egg

There isn't a "typical saints thing", just wet fanny fans flapping about a game we could lose if we have an off day. We'll win. The front 4 has real competition for places and we'll score a few.

Hot

Yep, he's got hero status here, and guaranteed starts. He won't have that at a club playing European football...look at Bale at Spurs, Cavani at Man Utd, Giroud at Chelsea. He's had to sit out a big chunk of his career, and I'd be surprised if he'd want to spend the rest of it as a bit part player. With that said, I'm in the let him go if he wants to go camp.

What and where do you see the problems? Personally, I'd rather focus on footy related race issues as this is a footy forum. If you are white, how is your opinion formed if it is not from media / social media?

Don't label someone who is unwell as a tool. We had this ignorance on the Maradona thread, and have it again. People don't choose to be an addict. They drink as other people do, but unlike other people, they find that they can't stop. They don't choose for that to happen. They're wired differently and can longer choose whether to drink or not. I've met loads of addicts who get into cocaine as their bodies need more alcohol and the coke helps them keep going. It's a sad situation. Don't criticise what you don't understand.

Emoji

That's the thing though, we do. We're judged on our words, so we have to decide whether they'll likely to cause offence. Where there is a problem is that it's hard to know what is offensive this week, and as per the PSG issue this week, people take offence when they plainly shouldn't.

This issue wasn't about subtlety of language. It was because a bloke identified the only black bloke amongst a group of people as the black guy. It was a trivial thing, and I suspect that the woke brigade on here would never have piped down had John Barnes not stated the bloody obvious.

Number? Name on their shirt? A bit different to the only black guy on a group, who's name wouldn't have been known to him, and who's must obvious distinguishing feature is his skin colour.

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.