Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)

[BigTone]

43 minutes ago, Sir Colby-Tit said:

I was asking what the harm is from someone being offended, not from being discriminated against. 

The Magistrate always calls me a repeat offender. Can I get compensation ?

[BigTone]

10 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

Well I feel like it's a reasonable assumption based on the ethnic mix of th UK, but fine. OTIB is the Benetton ad of Internet forums. We are like a rainbow astride the World Wide Web, our diversity is like a beacon shining in the night of the electronic ether

Better?

Now that sounds gooooood..............................but what does it mean ?

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, Odysseus said:

In the instance of statues: 

the majority of American Confederate statues were cheaply mass produced in the 20th century to reinforce racism and propagate a revisionist history that the civil war was about federal power than racism. Now you tell me here who are the people airbrushing history?

Same with Colston whose name was plastered about by merchants who didn't know him to give off the knowledge he somehow gave patronage to city buildings out of his own money, rather than off of the back of slave labour. 

Those who have controlled the school curriculum and what universities can teach are the only example of whether or not we consume "True History". I can tell you children won't be learning about Olgrave or Hilsborough under future Conservative governments. Considering most Brits knowledge of the Empire and Bristolians knowledge of the Slave Trade, the statues aren't doing a great job. Replace Colston with one of his Slaves and people might actually be interested. 

When would you have chosen for this cut off period of being offended about things to come into place? Before women's suffer age or Civil Rights?

There is a difference between outright racism, learning from our mistakes in the past and ignoring history when it suits anyone's agenda.

You speak of the slave trade...that trade has no colour recognition. Blacks have enslaved Blacks. Whites have enslaved whites. It's not about the colour of one's skin...it's about people forcing themselves on others.

Plus...you are only seeing it from 'British eyes'.

Go to other countries and see how racism, enslavement, civil rights etc work.

Why be 'offended' by history and what's happened in the past...it's been, it's happened....we can only learn from it, and try not to make the same mistakes again. Ignoring it and replacing it does nothing but hide the issue.

You talk about womans rights and civil rights...they exist,  yet they don't exist in this country with every culture, because it's seen as against their cultural rights and offensive to them. How the hell does that work? One rights for you...one rights for another.

[Silvio Dante]

Let's be frank, nobody comes out of this smelling of roses.

- If Aluko was that offended, why take the money and now speak up - including a new allegation which may have seen the case go in her favour

- If the FA genuinely believe there is no wrongdoing, why pay £80k?

- If Sampson believes he did nothing wrong, why his "communication style" statement this week?

The truth here may well be it suited all parties to come to an interim settlement (i.e. The £80k) prior to the euros which were both supposed to be a chance for England to win and raise the profile of the women's game. The latter was undoubtedly wanted by both parties - A bigger profile helps EAs earning potential aside from anything else. If the case was ongoing, it would have been a hell of a distraction.

It also seems to be a reason why Sampson picked the squad pre spring series - so his hand wouldn't be forced to pick Aluko while this was going on.

Clearly, Sampson didn't want Aluko in his squad. It doesn't appear to be prima facie for football reasons, but that doesn't mean it's racist reasons. The sad fact is that by all sides offering and accepting the £80k, the credibility of all sides is shot and the truth is never going to be undoubted.

And the good work in raising the profile of the women's game? They've all ballsed that up as well.

[1bristolcity]

Sampson has admitted he needs to improve his dialogue, and I am no pc advocate gone mad, but this whole thing does stink ...especially when the FA state there e was no case to answer. mmm. 

[Guest]

Without going through the whole lot on here, this woman was on the news this morning and was asked what she did when he said it and she said "I laughed when he said it at first, but only because I was shocked" (or very similar from what I recall), also it wasn't looked into because she obviously just forgot to mention such a "racial comment" that she was so offended by at the time and had her in tears this morning. To come out with it now is either BS on her part, or she wasn't really offended at all at the time if he did say it in my opinion.

[LondonBristolian]

47 minutes ago, spudski said:

There is a difference between outright racism, learning from our mistakes in the past and ignoring history when it suits anyone's agenda.

You speak of the slave trade...that trade has no colour recognition. Blacks have enslaved Blacks. Whites have enslaved whites. It's not about the colour of one's skin...it's about people forcing themselves on others.

 

 

2

So, to be absolutely clear, are you saying the Triangular Slave Trade - i.e. the one Colston made his dosh from and the South fought to preserve in the Civil War - did not almost exclusively involve black people being sold as slaves for people? If that is your argument then I would suggest you are the one revising history. Yes, there has been slavery in other countries at other times but

a) not on such an industrialised scale

b) in any case, they are hardly relevant to a discussion about Colston and the American South. 

[BCFC Rich]

32 minutes ago, spudski said:

It reminds me of the people who want to get rid of all buildings and statues associated with the slave trade...they want to change history and not acknowledge it. Be reminded of the mistakes that were made.

The same people who will visit the Colosseum in Rome and the Pyramids in Egypt and stand in awe. History built on slavery and Brutality. One Race over another.Are we going to knock all of them down too and all the statues. I know...lets get rid of museums and books as well. Destroy all evidence...pretend it never happened.

 

 

There is a big difference would be that the statues you are talking about and the buildings. People visit the Colosseum and the Pyramids because they are incredible feats of architecture. Both have museums that highlight and acknowledge the awful way they were created, both include this information in their guided tours. The statues you are talking about are there to celebrate the lives of slave owners and Confederate generals. They are not there to educate us and remind us of mistakes from the past, in the way somewhere like the holocaust museum or Auschwitz are.

 

With regards to Aluko, the facts get a bit distorted in the way they are presented by the press. She (as a woman of colour and regular in the England squad for years, over 100 caps) was invited to be part of the FA's cultural review into Englands management. It's here when she was specifically asked if she was upset with any of her treatment and made the allegations against Sampson. She was then dropped from the very next squad and never received a call up again, despite maintaining good form with her club. Now I actually don't think Sampson has had any racist intent but it's easy to see it from Aluko's viewpoint. She speaks up at the FA's request and is subsequently penalised.

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

I see the writer Afa Hirsch wants Nelsons Column pulled down because he was 'Colonial' and 'pro,slavery'

[Odysseus]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

  There is a difference between outright racism, learning from our mistakes in the past and ignoring history when it suits anyone's agenda.

You speak of the slave trade...that trade has no colour recognition. Blacks have enslaved Blacks. Whites have enslaved whites. It's not about the colour of one's skin...it's about people forcing themselves on others.

Plus...you are only seeing it from 'British eyes'.

Go to other countries and see how racism, enslavement, civil rights etc work.

Why be 'offended' by history and what's happened in the past...it's been, it's happened....we can only learn from it, and try not to make the same mistakes again. Ignoring it and replacing it does nothing but hide the issue.

You talk about womans rights and civil rights...they exist,  yet they don't exist in this country with every culture, because it's seen as against their cultural rights and offensive to them. How the hell does that work? One rights for you...one rights for another.

There are some comparisons. Some captaining the slave boats were as brutish as your Roman Legionnaire. Then again your Legionnaire would brag about taking Gaelic slaves, whereas those returning to Bristol were awfully silent about what they had been complicit in. This can only be because they knew what they were doing was wrong in light of the society they lived. 

This is why context is everything. Of course we can go too far in making everything relative to the point nothing matters anymore. 

We're lucky not have any recent greviences with our neighbouring countries but you only have to look around the world to see recent history does matter. Again this is about how your perceive history in general. A statue erected and paid for by influential members of society, or actual history taught in classrooms or through media. 

The point about rights not applying to everyone in our country. I can't really counter that as I don't know. 

[LondonBristolian]

8 minutes ago, RichardEdd said:

 

There is a big difference would be that the statues you are talking about and the buildings. People visit the Colosseum and the Pyramids because they are incredible feats of architecture. Both have museums that highlight and acknowledge the awful way they were created, both include this information in their guided tours. The statues you are talking about are there to celebrate the lives of slave owners and Confederate generals. They are not there to educate us and remind us of mistakes from the past, in the way somewhere like the holocaust museum or Auschwitz are.

 

With regards to Aluko, the facts get a bit distorted in the way they are presented by the press. She (as a woman of colour and regular in the England squad for years, over 100 caps) was invited to be part of the FA's cultural review into Englands management. It's here when she was specifically asked if she was upset with any of her treatment and made the allegations against Sampson. She was then dropped from the very next squad and never received a call up again, despite maintaining good form with her club. Now I actually don't think Sampson has had any racist intent but it's easy to see it from Aluko's viewpoint. She speaks up at the FA's request and is subsequently penalised.

 

Second paragraph is really key here. It seems she was asked to confidentially help the FA understand the experiences of players and then was victimised for doing exactly what she had been asked to do and giving honest feedback.

Regarding the first bit, I think it also worth adding that I understand some people in Bristol might compare the Confederate statues and the Colston Hall but, whatever your views on each, they are very different situations. Whatever you think of the name, the Colston Hall happens to be named after a school Edward Colston founded. Whilst it has the same name as a famous slave trader who made the city a lot of money, the name is not directly a celebration of slave trading and I can completely understand why some people consider a change of name unnecessary.

As you and others have said, the Confederate statues were specifically erected 70 years after the Civil War and at a time when the KKK were in the ascendancy with the specific intention of reminding people of the Southern 'heroes' who fought to preserve slavery and, by doing so, intimidate any black people in the state who were getting any ideas about civil rights and equality. They are not "part of history" in the sense they are part of the legacy of the Civil War but as part of an attempt to revise the history of the Civil War and try to sanctify the South's fight to preserve slavery. 

[Odysseus]

14 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

 Regarding the first bit, I think it also worth adding that I understand some people in Bristol might compare the Confederate statues and the Colston Hall but, whatever your views on each, they are very different situations. Whatever you think of the name, the Colston Hall happens to be named after a school Edward Colston founded. Whilst it has the same name as a famous slave trader who made the city a lot of money, the name is not directly a celebration of slave trading and I can completely understand why some people consider a change of name unnecessary.

As you and others have said, the Confederate statues were specifically erected 70 years after the Civil War and at a time when the KKK were in the ascendancy with the specific intention of reminding people of the Southern 'heroes' who fought to preserve slavery and, by doing so, intimidate any black people in the state who were getting any ideas about civil rights and equality. They are not "part of history" in the sense they are part of the legacy of the Civil War but as part of an attempt to revise the history of the Civil War and try to sanctify the South's fight to preserve slavery. 

That is a fair point. My original post was relating to statues themselves. Then again I feel there there is a direct contradiction in any instance where a statue is on a listed building. A concept that is very European and something a slaves ancestor, raised outside of Europe might have difficulty understanding (why we would be apposed to tearing it down).

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Not sure what that has to do with anything I posted. And you are making a lot of assumptions there. As far as I can see the facts are:

1) Aluko felt Sampson had made a comment she found upsetting.

2) She followed the appropriate process for reporting it.

3) A decision was made no further action would be taken.

4) The FA decided to nonetheless make an £80, 000 payment to Aluko.

5) Newspapers were confused as to why Aluko was suddenly dropped.

6) Newspapers found evidence of the payment and investigated why.

7) Newspapers found out about the investigation.

8) Newspapers reported on the investigation.

9) Once it was already in the public domain, Aluko got permission from the FA to explain her side.

Whether the remark was or was not deemed to be racist and whether or whether or not Sampson should or will be processed, I'm absolutely perplexed at what you are angry with Aluko about or blaming her for. 

Just for balance here, the comment was made in 2014, the FA was made aware in 2016, did it take a full 2 years for her outrage to come out? or was there another reason that the outrage suddenly emerged?

[BigTone]

11 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Just for balance here, the comment was made in 2014, the FA was made aware in 2016, did it take a full 2 years for her outrage to come out? or was there another reason that the outrage suddenly emerged?

The cheque bounced ?

[BCFC Rich]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Just for balance here, the comment was made in 2014, the FA was made aware in 2016, did it take a full 2 years for her outrage to come out? or was there another reason that the outrage suddenly emerged?

This is the point - she reported it to the FA at their request. She wasn't acting outraged indeed she had lived with it until that point. The outrage is that when she did reported she was immediately dropped from all future England squads. Now its very possible that was for football reasons and nothing to do with what she said but it's easy to see why she (and more worryingly future people who need to speak up) might take this as being punished for speaking up.

I don't know what you do for a living but imagine as part of your job a manager in a prestigious part of the company gives you lots of work and occasionally says things that you find offensive. Your company starts a campaign to make sure everyone is happy at work and as part of this you tell them the things that he said that offended you. The manager of that prestigious department immediately stops giving you any work. Are you going to think fair enough maybe I'm not up to the job anymore or assume its as a result of what you said?

[LondonBristolian]

26 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Just for balance here, the comment was made in 2014, the FA was made aware in 2016, did it take a full 2 years for her outrage to come out? or was there another reason that the outrage suddenly emerged?

This has been covered elsewhere but it was because she was specifically asked by the FA to take part in a review of the culture and, as part of that, asked if she had ever experienced inappropriate behaviour in her time with the England team so she gave an honest answer. I do not see any evidence to suggest she particularly kicked up a fuss, or that she ever had an interest or desire in any of this becoming public.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

So, to be absolutely clear, are you saying the Triangular Slave Trade - i.e. the one Colston made his dosh from and the South fought to preserve in the Civil War - did not almost exclusively involve black people being sold as slaves for people? If that is your argument then I would suggest you are the one revising history. Yes, there has been slavery in other countries at other times but

a) not on such an industrialised scale

b) in any case, they are hardly relevant to a discussion about Colston and the American South. 

You're joking right?

I suggest you look into the Roman, Egyption, Chinese, Ottaman, Greek and Arabic Empires...before the British Empire had a go.

I think they are relevant...why single out Colston and the South, when all these other cultures are deemed worthy to visit and to admire their buildings, statues and such like...all built on the slave trade with Brutality. How is it any different?

Shall we also get rid of Windsor Castle and everything inside...pretty much everything we raped and pillaged from the rest of the world. Yet people flock to see what we conquered.

Bloody mixed up crazy world full of people being offended without looking at the hypocrisy of it all. 

[JamesBCFC]

I think that comment is one that, not dissimilarly to the Moyes case last year (?- the one where he said about slapping someone even though she was a woman, not a racism thing) can go either way.

A lot of it comes down to tone of how it is said and the type of relationship between the people.

 

A person could use the Ebola comment in a way where it would be seen as an insult, rather than the jokey manner of the "mad cow" joke you describe in the OP @spudski. All down to tone, context and things such a facial expression can play a part.

 

From the brief bit of the article I read, I'd say if the comment was made then either Sampson misjudged his relationship with her/her personality (not everyone likes those jokes- humour being subjective) or she completely misinterpreted the manner it was said. Likely to have been an element of both.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

35 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

This has been covered elsewhere but it was because she was specifically asked by the FA to take part in a review of the culture and, as part of that, asked if she had ever experienced inappropriate behaviour in her time with the England team so she gave an honest answer. I do not see any evidence to suggest she particularly kicked up a fuss, or that she ever had an interest or desire in any of this becoming public.

“I remember laughing but in a very nervous way. I went back to my room and I was really upset. It might have been easier to take if it was about me alone. Lots of things had been said about me over those two years but this was about my family. I called my mum and she was absolutely disgusted.”

But not upset enough to report it at the time and the question has to be why?.

She was more than happy to 80k and to sign a confidentiality agreement and has now somehow obtained permission to break that confidentiality agreement and once more the question is why on both counts? and further to that is this now the end of confidentiality agreements for all?.

 

[BigTone]

6 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

A lot of it comes down to tone

Don't be blaming me

[BigTone]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

 is this now the end of confidentiality agreements for all?.

 

Yes, but she didn't mention Ryan Giggs

[Cotham Brow Red]

Shes gone down a million % in my estimation. She apparently training to be a lawyer (or maybe qualified even), and comes out with this crap. Good god. 

What Boycott said was bit more racist to be honest and hes apologised which is right. 

Shes a different generation and much more intelligent so it is dissapointing that this has happened.

[BigTone]

10 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

All down to tone,

 

Not again !!!  How did I upset you ?

[BCFC Rich]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

“I remember laughing but in a very nervous way. I went back to my room and I was really upset. It might have been easier to take if it was about me alone. Lots of things had been said about me over those two years but this was about my family. I called my mum and she was absolutely disgusted.”

But not upset enough to report it at the time and the question has to be why?.

She was more than happy to 80k and to sign a confidentiality agreement and has now somehow obtained permission to break that confidentiality agreement and once more the question is why on both counts? and further to that is this now the end of confidentiality agreements for all?.

 

A lot of blame for this lies in how the Mail originally reported it. It has been reported as though she was outraged at the comments and then looked for compensation. This is not what happened. She mentioned the comments as part of an FA panel, she was then dropped from the England squad and has not played or been called up since. She felt this was because she had come forward (at the FA's request) the £80,000 is the earnings she lost as result of being dropped.

[BigTone]

3 minutes ago, RichardEdd said:

A lot of blame for this lies in how the Mail originally reported it. It has been reported as though she was outraged at the comments and then looked for compensation. This is not what happened. She mentioned the comments as part of an FA panel, she was then dropped from the England squad and has not played or been called up since. She felt this was because she had come forward (at the FA's request) the £80,000 is the earnings she lost as result of being dropped.

Is she on pay as you play ?

[cockneydave]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/21/eni-aluko-england-manager-mark-sampson-ebola

I'm getting really fed up of this 'Race' card being pulled all the time

How is this comment 'Racist'?

It's similar to my Dutch Black friend saying to me in the past...'Don't be coming over here spreading all that 'Mad cow disease'.

Did I go complaining that it was 'Racist'? No...because it's not.

You can't say anything these days, jokingly, without someone being offended or twisting it into something 'Racist' or such like.

Bristol Rovers now thats what i call Racist!!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, RichardEdd said:

A lot of blame for this lies in how the Mail originally reported it. It has been reported as though she was outraged at the comments and then looked for compensation. This is not what happened. She mentioned the comments as part of an FA panel, she was then dropped from the England squad and has not played or been called up since. She felt this was because she had come forward (at the FA's request) the £80,000 is the earnings she lost as result of being dropped.

As somebody has already said "who leaked this to the mail?", my bet is the PFA and why sign a confidentiality agreement?.

But surely the most obvious question should be, why didn't she report this immediately straight after it happened?, I cannot see how this has helped the cause of kicking out racism within the game all it has done has muddied the waters and has left more questions than answers, had she reported this straight away IMHO a moral obligation she carries as a black player to make sure that this does not occur again to younger black players coming through it would have played out far better.

I am also interested to know the views of other players under Sampson especially black players, they have been strangely silent but seem to be still playing for him, one has to ask the question, how popular was she?.

[BCFC Rich]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

1.As somebody has already said "who leaked this to the mail?", my bet is the PFA and 2. why sign a confidentiality agreement?.

3. But surely the most obvious question should be, why didn't she report this immediately straight after it happened?, I cannot see how this has helped the cause of kicking out racism within the game all it has done has muddied the waters and has left more questions than answers, had she reported this straight away IMHO a moral obligation she carries as a black player to make sure that this does not occur again to younger black players coming through it would have played out far better.

4. I am also interested to know the views of other players under Sampson especially black players, they have been strangely silent but seem to be still playing for him, one has to ask the question, how popular was she?.

 

1. Somone said earlier this was a case of a journalist following the money and uncovering the story.

2. Despite how it might look if you read the full details it seems quite clear she didn't want to make a fuss, be in the public eye.

3. Partly covered in 2. The bold part is true in an ideal world but easier said than done. It's easy to say a victim should speak up but we know from other cases its not easy to be the first.

4. Her former England team mate Lianne Sanderson

Quote

"I am so proud of one of my best friends, Eni Aluko. I have stood with you through this and I will continue to do so."

There is way more detail in the guardian article about it link. Including other claims from other players and examples of possible discrimination (more reasons to be wary of coming forward).

Also throws serious questions about how it and similar questions are investigated. Talking about a complaint from one of Aluko's her teammate made in writing to the FA and the subsequent investigation: 

Quote

She has put it in writing to confirm it happened. Yet the FA has had two investigations and nobody has been in contact with her. They were having an investigation but they did not bother to speak to the person to whom a comment with racial connotations – in my opinion – was made. I think that’s pretty astonishing. Can you imagine, thinking back to when Roy Hodgson [as manager of the England men’s team] made the comment about the ‘space monkey’, if the FA had an inquiry, clearing him of any wrongdoing, but without bothering to speak to Andros Townsend, the player he was talking to? Well, that’s what has happened in this case.”

 

Talking about the Aluko Case: 

Quote

The FA has also accepted that the initial findings, throwing out Aluko’s complaint that she had been the victim of bullying and discrimination, were delivered to her before the inquiry had even spoken to one of the players, Lianne Sanderson, who had been named as a key witness.

 

 

[Thatwasclose]

Interesting some of the responses in here, I wish I was surprised but I am not - just another indication that racism is well and truly alive and this thread proves some forms of it will always be tolerated.

The comment made would not have been made had she not been black and of Nigerian origin and that sums it all up. She believes he would not have said it if she was white but then again only he knows in his heart whether that is true or not but the claim is valid, whether it can be proven is another thing.

Some posters in here like should be ashamed of themselves as their responses are dismissive of the whole issue. I often scratch my head and wonder why some people have to go out of their own way to not believe the victim. It's one thing to say I will wait to see the proof but it's another to claim she is a liar. So you really believe a player with over a 100 caps for England decided to make up claims so she could prolong her career or just to get him sacked? She was invited to give feedback and had she not bee invited would probably not have raised this. And what has Sampson done to gain your trust and convince you that he wasn't being racist? Being white I guess.

If someone is wronged and accepts payment for distress caused does that mean they were not wronged in the first place? 

Words on a paper may not look racist but you were not there so can't determine the tone in which they were said so how can you be so sure he wasn't being racist?I wasn't there too and unfortunately in these cases it will go down to he said she said but interesting how many in here are quick to dismiss her claims.

I wish fans would champion for equality and protect rights and freedoms of black players off the pitch the same way they do on the pitch. if you support black players on the pitch why does this stop at the final whistle?

Aluko is black and female, two of three hardest groups to be in (the other group being gay) as a football player - she does not have a history of making false accusations therefore in my view it's not plausible that she would make this claim falsely knowing full well the type of reaction she would get the likes of some of the comments in this thread.

 

[steveybadger]

13 minutes ago, Thatwasclose said:

Interesting some of the responses in here, I wish I was surprised but I am not - just another indication that racism is well and truly alive and this thread proves some forms of it will always be tolerated.

The comment made would not have been made had she not been black and of Nigerian origin and that sums it all up. She believes he would not have said it if she was white but then again only he knows in his heart whether that is true or not but the claim is valid, whether it can be proven is another thing.

Some posters in here like should be ashamed of themselves as their responses are dismissive of the whole issue. I often scratch my head and wonder why some people have to go out of their own way to not believe the victim. It's one thing to say I will wait to see the proof but it's another to claim she is a liar. So you really believe a player with over a 100 caps for England decided to make up claims so she could prolong her career or just to get him sacked? She was invited to give feedback and had she not bee invited would probably not have raised this. And what has Sampson done to gain your trust and convince you that he wasn't being racist? Being white I guess.

If someone is wronged and accepts payment for distress caused does that mean they were not wronged in the first place? 

Words on a paper may not look racist but you were not there so can't determine the tone in which they were said so how can you be so sure he wasn't being racist?I wasn't there too and unfortunately in these cases it will go down to he said she said but interesting how many in here are quick to dismiss her claims.

I wish fans would champion for equality and protect rights and freedoms of black players off the pitch the same way they do on the pitch. if you support black players on the pitch why does this stop at the final whistle?

Aluko is black and female, two of three hardest groups to be in (the other group being gay) as a football player - she does not have a history of making false accusations therefore in my view it's not plausible that she would make this claim falsely knowing full well the type of reaction she would get the likes of some of the comments in this thread.

 

Well said