Tom Pope


Status
Not open for further replies.
His tweets about Stones & "bantz" were embarassing so nice to see he's now getting the attention he wanted
 
Apart from the fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish, and the fantasy that Jews control world finance is a well known anti-Semitic and fascist metaphor. It's about as blatant as it gets.
The conundrum is when being Jewish shuts down any legitimate commentry or criticism for fear of being immediately labelled anti-semitic. The Rothschilds were incredibly rich bankers after all, so taken at face value his comments address that.

Get a lot of this with Israel these days, you can't criticize the state or its policies without being labelled racist. Anti-semitism is not the same as anti-zionism.
 
Last edited:
Worked for Gazza.
Did it? I wasn't at that trial, so I wouldn't know.
Solicitors do it for druggies all the time. "In his defence, he was only shoplifting to feed to his drug habit". The magistrates should be saying "so he is guilty of drug possession too eh? That's an extra ten weeks then"
Mitigation, perhaps, but not defence. At least, I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows? It's a funny old game, Saint.
 
Last edited:
It is though, isn't it. Whether intentional or not (I suspect not) it plays on the trope of Jewish people being minted and running the world. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.

He'll get a slap on the wrist and that'll be that.
No it doesn’t. If it “plays” on anything it is that the family mentioned are a powerful banking family. Other peoples prejudices then inform their own racism not his.
 
Last sentence in the linked article

He was also handed a one-match suspension by the FA in November for Twitter abuse

Any sensible person would have left Twitter at that time, surprised his club didn’t insist he did
 
Did it? I wasn't at that trial, so I wouldn't know.

Mitigation, perhaps, but not defence. At least, I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows? It's a funny old game, Saint.

Aye, his defence was he does it to everyone and his solicitors brought in photos of him kissing random people.

I wasn't there either, mind. That's generally what the media does.
 
At the beginning of last season I thought he would be a good signing for us. However I also thought him and Wyke were similar in type and standard :oops:
 
He's talking about one specific Jewish family not Jews in general. How is that anti-semitic?

It's a trope that goes back to the time of Waterloo, and has been consistently used in an anti-Semitic context. The fact that it singles out one family is irrelevant - the point of the remarks is based on their religion. That makes it ant-Semitic.
 
It's a trope that goes back to the time of Waterloo, and has been consistently used in an anti-Semitic context. The fact that it singles out one family is irrelevant - the point of the remarks is based on their religion. That makes it ant-Semitic.
Is it really though? If he didn't know they were Jewish or the links to this in an anti-Semitic context, the point of the remark could easily be based on their family wealth and the trope of "greedy bankers" rather than their religion.

For example if you called a Tory a wanker because he was a Tory, but he also happened to be Catholic, you aren't accusing all Catholics of being wankers.

Although admittedly I'm not too well versed on the topic.
 
It is though, isn't it. Whether intentional or not (I suspect not) it plays on the trope of Jewish people being minted and running the world. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.

He'll get a slap on the wrist and that'll be that.
Don't mess with their tropes.
 
It's a trope that goes back to the time of Waterloo, and has been consistently used in an anti-Semitic context. The fact that it singles out one family is irrelevant - the point of the remarks is based on their religion. That makes it ant-Semitic.
The fact that it singles out one (super rich banking) family is exactly relevant in the context (taking over banks).

What you’re doing is reading between the lines as there is isn’t anything broadly anti-Semitic (talking about all Jews) in the comment.

Are the Rothschilds beyond reproach? How could he have phrased it differently to not be perceived as anti-Semitic?
 
Aye, but it shouldn't be mitigation either. If someone uses illegal drugs that's a choice.
I didn't say it should be mitigation. I merely said - in response to your assertion that it was used as a defence by those representing drug addicts - that it might be used as a plea in mitigation, but not as a defence. Whether drug addiction should or should not be a mitigating factor was not the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top