about “Ordinary reasonable people knowing very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people” Really? Try Tom or a few of your pals with Synecdoche for a start!

[lordb]

Jul 26, 2020 16:00:02 GMT tosh said:

Jul 26, 2020 15:35:15 GMT lordb said:

I'm genuinely surprised how may people have expressed that they hadn't heard of the Rothschild's or didn't know they are Jewish.

I'd class myself as an ordinary person.

So would I, and I am well aware of the Rothschilds as a mega rich Jewish family. I’ve met many people, especially younger people though, who seem surprisingly unaware of these sort of facts.
My real issue was with the words of the Commission about “Ordinary reasonable people knowing very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people” Really? Try Tom or a few of your pals with Synecdoche for a start!

However as has been pointed out already it came to light Pope had watched tons of documentaries on the issue