One Knee Thing

horden · **Posted:** Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:31 pm

derwent wrote:

horden wrote:

derwent wrote:

accrington fan wrote:

black and white poor are both the same .many know this but a wedge between em has been attempted to put between them over the last few months. white priveledge at food banks in burnley i think not. the privelege exists from day one at private and public schools. go there and you,ve got your leg up you require. have 2 people both with the same educational achievments we all know who will find it easier to reach the top of their proffesion given everything about them is the same.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from Mr Accy. Who is trying to put a wedge between the poor, based on their background or appearance ??

I certainly have never given an interviewee a job based on which school the person went to. The best candidate gets the job for me. I don't know of any instance where that's happened in my experience. I have witnessed preference the other way round though. Some interviewers deliberately shy clear of the public school candidates because they think the world owes them a living, so it sometimes works against them. I don't agree with that attitude either but it happens. Best person all the time as far as I'm concerned.
Most interviewers take more notice of the degree people have attained when looking at their educational background and at University they are mostly all fee paying, so at least in part they are all fee paying. A CV is much more that just which school the person attended, especially when the position you are interviewing for puts emphasis on experience and career progression so far. You've got to credit HR professionals with some savvy. A well presented CV is more likely to get you on the short list than your Alma Mater.
If I was doing the recruitment for a football club, I would base my judgement on what the manager requires and, as there are a lot of black players employed in football, there doesn't appear to be much racial discrimination. I think it is fair to say that any racism present comes from the terraces and they don't decide who gets employed or not.

I don't understand where the Burnley food banks come in. I can't see where privilege and food banks come into the same sentence unless you are saying that there is discrimination against some people in the queue based on their background. I have collected for food banks but luckily I've never had to take my place in the queue to receive anything. For that I am grateful.

You might be fair at interviews Derwent , but others might not be. There is discrimination taking place all around us, always has , always will. The Civil Service where I used to work , was primarily made up of females, why was that? I have been interviewed by a panel of 3 females, I was told later by a friend that should never happen, needless to say I never got the job. I think you have a rather inflated view of HR professionals, but thats just my opinion. A reason once given for the lack of black policeman climbing the ladder within the force, was that the senior policeman interviewing who was invariably a white man , sub consciously was looking for a younger version of himself when carrying out interviews, obviously that could only be a man with the same skin colour. I think the same thing happens in the Civil Service.

When was the last time HUFC employed a black person who wasnt a player? I think a bit of positive discrimination is in order here.

To address the food bank thing, someone perfectly described the lockdown a few months ago, when they said, its those with money, who are ordering things online and its the underclass/low paid who are out in the rain on a Sunday afternoon doing the delivering.

My attitude at interviews was quite simple and it comes from my dad. He always said "always try to do your best".
Any job I have been given that is what I try to do. I sometimes get called a perfectionist but I'm not really. I just find it difficult to accept second best, especially from myself.
My job when interviewing was to do my level best to get the best person for the job and the company and that is what I used to focus on. I never sat down to the job thinking I have got to be fair here, although I agree it could be construed that way.

The only time I would criticise three members of the same sex being the sole occupants of the interview panel is if they were not the best three available, once again putting the emphasis on the best people to do the job. If the best three are all of the same sex then so be it.
I don't know which part of the Civil service you were in, for it to be predominately female, so I wouldn't attempt to tackle that question without further information.

I haven't got an inflated view of HR professionals, all I said that is you have to credit them with some savvy. What I was referring to was that they are the people who keep the panel au fait with employment law and advise on matters of discrimination and the like and they would do that in order to avoid recrimination.

On your Police example, I think the people who put forward the subconscious idea may be right but equally they may be wrong. Unless white interviewers, in substantial numbers, volunteer the information that they were knowingly leaning towards white applicants, that theory will never be substantiated. For a start anybody admitting to leaning that way is virtually admitting to have racist tendencies. As it is subconscious anyway, who will admit to it? What percentage of police applicants are black is the first question I would ask because if only a small number apply it is a fair possibility only a small number will be successful. The same applies to your question on Pools. The first question is how many have applied, not how many have they employed. Only then will you know the extent of any discrimination that can be laid at Pools door. Going back to the theory you put forward that people employ images of themselves then you would expect a few Raj images down Clarence Road. I don't think that has happened so another nail in the coffin of that theory.

On the foodbank point.
Obviously the people buying on line can afford to do so and delivery drivers are in the low paid category. We could encourage the on line suppliers to pay the drivers more but would that put the prices up, and would that mean the sales would go down, and would that subsequently mean some drivers are paid off. I'm not clever enough to offer a balanced solution to that one.

You talk a lot of sense Derwent, but you can reply to posts, without going all out to try and destroy peoples arguments. That is what ruins message boards and social media , that was the big problem with PJ Poolie. Sometimes I agreed with him just to test him out , and then I would laugh as he attempted to destroy his own argument :laugh:

For the record I don't think you have put a nail in the coffin of my theory at all, what has Raj got to do with recruitment in the Civil Service and police force? Like all of these debates, and we have had many in the past , more or less about the same things, you rarely get a winner, they are too complex, certainly for the likes of you and I to put them to bed, all a person can do is offer their life experiences on the subject , which is what I did. Its difficult to prove anything when doors are shut to those trying to gather the information to prove wrongdoing , therefore we can only talk of our own experiences and second guess, which generally leads to difference of opinions. Usually the solution can be found by meeting in the middle , something mankind so far has found very difficult to accomplish.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Thats a hell of a lot of words by Derwent.

Could have easy just said "im a bit racist" and saved about 10 minutes.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

horden wrote:

derwent wrote:

horden wrote:

derwent wrote:

accrington fan wrote:

black and white poor are both the same .many know this but a wedge between em has been attempted to put between them over the last few months. white priveledge at food banks in burnley i think not. the privelege exists from day one at private and public schools. go there and you,ve got your leg up you require. have 2 people both with the same educational achievments we all know who will find it easier to reach the top of their proffesion given everything about them is the same.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from Mr Accy. Who is trying to put a wedge between the poor, based on their background or appearance ??

I certainly have never given an interviewee a job based on which school the person went to. The best candidate gets the job for me. I don't know of any instance where that's happened in my experience. I have witnessed preference the other way round though. Some interviewers deliberately shy clear of the public school candidates because they think the world owes them a living, so it sometimes works against them. I don't agree with that attitude either but it happens. Best person all the time as far as I'm concerned.
Most interviewers take more notice of the degree people have attained when looking at their educational background and at University they are mostly all fee paying, so at least in part they are all fee paying. A CV is much more that just which school the person attended, especially when the position you are interviewing for puts emphasis on experience and career progression so far. You've got to credit HR professionals with some savvy. A well presented CV is more likely to get you on the short list than your Alma Mater.
If I was doing the recruitment for a football club, I would base my judgement on what the manager requires and, as there are a lot of black players employed in football, there doesn't appear to be much racial discrimination. I think it is fair to say that any racism present comes from the terraces and they don't decide who gets employed or not.

I don't understand where the Burnley food banks come in. I can't see where privilege and food banks come into the same sentence unless you are saying that there is discrimination against some people in the queue based on their background. I have collected for food banks but luckily I've never had to take my place in the queue to receive anything. For that I am grateful.

You might be fair at interviews Derwent , but others might not be. There is discrimination taking place all around us, always has , always will. The Civil Service where I used to work , was primarily made up of females, why was that? I have been interviewed by a panel of 3 females, I was told later by a friend that should never happen, needless to say I never got the job. I think you have a rather inflated view of HR professionals, but thats just my opinion. A reason once given for the lack of black policeman climbing the ladder within the force, was that the senior policeman interviewing who was invariably a white man , sub consciously was looking for a younger version of himself when carrying out interviews, obviously that could only be a man with the same skin colour. I think the same thing happens in the Civil Service.

When was the last time HUFC employed a black person who wasnt a player? I think a bit of positive discrimination is in order here.

To address the food bank thing, someone perfectly described the lockdown a few months ago, when they said, its those with money, who are ordering things online and its the underclass/low paid who are out in the rain on a Sunday afternoon doing the delivering.

My attitude at interviews was quite simple and it comes from my dad. He always said "always try to do your best".
Any job I have been given that is what I try to do. I sometimes get called a perfectionist but I'm not really. I just find it difficult to accept second best, especially from myself.
My job when interviewing was to do my level best to get the best person for the job and the company and that is what I used to focus on. I never sat down to the job thinking I have got to be fair here, although I agree it could be construed that way.

The only time I would criticise three members of the same sex being the sole occupants of the interview panel is if they were not the best three available, once again putting the emphasis on the best people to do the job. If the best three are all of the same sex then so be it.
I don't know which part of the Civil service you were in, for it to be predominately female, so I wouldn't attempt to tackle that question without further information.

I haven't got an inflated view of HR professionals, all I said that is you have to credit them with some savvy. What I was referring to was that they are the people who keep the panel au fait with employment law and advise on matters of discrimination and the like and they would do that in order to avoid recrimination.

On your Police example, I think the people who put forward the subconscious idea may be right but equally they may be wrong. Unless white interviewers, in substantial numbers, volunteer the information that they were knowingly leaning towards white applicants, that theory will never be substantiated. For a start anybody admitting to leaning that way is virtually admitting to have racist tendencies. As it is subconscious anyway, who will admit to it? What percentage of police applicants are black is the first question I would ask because if only a small number apply it is a fair possibility only a small number will be successful. The same applies to your question on Pools. The first question is how many have applied, not how many have they employed. Only then will you know the extent of any discrimination that can be laid at Pools door. Going back to the theory you put forward that people employ images of themselves then you would expect a few Raj images down Clarence Road. I don't think that has happened so another nail in the coffin of that theory.

On the foodbank point.
Obviously the people buying on line can afford to do so and delivery drivers are in the low paid category. We could encourage the on line suppliers to pay the drivers more but would that put the prices up, and would that mean the sales would go down, and would that subsequently mean some drivers are paid off. I'm not clever enough to offer a balanced solution to that one.

You talk a lot of sense Derwent, but you can reply to posts, without going all out to try and destroy peoples arguments. That is what ruins message boards and social media , that was the big problem with PJ Poolie. Sometimes I agreed with him just to test him out , and then I would laugh as he attempted to destroy his own argument :laugh:

For the record I don't think you have put a nail in the coffin of my theory at all, what has Raj got to do with recruitment in the Civil Service and police force? Like all of these debates, and we have had many in the past , more or less about the same things, you rarely get a winner, they are too complex, certainly for the likes of you and I to put them to bed, all a person can do is offer their life experiences on the subject , which is what I did. Its difficult to prove anything when doors are shut to those trying to gather the information to prove wrongdoing , therefore we can only talk of our own experiences and second guess, which generally leads to difference of opinions. Usually the solution can be found by meeting in the middle , something mankind so far has found very difficult to accomplish.

I am not trying to destroy your posts Mr H. I am merely giving a point of view on the content as a matter of discussion.
As you imply it is more difficult on a message board than if we were say propping a bar up or sat face to face. Face to face you would not have got the impression that I hold an inflated view of HR professionals believe me.
If I've given the impression that I'm having a go at you then I apologise because that is not my intention.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

https://fb.watch/2ei_gLZ_fg/

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

I wonder if BLM are proud of this ! Now you can clearly see the lovely chap is putting up a fight with the police and if he was to be hurt im sure BLM would kick a almigty stink up about it

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

I wonder if BLM are proud of this ! Now you can clearly see the lovely chap is putting up a fight with the police and if he was to be hurt im sure BLM would kick a almigty stink up about it

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

https://fb.watch/2dUi_RIGV4/

I will just leave this for you to watch i think it sums up what most decent folk think

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

Sussex UK wrote:

Pooly_Imp wrote:

Please please tell me that this thread is a wind-up.

Please tell me this years Vicar of Dibley xmas sermon is a wind up??

Hello Sussex me old sausage ive not been on a while have you missed me ?

No the xmas special is a BLM special and we paying our tv licence for that load of shite

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3554

verbalkint wrote:

Sussex UK wrote:

Hello Sussex me old sausage ive not been on a while have you missed me ?

Of course i have mr verbal.You're a decent hard working voice of reason.and your charitable work in the past stands you on high ground sir.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

Sussex UK wrote:

verbalkint wrote:

Sussex UK wrote:

Hello Sussex me old sausage ive not been on a while have you missed me ?

Orrrrr Mr Sussex your kind words have touched me

Of course i have mr verbal.You're a decent hard working voice of reason.and your charitable work in the past stands you on high ground sir.

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3554

verbalkint wrote:

https://fb.watch/2ei_gLZ_fg/

Just another day for some police forces,eh ?

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3554

I like to see Corbyn's supporters march him down to the centre circle at Tottenham to make a apology.

kevin pooles gloves · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:28 pm **Posts:** 9561

Some Romanian getting a bit of greef last nite.
Champions League game red card.

refred

Don't know the full story .
What's gone on?

loan_star · **Posted:** Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:50 pm

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

Some Romanian getting a bit of greef last nite.
Champions League game red card.

refred

Don't know the full story .
What's gone on?

Ref asked the 4th official "who am I to book?" and the reply was "the black man" apparently!

horden · **Posted:** Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:54 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng ... 1607436868

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

horden wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/dec/08/david-squires-on-the-booing-of-footballers-taking-a-knee?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1hy08kkWVtVAK8q2FIycmKIbPlpxhHCxWEuWD6mpS7fPoxb7QQ83cNfAc#Echobox=1607436868

Very eagle eyed of you Mr H. Take a bow.
Spotting the use of the phrase "angry old white men" by the Guardian and highlighting it is to be commended.
We have to beat racism in all it's forms, as your sense of fair play demonstrates admirably.
Well done old boy ( a much better way of referring to the elegant elders of the nation)
clappp

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3554

horden wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/dec/08/david-squires-on-the-booing-of-footballers-taking-a-knee?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1hy08kkWVtVAK8q2FIycmKIbPlpxhHCxWEuWD6mpS7fPoxb7QQ83cNfAc#Echobox=1607436868

They missed out the endless protests ,some violent.when we were in the midst of a global pandemic mr horden??

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

horden wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/dec/08/david-squires-on-the-booing-of-footballers-taking-a-knee?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1hy08kkWVtVAK8q2FIycmKIbPlpxhHCxWEuWD6mpS7fPoxb7QQ83cNfAc#Echobox=1607436868

As always squires cartoons get it spot on. He's ahead of his time that man.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

It's not like Mr Yubep to endorse racist remarks.
I'm surprised.

Johnjo1 · **Joined:** Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:52 pm **Posts:** 1625

I was surprised when I read John Barnes being quoted as saying if there had been four black players and one white the fourth official would probably described the offending player as the white one and no one would have said anything. If what we read is correct I think this has been taken out of all proportion. Saying that I posted some time ago when a regular on here described one of our players in a friendly as a black striker which I didn’t see anything wrong but my son pulled me up on this saying you wouldn’t say the big white striker.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

It's all about common sense for me.
If, as reported, the fourth official did say the black lad it could be purely nothing but an identification remark. I suppose he could have pointed and said "him" or even "the guy next to so and so". On another day he could say the big lad or the blonde lad or the bald bloke or whatever. In international circumstances you can't expect the fourth official to know the names of all the backroom staff who are congregated around the technical area.
On top of that why was the ref called over in the first place.

I was told on here around twelve months ago I shouldn't say coloured but instead use the word black as it was preferred and I have done that ever since then because I have no deliberate intention to cause upset. I always try to call people how they want to be called.
Now it appears saying the black guy is also taboo. It is very confusing at times.
It's getting dafter in my humble opinion, especially when it appears fair game to call white people whatever one wishes.
There is going to be a backlash. People are saying different things in private to what they say in public and are getting fed up with it. That is the reality.
Calling people angry old white men is derogatory and offensive, as well as being racist and ageist. Substitute the word white with black and it's racism. You couldn't make it up.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

if you where approached in the street by a white lad,a black lad, and you where hit off one of them and you seen a policeman or policewoman (not to upset anyone) and you pointed the pair out to them and they asked which one hit you i think 99.9% of people would say it was the white lad or it was the black lad.

its just a way of describing someone exactly as saying it was the ginger one or the fat one

kevin pooles gloves · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:28 pm **Posts:** 9561

If u watch the USA crime programmes.
The police always say was the suspect white or black(African American).
In UK it's white or black(not English African).

Identication remark from the football official that's been blown out of proportion.

Don't suppose a gingerite or fatty would spit there dummy out like about an identification remark.

Maybe some races don't like being what they are.

It's a touchy subject were opinions can get misinterpreted. Maybe it's one these threads that need locking.
Would be nice to live in a peaceful world were there's no need to pull statues down and different skin colours don't have to hate each other.

Anyway have a nice festive period and be nice to each other.
UTP.
therethere

horden · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:50 am

Yubep wrote:

horden wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/dec/08/david-squires-on-the-booing-of-footballers-taking-a-knee?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1hy08kkWVtVAK8q2FIycmKIbPlpxhHCxWEuWD6mpS7fPoxb7QQ83cNfAc#Echobox=1607436868

As always squires cartoons get it spot on. He's ahead of his time that man.

Never come across him before. They are very good like.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 19758

derwent wrote:

I was told on here around twelve months ago I shouldn't say coloured but instead use the word black as it was preferred and I have done that ever since then because I have no deliberate intention to cause upset. I always try to call people how they want to be called.
Now it appears saying the black guy is also taboo. It is very confusing at times.
It's getting dafter in my humble opinion, especially when it appears fair game to call white people whatever one wishes.
There is going to be a backlash. People are saying different things in private to what they say in public and are getting fed up with it. That is the reality.
Calling people angry old white men is derogatory and offensive, as well as being racist and ageist. Substitute the word white with black and it's racism. You couldn't make it up.

so true derwent. all this walking on eggs shells just to describe or talk about someone certainly does not help race relations in this country. as long as remarks are not racist ones then whats the big problem. i fear its a bigger problem for the holier than though whites than it is for non whites. decribing some corner shop as a paki shop when its owners are pakistani or of that decent is not racist. not going to that shop because of its owner is. just an example of this lunacy was a couple of weeks ago i went to my local tyre company for a couple of part worns. realised i had no fags i asked the owner, a second generation pakistani where the nearest shop was. his answer was turn left and there,s a paki shop about 2 minutes down the road. i rest my case.

horden · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:59 am

kevin pooles gloves wrote:

If u watch the USA crime programmes.
The police always say was the suspect white or black(African American).
In UK it's white or black(not English African).

Identication remark from the football official that's been blown out of proportion.

Don't suppose a gingerite or fatty would spit there dummy out like about an identification remark.

Maybe some races don't like being what they are.

It's a touchy subject were opinions can get misinterpreted. Maybe it's one these threads that need locking.
Would be nice to live in a peaceful world were there's no need to pull statues down and different skin colours don't have to hate each other.

Anyway have a nice festive period and be nice to each other.
UTP.
therethere

It is getting a bit silly, but this just underlines how frustrated and angry black people feel about racism, and the hostility shown from some towards efforts by organisations to address the problem. Whilst I don't think there is a major problem in this country as such, there is in America , which is where the latest troubles have stemmed from.

Anyone who has suffered from bullying or harassment will tell you, will know the frustrations and anger that follows, sometimes resulting in the victim acting irrationally , lashing out at anything and everything. This I feel is what has happened here at PSG. It might be seen as been OTT , but its not wrong, and merely underlines the scale of the problem. Those who decide to boo things that are meant to address the problem, such as taking the knee, only serve to further fan the flames , which is why booing taking the knee was wrong and why players should continue to take the knee, not be scared off by the racist elements, who know exactly what they are doing and don't want to see and end to the problem of racism in society.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 19758

[quote="derwent"]T

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

think any government is quite happy having a divided population. if everyone was of the same opinion which was against that governments agenda i doubt they could cope with the problems like rallies and possible riots to come out of it.

Johnjo1 · **Joined:** Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:52 pm **Posts:** 1625

Did the kick it out campaign make any difference NO Will taking the knee make any difference NO

Double Figures · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:47 am **Posts:** 845

Saying someone is black is just factual if its not said with any malice, saying something to someone simply because they are black is racist. I wouldn't get upset if someone called me white to be fair, why would I? If they said I was white trash that might be factual but clearly racist as you don't have to be white to be trash. Just call me trash. Simple really. John Barnes is usually right in what he says. I think his overall view is that to concentrate energy on individual instances of potential racism when perhaps there was no intent and endlessly debating that won't solve the wider problem in society and that can only be addressed through continued education and social acceptance and reinforcement. The BLM and one knee thing won't solve anything, but they draw attention to the need for it to happen.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

Some good points being raised.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

Bluestreak · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:45 pm

Discrimination of all kinds should be called out but it doesnt always work as you would expect.
I once worked for a large organisation with an equally large HR & Training department. 96% of the staff were women with 4% men. I casually discussed it with my boss and in reply i was told in no uncertain times not to raise or discuss this issue if i knew what was good for me.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

derwent wrote:

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

People have gone some distance to refute it, i literally told you that in my previous post, the derby players put a statement out the day before they knelt to say it was in support of racial equality not BLM.

I dont need to join anyone derwent and look at anything.

I'm literally telling you whats happening and you are ignoring it .

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Read this...
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/12/why ... e-the-knee

no one is forcing them, this isnt about politics or any political group.

Its simply about equality.

Yet people still are against it.

I wonder why.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

https://www.facebook.com/talkRADIOUK/vi ... 096612403/

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

Bluestreak wrote:

Discrimination of all kinds should be called out but it doesnt always work as you would expect.
I once worked for a large organisation with an equally large HR & Training department. 96% of the staff were women with 4% men. I casually discussed it with my boss and in reply i was told in no uncertain times not to raise or discuss this issue if i knew what was good for me.

Are you talking about the whole organisation or just HR and Training ?
Did your gaffer explain why?
Sounds intriguing. I'm all ears.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

People have gone some distance to refute it, i literally told you that in my previous post, the derby players put a statement out the day before they knelt to say it was in support of racial equality not BLM.

I dont need to join anyone derwent and look at anything.

I'm literally telling you whats happening and you are ignoring it .

So having black lives matter on the back of their shirts has nothing to do with black lives matter. I see.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

Black lives matter but please dont refer to me as black but its ok to hold a MOBO awards

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

verbalkint wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/talkRADIOUK/videos/412484096612403/

I await Mr Yubep's comments on this.

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

Do you really think all the players want to keep this tarce up of bending the knee because i dont they just to scared not to for fear of the backlash they would get

If a few stopped doing it then a whole lot more woukd and we could get back to watching football without all this complete and utter bollocks

verbalkint · **Joined:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 pm **Posts:** 3135

derwent wrote:

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

What a fantastic write up Mr Derwent :clap:

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

verbalkint wrote:

derwent wrote:

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

What a fantastic write up Mr Derwent :clap:

Thanks Mate.

Les Ferdinand said it had been diluted.
More and more players not taking it.
More and more people saying keep politics out of sport.

I tell you people are simply fed up with it.

But what is worse it is destroying years of work to get people educated into condemning racism. We are going backwards and the gullible can't see they are supporting
the backward movement. :angry-screaming:

Bluestreak · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:57 pm

derwent wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

Discrimination of all kinds should be called out but it doesnt always work as you would expect.
I once worked for a large organisation with an equally large HR & Training department. 96% of the staff were women with 4% men. I casually discussed it with my boss and in reply i was told in no uncertain times not to raise or discuss this issue if i knew what was good for me.

Are you talking about the whole organisation or just HR and Training ?
Did your gaffer explain why?
Sounds intriguing. I'm all ears.

The 96% was just HR & Training and he did not explain. Its just a arithmetic fact that may indicate some discriminatory practice when other departments where equally represented by and large.
I will leave it to all to draw their own conclusions.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12367

Bluestreak wrote:

derwent wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

Discrimination of all kinds should be called out but it doesnt always work as you would expect.
I once worked for a large organisation with an equally large HR & Training department. 96% of the staff were women with 4% men. I casually discussed it with my boss and in reply i was told in no uncertain times not to raise or discuss this issue if i knew what was good for me.

Are you talking about the whole organisation or just HR and Training ?
Did your gaffer explain why?
Sounds intriguing. I'm all ears.

The 96% was just HR & Training and he did not explain. Its just a arithmetic fact that may indicate some discriminatory practice when other departments where equally represented by and large.
I will leave it to all to draw their own conclusions.

Can you tell us the organisation.
There may well be a satisfactory explanation but my gut feeling is to say there was discrimination afoot. Was the head of department a female by any chance?

kevin pooles gloves · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:28 pm **Posts:** 9561

It won't be in a footballers contract to bend the knee.
Probably most of them thinking I'm getting bored of this shit.

U bound to get a Sunday Morning referee when it's back up n running to say.
Rite lads take the knee or u getting one of these
refred

I hope this vaccine works so the globe gets back to normal.
UTP.

horden · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:46 pm

derwent wrote:

verbalkint wrote:

derwent wrote:

Yubep wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is a series of events taking place.
BLM decided to advocate the taking of the knee.
The vast majority of people had no problem with that.
It had an impact.
Impact started waning.
Supporters allowed back into stadia.
Some supporters booed it.
Authorities condemned the boo boys.
Talk of reaction to boo boys by clapping.
Instead of highlighting the need for change and the end of racism for good, there is a danger that we have one faction booing and another faction clapping and a third faction not booing or clapping. There is a name for that. It's called division. Divisiveness is the last thing we need. We've had over four years of division through Brexit but what have we learned from it???

Imagine the scenario when the third faction get asked why they are not booing or clapping, argument starts, argument gets heated, argument turns into fighting, situation escalates, some fans get hurt, maybe seriously, others get banned, perhaps for life.
Does anybody really think that is the way to move forward??????????? Fanning the flames of hatred and division never will be the way forward.

As Mr Horden says it is getting silly.

Another thing that is silly.

It is silly to allow a political movement to use well meaning footballers and the game itself to promote their ideals. We, the lovers of the beautiful game, are allowing it to be hi jacked and it is creating division. There is no good future in this. In fact any progress being made by genuine advocates of racial equality, like most of us, is being eroded by people who have demonstrated they don't give a toss for the law and, in my opinion, don't give a toss for football.
People like John Barnes must be wringing their hands.

Just a few points...

the taking of the knee going back centuries, BLM never advocated it, they didnt create it, Colin Kaepernick took the knee in 2016 to highlight the lack of racial equality in america. it wasnt about blm and it still isnt, the players from derby released a statement saying they were taking the knee before the game in a show of solidarity towards racial equality, nothing to do with BLM again.

The policital movement of BLM isnt using footballers, they decided to do this themselves, they want to do this, it takes 10 seconds out of the game, if it bothers you this much, i think it says more about you than someone kneeling.

People associate it with BLM though because at the same time the players had Black Lives Matter on their kit and TV commentators have actually said taking the knee in support for BLM. The association is there and as BLM is a political organisation people see it as BLM using football. No one has gone any distance whatsoever to refute this. Probably because the evidence of connection is there for all to see, apart from you.

Taking the knee doesn't bother me one little bit. I believe in freedom of choice, as long as it's within the law. They can take the knee until the cows come home it has no affect on me. My only gripe with taking the knee is it's perceived association with an organisation that deliberately flaunts the law. I wouldn't boo it nor would I clap it. As I have said before, I think it is getting stale and losing any impact it had originally. What bothers me, as a total anti racist, is the fact that I believe BLM and people associating with them are knocking the anti racism cause backwards. I'm not the only one. I don't want to see politics any where near football, unless the intention is to fund it, which I have also said before.
What does it say about you when you associate with a guy who describes a group as "angry white old men".
Do you really think Squires, by that description, is helping the cause. Ten years ahead of his time you say. More like ten years behind or more.
You need to join the rest of us and look at the big picture.
We are never going to solve the problem of any intolerance towards niggers by insulting Whites.
It just doesn't work like that.

What a fantastic write up Mr Derwent :clap:

Thanks Mate.

Les Ferdinand said it had been diluted.
More and more players not taking it.
More and more people saying keep politics out of sport.

I tell you people are simply fed up with it.

But what is worse it is destroying years of work to get people educated into condemning racism. We are going backwards and the gullible can't see they are supporting
the backward movement. :angry-screaming:

It was a good post , but you have sort of ruined it with this reply. You are not a racist, but not so sure about your mate.

horden · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:55 pm

verbalkint wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/talkRADIOUK/videos/412484096612403/

The caller mentions poppies on shirts, no one had a problem with poppies on shirts commemorating those who died in WW1 and WW2 , it was when it was extended to servicemen killed in Ireland and Iraq etc that the shit hit the fan, as some people don't agree with Britains participation in those conflicts/wars.

James Mclean gets dogs abuse for refusing to wear a poppy on his shirt, he can't be the only Irishman who feels like this, so much for freedom of expression, and I have said before I can't believe all the England players want to sing the national anthem. It appears to me that players are scared to do anything else but tow the line.

As for keeping politics out of sport, politics is in everything , everything we do, everything we eat, every train ticket we buy, every ticket we buy to go to a game, wouldn't it be nice and convenient if it politics was kept out of football, and fans could just drape their Union Jacks over the crush barrier and sing no surrender to the IRA , whilst watching the game

Bluestreak · **Posted:** Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:01 pm

derwent wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

derwent wrote:

Bluestreak wrote:

Discrimination of all kinds should be called out but it doesnt always work as you would expect.
I once worked for a large organisation with an equally large HR & Training department. 96% of the staff were women with 4% men. I casually discussed it with my boss and in reply i was told in no uncertain times not to raise or discuss this issue if i knew what was good for me.

Are you talking about the whole organisation or just HR and Training ?
Did your gaffer explain why?
Sounds intriguing. I'm all ears.

The 96% was just HR & Training and he did not explain. Its just a arithmetic fact that may indicate some discriminatory practice when other departments where equally represented by and large.
I will leave it to all to draw their own conclusions.

Can you tell us the organisation.
There may well be a satisfactory explanation but my gut feeling is to say there was discrimination afoot. Was the head of department a female by any chance?

Surprisingly the head was female. Thanks for giving me a possible reason

One Knee Thing

Gadgies online