hypochondriac

Well he says he complained but would be good to know what this complaint involved. I'll be honest though, I didn't read the post properly.

He claims that the statement "Saints not racist" (the title of the OP) is at odds with what he has experienced. I was interested to know what his experiences were that mean he believes that there are racists at saints games.

How did this saints fan racially abuse a player? Why didn't you say somethibg at the time or report him to kick it out?

What racist incidents have you experienced at the football then? Would you say it is dramatically more than society in general?

That's good. I humiliate men and women and equal amount so I can't be sexist.

I remember rasiak missing one or two and leon best obviously.

Was it mong?

If I wake up and I have my girlfriend on top ****ging me, is that rape?

You dirty rapist! How dare you!

It still won't happen. I wish it would but it won't.

Many would argue it is a lot more empowering for women to be able to do what they want. If some woman wants to get her norks out then I support it!

This sums it up. Your final paragraph especially is unarguable.

Dragging them through what?

Totally agree here. I'm not sure how anyone can dismiss these people as basically collateral damage. I doubt if they were the ones being falsely accused that they would be quite so quick to say they should be named and shamed before charges are even brought (or indeed before they are found guilty.)

No one will have the balls to do anything. Fifa act like this because they know they can and get away with it. I blame the countries as much as fifa.

Yep this is my point. I agree with you.

Why not discuss both then instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

Some campaign groups have said that the focus should be on the victims. Are not the falsely accused also victims?

Should individuals accused of Sex crimes be named before they have been found guilty? Interested in people's thoughts on this. One view is that it encourages other victims to come forward whilst the opposing opinion is that innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and that it causes huge damage before they have been convicted. Thoughts? http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

It really doesn't. If you were making a separate point about not being enough female representation in Parliament then fair enough and I would probably agree. She stood out because of the type and colour of dress she was wearing and a man could expect a similar level of comment if he wore a similarly striking outfit.

Exactly. if in the house of commons everyone was wearing black but then a bloke wore bright yellow then I wouldn't be surprised if it was commented on. I wouldn't care myself but I can see why it has been picked up on .

The most prominent person wearing a very low cut top and incidentally the only one wearing bright orange. If a bloke wore similar then I guarantee it would be picked up on. The daily mail having a potentially sexist article is not evidence of Britain being a sexist society any more than Britain being a racist society if someone decided to stick up a racist opinion piece about Rio Ferdinand on BBC sport.

Yep. Most of the "news" I get from my other half comes from there.

I can see evidence that the Daily Mail can be pretty sexist when it wants to be (although if a male MP wore revealing clothes then it would also be commented on no doubt.) Still don't see how an article in the Daily Mail means we live in a sexist society. It's a widely read website but I think you'll find that the majority of popular articles will be pointless celebrity based gossip.

Now THIS is the type of thing that Lou should be doing to increase her popularity. http://web.archive.org/web/20051221211024/http://www.whulass.uk8.net/ Warning NSFW.