hypochondriac

Of course YOU would never make that argument (heaven forbid). Meanwhile, David Baddiel explains why anyone who makes that argument is not only idiotic, but probably anti-semitic themselves:

She didn't just minimise it, she denied it even existed and continued to espouse views from that other racist Whoopi Goldberg that you can only be racist against black people. Even if you thought that, I'm not sure why you'd ever want to articulate it out loud. Makes her sound even more insane than she usually does.

I'm already angry despite us not yet losing. Whatever happens this was a ridiculous error.

This is the stupidest tactic of the entire season.

Have just come on here to say that the manager is mad.

Any idea who that poster is? He's clearly am old poster with a new account as I've never seen him before. MLG?

It does seem reasonable that more white people are subject to stop and search overall. How reassuring then that the latest figure show that white people were stopped and searched more than black people. Phew crisis averted. 2020-2021 Stop and searches against black people: 98,010 Stop and searches against white people: 359,332

I'm assuming they are somehow arguing that black people are prosecuted at a higher rate than white people and that's the reason for their findings. What we don't have though is any evidence that white people are committing crimes at the same rate and then being ignored or not arrested and prosecuted. Until there's a report with that evidence, the conclusion I would come to is that black people are committing crimes at a higher rate which is why there are a proportionately higher number who are being charged with crimes (even though according to those figures their prosecution rate is lower so they are actually more likely to get off once they have been charged.)

But those figures show that the white conviction rate has been higher every single year.

Cheers for that. So with very basic calculations, it looks to me that prosecution rates for black people are about 11% when they make up 4% of the population whereas prosecution rates for white people are about 78% when they make up about 82% of the population. It seems that according to those figures that if we are going to utilise stop and search proportionally based on crime rates that black people would be stopped and searched at a higher rate than white people. Obviously this is a simplistic analysis and there's other reason for the higher prosecution rate, but if the purpose of stop and search is to reduce crime and it is actually effective, surely you should be targeting populations at a rate proportional to the rate that they commit crimes? If not why not?

In an ideal world, stop and search would be undertaken at a rate proportional to the amount of crime committed by that community. I don't have the crime rates per head of population for London sorted by ethnicity but that might be helpful.

Oh of course and like I said we are relegated. Quite amazing that it's only 4 points though when I'd have expected 9+ by now.

Somewhat unbelievably we are 4 points off 17th. I checked this morning.

His worst comment was whenever he said we were lucky to be in the league. That was the moment I considered him not up to the job.

Selles isn't up to the task whereas most of the performances under Selles were some of the worst I've ever seen from us. There's a big difference even if Selles is also rubbish.

Oh dear. According to Chat GPT it seems you have some more work to do: Having a black barber or any other personal relationship with someone from a different race does not automatically make someone less racist. While personal relationships with people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds can help to build empathy and understanding, it does not necessarily mean that the individual has overcome their own biases and prejudices. Reducing racism involves more than just having diverse personal relationships; it requires a deep examination of one's own biases, active efforts to learn about and understand different cultures and experiences, and a commitment to taking action to challenge and confront racism in all its forms. So while having a black barber may be a positive experience, it does not guarantee that the individual has become less racist.

And ridiculously, if by some miracle we won the next three games we would probably be out of the relegation zone! We actually deserve to be like Norwich this year and have been cut adrift a month or two ago.

Jones is miles worse than Selles. Selles is rubbish as well but he isn't Jones.

I would laugh long and hard if we brought someone like fat sam in and by some miracle we stayed up. It obviously isn't going to happen as we are down already but football is so weird.

Labelling someone a "rape apologist" without sufficient evidence or justification can be harmful and damaging to both the person being labelled and the broader discourse surrounding sexual assault and consent. Firstly, accusing someone of being a rape apologist implies that they are actively defending or excusing rape or sexual assault, which is a serious allegation that can have significant personal and professional consequences. Before making such an accusation, it is important to have clear evidence that the person in question is indeed advocating for or minimizing sexual violence. Secondly, using the label "rape apologist" can be counterproductive to creating a constructive dialogue about consent and sexual assault prevention. If the accusation is unfounded or based on misunderstandings, it can lead to defensiveness and further entrenchment of harmful beliefs or attitudes. On the other hand, if someone is genuinely promoting harmful beliefs about sexual violence, it may be more productive to engage with them in a respectful and nuanced manner to better understand their perspective and try to educate them. Ultimately, while it is important to call out and address harmful attitudes and behaviors related to sexual assault and consent, it is crucial to do so in a way that is fair, evidence-based, and conducive to productive dialogue and positive change.

I asked chatgpt a question and got the below answer. I wonder if @Turkish knows who it refers to? Someone living in an area of the UK with a very high white population might not be bothered by immigration due to a lack of exposure for several reasons. Firstly, if they have never interacted with immigrants or have only encountered them through media portrayals, they may not have a clear understanding of who immigrants are, where they come from, and what their experiences are like. This lack of exposure can lead to a lack of concern about the impact of immigration. Additionally, people who live in predominantly white areas may not have experienced the negative effects of anti-immigrant sentiment that can occur in areas with more diverse populations. They may not be aware of the discrimination, prejudice, and violence that immigrants and minorities face in other parts of the country. This can make it difficult for them to understand why immigration is such a contentious issue. Furthermore, people living in predominantly white areas may not feel personally threatened by immigration. They may not see it as a direct challenge to their way of life, culture, or identity. Without this sense of personal threat, they may not feel the need to form strong opinions on immigration and may be more likely to take a neutral or apathetic stance. In summary, lack of exposure to immigrants can contribute to a lack of concern about immigration among people living in predominantly white areas of the UK. Without direct experience of immigration and its impact, people may struggle to form strong opinions on the issue and may not see it as a priority.

Yep. Prick.

This is the most predictable game ever. The fact it is so predictable and Selles did nothing shows how unsuitable he is.

Absolute shite. Selles is gash. Fuck off.

No subs then and we will wait till 60 minutes again and likely doing nothing before then. I've been supportive of Selles but this is so so frustrating.