When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I agree. It’s complete double standards and his argument is dismissed immediately. There are numerous areas in England where English people will be in the minority. By his theory, being called an English xxxx in these areas is ok and doesn’t have any impact. Absolute nonsense.
Somebody can be born in England but not characterise themselves as English. An accident of birth is an accident of birth, it is not a rule that anyone should feel pride or shame about their place of birth or skin colour. It is ok to push back against actual physical or verbal attacks on you based on skin colour or place you happened to be born, or are perceived by others to be born. The same goes for any oppression based on disability, gender, sexuality or choice of religion, provided your religious choice does not include the notion that you verbally or physically abuse others for their religious choice. I am of course assuming one’s adoption of a religion is a choice.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.
Exactly.
But some people don't see it like that. Uncle Seth being a prime example.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.
Oh OK. I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
That wasn't the question though.
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
That wasn't the question though.
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.
Oh OK. I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.
So, do you think it's ok to call someone an "English XXXX" then Seth? In England or anywhere else?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
That wasn't the question though.
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?
See my response in the post above yours.
Your post wasn't visible when I typed mine out - your post clarifies your original point
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
I thought I'd already said that I've no idea why anyone would want to defend those types of comments, so I think that's pretty clear.
I think the times we are in now mean that anyone found guilty of this type of abuse should face the consequences - be that stadium bans, legal action or something else in between.
But if we are setting that as the standard then surely it has to apply to all, no?
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
I thought I'd already said that I've no idea why anyone would want to defend those types of comments, so I think that's pretty clear.
I think the times we are in now mean that anyone found guilty of this type of abuse should face the consequences - be that stadium bans, legal action or something else in between.
But if we are setting that as the standard then surely it has to apply to all, no?
Absolutely! I haven't seen any posts in this thread that I interpret as suggesting otherwise.
To go down that angle is a distraction and akin to "but, All Lives Matter"
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
I agree. It’s complete double standards and his argument is dismissed immediately. There are numerous areas in England where English people will be in the minority. By his theory, being called an English xxxx in these areas is ok and doesn’t have any impact. Absolute nonsense.
Aren't you actually backing up what Cloudworm is saying IE it cuts deeper when you in the minority. He's not saying, as I read it, that that makes it OK as he goes on the say.
"For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with."
I'm not sure what we do choose should be a stick either but that's another debate.
When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.
Oh OK. I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.
So, do you think it's ok to call someone an "English XXXX" then Seth? In England or anywhere else?
How would I know if they were English or not just by looking? If after engaging with somebody I then had occasion to call them a xxxx, it would be because my experience with them as an individual had led me to think of them as a xxxx.
In which case (as I see it), the person who shouted the comment with a Russian **** insult, cannot possibly be accused of making a racist comment as Marosi is Slavik, NOT Russian. However, if he had call him a Slovenian **** that would, I assume, have been a racial slur. Am I right…..all he’s done is used foul language as far as I can see? 🧐
Would calling a Bangladeshi a smelly Indian be ok?
Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads … In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon ruined by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
Edited to add: And the club should apologise to said individuals (there was no such apology in the secondary statement) as well as reimburse the cost of their ticket as well as any travel expenses. It is not good enough.
Marko Marosi is a Slovak; why do I believe that some/one of the moronic fans who follow Cafc believe that is in Russia ? Some of the shit that comes from the mouths of our critics/fans is amazing and that's aimed at Charlton players let alone the away team.
I don't believe anyone who goes to work should be abused; including Footballers. Boo if you must but for a keeper to inform a ref of being sworn at by a fan who I would imagined kept doing it and mentioned his country as well ( or what the moron thought was his Country) then pleased that it was dealt with. "Only a bit of banter" said potty mouth fan when up before the break.
Can anyone who was in earshot confirm what was said ? Put the words in speech marks !
We won't shoot the messenger.
I know a female supporter who sits here by and says it’s a father and son who basically are vile individuals and basically been getting away with comments all season .. …
Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads … In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon runed by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
I thought it was reported on here a few years ago that every seat was covered by some all seeing security system ?
Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads … In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon runed by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
I thought it was reported on here a few years ago that every seat was covered by some all seeing security system ?
I think that is right. For example, I assume that the array of cameras at the very top of the south end of the Alan C Stand is part of such a system. But perhaps it is not maybe it is the part of the player performance system.
In any event, the prospect that a security system could cover every seat all the time seems implausible to me.
Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads … In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
Yes, you couldn't see any faces, but thought it best to delete it as no-one seems to have a clue about what actually happened, or what was actually said. Hopefully it'll all be resolved one way or another. Bit of humorous banter with opposition keepers has gone on for years, and nothing wrong with it, but don't see any need for abuse, IF that's what occurred. Personally, I've always clapped the opposition keeper when he takes up his position before the game if I'm sitting behind the goal, as I'm sure many others do too.
Comments
An accident of birth is an accident of birth, it is not a rule that anyone should feel pride or shame about their place of birth or skin colour.
It is ok to push back against actual physical or verbal attacks on you based on skin colour or place you happened to be born, or are perceived by others to be born.
The same goes for any oppression based on disability, gender, sexuality or choice of religion, provided your religious choice does not include the notion that you verbally or physically abuse others for their religious choice.
I am of course assuming one’s adoption of a religion is a choice.
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
But some people don't see it like that. Uncle Seth being a prime example.
I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
I think the times we are in now mean that anyone found guilty of this type of abuse should face the consequences - be that stadium bans, legal action or something else in between.
But if we are setting that as the standard then surely it has to apply to all, no?
To go down that angle is a distraction and akin to "but, All Lives Matter"
"For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with."
I'm not sure what we do choose should be a stick either but that's another debate.
If after engaging with somebody I then had occasion to call them a xxxx, it would be because my experience with them as an individual had led me to think of them as a xxxx.
There is diversity everywhere, and umbrella terms tend to cloud that diversity.
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon ruined by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
Edited to add: And the club should apologise to said individuals (there was no such apology in the secondary statement) as well as reimburse the cost of their ticket as well as any travel expenses. It is not good enough.
In any event, the prospect that a security system could cover every seat all the time seems implausible to me.
Bit of humorous banter with opposition keepers has gone on for years, and nothing wrong with it, but don't see any need for abuse, IF that's what occurred.
Personally, I've always clapped the opposition keeper when he takes up his position before the game if I'm sitting behind the goal, as I'm sure many others do too.