|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 10, 2020 22:27:53 GMT
This may be a case of "straw and camels back" with Clarke's history of, shall we say, ill chosen words. I will admit to being very confused as to what terminology is currently acceptable, not just in terms of race but in most matters, and I have absolutely NO IDEA what cis is supposed to mean, or how to use it. All that aside, the picture tweeted by Stan Collymore suggests that, whatever Clarke may or may not say, his actions in encouraging diversity within football, and at the top of the FA in particular, do seem to have been pretty ineffectual. Black footballers have been fairly common in most clubs for around 50 years now, so how come there are still so few in coaching, management and administration? All governing bodies in the sport need to take a long hard look at themselves imho His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity A really fair post Malcolm. I think the concern for me is how far does fair speech have to go to satisfy everyone. I’m all for equality and we do fall short on certain things in this country but we’ve made also made much needed massive steps over the last 20 years whether it’s footy, politics or policing If we don’t start taking a stronger stance and deal with these sort of comments as a lack of education rather than racism then there will be many more sackings / resignations in the future. Carry on like this and people in the future will be so fearful of making a mistake and having things that they say being picked apart they won’t want to say anything.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 10, 2020 22:34:41 GMT
His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity Well it is widely-used, and as far as I know, regarded as appropriate terminology. If that changes, I won't use it. I was just pointing out what a minefield it is tbh. We use it at work. The diversity officer that I share an office with uses it. I don’t think it helps with the discourse at all tbh and just puts people off talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 10, 2020 22:45:03 GMT
His language today was careless and inappropriate (I wouldn't go any stronger than that) and he has done the honourable thing by resigning. But to be fair to him he has tried harder than any of the other 4 Chairs of the FA whilst I have been on the FA Council to increase diversity at all levels of the game, with some (certainly not yet enough) success. For example, when my female colleague as the other supporter rep. on the FA Council resigned, Greg put a lot of personal pressure on me (too much in fact) to ensure that we didn't replace her with another white male like me. It wasn't my decision, and in the event, after a proper appointment process a white man was appointed, who is supremely qualified to do the job and is excellent at it. The FA Council as a whole has become a lot more diversified since I joined it in 2007. It needed to be and there is still some way to go to make it representative of football as a whole. To take the picture of the FA Board posted by Collymore, there are 10 members of the FA Board, 4 of whom are women and 1 is BAME. Again, not ideal on diversity but not as bad as some portray it and better than many organisations. Crucially however, the only positions on it over which the Chairman has any control are the other 3 independents, 2 of whom are women. The others are appointed externally by the PL/EFL and the County FAs. He is the only one of the 5 Chairs to ever ask for a private meeting with me or ring me up ( as opposed to the other way round which is quite common ! ) to get my/our views. I've no idea who will replace him - but could we do worse than him - for sure we definitely could. Over the last few weeks, I have been far more concerned about his role in and Project Big Picture than I am about his commitment to diversity Well it is widely-used, and as far as I know, regarded as appropriate terminology. If that changes, I won't use it. civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2019/07/08/please-dont-call-me-bame-or-bme/carbonliteracy.com/collectively-stopping-using-bame/
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Nov 10, 2020 22:48:22 GMT
From what I read it seems a bit harsh. He should be conscious of the correct terms to use and not to use considering his role. But I don’t think there was any intentional malice in what he said. The reference to ‘life choice’ and homophobia seems quite ambiguous too. I think he might have been referring to people coming out as opposed to actually choosing to be gay. I agree with you to a certain extent about his remark about colour - in the USA the expression "woman of colour" seems to be used by women about themselves as often as the phrase "black woman". Had that been his only gaffe today I'd have had every sympathy with him. But not when it comes to the description of homosexuality as a life style choice. The gay conversion therapy ideas sweeping some of the Christian sects stem from categorising homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather than a matter of fact. Yes, it is possible to argue that whether to come out or live openly as gay is a lifestyle choice but you would hope that Clarke, in his job, would not talk about BEING gay as a lifestyle choice - if what he MEANT was whether or not a person lived OPENLY as gay. Sorry, but it was part of Clarke's job to avoid making any suggestion that being gay is a lifestyle choice. That said, he has done the honourable thing in resigning- I just hope that his successor is more at ease using acceptable language when talking about diversity and discrimination. Totally. In his position I don’t think you can plead ignorance. He was paid a lot of money and inclusivity was supposedly one of the key targets he and the association were/are pursuing. When I watched his interview however I took his use of ‘life choice’ to mean the choice to come out as gay or not. Not to actually be gay. I don’t think he should have gone down that road but given the fact that many footballers have, and continue to, hide their sexuality (for whatever reason - unfortunately probably mainly for fear of repercussions) I think I understand what he was trying to say. That said I don’t condone his comments at all and I think his lack of tact and sensitivity made his position untenable. People in roles like his have to be held to the highest standards. It’s their job to ‘get it right’ and if they don’t then there can be no complaints when they get criticised.
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Nov 10, 2020 22:48:51 GMT
Because if I was millionaire gay footballer I probably CBA either. Right? - So it's the lifestyle choice not to come out publically. Not choosing to be gay/not be gay. Not really. Coming out doesn't have to be a big announcement, for most of us it means just living our lives like everyone else. But if you know that coming out just by living your life will cause you untold problems, it basically means having to make sure no one with a camera spots you being affectionate with your partner in public. It probably also means you can't get married, since that would likely draw attention, too. So putting your entire life outside of football in the dark, basically. No one would willingly choose that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 10, 2020 23:10:33 GMT
Because if I was millionaire gay footballer I probably CBA either. Right? - So it's the lifestyle choice not to come out publically. Not choosing to be gay/not be gay. That's NOT what he said though, he said ... "I'm Gay and I'm proud of it and I'm happy and it's a lifestyle choice". He actually also said it was their CHOICE a minute prior to this comment. So he was essentially reiterating the point, that Gay people have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 10, 2020 23:25:52 GMT
If homosexuality was a lifestyle choice and I was a footballer I'd get shagged by a man just to get on homophobic peoples nerves. But I can't do that, because homosexuality is not a fucking lifestyle choice. Amazing that the person that thinks that also says things he also thinks which are complete shit. I'm sure Greg doesn't think he's racist or homophobic either, because he clearly hasn't spent any time trying to understand anyone else's position other than his own. Bloody FA gammon twat. You were doing okay up to and as far as the 'gammon'. Raw meat from the hind legs of a pig that has been cured in the same way as bacon, a pejorative for a white persons flushed face when expressing a strongly held opinion. Clarke's 'coloured' was at worst a clumsy and outdated attempt to be polite, yours is at the very best an attempt to be as offensive as possible to a white person. I fully appreciate the great British working classes are the last group of people you can openly offend in the street and get away with no more than a gentle warning but still, I think you should count to 10 before you use that word in this context.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 10, 2020 23:41:31 GMT
That’s interesting and helpful Paul. I will speak to our diversity officer about it, and will probably stop using the term if it causes any offence or concern .
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 10, 2020 23:42:20 GMT
It's the apparent ease that these comments come out of these peoples mouths that astounds me. It's what they know and it's obvious that that's how they speak behind closed doors.
'Institutionalised' is 100% bang on.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Nov 10, 2020 23:57:18 GMT
Sadly we have become so politically correct that we are so scared to say something, and when we do say something that is innocently miss understood we have the white straight people lambasting them when in all reality the person in question isn't offended in the least!
|
|
|
Post by skip on Nov 11, 2020 0:06:18 GMT
If homosexuality was a lifestyle choice and I was a footballer I'd get shagged by a man just to get on homophobic peoples nerves. But I can't do that, because homosexuality is not a fucking lifestyle choice. Amazing that the person that thinks that also says things he also thinks which are complete shit. I'm sure Greg doesn't think he's racist or homophobic either, because he clearly hasn't spent any time trying to understand anyone else's position other than his own. Bloody FA gammon twat. You were doing okay up to and as far as the 'gammon'. Raw meat from the hind legs of a pig that has been cured in the same way as bacon, a pejorative for a white persons flushed face when expressing a strongly held opinion. Clarke's 'coloured' was at worst a clumsy and outdated attempt to be polite, yours is at the very best an attempt to be as offensive as possible to a white person. I fully appreciate the great British working classes are the last group of people you can openly offend in the street and get away with no more than a gentle warning but still, I think you should count to 10 before you use that word in this context. I don't see Gammon as being linked to class, Working or otherwise (and I am more than critical over displays of classism of which I have been on the receiving of myself, but something that pales into insignificance when compared to racist remarks) but rather, it is a remark - and yes, a wholly pejorative one - aimed at men (yes, more often than not white) who get their knickers in a twist over anything from Brussels, people being dismissive of overt displays of patriotism, to more generally other forms of social progress of which they pertain to be at best confused, often simply dismissive of and yes occasionally outraged by, causing that flush of blood to the cheeks. A more recent derivative would be flag nonce. Made me laugh the first time I heard that one.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 11, 2020 0:06:22 GMT
Sadly we have become so politically correct that we are so scared to say something, and when we do say something that is innocently miss understood we have the white straight people lambasting them when in all reality the person in question isn't offended in the least! What I do find interesting is people will take the higher ground on issues like this where someone has used inappropriate language yet will openly be abusive / offensive to others using far more offensive language. Stinks of double standards. You’d expect that people who appear to be so moralistic would be good guys across the board. Yet in a lot of cases it’s those that are deemed to be the “bad guys” that are less likely to resort to name calling. When you look at Collymore’s post he’s a perfect example of this.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Nov 11, 2020 0:50:44 GMT
Sadly we have become so politically correct that we are so scared to say something, and when we do say something that is innocently miss understood we have the white straight people lambasting them when in all reality the person in question isn't offended in the least! What I do find interesting is people will take the higher ground on issues like this where someone has used inappropriate language yet will openly be abusive / offensive to others using far more offensive language. Stinks of double standards. You’d expect that people who appear to be so moralistic would be good guys across the board. Yet in a lot of cases it’s those that are deemed to be the “bad guys” that are less likely to resort to name calling. When you look at Collymore’s post he’s a perfect example of this. Apparently Collymore has since apologised for this rant and the offence it may have caused btw I'm a bit puzzled with the obsession with Collymore though tbh, a comment from a random ex-footballer who gets very excited on Twitter like many, many other unfortunate souls. Its very easy to find such crazed rants on Twitter, I don't see how this has any bearing on issues with Clarke. If Collymore was Head of the FA, or anyone significant I could understand the obsession with it, but he's not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 1:33:30 GMT
Yet a couple of my mates who's dad is from the Caribbean call themselves coloured and half caste and it doesn't offend them at all. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest tbh. I do think there is a breed of folk who just want to be offended by everything on someones behalf. Clarke though has done a triple whammy today. Racism, homophobia and sexism. I think it depends on the country. The term ‘coloured’ ‘ (or colored) has far deeper roots here in the South of the US than it does in the U.K. It’s not the best term to use, but I know that a lot in the US aren’t even aware that it’s offensive. You here it said a lot by high brass and they never get called on it (though they should). The actual quote for choice for gays, I don’t know. In the context of what he said, it felt like a comment on the decision to come out before a game, not on the choice of being gay. The comment on 6 or 7 year old girl goalkeepers not liking a ball being kicked hard at them and preferring to kick a ball, and how the FA must look for new ways to integrate girls into that role is interesting. He perhaps shouldn’t have singled out young girls. It is however, wildly different than the sensationalist snippet that the BBC ran that made it sound like he was talking about adult professional female footballers.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 11, 2020 1:41:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 11, 2020 6:09:42 GMT
What I do find interesting is people will take the higher ground on issues like this where someone has used inappropriate language yet will openly be abusive / offensive to others using far more offensive language. Stinks of double standards. You’d expect that people who appear to be so moralistic would be good guys across the board. Yet in a lot of cases it’s those that are deemed to be the “bad guys” that are less likely to resort to name calling. When you look at Collymore’s post he’s a perfect example of this. Apparently Collymore has since apologised for this rant and the offence it may have caused btw I'm a bit puzzled with the obsession with Collymore though tbh, a comment from a random ex-footballer who gets very excited on Twitter like many, many other unfortunate souls. Its very easy to find such crazed rants on Twitter, I don't see how this has any bearing on issues with Clarke. If Collymore was Head of the FA, or anyone significant I could understand the obsession with it, but he's not. I guess because he was the post raised on here it was easy to use him as an example
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 11, 2020 7:02:46 GMT
Not overly exercised about Clarke one way or the other.
I suspect he's got old fashioned, out of touch views and he didn't express himself very eloquently either. Resigning was the honourable thing to do.
That said, others have said far worse, not least the man who recently got voted into No. 10. There's a long history of such comments there too. Yet he seems immune!
Public life, eh! Go figure, if you can!
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 11, 2020 7:32:37 GMT
Not overly exercised about Clarke one way or the other. I suspect he's got old fashioned, out of touch views and he didn't express himself very eloquently either. Resigning was the honourable thing to do. That said, others have said far worse, not least the man who recently got voted into No. 10. There's a long history of such comments there too. Yet he seems immune! Public life, eh! Go figure, if you can! I think you’ve knocked the nail on the head. People just want consistancy in the way that those in position to deal with the matter eg the government, Police, FA or any boss. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are it’s about how you conduct yourself on all matters whatever position your in. It’s about trying to do the right thing for the right reasons and not to point score or take advantage of a situation by blowing it up out of proportion. If you’re in the public eye your responsibility is even greater because people look to you to lead by example. For me the biggest problem is the media who no longer just report what’s happening impartially they do it from a personal perspective and the likes of Twitter where everyone has an opinion and it goes out to the masses and just causes arguments. It’s good to have discussion but boy can it get nasty.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 11, 2020 7:52:39 GMT
Not overly exercised about Clarke one way or the other. I suspect he's got old fashioned, out of touch views and he didn't express himself very eloquently either. Resigning was the honourable thing to do. That said, others have said far worse, not least the man who recently got voted into No. 10. There's a long history of such comments there too. Yet he seems immune! Public life, eh! Go figure, if you can! I think you’ve knocked the nail on the head. People just want consistancy in the way that those in position to deal with the matter eg the government, Police, FA or any boss. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are it’s about how you conduct yourself on all matters whatever position your in. It’s about trying to do the right thing for the right reasons and not to point score or take advantage of a situation by blowing it up out of proportion. If you’re in the public eye your responsibility is even greater because people look to you to lead by example. For me the biggest problem is the media who no longer just report what’s happening impartially they do it from a personal perspective and the likes of Twitter where everyone has an opinion and it goes out to the masses and just causes arguments. It’s good to have discussion but boy can it get nasty. Indeed. We're getting slightly off the main topic so I'll not say too much, but there do appear to be different rules for different people, as if that comes as a surprise to anyone! For example, I am under no illusions that Lord Kilclooney will not be resigning his lordship as a result of referring to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris as "the Indian", which strikes me as far more deliberately and calculatedly insulting than anything Clarke said yesterday. He's also got a history, so apologising seems a bit thin in his case. With regard to the internet and social media, you could get rid of 90% of the unnecessary unpleasantness overnight by removing anonymity, but I can't see that happening so I suppose we're stuck with it.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 11, 2020 8:06:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 11, 2020 8:09:32 GMT
What I do find interesting is people will take the higher ground on issues like this where someone has used inappropriate language yet will openly be abusive / offensive to others using far more offensive language. Stinks of double standards. You’d expect that people who appear to be so moralistic would be good guys across the board. Yet in a lot of cases it’s those that are deemed to be the “bad guys” that are less likely to resort to name calling. When you look at Collymore’s post he’s a perfect example of this. Apparently Collymore has since apologised for this rant and the offence it may have caused btw I'm a bit puzzled with the obsession with Collymore though tbh, a comment from a random ex-footballer who gets very excited on Twitter like many, many other unfortunate souls. Its very easy to find such crazed rants on Twitter, I don't see how this has any bearing on issues with Clarke. If Collymore was Head of the FA, or anyone significant I could understand the obsession with it, but he's not. Maybe he / she /gender neutral ( delete where applicable) has a problem with arseholes who beat women
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 11, 2020 8:18:23 GMT
Not overly exercised about Clarke one way or the other. I suspect he's got old fashioned, out of touch views and he didn't express himself very eloquently either. Resigning was the honourable thing to do. That said, others have said far worse, not least the man who recently got voted into No. 10. There's a long history of such comments there too. Yet he seems immune! Public life, eh! Go figure, if you can! I think you’ve knocked the nail on the head. People just want consistancy in the way that those in position to deal with the matter eg the government, Police, FA or any boss. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are it’s about how you conduct yourself on all matters whatever position your in. It’s about trying to do the right thing for the right reasons and not to point score or take advantage of a situation by blowing it up out of proportion. If you’re in the public eye your responsibility is even greater because people look to you to lead by example. For me the biggest problem is the media who no longer just report what’s happening impartially they do it from a personal perspective and the likes of Twitter where everyone has an opinion and it goes out to the masses and just causes arguments. It’s good to have discussion but boy can it get nasty. The media have never reported what's happening impartially to be fair. There has never been a golden age of media neutrality. Certainly not in the printed media anyway.
|
|
|
Post by christhepotter on Nov 11, 2020 8:35:18 GMT
He said fuck all wrong , just shows what a world of snowflakes were becoming , this pc shit is all bollocks , nothing he said was meant to offend
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on Nov 11, 2020 8:54:49 GMT
He said fuck all wrong , just shows what a world of snowflakes were becoming , this pc shit is all bollocks , nothing he said was meant to offend Correct. It's all about the context.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2020 9:02:11 GMT
He said fuck all wrong , just shows what a world of snowflakes were becoming , this pc shit is all bollocks , nothing he said was meant to offend Not meaning to offend doesn’t mean you still can’t say something offensive though......
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Nov 11, 2020 9:15:58 GMT
And here in lies the problem Malcolm, what some don't mind others find offensive so it's hard to know what and how to say things at times for fear of upsetting someone.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Nov 11, 2020 9:17:16 GMT
There's never enough diversity until there are no white males left.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Nov 11, 2020 9:52:33 GMT
And here in lies the problem Malcolm, what some don't mind others find offensive so it's hard to know what and how to say things at times for fear of upsetting someone. It's all a bit tricky isn't it? Reading the linked articles the favoured terms now appear to be simply 'minority ethnic' which is a bit of catch-all because it necessarily must include many types of other European/British ethnic identities. In this context, where football is trying to address historical discrimination, it seems necessary to specify that this has been/and is generally based on skin colour. Difficult, I think, to argue that Scots, Irish, Jews, Huguenots etc. are beign discriminated/excluded from English football.
|
|
|
Post by teenagefanclub on Nov 11, 2020 10:02:40 GMT
I've somehow missed this whole story, whats Tatlock said now?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 11, 2020 10:07:30 GMT
And here in lies the problem Malcolm, what some don't mind others find offensive so it's hard to know what and how to say things at times for fear of upsetting someone. It's all a bit tricky isn't it? Reading the linked articles the favoured terms now appear to be simply 'minority ethnic' which is a bit of catch-all because it necessarily must include many types of other European/British ethnic identities. In this context, where football is trying to address historical discrimination, it seems necessary to specify that this has been/and is generally based on skin colour. Difficult, I think, to argue that Scots, Irish, Jews, Huguenots etc. are beign discriminated/excluded from English football. recently at a grassroots game a player was sent off for calling an opposition player a Danish Cnut after he had been clattered from behind, reported by the ref to the FA and the police for racism based on opposition players saying he had said it, anyway, he was Norwegian The jocks call us English bastards, they get called Jock cnuts, the Welsh sheep shagging cnuts, gingers get abuse, baldy bastards, the magistrates courts are going to be full every day soon
|
|