Booing taking the knee is racist

Warwickboro said:
I agree that booing someone taking the knee is racism. But is a player refusing to take the kneee not also racism?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Not the same at all in many cases.

A large number of players (and teams) stopped taking the knee, to indicate frustration with the speed of change and to mark concern of it becoming an empty PR gesture in too many cases. They stood and applauded instead - showing they were in support of real change, but didn't want to be perceived as being part of a PR bandwagon - especially one that wasn't having an impact.

There may be some who stand in protest against supporting racial equality, but that can't be the case with very many players.

The real problems are more likely to be found in the stands, not on the pitch.
 
BoroMart said:
It could be seen as abstaining from political/societal discourse, I guess, it's a non-conformist act, as apposed to boing which is actively opposing. At the very least booing taking the knee is a sign of ignorance and a malleable mind, and that's me leaving a sliver of doubt for a small % of people that boo it, most will be racist
Click to expand...

Hap said:
No, it's not. Not the same at all in many cases.

A large number of players (and teams) stopped taking the knee, to indicate frustration with the speed of change and to mark concern of it becoming an empty PR gesture in too many cases. They stood and applauded instead - showing they were in support of real change, but didn't want to be perceived as being part of a PR bandwagon - especially one that wasn't having an impact.

There may be some who stand in protest against supporting racial equality, but that can't be the case with very many players.

The real problems are more likely to be found in the stands, not on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Deffo a problem in the stands, I just wondered if any players took the same "no politics in football nonsense" stand on it too. We do need to start taking some proper action on this, The uk is bad enough, and some of these European clubs seem to just accept it as part of the game in the same way pies are sold at games!!!
 
I'm disappointed that there was booing yesterday. I only heard applause where I was and have done each time teams have taken the knee this season. However, perhaps that's just down to where in the ground I am.

I do wonder whether temporary or permenant banning orders against those who actively boo the knee need to be implemented to stamp it out. I suppose that wouldn't be changing any minds but at least might mean the "we're all together against racism and those who do not agree are not welcome" statement before the game wouldn't be a hollow one.
 
rbmfc1985 said:
I'm disappointed that there was booing yesterday. I only heard applause where I was and have done each time teams have taken the knee this season. However, perhaps that's just down to where in the ground I am.

I do wonder whether temporary or permenant banning orders against those who actively boo the knee need to be implemented to stamp it out. I suppose that wouldn't be changing any minds but at least might mean the "we're all together against racism and those who do not agree are not welcome" statement before the game wouldn't be a hollow one.
Click to expand...
I think the banning order is a good idea, but I would not stop there. I’d ban them from all live sporting arena’s, make them do meaningful community service, working with the very groups of people they fail to support, with an education package built into it.

In 2022, I really can’t understand what drives such behaviour. I do think different people have different reasons from outright racism to an uneducated, ignorant pack mentality and that some uneducated fools won’t even see they are being racist, but ignorance is no excuse.
 
Whats has taking the knee achieved? Next to nothing. Its hard to achieve anything without a big plan to work towards with aims and objectives.

Meanwhile football clubs are taken over by owners who are? Clubs and International teams play in Countries that are? Wearing kit produced by companes who?

The now now is no different to the now when kneeling started. Its meaningless and impotent.
 
Chappy112 said:
It was a ridiculous post.
Click to expand...
you need to be very careful using words like 'rediculous', some people on this board think that is heinous and worthy of personal abuse, amateur psychological appraisal and stalking your every post. :ROFLMAO:

I guess Britt squared that circle in his head, and has his own choice to make, and that's fine. But he's gone, I'm not sure as our captain he should have been dictating the club response, all the players are individual and should make their own mind up, and of course he has gone now, this is a worse legacy for him than his goal scoring record.
 
We should also look at how wider society has been an influence no this. It isn't a football problem as such, it's simply a reflection on the direction of British society over the last 15 years. Racism has increased, the portrayal of migrants as some kind of plague and disease has increased, muslims are portrayed as dangerous. 'Tommy Robinson', Nigel Farage, 'Boris' Johnson have normalised racism
 
Pembroke said:
Whats has taking the knee achieved? Next to nothing. Its hard to achieve anything without a big plan to work towards with aims and objectives.

Meanwhile football clubs are taken over by owners who are? Clubs and International teams play in Countries that are? Wearing kit produced by companes who?

The now now is no different to the now when kneeling started. Its meaningless and impotent.
Click to expand...

That's a reason some might be indifferent to the gesture.

But if you boo it you're not indifferent, you're making it clear you're very much against it. You're saying the gesture offends you in some way.
 
festa5 said:
But if you boo it you're not indifferent, you're making it clear you're very much against it. You're saying the gesture offends you in some way.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The only message booing sends is that you oppose racial equality.

If that's not the message the booers intend, then it's up to them to find a more effective way of sending it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will understand them to be racist.

They may retort that they don't care what other people think. In that case, why bother sending any message at all?
 
BoroMart said:
This is a bit off topic, but that's one of the key things that irks me more than anything. Let's look at say The post service as an example.

- I work for decades and I pay my taxes. Those taxes were invested under socialist policies in The post Office (machinary, training, vehicles, etc. etc.), to give me (and everyone) an affordable service (60p first class).
- A Tory PM comes along and sells those assets that I've been paying for, to their friends, at a knock down price.
- The new owner of the postal service, now starts charging me inflated prices (60p risen to 95p for first class stamp), to use the services I already bought, and some shyster of a PM sold.
- Then the service quality reduces as the profiteers want their return.

The whole thing is a criminal shake down. People need to open their eyes and wise up to Tory privatisation policies. Moving tax revenue and assets purchased through tax to rich people is the M.O. of free market capitalism as is denigrating the concept of socialism and any 'by the people' movement.
Click to expand...

"Following the 2010 general election, the new Business Secretary in the coalition government, Vince Cable, asked Richard Hooper to expand on his report, to account for EU Directive 2008/6/EC which called for the postal sector to be fully open to competition by 31 December 2012.[55][56] Based on the Hooper Review Update, the government passed the Postal Services Act 2011. The Act allowed for up to 90% of Royal Mail to be privatised, with at least 10% of shares to be held by Royal Mail employees.[57]"

A criminal shakedown based on an EU directive to encourage competition in the postal sector...?! so not completely Tory, then.
 
festa5 said:
That's a reason some might be indifferent to the gesture.

But if you boo it you're not indifferent, you're making it clear you're very much against it. You're saying the gesture offends you in some way.
Click to expand...
100% correct.
I don't imagine in the history of the world a boo has ever meant "i suppoort this cause but i don't believe what you're doing to be an effective course of action"
 
The directive was allowing the market to be open for competition subject to a guarantee of a universal postal service.

It hadn't been illegal to have a privatised postal service. Germany and Portugal had privatised postal services already.

Fully open to competition is a bit misleading as where there was more than one provider of the universal service, the providers work couldn't overlap.
 
Vzzzbx said:
"Following the 2010 general election, the new Business Secretary in the coalition government, Vince Cable, asked Richard Hooper to expand on his report, to account for EU Directive 2008/6/EC which called for the postal sector to be fully open to competition by 31 December 2012.[55][56] Based on the Hooper Review Update, the government passed the Postal Services Act 2011. The Act allowed for up to 90% of Royal Mail to be privatised, with at least 10% of shares to be held by Royal Mail employees.[57]"

A criminal shakedown based on an EU directive to encourage competition in the postal sector...?! so not completely Tory, then.
Click to expand...

The EU directive didn't
- force it to be sold
- force it to be sold at an undervalued price
- force the sale to include rules in to make it harder for citizens to invest and easier for fund managers to invest
- force the postal sector to be exempt from rules to stop the price escalating.

Directive 2008/6 - Amendment of Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services - EU monitor

www.eumonitor.eu www.eumonitor.eu

You also misunderstand what a directive is, "Directives. A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach these goals.". It was a Tory choice to sell the Royal Mail. But it wasn't just the fact it was sold, it was the HOW!

You are missing the key message here, postal was just used as an example, as the most recent high profile one. There are loads of other examples of services, that the tories chose to sell through ideology/scam.

www.theguardian.com

A short history of privatisation in the UK: 1979-2012 | Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour: From the first experiments with British Aerospace through British Telecom, water and electricity to the NHS and Royal Mail
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
BoroMart said:
you need to be very careful using words like 'rediculous', some people on this board think that is heinous and worthy of personal abuse, amateur psychological appraisal and stalking your every post. :ROFLMAO:

I guess Britt squared that circle in his head, and has his own choice to make, and that's fine. But he's gone, I'm not sure as our captain he should have been dictating the club response, all the players are individual and should make their own mind up, and of course he has gone now, this is a worse legacy for him than his goal scoring record.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have dictated to everyone else - and as you say he's gone.
The players are making the choice NOW not to do it.
I'd rather they did, but if they respect their opponents doing it that's their choice.
Personally I think the booing on Wednesday shows the need for our players to resume it
 
BoroMart said:
We should also look at how wider society has been an influence no this. It isn't a football problem as such, it's simply a reflection on the direction of British society over the last 15 years. Racism has increased, the portrayal of migrants as some kind of plague and disease has increased, muslims are portrayed as dangerous. 'Tommy Robinson', Nigel Farage, 'Boris' Johnson have normalised racism
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
TeessideCleveland said:
He wouldn't have dictated to everyone else - and as you say he's gone.
Click to expand...
IIRC it was reported at the time that Britt as club captain put forward that the club shouldn't do it. He might not have dictated but was certainly highly influential in that decision. The club, or he may have stated that it should be a unified club stance, not individuals doing their own thing.

He's gone now, so his influence should be null and void. Personally I'd like to see them do it, particularly if we were to get back in the prem. The optics on foreign TV, of standing every game, while every other club takes the knee will backfire badly. Prem games are shown around the world, and it will be commented on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap
Incidentally there will be a film crew over from Australia at the match tomorrow talking with fans from BAME community and not going to a game at the Riverside. The tv production unit have been working with the football club and different supporters. They are filming three places in the country but have chosen to to particularly focus on Boro because they really like what we are doing. they appear to really see this as a positive, inclusive club and community. Which has to be good, when this has picked up from several thousand miles away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top