@ThatGayPro

[jaberry2 550]

Already been confirmed as a fake account and no truth in it. The twitter account should be ignored, as like half the comments on this thread.

[BobLoz3 492]

2 minutes ago, jaberry2 said:

Already been confirmed as a fake account and no truth in it. The twitter account should be ignored, as like half the comments on this thread.

Where was it confirmed as fake? I see that the account has now been taken down.

Oh dear... Amal Fashanu must feel a bit silly but what's even sillier is someone making that account in the first place!

Edited July 23, 2019 by BobLoz3

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

pomposity pistol

I wouldn't try and say that after a few pints of the blackstuff. I'd spit over everyone.

[king canary 7,603]

1 minute ago, BobLoz3 said:

Where was it confirmed as fake?

Apparently Jake Humphreys spoke to Stuart Webber who confirmed it is fake.

[BobLoz3 492]

Just now, king canary said:

Apparently Jake Humphreys spoke to Stuart Webber who confirmed it is fake.

Cripes! How daft.

Anyway, good conversation all! At least this has people talking about these issues I guess. Regardless of some of the twaddle!

[jaberry2 550]

2 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

Where was it confirmed as fake? I see that the account has now been taken down.

Oh dear... Amal Fashanu must feel a bit silly but what's even sillier is someone making that account in the first place!

Webber has been quoted saying their is no truth in it.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If it was true you could have said it was sno fake.

[BobLoz3 492]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

If it was true you could have said it was sno fake.

👏

[canarydan23 4,060]

19 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

That's just naff.

 

Bye!

13 minutes after saying he was late for golf and he is still posting on here.

To quote one of Broady's probable idols, SAD!

[BobLoz3 492]

Just now, jaberry2 said:

Webber has been quoted saying their is no truth in it.

👍

(Somehow, I don't have any reactions left today!)

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

5 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

Where was it confirmed as fake? I see that the account has now been taken down.

Oh dear... Amal Fashanu must feel a bit silly but what's even sillier is someone making that account in the first place!

The fact that the account(s) are fake doesn't mean that Amal wasn't telling the truth, though... neither the club nor Di Cunningham have stated that what Amal said is untrue, have they? 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,081]

Probably some Ipswich fan with a warped sense of humour. Good to see though that practically the entire fanbase was supportive of one of our players coming out. We need to remember we are supporters. I would hope that if any of our players are gay they will be encouraged by this

[lake district canary 4,531]

"Gay" is just a label and it is a shame people feel they have to label themselves. If we were all a bit more tolerant of others who are "different" in some way and tried to understand them rather than pigeon-hole them and/or villify them, the world would be a better place.

There are probably gay players at lots of clubs and it will be common knowledge within those clubs that such and such a player might be gay, just like in any group of friends.  What most decent clubs would do, is support everyone in their club, whatever label society puts upon them.

 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,081]

12 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

"Gay" is just a label and it is a shame people feel they have to label themselves. If we were all a bit more tolerant of others who are "different" in some way and tried to understand them rather than pigeon-hole them and/or villify them, the world would be a better place.

There are probably gay players at lots of clubs and it will be common knowledge within those clubs that such and such a player might be gay, just like in any group of friends.  What most decent clubs would do, is support everyone in their club, whatever label society puts upon them.

 

This is where I feel identity politics is counter productive. The media is obsessed with who people are, gay, black, white, female etc. I couldnt give a crap what colour someones skin is, what genitalia they are packing or what they choose to do with it.

A party like Labour which chooses to focus on these things actually holds back progress imo

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by The Great Mass Debater

[Fuzzar 1,702]

12 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

"Gay" is just a label and it is a shame people feel they have to label themselves. If we were all a bit more tolerant of others who are "different" in some way and tried to understand them rather than pigeon-hole them and/or villify them, the world would be a better place.

 

Like verbose folk from Cumbria? 

[BobLoz3 492]

36 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

The fact that the account(s) are fake doesn't mean that Amal wasn't telling the truth, though... neither the club nor Di Cunningham have stated that what Amal said is untrue, have they? 

No, I guess not. The original account is still up... I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[SwindonCanary 455]

 

[Ramrod 258]

I'd like to think that if we had a gay player first and foremost it would be their choice to talk about it. 

Secondly, as part of our identified sense of togetherness the colleagues of said player would all be aware but treat the individual as another player and not their one dimensional gay friend. 

I have known some people who like to wear their identity like a badge and in that case it just becomes another use of power and results in resentment. You have to be careful with special treatment. 

If a player wanted to make a public statement about being gay then it would need to be for reasons other than promoting themselves ie social media rumours 'Yes, I'm gay, get over yourselves.' 

Most people just want privacy and equality /fairness. 

I can't imagine dealing with all of the fawning virtue signallers waiting to jump on my personal bandwagon just to show how woke they are. And to stop being that player and become that sympathised with gay man would be horrendous. 

We used to persecute people within and without the law for something they couldn't change. Liberal democracy has dealt with this but some people object for various reasons and it is counter productive to fight intolerance with intolerance. 

The exception to this, for me is state sponsored intolerance which is usually on fundamental religious grounds which actively persecute people. 

The rights of homosexual peoples have developed beyond comparison as has open acceptance. The trouble is politics comes into it. If you don't show total support for gay rights then you must oppose them. Nonsense. I would never wear insignia or symbols, I object to rainbow flags everywhere and in particular the police, who should be neutral, emblazoning their vehicles with gay pride liveries because their managers either want to appear progressive or are too afraid to decline. 

Gay friends and associates have had to fight intolerance their representative groups are now developing their own intolerance and this will ultimately cause them a backlash. 

I object to young children being taught lessons beyond understanding that each others family units might be diverse and a loving home is all that matters. 

I used to be the only person in my workplace who wore the issued lanyard. Everyone else wore a rainbow lanyard. Why? The underlying reason was being afraid to refuse and you can take that fear right up to corporate levels hence my Barclays Bank app logo is rainbow this month whether I like it or not. 

We have to be aware of intolerance, human rights are universal and virtue historically leads to witch hunts because it is an empowering issue. 

Our politicians are currently watering down racism by accusing each other of anti-semitism or islamophobia because these are recognised powerful tools and often less because they really care. 

Gay rights movements need to take care. This is fundamentally a hearts and minds issue and you don't achieve that by becoming the bully. 

[king canary 7,603]

@Ramrod what do you mean by the police should be neutral? 

[Van wink 2,994]

Well at least it gave a few the chance to take the lectern.

[splendidrush 700]

Is it over?.... please say it's over. 🙏

[king canary 7,603]

6 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

Is it over?.... please say it's over. 🙏

If you don't want to read it, don't click on it.

[Ramrod 258]

25 minutes ago, king canary said:

@Ramrod what do you mean by the police should be neutral? 

The police should (but they are not-especially since the introduction of 'commissioners') be free from political interference and influence. There should be no favour. This can lead to malpractice and corruption. If you were accused of homophobia your defence might begin with the fact the officers turned up in a gay pride liveried car and cases are lost on the basis of 'doubt.' 

You might be aware of the current Westminster paedophile ring investigation where it is alleged high level political interference resulted in a mendacious complaint being believed without question. That is one example, there are many. 

The police need the confidence of all sections of the community but there is a difference between support and promote. 

The climate is such that if someone choose to complain they found my post offensive Archant would remove it because they dare not do otherwise. How is that right? 

[Petriix 2,834]

1 hour ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

This is where I feel identity politics is counter productive. The media is obsessed with who people are, gay, black, white, female etc. I couldnt give a crap what colour someones skin is, what genitalia they are packing or what they choose to do with it.

A party like Labour which chooses to focus on these things actually holds back progress imo

I understand what you are saying and, ostensibly, it is true to a degree. However, while people in particular 'groups' are marginalised and persecuted, I fully understand why they feel the need to look to form a collective to fight for their cause. It's all very well to say that all sexualities should be treated with respect, but straight people are not subject to the same discrimination so are not in the same position.

[Nuff Said 5,119]

1 hour ago, Ramrod said:

The police should (but they are not-especially since the introduction of 'commissioners') be free from political interference and influence. There should be no favour. This can lead to malpractice and corruption.

I agree on this point, in the same way as political influence is counter-productive for education, transport and the health service - and the BBC too. These public services ought to be managed by some sort of an "arms length" neutral body. Having said that, the police absolutely need to be ultimately answerable to the democratically elected government of the day and subject to effective scrutiny.

If you were accused of homophobia your defence might begin with the fact the officers turned up in a gay pride liveried car and cases are lost on the basis of 'doubt.' 

Hmm, you believe that might happen, I don't.

 

1 hour ago, Ramrod said:

You might be aware of the current Westminster paedophile ring investigation where it is alleged high level political interference resulted in a mendacious complaint being believed without question. That is one example, there are many. 

That didn't happen. The police said they believed the complaint was credible, so they investigated. I hesitate to ask this, but what has that got to do with supporting gay people?

The police need the confidence of all sections of the community but there is a difference between support and promote. 

I think the police understand that. Supporting is making clear they are in favour of people being able to openly express their sexuality. Promoting would be making statements like "Being a gay is great". I don't think the police have ever done that?

The climate is such that if someone choose to complain they found my post offensive Archant would remove it because they dare not do otherwise. How is that right? 

Again, I don't believe that would happen unless it was genuinely thought to be offensive. I'm sure there are lots of complaints to Archant about posts on here. They rarely get taken down.

 

[Ramrod 258]

52 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

 

I have seen a completely gay pride liveried police car in Southampton and some forces fly the rainbow flag over their HQ's. It's inappropriate on many levels. 

The paedophile ring comment was in the context of political influence you are trying to form a link which doesn't exist. 

None of this is gay people living mainstream it is promulgation our differences instead of our commonalities. 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

Good stuff Ramrod (x3), it needs considered appraisal. Be careful though as you might soon be called pompous as your thinking transcends the black and white perameters of the snowflake brigade.

Edited July 23, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[lake district canary 4,531]

19 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Good stuff Ramrod (x3), it needs considered appraisal. Be careful though as you might soon be called pompous as your thinking transcends the black and white perameters of the snowflake brigade.

Snowflakism is rife and is a direct result of instant communications of today's world.  More and more people are coming through their lives only ever having known social media as being the norm - and they are not the better for it imo.

Thankfully there are those of us that can remember what it was like before twitter/emails/instant information/internet etc - it was not a bed of roses, but it was a heck of a lot more natural - if you wanted to get in touch with someone, you had to either write to them, go and see them, or talk to them on the phone.   I dare say some will remember times before they even had telephones (real ones, not the little mind distracting toys people have nowadays).

People are too easily offended if you waver from what is deemed as the collective line - ie you have to agree or you will be ostricised by those who think they have some kind of monopoly on what is right, whereas in reality they are just spouting stuff from what they have been told or seen on the internet.

I do believe people are losing the ability to think for themselves.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Snowflakism only really exists in the eyes of the idiots who spout the stupid term. And they invariably tend to be individuals who actually most match the attributes they have given the title.

Idiot #1:   "HAHA, Snowflake, you get offended by the fact that I don't like gays doing gay things in public. If you'd only get off social media you would realise that gays are sinners"

Also Idiot #1:  "WHAT?! Someone got a milkshake thrown at them? Waaaaaah, disgraceful!"

Also Idiot #1:   "WHAT?! VEGAN SAUSAGE ROLLS IN GREGGS?! WAAAAAAAAAH."

And don't forget, they rail against social media how? On social media. Because out in public they are generally compliant, timid little souls.

You could replace Idiot #1 for a fair few people on here.

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

"I do believe people are losing the ability to think for themselves." LDC.

Careful mate they've a shelf full of ready made labels and they are lurking and just waiting to pin one on you at the slightest whiff of you deviating from that collective line.

If you confuse them they resort to insults, name calling and the total contorted nonsense and self-constructed fairy tale stuff that we have just been presented with in the above rant.

"Also Idiot #1:   "WHAT?! VEGAN SAUSAGE ROLLS IN GREGGS?! WAAAAAAAAAH."

I ask you? Is this sensible debate?

Cue: Further insults.

Edited July 23, 2019 by BroadstairsR