SARI Press Statement concerning Ndo Incident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

If you read my posts earlier in the thread you'd see my opinion on this. As I said, I was in the stand that night. I heard nothing, and I mean that genuinely and seriously. I'm not just saying that in the same way some will say a controversial goal was clearly onside. Hand on my heart, I heard no sort of racist abuse that night, if you believe me or not that's up to you, but there's an awful lot of Rovers fans, the vast majority, saying the same thing.
Even going by the youtube clip you're still talking about a couple of seconds at a particular point at the game. There was no widespread or sustained racist abuse that night, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

---

I fully believe you when you say you didn't hear it (but there is a difference between saying "I didn't hear anything" and saying "I didn't hear anything and therefore nothing happened" - you haven't said this, but I think others have implied it). I don't think anybody has claimed there was widespread or sustained racist abuse. It was obviously just a few morons.

but the point is that it was obviously a few morons. I don't think we need to use the word 'alleged' any more. I personally think the youtube clip is pretty conclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jicked

Like any organisation, Rovers board are not going to be made explain themselves for a few knackers who show up at a game. Instead they're probably more concerned with doing something about it practically, ensuring these people are not allowed back in had they been identified, or working with Gardaí and matchday staff to try and identify the source of any such problems in the future and have the knackers reefed out and given a life ban.

---

It's not an either-or, is it? Why can't Rovers take 5 minutes to put a statement on the webise saying they condemn the noises made by a tiny number, and are committed to identifying them and banning them? The fact that it may be almost impossible to do that is almost beside the point.

He's doing some add on the radio now for european anti racisim week or something. Was on newstalk this morning. Nice timing!

Its FARE week. Football Against Racism Europe. Most clubs should be doing something around it and the half time entertainment last night was to mark it too. We will have kids at our game tomorrow night wearing the United Against Racism t-shirts and our team will be warming up in them too. We are involved in other events too.

It is so important that racism is stamped out in this country before it takes hold. The changing face of Ireland means that many more children from different "ethnic" backgrounds are growing up feeling Irish and will be playing for our clubs and hopefully our country in the future and they need to be welcomed and made to feel safe and respected like everyone else.

These campaigns can only do so much by raising awareness and thats why it is so important that we the fans and employees of clubs work to erradicate racism, report incidents and act on them.

It is part of the contract of entering Monaghan United's Kingspan Century Park that you will not engage in racism in any form and those found to be doing so will be ejected from the ground, reported to the gardai and face disciplinary proceedures. I am sure it is the same at all grounds and it is up to us in the crowd at games to ensure that these things are carried out.

Sorry for the longwinded rant but racism is the biggest thing that winds me up and I just cannot tolerate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

Not pathetic but simply the reality until proven otherwise...or does the norm of innocent until proven guilty not apply to SRFC ?

---

What level of proof are you looking for though ? :confused:

Signed confessions ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by placid casual

Every time I go against my better judgement and read this laughable thread, I get a mental image of Joey Ndo in a sari.

$hit, am i a racist?:eek:

---

Is he washing an elephant in your image of him....?

What the hell is racist about washing an elephant anyway? Surely elephant hygiene is important regardless of colour or creed?

Some elephants don't like it - they prefer private showering facilities

your momma dosent mind where i wash her :D she does get mixed up with the elephants quite a lot thou.. (sorry not aimed at anyone in particu7lar just came into my head and had to share it.):p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

so then Bohs are "damned if they do and damned if they dont" in relation to the McGuinness incident. Thats basically what youre saying, right? Any chance you could take something as having been done simply in good faith? Of course not, it was big bad Bohs and their always evil and sinister ulterior motives... :rolleyes: i really despair about some peoples vendettas on this messageboard, i really do.

Or would you rather be another poster who attempts to ignore the issue at hand and drag this off topic just to get a dig in at Bohemians?

---

I didn't "drag" this off topic - I responded to MarinoBohs who took Bohs/McGuinness in as a comparison. I simply gave the reasons why I thought the two situations were not comparable, and suggested an alternative possibility that Bohs actions may have been motivated more by damage limitation rather then principle.

It seems to me that you may be too sensitive about what you perceive as "a dig" or "vendettas", as against considering an alternative view. Is this what some label "Bohs fans' obsession with anti-Bohs obsessions"?
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

by the way any opinion on the Rovers boards complete lack of comment on their issue?

---

Yes - but I am more concerned with racism and any racial abuse then the PR / point-scoring aspects of it.

I abhor any form of racism, from whatever quarter it comes, and I think that Shamrock Rovers board would have been well advised to have made a public comment about it long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

What level of proof are you looking for though ? :confused:

Signed confessions ?

---

They'd probably claim they were forged or given under duress. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

What the hell is racist about washing an elephant anyway? Surely elephant hygiene is important regardless of colour or creed?

---

*woooshhhh*

It's a joke re a recent terrace anthem criticised in Engl...

Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

It's somewhat pointless and a little disingenuous to be comparing the two situations.

It was clear to Bohs that the McGuinness incident was noted by the referee and therefore almost certain to be included in his report. Many have reasonably questioned if Bohs subsequent reactions was more got to do with damage limitation than a genuine anti-racist stance. The paltry one match club suspension did little to dispel this notion.

You also seem to have forgotten Pat Fenlons "it's part and parcel of the game, what can you do about it?" comment.

---

Firstly, Pat fenlon and the player apoligised directly after the game - the act was still wrong but those involved showed remorse.
My point was the differing reaction of the two boards to a racsist issue - hence using those two examples.
As posters here know it is impossible for you to acknowledge any good by Bohs so obviously they had to have an ulterior motive for doing the right thing :rolleyes:
Whether the club reaction/penalty was sufficent is a matter for opinion but the fact remains that there was a speedy club reaction in one case and none at all in the other (this was my point).
By your logic should the MK Hoops not have acted to "damage limitation" to the club (or avoid potential penalty ?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

Not pathetic but simply the reality until proven otherwise...or does the norm of innocent until proven guilty not apply to SRFC ?

---

The evidence is there for all to see, thats the point. if you (like the board at MK Hoops) choose to ignore it then supporters can make up their own mind on the issue. Please please do not deny that it happened as that argument is just ridiculous given the facts.
Guilty when proven guilty and then there should be some sanction (STILL not looking for points deduction) otherwise the so called anti racism stance emanating from the bunker in Abbotstown is just hot air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

The evidence is there for all to see, thats the point. if you (like the board at MK Hoops) choose to ignore it then supporters can make up their own mind on the issue. Please please do not deny that it happened as that argument is just ridiculous given the facts.
Guilty when proven guilty and then there should be some sanction (STILL not looking for points deduction) otherwise the so called anti racism stance emanating from the bunker in Abbotstown is just hot air.

---

I think it is very questionable to assert that the proof is there for all to see (hear) and just because you continue to assert that , itdoesn't make it a fact. I haven't denied that it happened , however I don't think that the so called "facts" that you refer to are enough to prove anything either way. If you want to assert that on the balence of probabilty that the incident occured then I can accept that you believe that, however you also need to accept that I think the opposite.

The one fact that is not in dispute is that no irrefutable evidence exists that the incident occured and hence even SARI referred to it as an 'alleged incident'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

I think it is very questionable to assert that the proof is there for all to see (hear) and just because you continue to assert that , itdoesn't make it a fact. I haven't denied that it happened , however I don't think that the so called "facts" that you refer to are enough to prove anything either way. If you want to assert that on the balence of probabilty that the incident occured then I can accept that you believe that, however you also need to accept that I think the opposite.

The one fact that is not in dispute is that no irrefutable evidence exists that the incident occured and hence even SARI referred to it as an 'alleged incident'.

---

For the second time - what level of proof are you looking for here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

I think it is very questionable to assert that the proof is there for all to see (hear) and just because you continue to assert that , itdoesn't make it a fact. I haven't denied that it happened , however I don't think that the so called "facts" that you refer to are enough to prove anything either way. If you want to assert that on the balence of probabilty that the incident occured then I can accept that you believe that, however you also need to accept that I think the opposite.

The one fact that is not in dispute is that no irrefutable evidence exists that the incident occured and hence even SARI referred to it as an 'alleged incident'.

---

Pointless argument really as most have made up their own mind. As a matter of interest do you believe it happened and if it did what (if any action) should the club/FAI take about it ?

I have only skimmed through this thread, and from what I can gather it mainly is arguing the punishment given to Jason McGuinness as opposed to what punishment should be given to Shamrock Rovers. Correct me if I',m wrong.

For me, Jason McGuinness is a professional footballer. An individual that is a supposed role model for young Bohs fans, and one who makes his living the same way that Joseph Ndo does. He racially abused, and was individually punished for his behaviour. And deservedly so. I thought Bohemians acted swiftly, and accordingly.

Shamrock Rovers, its players and officials, did not racially abuse Joseph Ndo. People, racists included, voluntarily support clubs, and it is impossible to stop them. You can try and identify these goons and ban them from the ground, but whats to stop them from from doing it in other ways, via internet, down the pub etc.

Jason McGuinness should have known better. His club acted upon it and sent out a message. IMO all Shamrock Rovers (or any club this happens to) can conceiveably do about this is send out a strong anti-racism message and try as best they can to identify the culprit(s). Fining them, or docking them points, or making them play behind closed doors would not be fair in my book. Racism is a crime, and Shamrock Rovers FC are not the Gardai. Perhaps McGuinness should have been criminally charged. Maybe this would send out a message.

Nowhere near enough evidence to persuade the DPP to prosecute McGuinness (who would have been fined less than he was by Bohs and the FAI if convicted, in any case.)

Shamrock Rovers and SDCC, on the other hand, are guilty of permitting and failing to address racial abuse in the workplace, contrary to their own express policies, and could be sued for it.

Anyone who can't hear the vile racial abuse in that clip simply doesn't want to hear it (it's even clearer on the original stream, still available online.) The reason SARI described it as alleged abuse was that I did the same in the description, out of an abundance of ultra-objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Pointless argument really as most have made up their own mind. As a matter of interest do you believe it happened and if it did what (if any action) should the club/FAI take about it ?

---

Agree we could go around forever in a circle on this.To answer your question I simply don't know whether it did or didn't happen, therefore no point in engaging in conjecture as to what the club or the FAI should do.

[QUOTE=Sheridan;1251436]Nowhere near enough evidence to persuade the DPP to prosecute McGuinness (who would have been fined less than he was by Bohs and the FAI if convicted, in any case.)

Shamrock Rovers and SDCC, on the other hand, are guilty of permitting and failing to address racial abuse in the workplace, contrary to their own express policies, and could be sued for it

The above is complete fabrication on the basis that nothing has been proved. I think you should accept the norm that one is innocent until proven guilty. Would that be possible or are you operating on the basis that as you have declared something to be a fact it is a fact ?