Webber makes the national news

[Naturalcynic 662]

35 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You would like to see this in court. How exactly do you think that would benefit Norwich City?

If you had an ounce of common sense you would be hoping this goes away as soon as possible. 

From what he said it looks unlikely that it would be considered a hate crime as there was clearly no intent on Webber’s part to cause offence, although I suspect it could be recorded by the boys in blue as a non-crime hate incident which could subsequently show up in a CRB check.  

Clumsy words, despite arguably being well-intentioned, can have consequences.  Whether they should is another question entirely.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 453]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

From what he said it looks unlikely that it would be considered a hate crime as there was clearly no intent on Webber’s part to cause offence

I don't think he meant in court in a CPS prosecution for a criminal offence. 

Obviously meant in a civil court for defamation?

Personally I have no particular hunger to see that, especially if its one of our current players suing, could distract from our on the field matters and could see more shared about our clubs inner politics and workings than perhaps the world and the fans needs to know.

Webber has already done a good job of making himself unemployable in English football, which is suitable punishment for his foolishness.

Edited March 28 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Bobzilla 163]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's something deeply wrong with you lot. Just a bunch of idiots having another pop because he once bit back at some abusive fans.

I couldn’t give a flying **** about what he’s said about sections of our fans in the past.  I like him as a SD.  He took us up twice.  The fact that we came back down again immediately says more about the state of the game than it does about Stuart Webber.  Absolutely, he should move on - ultimately his City career has ended in failure, but it’s been a pretty ****ing good career, and we’ve seen some of the best football played at Carrow Road ever (by us, not by the opposition) under his tenure.

But none of that matters.  What he said was undoubtedly prejudiced.  It was taking a stereotype that in many cases is true, and applying it to individuals where it was not true, based on the colour of their skin.  He judged those players and their background by the colour of their skin.  Whether he meant to do it is actually a massive red herring.  The fact that he didn’t mean to do it and STILL did it is proof positive that actually there is still an undercurrent of prejudice in this country - the fact that you’re defending him because he didn’t mean to is yet more evidence of it.  

Understanding the issues and how they affect different populations as a whole is fine.  In fact, it’s laudable.  Applying those generalisations to specific individuals is the very definition of prejudice.  The fact that you think it’s OK is actually just evidence of your own prejudice.  It’s horrifying, but sadly not surprising, to me that you not only don’t see it but won’t even listen to it.

Edited March 28 by Bobzilla
Comma added for grammar purposes - yes I am that much of a pedant

[Bobzilla 163]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I don't think he meant in court in a CPS prosecution for a criminal offence. 

Obviously meant in a civil court for defamation?

Personally I have no particular hunger to see that, especially if its one of our current players suing, could distract from our on the field matters and could see more shared about our clubs inner politics and workings than perhaps the world and the fans needs to know.

Webber has already done a good job of making himself unemployable in English football, which is suitable punishment for his foolishness.

I’d say that a defamation case would be difficult.  The loss of reputation isn’t there.  The only person who has lost face in this is Webber himself.  

My understanding is that he hasn’t committed a criminal offence (not because of intention, as it’s often victim perspective that counts more than intention) but because there is no crime to attach the racism to.  There’s no incitement to violence, no physical attack, nothing that is actually illegal.  Just a very stupid, and racist, statement in an interview.

[hogesar 9,742]

I think everyone's accepted he shouldn't have said or worded things as he did....unless I'm wrong on that.

I also think it's completely fair to take what Webber said as a racist comment, particularly if it's someone you don't know.

I also think it's fair to see another side where it could not be racist. It's almost subjective. Troy Deeney didn't think it was racist, but there's a caveat that him and Simon Jordan made. It depends what Webber's knowledge, or what he was told by the players, was their childhood growing up etc. Did he base it on nothing or did he base it on what he was told? If it was 5 players picked based on a history he'd been told about then he's not being racist, he's relating to real-life information and history.

I completely understand that no parent would want that said, not least as it doesn't exactly look good on them. And certainly no parent tends to think their kid is one that's going to end up going down the wrong path until it happens.

Certainly Sterling had a really difficult upbringing with his father being killed so young, moving to the UK for a better life, Mum having to work so much she was never around and he was living in a difficult place in London. I suppose when we signed the other players mentioned, what did he say about his upbringing etc?

Ultimately though, if those named feel offended then Webber is in the wrong irrespective of any of the above - hence him apologising. Equally if they feel racially profiled then they were and that's also on Webber.

The above however, does not make Webber a racist himself.

[Robert N. LiM 4,481]

Good comment, Hoggy. Sounds like quite a sensible middle ground to me.

The only bit I'd slightly take issue with is this:

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I also think it's fair to see another side where it could not be racist. It's almost subjective. Troy Deeney didn't think it was racist, but there's a caveat that him and Simon Jordan made. It depends what Webber's knowledge, or what he was told by the players, was their childhood growing up etc. Did he base it on nothing or did he base it on what he was told? If it was 5 players picked based on a history he'd been told about then he's not being racist, he's relating to real-life information and history.

I think that's all true in theory, but the reaction of the specific players and their families really undermines that defence in practice. I think their reaction is far more relevant than Troy Deeney's. And I agree with your conclusion:

11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Ultimately though, if those named feel offended then Webber is in the wrong irrespective of any of the above - hence him apologising.

 

I think your last line is really important and perhaps where those arguing on this thread could reach some kind of accord.

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

The above however, does not make Webber a racist himself.

I think it's really important to acknowledge that we are all capable of prejudice, making inaccurate stereotyped assumptions, etc. To do so doesn't mean that you are a secret Klansman. We should definitely be making a distinction between 'that statement was racist' (or 'contained racist assumptions', if you prefer) and 'that person is a racist'.

I think it should be possible to condemn such comments, make it clear that they are completely inappropriate for someone in a position of such power and authority - SW had a great deal of influence on the careers of the four NCFC players mentioned - and, yes, to say that the comments were racist, without completely condemning the person who made them, not allowing them to apologise, not allowing them to learn from the experience and be better. This goes back to the principle of charity that @Mr Carrow was talking about. But if you're going to apply that charitable principle, you have to apply it to the families too, to take their objections seriously and not brush them off.

[Naturalcynic 662]

14 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think everyone's accepted he shouldn't have said or worded things as he did....unless I'm wrong on that.

I also think it's completely fair to take what Webber said as a racist comment, particularly if it's someone you don't know.

I also think it's fair to see another side where it could not be racist. It's almost subjective. Troy Deeney didn't think it was racist, but there's a caveat that him and Simon Jordan made. It depends what Webber's knowledge, or what he was told by the players, was their childhood growing up etc. Did he base it on nothing or did he base it on what he was told? If it was 5 players picked based on a history he'd been told about then he's not being racist, he's relating to real-life information and history.

I completely understand that no parent would want that said, not least as it doesn't exactly look good on them. And certainly no parent tends to think their kid is one that's going to end up going down the wrong path until it happens.

Certainly Sterling had a really difficult upbringing with his father being killed so young, moving to the UK for a better life, Mum having to work so much she was never around and he was living in a difficult place in London. I suppose when we signed the other players mentioned, what did he say about his upbringing etc?

Ultimately though, if those named feel offended then Webber is in the wrong irrespective of any of the above - hence him apologising. Equally if they feel racially profiled then they were and that's also on Webber.

The above however, does not make Webber a racist himself.

I agree with that description of events.  So, in summary, a straight-talking bloke, who’s not exactly flavour of the month, engages mouth before brain and says some stuff, with no ill-will intended, that some other people take exception to.  But is it a hanging offence?

[Bobzilla 163]

16 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think everyone's accepted he shouldn't have said or worded things as he did....unless I'm wrong on that.

I also think it's completely fair to take what Webber said as a racist comment, particularly if it's someone you don't know.

I also think it's fair to see another side where it could not be racist. It's almost subjective. Troy Deeney didn't think it was racist, but there's a caveat that him and Simon Jordan made. It depends what Webber's knowledge, or what he was told by the players, was their childhood growing up etc. Did he base it on nothing or did he base it on what he was told? If it was 5 players picked based on a history he'd been told about then he's not being racist, he's relating to real-life information and history.

I completely understand that no parent would want that said, not least as it doesn't exactly look good on them. And certainly no parent tends to think their kid is one that's going to end up going down the wrong path until it happens.

Certainly Sterling had a really difficult upbringing with his father being killed so young, moving to the UK for a better life, Mum having to work so much she was never around and he was living in a difficult place in London. I suppose when we signed the other players mentioned, what did he say about his upbringing etc?

Ultimately though, if those named feel offended then Webber is in the wrong irrespective of any of the above - hence him apologising. Equally if they feel racially profiled then they were and that's also on Webber.

The above however, does not make Webber a racist himself.

I'll agree that if he's based his identification of those individuals based on specific knowledge of those individuals, it's not racist.

I'd disagree with the last comment though.  There are very few out and out conscious racists who are showing hate based on race.  That's increasingly rare nowadays.  The issue is subconscious bias, where observable facts about a community are applied to individual members of a community without reference to their individual facts and circumstances.  That is by its very nature making a deciding about an individual based on observable characteristics.  I.e. Prejudging the individual.  Where that prejudgment is based on race, that is by definition racism.  The fact that someone would make that judgment makes them racist.  It's a different type of racism than outright hated based on race, but it is racism, and makes the person thinking in this way racist.  He may not intend to be racist (and probably doesn't intend it based in subsequent behaviour) but he is, by definition, racist.  He becomes not racist by spite realising where he is making judgments based on appearances and by not making those judgments, by controlling his subconscious judgments and changing his actual behaviour.

[Bobzilla 163]

9 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 

I think it's really important to acknowledge that we are all capable of prejudice, making inaccurate stereotyped assumptions, etc. To do so doesn't mean that you are a secret Klansman. We should definitely be making a distinction between 'that statement was racist' (or 'contained racist assumptions', if you prefer) and 'that person is a racist'.

I think it should be possible to condemn such comments, make it clear that they are completely inappropriate for someone in a position of such power and authority - SW had a great deal of influence on the careers of the four NCFC players mentioned - and, yes, to say that the comments were racist, without completely condemning the person who made them, not allowing them to apologise, not allowing them to learn from the experience and be better. This goes back to the principle of charity that @Mr Carrow was talking about. But if you're going to apply that charitable principle, you have to apply it to the families too, to take their objections seriously and not brush them off.

I’m not sure I agree here.  

Absolutely, our natural subconscious mindset is one of prejudice.  You look different so I don’t trust you.  It’s a natural inbuilt reaction, and part of our survival as a species.  We are still just caveman in suits.

The difference between someone who has a prejudiced subconscious mindset and someone who is prejudiced, of whatever flavour, is the link between subconscious and conscious.  If you can’t control those urges and engage your conscious brain to rethink your natural judgments and control what comes out of your mouth, you’re prejudiced.  If you say racist stuff, you’re racist.

Now that doesn’t mean he can’t become non-racist.  He stops saying this sort of ****, and stops acting based on it.  That’s the difference between a normal everyday person and someone who is racist.

[Robert N. LiM 4,481]

9 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

I’m not sure I agree here.  

Absolutely, our natural subconscious mindset is one of prejudice.  You look different so I don’t trust you.  It’s a natural inbuilt reaction, and part of our survival as a species.  We are still just caveman in suits.

The difference between someone who has a prejudiced subconscious mindset and someone who is prejudiced, of whatever flavour, is the link between subconscious and conscious.  If you can’t control those urges and engage your conscious brain to rethink your natural judgments and control what comes out of your mouth, you’re prejudiced.  If you say racist stuff, you’re racist.

Now that doesn’t mean he can’t become non-racist.  He stops saying this sort of ****, and stops acting based on it.  That’s the difference between a normal everyday person and someone who is racist.

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.

 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,481]

Just now, Robert N. LiM said:

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.

I probably should have added here that if it were part of a recognised pattern of behaviour rather than one isolated comment (and, as far as I'm aware, absolutely no suggestion that SW treated black players any differently when he was SD here), then that kind of labelling would seem much more reasonable.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 453]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I suppose when we signed the other players mentioned, what did he say about his upbringing etc?

Even if a player did confide in their boss that they had a difficult upbringing and could have gone the wrong way in life, maybe even got in a bit of actual trouble or childhood trauma, should that boss broadcast that to the world, including all potential future employers? Or do you think doing so is incredibly unprofessional? 

He's got form for this when saying that one of the Murphy twins insisted that they wanted to leave but then called him a few months after leaving in tears, begging him to take him back, think it was Jacob after his tough start at Newcastle. Imagining having somebody in a bad place mentally, and then feeling it appropriate to use that for a bit of petty point scoring.

Your mate Stu is an unpleasant person who can't be trusted by other human beings. That's the label I'm giving him.

Edited March 28 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[hogesar 9,742]

3 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Even if a player did confide in their boss that they had a difficult upbringing and could have gone the wrong way in life, maybe even got in a bit of actual trouble, should that boss broadcast that to the world, including all potential future employers? Or do you think doing so is incredibly unprofessional? 

Depends if it was confiding or open dialogue that the players were happy to share about their past. I have absolutely no idea.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 453]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Depends if it was confiding or open dialogue that the players were happy to share about their past. I have absolutely no idea.

Well evidently at least three of them are not happy with his comments, did you even bother to read Abu Kamara's statement? And he's one of our own, Webber no longer is.

Its their place to share what they want about their past, not Stuart Webber's, he doesn't own them, it isn't the 17th century, black people aren't branded with 'Webber' and exchanged with title deeds anymore Hogesar.

Edited March 28 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[hogesar 9,742]

Just now, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Well evidently at least two of them are not happy with his comments.

Its their place to share what they want about their past, not Stuart Webber's, he doesn't own them, it isn't the 17th century, black people aren't branded with 'Webber' and exchanged with title deeds anymore.

No one, including Webber, said or suggested the above though. Continue with your hyperbole if it helps.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 453]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Depends if it was confiding or open dialogue that the players were happy to share about their past. I have absolutely no idea.

You clearly haven't taken in a single word of Abu Kamara's statement have you Hogesar.

 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

I think it was racist due to the application of a negative stereotype and I’m afraid little birdie he did specifically pick out pretty much all the higher profile young, black players who have come through our academy so I don’t buy the line about him making a random selection of players who just all happened to be black as there are a lot of black footballers.

I do, however, believe that intent and context are important when it comes to culpability. I don’t think individuals should be “cancelled” or hounded endlessly just because they make a comment that may be unconsciously racist but where they had zero intent to offend or insult anyone. People say stupid things. The world is a bit of a minefield these days with the scrutiny put on press interviews and public statements etc. I don’t like the bloke at all and Webber was wrong to say what he did was wrong and it was racist but if he’s apologised and learnt from it then everyone should probably just move on. Ultimately he’s destroyed his own job prospects for the foreseeable future which is probably punishment enough! 

Edited March 28 by Jim Smith

[Monty13 2,251]

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.

[Sufyellow 223]

On 28/03/2024 at 10:18, Naturalcynic said:

I agree with that description of events.  So, in summary, a straight-talking bloke, who’s not exactly flavour of the month, engages mouth before brain and says some stuff, with no ill-will intended, that some other people take exception to.  But is it a hanging offence?

It's who them other people were , that is the important bit. 

[Sufyellow 223]

23 hours ago, Monty13 said:

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.

I haven't really seen anyone label him a racist,  we don't personally know him. Most agree, what he said was racist.