Dominic Calvert Lewin

[mozo]

44 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

2. It matters not if you think it’s manly or not. I wouldn’t wear it because, to be frank, it’d look shit on me. 

That's a subjective statement. I think you'd look fabulous and should give it a try.

[nebristolred]

9 minutes ago, 2015 said:

 Already said I don't have a problem with him personally wearing it, it's about the agenda that's being pushed..

 

What agenda? How can 'wear what you want' possibly bother you?

Edited November 10, 2021 by nebristolred

[And Its Smith]

15 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Happening all across the UK because the teachers and the head teachers themselves have radical ideas on gender/race.

Source ?

[lenred]

Same old on this thread. All those populists who believe in ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’ up in arms about a bloke choosing to wear something in a fashion mag. Hilarious. 

[Bazooka Joe]

I'm just going to skirt the issue.

 

[Oh Louie louie]

Its a fashion thing, relax guys!

And who is more clued up than fashion, than football fans?

Expect to see a mob of st trinians on ashton road this saturday.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

 

What !!!!!  No tie !!!

Might be a hit for some, but It's a miss for me.

 

[Oh Louie louie]

No game this saturday, my bad!

But i really expect this look to take off soon.

I wonder how many england fans would go for that look tomorrow?

 

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, !james said:

 

Wear it whilst you can.

As Big Gary cautions for the older gent : "...light trousers? You're joking! What about the Mickey Drips?"

[Riaz]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

Wear it whilst you can.

As Big Gary cautions for the older gent : "...light trousers? You're joking! What about the Mickey Drips?"

I know what you mean - think I’d look more like Chabudda G in that outfit! 

[Oh Louie louie]

Is that a original keith poppel mate?

 

 

[Davefevs]

Just now, Oh Louie louie said:

Is that a original keith poppel mate?

 

 

Ark at you up Broadwalk with yer fashion knowledge.

[Taz]

Job done is it not?

Honestly, who has heard of that magazine? Loads of people now.

Has DCL been paid a shed loads of money for doing this? Most likely.

Has DCL's profile been raised because of this? Absolutely.

Is this any different to David Beckham wearing god knows what in the late 90s? Nope.

Did it hurt David Beckhams profile? Not in the slightest.

The point in this photoshoot was to get people talking about the magazine (from the publishers view) and DCL from his POV.

Job done.

[AppyDAZE]

I can hear it now

You're not fit to, you're not fit to. you're not fit to wear the skirt

you're not fit to wear the skirt

[supercidered]

2 hours ago, BRIAN WILSON said:

Ah,   Tog Hill ?? 

Park & Ride was a reference to The Parkside.

Tog Hill is a bit niche even for me Brian 

[Oh Louie louie]

When i first started work, the towns talk had a nasty nickname on a thursday night.

Yanleigh lane was like the garden of eden

[Son of Fred]

4 hours ago, Andy082005 said:

Tidy looking bird to be fair 

She could do with a shave though..

[NOTBLUE]

Modern man my arse,Scottish men been wearing skirts for hundreds of years 

[swanker]

M

Trouble with blokes wearing women's clothes, you can’t be sure if it’s a man or a woman

Edited November 10, 2021 by swanker

[Agard Days Night]

2 hours ago, 2015 said:

Happening all across the UK because the teachers and the head teachers themselves have radical ideas on gender/race.

What do the teachers and head teachers stand to gain by pushing said agenda(s)/ idea(s)?
 

Genuinely interested as I am not educated on this topic. 

[arrytheb]

This forum is blooming hilarious  

[whoklldredrobin]

We do realise he’s not actually wearing a skirt but a pair of flared shorts? 

I remember the same reaction when Beckham wore a sarong, and Kevin Keegan’s perm. No doubt there were people spilling their cornflakes over George Best’s long hair in the 60s. It’s fashion, darling! 

I personally like it, I don’t want all our footballers to be automatons running round with buzzcuts - having characters like that is all part of the game. 

The gender debate is a separate issue, but we’re living through a transitionary period when attitudes towards accepted gender norms are being debated and challenged. I liked the reaction from an old lady when someone complained about Doctor Who being played by an actress: ‘It’s for young people, not for old fuddy-duddys like us.’  
 

 

[BTRFTG]

16 hours ago, Agard Days Night said:

What do the teachers and head teachers stand to gain by pushing said agenda(s)/ idea(s)?
 

It's not they push agendas, it's in this current cancel and de-platform culture few are willing to espouse criticism of radical views. It's why public debate is skewed and minority viewpoints appear in the majority.

[Lack of Action Man]

Not for me. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by OddBallJim
Wrong emoji.

[Baba Yaga]

Definitely makes him stand out, you can see other footballers like Lingard and Bellerin getting into the fashion business and DCL has a massive social media following so it's easier to get more views. In an age where we also have Marcus Rashford playing the philosopher in google adverts it seems that more footballers want side gigs away from their primary income.

[A Horse With No Name]

38 minutes ago, whoklldredrobin said:

We do realise he’s not actually wearing a skirt but a pair of flared shorts? 

I remember the same reaction when Beckham wore a sarong, and Kevin Keegan’s perm. No doubt there were people spilling their cornflakes over George Best’s long hair in the 60s. It’s fashion, darling! 

I personally like it, I don’t want all our footballers to be automatons running round with buzzcuts - having characters like that is all part of the game. 

The gender debate is a separate issue, but we’re living through a transitionary period when attitudes towards accepted gender norms are being debated and challenged. I liked the reaction from an old lady when someone complained about Doctor Who being played by an actress: ‘It’s for young people, not for old fuddy-duddys like us.’  
 

 

You can't call them actress anymore. They are all actors.

[Agard Days Night]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

It's not they push agendas, it's in this current cancel and de-platform culture few are willing to espouse criticism of radical views. It's why public debate is skewed and minority viewpoints appear in the majority.

Ok great, thanks. I thought from other comments in this thread that there were agendas being pushed but this really clears it up. 

[IAmNick]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

It's not they push agendas, it's in this current cancel and de-platform culture few are willing to espouse criticism of radical views. It's why public debate is skewed and minority viewpoints appear in the majority.

But if the majority don't agree, then why are people getting cancelled? Surely that goes against the best interests of the business (or whoever) are cancelling them.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Do you have a couple of examples of people being unfairly cancelled/de-platformed for criticising a radical view?

[BTRFTG]

16 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

But if the majority don't agree, then why are people getting cancelled? Surely that goes against the best interests of the business (or whoever) are cancelling them.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Do you have a couple of examples of people being unfairly cancelled/de-platformed for criticising a radical view?

Where to start. Thanks to my daughter I read Chimanada Adichie's latest essay that appears this month's latest TERF target (though Rowling's always up there,) Tzipi Hotovely got cancelled by our intellectual finest this week simply for having the audacity to exist (I don't particularly like her views but think she's every right to express them for others to disagree.) Try Trevor Philips whose thoughts on race and racial classification are most progressive and yet who constantly has to fight his corner under an onslaught from those protagonists for whom everything must be dichotomous, black and white, no room for anything else.

But from the famous I'll give you practical examples.

A very close friend works in one of the World's leading children's mental health organisations. The data is unequivocal. The majority of children who profess they are the 'wrong gender' and are denied treatment prior to age 15 go on to lead perfectly happy lives in the gender they were born. When able, they decline reassignment. Those who decide to transition post that age have fewer identity problems in adulthood. A significant number of children who commence treatment prior to that age and who commence transition, encounter severe identity issues later in life, realising they may have been somewhat hasty in their actions. The professional advice should be gender reassignment should not be undertaken (save in rare genetic cases,) prior to the individual being 15/16 such they may make their own informed choice. It's signal the number of cases where the child's supposed predilection is actually heavily influenced by the parents. But there's no way that Organisation would ever go public promoting that view knowing the heavily politicised 'genderists' would make their lives hell (they've already had pickets at their gates screaming all sorts at kids and families going in for therapy.) Or a bloke I went to Uni with, once described 'Britain's most racist professor', who in reality is somewhere more hippy and liberal than Neil from The Young Ones. He was cancelled in academic circles and by his students for research relating to climate and intelligence (in which intelligence was a measure of adaptablity, not ethnic superiority.) His findings were well presented, made interesting reading for all sorts of practical reasons, but were jumped upon by those who sought to promote a simplistic racial take on the findings. Killed his specialism stone dead to the disbenefit of promoting education programmes across the globe.

 

[IAmNick]

33 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Where to start. Thanks to my daughter I read Chimanada Adichie's latest essay that appears this month's latest TERF target (though Rowling's always up there,) Tzipi Hotovely got cancelled by our intellectual finest this week simply for having the audacity to exist (I don't particularly like her views but think she's every right to express them for others to disagree.) Try Trevor Philips whose thoughts on race and racial classification are most progressive and yet who constantly has to fight his corner under an onslaught from those protagonists for whom everything must be dichotomous, black and white, no room for anything else.

But from the famous I'll give you practical examples.

A very close friend works in one of the World's leading children's mental health organisations. The data is unequivocal. The majority of children who profess they are the 'wrong gender' and are denied treatment prior to age 15 go on to lead perfectly happy lives in the gender they were born. When able, they decline reassignment. Those who decide to transition post that age have fewer identity problems in adulthood. A significant number of children who commence treatment prior to that age and who commence transition, encounter severe identity issues later in life, realising they may have been somewhat hasty in their actions. The professional advice should be gender reassignment should not be undertaken (save in rare genetic cases,) prior to the individual being 15/16 such they may make their own informed choice. It's signal the number of cases where the child's supposed predilection is actually heavily influenced by the parents. But there's no way that Organisation would ever go public promoting that view knowing the heavily politicised 'genderists' would make their lives hell (they've already had pickets at their gates screaming all sorts at kids and families going in for therapy.) Or a bloke I went to Uni with, once described 'Britain's most racist professor', who in reality is somewhere more hippy and liberal than Neil from The Young Ones. He was cancelled in academic circles and by his students for research relating to climate and intelligence (in which intelligence was a measure of adaptablity, not ethnic superiority.) His findings were well presented, made interesting reading for all sorts of practical reasons, but were jumped upon by those who sought to promote a simplistic racial take on the findings. Killed his specialism stone dead to the disbenefit of promoting education programmes across the globe.

 

But Tzipi wasn't cancelled was she? I thought LSE allowed her lecture to go ahead, made sure it was successful, and there were protests outside. And our Home Secretary has backed a police investigation INTO the protest against her. So she has state backing. Is that cancelled...?

Were the others (Rowling? Trevor Philips?) cancelled, or just had people loudly disagree with them / protest? No cancelling that I can see anywhere there. Unless Trevor Philips, currently presenting a weekly talk show on Sky News, is also cancelled..?

How is the data on your second point unequivocal if it's all hidden? Surely studies are being done and published. The NHS don't allow gender reassignment until 18 as far as I know. So that seems to line up with what you're saying is actually "cancelable"?

Your story doesn't add up at all.

The second part I'd need more information to draw any kind of conclusion.

Edited November 11, 2021 by IAmNick