Society of Black Lawyers

My friend, you have no idea how wrong you are. There should never be any limitation when it comes to trying these sort of cases.

I know exactly what you're thinking and NO this is not crying wolf. I think this kind of tactics is keeping people alert and aware. So, next time these sort of people start chanting wierd stuff your children will by default be set on defence and ready to question WHY.

So instead of working against this society you should promote their legitimacy and not worrying so much about what the outcome might be. You might noticed I was happy with the outcome of the trial(?), yet happy with it being tested. This way we should continue to check the temperature around England to show we're constantly present and ready to act.

I'm wrong and you know exactly what I'm thinking?

So you think it's ok to sit indoors watching the tv and then phone the police because of what you saw on ssn? You think it's ok to accuse a man of racism based on nothing more than a news report and no actual evidence, or even first hand knowledge? You think it's ok to go against what the law says and pick a fight with a group of fans and a club ,even though they clearly aren't being racist or descriminating against anyone (ironically being the head of a group that actually does, rightly or wrongly), and you think it's ok to threaten those people repeatedly until they bend to your thoughts on right and wrong?

Oh wait, no they are doing this for the 'right' reasons. Just like they reported Suarez and spoke out against Terry, just like they are ignoring all the fans who actually are doing wrong and breaking the law, to pick on those who aren't?
 
I know exactly what you're thinking and NO this is not crying wolf. I think this kind of tactics is keeping people alert and aware. So, next time these sort of people start chanting wierd stuff your children will by default be set on defence and ready to question WHY.

feck if I'd let my kids in on any of that sort of shit, let alone allow some unusual, attention seeking tactics shape their view of anything.
 
Oh, and for the record I've spent today defending their right to exist from an angry Jewish spurs fan who has no intention of stopping the chanting just because "someone wants headlines"

The damage is being done by the actions of this society threatening and dividing the issue, not by someone like me questioning how they are picking their targets.
 
feck if I'd let my kids in on any of that sort of shit, let alone allow some unusual, attention seeking tactics shape their view of anything.

Totally.

I hope my kids grow up with the same questioning nature I have. They are damn sure learning respect and tolerance of anyone and everyone. Why it's so difficult for full grown adults to understand, I don't know, but what I do know is it works both ways.
 
Offence is a very unusual thing. In my experience a huge percentage of the time, people get offended on behalf of someone else, while the intended "target" or "targets" take it all for the generic drivel it is and move on. I'm not saying anyone is wrong to question the Yid chants, but like loads of people in this thread have said, why now? What about the racist abuse actually directed towards people with the intent to offend them a la Terry/Suarez?
 
Offence is a very unusual thing. In my experience a huge percentage of the time, people get offended on behalf of someone else, while the intended "target" or "targets" take it all for the generic drivel it is and move on. I'm not saying anyone is wrong to question the Yid chants, but like loads of people in this thread have said, why now? What about the racist abuse actually directed towards people with the intent to offend them a la Terry/Suarez?

The main question is why are you telling Jewish people not to use a Jewish word, whilst you are ok with Chelsea and West Ham fans using it, and singing much worse songs and making much worse noises?

Not that it matters, because these lot may be lawyers, but they aren't particularily good at the law by the looks of it and I'm sure they won't want to take on the Jewish Daniel Levy and his lawyers and try to argue the meanings behind a Jewish word :lol:
 
Oh, and for the record I've spent today defending their right to exist from an angry Jewish spurs fan who has no intention of stopping the chanting just because "someone wants headlines"

The damage is being done by the actions of this society threatening and dividing the issue, not by someone like me questioning how they are picking their targets.

Your first post insinuated their work was the equivalent of a nuisance alarm. I just don't follow your way of reasoning in this case. You claim to fight for their right to exist - yet you think they're doing all this for a laugh. This is where professional and public opinion tend to vary the most.

These people are highly educated and most likely better qualified to make the call on whether something is racist or not. So to answer your question - NO we won't be having any people reporting each other from what they hear over the tv (or whatever that was you were saying).

I've been reading your posts over the years Redlambs, and I know you're a bright poster. That's why I'm very surprised and disappointed to see you among the mob.
 
The main question is why are you telling Jewish people not to use a Jewish word, whilst you are ok with Chelsea and West Ham fans using it, and singing much worse songs and making much worse noises?

Not that it matters, because these lot may be lawyers, but they aren't particularily good at the law by the looks of it and I'm sure they won't want to take on the Jewish Daniel Levy and his lawyers and try to argue the meanings behind a Jewish word :lol:

As far as I ever knew the Spurs fans' usage (cf Yid Army) was in support of the Jewish community around Tottenham. It's a Jewish word anyway, albeit bastardised by anglicisation and generic mispronunciation.
 
Your first post insinuated their work was the equivalent of a nuisance alarm. I just don't follow your way of reasoning in this case. You claim to fight for their right to exist - yet you think they're doing all this for a laugh. This is where professional and public opinion tend to vary the most.

These people are highly educated and most likely better qualified to make the call on whether something is racist or not. So to answer your question - NO we won't be having any people reporting each other from what they hear over the tv (or whatever that was you were saying).

I've been reading your posts over the years Redlambs, and I know you're a bright poster. That's why I'm very surprised and disappointed to see you among the mob.

Hang on, they're educated fine. But it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that they are in any way qualified to dictate to people what they say and do because of that.

Just because they are well versed on the law (something which seems debatable on this point, given that the Met have already stated that because there is no 'deliberate intention to cause offence' there will be no charges, something you would assume solicitors competent in criminal law would know is a necessity in proving an offence has occurred, but whatever) doesn't mean that they in any way become moral protectors of public opinion.
 
I'll quote you back to front:

I've been reading your posts over the years Redlambs, and I know you're a bright poster.

That's cool and all, but remember we are debating here so nothing personal. I've not turned instantly into someone you should dislike, because there's obviously something you've missed here and we both ultimately agree the Racism is abhorrent and should be fought. That being said:


That's why I'm very surprised and disappointed to see you among the mob.

What mob is that then? You have something to say?


These people are highly educated and most likely better qualified to make the call on whether something is racist or not. So to answer your question - NO we won't be having any people reporting each other from what they hear over the tv (or whatever that was you were saying).

You should check your facts before entering a debate like this. Your 'highly educated' and 'better qualified' people did just what you claim "No". See below for a brief outline.


Your first post insinuated their work was the equivalent of a nuisance alarm. I just don't follow your way of reasoning in this case.

As above, check your facts and then you might follow. This guy went on SSN and admitted when questioned that he had no actual proof or knowledge of what happened (at that time anyway) and it was based on SSN and other's very own reports. He then reported a man, Mark Clattenburg, to the police based on that alone. You do realise it's illegal to waste police time don't you? People do actually get put away for that.

So basically it's almost irrelevant whether or not Clattenburg is guilty to this discussion, because my problem is with how they came to the conclusion of it being racist and therefore should be reported, not actually reporting racism. I just can't see how anyone can think that's right, and especially after they then go after the Tottenham fans without checking facts first, his immediate retort to the Tottenham press release shows that's the case.


You claim to fight for their right to exist - yet you think they're doing all this for a laugh. This is where professional and public opinion tend to vary the most.

I don't claim to fight for them (I was defending the right for groups like this to exist) and I certainly don't think they are having a laugh. There's nothing funny about what's happening here. It's interesting that he himself brings up:

"We are serious. We aren't in this for sensationalism"

That speaks volumes.
 
I'll quote you back to front:



That's cool and all, but remember we are debating here so nothing personal. I've not turned instantly into someone you should dislike, because there's obviously something you've missed here and we both ultimately agree the Racism is abhorrent and should be fought. That being said:




What mob is that then? You have something to say?




You should check your facts before entering a debate like this. Your 'highly educated' and 'better qualified' people did just what you claim "No". See below for a brief outline.




As above, check your facts and then you might follow. This guy went on SSN and admitted when questioned that he had no actual proof or knowledge of what happened (at that time anyway) and it was based on SSN and other's very own reports. He then reported a man, Mark Clattenburg, to the police based on that alone. You do realise it's illegal to waste police time don't you? People do actually get put away for that.

So basically it's almost irrelevant whether or not Clattenburg is guilty to this discussion, because my problem is with how they came to the conclusion of it being racist and therefore should be reported, not actually reporting racism. I just can't see how anyone can think that's right, and especially after they then go after the Tottenham fans without checking facts first, his immediate retort to the Tottenham press release shows that's the case.




I don't claim to fight for them (I was defending the right for groups like this to exist) and I certainly don't think they are having a laugh. There's nothing funny about what's happening here. It's interesting that he himself brings up:

"We are serious. We aren't in this for sensationalism"

That speaks volumes.

Mmmm I'll get my coat :o
 
Mmmm I'll get my coat :o

:lol: No need for that, it's an emotive subject and without knowing what actually happened, I don't blame you for thinking I was actually against them reporting racism! It happens ;)

Maybe I shouldn't have made the point about a white group (though again, it wasn't the standard "oh look a black group' thing, it was more about the methods used would have cause a much bigger fuss), because that's clouded people's judgements of what I'm saying. But you can see what I mean, it's not the existence of the group and the cause I'm saying is stupid, it's the targets and methods.

They are doing the fight against racism much more harm than good the way they are going, and considering they are there to look after their members, what is the motive for getting involved in all this? I mean surely the Suarez or Terry cases, where there's actual proof, would be the best bet? Even then, there are plenty of groups out there that could deal with that, why suddenly this lot?

It makes no sense to me, but then again looking at the wording of this guy's statements and the website and his lack of knowledge of what's a criminal offence and what isn't, not a lot makes sense about the whole thing.
 
:lol: No need for that.

Maybe I shouldn't have made the point about a white group (though again, it wasn't the standard "oh look a black group' thing, it was more about the methods used would have cause a much bigger fuss), because that's clouded people's judgements of what I'm saying. But you can see what I mean, it's not the existence of the group and the cause I'm saying is stupid, it's the targets and methods.

They are doing the fight against racism much more harm than good the way they are going, and considering they are there to look after their members, what is the motive for getting involved in all this? I mean surely the Suarez or Terry cases, where there's actual proof, would be the best bet? Even then, there are plenty of groups out there that could deal with that, why suddenly this lot?

It makes no sense to me, but then again looking at the wording of this guy's statements and the website and his lack of knowledge of what's a criminal offence and what isn't, not a lot makes sense about the whole thing.

I can't really answer your question regarding why they took on this case. I feel strongly for these sort of issues in general and I really felt I should stand up. Then I started posting and found myself having bitten off more than I could chew.

Your post + the fact that also I have had some warnings on this very site for racism(...) made me understand that you shouldn't have someone throwing allegations around like flyers (no critics given to the mods).
 
I can't really answer your question regarding why they took on this case. I feel strongly for these sort of issues in general and I really felt I should stand up. Then I started posting and found myself having bitten off more than I could chew.

Your post + the fact that also I have had some warnings on this very site for racism(...) made me understand that you shouldn't have someone throwing allegations around like flyers (no critics given to the mods).

Indeed, that's why I'm so bothered by this lot. Throwing around accusations without the slightest bit of proof, especially by bloody lawyers, is extremely wrong and the timing couldn't be worse for them to grab attention like this.

But hey, at least you can see I've not dropped to 'mob' levels :D
 
They were started in 1969, why wait 43 years to suddenly decide to have a go at spurs fans?
 
Indeed, that's why I'm so bothered by this lot. Throwing around accusations without the slightest bit of proof, especially by bloody lawyers, is extremely wrong and the timing couldn't be worse for them to grab attention like this.

But hey, at least you can see I've not dropped to 'mob' levels :D

This is the the core of it, and they really should have known better (at least as lawyers). I think their motivation and intention was good, but they really made a mess of it.

As I said, I think they had good intentions and they are in areas fighting a noble fight, but, they have really done damage to their name. As this is as public as it is, I think they will have lost a lot of their weight in future (more important) battles and it will only make it harder for them and for the ones they are fighting for.

I hope they can come out, admit they might have jumped the gun and save some face, so they can keep on with their important more important work against discrimination in the future.
 
Regardless of anything, are Spurs fans going to stop singing "Yid Army" or "Jermaine Defoe, he's a Yiddo"? No.

Are the Society for Black Lawyers going go win any court case they manage to bring concerning any alleged offence caused? No.

Are the Society for Black Lawyers going to damage whatever good reputation (?) they may possess if they persist with this nonsense? Yes.

You pick fights that are worth fighting. To pick a fight that can't be won and isn't worth fighting is doubly stupid. They'll gain headlines in the short-term, but beyond that their credibility will be damaged beyond repair.

Society of Black Lawyers: try stocking up on a little common sense.
 
This is the the core of it, and they really should have known better (at least as lawyers). I think their motivation and intention was good, but they really made a mess of it.

As I said, I think they had good intentions and they are in areas fighting a noble fight, but, they have really done damage to their name. As this is as public as it is, I think they will have lost a lot of their weight in future (more important) battles and it will only make it harder for them and for the ones they are fighting for.

I hope they can come out, admit they might have jumped the gun and save some face, so they can keep on with their important more important work against discrimination in the future.

It would be nice, but going by the statement on the spurs issue today, these guys have no intention of admitting anything. In fact, despite the Met's statement, the threat has been made again.

November 20th. Talk about boxing yourself into a corner. I'm beginning to really hope they do take on Levy and Spurs, because that will not end well for them. More than likely though, they will bottle any fight and just bother the Police again and expect them to sift through 40k fans, because apparently they don't have real issues to deal with :rolleyes:
 
Regardless of anything, are Spurs fans going to stop singing "Yid Army" or "Jermaine Defoe, he's a Yiddo"? No.

Are the Society for Black Lawyers going go win any court case they manage to bring concerning any alleged offence caused? No.

Are the Society for Black Lawyers going to damage whatever good reputation (?) they may possess if they persist with this nonsense? Yes.

You pick fights that are worth fighting. To pick a fight that can't be won and isn't worth fighting is doubly stupid. They'll gain headlines in the short-term, but beyond that their credibility will be damaged beyond repair.

Society of Black Lawyers: it's time to stop being so stupid.

This is what I'm thinking now, they won't be taking on anybody. They'll be expecting the Police to, then moaning about the outcome no doubt.

Tottenham fans are not going to be getting done for this. All the Campbell stuff, yes, but not for singing "yid army".

Sad thing is, this lot will live to accuse someone else another day...
 
Not really, it's an ethno-religious group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

That's a BS fudge. There are Russian Jews, British Jews, French Jews, American Jews, Israelli Jews etc etc etc.

Just as there are Iranian Muslims, Tunisian Musilims, Indonesian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims etc etc etc.

Care to tell me what the ethnic common deminator is?
 
That's a BS fudge. There are Russian Jews, British Jews, French Jews, American Jews, Israelli Jews etc etc etc.

Just as there are Iranian Muslims, Tunisian Musilims, Indonesian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims etc etc etc.

Care to tell me what the ethnic common deminator is?

Er, what?

The common denominator is being Jewish spazwad. Karl Marx was an atheist Jew; if it were strictly a religious group that would hardly be possible, would it?

There are also Russian blacks, British blacks, French blacks, American blacks, Israeli blacks etc. etc. just like there are Russian whites, British whites, French whites, American whites, Israeli whites etc. etc.

Seems to me that you're the one getting confused here, mixing up ethnicity with nationality.
 
That's a BS fudge. There are Russian Jews, British Jews, French Jews, American Jews, Israelli Jews etc etc etc.

Just as there are Iranian Muslims, Tunisian Musilims, Indonesian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims etc etc etc.

Care to tell me what the ethnic common deminator is?

Basically, the vast majority of Jews share a common bloodline, because matrilinear descent is required (apart from in some very recent sects). Conversion is possible, but historically not that common.

My ancestors are Russian and Lithuanian, but if you test my genes I'm likely much closer to Arabs, Persians and Kurds than your average London-raised Litvak is.

Also, as the Count says, I'm an atheist. But I look Jewish... note that no-one 'looks' Buddhist or Christian.
 
A real Bear Jew would have made Inglourious Basterds a much better film!
 
I meant more the manly bearded gay movement, but now you've posted that, it's quite hard to deny the resemblance. Especially with the shawl.
 
If I petition to join the Society of Black Lawyers, despite not being black, or a lawyer, and they refuse me could I sue them for discrimination?
 
It would be nice, but going by the statement on the spurs issue today, these guys have no intention of admitting anything. In fact, despite the Met's statement, the threat has been made again.

November 20th. Talk about boxing yourself into a corner. I'm beginning to really hope they do take on Levy and Spurs, because that will not end well for them. More than likely though, they will bottle any fight and just bother the Police again and expect them to sift through 40k fans, because apparently they don't have real issues to deal with :rolleyes:

Well, it's the way of the game these days, no one can go back on a point they have made. It's a bit sad and really show a lack of self awarness and a ability to admit wrong (respect to Successful for actually doing so btw). Pride is often getting in the way of actually getting together and agreeing on a issue and achiving something.

Unity only when it suits ones one view i guess :rolleyes:
 
Er, what?

The common denominator is being Jewish spazwad. Karl Marx was an atheist Jew; if it were strictly a religious group that would hardly be possible, would it?

There are also Russian blacks, British blacks, French blacks, American blacks, Israeli blacks etc. etc. just like there are Russian whites, British whites, French whites, American whites, Israeli whites etc. etc.

Seems to me that you're the one getting confused here, mixing up ethnicity with nationality.

On the contrary, you're confusing religion with ethnicity, and ethnicity with nationality.

If religion is suddenly to be defined in ethnic terms, what is the ethnic identity of Buddhists? Or Christians? Or Muslims?

PS. If Karl Marx was an atheist, he could hardly be described as a a follower of Judaism.
 
Basically, the vast majority of Jews share a common bloodline...

Basically, the whole of the human race share a common bloodline.

Why don't you thus establish a Society of Human Race Lawyers and sue Ufologists for being racist?
 
Basically, the vast majority of Jews share a common bloodline, because matrilinear descent is required (apart from in some very recent sects). Conversion is possible, but historically not that common.

My ancestors are Russian and Lithuanian, but if you test my genes I'm likely much closer to Arabs, Persians and Kurds than your average London-raised Litvak is.

Also, as the Count says, I'm an atheist. But I look Jewish... note that no-one 'looks' Buddhist or Christian.

Are saying you that Buddhists don't suffer from racial profiling at airports? Anyway, to me all Buddhists wear orange robes and resemble that fat Buddha statue.
 
I've just been reminded I was forced to sit through an episode of Ally McBeal once, and at that moment I was eating a Brisket.

The Justice League of pseudo Jewish Lawyers is officially announced, and we feel we have a right to speak up against the Tottenham fans also for the traditional half time booing. It's offensive to casper and those scared of the dark.
 
On the contrary, you're confusing religion with ethnicity, and ethnicity with nationality.

If religion is suddenly to be defined in ethnic terms, what is the ethnic identity of Buddhists? Or Christians? Or Muslims?

It doesn't apply to them because they're proselytising religions with no hereditary requirement, unlike Judaism.

Islam was at one stage largely ethnically Arab, but then they conquered half the world. Jews never did that. Some people claim that the Khazars converted around the 12th century and so brought some Turkic ethnicity into the pool, but there's not much evidence for it.

PS. If Karl Marx was an atheist, he could hardly be described as a a follower of Judaism.

Jewishness is complicated and not reducible to 'following Judaism' (though the Orthodox would disagree). It's part religion, but ethnic group, part nationality, part culture, and part international global conspiracy obviously.

Not sure Marx identified as Jewish - he didn't much like Jews at any rate, judging by his writings. But tons of atheists have, including Sam Harris, Freud, Einstein (probably), Jonathan Miller, the late Arthur Miller, me, and some of the bear community.

Jewish Atheism