richwwtk

I think people are getting confused by the wording again. If, rather than using the term White Privilege people called it Black Disadvantage or something, then maybe they would be less upset by it. I know Black Disadvantage does not precisely define it, but I hope you can understand what I am getting at.

It's not just me that finds All Lives Matter difficult when used as a response to Black Lives Matter, and I am sure that your friend would not have been aware as you point out. But the fact remains that it can be seen in that way, and I am sure your friend would not have used the slogan had it been explained in advance, as I am sure he would have been keen to avoid even the slightest chance of his banner being perceived in that way.

Why would someone be a thug for following England? I've followed England abroad, it doesn't make you a hooligan. I suspect most of us on here would not be amazed who the flag belongs to as it's most probably someone we've never heard of and I'm not aware of ever being amazed by ownership of a flag before now.

You really need to calm down. Nobody called this group racists so not sure why you need to tell us that they were multi racial and not racist in every single one of your posts. All Lives Matter would not have been put on that banner if it wasn't for the context of it being opposed to a Black Lives Matter demo, so context does indeed very much come into it. It was not intended to be racist, but it does seem to be a little clumsy to me.

I have not said they were being racist, I said they were unwittingly using a slogan that is clearly racist when used as a response to Black Lives Matter. I fully accept they did not mean it and were not being racist, though I would hope that they would now admit it wasn't the most sensitive thing to be saying. Do you really not see the issue with using All Lives Matter as a response to the Black Lives Matter slogan?

It was on that placard as a response to the phrase Black Lives Matter. It doesn't really matter what I say because you will refuse to accept it. This does not change the fact that they were NOT called racist by anybody and you should stop bleating on about it because it is just a false accusation.

https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-offensive-to-say-all-lives-matter-153188

You are ignoring the fact that I have said that, although it is a racist slogan in that context, the people using it weren't being racist, they were just being ignorant. I have not called them racist.

Please stop bleating on about these people being called racists, I have searched and can't find it. If you can, link it here and maybe you'll have a point. If not, you are just making them out to be victims of something that never happened.

Apparently the Bristol Manor Farm Goalkeeper's away shirt is orange if that helps?

Sat on an upgrade 'babysitting' job on a Saturday with nothing better to do I ended up glancing at Gaschat, and the thread they have there about is their owner worth more than any Premier League owners. It struck me that it is very difficult to actually put a price on Wael's worth. With Steve Lansdown it is pretty consistent and clear wherever you look, but Wael seems to vary widely according to if the page you look at is influenced by the gas or Post in any way. These are the only two 'independent' sites I could find that put a price on him, though neither looks particularly reliable (the second one moreso than the first)... https://popularbio.com/wael-al-qadi/ https://goalballlive.com/richest-premier-league-owners/ These list him at £1million and £30million respectively, lower by degrees than what is claimed by the Post. Wikipedia puts him at £500million but then, when you check the citation next to it they get that from the Bristol Post :laugh:. Does anybody actually have any clue?

It can be accepted as a fact that these tossers exist, nobody is disputing that. But they should not be legitimised by the press the way the article that spawned this thread did. Nobody cares if they are right wing, left wing, racist, bright pink, whatever. They are no mark thugs and deserve no credit or respect whatsoever. All they deserve is society's contempt.

Do you often wander around chanting 'Eng-Er-Land' to show how patriotic and proud of your country you are? I'm patriotic and proud to be English, but I don't feel the need to sing songs in people's faces to prove it somehow, seems very insecure if you do. Patriotism isn't linked with far-right and racism. Far-Right groups have tried to encourage that association to make themselves seem more palatable but I like to think they have, in the main, failed. When I see England flags being flown at times of national pride or during football tournaments I do not think those people are being racist, do you? Patriotism is fine, nothing wrong with it at all. Aggressive Nationalism dressed up as Patriotism on the other hand......

You do know that calling someone right wing is not branding them a racist right? The current government is right wing, and whilst they certainly contain some questionable characters, I would certainly not describe them as racist.

I get where you're coming from, but the term originated as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement in America made by white supremacist groups, pretty much cementing it's place a a racist slogan. I am not branding anyone who uses it unknowingly a racist, but once it has been pointed out to someone then it would make sense that if that person continued to use it they would be deliberately using a slogan they know to be racist, and therefore have racist intent.

I think you are missing the point. Yes, innocent City fans may have been saved from a beating by other sides 'firms', but at the same time innocent fans of other clubs will have been in need of protection from the CSF. Every 'firm' will claim that they do not pick on innocent fans, but in the end every single one of them does, and there is no reason to think any differently of CSF. If there were no 'firms' then no innocent fans would need protecting and football would be all the better for it.

I don't deny it's a crime, people have been arrested for it. What I said was hardly the crime of the century. I agree that a Cenotaph is more than just a pile of stones, much more, but for a bit of protestors spray paint that can easily be washed away the next day to have left lasting damage would suggest extreme sensitivity.

1. The police did not call them Far Right. 2. All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter. The people with this banner may not have realised that and I'm quite happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. 3. CSF are a group that drag the name of our club through the mud and the local press should not be legitimising them in this way.

His wording is correct, there are pictures of it surrounded by a bunch of bikers.

One person spoke to the soldiers saying they were cleaning it off too quickly and another asked them why they put some placards in a bin, not exactly abuse. And trying to set fire to the flags was a single 19 year old foolish kid who was filmed and arrested. All of these people were in the wrong, but hardly the horrendous actions you are making them out to be. Yes, people shouldn't be spray painting their slogans when on protests, but it's hardly the crime of the century. It can be cleaned off easily enough afterwards with no lasting damage, and War Memorials aren't being targeted specifically, they are highly visible and a magnet for the spray painters.

Without context and on it's own, it is just a slogan and not at all offensive, after all it encourages people to treat everybody equally. The problem comes when it is used as a response to "Black Lives Matter" - BLM came about as a way of saying black lives shouldn't be worth less than white, and this was very much seen as a problem in society. When the response to this is "All Lives Matter" then it is about dismissing these fears and effectively saying things are fine as they are. Andy Bennett did not call the protestors Far Right (I believe Right Wing was what he said, and being called Right Wing does not mean you are being called racist), so the banner was wrong and misguided from the beginning.

They are a bunch of no mark thugs, nobody really cares if the police called them right wing (note: not far right or racist), that is not the issue here. The issue for me is that both the mayor and the press are reporting on them as if CSF is some kind of legitimate organisation as opposed to a bunch of blokes that like to inflict violence on others. The only reason anyone ever intimated that they may have been racist was their blatant use of the "All Lives Matter" slogan which is undeniably a racist slogan when used in response to BLM. I think you will find though, that anybody mentioning this would also have said that if they weren't racist, then they just didn't have the brains to realise they were being unintentionally so.

Not quite sure why a bunch of thugs are being legitimised in this way.

With his assistant Peter Panda (excuse spelling, no idea how it should be)

Just managed to listen while travelling to and from a job. Ian was just about inaudible, it sounded like he was in a large room talking to a mic the other side of the room from him. Les started OK but got quieter as it went on. It meant I missed a large chunk of what they were saying. Strangely Mark sounded absolutely fine despite you shutting him down pretty quickly because of the poor sound. I'm not sure I missed a lot by not being able to hear Ian clearly though, as his cunning plan to improve our results that he seemed very proud of consisted of "Stop the opposition getting so many crosses and shots"!