"Yid" chanting...

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Yid chants, offensive?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 7.8%

  • No

    Votes: 317 92.2%
  • Total voters
    344
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
edit: He apparently is on Bail and charged under section 5 of Public Order Act 1986 according to sky. Therefore the offence is

'person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.'

Defences are:
  • Section 18 to show the word is not racial hatred 'A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

    (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

    (b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'(18)

    Section 18 of the act is relevant for defence of section 5 as it requires intent for ir to racial hatred. Therefore It can also be used to show the word was not 'threatening, abusive or insulting', as it is not racial hatred, in the context.

  • Section 5/ 3(a):'That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress'. The people offended are not exposed to the said word (which within the context is not threatening, abusive or insulting anyway)

  • Section 5 (3) (c): 'That his conduct was reasonable'. Chanting yid army at a Tottenham football game is very reasonable. Also could give context such as anti semitic abuse etc
 
Last edited:
Sunglasses Ron said:
Are you joking?

I was in 35 and it sounded like the entire Lower Tier were singing it.
Click to expand...

I was across the stadium so it was difficult to tell to be honest, I don't want to make the mistake of over estimating the numbers. Last year it seemed like the whole west ham end was chanting the song, this year it seemed a lot less.
 
Our constitution states that we have the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, sadly people can be labelled racists when we are just stating our honest heartfelt opinions.

Acts only carry the the force of law with consent of the governed, anyone remember being asked for your consent with these football offences acts?? F**k it's now an offence to stand at a bloody football match, how has it come about that football fans seem to have less rights that others attending different sports.

I therefore have the freedom to associate with the "Yid Army" a brotherhood of like minded people of all races and religions who have stood together for decades to help deflect abuse aimed at a minority of our support! The Word YID is not offensive by itself, as many posts on this thread has proved. Its all in the context in which the word is used, the Police the FA and that twat Baddiel should target those that use the term in a derogatory manner.
Im offended by the FA, the government and political correctness, and people that are offended by the slightest thing. But most of all i'm offended by those that wish to ride rough over our rights.
 
Schoolboy'sOwnStuff said:
I'd love that.

Thing is, they'll be covered. We know what they meant, but they didn't actually say the word Hitler.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Didn't someone suggest that whatever it is you're saying, if it's motivated by hate or racism it's a criminal offense?

Anyway I've emailed them. The app to report people is useless in the ground because I get no signal there!

here's the email I sent to kick it out.

Good afternoon,

I am writing to express my sadness and frustration with scenes that I witnessed at the match between Spurs and West Ham United on Sunday 6th October 2013.

I am a Spurs season ticket holder of several years and have been attending matches since 1992. I also come from a family that is entirely Jewish in its make-up. One of my grandparents fought against the Nazis in the second world war, the other was a young boy living in fear as his family was displaced and eventually settled in the UK. Several ancestors of mine had to go through the ordeal of the Russian pogroms and Hitler's concentration camps. Not all of them made it out alive.

Since I can remember, I have chanted the 'y word' at White Hart Lane. Even more so when we play against two teams in particular who have a history and current track record of disgusting anti-semitic abuse towards our fan base - West Ham and Chelsea. I do this out of pride and defiance. The abuse that birthed the term 'Yid Army' is very much alive and well in some quarters, yet it is criminally under-reported. I also feel heartened that non-Jewish Spurs fans align themselves with the club's traditional Jewish fans (minority or otherwise.) There are fewer friendlier places in the country for a Jewish person than the home end at White Hart Lane on a match day

This Sunday, amongst a growing media furore driven by both the FA and MET police's recent statement referring to use of the 'y word' and a small number of well-known individuals, namely David Baddiel and Peter Herbert of the Society of Black Lawyers, I took the police at their word and refrained from saying the word even once, for fear of arrest. Others chose to ignore the warnings and that's their decision. But for me, the atmosphere was very oppressive, with an inordinate amount of police officers in the home end watching us like hawks and taking notes in little notepads. Essentially, as someone with zero history of violence or problems with the law, I felt criminalised.

Sadly, a large number of West Ham fans to my left (and I'm talking a few hundred here) were clearly heard to be singing the following:
"He's coming for you. He's coming for you. We can't say his name. He's coming for you."
For those familiar with previous meetings between the two clubs, this is a clear reference to Adolf Hitler. In fact, very few of the anti-semitic songs we have endured over the years use the 'y word' at all.
The train home was a similar story, with the away fans looking to provoke us with further thinly veiled anti-semitic abuse.

Those Spurs fans who had the bravery to sing 'yid army' back at these vile people were greeted with gleeful counter-chants from the away end of 'racists! racists!'

So you see, because Tottenham fans and our use of one word in a non-aggravating way has become the media focus of the anti-semitism debate, the very people who chose to victimise us now feel they can do so with impunity AND laugh in our faces at the same time. It's hard to describe quite how depressing this feels to people like me. Already the media focus post match is on the one Spurs fan who was arrested and cautioned. I've not seen messrs Baddiel or Herbert say anything about West Ham fans' contribution to proceedings.

I completely understand the reason for a debate around the 'y word.' I accept that Jewish non-Spurs fans (and even some Spurs fans) find it distasteful. Whilst I don't agree with them, I respect their opinion. However, it seems that the original victims of the abuse, the Tottenham fanbase (Jewish or otherwise), have been made out to be the root of the problem before any proper consultation has taken place.

It is my hope that this email will encourage you, as a celebrated campaigner for equality in football, to do the following:
1. Publicly report the anti-semitic chanting that was prevalent from West Ham fans on Sunday and demand that action be taken
2. Advise the FA and other relevant authorities to reframe this debate, moving the focus away from the use of a word (which in itself is semiologically complex) and towards the more serious problem of anti-semitic chanting by fans of particular clubs both at Tottenham games and their other matches
3. Plan an educative campaign to help younger fans to understand why chanting about Hitler and concentration camps is unacceptable, as opposed to championing that ridiculously simplistic video created by the Baddiel brothers.

I look forward to hearing from you.

James

blatantly getting an email back saying TLDR
 
Raiders said:
edit: He apparently is on Bail and charged under section 5 of Public Order Act 1986 according to sky. Therefore the offence is

'person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.'

Defences are:
  • Section 18 to show the word is not racial hatred 'A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

    (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

    (b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'(18)

    Section 18 of the act is relevant for defence of section 5 as it requires intent for ir to racial hatred. Therefore It can also be used to show the word was not 'threatening, abusive or insulting', as it is not racial hatred, in the context.

  • Section 5/ 3(a):'That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress'. The people offended are not exposed to the said word (which within the context is not threatening, abusive or insulting anyway)

  • Another related defense is 'that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling,'

  • Section 5 (3) (c): 'That his conduct was reasonable'. Chanting yid army at a Tottenham football game is very reasonable. Also could give context such as anti semitic abuse etc
Click to expand...

Furthering my earlier point (this has been a wasted afternoon). The person who took offence in this case must be the police officer, which is fine. The word 'yid' must be 'threatening, abusive or insulting' as a matter of fact to be decided by the judge. Therefore the crown has to show that the defendant saying 'yid' was 'threatening, abusive or insulting' as a matter of fact. Essentially you have to prove it is an offensive word, as it is rarely used and relatively unknown this might be difficult.
Also section 5 unlike, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 does not require intent. However as has been shown to incite racial hatred requires intent. Therefore It is difficult for the crown to show shouting yid with no racial hatred is threatening, abusive or insulting.
 
bobby smith said:
Our constitution states
Click to expand...
The UK doesn't have a singular constitution. It is made up of legislation, case law, authoritative texts and parliamentary discussion. In fact, the freedom of expression is on the same legislative level as the various other acts of parliament quoted in this discussion.

This isn't America.
 
jimmyriggle said:
Doesn't matter. Didn't someone suggest that whatever it is you're saying, if it's motivated by hate or racism it's a criminal offense?

Anyway I've emailed them. The app to report people is useless in the ground because I get no signal there!

here's the email I sent to kick it out.

Good afternoon,

I am writing to express my sadness and frustration with scenes that I witnessed at the match between Spurs and West Ham United on Sunday 6th October 2013.

I am a Spurs season ticket holder of several years and have been attending matches since 1992. I also come from a family that is entirely Jewish in its make-up. One of my grandparents fought against the Nazis in the second world war, the other was a young boy living in fear as his family was displaced and eventually settled in the UK. Several ancestors of mine had to go through the ordeal of the Russian pogroms and Hitler's concentration camps. Not all of them made it out alive.

Since I can remember, I have chanted the 'y word' at White Hart Lane. Even more so when we play against two teams in particular who have a history and current track record of disgusting anti-semitic abuse towards our fan base - West Ham and Chelsea. I do this out of pride and defiance. The abuse that birthed the term 'Yid Army' is very much alive and well in some quarters, yet it is criminally under-reported. I also feel heartened that non-Jewish Spurs fans align themselves with the club's traditional Jewish fans (minority or otherwise.) There are fewer friendlier places in the country for a Jewish person than the home end at White Hart Lane on a match day

This Sunday, amongst a growing media furore driven by both the FA and MET police's recent statement referring to use of the 'y word' and a small number of well-known individuals, namely David Baddiel and Peter Herbert of the Society of Black Lawyers, I took the police at their word and refrained from saying the word even once, for fear of arrest. Others chose to ignore the warnings and that's their decision. But for me, the atmosphere was very oppressive, with an inordinate amount of police officers in the home end watching us like hawks and taking notes in little notepads. Essentially, as someone with zero history of violence or problems with the law, I felt criminalised.

Sadly, a large number of West Ham fans to my left (and I'm talking a few hundred here) were clearly heard to be singing the following:
"He's coming for you. He's coming for you. We can't say his name. He's coming for you."
For those familiar with previous meetings between the two clubs, this is a clear reference to Adolf Hitler. In fact, very few of the anti-semitic songs we have endured over the years use the 'y word' at all.
The train home was a similar story, with the away fans looking to provoke us with further thinly veiled anti-semitic abuse.

Those Spurs fans who had the bravery to sing 'yid army' back at these vile people were greeted with gleeful counter-chants from the away end of 'racists! racists!'

So you see, because Tottenham fans and our use of one word in a non-aggravating way has become the media focus of the anti-semitism debate, the very people who chose to victimise us now feel they can do so with impunity AND laugh in our faces at the same time. It's hard to describe quite how depressing this feels to people like me. Already the media focus post match is on the one Spurs fan who was arrested and cautioned. I've not seen messrs Baddiel or Herbert say anything about West Ham fans' contribution to proceedings.

I completely understand the reason for a debate around the 'y word.' I accept that Jewish non-Spurs fans (and even some Spurs fans) find it distasteful. Whilst I don't agree with them, I respect their opinion. However, it seems that the original victims of the abuse, the Tottenham fanbase (Jewish or otherwise), have been made out to be the root of the problem before any proper consultation has taken place.

It is my hope that this email will encourage you, as a celebrated campaigner for equality in football, to do the following:
1. Publicly report the anti-semitic chanting that was prevalent from West Ham fans on Sunday and demand that action be taken
2. Advise the FA and other relevant authorities to reframe this debate, moving the focus away from the use of a word (which in itself is semiologically complex) and towards the more serious problem of anti-semitic chanting by fans of particular clubs both at Tottenham games and their other matches
3. Plan an educative campaign to help younger fans to understand why chanting about Hitler and concentration camps is unacceptable, as opposed to championing that ridiculously simplistic video created by the Baddiel brothers.

I look forward to hearing from you.

James

blatantly getting an email back saying TLDR
Click to expand...

section 18 of public order act 1986
'18Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.
(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'

  • 'threatening' and 'intends to stir up racial hatred' is key. Could argue the chant is both.

  • (18) (4)'In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.' They intended us hear so that would not be a defence
 
Raiders said:
Furthering my earlier point (this has been a wasted afternoon). The person who took offence in this case must be the police officer, which is fine. The word 'yid' must be 'threatening, abusive or insulting' as a matter of fact to be decided by the judge. Therefore the crown has to show that the defendant saying 'yid' was 'threatening, abusive or insulting' as a matter of fact. Essentially you have to prove it is an offensive word, as it is rarely used and relatively unknown this might be difficult.
Also section 5 unlike, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 does not require intent. However as has been shown to incite racial hatred requires intent. Therefore It is difficult for the crown to show shouting yid with no racial hatred is threatening, abusive or insulting.
Click to expand...
A much more proper assessment. However, since there are still members of the Jewish community who find it offensive (in fact I was in discussion with another one this past half and hour) I think it is true to say that it meets the criteria you state from a literal point of view. Since I do not practice in the criminal field I would be interested to now whether this is a strict liability offence or one when a mens rea applies. If the latter than I think there is ambiguity. Remember the relevant word in the quoted legislation is "or".
 
Just wrote to West Ham too. On the warpath

Good afternoon,

As a Jewish Spurs fan I was delighted to read the statement that West Ham United's owners issued prior to the match on Sunday:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spurs-yid-row-read-letter-2338143

With the furore in the build up focusing so much on the so-called 'y word' and its use by Spurs fans, it was heartening to see your club's hierarchy recognise that sadly there is still an element within its fanbase that feel it is funny to make anti-semitic remarks towards or about our fans.

However, having clearly heard a considerable number of Hammers fans sing the following, "He's coming for you, he's coming for you, we can't say his name, he's coming for you" (a clear reference to a previous song referencing Adolf Hitler's pursuit of Jews), I would like your assurances that the club will investigate this matter fully and act on the promises outlined in the letter mentioned above.

I feel it's important to note that, on Sunday, I did my part by not once chanting the 'y word.' Even though I don't entirely agree with the FA and Police's stance on the matter, I'd rather not be arrested because of it. Unfortunately a large number of travelling West Ham fans chose to take advantage of the position Spurs fans found ourselves in. You can imagine how frustrating this will have been for myself and fellow supporters.

I hope that West Ham United will continue to work with the relevant groups and authorities to stamp out anti-semitism and all other forms of abuse on match days.

Kind regards,
 
Smoked Salmon said:
A much more proper assessment. However, since there are still members of the Jewish community who find it offensive (in fact I was in discussion with another one this past half and hour) I think it is true to say that it meets the criteria you state from a literal point of view. Since I do not practice in the criminal field I would be interested to now whether this is a strict liability offence or one when a mens rea applies. If the latter than I think there is ambiguity. Remember the relevant word in the quoted legislation is "or".
Click to expand...

Mens rea I believe.

Section 6 (4): 4)A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

Again the or is important, when i chant 'yid' I am not aware that anyone is insulted around me, especially as the context has no racial hatred intent. I do not practice law either btw
 
Raiders said:
Mens rea I believe.

Section 6 (4): 4)A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

Again the or is important, when i chant 'yid' I am not aware that anyone is insulted around me, especially as the context has no racial hatred intent. I do not practice law either btw
Click to expand...
I would say that "(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.'" could easily encompass those elements of the Jewish community who still find it offensive, a fact not unknown to anyone involved in this debate.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spurs-yid-row-west-ham-2346968

sweep-under-rug.jpg
 
Our clubs statement made on the 4th October was interesting...

The Police have also advised us that they will be monitoring closely for the use of any terms which are offensive and/or may be considered offensive by others and will, if necessary, take action against those individuals. A statement issued by the Police makes it clear that this includes the use of the Y-word. We should, therefore, like to ask all fans to be mindful of their use of this term. Please help to make it a positive match day experience that can be enjoyed by all.
Click to expand...

I admire their use of the word mindful.

1. attentive, aware, or careful (usually followed by of): mindful of one's responsibilities.

Great to see how they dont say dont sing this or refrain from chanting that.

They know the score as much as we do.

Obviously they need to tread carefully to avoid being penalised and further action being taken.

And that is one of the reasons I love this fucking club.

COYS
YIDS
TTID
 
Last edited:
Schoolboy'sOwnStuff said:
I'd love that.

Thing is, they'll be covered. We know what they meant, but they didn't actually say the word Hitler.
Click to expand...

...and why was that? 'cos they knew the sentiment was fucking offensive... purposely deleting the word Hitler merely highlights they MEANT and were referring to him in the first place... otherwise, who the fuck else did they mean, The Old Bill??? (who were, also rather ironically, 'coming for us'...)
Hmmm, they're cleverer than I fought... maybe they're not all knuckleheaded whelk munching market-stall holders, whose dear ol' Nan sucked the Kray twins off whilst sweeping Muvver Kelly's doorstep with their unkempt post-war bushes!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom