General FA chairman resigns

bashamwonderland

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
1,183

Bit of an odd one, this. He said "coloured" when he should have said "people of colour". If he'd have said "black" he might also have been criticised and/or forced to resign. There is now also a narrative to suggest that "BAME" is inappropriate. One day, in the near future, "people of colour" will inevitably fall out of fashion and saying it will also be inappropriate. Hopefully that doesnt happen just before one of us uses it in a work meeting and is given marching orders.

Obviously what he said wasn't malicious given that the context in which he was saying it. He even said that he had performed a lot of work in the US where "coloured" was the correct word to use and that it was his mistake. He apologized immediately.

This is quite an unpleasant example, yet again, of speech policing.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
6,554
Bit of an odd one, this. He said "coloured" when he should have said "people of colour". If he'd have said "black" he might also have been criticised and/or forced to resign. There is now also a narrative to suggest that "BAME" is inappropriate. One day, in the near future, "people of colour" will inevitably fall out of fashion and saying it will also be inappropriate. Hopefully that doesnt happen just before one of us uses it in a work meeting and is given marching orders.

Obviously what he said wasn't malicious given that the context in which he was saying it. He even said that he had performed a lot of work in the US where "coloured" was the correct word to use and that it was his mistake. He apologized immediately.

This is quite an unpleasant example, yet again, of speech policing.

Well he didn`t just stop there did he?............... from the article.

"If you go to the IT department of the FA, there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbean's. They have different career interests," said Clarke.

He prompted further criticism when referring to gay players making a "life choice" and a coach telling him young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them.

In some defence he is probably tired of having to consider every single word before speaking - the brave new world we live in.....
 

bashamwonderland

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
1,183
Well he didn`t just stop there did he?............... from the article.

"If you go to the IT department of the FA, there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbean's. They have different career interests," said Clarke.

He prompted further criticism when referring to gay players making a "life choice" and a coach telling him young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them.

In some defence he is probably tired of having to consider every single word before speaking - the brave new world we live in.....
Yep, I'm waiting for the moment when a radio DJ gets sacked for referring to Sam Smith as "he" instead of "they".

I just wonder how far this Marxist stuff is going to go.
 

Sheik djibouti

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,624
Yep, I'm waiting for the moment when a radio DJ gets sacked for referring to Sam Smith as "he" instead of "they".

I just wonder how far this Marxist stuff is going to go.
Bet you're glad you can't get sacked for mistaking "considerate and respectful" for "marxist"

...easy mistake to make I guess ;)
 

outsidethebox

Well-known member
Joined
13 Dec 2017
Messages
1,048
Dinosaur gets head out of trough then immediately puts foot in it. Looking back over the years I can only despair at some of the people in senior roles within football.
 

mooro

Well-known member
Joined
13 Dec 2017
Messages
2,129
Bit of an odd one, this. He said "coloured" when he should have said "people of colour". If he'd have said "black" he might also have been criticised and/or forced to resign. There is now also a narrative to suggest that "BAME" is inappropriate. One day, in the near future, "people of colour" will inevitably fall out of fashion and saying it will also be inappropriate. Hopefully that doesnt happen just before one of us uses it in a work meeting and is given marching orders.

Obviously what he said wasn't malicious given that the context in which he was saying it. He even said that he had performed a lot of work in the US where "coloured" was the correct word to use and that it was his mistake. He apologized immediately.

This is quite an unpleasant example, yet again, of speech policing.
I might be imagining this, but I seem to remember a time, not that long ago, where 'coloured' was considered not only acceptable*, but actually the correct/preferred 'term' to use?

*Yes, I know a lot of inappropriate terms were considered acceptable at that time
 

LowerSouth

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,132
This is a bit like the offside or penalty rules- nobody knows what’s right or wrong .
 

cassox

Active member
Joined
9 May 2018
Messages
958
The word "coloured" came about because black people took offence at being called black....1970s and people didnt want to offend them.
 

Sheik djibouti

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,624
The mob now decides what is "considerate and respectful". I thought the way he handled his error in speech was both of those things. Acknowledged it, explained, and apologized.
Hmmm...not convinced that simply because it is not you or I who gets to decide what is considerate and respectful that "the mob" are judge Judy and executioner. Just imagine, if everyone were considerate and respectful on all sides, this whole issue would not exist!

BTW....are the mob always marxists? I'm intrigued!
 

bashamwonderland

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
1,183
Hmmm...not convinced that simply because it is not you or I who gets to decide what is considerate and respectful that "the mob" are judge Judy and executioner. Just imagine, if everyone were considerate and respectful on all sides, this whole issue would not exist!

BTW....are the mob always marxists? I'm intrigued!
But what I'm saying is that he was considerate and respectful when you look at the clip. Do you disagree?

When it comes to enforced speech and matters of identity, the mob is almost always a postmodernist marxist bunch.
 

Ricky Otto

Well-known member
Joined
3 Sep 2018
Messages
1,052
Hmmm...not convinced that simply because it is not you or I who gets to decide what is considerate and respectful that "the mob" are judge Judy and executioner. Just imagine, if everyone were considerate and respectful on all sides, this whole issue would not exist!

BTW....are the mob always marxists? I'm intrigued!
Unfortunately the left has removed much of its credibility in recent years by :

1. emotional tripwires
2. Looking for offense where it doesn’t exist as a wolf whistle to the pack
3. Looking to remove people from their jobs or roles for minor offenses

There are many good points to make and I’m not referencing this particular case as I’ve not got all the context.

But sadly good narrative and arguments are being utterly destroyed in the eyes of “Joe average” becsuse of bad faith outrage by a powerful vocal minority at the fringe. Their approach to discussion, expression and thought is no different to authoritarian regimes. If it’s not aligned to their mantra it’s worthy of destruction

it’s frustrating because in my opinion it’s holding back real progression, alienating the audience it should be enfranchising, and empowering a counter reaction
 

Sheik djibouti

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,624
But what I'm saying is that he was considerate and respectful when you look at the clip. Do you disagree?

When it comes to enforced speech and matters of identity, the mob is almost always a postmodernist marxist bunch.
Considerate and respectful to a point when he had to apologise for the mistakes he had made. It has to be seen against the backdrop of his history of remarks around this and other subjects, and it was one of several gaffes, some of which Essex referred to earlier, that he made in the same session. And it also needs to be seen in the context of where we are today and where football is, and particularly where the FA is, having just launched its Football Leadership Diversity Code.

It was clumsy, it caused offence and you just don't use language like that, particularly when you are chair of one of the most racially diverse organisations in the country who are trying to show everyone just how well they are leading the change to be a more representative and inclusive organisation which reflects modern society.

I'm not sure that Britain First and other such "patriotic" organisations who are so wrapped up in the battle for "our" cultural identity would take too kindly to being referred to as postmodernist marxists. I'm am pretty sure more people would find them more offensive than a bunch of people actively trying to promote diversity and tolerance in a modern multi-cultural world. It feels rather regressionist to think any other way.....but hey each to their own I guess!
 

bashamwonderland

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
1,183
Considerate and respectful to a point when he had to apologise for the mistakes he had made. It has to be seen against the backdrop of his history of remarks around this and other subjects, and it was one of several gaffes, some of which Essex referred to earlier, that he made in the same session. And it also needs to be seen in the context of where we are today and where football is, and particularly where the FA is, having just launched its Football Leadership Diversity Code.

It was clumsy, it caused offence and you just don't use language like that, particularly when you are chair of one of the most racially diverse organisations in the country who are trying to show everyone just how well they are leading the change to be a more representative and inclusive organisation which reflects modern society.

I'm not sure that Britain First and other such "patriotic" organisations who are so wrapped up in the battle for "our" cultural identity would take too kindly to being referred to as postmodernist marxists. I'm am pretty sure more people would find them more offensive than a bunch of people actively trying to promote diversity and tolerance in a modern multi-cultural world. It feels rather regressionist to think any other way.....but hey each to their own I guess!
Well the question wasn't around "which group do you think is more offensive" so I'm not sure what Britain First has to do with this.
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom