[stevie_b]

Goku, on 18 October 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

If that level of 'banter' has been established it's fine. Me and one of my mixed race mates mock black/white culture all the time cos it's established we don't care or take it seriously and have that mutual understanding. Clearly it hasn't been confirmed in this case hence why it was a stupid thing to say.

Another thing I'll say - how many people commenting on here are of any colour bar white? I'll go for one - CPS, am I wrong? Who are we to determine how apt a reaction is from somebody who is black to a comment which could be interpreted as prejudiced bearing in mind we will have almost certainly have received no prejudice for our skin colour throughout our lives? Comes across as very obnoxious in my opinion.

'Elderly white men decide how appropriate black woman's reaction to racially-motivated comment is' lmao jesus this board's became a parody of itself

My bold. Just wondering Goku—on what basis are you making that assumption? I've just looked through this thread and the only person that I could pick out in an ID parade is you. And that's because you've previously posted pics on the Board—before anyone gets over excited, starts adding two and two together and coming up with everything other than four I really don't 'know' anyone: gender, race, anything.

Agree with much of what you say BTW

C x

[Goku]

carrie69, on 19 October 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

My bold. Just wondering Goku—on what basis are you making that assumption? I've just looked through this thread and the only person that I could pick out in an ID parade is you. And that's because you've previously posted pics on the Board—before anyone gets over excited, starts adding two and two together and coming up with everything other than four I really don't 'know' anyone: gender, race, anything.

Agree with much of what you say BTW

C x

It's a guess based on me seeing about four non-white people at town matches in my time supporting them, happy to be corrected though

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 18 October 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

No, we will say that it was insensitive and racially motivated, because it was.

Additionally, for the 'PC world gone mad' amoebas, Katharine Newton's report concludes that Sampson "did treat Aluko less favourably than he would have treated a player who was not of African descent". She concluded that he wasn't racist but appears to have difficulty judging appropriate boundaries when engaging in 'banter' with players, like I said previously. Aluko says she was also requested slash demanded to put out a statement saying the FA was not institutionally racist - and you people think the issue is with her and not Sampson/the FA?

Ignorance running wild.

She also said: "he made ill-judged attempts at HUMOUR on two separate occasions"; and: "Aluko was not subjected to a course of bullying".

Ignorance isn't running wild, nor has this board become a parody of itself.

You are angling for this to be a racist issue. The barrister, herself, said that Sampson isn't a racist.

You are claiming it was racially motivated; at best it has racist connotations.

What is most interesting is your justification for racist 'banter' between you and your mixed race friend. Racism becomes acceptable if you know the other person? I dare say Sampson knew Aluko, especially after working with her for several years.

My view: he thought he could crack a joke; she took umbridge and turned it into an issue about race, which has led to him being sacked (despite what the FBI/CIA/MI5 tried their hardest to dig up from his past). I'm sure he's cracked many a joke about other white team members; it's the nature of the environment.

Slightly off on a tangent...I read this morning that Jennifer Lawrence was 'placed' in a nude line-up, in front of film producers. Apparently, she didn't have "any power in the situation". Hmmmm how's about she just walked out? How's about you don't climb into a bath with a naked film producer? Why don't these fame/money hungry women go to the police, like any other woman would have done?

For years, women have used their 'feminine charms' to advance themselves in the workplace, (Mansfield CEO for example) FACT! And, men in positions of power, try to use that power to attract women...nothing new about it.

Ftr..I'm obviously not talking about sexual assault; before any smart jiz pipes up.

This post has been edited by Misnomer: 19 October 2017 - 08:43 AM

[stevie_b]

For years, women have used their 'feminine charms' to advance themselves in the workplace, (Mansfield CEO for example) FACT! And, men in positions of power, try to use that power to attract women...nothing new about it.


Doubtless some do. Lots of us, however, don't. I'd love to be accepted on here (and other male dominated forums; it's not just BB) for my contribution to the debate. Often I am but, there again, frequently I'm not. Do I believe that some Board members don't take my views seriously because they believe that I'm female? Yes. Absolutely. And, if people feel that that belief makes me neurotic, playing the 'gender card' or similar then ........so be it. It's how I feel. Male dominated forums, workplaces and such can be intimidating places for women to frequent.

C

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 19 October 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

She also said: "he made ill-judged attempts at HUMOUR on two separate occasions"; and: "Aluko was not subjected to a course of bullying".

Ignorance isn't running wild, nor has this board become a parody of itself.

You are angling for this to be a racist issue. The barrister, herself, said that Sampson isn't a racist.

What is most interesting is your justification for racist 'banter' between you and your mixed race friend. Racism becomes acceptable if you know the other person? I dare say Sampson knew Aluko, especially after working with her for several years.

My view: he thought he could crack a joke; she took umbridge and turned it into an issue about race, which has led to him being sacked (despite what the FBI/CIA/MI5 tried their hardest to dig up from his past). I'm sure he's cracked many a joke about other white team members; it's the nature of the environment.

Slightly off on a tangent...I read this morning that Jennifer Lawrence was 'placed' in a nude line-up, in front of film producers. Apparently, she didn't have "any power in the situation". Hmmmm how's about she just walked out? How's about you don't climb into a bath with a naked film producer? Why don't these fame/money hungry women go to the police, like any other woman would have done?

For years, women have used their 'feminine charms' to advance themselves in the workplace, (Mansfield CEO for example) FACT! And, men in positions of power, try to use that power to attract women...nothing new about it.

Ftr..I'm obviously not talking about sexual assault; before any smart jiz pipes up.

I'm not angling it to be a racist issue, I've stated myself that I don't believe anyone involved in this is a racist and I've quoted the judge herself stating she doesn't believe Sampson is a racist. Was there ignorance involved? It would appear so, hence why the judge reached the conclusion that Sampson "did treat Aluko less favourably than he would have treated a player who was not of African descent", so if you were to address that specific point directly, what would your response be? Do you think the judge is incorrect with her findings?

'Racist' banter (I wouldn't call it racist banter, we have banter about race, that doesn't necessitate racist banter, the mere mention of race doesn't equate to racism) between someone who is white and someone who is mixed race who have been friends and have established that understanding is clearly not an issue whatsoever, who is that hurting/offending/affecting? A comment about making sure a black player's family doesn't bring over a deadly disease from their home country which could've well affected people she knew from a white man and a black woman who by the sounds of it hadn't established that relationship (backed up by the comment the judge made about Sampson having issues realising what appropriate banter is) is clearly more of an issue, hence why the judge reached the conclusion I pasted in my above paragraph. You can work with somebody for years, doesn't mean you've established that relationship which means you can drop ebola bombs like he did. I'm sure he dropped many jokes to her white team mates, but that's false equivalence because those jokes aren't about race.

Anyway, the plot thickens:

Quote

The hearing also heard claims that a black actress was hired for a role-play about a selfish and badly behaved footballer in front of Aluko’s former team-mates, leaving them thinking it was a deliberate portrayal of her, and Glenn was forced to issue his own apology after being interrogated about his interview with the Guardian in which he stated Newton was appointed, as a black woman, because of her sex and ethnicity. Glenn said he had been tired “at the end of a long day”, adding that it was not “a pack of lies but it was an embellishment,” drawing accusations from the MPs that he had changed his story because his initial line was illegal in discrimination law.

This post has been edited by Goku: 19 October 2017 - 09:06 AM

[Doughnut]

Goku, on 19 October 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'm not angling it to be a racist issue, I've stated myself that I don't believe anyone involved in this is a racist and I've quoted the judge herself stating she doesn't believe Sampson is a racist. Was there ignorance involved? It would appear so, hence why the judge reached the conclusion that Sampson "did treat Aluko less favourably than he would have treated a player who was not of African descent", so if you were to address that specific point directly, what would your response be? Do you think the judge is incorrect with her findings?

'Racist' banter (I wouldn't call it racist banter, we have banter about race, that doesn't necessitate racist banter, the mere mention of race doesn't equate to racism) between someone who is white and someone who is mixed race who have been friends and have established that understanding is clearly not an issue whatsoever, who is that hurting/offending/affecting? A comment about making sure a black player's family doesn't bring over a deadly disease from their home country which could've well affected people she knew from a white man and a black woman who by the sounds of it hadn't established that relationship (backed up by the comment the judge made about Sampson having issues realising what appropriate banter is) is clearly more of an issue, hence why the judge reached the conclusion I pasted in my above paragraph. You can work with somebody for years, doesn't mean you've established that relationship which means you can drop ebola bombs like he did. I'm sure he dropped many jokes to her white team mates, but that's false equivalence because those jokes aren't about race.

Anyway, the plot thickens:

You mention your relationship with your mixed race friend, your understanding of your sense of humour etc. Hypothetically, what happens if someone overhears the two of you engaging in banter about race and they are offended by what they hear?

It does sound to me like Sampson didn't intend to be racist; he was (as the judge said) trying to be funny but ended up being inappropriate without any malicious intent.

[Goku]

Doughnut, on 19 October 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

You mention your relationship with your mixed race friend, your understanding of your sense of humour etc. Hypothetically, what happens if someone overhears the two of you engaging in banter about race and they are offended by what they hear?

It does sound to me like Sampson didn't intend to be racist; he was (as the judge said) trying to be funny but ended up being inappropriate without any malicious intent.

Well in this hypothetical situation I could speak to the person offended and ask what was it that offended them, ask why it offended them, explain to them that it was said satirically or apologise if necessary.

+ I agree, Sampson didn't intend to be racist.

[Valley Blues]

Goku, on 19 October 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Well in this hypothetical situation I could speak to the person offended and ask what was it that offended them, ask why it offended them, explain to them that it was said satirically or apologise if necessary.

+ I agree, Sampson didn't intend to be racist.

What would happen if this hypothetical third party took it upon themselves to report this banter that they perceived to be racist to the police? This would, no doubt, be recorded as a racist incident with yourself and your mate as the offenders. After all, a racist crime and/or incident is how it is perceived by the victim or any other person, from my understanding.

I've no doubt in my mind from reading your posts over the years that this is the case, by the way.

This post has been edited by Valley Blues: 19 October 2017 - 10:18 AM

[Goku]

Valley Blues, on 19 October 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

What would happen if this hypothetical third party took it upon themselves to report this banter that they perceived to be racist to the police? This would, no doubt, be recorded as a racist incident with yourself and your mate as the offenders. After all, a racist crime and/or incident is how it is perceived by the victim or any other person, from my understanding.

I've no doubt in my mind from reading your posts over the years that this is the case, by the way.

Then I guess I'd go through a police investigation and defend myself? I don't think it'd be as simple as me 'getting done' for racism, nor do I think that the 'banter' me and my friend have would be anywhere near enough to trigger an investigation, or if it did then I'm certain it wouldn't go any further than that. I can't imagine that me saying I've bought him some KA fruit punch + plantain chips for tonight's smoke is going to end up with me getting put in the nick or on a list, nobody's trying to outlaw humour.

I don't understand your last line bro, what is the case?

------

This article sums up my thoughts on how many people have reacted to the Aluko/Sampson issue and it covers a lot of what people are saying in this thread, with comments aimed more towards the victim of the situation than the perpetrators - http://www.football3...ger-of-yeah-but

This post has been edited by Goku: 19 October 2017 - 10:50 AM

[Westbars Spireite]

carrie69, on 19 October 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

For years, women have used their 'feminine charms' to advance themselves in the workplace, (Mansfield CEO for example) FACT! And, men in positions of power, try to use that power to attract women...nothing new about it.


Doubtless some do. Lots of us, however, don't. I'd love to be accepted on here (and other male dominated forums; it's not just BB) for my contribution to the debate. Often I am but, there again, frequently I'm not. Do I believe that some Board members don't take my views seriously because they believe that I'm female? Yes. Absolutely. And, if people feel that that belief makes me neurotic, playing the 'gender card' or similar then ........so be it. It's how I feel. Male dominated forums, workplaces and such can be intimidating places for women to frequent.

C

No one who has opinions worth taking notice of will have any issue with you or any other female posters on the basis of gender alone.

There are one or two who post on here who I think are female and have barely if ever mentioned it.

[moondog]

Goku, on 19 October 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'm not angling it to be a racist issue, I've stated myself that I don't believe anyone involved in this is a racist and I've quoted the judge herself stating she doesn't believe Sampson is a racist. Was there ignorance involved? It would appear so, hence why the judge reached the conclusion that Sampson "did treat Aluko less favourably than he would have treated a player who was not of African descent", so if you were to address that specific point directly, what would your response be? Do you think the judge is incorrect with her findings?

'Racist' banter (I wouldn't call it racist banter, we have banter about race, that doesn't necessitate racist banter, the mere mention of race doesn't equate to racism) between someone who is white and someone who is mixed race who have been friends and have established that understanding is clearly not an issue whatsoever, who is that hurting/offending/affecting? A comment about making sure a black player's family doesn't bring over a deadly disease from their home country which could've well affected people she knew from a white man and a black woman who by the sounds of it hadn't established that relationship (backed up by the comment the judge made about Sampson having issues realising what appropriate banter is) is clearly more of an issue, hence why the judge reached the conclusion I pasted in my above paragraph. You can work with somebody for years, doesn't mean you've established that relationship which means you can drop ebola bombs like he did. I'm sure he dropped many jokes to her white team mates, but that's false equivalence because those jokes aren't about race.

Anyway, the plot thickens:

Just to point out there is no Judge in this issue, simply a barrister employed by the FA to give an "independant" view on the allegations, that's all it is.

Both the FA and Complainant agreed not to go to court (Employment Tribunal) hence the £80k settlement.

[Goku]

My bad about the judge/barrister thing, bad legal terminology, I deserve to be spanked

[moondog]

Goku, on 19 October 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

My bad about the judge/barrister thing, bad legal terminology, I deserve to be spanked

For sure as you give the impression you beleive Sampson was cleared in a court of racism when it never got that far.

[Norton Blue]

Valley Blues, on 19 October 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

What would happen if this hypothetical third party took it upon themselves to report this banter that they perceived to be racist to the police? This would, no doubt, be recorded as a racist incident with yourself and your mate as the offenders. After all, a racist crime and/or incident is how it is perceived by the victim or any other person, from my understanding.

I've no doubt in my mind from reading your posts over the years that this is the case, by the way.

Its an interesting point but here’s where i have an issue. Someone getting upset about what person A says to person B when person B has no problem with it, (getting upset on behalf of Person B in effect) and done so in a none public broadcasting way, shouldnt be such a nosey chuff and should keep their nose out of other people’s business.

Obviously if it was being broadcasted, and therefore likely to offend others in earshot, then thats a different matter.

This post has been edited by Norton Blue: 19 October 2017 - 11:29 AM

[Doughnut]

Norton Blue, on 19 October 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

Its an interesting point but here’s where i have an issue. Someone getting upset about what person A says to person B when person B has no problem with it, (getting upset on behalf of Person B in effect) and done so in a none public broadcasting way, shouldnt be such a nosey chuff and should keep their nose out of other people’s business.

Obviously if it was being broadcasted, and therefore likely to offend others in earshot, then thats a different matter.

That's why I asked Goku for his thought on '3rd party offence' for want of a better phrase. Goku has some strong opinions on this subject hence I asked. I really, really dislike 'someone being offended on somebody else's behalf' scenarios.

[CFC91]

carrie69, on 19 October 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

For years, women have used their 'feminine charms' to advance themselves in the workplace, (Mansfield CEO for example) FACT! And, men in positions of power, try to use that power to attract women...nothing new about it.


Doubtless some do. Lots of us, however, don't. I'd love to be accepted on here (and other male dominated forums; it's not just BB) for my contribution to the debate. Often I am but, there again, frequently I'm not. Do I believe that some Board members don't take my views seriously because they believe that I'm female? Yes. Absolutely. And, if people feel that that belief makes me neurotic, playing the 'gender card' or similar then ........so be it. It's how I feel. Male dominated forums, workplaces and such can be intimidating places for women to frequent.

C

Well that's cr** isn't it? You bang on about gender more than anyone on here when in reality most of us couldn't give a monkey's if you were male, female, inbetween, alien or an animal.

Like in most areas of life, if you are good enough then you will get a job, recognition or whatever. I work in a company turning over hundreds of millions a week and the 3 people directly above me are all female, and this is in a sports industry? Why? Because they are good at their jobs!!

t's the same on here, if you have a good contribution people will accept it, recognise it and engage. If you come out with some rammell you'll get taken to the cleaners.

Nobody on here has an issue with your gender, I imagine many will have an issue with you trying to make it an issue at any given point. There isn't an issue with anyone's gender or race on here at all.

[Valley Blues]

Norton Blue, on 19 October 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

Its an interesting point but here’s where i have an issue. Someone getting upset about what person A says to person B when person B has no problem with it, (getting upset on behalf of Person B in effect) and done so in a none public broadcasting way, shouldnt be such a nosey chuff and should keep their nose out of other people’s business.

Obviously if it was being broadcasted, and therefore likely to offend others in earshot, then thats a different matter.

I agree. It seems ridiculous that a conversation can take place between two individuals who have established acceptable boundaries but Joe Public can overhear and take offence to something they feel is racism and report this, effectively on behalf of one of the parties, to the police. This appears to be the case though.

[Albert Holmes Slides In]

Yeah cos all black people like have ebola innit. And like they're all the same wherever they come from, yeah.

When you can't tell the difference between humour and racism you become Bernard Manning.

If we accept a poor first touch might just justify such comments we could probably tempt Andy Morris out of retirement start chanting Bruno and wang a few bananas on the pitch.

It's the twenty first century, try and catch up.

[Valley Blues]

Goku, on 19 October 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

Then I guess I'd go through a police investigation and defend myself? I don't think it'd be as simple as me 'getting done' for racism, nor do I think that the 'banter' me and my friend have would be anywhere near enough to trigger an investigation, or if it did then I'm certain it wouldn't go any further than that. I can't imagine that me saying I've bought him some KA fruit punch + plantain chips for tonight's smoke is going to end up with me getting put in the nick or on a list, nobody's trying to outlaw humour.

I don't understand your last line bro, what is the case?

------

This article sums up my thoughts on how many people have reacted to the Aluko/Sampson issue and it covers a lot of what people are saying in this thread, with comments aimed more towards the victim of the situation than the perpetrators - http://www.football3...ger-of-yeah-but

Last line was poorly written. I was trying to clarify that I have read your posts for a few years now and I am of the opinion you are in no way racist. I was playing devils advocate in my example rather than actually referring to yourself and your mate.

[Goku]

Doughnut, on 19 October 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

That's why I asked Goku for his thought on '3rd party offence' for want of a better phrase. Goku has some strong opinions on this subject hence I asked. I really, really dislike 'someone being offended on somebody else's behalf' scenarios.

I honestly don't think my views are strong mate, different to the majority perhaps but not strong, and to clarify I'm not offended on anyone's behalf, more trying to put myself in the position of somebody as much as I can. At the end of the day, I'm not black, I'm pretty sure none of us are, so I can't really know how it feels like to receive an ignorant comment (or attempt at humour) like that, so I'm definitely not going to try and tell a black woman how she should feel when she receives an ignorant comment/attempt at humour from a white man.