Jump to content

Monty13

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,481

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Monty13

  7. Posted

    29 minutes ago, chicken said:

    Keep the English national anthem for the UK but ditch it for England?

    I think that'd just further underline what is wrong with it... 

    Except it’s the other way round. God save the King is the U.K. National Anthem, England doesn’t have one and that’s why it’s used for most sporting events when England are represented.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

    I understand that and completely take the point, especially about the notion of trying to be aware of and control your subconscious prejudices. While I'm here I might as well say that I think your comments on this thread have been absolutely excellent and I've agreed with pretty much all of them.

    I'm just thinking in terms of what works. Presumably the goal for all of us is that our society should continue to become less racist. And I think you and I agree that becoming more aware of our subconscious biases is an important part of that. I just also feel that labelling a person as 'racist' (rather than focussing on the specific comments they used) runs the risk of seeming like it's an accusation about their whole character, which is likely to provoke an understandably defensive reaction - and make it less likely that they reflect on their behaviour. Whereas if you focus on the specific comment or incident, and especially if you note that subconscious biases are something that we all have, you are more likely to prompt an honest reflection.

    But I am quite prepared to accept I might be wrong about this, and that I'm being overly generous. I'm white and don't have to absorb this kind of shıt on a daily basis. So that might be one of my unconscious prejudices.

     

     

    Agree with this.

    Whats technically true isn’t necessarily helpful in helping us move forward as a society, labelling a person racist isn’t particularly helpful as the connotations of that word are so much worse than the technical language definition.

    Humans learn through trial an error, making mistakes is absolutely paramount for learning and growing.

    We all have prejudices, many of which are unconscious, condemn what people say and point out why so they can grow but without a consistent pattern of ignorance to that opportunity I don’t feel labelling them as such is helpful. It doesn’t promote the environment for people to improve themselves and their understanding.

    • Thanks 2

  9. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Ian said:

    I personally think it's less down to the anthem itself, and more to do with the fact it's generally looked down upon to have a strong English national identity these days, especially following Brexit.

    When some people, some of the media and/or politicians, generally consider flying the Cross of St George to be an indicator of someone being a bigot or worse it's hardly surprising some people no longer feel a particular sense of pride at being English?

     

    It is truly appalling how instead of extolling the true virtues of the English people and this country a lot of the establishment saw the way to distance themselves from the minority of the worst nationalist bigots was to attack anything nationalistic itself.

  10. Posted · Edited by Monty13

    25 minutes ago, Old Shuck said:

    Two 'contenders' for England's national anthem are 'Jerusalem' and 'I Vow To Thee My Country'.

    As the latter speaks mostly of peace and love rather than routing enemies, winning battles or swearing eternal loyalty to the monarch, I'd go for that one.

    Land of hope and glory has always been my favourite personally, I like the tune.

    Although the issue with all these great old patriotic hymns are the lyrics are a tad problematic lol

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

    Yes it is boring, as is every petty fogging minor thing that triggers the woke brigade on multiple subjects. 

    What he said was wrong, it was mistaken, it was badly judged - and that should be all that is said about it imo.  

    I'm surprised that anyone of any stature wants to say  anything about these kinds of subjects anymore, because it is a minefield of what you can say and what you can't say for fear of offending those who are just waiting for the slightest slip of the tongue to pounce and cry Racist! Sexist! or whatever "ist" it is that triggers them. 

    Webber fell into the trap by daring to make a particular point, he did it badly - wrongly even - but underlying that, was a positive message about footballers, which most people seem to have ignored, in favour of shouting him down. 

     

     

    He wasn’t daring, he didn’t fall into a trap. 

    This has nothing to do with the “woke brigade”, I’m willing to bet a bunch of people on here and elsewhere are pretty unhappy with the extremes of racial politicking but still know Webber was in the wrong.

    He lumped a bunch of young men together because they are black, I’m honestly shocked you refuse to see that and at what you keep writing on this subject.

    • Like 3

  14. Posted · Edited by Monty13

    1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

    Just because someone mentions black players, it doesn't make what they say racist.

    He was poor with his choice of words, shouldn't have mentioned individuals, but that is all.

    It's getting to the point where people can't use the word "black" anymore, because the word itself is seen as racist, which is ridiculous.

     

    Christ this is boring. People have pointed out multiple times why what he said was racist, you keep ignoring it.

    He profiled 5 black men, he attributed things to them collectively that were not true about all of them. What he said was racist.

    That doesn’t make him racist just because he said something racist, but it doesn’t change what he said and calls into question why he said it.

    The fact he named these individuals also defames their character, family and upbringing. A bigger deal for those individuals definitely, but doesn’t take away from the above.

    He said something he should not have done, he’s apologised and the club has released a statement, both of which took longer than they should have IMO but it was required.

    I’m pretty sure personally he didn’t mean to be racist, I think once again his ego got the better of him and he started to take some tacit credit for these lad’s achievements without thinking for a second of the impact of what he was saying on them and their families.

    He’s got main character syndrome and he finally unthinkingly said something that upset more people than he’s used to, maybe he’ll learn but damage has been done because he didn’t think.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

    Maybe Webber saved him from his life of drink and road to prison? 🤷 Who knows 😉

    He didn’t stop Flynn Clarke, I do find it rather ironic that one of his youth signings is actually in prison (well house arrest now). Must have been his upbringing as a young black man on the mean streets of Peterborough.

    • Haha 5

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

    The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

    So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

    Are you just being deliberately obtuse now? It was what he actually said as Cowboy described that’s the issue, not what he may or may not have been wishing to highlight.

  18. Posted · Edited by Monty13

    I thought Knapper gave a decent interview in January, but there’s so little to say until we get to the summer and he can start taking whatever actions he deems necessary.

    The fact it passed without much controversy didn’t mean there weren’t interesting insights, much like Attanasio’s comments.

    I always hated the idea Webber was some straight talker, he didn’t tell it like it is, he told it like he wanted.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  19. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

    If you just think about it for a minute, you will realise that people who are black, white, yellow, brown and all the lovely infinite shades in between, and come from a disadvantaged background are more likely to get into trouble and and up in jail. That's where the focus should be. If you focus on the black members of that group only, you are being racist. If you then include some other black people who ARE NOT from that disadvantaged background you are being doubly racist and a complete tvvat.

    Basically this, I’m really not sure what you’re not getting @lake district canary?

    There’s a difference between being a racist and saying something racist.

    What he said was objectively racist for the reasons above, why he said it is probably something for Webber to reflect on.

    • Like 1

  22. Posted · Edited by Monty13

    19 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

    I have. He was clumsy with his comments, didn't think it through and it came out badly, but I don't think for one minute he was being racist.

    I see he's apologised so maybe he recognises he said something in a stupid way, but at least he wasn't afraid to say something, whereas a lot of people are scared to say anything for fear of being labelled racist, when all they are trying to do is talk about a problem that is well known to exist. The alternative to not talking about these subjects is that they don't get discussed enough!

    He could have said exactly the same thing without naming players, but no his ego got the better of him and he didn’t think for a second about what he was saying about them or how he was stereotyping men like them. 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    14 minutes ago, king canary said:

    Simple, to the point, does the job.

    I'm sure it won't be enough for some but it should be.

    It’s exactly as it should be, my only issue would be I think this could have been published quicker IMO, before it even got to national news, simply because now it’s reactive rather than proactive. I presume The Pinkun made the club aware of the content in the interview.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted · Edited by Monty13

    1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

    But he is no longer working for the club, and none of the reports I have seen in the national media regarded him as still being at the club. It was all "former" or "ex-".

    I agree, but he is still contracted so I assume NCFC have some say in what he can say about his time here and presumably should have something in place in terms of NDA for when he’s not contracted. Would you not expect that? 

    Also my point was more this isn’t something new he’s suddenly done since he’s off on gardening leave, he’s been putting his foot in it all throughout his tenure, you’d have thought someone would have spoken to him about it at some point as a senior manager reporting to the board.

    I 100% get your stance, merely pointing out I’m not sure I agree nothing could have been done by the club during his tenure (and even now to a certain extent) to prevent him bringing the club into disrepute.

  25. Posted

    33 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

    This has nothing to do with any lack of corporate governance. Webber no longer works for the club and even if he'd said this when he did no amount of corporate governance would have prevented that.

    Not sure that’s strictly true Purple.

    1. he technically is still under contract by the club, just on gardening leave effectively, he confirmed that himself.

    2. Depending on how you choose define Corporate Governance but I’d still argue part of a broad definition would include the boards responsibility to challenge management performance. Given the number of (increasingly worse) faux pas Webber has dropped in his time you could question whether he was challenged on his poor PR during his tenure as it doesn’t appear so.

     

×
×
  • Create New...