egg

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.

Djenepo is clueless. Headless.

They're just playing around our shape. Not a good start.

Pieces

I fear the discussion is going over your head.

It may be those things, but Black Lives Matter, aka BLM, is also a hideous political party with awful ideology. It's obvious that large chunks of the public will see that footy players taking the knee in the name of BLM will link that to the political party and the appalling behaviour in the name of BLM. The solution in footy is simple. Ditch the knee and the slogan associated with BLM. Revert to kick it out or something similar. If footy wants to discuss or address race, then let footy have a proper dialogue about any race issues in footy. If its decided that there are any, then discuss how to tackle them.

Blimey, that's a strong bench. Salisu and Ings. Nice.

Ditto. They're better than their league position imo. It'll be a good game. Head says a draw, heart says 2-3.

If you replace a turd with a turd, you still have a turd.

Awakening

Average player. No, no and never.

There'll be game. Ings may play. Or may not. I hope we win. We may do. Or not.

Spot on. It's a shame that Sky News UK are not reporting this in the same open and frank way that Sky New Australia have.

You say "At the very least we can't say for sure that stop and search isn't being misused". That's a curious statement and suggests that you feel it necessary that evidence is shown to prove that there is no misuse. That's not how it works - the police are not presumed guilty of misuse unless they can prove otherwise. As to stop and search, do you not feel reassured that someone "fitting a description" is stopped and searched? Would you prefer no action be taken? I must confess that I haven't tread the document you link to, but when I hear reports of kids being stabbed, the victims and perpetrators are usually black. If that's the case (I am happy to be corrected if I misunderstand the position) how can there be any objection to searching the kids in areas where that stuff happens? Regardless, the issue in this thread is that football has associated itself with the actions and name of Black Lives Matters (BLM) and footy players are compelled to kneel in support of that. The BLM organisation is the flip side of the EDL and nobody should be made to support it. The actions of the Millwall fans and the comments on this forum show how divisive the issue is. If footy players really are to be the public focus, do it in a way that does not oblige them to virtue signal, and do not do it in the name of an organisation that does not stand for racial equality.