hypochondriac

No of course it won't. The sooner people accept the fact that abuse on twitter is a fact of life and that you just need to accept it if you want social media to exist the better. It's either that or you don't have social media because there isn't really an alternative. Of course anyone can discuss abuse of footballers on social media but let's not pretend that it's some sort of football problem rather than an issue for anyone on social media. Football does not have any more of a problem with racism on social media than anyone or anything else.

We have an issue with social media making it easy for anyone to send abuse to anyone else anonymously from anywhere in the world. It's not a football problen or a problem of racism. Every single day thousands and thousands of people receive all manner of vile abuse for any number of reasons. It's not confined to black people and its not confined to footballers. Some of the vile abuse that someone like Nigel Farage receives on a daily basis for example regardless of what you think of him as a person is completely unacceptable. Issues on social media should not be conflated with issues of real world racism and racist abuse in football stadia which is something very different.

If there was clear racist chanting then I support the players in them doing whatever they think is necessary including walking off. They shouldn't have to put up with that as part of the job description no matter what they get paid. The whole episode if true though does highlight the very real differences between football in parts of Eastern Europe and elsewhere and the UK though. You simply don't get this sort of thing in the UK anymore thankfully so for Southgate and some on here to suggest that any issues we have are in some way comparable is absurd.

Couldn't you make the same argument against keeping the knee going as those who want the booing to stop? Both are set up in opposition to one another and both sides would use the same logic for keeping it going.

I agree with that. It's not really a widespread issue in the English game though is it. The fact that Hungary have apparently shouted some racist abuse at English players just highlights how different this real racism is in comparison to the exaggerated stuff from twitter.

Not sure what you're saying here? If England fans were doing monkey chants at their players from the stands then I'd be encouraging strong punishment against them to. But we aren't so it's not really comparable is it.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by "the momentum has gathered pace." Those who have replied to my post all agreed that racist chanting in UK stadia was completely unacceptable prior to the taking of the knee so what momentum are you referencing? It's not like people heard racist chanting in the Premier league 4 years ago and it was just sort of waved through, it's been anathema for decades and life bans have been in place for that sort of thing for donkeys years. I don't think I've ever demanded that people stop taking the knee, in fact I support their right to do it if they want to. My question was if the belief is that stopping means the racists win, will it ever be acceptable to not take it?

Would be better for the conversation if you actually answered the question. You think taking the knee is a positive thing because it's increased condemnation of racist chanting. All I asked was if there were any available examples that illustrated that assertion? Because I really didn't see racist chanting being ignored prior to the knee unless we go back a few decades. I don't think there's any evidence that it's increased condemnation of racist chanting and a fair bit of evidence that it's actually been quite divisive.

If no one knows then why would someone claim that taking the knee has been a good thing because it has increased condemnation of racist chanting? Bit of a bizarre thing to state if it's unknowable?

Can you point to an example prior to taking the knee in recent years where racist chanting was ignored? And then the same sort of chanting being widely condemned after taking the knee where it wasn't before?

Sadly I would say things are much more racially divisive than they were a decade ago. Some surveys have shown a drop in lgbt acceptance from Western Liberal democracies in the last couple of years for the same sort of reasons. It's an unfortunate trend.

I find it strange that Southgate would try to conflate monkey chants from Hungarian fans - if that's what they were- with anonymous racist abuse of high profile players in England as if the two problems are in any way comporable. It's a totally false dichotomy to compare cretins on twitter with open racist abuse and chanting in stadia. It's odd that Southgate and others do this.

I think there's a moral panic about racism at the football and that it's in the interest of the media to exagerrate a problem that-whilst very real- is not anywhere near as large as some would have you believe. I think the problem of anonymous social media accounts sending abuse to celebrities and high profile persons is a social media problem not a football problem but it suits the media narrative to conflate the two things. I am yet to be convinced that racism in English professional football is any greater than racism in society in general and the evidence I have seen is that it is mercifully rare to hear racist chanting or abuse in English football stadia and when it is it is roundly condemned and life bans are handed out sharpish. I don't think that taking the knee has seen more instances of condemnation of this sort of abuse. You could argue that it adds to the current culture of highlighting anything racial at any game of football and making it front page news-whether you think that's a positive thing or not- but I would suggest it's the result of this sort of thinking rather than the cause.

Personally I can see why a certain level of mistrust exists given the false narrative about hoards of English racists on the front of papers that turned out to be largely from abroad and the reporting of the mural graffiti that heavily implied it was racially motivated when in fact it was nothing of the sort. Again though I didn't watch the game so I have no idea but given that the England players and staff didn't hear it and that players or all skin colours were supposedly abused it's certainly possible that it's being exaggerated or the facts distorted by a media who have form. Could well have been some monkey chants though, there is a section of Hungarian fans who are sadly racist.

I can't speak for him but my guess is that he would dispute your assertion that British society is systemically racist and that his point about white people being abused suggests that its possible that the motive for aggression was not racist. I don't actually know as I didn't watch the game.

So knee taking before every game for the foreseeable future then? If stopping means the racists win then there's literally no time where it would be acceptable to stop.

Are you suggesting that prior to the knee that overt racist behaviour wasn't condemned? Has knee taking seen an increase in condemnation for racist chanting at the football?

According to Southgate monkey chants are "similar to what we have at home." When was there last monkey chants in a Premier League stadium?

Completely unrealistic right?

Well like I said I really am not an expert on the climate and you appear to know a lot more than me. I'd be pretty surprised if the likes of coal companies in China aren't controlled by the government though. Undoubtedly there's opportunities with green technology but I think some aspects are going to be a really tough sell for the average lower to middle class westerners who can't afford unreliable heat pumps for houses, electric cars and expensive carbon taxes tacked onto holiday costs, particularly when loads of countries won't be doing any of these things.

Yes and I guarantee that many of those companies will be fronts for the government so actually its just the nations who you aren't going to persuade to cut off their arm now for some nebulous benefit in the future. We might not like it but that's the reality. In 30 years time when the likes of the UK have hobbled themselves with a load of green technologies and fallen further behind those who have just ignored it then it will all seem a bit pointless won't it.

So what's the plan to curb things ib the timescale required. Let's say that the UK adopts all the recommendations of extinction rebellion. Then what? Threaten nations that have carried on as normal?

It's not about giving a pass, the point is that it doesn't really matter who is more or less to blame you're only really going to make real change if you can somehow persuade the biggest polluters to stop what they're doing and it's not going to happen in the timescale that some people are saying is required.

And the Obafemi fee.

Completely unrealistic.