dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
Okay, got your set views and not going to change, that’s okay
FA....
- Thread starter peteblue
- Start date
- Status
Okay, got your set views and not going to change, that’s okay
Alan Whittle
Player Valuation: £70m
If that was so, events would be entirely predictable.
ForestBlue
Player Valuation: £10m
I'm self employed and have to sack myself at least twice weekly for my use of a word which has been deemed to be inappropriate/offensive by at least 1 other individual in the Country. What word I hear you ask? Take your pick someone somewhere will be offended! Jeez! (oops there's another one!) Your fired!
dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
How? I was just saying that events in 2004 don’t exist apart from events in 2020. Of course one has an affect on the other. The fall out from the fall of the Berlin Wall is still affecting events today.
Again, mad we’ve got here just because some people think the FA chairman shouldn’t have had a problem for using the word coloured
I'm a white, heterosexual, middle-aged working class man with little in the way of formal education bar a couple of C's at GCSE. I live in a overwhelming majority white town and have no black friends. I work in a low pay manual labour role and am not in role providing leadership or guidance to others.
Even I know that "coloured people" is an inappropriate term, female footballers aren't scared of a ball being hit hard and homosexuality is not "a lifestyle choice".
The FA Chairman shouldn't be struggling with such basics, especially when his work is explicitly focused on those issues. It's entirely right he chooses to resign as he's clearly not up to the task at hand and seemingly chooses not to educate himself or show a little consideration in the language he chooses to use.
It's not difficult to keep up if you want to. It's even less difficult to bask in the dubious glory of wilful ignorance and wear it as some kind of badge of honour.
Even I know that "coloured people" is an inappropriate term, female footballers aren't scared of a ball being hit hard and homosexuality is not "a lifestyle choice".
The FA Chairman shouldn't be struggling with such basics, especially when his work is explicitly focused on those issues. It's entirely right he chooses to resign as he's clearly not up to the task at hand and seemingly chooses not to educate himself or show a little consideration in the language he chooses to use.
It's not difficult to keep up if you want to. It's even less difficult to bask in the dubious glory of wilful ignorance and wear it as some kind of badge of honour.
Alan Whittle
Player Valuation: £70m
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Wow I never thought of that...
The example actually works in this case as 2000-2009 was a centrist decade and since then we have had bigger divides.
What you imply that the reasons for change go back to events in the previous decade, and of course this is true. You can look at 2005 as that turning point, traditional Labour voters were turning off new Labour due in main to the Iraq war (however the rest of the country didn't really give a rats ass about it one way or another - crap happens) this led to a coup in the party which raised the eyebrows of the swing voters and when there was a subtle shift to the left that increased these. But not to a critical point.
When Brown lost the election (narrowly) to a coalition that itself were both in the centre, shows what the appetite was for. Labour decided to shift again off centre and that freed up the Tories to move a little to the right including trying to appease the nut jobs in the party by campaigning for an EU referendum in their manifesto. Obviously the Tories won again and at the same time let nationalism take hold. And of course Labour shifted again with Corbyn pandering to more populism of it's own fanbase, losing any chance of credibility with centre voters meaning the Tories could shift further right and eventually give us Boris and a no deal brexit.
So again which decade was better in terms of politics and policies, the centrist one or this last one gone? By being in the centre it creates checks and balances to force the other side to stay in and around that zone too.
Is that explanation from a legit source? Cos if so he's even more clueless than anyone could realise.
dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
Wow I never thought of that...
The example actually works in this case as 2000-2009 was a centrist decade and since then we have had bigger divides.
What you imply that the reasons for change go back to events in the previous decade, and of course this is true. You can look at 2005 as that turning point, traditional Labour voters were turning off new Labour due in main to the Iraq war (however the rest of the country didn't really give a rats ass about it one way or another - crap happens) this led to a coup in the party which raised the eyebrows of the swing voters and when there was a subtle shift to the left that increased these. But not to a critical point.
When Brown lost the election (narrowly) to a coalition that itself were both in the centre, shows what the appetite was for. Labour decided to shift again off centre and that freed up the Tories to move a little to the right including trying to appease the nut jobs in the party by campaigning for an EU referendum in their manifesto. Obviously the Tories won again and at the same time let nationalism take hold. And of course Labour shifted again with Corbyn pandering to more populism of it's own fanbase, losing any chance of credibility with centre voters meaning the Tories could shift further right and eventually give us Boris and a no deal brexit.
So again which decade was better in terms of politics and policies, the centrist one or this last one gone? By being in the centre it creates checks and balances to force the other side to stay in and around that zone too.
We are really far off the path, and I know I’m to blame for that as much as anyone, but I will say the problem with centrism is inherent here - centrism is an intellectual and political dead end. It imagines there is a middle ground between right and left wing thinking (or conservative and progressive thinking as many people now try to categorise it) whereas political thought should be a constantly changing and shifting.
Centrism was the dominant political thought of the previous decade and a half and the refusal to accept a changing world helped lay the foundations for Trump and Brexit
H.H.
Player Valuation: £10m
I saw it just the once on the BBC 6 O Clock news of him apologising when being questioned over his remark a few minutes after he had said it and I'm pretty sure that's what he said.
Last edited:
fabricsince1985
Player Valuation: £950k
Yeah, he's definitely not done his stat training that's for sure. I remember Alan Hansen using 'coloured' on match of the day and thinking he'd regret it. He ended up having to apologise, but as in this case he said it thinking he was being sensitive and has been crucified instead. His comments on the IT department were far worse.
It's clear that there needs to be progress, but it needs to be about all races and not so heavily influenced by the black lives matter. When is someone going to seriously step up an question why there are essentially no British Asian professional footballers in the game here. Kick it out etc should be about promoting the equality of all races, yet the most marginalised race in football in this country is being effectively ignored. That's the biggest challenge in football, not whether John Barnes has a fair crack at management (he did, he was rubbish).
The term is absolutely frowned upon in the US. No one says colored people.
H.H.
Player Valuation: £10m
His apology and I heard it wrong, he said he tripped over his terminology of the often used phrase in the U.S.
www.theguardian.com
FA chairman Greg Clarke sorry for using phrase 'coloured footballers' – video
The FA chairman, Greg Clarke, was made to apologise during a select committee hearing after using the term 'coloured footballers'
That's basically it. If you want to head up a big organisation these days, with a multi cultural influence you best have some idea of what is or isnt acceptable.
"Coloured" hasnt been acceptable for some time. In a way it's not his fault, hes a man of his time. It sort of shows where the FA is at though.
The term is frowned upon in the US too. What he said was he used "people of colour" which is just about ok. However he didnt say people of colour, he said "coloured". The two things are radically different.
- Status