I agree the format was tired. People talking about the games is what makes it a bit more interesting than waiting for the vidiprinter. I think Jeff Stelling is the only component I care about he lives and breathes his research and we will miss him when he packs in, makes it look effortless which his job clearly isn't
Scott Minto is a loss because he is ex charlton and always says nice stuff about us and was a quality player for us
Other than that I don't care, employing people just because they are black or female is patronising. Employing people because they have done their research, speak well and have a bit about them and happen to be black, have a vagina, be Martian or white is what should be happening anyway
I genuinely think as a society we are going backwards in regards equality and diversity and a small amount of vocal idiots are making us go backwards
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Does she work for the Met Police? That kind of stuff started happening when I left six years ago. Absolutely ridiculous 😳
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Could it just be the show is stale, and it needs freshening up? The Jeff and his 4 drunks format has run out of steam, time for something new.
Also Sky are competing with a load of other broadcasters other then BT on a Saturday afternoon, they've seen the average age of viewing football on the channels is going up, and advertisers aren't too interested in them.
I think Soccer Saturday's usp was that it is rough around the edges, unpolished and a great laugh. Essentially as a result of the presenters being that themselves.
There are plenty of shows about that are far more informative, professional and incisive but by that they are also often sterile and dull as a result.
For me soccer Saturday has always been great in that you can laugh along with the completely amateurish and emotional warblings of Kamara, Le Tissier, Merson and co whilst Stelling tries to keep some form of sanity which provides great relief when you are seeing your team losing for yet another Saturday.
They had a usp in this respect as it would be too convoluted and insincere for a competitor to come up with a rival format now.
If I want sensible, well thought out analysis I'll watch the beeb's offering but I have always found myself tuning into SS if not at the game for a bit of levity and silliness in a game and world that has started to take itself far far too seriously.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Fired on what grounds exactly?
Yeah would love to know what went through the idiots head that thought he could simply get someone else fired
Probably thought they were extreme views or something
Could it just be the show is stale, and it needs freshening up? The Jeff and his 4 drunks format has run out of steam, time for something new.
Also Sky are competing with a load of other broadcasters other then BT on a Saturday afternoon, they've seen the average age of viewing football on the channels is going up, and advertisers aren't too interested in them.
I think Soccer Saturday's usp was that it is rough around the edges, unpolished and a great laugh. Essentially as a result of the presenters being that themselves.
There are plenty of shows about that are far more informative, professional and incisive but by that they are also often sterile and dull as a result.
For me soccer Saturday has always been great in that you can laugh along with the completely amateurish and emotional warblings of Kamara, Le Tissier, Merson and co whilst Stelling tries to keep some form of sanity which provides great relief when you are seeing your team losing for yet another Saturday.
They had a usp in this respect as it would be too convoluted and insincere for a competitor to come up with a rival format now.
If I want sensible, well thought out analysis I'll watch the beeb's offering but I have always found myself tuning into SS if not at the game for a bit of levity and silliness in a game and world that has started to take itself far far too seriously.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Does she work for the Met Police? That kind of stuff started happening when I left six years ago. Absolutely ridiculous 😳
It's been going on in Government departments for about 20 years.
I still remember Danny Baker being replaced on talk radio with some ex Tory politician ? It went from being an entertaining across the board football show, to let’s talk premiership only complete dross. I worry that bringing a younger less football experienced team of presenters in will be the same. They are likely to be 100% premiership focused. Whilst I appreciate that’s Sky,s remit, at least the old school had some knowledge of us lesser teams.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Oh FFS.
Get the Head of Dossiers to start looking into the background of this stupid cow and we can add her to the list.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
This sort of thing is probably for the politics board so I will keep my response as short as possible. However, as your man bigstemarra has produced this gambit I feel I should respond and address a few things:
- First off this is a bit of a ridiculous caricature. And the sacking of these three guys was something that literally no one was calling for? If this is a by-product of "woke culture" then I'm as surprised at its efficacy as the next person.
- What institutions "openly despise" white people? This is such a fucking rich statement. You feel as if the majority are those being persecuted in this country?! Windrush. Stephen Lawrence. On a similar note, least racist is still racist. The very fact that Alex Scott and Micah Richards were trending on Twitter after Sky's decision shows an immediate and unhealthy jump to conclusions by the "PC gone mad" mob, to paraphrase your rhetoric.
- "Positive discrimination is still racism" just no. This is a discussion for a different forum but I can't let a statement like this ride unchecked - positive discrimination is in place to help ensure an equal footing where systemic racism or other institutional barriers has prevented such from occurring. Is it always applied perfectly? No. But it's overall better than "meritocracy", which at the moment does not truly exist in this country (but we are getting there).
- Who's labelling people far right and what the hell has this got to do with Soccer Saturday? What has ANY of that last paragraph got to do with Soccer Saturday? What colour based segregation is going on?! AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCCER SATURDAY?!
I could go into much more depth but I won't, and unless any response to this post is solely linked to Soccer Saturday and the decisions made by Sky Sports in recent days, then this will be my last post on this thread on the wider ranging issues of race in this country (and, apparently, abroad).
Surely if you discriminate against someone solely based on their skin colour, gender or sexuality alone it is racism, sexism or homo/hetero/trans phobia.
I cannot see how logically it can be anything else regardless of whether it is well meaning or dressed up as "positive".
It is not positive for the individual discriminated against based on nothing more than an uncontrollable trait such as skin colour, gender or sexuality.
It would be abhorrent to deny someone opportunity because they have black skin or are female. It is equally so to deny someone opportunity on the basis they are white or male.
It would not be for anyone other than the discriminated against to assess as whether it is racism or sexism etc.
Inequality should be addressed by lifting others up and removing barriers to opportunities, not by placing barriers to opportunities in front of others which "positive" discrimination does by inherent design.
It does not seem the way forward as it creates resentment to those who feel discriminated against and may undermine people who gain opportunities by merit who may be viewed as only gained that opportunity due to the positive discrimination of others.
I still remember Danny Baker being replaced on talk radio with some ex Tory politician ? It went from being an entertaining across the board football show, to let’s talk premiership only complete dross. I worry that bringing a younger less football experienced team of presenters in will be the same. They are likely to be 100% premiership focused. Whilst I appreciate that’s Sky,s remit, at least the old school had some knowledge of us lesser teams.
David Mellor.
When Danny Baker hosted 606 it was back in the days when Radio Five still played some music. I remember him putting on R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion" as a reaction to Millwall getting a complete tonking that afternoon
Surely if you discriminate against someone solely based on their skin colour, gender or sexuality alone it is racism, sexism or homo/hetero/trans phobia.
I cannot see how logically it can be anything else regardless of whether it is well meaning or dressed up as "positive".
It is not positive for the individual discriminated against based on nothing more than an uncontrollable trait such as skin colour, gender or sexuality.
It would be abhorrent to deny someone opportunity because they have black skin or are female. It is equally so to deny someone opportunity on the basis they are white or male.
It would not be for anyone other than the discriminated against to assess as whether it is racism or sexism etc.
Inequality should be addressed by lifting others up and removing barriers to opportunities, not by placing barriers to opportunities in front of others which "positive" discrimination does by inherent design.
It does not seem the way forward as it creates resentment to those who feel discriminated against and may undermine people who gain opportunities by merit who may be viewed as only gained that opportunity due to the positive discrimination of others.
If a mechanism is put in place to ensure fair(er) representation of minorities, or those otherwise underrepresented, then I don't think that's racist. If that mechanism is positive discrimination - be it in the form of women-only/minority-only shortlists for MPs - then so be it.
Racism is a word with no simple, easy definition. When people ask me "but where are you originally from" - that can be racist (not that it always is, depending on context). When people say "oh your mum must be a great cook", or whatever - yeah sure that's not a bad thing, but that can be racist, too.
If years and years of systemic racism have continually denied opportunities to a minority, but not to white people, then something like positive discrimination looking to redress that balance isn't - in my view - racist.
I appreciate that this is probably more "progressive" or "leftist" than the view on CL, but I hope you can understand - if not agree with - my explanation.
You're completely and utterly right that inequality should be addressed by removing barriers. But that is such an inherently complex and slow process that the "quick fix" of positive discrimination works.
Of course, you also have to bear in mind that you can't just hire someone because of their designation as part of a protected group in this country, just as you can't sack them.
---------
However, please do not take my view above as being ignorant or dismissive of the attendant problems. You can see examples such as when a year or two ago, Cheshire Police basically avoided hiring a white, heterosexual man because they were trying to create a diverse police force. Similarly, the way white working-class males are neglected by almost every scheme available is unforgivable. There are problems with positive discrimination. I just think that the positives outweigh the negatives.
PS very quickly you mentioned about things on merit - yes, sure, but I personally think we live in a society that isn't truly meritocratic. An example is the fact that I myself went to a private school. That gave me a better educational platform than the majority of my peers. When you factor in race and socioeconomic conditions then merit as a concept gets even messier.
Cheers Paddy. I will read your post properly later.
I think a big flaw with pd is that it assumes everyone in a certain group is homogenous ie every white person privileged when the spectrum is vast and complex in that there will be black etonions, significantly underprivileged whites from a socio economic perspective and to discriminate solely on one factor doesn't address such nuances.
As I said will read post later and try and get my head around it a bit more with an open mind even if I don't necessarily agree with it from a purely logical perspective.
Cheers Paddy. I will read your post properly later.
I think a big flaw with pd is that it assumes everyone in a certain group is homogenous ie every white person privileged when the spectrum is vast and complex in that there will be black etonions, significantly underprivileged whites from a socio economic perspective and to discriminate solely on one factor doesn't address such nuances.
As I said will read post later and try and get my head around it a bit more with an open mind even if I don't necessarily agree with it from a purely logical perspective.
I completely agree re homogeneity. It's an incredibly difficult and complex topic and there is no good answer, really, except focusing on systemic advantages/disadvantages people face - and that takes decades rather than being a quick win.
Nothing is as black and white as 'hire less white people and hire more black people'
I said it before on another thread. It would be fairest to blank out candidates names, and see only functional information for jobs. And everyone is called candidate 1,2,3 etc
Pretty degrading and dehumanising though.
In theory if the demographic of an area on which a job is advertised is mixed, in theory so should the candidates.
Imagine if people other than those with shiny faces, who are into shagging horses and educated at Eton were given opportunities those who did get born into privilege do
Because they are the idiots who come up with this patronising bullshit not working class people
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
This sort of thing is probably for the politics board so I will keep my response as short as possible. However, as your man bigstemarra has produced this gambit I feel I should respond and address a few things:
- First off this is a bit of a ridiculous caricature. And the sacking of these three guys was something that literally no one was calling for? If this is a by-product of "woke culture" then I'm as surprised at its efficacy as the next person.
- What institutions "openly despise" white people? This is such a fucking rich statement. You feel as if the majority are those being persecuted in this country?! Windrush. Stephen Lawrence. On a similar note, least racist is still racist. The very fact that Alex Scott and Micah Richards were trending on Twitter after Sky's decision shows an immediate and unhealthy jump to conclusions by the "PC gone mad" mob, to paraphrase your rhetoric.
- "Positive discrimination is still racism" just no. This is a discussion for a different forum but I can't let a statement like this ride unchecked - positive discrimination is in place to help ensure an equal footing where systemic racism or other institutional barriers has prevented such from occurring. Is it always applied perfectly? No. But it's overall better than "meritocracy", which at the moment does not truly exist in this country (but we are getting there).
- Who's labelling people far right and what the hell has this got to do with Soccer Saturday? What has ANY of that last paragraph got to do with Soccer Saturday? What colour based segregation is going on?! AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCCER SATURDAY?!
I could go into much more depth but I won't, and unless any response to this post is solely linked to Soccer Saturday and the decisions made by Sky Sports in recent days, then this will be my last post on this thread on the wider ranging issues of race in this country (and, apparently, abroad).
Ok, Paddy. I will try and briefly address your points:
1. No one was calling for their sacking, but the corporate woke culture that now exists mean that organisations have to have a cull of the male, pale and stale (copyright: BBC) in order to avoid being the next victims of the Twitter witch hunt, which terrifies them. So, sacking people for the colour of their skin; not racist at all, no siree.
2. I refer you to the above 'male, pale and stale' caricature, beloved of the BBC. Also, take the case of Rotherham and the countless other places where the mass rape of minors occurred. If a minority had been targeted in this way, then we would not have heard the last of it for the next century, morning noon and night across the media. Instead, it was covered up by the police, authorities and media because it was only those horrible white folks who are patriotic and probably voted Brexit. Minorities are massively over represented in the media already compared to the overall population - yet the elimination of those representing that majority moves on apace amidst a borderline fetishisation of minorities which borders on the creepy. Of course, they don't hate all white people, of course, just mostly the working class ones. You cite previous cases of racism, but these have been rightly dealt with and have also been constantly in the media eye. Contrast with Rotherham etc. When there is racism against minorities, there is uproar, rightly so. The other way around? No fuss at all, you can even be rewarded: https://unherd.com/2020/06/cambridge-universitys-very-modern-bigotry/ - logic defying double standards (e.g the free pass that the left gives minorities when they indulge in anti-semitism) reveal the moronic basis for modern wokeism and why it can't stand up to the remotest amount of critical scrutiny. We shouldn't be surprised, given that it was born out of a non-scientific discipline where facts and evidence are for the birds, but 'feels' are paramount and evidence is back-calculated in a desperate attempt to get the 'right' answer, which is the opposite to the scientific method.
Oh, and you will never completely eradicate racism, there will always be racists from every country and culture - having that as your only acceptable end point is delusional. I mean, at the Valley the other day, some tit nicked a console, derailing a positive, peaceful protest. There's always one - you will never be able to control the thoughts and actions of all people, it is simply impossible.
3. Simple - 'positive' it may be described as, but when you are giving jobs to people based upon the colour of their skin rather than their talent, that is racism. It is the very opposite of meritocracy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
4. Anyone who disagrees with BLM, a Marxist, racist movement that wants to abolish the police, amongst other lunatic things, is labelled far right and often hounded out of their livelihood. The appropriate word should really be 'sane'. Soccer Saturday presenters were ordered to wear their badges on air and one who refused has been sacked....but I'm sure that that is just a coincidence....
As with all else, we can continue to disagree amicably, which is what sets us apart from the woke and those attempting to crush free speech....who ironically like to see themselves as the tolerant ones.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I must admit I dip in and out of it. From what I have seen, they have a good chemistry but it is ultimately a results show for me. Maybe there is an opportunity for a rival company to use the chemistry doing some more unusual things or challenges.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I must admit I dip in and out of it. From what I have seen, they have a good chemistry but it is ultimately a results show for me. Maybe there is an opportunity for a rival company to use the chemistry doing some more unusual things or challenges.
Whatever they do people will moan and the same old arguments will resurface. Hard to get too excited about it.
Sorry to hear that Forever....the penalty for wrong-think is cancellation!
Terrifying and nasty in equal measure.
What I don't get is that we appear to have produced a generation of containing many youngsters who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be punished in some way because that obviously makes them evil. How can that do anything but further fracture society?
Whatever happened to people agreeing to disagree? There are people of varying political views on this site, for example, yet we accept this as a fact of life and do not allow it to get in the way of our united love for the one and only Charlton Athletic.
Live and let live surely has to be the way forward.
This is a decent watch (if you have a spare hour) - one of many interesting interviews available on line with Andrew Doyle, the writer behind Titania McGrath.
He continues to dispel the perception (perpetuated by many of the woke brigade) that to be "anti-woke" is by default a sign of a tendency towards right wing homophobic fascism, being as he is left wing and gay and a brexit supporter.
Nothing is as black and white as 'hire less white people and hire more black people'
I said it before on another thread. It would be fairest to blank out candidates names, and see only functional information for jobs. And everyone is called candidate 1,2,3 etc
Pretty degrading and dehumanising though.
In theory if the demographic of an area on which a job is advertised is mixed, in theory so should the candidates.
Imagine if people other than those with shiny faces, who are into shagging horses and educated at Eton were given opportunities those who did get born into privilege do
Because they are the idiots who come up with this patronising bullshit not working class people
England is such a diverse place, and all the better for it, that names can never be an indicator of your cultural backround. My son has THE most Irish name EVER, and I do wonder what assumptions people at nursery and school made before meeting him? He is in fact mixed race, half English half Ugandan, and has a big old afro! Not what you would expect from his name!
Impersonal it may be, but I would imagine removing names and identifying material from job applications is probably the best way that we currently have to remove bias. Bring it on.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I must admit I dip in and out of it. From what I have seen, they have a good chemistry but it is ultimately a results show for me. Maybe there is an opportunity for a rival company to use the chemistry doing some more unusual things or challenges.
Whatever they do people will moan and the same old arguments will resurface. Hard to get too excited about it.
I doubt that. The bigger question is how entertaining it would be.
I have to fill so many diversity questionnaires in when applying for a job I'm tempted to change my name in one and claim to be a black, Muslim, limbless lesbian to see if it finally gets me that job as a driving instructor I've been after.
I have to fill so many diversity questionnaires in when applying for a job I'm tempted to change my name in one and claim to be a black, Muslim, limbless lesbian to see if it finally gets me that job as a driving instructor I've been after.
The limbless bit might be an issue. Other than that, you have got the job.
So we all moan about how disadvantaged we are but the issue is still that ethnic minorities are more disadvantaged than us white men in the work place. And if we want to talk about people with disabilities, they are incredibly disadvantaged. You couldn't make it up.
So we all moan about how disadvantaged we are but the issue is still that ethnic minorities are more disadvantaged than us white men in the work place. And if we want to talk about people with disabilities, they are incredibly disadvantaged. You couldn't make it up.
And therein lies the problem. "Us white men" is a sweeping generalisation that groups literally millions, if not billions of people together into one homogeneous group based on no other common denominator beyond skin pigmentation.
If you have grown up in abject poverty as a white male in Poland, Russia or even Middlesbrough or Liverpool it is crass to suggest that you have automatic advantage in the work landscape than someone who has a different colour skin or genitalia but may have had a fantastic upbringing and education in a vastly superior socio economic environment which presents more access to opportunity than the aforementioned white men will ever have access to.
It goes well beyond mere skin colour or gender and has numerous facets and nuances such as family background, socio economic circumstances and education.
Skin colour, gender or sexuality as traits alone to adjudge people's real world circumstances and advantages and disadvantages is far too narrow a lens in 2020 Britain despite it obviously having far more relevance in years gone by.
It is creating an atmosphere of fear and resentment amongst many who will feel rightly or wrongly that they or their children will be disadvantaged or discriminated against for being the wrong colour, gender or sexuality, ergo white, male and straight and that is a recipe for disaster.
People won't stop to consider the nuances of why positive discrimination exists and think fair enough if it is affecting them directly when there is an implication that they or their children will be discriminated against for no other reason than being the wrong colour, sexuality or gender. Particularly those whose pre- existing socio economic conditions mean that they have very little tangible evidence of the "privilege" they are being told they possess.
I don't see how that can be for the greater good or help to facilitate a more progressive society.
Said it on the "what is a man" thread that surely logically we should adopt the Morgan Freeman approach of stop focusing on our "races" etc and start just looking and treating each other as people rather than keep talking and promulgating differences that only cause division.
I think this is one of those topics where the aforementioned Twitter hate mob step outside of their echo chamber and are left clutching their pearls at what the quiet (not silent) majority think.
Comments
Scott Minto is a loss because he is ex charlton and always says nice stuff about us and was a quality player for us
Other than that I don't care, employing people just because they are black or female is patronising. Employing people because they have done their research, speak well and have a bit about them and happen to be black, have a vagina, be Martian or white is what should be happening anyway
I genuinely think as a society we are going backwards in regards equality and diversity and a small amount of vocal idiots are making us go backwards
That kind of stuff started happening when I left six years ago.
Absolutely ridiculous 😳
I think Soccer Saturday's usp was that it is rough around the edges, unpolished and a great laugh. Essentially as a result of the presenters being that themselves.
There are plenty of shows about that are far more informative, professional and incisive but by that they are also often sterile and dull as a result.
For me soccer Saturday has always been great in that you can laugh along with the completely amateurish and emotional warblings of Kamara, Le Tissier, Merson and co whilst Stelling tries to keep some form of sanity which provides great relief when you are seeing your team losing for yet another Saturday.
They had a usp in this respect as it would be too convoluted and insincere for a competitor to come up with a rival format now.
If I want sensible, well thought out analysis I'll watch the beeb's offering but I have always found myself tuning into SS if not at the game for a bit of levity and silliness in a game and world that has started to take itself far far too seriously.
Probably thought they were extreme views or something
Get the Head of Dossiers to start looking into the background of this stupid cow and we can add her to the list.
- First off this is a bit of a ridiculous caricature. And the sacking of these three guys was something that literally no one was calling for? If this is a by-product of "woke culture" then I'm as surprised at its efficacy as the next person.
- What institutions "openly despise" white people? This is such a fucking rich statement. You feel as if the majority are those being persecuted in this country?! Windrush. Stephen Lawrence. On a similar note, least racist is still racist. The very fact that Alex Scott and Micah Richards were trending on Twitter after Sky's decision shows an immediate and unhealthy jump to conclusions by the "PC gone mad" mob, to paraphrase your rhetoric.
- "Positive discrimination is still racism" just no. This is a discussion for a different forum but I can't let a statement like this ride unchecked - positive discrimination is in place to help ensure an equal footing where systemic racism or other institutional barriers has prevented such from occurring. Is it always applied perfectly? No. But it's overall better than "meritocracy", which at the moment does not truly exist in this country (but we are getting there).
- Who's labelling people far right and what the hell has this got to do with Soccer Saturday? What has ANY of that last paragraph got to do with Soccer Saturday? What colour based segregation is going on?! AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCCER SATURDAY?!
I could go into much more depth but I won't, and unless any response to this post is solely linked to Soccer Saturday and the decisions made by Sky Sports in recent days, then this will be my last post on this thread on the wider ranging issues of race in this country (and, apparently, abroad).
Surely if you discriminate against someone solely based on their skin colour, gender or sexuality alone it is racism, sexism or homo/hetero/trans phobia.
I cannot see how logically it can be anything else regardless of whether it is well meaning or dressed up as "positive".
It is not positive for the individual discriminated against based on nothing more than an uncontrollable trait such as skin colour, gender or sexuality.
It would be abhorrent to deny someone opportunity because they have black skin or are female. It is equally so to deny someone opportunity on the basis they are white or male.
It would not be for anyone other than the discriminated against to assess as whether it is racism or sexism etc.
Inequality should be addressed by lifting others up and removing barriers to opportunities, not by placing barriers to opportunities in front of others which "positive" discrimination does by inherent design.
It does not seem the way forward as it creates resentment to those who feel discriminated against and may undermine people who gain opportunities by merit who may be viewed as only gained that opportunity due to the positive discrimination of others.
When Danny Baker hosted 606 it was back in the days when Radio Five still played some music. I remember him putting on R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion" as a reaction to Millwall getting a complete tonking that afternoon
Racism is a word with no simple, easy definition. When people ask me "but where are you originally from" - that can be racist (not that it always is, depending on context). When people say "oh your mum must be a great cook", or whatever - yeah sure that's not a bad thing, but that can be racist, too.
If years and years of systemic racism have continually denied opportunities to a minority, but not to white people, then something like positive discrimination looking to redress that balance isn't - in my view - racist.
I appreciate that this is probably more "progressive" or "leftist" than the view on CL, but I hope you can understand - if not agree with - my explanation.
You're completely and utterly right that inequality should be addressed by removing barriers. But that is such an inherently complex and slow process that the "quick fix" of positive discrimination works.
Of course, you also have to bear in mind that you can't just hire someone because of their designation as part of a protected group in this country, just as you can't sack them.
---------
However, please do not take my view above as being ignorant or dismissive of the attendant problems. You can see examples such as when a year or two ago, Cheshire Police basically avoided hiring a white, heterosexual man because they were trying to create a diverse police force. Similarly, the way white working-class males are neglected by almost every scheme available is unforgivable. There are problems with positive discrimination. I just think that the positives outweigh the negatives.
PS very quickly you mentioned about things on merit - yes, sure, but I personally think we live in a society that isn't truly meritocratic. An example is the fact that I myself went to a private school. That gave me a better educational platform than the majority of my peers. When you factor in race and socioeconomic conditions then merit as a concept gets even messier.
Any job.
Should be the person to get the job.
End Of
I think a big flaw with pd is that it assumes everyone in a certain group is homogenous ie every white person privileged when the spectrum is vast and complex in that there will be black etonions, significantly underprivileged whites from a socio economic perspective and to discriminate solely on one factor doesn't address such nuances.
As I said will read post later and try and get my head around it a bit more with an open mind even if I don't necessarily agree with it from a purely logical perspective.
Nothing is as black and white as 'hire less white people and hire more black people'
I said it before on another thread. It would be fairest to blank out candidates names, and see only functional information for jobs. And everyone is called candidate 1,2,3 etc
Pretty degrading and dehumanising though.
In theory if the demographic of an area on which a job is advertised is mixed, in theory so should the candidates.
Imagine if people other than those with shiny faces, who are into shagging horses and educated at Eton were given opportunities those who did get born into privilege do
Because they are the idiots who come up with this patronising bullshit not working class people
1. No one was calling for their sacking, but the corporate woke culture that now exists mean that organisations have to have a cull of the male, pale and stale (copyright: BBC) in order to avoid being the next victims of the Twitter witch hunt, which terrifies them. So, sacking people for the colour of their skin; not racist at all, no siree.
2. I refer you to the above 'male, pale and stale' caricature, beloved of the BBC. Also, take the case of Rotherham and the countless other places where the mass rape of minors occurred. If a minority had been targeted in this way, then we would not have heard the last of it for the next century, morning noon and night across the media. Instead, it was covered up by the police, authorities and media because it was only those horrible white folks who are patriotic and probably voted Brexit. Minorities are massively over represented in the media already compared to the overall population - yet the elimination of those representing that majority moves on apace amidst a borderline fetishisation of minorities which borders on the creepy. Of course, they don't hate all white people, of course, just mostly the working class ones. You cite previous cases of racism, but these have been rightly dealt with and have also been constantly in the media eye. Contrast with Rotherham etc. When there is racism against minorities, there is uproar, rightly so. The other way around? No fuss at all, you can even be rewarded: https://unherd.com/2020/06/cambridge-universitys-very-modern-bigotry/ - logic defying double standards (e.g the free pass that the left gives minorities when they indulge in anti-semitism) reveal the moronic basis for modern wokeism and why it can't stand up to the remotest amount of critical scrutiny. We shouldn't be surprised, given that it was born out of a non-scientific discipline where facts and evidence are for the birds, but 'feels' are paramount and evidence is back-calculated in a desperate attempt to get the 'right' answer, which is the opposite to the scientific method.
Oh, and you will never completely eradicate racism, there will always be racists from every country and culture - having that as your only acceptable end point is delusional. I mean, at the Valley the other day, some tit nicked a console, derailing a positive, peaceful protest. There's always one - you will never be able to control the thoughts and actions of all people, it is simply impossible.
3. Simple - 'positive' it may be described as, but when you are giving jobs to people based upon the colour of their skin rather than their talent, that is racism. It is the very opposite of meritocracy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
4. Anyone who disagrees with BLM, a Marxist, racist movement that wants to abolish the police, amongst other lunatic things, is labelled far right and often hounded out of their livelihood. The appropriate word should really be 'sane'. Soccer Saturday presenters were ordered to wear their badges on air and one who refused has been sacked....but I'm sure that that is just a coincidence....
As with all else, we can continue to disagree amicably, which is what sets us apart from the woke and those attempting to crush free speech....who ironically like to see themselves as the tolerant ones.
Have a good day and up the Addicks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJlbkCcKnHw
He continues to dispel the perception (perpetuated by many of the woke brigade) that to be "anti-woke" is by default a sign of a tendency towards right wing homophobic fascism, being as he is left wing and gay and a brexit supporter.
I have to fill so many diversity questionnaires in when applying for a job I'm tempted to change my name in one and claim to be a black, Muslim, limbless lesbian to see if it finally gets me that job as a driving instructor I've been after.
And therein lies the problem. "Us white men" is a sweeping generalisation that groups literally millions, if not billions of people together into one homogeneous group based on no other common denominator beyond skin pigmentation.
If you have grown up in abject poverty as a white male in Poland, Russia or even Middlesbrough or Liverpool it is crass to suggest that you have automatic advantage in the work landscape than someone who has a different colour skin or genitalia but may have had a fantastic upbringing and education in a vastly superior socio economic environment which presents more access to opportunity than the aforementioned white men will ever have access to.
It goes well beyond mere skin colour or gender and has numerous facets and nuances such as family background, socio economic circumstances and education.
Skin colour, gender or sexuality as traits alone to adjudge people's real world circumstances and advantages and disadvantages is far too narrow a lens in 2020 Britain despite it obviously having far more relevance in years gone by.
It is creating an atmosphere of fear and resentment amongst many who will feel rightly or wrongly that they or their children will be disadvantaged or discriminated against for being the wrong colour, gender or sexuality, ergo white, male and straight and that is a recipe for disaster.
People won't stop to consider the nuances of why positive discrimination exists and think fair enough if it is affecting them directly when there is an implication that they or their children will be discriminated against for no other reason than being the wrong colour, sexuality or gender. Particularly those whose pre- existing socio economic conditions mean that they have very little tangible evidence of the "privilege" they are being told they possess.
I don't see how that can be for the greater good or help to facilitate a more progressive society.
Said it on the "what is a man" thread that surely logically we should adopt the Morgan Freeman approach of stop focusing on our "races" etc and start just looking and treating each other as people rather than keep talking and promulgating differences that only cause division.