• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Rodrigo Bentancur

Jurgen the German said:
I think what you have to at least take into account is people are products of their environment. Similar for people who lived decades/centuries ago and who held views that would be unacceptable in 2024. I am not excusing his comments or saying we have to accept it, but it doesn’t sound like his views exactly make him an outlier in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

He’s in this part of the world now, and held to the standards of it.

That’s how things change.

The mission is to “kick racism out of football”, so let’s kick racism out of football.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’ve read it was actually in his home in the UK
That not 100% clear but has been reported by a few spurs journos
Click to expand...

The FA's published policies

In the event the Participant claims he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy, The FA will take into account whether or not such an
expectation exists and whether it is legitimate before charging. Where The FA considers that a legitimate expectation does or might exist, it will then take into account the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether such expectation is outweighed by the severity of the offence.

Now if it was a private interview in Rodrigio's house, then he is perfectly entitled to veto any part of that interview, delete it and start again. He clearly sanctioned for it to go public on Uruguay TV.

I have no clue what this is -
Looks legitimate, and tagged as The Sun Exclusive.

Watch at 1 min 55 secs. So do the media get sanctioned for not being able to tell the difference between Biss and Sarr? Does this race look all the same as well? Unbelievable.
 
Baleforce said:
If they are here they are judged by our standards.

An American can’t walk the streets of London with an assault rifle just because they can do back in a flyover state.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't stop them from thinking or saying they can shoot whoever they want if they consider in the right situation, got to educate them to have some empathy with other humans. Making things illegal rarely changes things as we all see each day.
 
Muttley said:
The FA's published policies

In the event the Participant claims he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy, The FA will take into account whether or not such an
expectation exists and whether it is legitimate before charging. Where The FA considers that a legitimate expectation does or might exist, it will then take into account the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether such expectation is outweighed by the severity of the offence.

Now if it was a private interview in Rodrigio's house, then he is perfectly entitled to veto any part of that interview, delete it and start again. He clearly sanctioned for it to go public on Uruguay TV.

I have no clue what this is -
Looks legitimate, and tagged as The Sun Exclusive.

Watch at 1 min 55 secs. So do the media get sanctioned for not being able to tell the difference between Biss and Sarr? Does this race look all the same as well? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Do you know for certain that he was aware he could change anything he didn't like in the final cut or is it an assumption? Bentancur may well hold that view and he will be banned for it, will the ban change that view or should he be encouraged to change it?
 
Muttley said:
The FA's published policies

In the event the Participant claims he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy, The FA will take into account whether or not such an
expectation exists and whether it is legitimate before charging. Where The FA considers that a legitimate expectation does or might exist, it will then take into account the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether such expectation is outweighed by the severity of the offence.

Now if it was a private interview in Rodrigio's house, then he is perfectly entitled to veto any part of that interview, delete it and start again. He clearly sanctioned for it to go public on Uruguay TV.

I have no clue what this is -
Looks legitimate, and tagged as The Sun Exclusive.

Watch at 1 min 55 secs. So do the media get sanctioned for not being able to tell the difference between Biss and Sarr? Does this race look all the same as well? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
The media were fine with what was said
His excuse that he was correcting the interview is not how I see that body language
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Do you know for certain that he was aware he could change anything he didn't like in the final cut or is it an assumption? Bentancur may well hold that view and he will be banned for it, will the ban change that view or should he be encouraged to change it?
Click to expand...

No, my point is that the FA have been clear that if it is media or social media in a public setting then it is clear. If it is in a personal setting then it needs to be assessed. I would think that is consistent with most company's view on this area. If someone is dangling a phone over your garden fence, and catches you singing 10 German Bombers, it is very different from you singing it at Wembley? That was only my point.

There's some interesting stuff on this website - https://www.thefa.com/inclusion-and-anti-discrimination/reporting-discrimination
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The media were fine with what was said
His excuse that he was correcting the interview is not how I see that body language
Click to expand...

The issue in my mind is that he seems to not realise what he said was bad until after it had gone out publicly in Uruguay and looped all the way back to the UK and The FA. What I never really got to grips with is whether it caused outrage back in Uruguay until it kicked off in the UK.
 
Muttley said:
The issue in my mind is that he seems to not realise what he said was bad until after it had gone out publicly in Uruguay and looped all the way back to the UK and The FA. What I never really got to grips with is whether it caused outrage back in Uruguay until it kicked off in the UK.
Click to expand...
I’d wager that in his home country it’s not racist
 
Bedfordspurs said:
We know why
Enzo was in an Intl comp
Rodrigo wasn’t at the point of the offence
Click to expand...
And this is what annoys me. Apparently all of football are for kick it out. Yet different bodies are not dealing with Enzo cos of where he was. It's a joke and that's why it's all lip service. Cos if they really want to stamp it out they would do more than they are doing
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I think Bentacur comes from a country where certain things are said and accepted as the norm. It’s possibly not a coincidence that 3 big players from one country have had bans for racism here

I was recently in Poland and talking to a taxi driver about work. He said you have issues in the UK, we don’t have her because we don’t let brown people in. I’d not believe he was being racist he was just stating things as he knew them.

I think some people suffer form ignorance of not knowing what is acceptable… I hope that’s the case anyway
Click to expand...
One of my good mates is an Uruguayan who is mid 50’s and left there as a teen. He’s white. He will use the ‘N’ word and says that in Uruguay most people do. It’s their culture. So Lolo comes from a place where everyday language about black people is racist.

I have no clue what his own views are, but Uruguayans grow up that way in that culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back