Jump to content

Fen Canary

Members
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Fen Canary last won the day on July 20 2019

Fen Canary had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m torn on Assange. There’s no doubt the Americans will want to make an example of him for the embarrassment he’s caused them, so I don’t expect he’d get a fair trial if extradited. However I also don’t class him as a journalist. Much of the information he released seems to have been obtained through illegal means, and he failed to protect his sources, or redact any information that could put people in danger, and the releasing of those documents without doing so undoubtedly signed the death warrants of many operatives working abroad. He also seems to have been a willing accomplice or maybe just a useful idiot for the Russians. To be honest it doesn’t worry me either way. In regards to free speech, I’m much more concerned with the way the big tech companies seem to be censoring people whose views don’t match their own, or that they’re able to control which news stories people get to read. There’s a big debate to be had about how much power they’re allowed to hold, and their current straddling of the laws in which they claim to be a Platform and are not responsible for the content posted in their sites, whilst simultaneously acting as Publishers and choosing which content they allow needs to be looked at
  2. Which companies are these? I’ve been hearing this threat since the referendum but the City now employs more people than it did 5 years ago. I don’t doubt some will set up satellite offices in the EU to get round any tariffs if they appear, but the bulk of the City will be dealing with other major financial centres such as the Asia and the States. European companies are just as likely to set up satellite offices in London in order to keep base with the other major centres, especially if the UK makes it more friendly to do business with deregulation and strikes future trade deals with these other nations more suited to the financial sector. Manufacturing, or what little we have left is largely unaffected by the new deal so would have no reason to move unless to reduce wage costs, which has been happening usually with EU loans and grants for a long time anyway.
  3. How do you know what the EU will look like in 5/10 years time that we would be so desperate to join it? The problems regarding the imbalance the single currency has caused between Germany and the Mediterranean countries has never been properly addressed, with countries such as Italy’s debt problems mounting all the time. Germany is becoming reliant on Russian energy, the Eastern Europe nations are starting to flex their muscle and refusing to bow to the Western nations wishes now they’re not as reliant on EU funds as they once were. The UK leaving leaves a large hole in the EU budget which will have to be paid by countries who up until now have been beneficiaries of EU money. The migrant crisis is still ongoing, and is causing far right support to steadily grow in a number of nations. Why do all the posters on here assume the EU will thrive without the UK, despite these structural problems within the organisation, while thinking the UK will simply crash and burn now they have a bit more paperwork to fill out when exporting goods to Europe?
  4. The PFA statement is wrong. If it is simply an anti racism stunt why did it start appearing at the same time as the players we were wearing shirts with Black Lives Matter on them? Why are they using the same gesture as was seen on Black Lives Matter marches throughout the summer? Trying to pretend that taking the knee by footballers wearing BLM attire while the stands and television coverage are all featuring BLM logos is somehow different to raking the knee by all those involved in the BLM antics previously is rubbish quite frankly. The football authorities have backed themselves into a corner by going all in with this divisive organisation, and are now trying to wriggle out if it. They could get away with it when no fans were allowed in, but as the crowds come back people are starting to show their displeasure and the authorities are trying to save face. As for your second point I still don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t know anybody who is separating the skinheads fighting the police at the counter protests from any other movement, or copying their gestures etc. If the players start wandering around the pitch with Combat 18 on their back because they “defended the statues” according to them you may have a point but I can’t see that happening anytime soon
  5. It was originally a gesture against police brutality in the States, it is now a symbol of BLM whether you admit it or not. Trying to seperate the side of the movement that was vandalising statues, attacking police and defacing the cenotaph from the side that preaches anti racism (though in a horribly divisive way) simply doesn’t wash with large swathes of the population. This is why football should never have got involved when it already had organisations such as Kick It Out who had done fantastic work regarding racism
  6. Trying to pretend that “taking the knee” is in no way linked to BLM, even when it was emblazoned on the players shirts and was seen on multiple BLM protests is just nonsense I’m afraid. As has been said it first came to prominence with the NFL player doing it to highlight police brutality, but it has now become symbolic of the BLM movement whether you admit it or not. As for your second point I’m yet to see anybody doing gestures in support of the skinheads at the counter protests so it’s a moot point, simple whataboutery
  7. What’s wrong with Kick It Out? Why focus on discrimination against one group rather than racism as a whole? Why do you feel the need to try and import American problems and pretend they’re in any way relevant to Britain?
  8. As has been said previously many people, myself included, see the kneeling as part of the wider BLM movement, rather than a simple anti discrimination stunt. When players had BLM on their shirts, the banners and logos are in the stadiums and on the television coverage, and the kneeling is a symbol of all that, I don’t think you can seperate it from those people in the summer who were defacing statues and assaulting the police under the same paraphernalia. As others have pointed out if the players simply stood with a kick it out banner before the game we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s only become an issue because of its links with BLM which is a very divisive movement
  9. Fair enough, I disagree though I don’t think you should be throwing people out for booing political acts they disagree with. If the club were to start parading around with other political banners, such as Labour/Tory ones, or being in support of fox hunting, would you say it’s ok to kick out people who booed those, or are certain opinions and causes more special than others?
  10. At what point does it stop though? How about if in your example the was simply wearing a pro EU shirt, or was voicing their displeasure at leaving. Would it be ok for pro Leave businesses to refuse to serve them? If we evicted everybody in a football ground every time they booed or were a bit obnoxious we wouldn’t have much of a crowd left. If the club and players decided to unfurl a banner before the game in support of the Tories and you voiced your displeasure, would you be happy if they then kicked you out? To me evicting people for not agreeing with you, and in the wider cancel culture movement of trying to get people sacked for unfashionable opinions is a very slippery slope
  11. Would that freedom extend to other businesses? Would a pub be free to ban somebody who voted Remain in the EU referendum if the landlord voted Leave for instance? Or could a shop refuse to serve somebody if they were of a different opinion regarding something like gay marriage? At what point does it cross the line for private businesses to refuse to serve people based on their opinions alone?
  12. So you’re trying to tell me that kneeling is in no way linked to the wider Black Lives Matter movement, despite it being on the players shirts after the restart, and the banners and logos being prevalent around the grounds and on the television coverage? Whatever the original meaning of the gesture, which was about police brutality, it is now linked to BLM, for better or worse. So if people don’t like the aims, tactics and personnel behind it, then they should be free to protest how they please
  13. Except they’re using the same name in Black Lives Matter, they’re copying the same kneeling gesture (originally intended as a protest against US police brutality) as that group and have the same logos and slogans. The people in the US calling for the police to be defunded and abusing members of the public who refused to join them, and those marching here in the summer defacing statues and attacking police did so under the same banners that are placed around football grounds. In my eyes I can’t see the kneeling as a simple gesture against racism, it is inextricably linked to the larger movement, and as such people should be free to reject, boo and ridicule it if they don’t agree with its aims and tactics.
  14. Did people from those countries turn up in large numbers for the rebuild after the war? Was it the same immigration system they arrived under? Would those from South Africa and Zimbabwe not have been predominantly black anyway? You’re using whataboutery and distraction to avoid debating the points made....again
  15. Then that child would also have much less opportunity in life than the middle class child from a nice area.
×
×
  • Create New...