Genuinely fascinating... I've always been really good at knowing club nicknames / grounds etc. because whenever I went to see my Grandad as a little boy I'd always make him do silly quizes where we'd ask each other to name the nickname / manager / ground etc. for a particular club.
Never remember Tranmere being ever called Super White Army though (nor do I recall them being "Rovers" either)
Forgive me but could someone please give me the new/modern definition of the word Snowflake. I feel so out of touch.
It means rather than listen to your point of view and come up with a cogent and logical rebuttal, I'm just going to insult you and disregard everything you have to say without giving it any thought whatsoever.
Sampson was dismissed when the FA revisited the enquiry into his admitted a 6 month relationship with a player over the age of 18 whilst coach at the Bristol Academy. At the time he was not dismissed from his job but was sent on a safety awareness course.
Not quite the same as when Tommy Docherty was sacked by Man Utd for having an affair with the physio's wife - who he later married and remained in that relationship for 30 years.
Bit of a farce really. The guy's done nothing wrong, been cleared in every investigation and now sacked for having a (legal) relationship in a former job 3-4 years ago.
Is that even grounds for firing someone years later in a totally new job?
Bit of a farce really. The guy's done nothing wrong, been cleared in every investigation and now sacked for having a (legal) relationship in a former job 3-4 years ago.
Is that even grounds for firing someone years later in a totally new job?
Surely he's going to sue for unfair dismissal?
The issues raised from his previous job should have meant he didn't get the high profile FA position - they're at fault over their due diligence. The racism comments investigation is ongoing as the previous investigation has been shown to be a bit of farce.
Sampson should never have got the job and this is down to the FA. I'm sure he will sue for unfair dismissal if he feels he has a case.
Forgive me but could someone please give me the new/modern definition of the word Snowflake. I feel so out of touch.
The old term was used to describe/insult people opposed to ending slavery.
In the last 10 years it was used for a person who believes they're a true individual in this world of 7.5 billion.
It was then used for those with an unwarranted sense of self entitlement.
More recently (last few years) Snowflake has become a slang term to make reference to people who are easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
See whatever is the current Brexit thread for hundreds of snowflakeish comments serving as perfect examples of the current usage.
How do you conclude that an individual is "not racist" when he has abused women of colour because they are women of colour?!?
I assume the implication is that his comments were deemed an ignorant attempt at humour, rather than being malicious or intentionally discriminatory.
That's not to say I'd necessarily agree with that distinction, but I think that's the distinction being made.
I have to say, the juxtaposition of 'discriminatory on the grounds of race' and 'not racist' did strike me as a bit odd. I imagine the former refers to some specific test within the legislation, whereas the latter is a more subjective term.
And what about Aluko's evidence that she was virtually blackmailed ie asked to make statement that FA was not institutionally racist before they would release second half of the money they had offered?
How do you conclude that an individual is "not racist" when he has abused women of colour because they are women of colour?!?
I assume the implication is that his comments were deemed an ignorant attempt at humour, rather than being malicious or intentionally discriminatory.
That's not to say I'd necessarily agree with that distinction, but I think that's the distinction being made.
I have to say, the juxtaposition of 'discriminatory on the grounds of race' and 'not racist' did strike me as a bit odd. I imagine the former refers to some specific test within the legislation, whereas the latter is a more subjective term.
I'm having a real culture wars week on here, it's very weird.
Thanks for the clarification, it's not something I would have thought of in terms of legislation or being legislated for.
But yeah, it's a really weird juxtaposition. Especially calling someone not racist, which you make the good point of saying is such a subjective term.
But a strangely worded press release is not the real problem here. The real problem is the FA's lack of wanting to know anything untoward about a manager until it hits them in the face on the back pages.
They risk being banned from the qualifiers for both the World Cup and Euro. Women's football in Denmark has never been popular. That was until they reached the final against the Netherlands. Devastating for women's football in Denmark.
Comments
Never remember Tranmere being ever called Super White Army though (nor do I recall them being "Rovers" either)
The Lukaku thing...well, it's not the same issue, let's put it like that
Not quite the same as when Tommy Docherty was sacked by Man Utd for having an affair with the physio's wife - who he later married and remained in that relationship for 30 years.
Is that even grounds for firing someone years later in a totally new job?
Surely he's going to sue for unfair dismissal?
Sampson should never have got the job and this is down to the FA. I'm sure he will sue for unfair dismissal if he feels he has a case.
In the last 10 years it was used for a person who believes they're a true individual in this world of 7.5 billion.
It was then used for those with an unwarranted sense of self entitlement.
More recently (last few years) Snowflake has become a slang term to make reference to people who are easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
See whatever is the current Brexit thread for hundreds of snowflakeish comments serving as perfect examples of the current usage.
How do you conclude that an individual is "not racist" when he has abused women of colour because they are women of colour?!?
That's not to say I'd necessarily agree with that distinction, but I think that's the distinction being made.
I have to say, the juxtaposition of 'discriminatory on the grounds of race' and 'not racist' did strike me as a bit odd. I imagine the former refers to some specific test within the legislation, whereas the latter is a more subjective term.
Thanks for the clarification, it's not something I would have thought of in terms of legislation or being legislated for.
But yeah, it's a really weird juxtaposition. Especially calling someone not racist, which you make the good point of saying is such a subjective term.
But a strangely worded press release is not the real problem here. The real problem is the FA's lack of wanting to know anything untoward about a manager until it hits them in the face on the back pages.
They risk being banned from the qualifiers for both the World Cup and Euro.
Women's football in Denmark has never been popular. That was until they reached the final against the Netherlands.
Devastating for women's football in Denmark.