International News Black Lives Matter

That is the tenor of many of Dr. Pangloss' posts. The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate - their lots show such improvement he counsels them to wait.

It is love; love, the comfort of the human species, the preserver of the universe, the soul of all sentient beings, love, tender love. ;)
 
Yep, spot on.

People (all peoples) mindsets have to change.
Protest polarises debate and achieves little barring resentment.
I am not saying "be grateful" you weren`t around in the 70`s I`m saying how much things have changed, and will change, over time and not through protest but through well reasoned debate and, dare I say, politics.
Myself and many others of these parts can remember the terraces being a horribly hostile place and players getting relentless and genuinely hateful abuse, unless they were "ours". That has changed wholesale, society has evolved.
If you go back to the days of the Anti Nazi League they only lasted 5 years and soon realised protest was just met with resistance from the extremists on the right so they moved into politics in various forms. They evolved.
BLM as a movement will also realise the same....
That's an interesting take. I personally believe that without protesting things won't changed through well reasoned debates and politics.

Or if they do it would take much longer.

We could use the Suffragettes as an example for both sides of the argument. I think we can all agree that it was inevitable that Women would eventually get the right to vote. Whether that was in the next 10 years or 100 years, there would be a time in the future where Women could vote. However the suffrage movement did fast forward that, so Women didn't have to wait 100 years or so, and that change happened quickly because of their movement, and because of they're protesting.

Like BLM, at the time the Suffrage movement was criticised. I do think (and hope) there will be a time in the future where racial inequality doesn't exist. However that could be 10, 100 or 1000 years away. The protesting helps fast forward that. It brings attention to the matter.
 
Can someone please explain why it caused offence in the 70s if you called someone black? to not offend they were then called coloured,which was accepted. NOW it causes offence to call someone coloured but not if you call them a person of colour???? moan moan moan.....get a life i reckon.....jesus christ race relations are being put back decades due to all this bollox,i just watched the news and there were 3 or 4 BAME people interviewed who were saying they were offended......funny thing is every one of them were employed in the race relation "industry"......they would be out of a job if it wasnt for all this nonsense........it seems to me that it is these people who are stirring the s**t for their own ends.
 
When we are born we are pink, when we are cold we are blue, when we are ill we are yellow, when we sunbath we are brown. So who has got the most colour.
so whats the problem. No matter what our colours are, or what race, we should all be treated the same.
Fitting that your avatar looks suspiciously like a Benetton 'United colours' logo
 
Can someone please explain why it caused offence in the 70s if you called someone black? to not offend they were then called coloured,which was accepted. NOW it causes offence to call someone coloured but not if you call them a person of colour???? moan moan moan.....get a life i reckon.....jesus christ race relations are being put back decades due to all this bollox,i just watched the news and there were 3 or 4 BAME people interviewed who were saying they were offended......funny thing is every one of them were employed in the race relation "industry"......they would be out of a job if it wasnt for all this nonsense........it seems to me that it is these people who are stirring the s**t for their own ends.

Not often I would agree with you but you aren`t that far off the mark.

As bad as ambulance chasing lawyers...
 
That's an interesting take. I personally believe that without protesting things won't changed through well reasoned debates and politics.

Or if they do it would take much longer.

We could use the Suffragettes as an example for both sides of the argument. I think we can all agree that it was inevitable that Women would eventually get the right to vote. Whether that was in the next 10 years or 100 years, there would be a time in the future where Women could vote. However the suffrage movement did fast forward that, so Women didn't have to wait 100 years or so, and that change happened quickly because of their movement, and because of they're protesting.

Like BLM, at the time the Suffrage movement was criticised. I do think (and hope) there will be a time in the future where racial inequality doesn't exist. However that could be 10, 100 or 1000 years away. The protesting helps fast forward that. It brings attention to the matter.

Inequality is part of life, from the moment you are born.

Who you are born too.

Where you are born.

Both these things can define where you end up in life, combined with the choices made for you in the early years and by you in later years.

And that has far more impact on your life than skin colour.

And we are all pink in the middle. :)
 
Inequality is part of life, from the moment you are born.

Who you are born too.

Where you are born.

Both these things can define where you end up in life, combined with the choices made for you in the early years and by you in later years.

And that has far more impact on your life than skin colour.

And we are all pink in the middle. :)

Not if your skin colour impacts where you are born, impacts what decisions are made for you in early life and impacts the decisions made by you in later years.
 
Paul Elliot ....looks like he's in with a chance of the Chairman vacancy.....why??? because he's qualified?? or because of the colour of his skin?? and people are wailing RACISM over Clarkes comments???.....please please please get a life and knock this madness on the head NOW...starting with ditching that ridiculous yankee kneeling.
 
Paul Elliot ....looks like he's in with a chance of the Chairman vacancy.....why??? because he's qualified?? or because of the colour of his skin?? and people are wailing RACISM over Clarkes comments???.....please please please get a life and knock this madness on the head NOW...starting with ditching that ridiculous yankee kneeling.
Paul Elliott? Qualified?

Played 300+ games on England, Scotland and Italy. Then awarded first the MBE then CBE for services to football, diversity and equality as well as working at all levels of youth football and football in the community.

So yes, I'd say that he's as qualified as anyone regardless of the colour of his skin.
 
Paul Elliott? Qualified?

Played 300+ games on England, Scotland and Italy. Then awarded first the MBE then CBE for services to football, diversity and equality as well as working at all levels of youth football and football in the community.

So yes, I'd say that he's as qualified as anyone regardless of the colour of his skin.
BUT we all know why he's being touted dont we??? regardless of the fact he had to resign HIMSELF from a position in the Kick it out bollox for calling someone by the N word ......you couldnt make it up..... worlds gone mad ......maybe its lockdown fever????
 
BUT we all know why he's being touted dont we??? regardless of the fact he had to resign HIMSELF from a position in the Kick it out bollox for calling someone by the N word ......you couldnt make it up..... worlds gone mad ......maybe its lockdown fever????
Some of the black community use the n word within their every day language, and whilst it's not right, the context this was used in was not racist in nature.

However, he rightly resigned because of the way it looked and how it undermined the decades of work he had contributed towards all levels of football.

The FA needs younger influences and people who have been involved with the game in order to modernise the organisation. Greg Clarke was a business man who was Leicester chairman for a couple of years before joining the EFL/FA. Before him, Greg Duke, David Bernstein and Lord Triesman. All old, white, businessmen with little recognition of the game and supporters at grassroots level.

Paul Elliott will be a huge step forward in the need to move the game into the 21st century, and I couldn't give a toss what colour his skin is.
 
Do you really think he wouldve resigned if the use of the N word was the only accusation.??....read up on it.....he is a nasty piece of work and if he gets the job then all is lost in this pathetic knee bending country.....the hounds were really out when clarke said the word "coloured" said being gay was a "life choice" said girls "didnt like the ball being kicked hard at them" and said the word "fluff" ??????? the ONLY thing i might find that MIGHT offend just a smidgen is the gay thing and thats stretching things............. ffs what has happened to this once great country??? the woke wierdos are taking over the asylum....
 
Some of the black community use the n word within their every day language, and whilst it's not right, the context this was used in was not racist in nature.

However, he rightly resigned because of the way it looked and how it undermined the decades of work he had contributed towards all levels of football.

The FA needs younger influences and people who have been involved with the game in order to modernise the organisation. Greg Clarke was a business man who was Leicester chairman for a couple of years before joining the EFL/FA. Before him, Greg Duke, David Bernstein and Lord Triesman. All old, white, businessmen with little recognition of the game and supporters at grassroots level.

Paul Elliott will be a huge step forward in the need to move the game into the 21st century, and I couldn't give a toss what colour his skin is.

You couldn’t give a toss what colour Paul Elliott’s skin colour is, but you had to get into your post the previous 3 chairman’s skin colour..

That part is irrelevant. If you’d have just gone with the rest, your point would still stand and be just as valid..
 
Last edited:
Not if your skin colour impacts where you are born, impacts what decisions are made for you in early life and impacts the decisions made by you in later years.

So how many previous generations do you wish to blame before improving your deal in life?

All of Society evolves, just look around us at the technology that wasn`t there in 1980 or only in its infancy.

Its about the choices you make that improve the lot of the next generation.

The socio-economic factors have way more impact than the colour of your skin.
 
No it's not. Or if it is, please outline how economic disadvantage is not ever linked to skin colour. While you're at it for God's sake please explain what 'postmodernist Marxism' is since, having shouted big-boy words he doesn't understand. @bashamwonderland has run away.

You could also mention economic circumstances, which can be strongly linked to skin colour. Perhaps that could be postmodern Marxism creeping in, if only @bashamwonderland would tell us what that is :giggle:
 
It does interest me that every time Racism is discussed there's always a group of people who always say "what about this" "what about that" "but look at this".

Why can't they just accept that Racism still exists, it is still a big issue in society today and it does need to be tackled.
 
It does interest me that every time Racism is discussed there's always a group of people who always say "what about this" "what about that" "but look at this".

Why can't they just accept that Racism still exists, it is still a big issue in society today and it does need to be tackled.

Why shouldn`t people share life experience?
It is a reality that there is far less racism in society today than there was.
Society has improved and boundaries have been set.
However progressivism by definition has no such boundaries, limitations or end.... and that is where problems begin.
When people start talking about positive discrimination then things have gone too far because any discrimination can NEVER be a positive.
If two people go for a job and are both suitably qualified, perform well at interview etc is it right that the deciding factor should be skin colour or gender? Something they had no choice in?
 
BUT we all know why he's being touted dont we??? regardless of the fact he had to resign HIMSELF from a position in the Kick it out bollox for calling someone by the N word ......you couldnt make it up..... worlds gone mad ......maybe its lockdown fever????
In such situations I look for intent. From what I've heard I don't think he is or was racist. Language is important but I understand how people fall foul of current acceptability. I also think really hard to make sure I use the right terms when I discuss such issues always concerned I may say the wrong thing. I don't think it should be so. That said, given his specific role, it should have been second nature to him (in the same way no one with any sense would use the N word) to get it right so I can see why he walked.
 
Back
Top Bottom