I hope those that choose to boo are able to do so without let or hindrance, as much as they want to.
But only if the process of taking the knee, pre-match, is adjusted slightly, so that, in future, the players take the knee until there has been one, continuous minute of perfectly-observed silence, throughout the whole ground.
So, if you just want to turn up and watch the football without worrying whether it's 'getting political', all you have to do is shut the fuck up.
the taking of the knee isn't done in silence though is it?
I would say that, if the reporting by the New Statement and Newsnight are correct and the overwhelming number of racist tweets received by the players came from overseas, then several things can be true at the same time:
1, Whether 5 or 25 people saying racist things in England then that is still 5 or 25 too many and those people are still morons who should be shunned.
2, I am sure that it makes it no less hurtful that the messages came from overseas, but I do hope it gives the players some comfort that, overwhelmingly, they are not actually living amongst those morons.
3, Some of the more extreme claims about the scale of just how racist Britain is, which we have seen since Sunday night, appear to be something of a moral panic.
4, The comments by Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville about Priti Patel, although no doubt well meant, seem increasingly inaccurate and ill-judged.
You obviously havn’t been paying any attention to what those black players have been saying. They just like “ordinary “ black people suffer racial discrimination and abuse on a daily basis the length and breadth of this country. It’s actually why players are taking the knee. Your comment if I’ve interpreted it correctly looks to minimise the scale of a problem to which with the greatest respect I suspect you have no experience of at all.
A couple of posters on this page - @Southbank and @SteveKielyCambridge - have landed on the phrase 'moral panic'. I don't really know what to think of this stance. Is there a real equivalence between objecting to racism and there being 'moral panic'?
Moral panic has been defined as 'a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society'.
So, in this regard, at least, the use of the phrase is entirely apposite. There is a widespread feeling that some evil thing threatens the values or well-being of our society. To that extent, the phrase is accurate.
There is a 'moral panic', for very, very good reasons. So I would like to thank southbank and stevekielycambridge for reclaiming the phrase from idiots who like to use it as some kind of divisive slur, like this one
I am actually quite proud that there is a moral panic about the insouciance with which the current rise in racism is being met within and beyond Whitehall. Racism, in all its forms, has to be defeated, by all of us. Otherwise we all end up as empty-headed, pointless and embarrassing as poor Laurence Fox.
OK, on Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville, their claim seemed to be that Priti Patel had encouraged people to be racist and the online racism received by the players was the result. Even at the time this seemed unlikely - I mean, how realistic is it that the racist ethno-national morons are waiting for a second-generatation Indian, Hindu, woman to tell them what to do?
But now if we know that the players received, say, 25 racist tweets from England, how many of them was she supposed to have encouraged? Have they any evidence of anyone having been led into it by Priti Patel? This is, after all, in part a movement protesting against online racism, so are we expected to believe that without her words there would otherwise have been pretty much no hate whatsoever?
So their claims are inaccurate.
Secondly, there has been so much talk about how definitely non-political this movement is and that has real advantages in that it expands the group of potential supporters. But now prominent figures of the movement are actually attacking politicians and the government for its stance. It could not be more political. Now everyone kneeling is kneeling a little bit to reject the government and Priti Patel in particular. That is fine if you agree with those stances, but the last election and current polling suggests that more than half of the country does not.
So, although again I absolutely will say they were well-intentioned, their comments were ill-judged.
OK, on Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville, their claim seemed to be that Priti Patel had encouraged people to be racist and the online racism received by the players was the result. Even at the time this seemed unlikely - I mean, how realistic is it that the racist ethno-national morons are waiting for a second-generatation Indian, Hindu, woman to tell them what to do?
But now if we know that the players received, say, 25 racist tweets from England, how many of them was she supposed to have encouraged? Have they any evidence of anyone having been led into it by Priti Patel? This is, after all, in part a movement protesting against online racism, so are we expected to believe that without her words there would otherwise have been pretty much no hate whatsoever?
So their claims are inaccurate.
Secondly, there has been so much talk about how definitely non-political this movement is and that has real advantages in that it expands the group of potential supporters. But now prominent figures of the movement are actually attacking politicians and the government for its stance. It could not be more political. Now everyone kneeling is kneeling a little bit to reject the government and Priti Patel in particular. That is fine if you agree with those stances, but the last election and current polling suggests that more than half of the country does not.
So, although again I absolutely will say they were well-intentioned, their comments were ill-judged.
Steve, a couple of questions for you.
First, what, exactly, was the 'claim' that Tyrone Mings made? Not the claim that you think Tyrone Mings made. But the actual claim. The one you say is 'inaccurate'?
What 'claim' is he making? And in what way is it inaccurate?
Second, how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance? Or, the same question, in a different way: why don't you believe the players who take the knee and choose to believe your own interpretation which you have been told, over and over again, is wrong?
A couple of posters on this page - @Southbank and @SteveKielyCambridge - have landed on the phrase 'moral panic'. I don't really know what to think of this stance. Is there a real equivalence between objecting to racism and there being 'moral panic'?
Moral panic has been defined as 'a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society'.
So, in this regard, at least, the use of the phrase is entirely apposite. There is a widespread feeling that some evil thing threatens the values or well-being of our society. To that extent, the phrase is accurate.
There is a 'moral panic', for very, very good reasons. So I would like to thank southbank and stevekielycambridge for reclaiming the phrase from idiots who like to use it as some kind of divisive slur, like this one
I am actually quite proud that there is a moral panic about the insouciance with which the current rise in racism is being met within and beyond Whitehall. Racism, in all its forms, has to be defeated, by all of us. Otherwise we all end up as empty-headed, pointless and embarrassing as poor Laurence Fox.
I will say that sometimes I like what Laurence Fox says and sometimes I do not; the tweet you quote is rather too conspiratorial for my taste.
I would argue that that a moral-panic, in this case, is the huge over-estimation of the number of racists in the country. Issues like Brexit or voting Tory or booing the kneeling have been taken as sort of tests and so sort of evidence that there are loads or racists around.
I wish to God it had not happened, but Sunday evening we had a test: by nothing at all but sheer horribly bad luck and no fault of their own, three ethnic-minority players were shoved into the firing line for missing those penalties. I would expect there to be abuse from the despicable morons, because that is what despicable racist morons do.
So what were the numbers? If the reporting is to be believed, the number of tweets from England was in the low 10s (again, every one of them is one too many).
I am not daft: not every knuckle-dragger would have reached for their phone, but if the real number of racists is 100 times that, or 1000, then we should still be very happy that we live in a society where these people are so rare, and where not many years ago, these figures would have been much higher.
I struggle why people are getting so vexed over this, no-one is asking anyone to take the knee or even show visible/audible support for a group of players taking the knee, (a group of players who have consistently said their gesture is not political but something they feel they need to do).
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
I struggle why people are getting so vexed over this, no-one is asking anyone to take the knee or even show visible/audible support for a group of players taking the knee, (a group of players who have consistently said their gesture is not political but something they feel they need to do).
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
I would say that, if the reporting by the New Statement and Newsnight are correct and the overwhelming number of racist tweets received by the players came from overseas, then several things can be true at the same time:
1, Whether 5 or 25 people saying racist things in England then that is still 5 or 25 too many and those people are still morons who should be shunned.
2, I am sure that it makes it no less hurtful that the messages came from overseas, but I do hope it gives the players some comfort that, overwhelmingly, they are not actually living amongst those morons.
3, Some of the more extreme claims about the scale of just how racist Britain is, which we have seen since Sunday night, appear to be something of a moral panic.
4, The comments by Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville about Priti Patel, although no doubt well meant, seem increasingly inaccurate and ill-judged.
Totally agree with your first point. The other three are simply rubbish.
In your opinion. I’m sure if you polled 10 people on here you’d have a whole host of combinations on what ones people agree / disagree with. Suspect it’s only really point 4 you’ll probably get nearest to a consensus disagreement on
Perhaps those who do not like the booing might clap just while the knee is being taken, to at least mitigate the booing and show that it's not a majority attitude.
First, what, exactly, was the 'claim' that Tyrone Mings made? Not the claim that you think Tyrone Mings made. But the actual claim. The one you say is 'inaccurate'?
What 'claim' is he making? And in what way is it inaccurate?
Second, how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance? Or, the same question, in a different way: why don't you believe the players who take the knee and choose to believe your own interpretation which you have been told, over and over again, is wrong?
What exactly do you understand by the phrase "You don’t get to stoke the fire" aimed at Priti Patel? I interpret it as an allegation that Priti Patel in some way encouraged people to be racist. Am I misreading that?
Secondly, there is a difference between the message and the means of promoting that message. If Tyrone Mings, for example, simply says 'racism is wrong', then I agree that is not political. But understand that Priti Patel agrees believes that as well, and she believes that she is tackling racism in her own way.
So if Tyrone Mings says "racism is wrong and the Tories are encouraging racism" then that is a political statement, how could it be anything else? What message are his fans supposed to get other that 'if you support the Tories you are supporting people who stoked the fire of racism'?
A couple of posters on this page - @Southbank and @SteveKielyCambridge - have landed on the phrase 'moral panic'. I don't really know what to think of this stance. Is there a real equivalence between objecting to racism and there being 'moral panic'?
Moral panic has been defined as 'a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society'.
So, in this regard, at least, the use of the phrase is entirely apposite. There is a widespread feeling that some evil thing threatens the values or well-being of our society. To that extent, the phrase is accurate.
There is a 'moral panic', for very, very good reasons. So I would like to thank southbank and stevekielycambridge for reclaiming the phrase from idiots who like to use it as some kind of divisive slur, like this one
I am actually quite proud that there is a moral panic about the insouciance with which the current rise in racism is being met within and beyond Whitehall. Racism, in all its forms, has to be defeated, by all of us. Otherwise we all end up as empty-headed, pointless and embarrassing as poor Laurence Fox.
I will say that sometimes I like what Laurence Fox says and sometimes I do not; the tweet you quote is rather too conspiratorial for my taste.
I would argue that that a moral-panic, in this case, is the huge over-estimation of the number of racists in the country. Issues like Brexit or voting Tory or booing the kneeling have been taken as sort of tests and so sort of evidence that there are loads or racists around.
I wish to God it had not happened, but Sunday evening we had a test: by nothing at all but sheer horribly bad luck and no fault of their own, three ethnic-minority players were shoved into the firing line for missing those penalties. I would expect there to be abuse from the despicable morons, because that is what despicable racist morons do.
So what were the numbers? If the reporting is to be believed, the number of tweets from England was in the low 10s (again, every one of them is one too many).
I am not daft: not every knuckle-dragger would have reached for their phone, but if the real number of racists is 100 times that, or 1000, then we should still be very happy that we live in a society where these people are so rare, and where not many years ago, these figures would have been much higher.
Wrong. Again.
We should never be happy if there are merely slightly fewer racists. Never.
Reasonable people can disagree on Brexit, political party affiliation or Scottish independence. Reasonable people don't agree that racism is ok if there's only a bit of it.
You're either completely opposed to any form of racism, expressed on social media or otherwise; or you're not. It appears you're not.
We should never be happy if there are merely slightly fewer racists. Never.
Reasonable people can disagree on Brexit, political party affiliation or Scottish independence. Reasonable people don't agree that racism is ok if there's only a bit of it.
You're either completely opposed to any form of racism, expressed on social media or otherwise; or you're not. It appears you're not.
That is simply untrue, does not reflect my opinion, and is an intentional misreading of what I wrote.
I would say that, if the reporting by the New Statement and Newsnight are correct and the overwhelming number of racist tweets received by the players came from overseas, then several things can be true at the same time:
1, Whether 5 or 25 people saying racist things in England then that is still 5 or 25 too many and those people are still morons who should be shunned.
2, I am sure that it makes it no less hurtful that the messages came from overseas, but I do hope it gives the players some comfort that, overwhelmingly, they are not actually living amongst those morons.
3, Some of the more extreme claims about the scale of just how racist Britain is, which we have seen since Sunday night, appear to be something of a moral panic.
4, The comments by Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville about Priti Patel, although no doubt well meant, seem increasingly inaccurate and ill-judged.
Totally agree with your first point. The other three are simply rubbish.
In your opinion. I’m sure if you polled 10 people on here you’d have a whole host of combinations on what ones people agree / disagree with. Suspect it’s only really point 4 you’ll probably get nearest to a consensus disagreement on
Absolutely agree. It's my opinion. Nothing more than that. And my opinion is worth as little as anyone else's, I am sure. I sincerely hope no-one would disagree with steve's first point.
It's my opinion that five or 25 racists is too many. (And that there are far more than that). It's my opinion that victims of racial prejudice take absolutely no 'comfort' at all that there are more racists overseas than here. It's my opinion that 'extreme' claims about the scale of just how racist Britiain is', is something about which we should all be concerned. And it's my opinion that the tweet I saw from Tyrone Mings is utterly and devastatingly accurate, and very, very well judged.
I struggle why people are getting so vexed over this, no-one is asking anyone to take the knee or even show visible/audible support for a group of players taking the knee, (a group of players who have consistently said their gesture is not political but something they feel they need to do).
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
Completely agree with this. But I would go one stage further. No-one is really saying you must not boo; but people are saying that, if you do boo, don't be surprised when you're called out a being a cowardly racist.
Tyrone Mings was one of the victims of one of the worst examples of racial abuse in recent times, in Bulgaria. It was open, and hundreds took part. It was he who had to go to the ref and demand that something was done about it. That is why he takes the knee. Patel came out and criticised him and the others for doing it. They were booed by thousands of twats for doing so. Nothing happened to those twats, because the Home Office Minister, an elected representative, said that they should not be doing it. She empowered them. Deliberately.
Now, she is receiving criticism from within the Conservative party and from influential Conservative commentators like Danny Finkelstein. He writes in the Times today (and I'm quoting a tweet, as I don't pay that paywalled *Murdoch* rag ) "Booing taking the knee is "racial abuse wearing the clothes of political argument".
Another Conservative commentator, Mark Wallace of the Conservative Home website, has tweeted this this morning
In summary Tyrone Mings, clearly a citizen of immense personal courage, has exercised his right as a citizen, which Wallace at least respects, and with a few well-chosen words has shifted thinking in high level Conservative influencing circles. I can only dream of pulling off something as "ill-judged" as that.
I really like this quote from an England supporters group
”We believe it is utterly impossible to be racist and still claim to be a football fan. Everything that is great about football is built on the equality of identity”
I really like this quote from an England supporters group
”We believe it is utterly impossible to be racist and still claim to be a football fan. Everything that is great about football is built on the equality of identity”
@SteveKielyCambridge - Tyrone Mings is referring to Priti Patel equivocating over fans booing taking the knee. She may well be concerned about some forms of racism, but she (and Johnson) basically said it was alright for fans to boo players for making a stand against racism. Now, after it's blown up, she's saying that it's outrageous that people should abuse players for being black. You can't see how this might be a teeny bit inconsistent and out of step with what most people think? I don't think Mings is saying that all Tories are racists or encouraging racism, because they clearly aren't - honourable mentions to Johnny Mercer and Steve Baker here on this very subject. But some of them (including Priti Patel) have been keen to stoke this particular fire because it plays well with some of their voters. It's a dog whistle, I'm actually heartened by how comprehensively it's being rejected.
First, what, exactly, was the 'claim' that Tyrone Mings made? Not the claim that you think Tyrone Mings made. But the actual claim. The one you say is 'inaccurate'?
What 'claim' is he making? And in what way is it inaccurate?
Second, how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance? Or, the same question, in a different way: why don't you believe the players who take the knee and choose to believe your own interpretation which you have been told, over and over again, is wrong?
What exactly do you understand by the phrase "You don’t get to stoke the fire" aimed at Priti Patel? I interpret it as an allegation that Priti Patel in some way encouraged people to be racist. Am I misreading that?
Secondly, there is a difference between the message and the means of promoting that message. If Tyrone Mings, for example, simply says 'racism is wrong', then I agree that is not political. But understand that Priti Patel agrees believes that as well, and she believes that she is tackling racism in her own way.
So if Tyrone Mings says "racism is wrong and the Tories are encouraging racism" then that is a political statement, how could it be anything else? What message are his fans supposed to get other that 'if you support the Tories you are supporting people who stoked the fire of racism'?
I see you've chosen to answer my first question with a question. That doesn't get us anywhere does it? (See what I did there? And there?) So, can you answer the first question: what, exactly, was the 'claim' that Tyrone Mings made? Not the claim that you think Tyrone Mings made. But the actual claim. The one you say is 'inaccurate'?
And, you have answered the second question by making up some quotes. That doesn't help either, as Winston Churchill said 'answer the question, or allow others to think you can't'. (See what I did there?) So, can you answer the second question: how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance?
PragueAddick Everything that you are saying is that Tyrone Mings (and several other high profile football figures) have exercised their right to criticise the government in a completely political way. That's great! In their capacity as private individuals and leading figures in this movement, I entirely agree with their right to do so, more power to them!
From a purely personal point of view, I believe that this movement will need to become more political to effect real change.
But, to me it is illogical to then argue that the movement is completely non-political, or even that it is unreasonable for people to believe that it has a political aspect.
Tyrone Mings responded to what Patel had said earlier in the tournament in the context of what she said at the end of the tournament. He was not being political, she was by making the original statement she did. I would assume he is not happy for the England team to be used as part of a culture war that members of the Government have encouraged.
I struggle why people are getting so vexed over this, no-one is asking anyone to take the knee or even show visible/audible support for a group of players taking the knee, (a group of players who have consistently said their gesture is not political but something they feel they need to do).
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
Why do I get vexed Clive? Because in my view in football we only deal with racism when we want to. We can have a player racially abuse another player and yes to me its basically swept under the carpet 8 match ban. This ban was accepted by the majority of fans and by football clubs. Dave from bilericay boos the taking of the knee and we want him banned for life.
Chizz I simply do not understand the confusion - having a goal that everyone agrees with does not mean that everything done to achieve that goal is automatically non-political.
If, for example, Priti Patel came out tomorrow and said "by increasing national borrowing we are forcing the next generation to pay our bills, so we are cutting all unemployment benefit" would you possibly agree that this was not political? Of course not!
The underlying aim is not political, but the means that the movement chooses to achieve them are.
Likewise, if Tyrone Mings simply believes that racism is wrong, then I agrees that is entirely non-political. But the way that the movement is choosing to advance its goals absolutely is political if it includes people starting to publicly criticise members of the Cabinet on Twitter.
This has grown and grown like Topsy. Just a reminder the original point of the post was to promote a petition to ban from football grounds those who make racist posts about footballers on social media. I hope many on here have signed it.
Racism is often defended by arguments of deflection and complication. Both are being deployed on here.
It’s easy really if someone says something is offensive to them then think about it. Think how you’d feel and then hopefully start the process of change in yourself.
Chizz I simply do not understand the confusion - having a goal that everyone agrees with does not mean that everything done to achieve that goal is automatically non-political.
If, for example, Priti Patel came out tomorrow and said "by increasing national borrowing we are forcing the next generation to pay our bills, so we are cutting all unemployment benefit" would you possibly agree that this was not political? Of course not!
The underlying aim is not political, but the means that the movement chooses to achieve them are.
Likewise, if Tyrone Mings simply believes that racism is wrong, then I agrees that is entirely non-political. But the way that the movement is choosing to advance its goals absolutely is political if it includes people starting to publicly criticise members of the Cabinet on Twitter.
I struggle why people are getting so vexed over this, no-one is asking anyone to take the knee or even show visible/audible support for a group of players taking the knee, (a group of players who have consistently said their gesture is not political but something they feel they need to do).
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
Why do I get vexed Clive? Because in my view in football we only deal with racism when we want to. We can have a player racially abuse another player and yes to me its basically swept under the carpet 8 match ban. This ban was accepted by the majority of fans and by football clubs. Dave from bilericay boos the taking of the knee and we want him banned for life.
totally agree with this.
if it transpires that one of the Portsmouth lads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57833838) is being lined up to be the next big thig and worth a fortune to the club, are they going to agree with banning him from football for life? are they bollocks
Comments
WOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHH
Moral panic has been defined as 'a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society'.
So, in this regard, at least, the use of the phrase is entirely apposite. There is a widespread feeling that some evil thing threatens the values or well-being of our society. To that extent, the phrase is accurate.
There is a 'moral panic', for very, very good reasons. So I would like to thank southbank and stevekielycambridge for reclaiming the phrase from idiots who like to use it as some kind of divisive slur, like this one
I am actually quite proud that there is a moral panic about the insouciance with which the current rise in racism is being met within and beyond Whitehall. Racism, in all its forms, has to be defeated, by all of us. Otherwise we all end up as empty-headed, pointless and embarrassing as poor Laurence Fox.
Steve, a couple of questions for you.
First, what, exactly, was the 'claim' that Tyrone Mings made? Not the claim that you think Tyrone Mings made. But the actual claim. The one you say is 'inaccurate'?
For context, here is his tweet:
What 'claim' is he making? And in what way is it inaccurate?
Second, how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance? Or, the same question, in a different way: why don't you believe the players who take the knee and choose to believe your own interpretation which you have been told, over and over again, is wrong?
All that is being asked is that people respect their 10 second gesture and not to boo it.
If you don't agree don't engage, to actively boo when a group of players decide they want to do this just seems provocatively childish to me.
We should never be happy if there are merely slightly fewer racists. Never.
Reasonable people can disagree on Brexit, political party affiliation or Scottish independence. Reasonable people don't agree that racism is ok if there's only a bit of it.
You're either completely opposed to any form of racism, expressed on social media or otherwise; or you're not. It appears you're not.
It's my opinion that five or 25 racists is too many. (And that there are far more than that).
It's my opinion that victims of racial prejudice take absolutely no 'comfort' at all that there are more racists overseas than here.
It's my opinion that 'extreme' claims about the scale of just how racist Britiain is', is something about which we should all be concerned.
And it's my opinion that the tweet I saw from Tyrone Mings is utterly and devastatingly accurate, and very, very well judged.
Tyrone Mings was one of the victims of one of the worst examples of racial abuse in recent times, in Bulgaria. It was open, and hundreds took part. It was he who had to go to the ref and demand that something was done about it. That is why he takes the knee. Patel came out and criticised him and the others for doing it. They were booed by thousands of twats for doing so. Nothing happened to those twats, because the Home Office Minister, an elected representative, said that they should not be doing it. She empowered them. Deliberately.
Now, she is receiving criticism from within the Conservative party and from influential Conservative commentators like Danny Finkelstein. He writes in the Times today (and I'm quoting a tweet, as I don't pay that paywalled *Murdoch* rag ) "Booing taking the knee is "racial abuse wearing the clothes of political argument".
Another Conservative commentator, Mark Wallace of the Conservative Home website, has tweeted this this morning
In summary Tyrone Mings, clearly a citizen of immense personal courage, has exercised his right as a citizen, which Wallace at least respects, and with a few well-chosen words has shifted thinking in high level Conservative influencing circles. I can only dream of pulling off something as "ill-judged" as that.
”We believe it is utterly impossible to be racist and still claim to be a football fan. Everything that is great about football is built on the equality of identity”
I don't think Mings is saying that all Tories are racists or encouraging racism, because they clearly aren't - honourable mentions to Johnny Mercer and Steve Baker here on this very subject. But some of them (including Priti Patel) have been keen to stoke this particular fire because it plays well with some of their voters. It's a dog whistle, I'm actually heartened by how comprehensively it's being rejected.
And, you have answered the second question by making up some quotes. That doesn't help either, as Winston Churchill said 'answer the question, or allow others to think you can't'. (See what I did there?) So, can you answer the second question: how many times do you have to be told by people taking the knee that theirs is not a political stance, before you stop deciding that those people are taking a political stance?
Because in my view in football we only deal with racism when we want to.
We can have a player racially abuse another player and yes to me its basically swept under the carpet 8 match ban.
This ban was accepted by the majority of fans and by football clubs.
Dave from bilericay boos the taking of the knee and we want him banned for life.
I hope many on here have signed it.
Racism is often defended by arguments of deflection and complication. Both are being deployed on here.
It’s easy really if someone says something is offensive to them then think about it. Think how you’d feel and then hopefully start the process of change in yourself.
if it transpires that one of the Portsmouth lads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57833838) is being lined up to be the next big thig and worth a fortune to the club, are they going to agree with banning him from football for life? are they bollocks