egg

Exactly. Frankly, you have to be a bit of an idiot to see it any differently.

Who decides this weeks rules / nuances? Where can we find them? It seems to me that they're determined arbitrarily after the event. Greg Clarke said himself that we couldn't keep up with the changes. I only found out the other day that LGBT is no longer. Apparently there's a Q on the end, possibly a random +. If someone decides this shit, perhaps have a bit of cross society discussion, and then let us all know. Some words are plainly unacceptable, but amongst all the posts on this thread, not one person has said how describing the only black man amongst a group of non black men last night was in any way derogatory, racist, unacceptable, etc.

You're getting the hang of this now.

He has not. The celebration was inflammatory and unnecessary. QPR made a collective point pre match by saying they'll be taking the knee and then doing it. There was no need for two of their players to then take the knee in front of the Millwall fans. Had the fans booed them, I suspect it's they who would have been criticised which kind of highlights how ridiculous and unbalanced this has become.

They key word there Hypo is context. There was one black guy in the group and Identifying him by his colour was no more offensive than saying "the white one" had he been the only white guy in the group.

Thanks Sydney. That's a very balanced and sensible post. We see things differently to some extent, but I appreciate why you don't want an exchange. Good luck with your stuff.

That's genuinely a very sad response. This is an important subject. We live in a world where people are judged on non existent rules after the event. You clearly have an opinion, and some clarity of your stance would have been appreciated. If identifying someone by physical characteristics is OK, I genuinely want to understand why reference to black skin is not OK, but that reference to white skin is OK, and why reference to (in my opinion) physical characteristics that are genuinely insulting to highlight (ie bald, fat, short etc) is OK. There's an inconsistency that has the word racism attached to it.

It is, and on a subject that none of the offenders can do anything about. 352 pages of mostly vitriol, and we'll get an outcome that all of the contributors will have to live with anyway.

I think his point is that you can't describe a black person as a black person, but reference to another physical characteristic is OK (like he's bald, or fat, or short, that sort of stuff). I think he's possibly trying to say, but won't commit, that its OK to describe a white person as a white person.

What happens in a debate / discussion is that a person makes a point, then someone responds, maybe with a question, then the other responds back, etc. In my experience, people decline to answer and/or throw in a childish insult, when they know that any answer will destroy their argument.

That comeback against Brighton sets us up nicely. I'd drop Djenepo after that performance. If Ralph doesn't think Ings is ready to start, then Redmond in for Djenepo. If Ings is ready, then Ings for Djenepo and Walcott on the left. No other changes for me. Diallo will get a start after Romeu gets his next yellow, so I expect him to sit out the midweek Arsenal game and be fresh for City.

Is identifying him by any physical attribute off limits...or just colour? If he was the only white guy in a group of black men, and needed to be identified quickly, would it have been OK to identify him as the white guy?

Fill your boots, but as you clearly don't know any of the facts, you're not well placed to "debate".

This wasn't a footballer. Perhaps get a handle on what happened before expressing any further opinion.

You're debating this without knowing what happened. The individual was Pierre Webo. An assistant coach. No number. Needing to be identified. He had obvious distinguishing attributes. One was being black. If he was the solitary white guy amongst a group of black guys, would identifying him as the white guy be a problem? The correct answer is no.

I think that's exactly what he's saying Hypo.

The important thing to note here is that he was not being singled out because he was black. He needed to be singled out, and doing so by a physical attribute cannot be unreasonable. No amount of history can make it more offensive for the solitary black guy in a group to be referred to as the black guy, than it would be for the solitary white guy in a group to be referred to as the white guy. The 4th official tonight has been labelled a racist for identifying a person by reference to his obvious identifying attribute. What else was he to do? Going around the houses trying to avoid offence would have made it like a game of "guess who"...he hasn't got a moustache, he hasn't got glasses, he hasn't got hair, he's not wearing an earing. Pointing out the obvious, without malice and where required, isn't wrong.

Understood. Your last paragraph avoids my point that, assuming his name wasn't known, would referencing his skin colour be more offensive than referencing another physical attribute? I don't think it would, but I get the impression that some of his other attributes (bald and not terribly good looking) would actually be deemed OK, whereas black is a big no no. I'm not black, but I'm bald and not particularly good looking, and I find the distinction odd.

It's not. You're determining that is the point being made. It's certainly not the point I was making. Try asking rather than assuming. My point was that there are various physical attributes that make us identifiable. Amongst a group of other men, Pierre Webo could be described in a variety of ways in order to be readily identifiable. Assuming his name was not known, what is wrong with identifying by a physical attribute? He is black. He is bald. He ain't a good looking fella. Was describing him as the black guy more inappropriate than describing him as the bald guy, or the ugly guy? If so, why?

Yep, but it can be done without referencing BLM, and without obligatory virtue signalling by players The slogan used by Istanbul after tonights incident was uncontroversial, and crystal clear. I'd have no issue with that appearing at grounds, on screen, or even on shirts.

He could have used a much less offensive point of reference such as the ugly cunt, fat bloke, fella with the big nose, short bloke, baldy, etc. Those things are OK.

Whatever went on in the PSG game, the Istanbul response shows that the point can be made without using the words Black Lives Matter.

Patch

Rib

Yep. The lad is having a shocker. Take him off before he's sent off.