Opposition fans back from the game - 24/25 page 225 onwards

[muirinho]

As with any decentralised organisation you can't say they do or don't condone anything; they clearly have elements and self proclaimed members who do condone riots and violence.

Er, so what? There are Reading supporters that are very unpleasant individuals, that doesn't mean we all are. If some thug in a Reading shirt breaks into a McDonalds on the way to the game, neither the supporters or the club are responsible for his actions.

Whether their anger is justified is debatable in itself.

There is shedloads of evidence of racism in British society. There is shedloads of evidence of racism in English football.

Isn't Raheem Sterling entitled to call out the very obvious racism in the way the wealth of young black footballers and young white footballers is treated differently by the press? Isn't he entitled to be angry about it? That's just a single example.
https://www.joe.ie/sport/raheem-sterlin ... ame-651027

Did you watch the documentary Anton Ferdinand did, and listen to how he was interviewed by the FA as opposed to how john Terry was interviewed by the FA? That's another clear example of structural racism involving footballers.

If you're saying that anger about the racism, that we know exists, may not be justified, you're essentially saying that the racism itself can be justified, that it's absolutely fine.

If BLM stood for that alone I don't think most people would take issue with it. The issue is that it's objectives are vague are wide ranging, including defunding the police and generally tends to be focused on policing issues and police violence. We already have a large problem with civil disobedience in this country and a lack of respect for the force. I also don't believe our police force has systemic racism, unlike in the US, and I don't think our police in general uses excess force (there will of course be isolated incidents). For these reasons and more I think BLM as a moniker is tarnished. We already have kick it out which has clear objectives, why do we another more divisive campaign pushed?

If you have "one bad apple" in a barrel, and you don't remove it, you have a barrel of rotten apples. If the perpetrators of "isolated incidents" aren't prosecuted, or are able to stay in the force, or retire with full pensions, then it is perfectly correct to say the police force is structurally racist.

Civil disobedience has been coming from the top, in spades, way before BLM. The difference is, though, in how its treated.

Defund the police is a rotten slogan but a good idea. Properly fund mental health treatment and addiction treatment, fund initiatives such as sure start, that have been defunded, reinstate funding for youth workers in poor areas, provide interest-free loans for people in crises waiting for universal credit - lo and behold, you won't need as much money for the police, because you'll have far less crime.

Clearly if its one nut in a Reading shirt then it doesn't reflect the club but if it is a significant number than the club/supporters club would be forced to comment - see Millwall last week.

"Forced to comment" is not the same thing as responsible for, though, is it?

EDIT: O and your final comment is exactly the sort of comment that leads to no change. If you aren't able to debate the topic of racism without being branded a racist or an advocate of racism then nothing will change.

What right do you have to "debate" racism? If there's a burglary, you don't ask people who weren't there if anything was stolen, you don't ask the burglar if they stole something, you ask the victim.
Is football racist? Ask black footballers. If most of them are saying it is, then it is.
Are the police structurally racist? Don't ask the police. Ask the communities they are accused of being racist against. If most of them can come up with examples, and are saying they are, then, yes, the police are racist.
What's to debate?

[Jagermesiter1871]

Er, so what? There are Reading supporters that are very unpleasant individuals, that doesn't mean we all are. If some thug in a Reading shirt breaks into a McDonalds on the way to the game, neither the supporters or the club are responsible for his actions.



There is shedloads of evidence of racism in British society. There is shedloads of evidence of racism in English football.

Isn't Raheem Sterling entitled to call out the very obvious racism in the way the wealth of young black footballers and young white footballers is treated differently by the press? Isn't he entitled to be angry about it? That's just a single example.
https://www.joe.ie/sport/raheem-sterlin ... ame-651027

Did you watch the documentary Anton Ferdinand did, and listen to how he was interviewed by the FA as opposed to how john Terry was interviewed by the FA? That's another clear example of structural racism involving footballers.

If you're saying that anger about the racism, that we know exists, may not be justified, you're essentially saying that the racism itself can be justified, that it's absolutely fine.

If BLM stood for that alone I don't think most people would take issue with it. The issue is that it's objectives are vague are wide ranging, including defunding the police and generally tends to be focused on policing issues and police violence. We already have a large problem with civil disobedience in this country and a lack of respect for the force. I also don't believe our police force has systemic racism, unlike in the US, and I don't think our police in general uses excess force (there will of course be isolated incidents). For these reasons and more I think BLM as a moniker is tarnished. We already have kick it out which has clear objectives, why do we another more divisive campaign pushed?

If you have "one bad apple" in a barrel, and you don't remove it, you have a barrel of rotten apples. If the perpetrators of "isolated incidents" aren't prosecuted, or are able to stay in the force, or retire with full pensions, then it is perfectly correct to say the police force is structurally racist.

Civil disobedience has been coming from the top, in spades, way before BLM. The difference is, though, in how its treated.

Defund the police is a rotten slogan but a good idea. Properly fund mental health treatment and addiction treatment, fund initiatives such as sure start, that have been defunded, reinstate funding for youth workers in poor areas, provide interest-free loans for people in crises waiting for universal credit - lo and behold, you won't need as much money for the police, because you'll have far less crime.

Clearly if its one nut in a Reading shirt then it doesn't reflect the club but if it is a significant number than the club/supporters club would be forced to comment - see Millwall last week.

"Forced to comment" is not the same thing as responsible for, though, is it?

EDIT: O and your final comment is exactly the sort of comment that leads to no change. If you aren't able to debate the topic of racism without being branded a racist or an advocate of racism then nothing will change.

What right do you have to "debate" racism? If there's a burglary, you don't ask people who weren't there if anything was stolen, you don't ask the burglar if they stole something, you ask the victim.
Is football racist? Ask black footballers. If most of them are saying it is, then it is.
Are the police structurally racist? Don't ask the police. Ask the communities they are accused of being racist against. If most of them can come up with examples, and are saying they are, then, yes, the police are racist.
What's to debate?

Well yes you would ask the victim to report the crime but you actually would look to work with both parties otherwise the burglar will just continue to commit the crime.

Ask employees of a company if they're under paid, most of them will say they are. If you ask un-quantified leading questions you're going to get whichever answer probably suits them best. I'm sure there are incidents of racism but you're going to get some confirmation bias posing the question in that manner.

[Jagermesiter1871]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

[muirinho]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

I referenced Sterling because of the instance he'd highlighted - not about himself, but about the different treatment meted out by the press to two young rich footballers. Did you read the article? Or did you assume, without reading it, I was talking about how Sterling is treated - possibly because deep down, you're aware that Sterling is treated differently...

As for "ridiculous notion" - this brings me right back, as an Irish person, to reading Denning's "terrible vista" judgement.

If Footballer X comes on the radio and complains he is being discriminated against because he has red hair - I might think, well I've never heard of that being an issue. I might then go and seek out documented examples of it happening previously, see if other footballers have complained of the same thing, see if there are statistics on homelessness, prison sentences, school exclusions, income levels, etc etc, to back up his claim. And if I found none, I'd probably dismiss him as a whinger.

If Footballer X is the 100th person I've heard complaining about that, if over the last few years I'd seen lots of in depth articles looking at those statistics, showing evidence of that discrimination, if I'd seen stuff about it on tv, if other people I respected were chiming in and agreeing with him, if the only dissenting voices were those who clearly had something to lose, or were never in a position to experience it, - well then, despite having exactly the same amount of direct evidence as in the first case, I might be inclined to believe him.

Because, on the balance of probabilities, he's probably telling the truth.

And you know, it shouldn't be up to footballer X, in that scenario, to have to keep piling up more and more evidence. because the evidence is already out there. Because it's happened over and over again previously, and we've seen it happen, and the statistics are there.

And if you don't believe him, because taking "alleged victims" at their word is "ridiculous", who would you ever believe?

Not the "alleged victims" of Hillsborough, obviously the police are more believable
Not child abuse victims - children have vivid imaginations and make stuff up all the time.
Not rape victims - it's just one person's word against another.
Not the Birmingham Six , the Guildford four, the Maguire seven....
Not the Gypsies, the Roma, the Travellers, the Jews......

Who?

[Jagermesiter1871]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

I referenced Sterling because of the instance he'd highlighted - not about himself, but about the different treatment meted out by the press to two young rich footballers. Did you read the article? Or did you assume, without reading it, I was talking about how Sterling is treated - possibly because deep down, you're aware that Sterling is treated differently...

As for "ridiculous notion" - this brings me right back, as an Irish person, to reading Denning's "terrible vista" judgement.

If Footballer X comes on the radio and complains he is being discriminated against because he has red hair - I might think, well I've never heard of that being an issue. I might then go and seek out documented examples of it happening previously, see if other footballers have complained of the same thing, see if there are statistics on homelessness, prison sentences, school exclusions, income levels, etc etc, to back up his claim. And if I found none, I'd probably dismiss him as a whinger.

If Footballer X is the 100th person I've heard complaining about that, if over the last few years I'd seen lots of in depth articles looking at those statistics, showing evidence of that discrimination, if I'd seen stuff about it on tv, if other people I respected were chiming in and agreeing with him, if the only dissenting voices were those who clearly had something to lose, or were never in a position to experience it, - well then, despite having exactly the same amount of direct evidence as in the first case, I might be inclined to believe him.

Because, on the balance of probabilities, he's probably telling the truth.

And you know, it shouldn't be up to footballer X, in that scenario, to have to keep piling up more and more evidence. because the evidence is already out there. Because it's happened over and over again previously, and we've seen it happen, and the statistics are there.

And if you don't believe him, because taking "alleged victims" at their word is "ridiculous", who would you ever believe?

Not the "alleged victims" of Hillsborough, obviously the police are more believable
Not child abuse victims - children have vivid imaginations and make stuff up all the time.
Not rape victims - it's just one person's word against another.
Not the Birmingham Six , the Guildford four, the Maguire seven....
Not the Gypsies, the Roma, the Travellers, the Jews......

Who?

I have read the exact article and it's quite a good point in a vacuum. However the reality is you could find 100's of examples of white footballers being ridiculed and pulled apart because of their extravagant lifestyle or misbehaviour; the press does it to most younger rich footballers and I don't think its evidence of systemic racism.

[Jagermesiter1871]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

I referenced Sterling because of the instance he'd highlighted - not about himself, but about the different treatment meted out by the press to two young rich footballers. Did you read the article? Or did you assume, without reading it, I was talking about how Sterling is treated - possibly because deep down, you're aware that Sterling is treated differently...

As for "ridiculous notion" - this brings me right back, as an Irish person, to reading Denning's "terrible vista" judgement.

If Footballer X comes on the radio and complains he is being discriminated against because he has red hair - I might think, well I've never heard of that being an issue. I might then go and seek out documented examples of it happening previously, see if other footballers have complained of the same thing, see if there are statistics on homelessness, prison sentences, school exclusions, income levels, etc etc, to back up his claim. And if I found none, I'd probably dismiss him as a whinger.

If Footballer X is the 100th person I've heard complaining about that, if over the last few years I'd seen lots of in depth articles looking at those statistics, showing evidence of that discrimination, if I'd seen stuff about it on tv, if other people I respected were chiming in and agreeing with him, if the only dissenting voices were those who clearly had something to lose, or were never in a position to experience it, - well then, despite having exactly the same amount of direct evidence as in the first case, I might be inclined to believe him.

Because, on the balance of probabilities, he's probably telling the truth.

And you know, it shouldn't be up to footballer X, in that scenario, to have to keep piling up more and more evidence. because the evidence is already out there. Because it's happened over and over again previously, and we've seen it happen, and the statistics are there.

And if you don't believe him, because taking "alleged victims" at their word is "ridiculous", who would you ever believe?

Not the "alleged victims" of Hillsborough, obviously the police are more believable
Not child abuse victims - children have vivid imaginations and make stuff up all the time.
Not rape victims - it's just one person's word against another.
Not the Birmingham Six , the Guildford four, the Maguire seven....
Not the Gypsies, the Roma, the Travellers, the Jews......

Who?

For me the argument that statistics on homelessness, prison sentences, school exclusions, income levels, etc are evidence of systemic racism is too simplistic. I think that actually these are all more common symptoms of poverty itself, which begs the question why are Blacks more likely to suffer from poverty and again I think it is too simplistic to explain with current systemic racism. I think there is a large element of legacy of historic racism and the cyclical poverty that's caused. The poverty trap is hard for anyone to break out from irrespective of race and if you plunge any subset of society into poverty they are likely to perpetually stay in poverty and suffer from the endemics of it.

[Snowflake Royal]

oxf*rd hell lads.

[SCIAG]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

So if you look at the specific example Sterling highlighted, it’s one particular newspaper covering young City players buying houses.

Tosin Adarabioyo buys his mum a house, he’s described as “splashing out on a mansion”, his wage is listed, the fact that he’s never started a league match for City is highlighted. No mention of it being a present for his mum.

Phil Foden buys a house for the same price and instead the same newspaper decides to highlight that his mum will be moving in with him. No implication that he’s being exuberant or that he doesn’t deserve it.

With Sterling frankly at the time you saw this all the time. He was criticised for his shopping habits in the media in a way that Kane wasn’t, Stones wasn’t. And we’re talking about the gutter press here - I don’t think the idea that they uphold a pitifully low standard of journalism should be controversial.

Not going to get into stuff away from football here - but yeah, there is a double standard.

[TiagoIlori]

The FA made it pretty clear any knee gesture doesn’t support the “political” stuff about BLM. Same lot praising people for not taking the knee go nuts when James McClean refuses to wear the poppy.

https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/jun/30/ ... ism-300620

[Jagermesiter1871]

It's also a ridiculous notion that you just take every 'victims' allegations at their word and even more so their characterisation of it. You reference Sterling but is there an evidence that his treatment is related to race? Or is that just an assumption?

So if you look at the specific example Sterling highlighted, it’s one particular newspaper covering young City players buying houses.

Tosin Adarabioyo buys his mum a house, he’s described as “splashing out on a mansion”, his wage is listed, the fact that he’s never started a league match for City is highlighted. No mention of it being a present for his mum.

Phil Foden buys a house for the same price and instead the same newspaper decides to highlight that his mum will be moving in with him. No implication that he’s being exuberant or that he doesn’t deserve it.

With Sterling frankly at the time you saw this all the time. He was criticised for his shopping habits in the media in a way that Kane wasn’t, Stones wasn’t. And we’re talking about the gutter press here - I don’t think the idea that they uphold a pitifully low standard of journalism should be controversial.

Not going to get into stuff away from football here - but yeah, there is a double standard.

Yeh but you can find examples of both cases. They don't inherently prove systemic racism or anything other than shitty tabloids have their heroes and villains. Look at the treatment of Rooney compared to how Kante is treated for example or how Vardy is portrayed as a chav or Beckham thick or whatever. The article contrasting Sterling and Foden was just cherry picking two articles to fit the current zeitgeist.

[Jagermesiter1871]

The FA made it pretty clear any knee gesture doesn’t support the “political” stuff about BLM. Same lot praising people for not taking the knee go nuts when James McClean refuses to wear the poppy.

https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/jun/30/ ... ism-300620

If the FA put out a statement saying they're going to use the Swastika on shirts but to represent its original Hindu meaning many would still take issue with it. You can't just say "we don't mean this symbolism in that way; this is what we mean by it". It is now aligned with certain connotations.

I personally think McClean is well within his rights but that's a different argument altogether.

[Nameless]

I find it bizarre that people get all wound up about taking the knee ( a respectful, non aggressive act) but don’t seem to worry about the players combining it with the raised fist, which you could see as a much more confrontational gesture with connections back to the Black Panthers.

[OldBiscuit]

I find it bizarre that people get all wound up about taking the knee ( a respectful, non aggressive act) but don’t seem to worry about the players combining it with the raised fist, which you could see as a much more confrontational gesture with connections back to the Black Panthers.

A lot of fans are getting fed up with the continued BLM one knee scenario, and to be honest, I’m a bit bored of it now. It’s gone on for too long now. I think that it should have been limited to perhaps a 2 week period, it would have had the impact needed, now I feel that my Football Club is being used for Political rallies. No Football Stadium should be used for political reasons, the last time that they were, it ended up with the Establishment manipulating young naive men, exploiting them and filling their heads with political and so called patriotic nonsense before sending them off to be killed on the Western Front so that the Royals, the Lords and Ladies, and the others in the Establishment that enjoyed wealth and safety could continue to do so
There’s no doubt that racism sadly exists in football as well as in society, and that has to stop. Education in Schools and Colleges has to be continued, and the Public have to stand up to be counted, if you hear someone shouting racist abuse, you have to be brave and let them know that it’s not acceptable.

[From Despair To Where?]

I think the players and authorities have made quite clear what the motivation behind taking the knee is, its an honest gesture, not in itself confrontational and anyone arguing differently is either being thick or disingenuous. (and no, I'm not including people who say its continued use is lessening its impact in that). Frankly, anone who mentions Marxism is clutching at straws.

[oldebiscuit]

I think the players and authorities have made quite clear what the motivation behind taking the knee is, its an honest gesture, not in itself confrontational and anyone arguing differently is either being thick or disingenuous.

I agree 100% that it is an honest and peaceful gesture and certainly not confrontational. What i am saying is that i feel (and others that i've spoken to in conversation), is that it has gone on for too long now. The message has been sent out, and we have all received.
But where does it go from here? Do we have start to have a regular gesture spot before each game to protest a social injustice that has been committed somewhere?

[Jagermesiter1871]

What exactly does taking the knee do? It's just virtue signalling.

[One Beer is never enough.]

What exactly does taking the knee do? It's just virtue signalling.

It was powerful the first time it was done, now it is a bit meh. Instead, why don't clubs use their platform to highlight the things they are doing to improve equality (amongst leadership positions, community work, opportunities for young people) maybe within the programme (when they sell them again) or within their social media platforms? Who knows, maybe clubs highlighting how inclusive they are will encourage gay footballers to have the confidence to come out. Clearly that isnt the case now, and those taking the knee may be part of the reason people don't. i.e. they are taking the knee to highlight how supportive they are but not changing the working environment.

[SCIAG]

What exactly does taking the knee do? It's just virtue signalling.

The obvious - unhelpful - retort is that in that case you shouldn’t be so strangely enraged by it.

The more helpful response is that there no “just” about it. Virtue signalling, as you put it, is useful because it shows us people’s values. When someone takes the knee, it’s their way of saying “I am prepared to do the bare minimum to oppose racism”. It means that the nasty people know that football isn’t on their side and that they aren’t welcome. And to a lesser extent, it means that people who are wary of racism know that football supports them. It means standing with Paul Canovile and Jason Roberts and Anton Ferdinand and Ali Al-Habsi and Yakou Meite. Same with the rainbow laces signalling opposition to homophobia and support for the LGBT+ community. Sure it’s not going to change many minds, but it sets the tone, and it makes the boneheads a little less confident and a little less willing to open their mouths.

And, of course, the gesture doesn’t stop them from doing anything else.

[Snowflake Royal]

I think the players and authorities have made quite clear what the motivation behind taking the knee is, its an honest gesture, not in itself confrontational and anyone arguing differently is either being thick or disingenuous.

I agree 100% that it is an honest and peaceful gesture and certainly not confrontational. What i am saying is that i feel (and others that i've spoken to in conversation), is that it has gone on for too long now. The message has been sent out, and we have all received.
But where does it go from here? Do we have start to have a regular gesture spot before each game to protest a social injustice that has been committed somewhere?

The biggest message from black people to white people at the height of the unrest was essentially

"Don't just make some meaningless posts and symbols on facebook etc and then just forget about us again without changing anything. Do something, make change happen and don't just think about racism for a week to make yourself feel better."

How about you let the people affected decide when they feel it's time to stop and not decide for them because you're bored of it. So oxf*rd what.

[Jagermesiter1871]

What exactly does taking the knee do? It's just virtue signalling.

The obvious - unhelpful - retort is that in that case you shouldn’t be so strangely enraged by it.

The more helpful response is that there no “just” about it. Virtue signalling, as you put it, is useful because it shows us people’s values. When someone takes the knee, it’s their way of saying “I am prepared to do the bare minimum to oppose racism”. It means that the nasty people know that football isn’t on their side and that they aren’t welcome. And to a lesser extent, it means that people who are wary of racism know that football supports them. It means standing with Paul Canovile and Jason Roberts and Anton Ferdinand and Ali Al-Habsi and Yakou Meite. Same with the rainbow laces signalling opposition to homophobia and support for the LGBT+ community. Sure it’s not going to change many minds, but it sets the tone, and it makes the boneheads a little less confident and a little less willing to open their mouths.

And, of course, the gesture doesn’t stop them from doing anything else.

For the record it doesn't enrage me at all. I'm fairly apathetic to it.