Tuesday, 17 July 2012

"Choc Ice"

Racism connected with free speech is a subject I tend to stay away from on this blog, but the recent spat between a number of footballers on the issue of race and racism is a clear example of where we're going wrong in this country.

For the non football readers among my readers, English and Chelsea footballer John Terry was up in court recently for allegedly making the racist remark - f****** black, c***. It's with deep irony that the word which landed Terry before the courts was the one word I haven't removed - the word 'black'.

Nobody on the football field at the time heard the comment, even the player it was allegedly directed to. The trial only came about because of an off-duty copper who lip-read the comment on tv.

During the trial, at tax payers' expense, we subsequently had another English footballer; Rio Ferdinand - who understandably takes the issue of racism seriously - giving a running twitter account verdict of the 5 day trial, oblivious to the fact that Mr Terry is and was innocent and entitled to a fair trial.

When the verdict was returned, i.e. it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, Mr Ferdinand decided to endorse a racially-loaded term regarding the witness for the defence Mr Ashley Cole (who's black) 'choc ice. A term that is universally understood to mean 'black on the outside, white on the inside'. Unsurprisingly someone has complained:
A possible racist comment made against Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole is being investigated by Derbyshire Police.
A Twitter user, believed to be from Derbyshire, referred to Mr Cole as a "choc ice" on the social networking site over the weekend.
Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand then replied: "I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic hahahahahaha!!"
A Derbyshire Police spokeswoman said the force had received complaints "regarding alleged racist comments".
"These concerns will be fully investigated to establish whether any criminal offences have been committed," the spokeswoman added.
Obviously this brings up the legitimate criticism, or observation, of who draws the line with free speech and where to draw it. Once lines get drawn, anomalies appear left, right and centre. Be careful Mr Ferdinand for what you wish for - getting one of your own Twitter followers into trouble.

And it's precisely this culture that closes down debates such as immigration al la the excellent post from Witterings from Witney:
Challenges seem all the rage nowadays, what with Cameron receiving a hand delivered letter from the leader of a ‘political party’ (well, they consider themselves a political party hence my use of the term in inverted commas) challenging him to a debate on Britain’s relationship with ‘Europe’. Dan Hodges, Daily Telegraph, wishes to challenge anyone to a debate on the subject of immigration, but as one commentor – Davy – points out:
“You want a debate about immigration? Me too. Bring it on. Just as an observation, Dan, you’ve got the best part of sixty comments already and you haven’t engaged with any of them. If you say you want a debate, you’ve got one below. Step up, eh?”
And there we have another democratic failure when considering the state of our democracy. It is so easy for politicians to state that this country should remain in the EU as it is for ‘journalists’ to challenge anyone to a debate on immigration – and then to totally ignore the cries for a debate.
Mr Ferdinand defends himself by calling the usage of 'choc ice' a way of criticising someone of being fake - on those terms I would apply it to Dan Hodges - someone who pretends to want a debate on unlimited immigration but has absolutely no intention of following through with his 'wishes'...


  1. the absolute right to freedom of expression in whatever format, written verbal artistic or whatever carries with it the absolute expectation that at some point you are or may be offended.

    sticks and stones and all that....

    we have laws against actual physical assault (a form of offence methinks, totally unacceptable) but this is a pc culture where freedom of expression is ust in name only.....if only enough people accused of such offences of 'freedom of expression' were to utter in court "I hear no complaint" we might get somewhere in neutering this nonsense...

  2. WE are told by the Gramscian PTB what to find offensive and what not to .
    When Johnathan Ross (Wossy) and Russel Brand or whoever insulted Andreww Sachs , using crude carnal terms , the BBC managed to get across that some people were complaining who had not actually listened to the show .
    Fair enough .
    Then one of the news items on the BBC was about Spanish fans of a sporting event racially abusing a black participant .The tone was that I was supposed to be shocked .
    But I had not seen or heard the abuse down in Spain .
    Why should I be sensetive to one form of abuse I hear secondhand but not the other ?

  3. A hamfisted, amateurish, putrid attempt by the nutters of the liberal bleedin' hearts/diversity brigade/human rights harpies.

    A lunatic but forlorn suit, brought about to hammer Terry [who I've no sympathy for].
    For an alleged 'racist' slur, or supposedly saying stuff which Ferdinand didn't hear [would you please].

    Ferdinand senior[snigger] makes a clearly racist comment about 'his mate' and nowt will come of it - imagine the scenario if Terry had been caught referring to such frozen chocolate covered dairy products?
    He'd be publicly flogged and then taken to Tyburn? - Notting Hill/Hampstead Heath gay dogging area and hanged.

  4. In virtually every society or "race" under the sun, most people have a preference for associating with others of their own kind. They have shared values and know what to expect of each other.

    PC has converted this natural inclination into a manufactured crime of "racism" and put it on a par with throwing people into gas chambers - but only for the European peoples. In RAT (Racial Awareness Training) by local and government authorities, only white people can be guilty of it.

    Until recent years, it was an understood function of government to prevent invasion. Now government is the main sponsor of demographic invasion on a huge scale. Andrew Neather's revelations showed that New Labour deliberately intended to create an irreversible shift in the composition of the population of this country - a shift which, they could reasonably expect, would have electoral benefits.
    The government was, in fact "electing a new people".

    PC was designed to stop people daring to express their opinions. In the 2005 election, I stopped counting the number of times when people on their own doorsteps started to tell me their minds and suddenly checked themselves, asking "Am I allowed to say that?"

    Peter Sutherland's recent evidence to the House of Lords contained an incitement to speed up the process to break up the remaining homogeneity of the population in this and all other EU countries.. In the eyes of our masters, people are consumers and producers - nothing more. That is why, in the face of 1400 years of evidence to the contrary, they still see Islam as a "religion of peace".

    A population divided into separate "communities" is more easily divided and ruled.