Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)

[spudski]

47 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

 

Guys,  I'll leave these both here.   It may be of use as to why what is said is actually a cause for upset..

 

https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/what-can-you-do/speak/casual-racism

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-you-cant-convince-anyone-that-theyre-racist/

 

 

Kinnel mate...what a load of bollox that bloke talks.

He gives an example of being from India, and that people compliment him on how good his English language is.

He then sights, that over time, these compliments make it feel racist to him.

What an utter bunch of tosh. The bloke is being complemented FFS.

It's like me going to Italy, and Italians complimenting me on how good my Italian language is...and then I decide to turn it into Racism...WTF.

Seriously mate...this is not racism...this is just soft individuals looking to find racism in anything they can...even bloody compliments.

All of which you have shown...still don't cover the fact, that the comment about 'bringing Ebola to the Uk'...is not a racist comment, however which way people want to screw it.

Perhaps this Indian chap and others like him should watch this instead...

 

 

[Frenchay Red]

What ever the rights and wrongs of this particular case are, there is no doubt that we now live in the age of "being easily offended." 

Not only that but we also live in the age of "being easily offended on behalf of others".

It's all a bit beyond me. 

 

[Up The City!]

If there is a player at a football club who has a virus going around the family no one would blink an eye lid about that player being asked to stay away to stop the virus spreading around the squad.

This is exactly the same as that but on a more serious level due to Ebola being a deadly disease.

If I call a black person a manual manipulator does that automatically make me a racist? Because that's how it would be perceived. 

[Ivorguy]

How really depressing that 21st century white Bristolians of all peoples should remain  so insensitive to issues of racism.  

A  number of posters really should make an effort to join this century rather than remain in some twilight 1950s world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarcusX]

9 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

 

Guys,  I'll leave these both here.   It may be of use as to why what is said is actually a cause for upset..

 

https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/what-can-you-do/speak/casual-racism

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-you-cant-convince-anyone-that-theyre-racist/

 

 

What a load of rubbish. I read the two articles and nothing in them is relevant to this comment made by Mark Sampson.

incidentally no-one has mentioned the other comment that MS made to an un-named player. Apparently he used an analogy about pressing hard in midfield and picking up a caution - then referring to a player saying "haven't you been arrested, 4 times isn't it?". Aluko and this player decided that what was said must be racist because she is mixed race. Now I could be wrong, but to say 4 times is very specific and Aluko hasn't said it was an untrue statement. To me that suggests the person he referred to has actually been arrested or has a criminal past and therefore his comment is probably made based on fact and absolutely nothing to do with race or where she came from or grew up.

I don't know people have to look for things that aren't there, such as on this occasion a comment about Ebola being turned into a race issue - then indirectly call anyone who questions this racist.

you also couldn't tell me why someone - who feels SO strongly about racism, bullying and not wanting others to go through what she went through and having to keep quiet - would then take hush money?

as I asked, what has she done for other players in the last 2 years by keeping it quiet?

 

[MarcusX]

4 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

How really depressing that 21st century white Bristolians of all peoples should remain  so insensitive to issues of racism.  

A  number of posters really should make an effort to join this century rather than remain in some twilight 1950s world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who says we are all white bristolians? I'm not. I'm not even fully English, and I'd imagine a number of other people aren't, but of course it's ok for you to make that assumption and judgement - I'll welcome you to the 21st century when you get here...

[City Ben]

13 hours ago, Red Bill said:

Are we not getting a bit oversensitive and precious these days.  When I was at school someone with red hair was "carrot top"; someone a bit small was "shorty"; someone tall was "lofty"; someone called Murphy was "spud"; someone called Miller was "dusty"; someone with glasses was "Four eyes" etc etc.  Nobody took offence, it was part of life and growing up.  If you go looking for something to take offence over you will surely find it.  My name is Riley so I was known as "old mother".  I like to think that it has not ruined my life.

Look I don't really know much about this, and you might well be right that people are a bit precious nowadays. But I'd imagine that the difference is that someone with glasses, or someone who is a bit taller or shorter than average, doesn't come from a whole race that has suffered generations of persecution. Context is key. I'm surprised that someone would compare calling someone "shorty" with any kind of piss-take that is based in heritage.

[City Ben]

10 hours ago, Up The City! said:

If there is a player at a football club who has a virus going around the family no one would blink an eye lid about that player being asked to stay away to stop the virus spreading around the squad.

This is exactly the same as that but on a more serious level due to Ebola being a deadly disease.

If I call a black person a manual manipulator does that automatically make me a racist? Because that's how it would be perceived. 

Gosh I don't know where to begin with this.

OK you're right, no-one would blink an eye lid if a player known to have been exposed to a contagious virus was asked to stay away from the club. However, that's not the same as what's happening here is it? The link was "family from Nigeria/ might well have ebola". Nigeria is a big place! Three times the population of the UK. 

And, by the way, ebola didn't even really hit Nigeria. There were 20 recorded cases there.

[MarcusX]

2 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

quickly, no one is looking for things that arent there, the defence of something that is so ingrained  to justify it is bewildering, the guy linked in the vid is iirc of indian origin in NZ where there are issues with racism against Maoris, the second link is AUS based because of endemic racism against Aborigines and the third is there to show why the view point is so ingrained that people wont ever admit because of being made a pariah so go all in to defelect or justify it.

Ive demonstrated over loads how the comment is how it falls under the equalities act and how, it is a slur and is considered to be by those who experience it, however  that doesnt seem to tally.

Hush money, doesnt validate it either.

 

You've demonstrated YOUR interpretation of a comment. As I and many others have pointed out, both comments he made could have been completely irrelevant of race and without being there or the context around it then it is impossible to tell how it was meant.

tell my why the money doesn't matter? She made a point that she wanted to speak out to help others and stop them going trough the same - then took a pay off and kept quiet. Who did that help then?

[spudski]

2 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

quickly, no one is looking for things that arent there, the defence of something that is so ingrained  to justify it is bewildering, the guy linked in the vid is iirc of indian origin in NZ where there are issues with racism against Maoris, the second link is AUS based because of endemic racism against Aborigines and the third is there to show why the view point is so ingrained that people wont ever admit because of being made a pariah so go all in to defelect or justify it.

Ive demonstrated over loads how the comment is how it falls under the equalities act and how, it is a slur and is considered to be by those who experience it, however  that doesnt seem to tally.

Hush money, doesnt validate it either.

 

Interesting how you view this.

Having lived in Oz in the past. Spent 6 months working in NZ and numerous years in Canada ( first Nations or Native Indians as they were known before ) I've witnessed this 'Racism' you speak of first hand.

Firstly...the actual proper racism, is from a very small minority of the population. Uneducated meat heads who don't like the indigenous people because of the colour of their skin or thinking they are better than them. The same as in every country...you'll never get rid of those idiots.

The 'Racism' that you and others get confused with, is not actually Racism. A great majority of the population are just sick to death with the amount of money spent by the state in each country ( Billions ) on the Indigenous people. As an example...approx. 600,000 Aboriginals in Oz...Billions of the state money is given to them. Disproportionate to the rest of the population. It's the same in all the countries. In fact, in Canada, Canadian families will actually look in to their family tree, to see whether they are related to the First Nations, so as to claim better benefits, such as free schooling.

The majority of the non indigenous population in these countries, are not Racist because of the colour of their skin, or feeling superior...they are just angry at being treated differently. Housing given...money given...So many benefits...etc,etc,etc.

It's the same feeling, as we have in this country with certain parts of the population, who get angry at other nations coming in and picking up benefits very easily. It's not Racism...just anger.

Not the fault of the people...the fault of the system and government rulings.

People ask...'how long do we as a Nation keep paying the 'First Nations' money...as a 'Sorry'? It really is getting silly over there, as it is many generations past what happened in the past. How far do you go? No one wants to face that question.

It will get to a point, where we could go banging on Italy, asking them to pay up for all the conquering they did in the UK with the Roman Empire ;-) It's got that silly.

So because of that under current of anger...by both sides...it gets put under the umbrella of Racism...which it's not. In main it's just people being angry at a situation they have no control over...felt by both parties.

Unfortunately...a great many of the population brought up in the 'blame culture', will find anything that offends them, and stick it under the Racism banner, as it gets more headlines.

It's now a very mixed up confused world....where many things have been taken out of context.

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Interesting how you view this.

Having lived in Oz in the past. Spent 6 months working in NZ and numerous years in Canada ( first Nations or Native Indians as they were known before ) I've witnessed this 'Racism' you speak of first hand.

Firstly...the actual proper racism, is from a very small minority of the population. Uneducated meat heads who don't like the indigenous people because of the colour of their skin or thinking they are better than them. The same as in every country...you'll never get rid of those idiots.

The 'Racism' that you and others get confused with, is not actually Racism. A great majority of the population are just sick to death with the amount of money spent by the state in each country ( Billions ) on the Indigenous people. As an example...approx. 600,000 Aboriginals in Oz...Billions of the state money is given to them. Disproportionate to the rest of the population. It's the same in all the countries. In fact, in Canada, Canadian families will actually look in to their family tree, to see whether they are related to the First Nations, so as to claim better benefits, such as free schooling.

The majority of the non indigenous population in these countries, are not Racist because of the colour of their skin, or feeling superior...they are just angry at being treated differently. Housing given...money given...So many benefits...etc,etc,etc.

It's the same feeling, as we have in this country with certain parts of the population, who get angry at other nations coming in and picking up benefits very easily. It's not Racism...just anger.

Not the fault of the people...the fault of the system and government rulings.

People ask...'how long do we as a Nation keep paying the 'First Nations' money...as a 'Sorry'? It really is getting silly over there, as it is many generations past what happened in the past. How far do you go? No one wants to face that question.

It will get to a point, where we could go banging on Italy, asking them to pay up for all the conquering they did in the UK with the Roman Empire ;-) It's got that silly.

So because of that under current of anger...by both sides...it gets put under the umbrella of Racism...which it's not. In main it's just people being angry at a situation they have no control over...felt by both parties.

Unfortunately...a great many of the population brought up in the 'blame culture', will find anything that offends them, and stick it under the Racism banner, as it gets more headlines.

It's now a very mixed up confused world....where many things have been taken out of context.

I wasn't going to get back into this nonsense having said my piece, but as someone who is half Canadian I felt unable to let this horse shit go by unchallenged

Do you know why billions of $ are spent on First Nations peoples by the Canadian Government? Because First Nations people had no voting rights until 1960. Because their children were forcibly removed and placed in boarding schools to "kill the Indian in them" until 1996. 20 years ago. Because vast swaithes of land 'gifted' to the First Nations when they were thought worthless, were then taken back when it was discovered that the tar sands were a significant source of extractable oil. Has the money been spent in the best possible way? Probably not and some of that probably falls on the leaders of the First Nation governments and bands. But most of it is on Federal Governments who have viewed them only as a problem they're paying to make go away. Even Trudeau, who I genuinely believe cares about the issue, hasn't made much progress at sorting it out. And I agree that many Canadians have no prejudice against FN people, but the casual racism remains prevalent and ingrained. The opinion that FN people are a bunch of violent alcoholics and drug addicts, held and propagated by middle class white people in cosy suburbs of Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg or Edmonton ignores the fact that these people have been treated worse than animals for much of the last 100 years. Most of the money available to First Nations is to pay for the resources taken from them and acts done to them by the Canadian government in the name of the Canadian people and while it's not necessarily the right way to do it, they're not close to paying off that debt yet. Rather than listening to people complaining about tax spend in the bar, I suggest you actually research the treatment of these people and maybe even go and meet some. This is not a 'historical' legacy, it's due to things that have happened well within our lifetimes 

As for Australia, again the casual racism is ingrained. When I was at uni we lived with an Australian bloke (who was a massive bell end) who used to start sentences about Aboriginal people "I've got nothing against ******* abbos, but..." and then launch into any number of racial slurs and stereotypes. if you want to know why Australia is still paying Aboriginals, I suggest you look at mining practices and associated land grabs in the last decade- especially with regards uranium. The environmental disaster caused by that falls almost exclusively on the Aboriginal people and its them who are dying of cancer because of the fines and effluents from the uranium mines

[spudski]

1 hour ago, chipdawg said:

I wasn't going to get back into this nonsense having said my piece, but as someone who is half Canadian I felt unable to let this horse shit go by unchallenged

Do you know why billions of $ are spent on First Nations peoples by the Canadian Government? Because First Nations people had no voting rights until 1960. Because their children were forcibly removed and placed in boarding schools to "kill the Indian in them" until 1996. 20 years ago. Because vast swaithes of land 'gifted' to the First Nations when they were thought worthless, were then taken back when it was discovered that the tar sands were a significant source of extractable oil. Has the money been spent in the best possible way? Probably not and some of that probably falls on the leaders of the First Nation governments and bands. But most of it is on Federal Governments who have viewed them only as a problem they're paying to make go away. Even Trudeau, who I genuinely believe cares about the issue, hasn't made much progress at sorting it out. And I agree that many Canadians have no prejudice against FN people, but the casual racism remains prevalent and ingrained. The opinion that FN people are a bunch of violent alcoholics and drug addicts, held and propagated by middle class white people in cosy suburbs of Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg or Edmonton ignores the fact that these people have been treated worse than animals for much of the last 100 years. Most of the money available to First Nations is to pay for the resources taken from them and acts done to them by the Canadian government in the name of the Canadian people and while it's not necessarily the right way to do it, they're not close to paying off that debt yet. Rather than listening to people complaining about tax spend in the bar, I suggest you actually research the treatment of these people and maybe even go and meet some. This is not a 'historical' legacy, it's due to things that have happened well within our lifetimes 

As for Australia, again the casual racism is ingrained. When I was at uni we lived with an Australian bloke (who was a massive bell end) who used to start sentences about Aboriginal people "I've got nothing against ******* abbos, but..." and then launch into any number of racial slurs and stereotypes. if you want to know why Australia is still paying Aboriginals, I suggest you look at mining practices and associated land grabs in the last decade- especially with regards uranium. The environmental disaster caused by that falls almost exclusively on the Aboriginal people and its them who are dying of cancer because of the fines and effluents from the uranium mines

Mate...don't get on your high horse with me. Again presuming to know...

Where have I disagreed with your comments? I haven't. I know exactly why everything has happened.

I've just pointed out why non native people feel aggrieved...whether that it is right or wrong is another thing. I however...Don't think it is racist perse on their part, because of a difference in skin. It is because they feel more so aggrieved. Doesn't make it right...but it is a difference in what is racism, which is what we are talking about.

The same can be said of what you say about OZ...I agree. And I did say about the meatheads...I've worked with them. Bogans as the Aboriginals call them.

As for meeting first Nations in Canada...don't presume.

I work with first nations, have friends that are first nations, and even teach them and their children. I've eaten, socialised, drank, talked with them in depth.

Living in Southern Alberta, there are many...I get to meet others that come to be coached from Saskatchewan, BC and from over the border in Montana.

I know exactly what you are talking about... However Racism and feeling aggrieved is different. However right or wrong. I hate Racism. But I also hate the Race card being used when it's not Racism.

[Red-Robbo]

Funnily enough, this is one of those strange cases where it would be more racist if the comment was made as a "joke".

If we assume, he made it out of genuine ignorance and concern, then it's just inappropriate and cloth-eared. In other words, offensive, but not racist.

[chipdawg]

6 hours ago, spudski said:

Mate...don't get on your high horse with me. Again presuming to know...

Where have I disagreed with your comments? I haven't. I know exactly why everything has happened.

I've just pointed out why non native people feel aggrieved...whether that it is right or wrong is another thing. I however...Don't think it is racist perse on their part, because of a difference in skin. It is because they feel more so aggrieved. Doesn't make it right...but it is a difference in what is racism, which is what we are talking about.

The same can be said of what you say about OZ...I agree. And I did say about the meatheads...I've worked with them. Bogans as the Aboriginals call them.

As for meeting first Nations in Canada...don't presume.

I work with first nations, have friends that are first nations, and even teach them and their children. I've eaten, socialised, drank, talked with them in depth.

Living in Southern Alberta, there are many...I get to meet others that come to be coached from Saskatchewan, BC and from over the border in Montana.

I know exactly what you are talking about... However Racism and feeling aggrieved is different. However right or wrong. I hate Racism. But I also hate the Race card being used when it's not Racism.

Apologies, I was in an especially foul mood when I responded. I stand by what I wrote but the tone was unnecessary.

My experience of my family and their friends is that the majority of white Canadians feel ashamed rather than aggrieved, but I appreciate your experiences are different. I still don't think you understand what forms racism can take, but I appreciate your point of view is bourne out of your experiences

[spudski]

5 hours ago, chipdawg said:

Apologies, I was in an especially foul mood when I responded. I stand by what I wrote but the tone was unnecessary.

My experience of my family and their friends is that the majority of white Canadians feel ashamed rather than aggrieved, but I appreciate your experiences are different. I still don't think you understand what forms racism can take, but I appreciate your point of view is bourne out of your experiences

Touch of class there mate...all good. Nice to see we can debate without it getting silly. Appreciate your words, and understand where you are coming from.

[Trueredsupporter]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/eni-aluko-furious-with-selfish-england-goal-celebrations-with-mark-sampson-6941512/

 

[LondonBristolian]

21 minutes ago, Trueredsupporte said:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/eni-aluko-furious-with-selfish-england-goal-celebrations-with-mark-sampson-6941512/

 

I understand people react in the heat of the moment and am sure it was well meant but that seems poorly judged and cringeworthy and reminded me a bit of Liverpool over the Suarez incident. 

Whether Sampson said what he is alleged to have said or not - and he seems quite vague about that and seems to contradict himself - the question is not whether he is a nice guy or a good manager. The questions are

a) did he make the comment?

b) If he did make the comment then was the intent racist?

c) If he did make the comment, and the intent was not racist, why deny making the comment?

d)  Why did the original investigation into the first incident not interview the player concerned, given they could easily be identified by Aluko's description?

e) If Sampson did nothing wrong, then why the pay out of £80, 000 to Aluko?

f) Why is Aluko being excluded from the squad and is it related to the complaint she made? (Bearing in mind that, if she is being excluded for raising concerns about perceived discrimination, that would be illegal in any other organisation)

I obviously have no idea if Sampson said what he said, why he said it if he did and whether it could reasonably be seen as racist within context but it is plain to see that it is has not been investigated thoroughly, a mysterious payout has been made and Aluko appears to have been dropped despite playing well, and that has to lead to massive questions. I don't want to preempt the answers but I do think a massive team hug and show of solidarity amongst people who have not been dropped for raising concerns does nothing to help the situation and helps build the perception of the FA and the team closing ranks, which is really unhelpful given the publicity this has generated. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

20 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I understand people react in the heat of the moment and am sure it was well meant but that seems poorly judged and cringeworthy and reminded me a bit of Liverpool over the Suarez incident. 

Whether Sampson said what he is alleged to have said or not - and he seems quite vague about that and seems to contradict himself - the question is not whether he is a nice guy or a good manager. The questions are

a) did he make the comment?

b) If he did make the comment then was the intent racist?

c) If he did make the comment, and the intent was not racist, why deny making the comment?

d)  Why did the original investigation into the first incident not interview the player concerned, given they could easily be identified by Aluko's description?

e) If Sampson did nothing wrong, then why the pay out of £80, 000 to Aluko?

f) Why is Aluko being excluded from the squad and is it related to the complaint she made? (Bearing in mind that, if she is being excluded for raising concerns about perceived discrimination, that would be illegal in any other organisation)

I obviously have no idea if Sampson said what he said, why he said it if he did and whether it could reasonably be seen as racist within context but it is plain to see that it is has not been investigated thoroughly, a mysterious payout has been made and Aluko appears to have been dropped despite playing well, and that has to lead to massive questions. I don't want to preempt the answers but I do think a massive team hug and show of solidarity amongst people who have not been dropped for raising concerns does nothing to help the situation and helps build the perception of the FA and the team closing ranks, which is really unhelpful given the publicity this has generated. 

All very well and good and maybe even laudable but you have missed out the most important points.

1). if Sampson is so bad why would any self respecting female play for him especially the black players?. it is entirely naive to consider that if all or a even a significant number of the squad refused to play and offered evidence of his wrongdoing that something would not be done.

2). Even though you have pre-empted it by your statement, I find it pathetic that players at any level cannot celebrate goals or winning etc. because 'somebody' might not be happy.

3). Regarding your point F, what about the fact that the vast majority of her team mates have maintained a dignified silence over the matter and maybe just maybe 'they' don't want her back.

[Cowshed]

36 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I understand people react in the heat of the moment and am sure it was well meant but that seems poorly judged and cringeworthy and reminded me a bit of Liverpool over the Suarez incident. 

Whether Sampson said what he is alleged to have said or not - and he seems quite vague about that and seems to contradict himself - the question is not whether he is a nice guy or a good manager. The questions are

a) did he make the comment?

b) If he did make the comment then was the intent racist?

c) If he did make the comment, and the intent was not racist, why deny making the comment?

d)  Why did the original investigation into the first incident not interview the player concerned, given they could easily be identified by Aluko's description?

e) If Sampson did nothing wrong, then why the pay out of £80, 000 to Aluko?

f) Why is Aluko being excluded from the squad and is it related to the complaint she made? (Bearing in mind that, if she is being excluded for raising concerns about perceived discrimination, that would be illegal in any other organisation)

I obviously have no idea if Sampson said what he said, why he said it if he did and whether it could reasonably be seen as racist within context but it is plain to see that it is has not been investigated thoroughly, a mysterious payout has been made and Aluko appears to have been dropped despite playing well, and that has to lead to massive questions. I don't want to preempt the answers but I do think a massive team hug and show of solidarity amongst people who have not been dropped for raising concerns does nothing to help the situation and helps build the perception of the FA and the team closing ranks, which is really unhelpful given the publicity this has generated. 

Toni Duggan who has joined Barcelona, Jordan Nobbs a player who may turn out to be one of the best in the world and Jodie Taylor who was the top scorer at the recent European Championships were preferred to a player who is pacey but technically limited.

I feel a black player running to the Manager after scoring was poignant. The player and team would not have reacted as they did if they felt Mr Sampson is a racist.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

9 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Toni Duggan who has joined Barcelona, Jordan Nobbs a player who may turn out to be one of the best in the world and Jodie Taylor who was the top scorer at the recent European Championships were preferred to a player who is pacey but technically limited.

I feel a black player running to the Manager after scoring was poignant. The player and team would not have reacted as they did if they felt Mr Sampson is a racist.

Spot on.

[LondonBristolian]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Toni Duggan who has joined Barcelona, Jordan Nobbs a player who may turn out to be one of the best in the world and Jodie Taylor who was the top scorer at the recent European Championships were preferred to a player who is pacey but technically limited.

I feel a black player running to the Manager after scoring was poignant. The player and team would not have reacted as they did if they felt Mr Sampson is a racist.

The first part might well be true. But the £80, 000 paid to Aluko raises unanswered questions.

I imagine the player and team do not feel Mr Sampson is a racist. But the discussion is not really whether Sampson is a racist, and nor is it any sense a discussion of his general character. The relevant question is whether Sampson made remarks that could reasonably construed as racist on two separate occasions. That is all that is relevant to this particular discussion. And, if the FA had thoroughly investigated that at the start, then we would not be where we are now. 

[LondonBristolian]

15 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

All very well and good and maybe even laudable but you have missed out the most important points.

1). if Sampson is so bad why would any self respecting female play for him especially the black players?. it is entirely naive to consider that if all or a even a significant number of the squad refused to play and offered evidence of his wrongdoing that something would not be done.

2). Even though you have pre-empted it by your statement, I find it pathetic that players at any level cannot celebrate goals or winning etc. because 'somebody' might not be happy.

3). Regarding your point F, what about the fact that the vast majority of her team mates have maintained a dignified silence over the matter and maybe just maybe 'they' don't want her back.

1) See below. Whether Sampson is or is not a terrible human being, a bad manager, or even a racist, is not really relevant here. The question is simply whether he made racist remarks on two occasions.

2) Nobody is saying players cannot celebrate goals. Just that a grand public show of solidarity might be ill-judged in this context.

3) Maybe they don't want her back. Maybe she is not being picked for other reasons. But the FA have handled it badly and frankly done both Aluko and Sampson a disservice by doing so as it leaves unanswered questions that should have been resolved. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

1) See below. Whether Sampson is or is not a terrible human being, a bad manager, or even a racist, is not really relevant here. The question is simply whether he made racist remarks on two occasions.

2) Nobody is saying players cannot celebrate goals. Just that a grand public show of solidarity might be ill-judged in this context.

3) Maybe they don't want her back. Maybe she is not being picked for other reasons. But the FA have handled it badly and frankly done both Aluko and Sampson a disservice by doing so as it leaves unanswered questions that should have been resolved. 

1). Inappropriate remarks.

2). Nonsense, stopping footballers or any human being from showing a public show of solidarity is tantamount to censorship and maybe it was the most telling episode in this sorry tale.

3). The FA is the FA it has been and will always be run by mainly self serving old farts who have never played the game at any great level and once more maybe just maybe the truth might be more unpalatable in these overly PC days, who knows?.

[phantom]

Personally tired of hearing about all this now, Sampson has been cleared by two different panels.

Is Aluko going to keep going until someone sides with her?

[LondonBristolian]

40 minutes ago, phantom said:

Personally tired of hearing about all this now, Sampson has been cleared by two different panels.

Is Aluko going to keep going until someone sides with her?

One would guess not. Aluko settled this in April. It was the press that started it all up again. But it is worth saying the panels that cleared Sampson have not been able to explain their reasons for not interviewing key witnesses, nor have the FA been able to explain why a settlement has been made when there was no wrongdoing.

Like you, I too am tired of hearing about this. But the only reason we have this farcical third investigation is due to a failure to do a proper one in the first place. That has damanged both Aluko and Sampson and arguably both deserve an apology for the poor handling of this.

[LondonBristolian]

53 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

1). Inappropriate remarks.

2). Nonsense, stopping footballers or any human being from showing a public show of solidarity is tantamount to censorship and maybe it was the most telling episode in this sorry tale.

3). The FA is the FA it has been and will always be run by mainly self serving old farts who have never played the game at any great level and once more maybe just maybe the truth might be more unpalatable in these overly PC days, who knows?.

1) If you prefer, I'm fine with that phrase.

2) This would be a good point HAD anyone attempted to stop footballers or any other human being from taking part in a public show of solidarity. Nobody attempted to stop them, and - so far as I can tell - nobody is trying to stop them. What is actually tantamount to censorship is people saying Aluko has no right to state an opinion on people's actions.

3) I suspect the truth is complex and inconvenient for everyone. There seems to be a general split between people who want to find out that Sampson is a decent, honest guy who has never done anything wrong against people who want to find out he is a terrible human being and that is why he said what he said. My best guess at the reality is that he is someone who made some ill-judged remarks that could and should have been resolved by a reprimand, a simple apology and a promise not to do it again. 

I actually think - whilst you could easily argue it should never have been considered newsworthy the first place - the recent story on Paul Hollywood is a great example of how these things can be dealt with. The photos of Hollywood dressed as a Nazi surfaced, Hollywood immediately apologised, explained the context but admitted it looked terrible and that he was mortified if he had offended anyone, an anti-defamation organisation said nobody should dress as Nazis but they appreciated Hollywood's quick apology and the world moved on. Things don't need to become this messy but they inevitably will if people do not deal with allegations quickly, effectively and transparently. 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

The first part might well be true. But the £80, 000 paid to Aluko raises unanswered questions.

I imagine the player and team do not feel Mr Sampson is a racist. But the discussion is not really whether Sampson is a racist, and nor is it any sense a discussion of his general character. The relevant question is whether Sampson made remarks that could reasonably construed as racist on two separate occasions. That is all that is relevant to this particular discussion. And, if the FA had thoroughly investigated that at the start, then we would not be where we are now. 

The player is making allegations regarding bullying, discrimination, racism, team selection and victimisation. That is an attempt to vilify the character of the Manager and ruin his career.

The England team made their public point in support of the mans character last night.  

 

[LondonBristolian]

13 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The player is making allegations regarding bullying, discrimination, racism, team selection and victimisation. That is an attempt to vilify the character of the Manager and ruin his career.

The England team made their public point in support of the mans character last night.  

 

Or maybe the player is making the allegations because she feels they happened?

Worth remembering that, in context, Aluko only ever raised the allegations because she was asked to take part in an FA consultation on diversity, and actively asked whether she had ever witnessed any discriminatory behaviour. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about her reasons for acting which are not really born out by the evidence and I would suggest that what you have just posted is far more libellous to Aluko than anything she has alleged about Sampson.

I'd also repeat my previous point. Sampson's 'character' is not up for discussion. What is up for discussion is whether he acted in a certain way on two occasions. Whether the players like him or dislike him the rest of the time has absolutely no bearing on the question of how he acted on the two occasions in question. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

53 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

1) If you prefer, I'm fine with that phrase.

2) This would be a good point HAD anyone attempted to stop footballers or any other human being from taking part in a public show of solidarity. Nobody attempted to stop them, and - so far as I can tell - nobody is trying to stop them. What is actually tantamount to censorship is people saying Aluko has no right to state an opinion on people's actions.

3) I suspect the truth is complex and inconvenient for everyone. There seems to be a general split between people who want to find out that Sampson is a decent, honest guy who has never done anything wrong against people who want to find out he is a terrible human being and that is why he said what he said. My best guess at the reality is that he is someone who made some ill-judged remarks that could and should have been resolved by a reprimand, a simple apology and a promise not to do it again. 

I actually think - whilst you could easily argue it should never have been considered newsworthy the first place - the recent story on Paul Hollywood is a great example of how these things can be dealt with. The photos of Hollywood dressed as a Nazi surfaced, Hollywood immediately apologised, explained the context but admitted it looked terrible and that he was mortified if he had offended anyone, an anti-defamation organisation said nobody should dress as Nazis but they appreciated Hollywood's quick apology and the world moved on. Things don't need to become this messy but they inevitably will if people do not deal with allegations quickly, effectively and transparently. 

Nice try but you are trying to stop the public show of solidarity by claiming that it was ill judged, if it was ill judged then it should not have happened in your view and do not agree,  I don't think it was ill judged and it was from the whole team and your second point is wrong as well, I haven't seen anybody actually say what you are claiming about Aluko that is something that has not happened.

[LondonBristolian]

17 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Nice try but you are trying to stop the public show of solidarity by claiming that it was ill judged, if it was ill judged then it should not have happened in your view and do not agree,  I don't think it was ill judged and it was from the whole team and your second point is wrong as well, I haven't seen anybody actually say what you are claiming about Aluko that is something that has not happened.

How exactly do you think I am trying to stop the public show of solidarity? Do you really think me claiming it was ill-judged has that much of an impact? Freedom of speech also means freedom to criticise. If you do not believe people have the right to criticise the public show of solidarity, the simple fact is you do not believe in freedom of speech.