Sterling display of moronic idiocy.

I know footballers generally are dumber than a box of rocks but Sterling, with his assault rifle tattoo, is surely the crème de la crème of stupidity.

It's an ''anti-gun" tattoo apparently because his dad got shot when he was two. Yeah right Raheem. My Watford tattoo obviously makes me a Luton supporter.

Footballers aren't role models, his body, his tattoo, can do as he wants, yep some fool will suggest all of that but if gun crime isn't getting bad enough in Britain just watch it go and get worse. Well done Raheem, role model of gangsters.

 

"Killed by death"

 

So it's okay for kids to spend 24-7 on games like Call of Duty where it's entertainment to use all sorts of guns to kill real people in a virtual world... but not okay for a footballer to have a gun tattoo

People need to get their priorities right if they think Sterling is the problem here

 

It rather suits his ‘spray & pray’ approach when taking aim at goal.

 

I'm so angry about this that I may not support England at the World Cup. All my mad love for Raheem is withdrawn too.

 

dealing with his dad's violent death in a way that I wouldn't. it's like he didn't think of me at all when he for this done. disgrace

 

The media are always very critical with Sterling but he really doesn't help himself

 

He was a class 1 t*t before the tattoo. Nothings changed.

 

Had his father hanged himself, would he tattoo a noose on his leg? I think that connection he's made is not true, but it's something he's saying to deflect the heat.

In these days of terrorism, to tattoo an M16 assault rifle on your leg is beyond belief.

I know it's his body, and he can do what he likes with it, but seriously, a person in his position to be advertising this symbol of war, death and destruction has to have some mental issues.

I think it's as simple as, "I shoot with his right leg, therefore I'll tattoo a gun there". I wonder if he has a big **** tattooed on his right hand??

 

This isn't exactly the problem but is stupid nonetheless. Whether he likes it or not he is a role model.

 

As if a mega-rich footballer getting a gun tattoo will influence any gangster-types in sink estates to get a real gun to shoot someone. "Sorry officer, Sterling's tattoo made me do it". How to solve gun/knife crime in this country? Get footballers to tattoo flowers on their legs instead, problem solved! Huge over-reaction by the media trying to drag down the England team before a World Cup (they won't need any help, they'll be crap all by themselves )

Where is the rage about the complexities of the real influences behind gun/knife crime, ie. gang culture, drug culture, drill music/videos, increased poverty, youth clubs being shut down, family breakdown and institutional racism (including the demonising of the white working class male)? Instead we have the media going apoplectic over a bit of ink!

Perspective required.

 

Arsenal have a gun on their badge, nobody says anything about that. Don't see the problem.

 

People have got knives and spears tattooed on them for years and no on bats an eyelid.

Has Sterling been a bit silly? Of course but the overriding thing is, that if any kid see’s the tattoo and then thinks ‘I want a gun and to join a gang’ - then it really isn’t the tattoo that’s the problem.

He has had the tattoo for over a month and it’s clearly been seen by journalists before now whilst he was playing for City and on the pitch after games - but that awful rag drop the story now for obvious reasons to disrupt England. Shameful really.

 

It's the message it sends out that's the problem. If you saw someone on holiday and he has a M16 tattooed on his leg, what would you think of the person? I would say he's probably into crime, supports violence and probably supports terrorism. That's the message I'd be getting from it.

What if he had a Swastika tattooed on his leg? Maybe his granddad was shot by a Nazi.

Seriously, if you're in the public eye, you cannot get away with doing something like that. Why draw that attention to yourself? Surely, even with a goldfish brain you're going to know it will be used against you at some point.

What would happen if some nutter shoots up a school with an assault rifle? Don't you think people/press/media will immediately make that link to Sterling? It would certainly be used against him.

 

As I have said, he’s been silly. Maybe that’s not far enough and he’s been moronic and been a bit brain-dead to people’s attitude towards guns.

However, if his dad has been gunned down when he was 2, who are we to say how that would affect someone if it hasn’t happened to us. I’d say sterling has done a damn fine job of forging the career his has under those circumstances.

The tattoo is ill-advised but honestly, no I do t think the things you are suggesting I might if I saw a guy on holiday with a gun tattooed on him. I’d think he’s a bit of an idiot but I wouldn’t link it to any kind of extreme tendencies of beliefs.

The world needs rid of guns in public hands. But there’s a mental health issue at hand here and this certain newspaper hounds this young man because he earns money and is good at his profession - look how that affected Gazza.

It’s obviously a divisive issue where strong opinions will be on both sides.

 

Very few people would have seen the tattoo had the media not printed the photo. With his socks pulled up you won't be able to see it (so kids watching the matches etc won't see it). He's probably had it for months and this is the first time we're seeing it. Just a classic case of the media trying to destabilise the England team shortly before a major tournament.



^ This is the tattoo of Alberto Moreno. Nobody has accused him of being a bad role model.



Damien Delaney of Crystal Palace. Likewise, no headlines.

 

If it was an obvious tribute to his father, then I don't think there would be a major problem. We've only got his word as to what it's about. He also said something like he shoots with his right foot, so already he's said it's about a couple of things.

If you have to explain it, then the meaning is not clear. Maybe he's part of a gang that likes shooting people, and he's supporting that? Maybe he wants to get on the right side of the Russian mafia?

 

almost certainly, because as we're seeing quite clearly today, people are relentlessly stupid

 

But it’s his tattoo, why should he have to explain its meaning or make it obvious to people?

 

because otherwise people on holiday will assume he is a terrorist, obviously

 

Next time I see the local farmer across the way from me out shooting wildlife I'm calling the anti terrorist squad

 

You are as na*ve as he is then.

 

It's not an M16.

 

Care to explain that rather needlessly provocative comment?

Just so you have some background - I have worked in the music industry for 17 years and have had first hand experiences through programmes my label has been involved with about gang culture. I have also been directly involved with programmes set up in the name of Stephen Lawrence about changing kids attitudes towards weapons and putting their efforts into things like music and art. So you’ll understand why I don’t believe for one moment that I’m naive about these kind of issues.

 

Everyone saying this is an issue needs to read this
https://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-special-raheem-sterling-the-sun-and-racist-attacks

 

Don't think it needs further comment, as it's obvious as Gray missing a 1 v 1 chance against a keeper, but here goes...….

If you don't think anyone is going to ask him to explain why he has an assault rifle on his leg, which is exactly what they have done, then you are as na*ve as he is.

 

If you're determined to ink up, surely this is the way to do it.

Quite inspiring.

 

But they haven’t asked him? He’s been forced to explain it when he shouldn’t have had to. He’s been forced by the biggest rag in the country plastering it all over the front page rather than give it context. Because context doesn’t sell papers. If you don’t believe that, I’d suggest it’s you who is na*ve. That’s what is obvious.

Some military logos have guns and swords and knives on them - should ex-servicemen have to worry if they want that symbol tattooed on them or be forced to explain it on the beach for fear of being a terrorist or holding extreme views?

I agree that Sterling has been absent minded in not covering it up until it’s completed. But if a young footballer wants to pay tribute to his dad who died in horrific circumstances, in his own way, let him get on with it.

 

Oh dear...do we have to do this routine again? It's quite tiresome.

He has to explain himself and you're na*ve to think otherwise. You've even unwittingly agreeing with what I said, which is the ironic part.

 

What I do think is good about this, is that people’s attitudes towards the paper in question and their journalist standards are getting better. I’ve seen far more people calling out the ‘newspaper’ in question rather than Sterling himself.

They are trying to bully the player and give him a trial by media and it’s being called out for what it is. Flagrant undertoned racism.

 

I think Christians should be banned from wearing crosses.

In fact, I think Christians should be banned, full stop.

Likewise all other religious nutbags.

 

Or maybe they want an explanation as to why an England international is appearing to support gun crime, terrorism, violence, war......hmmmm…..who knows.

 

I can see the angle The S*n would take with this person.

'No white people on mans inking proves he's a racist. Bob Marley smoked more than all the chimneys during the industrial revolution in good ol' Blighty so this disgusting racist is obviously involved in the drug culture that gangs promote. Muhammad Ali (one of the most famous Muslims) was a fighter so this hideous drugged-up racist must be a terrorist.'

I won't go on as the whole Raheem Sterling thing is a non-story.

 

Who knows? You clearly don’t.

The more I read from you, the more I don’t think you believe much of what you say, but you just have a real inibility to see two sides to any story.

If the paper in question wanted an explaination, why didn’t they ask for one? Why not approach him for a quote? Because they didn’t have to - act first, think later and hide behind the right to ‘Free Press’.

 

Who ******* cares