Everton instate ban on reporters from The Sun

Well done. Great dignity.

What on earth was his motivation for writing such shit, and what was the editorial team's role in this grubby affair?

Because after Hillsbourough the City as a whole, blue and red, shunned the rag and effectively banned its presence in our city, but LFC, aware of public disgust, did nothing.

So after how many years did they decide to take action? And for us to do the same at that time would have seemed an equally hollow gesture.

But now there is cause to show that the editorial bias has not changed with regard to our city, and I fully support the ban of their rag from our premises and applaud the dignified manner in which it was done.

Such a wider ban would focus on the root cause of what The Sun does, and would make a far greater moral statement than the current ban.

About time king rat himself was dragged out of his hole to face the full force of the law.

Surely nobody takes Mackenzie seriously –he is a gormless opinionated idiot like Clarkson and Hopkins; the three of them are peas in a prejudiced pod.

Everton as a club should do their own thing and not be influenced by the mayor or our neighbours because the timing of this looks like we have pandered to them.

I also don't agree with banning The Sun if that is all that takes place, but agree with banning The Sun if the entire Murdoch organisation is boycotted.

If folks really mean anything by supporting a ban, they will refuse to renew their Sky subscriptions, not use pubs that use Sky TV, not buy or read anything published by the Murdoch empire, etc.

Now for those of you who don't know wtf Sean Custiss is, he's a fat, belligerent Geordie bastard who thinks anything goes (his words) as far as his "paper" goes. He never backs down, or apologises so I imagine the "apology" came from someone further up the food chain.

I hope his fat brother had already left Newcastle for Goodison when he found out he was banned.

I think they have done exactly what you said: 'Everton as a club should do their own thing". If they felt the timing with Hillsborough or they agree with Joe Anderson, that is fine surely.

Afterall it really is news now. The paper would never sell on Merseyside with or without his recent defamatory words. Nothing lost to them and they've made news.

Heinrich Hein comes to mind: "Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance."

Hope its the man just being a complete and utter twunt and not playing us for "news".

Also, well done EFC for making a good choice.

Now they just get to preface any report on Everton with "Following Liverpool FC's principled stance Everton have denied us access" because they know its an easy wind up.

The football results that they print is common knowledge on the internet the minute it happens anyway and they can put an away fan in to write up a match report easy enough. It's not going to stop them doing anything they want to do with their reporting and, as they don't sell their crap in Liverpool anyway, it's of little consequence.

What we have done is shown solidarity with our boy though. Nothing to do with the paper – we've shown Ross, and the rest of the playing staff, that we will react and react big when one of our own is victimised. That's it's own reward of course its the right thing to do. Doesn't hurt that its good PR for the way we go about things either.

As to Custis I found this description on a citeh site and thought it worth sharing: "Sean Custis, geordie bullshit merchant and stream of rancid anal seepage, works for The Sun."

I think that about sums it up.

As Jim says, say No to anything to do with Murdoch.

Was the horrible article in the sports section or was it some sort of weekly rant from Kelvin the madman?

I agree with what you say about the Custis brothers, they are very poor and arrogant journos but "slightly thinner than the other one" Sean might not have seen it for it was in the main paper.

Let's be honest, this article had to go through editors and the paper's legal team. They saw nothing wrong when the world did. Fucking horrible people.

Nor will it make someone decide to buy a newspaper for the first time. The publicity that the News of the World got killed it. This will harm The Sun badly.

The idea, especially in print journalism,that there is no such thing as bad publicity is dead and buried.

And I hope Barkley sues him and gives his settlement to a local animal charity!

So pleased the club made some sort of stand and hope The Sun goes the same way as the News of the World.

In other words, it's a fucking mafia who can do whatever they want in the name of freedom of the press.

However, the content of their prose is suspect and often times malicious but that is not by accident as every full stop and every insinuation is considered and that is what makes it a dangerous vehicle as it tries to sway public opinion on a whole raft of subjects.

It might be crass, it may be offensive but it has always sought to put forward a particular point of view which many fair-minded people would find distasteful but it isn't amateur and it isn't careless and it knows exactly what it is doing when it takes a view on all aspects of life.

It's not alone but it certainly changed the media for ever, and not for the better, as other more lauded outlets have followed the lead of that newspaper, usually to the detriment of those struggling to earn a living or those who have fallen on hard times.

Thatcher, smaller government , Brexit, and beggar your neighbour. Just mouthpieces, just like The Sun. That's why they must be resisted even in small ways just like now.

Murdoch is powerful for a reason and it is his reach and influence on ordinary people which makes a difference.

It was the Sun what done it! – Remember that?

That said, #18 is simply an aside. The most important point I'm making is in my other posts on this thread.

I don't think they are ignorant – I think they know exactly what they're doing.

I used to argue with mates at the time that read The Sun, and it was always the same excuses; its good for the racing, page 3, it's a laugh FFS.

It probably stems from the Derek Hatton/Toxteth riots as a challenge to Thatcher, who The Sun hero worshiped. Plus jealousy on the part of Cockney-Shithouse (who's a Millwall supporter) and the fact that the city of Liverpool was the football centre of the universe in the 70s & 80s.

Him and Littlejohn, another cockney wanker, wrote plenty of articles pre-Hillsborough slagging the city, and I'm delighted that the club has followed suit, and hope for the day when The Sun is no longer available anywhere on Merseyside.

Facts are that this city has more than punched its weight in so many fields for years, particularly in showbiz and the media but also in the business field at senior levels.

It wouldn't be surprising if no-talent gobshites like MacKenzie (Liddle is another one) resented that impact and the power it accrues.

They are also of a generation of pseudo-working class "blokes" who had their younger years of following football ruined by the dominance of LFC in the main (if we're honest) but also by the Blues.

Be proud if they are having a go; it means that they know we are a class apart.

You're right that there's a large element of manipulation by the media, but there's also a large element of stupidity. Too many journalists seem incapable of getting simple facts right, putting together a coherent story, being internally consistent with their reporting, and getting basic English right. That includes the so-called 'good' newspapers.

The likes of the Sun and other elements of the Murdoch organisation are basically the worst side of it. Having a 'university' certificate of qualification is not necessarily the same as having intellectual ability, and too many journalists show little of the latter.

Even if that were true (nb: and losing an entire city from your potential market, plainly isn't how to sell newspapers) it wouldn't matter.

It's about doing the right thing (or trying to) - that simple.

And all the semantics and 'yeah but no but..' in the world can't deflect from that.

The Sun is a (proven over and over) hateful, putrid, lowest common denominator rag aimed at the hard of thinking and fucking it off was 100% the right thing to do.

Clive Mitchell # 31 - "..mayor's ill-judged remarks on Friday left the club in a position it patently did not deserve to be in. I hope that, at least privately, the mayor has apologised to the club for that."

Patently?

As a politician/Mayor, Anderson might not be perfect, but as an Evertonian, his remarks on Friday perfectly reflected the views of thousands of blues - ie: 'ban these twats today!'

So apologise for what exactly?

It's great that the club banned the Sun on Saturday, but in the opinion of many, there should have been no delay and the ban should have come immediately.

(My guess is that, if there was any apology, it would have come from the club to the mayor.)

I was amused to see this from the Popbitch weekly email (which comes out on a Thursday – before this really blew up):

>> Product displacement <<
MacKenzie faces double chop

If you're one of the remaining
few who can still bear to read
Kelvin MacKenzie's column in the
Sun, you'll maybe have wondered
why he's been mentioning his
price comparison website, A
Spokesman Said, so much. Well,
it's because he desperately
needs it to take off.

Kelv is facing an expensive
divorce. Remember a couple of
years back we reported that
he was having an affair with
a secretary at the Sun, and
was all set to shack up with
her until getting cold feet
at the last minute? His wife
has finally decided to give
him the boot and is set to
take him to the cleaners.

Presumably the reason he's
working the self-promotion
angle so hard is that he knows
Rebekah Brooks is aching to bin
his £300k a year column - cutting
costs and helping to detoxify
the Sun's brand in one easy
move. He's hanging on by a
thread (thanks to support from
editor Tony Gallagher and owner
Rupert Murdoch) so is almost
literally trying to make hay
while the Sun shines.

I suspect Mackenzie will eventually get away with his behaviour because he will claim that he was responsible for neither the caption nor the accompanying pictures.

You may be correct, Martin, about the exposure. However if Premier Leaguee footballers of all races were now to go en masse to their clubs and insist The Sun were banned, then it might go the way of its sister paper the News of the World. Now that would be an interesting development. And I doubt the management would then be smiling.

Added to which, the offence to the city and people of Liverpool is equal to racism in my opinion (and libellous) in discriminating against one single group of people on the grounds of where they're from.

I wouldn't even use this rag to wipe my arse and hope they get sued out of existence.

Why didn't he go to our club talk to them about it behind closed doors. Why not put his hand in his big pockets and have flyers done to be placed on seats at the ground. That way we would've all seen them.

Going public just gets the rag in the headlines more and Big Joe. I'm all for backing anything for the 96 in our city, always will be. But I really think it's been used for all the wrong reasons. COYB

I see your mate, the odious Custiss major, was on Sunday Supplement this morning. I tuned in late so I was wondering whether The Sun ban was discussed or ignored.

How powerful would it be if those who made their names in football who currently associate with it pulled out?

At least Neil Ashton looked as though he was disgusted by it all, but Custiss blustered his way through his piece about journos getting banned all the time from football grounds trying to compare the situation to when the BBC were banned by Ferguson at OT. Pathetic really.

I cannot recall him saying MacKenzie was wrong either? maybe police enquiries could jeopardise his workmates case if he did say something. The guy from the Independent, Miguel Delaney, when asked, didn't hold back though & called it for what it was.

They never fail to live down to your lowest expectations do they?

There you go, mate:

The Spectator: The trial of Kelvin MacKenzie

The only thing that concerns me on the opposite side of that coin is that it somehow builds the antipathy towards Merseyside in other places around the country, especially in the light of the recent Brexit anti Government. vote.

This type of nonsense can appeal to the disenfranchised almost alienating Merseyside from the rest of the country. Maybe that was the game plan? By the way I'm Irish & live in Ireland but just my thoughts.

It may well play that way among some folk. It probably already does with many. I am constantly amazed by the antipathy and prejudice that Liverpool and Scousers seem to attract still. And not necessarily from recognisable knuckle-draggers.

I've long since ceased trying to understand it and try very hard not to fulfil their prejudices and not telling them to fuck themselves.

I recently (well maybe two years ago) had a conversation about Hillsborough with a chap who is very well educated & a Man Utd fan from Yorkshire. I couldn't believe the absolute shite that he was coming out with which went along the lines of, "typical crying scousers, do they want us to put the whole police force of South Yorkshire on trial for this, it's too big to sort out" etc.

I was actually stunned that this was coming out of this guys mouth. An educated moderate type but, when push came to shove, the stereotypical rubbish he was speaking was simply frightening. Hence my previous post.

First, Scousers are very much a tribe apart in the UK with a cultural identity as unique as that of the Geordies, Cockneys and Brummies especially in having a unique accent. Scousers for sure have their idiosyncrasies, individually they are nothing but together and amplified they become caricatures that then can be mocked. For example, Scousers are thick, they all have permed hair and moustaches, wallow in grief, etc.

Then the worst idiosyncrasy rises up which is the laager mentality where Liverpudlians rally around the tribe and become defensive and paranoid about how they perceive they are treated.

We also need to understand that the South has a misunderstanding of Northern culture and the Metropolitan elites a sneering contempt for what cities like Liverpool represent to them.

The answer is not to be thick-skinned and to laugh it all off. But I must say that the stuff that MacKenzie wrote about Ross and Liverpudlians in general was the most disgusting I have ever seen in a mainstream paper; if it had been against a coloured culture, he would be in prison.

I'm not even sure that 'journalism' is a profession, in the way true professionals would understand the term.

On our own, we're complete non-entities and in a pack we're a comedic platoon ripe for ripping the piss out of? So, basically fucked either way?

No, wait! There is a solution: "The answer is not to be thick-skinned and to laugh it all off." In other words "just put up with it".

Martin Mason: defying prejudice the Duane Doberman way.

Still, small mercies; at least we know your middle name isn't Militant.

When I started school in Northwich, my teachers were appalled by my scouse accent which I had from my parents and eventually lost for a Northwich accent which I've cultivated through school, University and a working life with proper posh people.

With all due respect you don't know me or my political persuasion. I also didn't say you should laugh it off.

Really? People from every corner of the country, who wouldn't buy that particular rag under normal circumstances, suddenly rushed out to pick up a copy purely because they were having a pop at the people of Liverpool? What possible evidence is there of that?

My mate's business is based in Northwich. I'll get him to drop you a spade off. And I mean an earth removing implement, digging yourself a bigger hole for the purpose of.

Sounding a bit JohnWilsonian there, Martin. Proper Posh People... like me, innit?

Seamus, cheers for the link.

Martin, coloured? Next you'll be calling him half-caste.

Seriously, I'd love a journalist to have a go at the subgroup of Evertonians who reside on TW. He or she wouldn't last five minutes, and it'd be the height of entertainment.

Martin,

On a second read, I see I was thrown by the way you phrased the sentiment (and the fact it led directly into: "But I must say that the stuff that MacKenzie wrote about Ross and Liverpudlians in general was the most disgusting I have ever seen in a mainstream paper") so I apologise for that one.

However, the first half of your post (@55) still doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

.

Ray, come on, I'm not posh. I'm a working class hero and I denounce poshness wherever it raises its ugly head. I'm stinking rich but never posh.

Keith, Scousers like us can't be posh mate. The most detestable accent in the world is a scouser trying to speak all posh like Paul McCartney.

Ignorance... pure and utter ignorance.

Have you considered buying all us Twebbers with a dodgy sense of smell a boatload of drink in The Winslow before a game. Unfortunately for me, I'm just stinking.

I don't really think that you are a scouser mate not least given your life-long commitment to getting rid of the accent you said you once had.

The terms in which you couch this are very poor and very demeaning. But fair play – you got rid of your verbal disability; Sue Lawley did the same... hated her Black Country twang, she did.

'Scousers like us'! Mickey Mouser mind yer car, mate, Mart, and shell-suit Keith!

Keith by the way is a jolly and generous fella with full-on Cumbrian twang who calls people "wazzocks" and has never tried to get rid of his accent as he is very proud of where he comes from – not least, its cheese.

I say this is staggering bollocks, absolutely invented nonsense, complete and utter shite, someone tapping the keys simply to hear the click-click sound.

However, if I'm wrong, why not provide some (even a tiny tiny bit of) evidence to back up what we 'need to understand.'

A graph maybe or some pre/post ban readership figures.

Earlier you 'inform' us..

"Then the worst idiosyncrasy rises up which is the laager mentality where Liverpudlians rally around the tribe and become defensive and paranoid about how they perceive they are treated."

I'm guilty of this, for instance I get very defensive and paranoid when I read "the reality is that at 㿨,000 a week and being both thick and single, he is an attractive catch in the Liverpool area, where the only men with similar pay packets are drug dealers and therefore not at nightclubs, as they are often guests of Her Majesty."

(I have to ask, are you really that fucking dumb?)

My son is studying at John Moores University and some complete tosser of a lecturer insisted that they needed to review newspaper articles from that arse rag of a newspaper. Despite complaining about this and pointing out how insensitive this was in Liverpool, he would not change this.

My lad contacted Joe Anderson and he received a lot of advice and support about this, none of which was in the name of self-publicity or vote-winning.

Kev I find it really, really, REALLY difficult to believe he doesn't.

He must do, surely!

Would you mind if I took a stab at answering the question in your last sentence?

Maybe it was a posh spelling of "laager".

In the first years of the 20th century, just before the Liver Building was built. Liverpool was arguably the richest city in the empire and ergo the world. 3 out of every 4 ships sailed in or out of here. Every major trading company had an office here and they were all making their head offices here.

Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby (him who gave ice hockey it's Stanley cup and who's descendants own the safari park and the Lord (should be earl) Derby estate), anyways Lord Stanley tabled a motion in Parliament that we should move the Capital of the UK and Empire to Liverpool. It was a heavily defeated motion but it showed Liverpool's rise and wealth. Something that London and the establishment didn't like. Also, Liverpool was only about 100 years old as a city at the time and as nuveaux riche there was a lot of animosity.

This was largely forgotten about in Liverpool's rapid decline from World War 1 to the end of World War 2 when we were left flattened and saw none of the rebuilding London got, nor did we get any real investment until the EU invested heavily in the 90s.

Delaney (independent) had a go but the other two looked like they'd rather talk about anything else and leave fat boy to blabber on.

ps: That dick Delaney said he didn't think Lukaku should've been on the PFA shortlist.

The word was Laager not Lager.

Am I? A better question is obviously are you?

Keith, I'd love to buy you a pint before the next game I come up and see. I'm trying to come up but tickets aren't easy to get now and it's a long way to get there.

Bloody hell you Scousers are so touchy

Sod him, let him dig himself out of his own hole (if you get my point).

That eejit Custiss looked like a right meek lamb from the get go, bit pasty faced & chastened while dreading the fact that he would have to give his bullshit toe-the-line speech for Sky.

Haha 😁😁

A long way? I drive 150 miles each way, mate. Are you having problems finding parking for the Lear Jet?

The statistic against Rom which is more telling is the fact that we lose a lot less points when you take his goals out of the team than the likes of Kane do. Often Rom scores the last goal(s) of the game when we're already ahead and the opponent is on the ropes; case in point: Burnley... rather than the decisive goal, which Barkley's have mostly been.

However, based on the people I work with and know, my experience is most scousers would say the piece is insulting etc and then get back to living their lives.

Those of us on here represent just a section of the city. Let's not blow this out of proportion. For a lot of folk, The Sun doesn't cross their path & neither does Premier League football. Hard to believe... but true!

No worries mate. Wasn't being a smart arse; I didn't want to leave you open to a smug reply.

Rom has scored the first goal nine times.

We have only won three games all season when he didn't score. The other twelve games he failed to score we drew 6 and lost 6.

All this "his goals have only got us so many points" I see bandied around is nonsense.

When he goes, as I expect him to do, we have a massive gap to fill.

Slightly out of date, graham, it makes interesting reading.

But I'd agree with you. Regardless of what the stats show, Rom is irreplaceable. If we are to be without him next season we are going to have to be even better and the midfield will need to step up.

You missed the point of my post. I was trying to explain why the rest of the UK has the attitude that it does toward Scousers and perhaps why Scousers themselves contribute to this. It was a pro-scouse post, not anti-scouse in any way.

Keith, thank you and touche. I was taking the piss btw. For me it's about 250 plus miles each way and until now it's been impossible to get there as we've been looking after a daughter who is autistic.

Defining 'not doing it in big games' was recently alluded to by Carragher in that Rom, when not scoring in a game doesn't ever put in a MotM performance such as Drogba or Costa would have for example. They may not have scored in a game but were still able to influence the game massively. But then maybe that can be attributed to lack of service, playing a lone striker role, still only 23 to name but a few.

Ashley Williams shouting at him to work harder in the Man Utd game kind of springs to mind.

The clue is "in fairness Martin #55 wrote...". I was coming to your defence. Read carefully!

It's a better record than Kane, Aguero, Sanchez et al.

If you score in half your games a season, you are probably a 25-goal-a-season striker.

Colin my love, what explanation were you waiting for. :-)

I don't understand that table. How does it work?

Even when somebody comes to your defence, you're too fecking obtuse to realise it. You really are are the laughing stock on TW.

Someone who is not white hasn't had their skin 'coloured', Martin.

Still don't get it – we have more points after the goals are taken away.

He has been this season and I believe he will be better than all of them in the long run.

I appreciate it's not a universal view in these parts.

For example, say Chelsea 3 Everton 2. Costa hat-trick, Lukaku 1 and Barkley 1. This now becomes Chelsea 0 Everton 1. Everton win.

If he does, unfortunately it will not be with Everton, and I know you will agree with that last part.

Steve,

I think that's more the myth if you look beyond the stats solely for this season. When it comes to total Premier League goals against the 'big 6', Aguero is way out in front and Kane is only a couple behind Lukaku having featured in a lot less games.

Got you. All a bit meaningless then. For instance we got a draw against Liverpool, beat United, beat Hull away, drew with Spurs away.

It's got as much to do with how many other teams top scorers score against us.

You've attempted to convince us how clever you are and how much better you are because you cultivated a non-Scouse accent, not that you are a Scouser... or are you? The reason I ask is (no reply necessary for reasons which will become obvious before my post ends) that, within this post, you've considered yourself a Scouser, and stated you're not a Scouser, to suit your argument at that time.

You've failed to convince me of your intelligence despite the fact that you're "filthy rich" was it? What you've convinced me of, and not just because of your use of the term "coloured" but that in the main, but also for a myriad of other reasons, is that you are a complete and utter prick of the highest order.

You cannot justify your posts being a "windup" when you resort to certain terms. Nobody's interested how rich you are. Anyone with anything about them wouldn't dream of bragging on here about how well off they are and go on like you have.

I'm just saying what loads of others on here are thinking. You're a prick, a totally genetically Caucasian prick.

It seems to me that it's as if they are trying to either undermine him or us, particularly with regards to getting his price down. "He can't be worth 䀆m, he's unproven at the highest level; his record is poor against the big 6; he's not as good on the biggest stage" and all the rest of the bollocks they come out with.

Or maybe I'm just sceptical.

I think it would be a fair view to say he does it less against the top 6 teams but we as a team do it less against the top 6 teams.

It seems to be that he being the 'star player' gets disproportionately more stick about it.

I suspect neither Kane or Aguero live on a diet of long balls pinged at him by their centre halves in such games.

What he doesn't seem to have in his game is the ability to influence games when service is limited. It's why I think if he was playing in a dominant side he would be scoring 30+ a season. And why I suspect he wants to go.

My nan is 82 and calls people of mixed ethnicity 'coloured'. It is not a term I would use although it is something I might have used in the 70s and 80s.

Is my nan being racist?

If your free on June 3rd, Martin.

Now I'm sure Martin is not an octogenarian so I don't know why he uses that term which is almost like something out of 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I think he's just trying to be a provocateur on here.

At Christmas, I was in a conversation with a liberal social worker who touched on the subject of "coloured" people. I asked what was the difference between a "coloured person", which is now unacceptable, and a "person of colour" which is now okay. She couldn't answer, but did a lot of waffling about it being disgusting for anyone to use such a term. (I hadn't, by the way.) Confusing.

It wasn't regarded as acceptable if you were queuing for a bus in the Jim Crow states. Or getting a drink of water from a public fountain in South Africa.

I take your point re the older generation; elder members of my own family used the term until the younger members told them.

All these new terms like 'people of colour' or 'brown people' drive me up the wall. I think it's time we moved on from categorising people by the colour of their skin.

I blame the yanks for all this confusion!

The way Lukaku is portrayed in the press seems to be based entirely on the most recent performance they witnessed. Bag a couple of goals and he's a contender for best striker in the country and far too potent to be pissing about at 'plucky little Everton' for much longer. Fail to have an impact in a 'big' game and they'll bang on about how it might not be wise for any Champions League club to get too close, as it seems he could have a bad case of the Cottee's.

I tend to side more with Graham's view that he'll be difficult to replace, rather than your own of him being "irreplaceable" (especially taking into account the kind of fee speculated), but I do think Lukaku has improved considerably this season, in both consistency and all-round centre-forward play.

He has also stepped up the number of goals he's involved in, other than those he finishes off himself. Just skimming his goals off the top and seeing where that would leave us obviously doesn't take into account his overall contribution to the teams collection of points.

I've criticised him strongly on occasion, mainly for not putting a shift in and/or not being able to keep his mouth shut, but (United game aside) have not had much cause to get on his case since Koeman came in.

I get that completely. Etymology has historical and cultural influences.

I guess my point is that words in themselves do not necessarily make someone racist.

Especially when the poster who has got so offended goes on to call someone a "Caucasian prick".

I DO know what was generally regarded as acceptable in the early 1950s and 1960s though. I remember very little from the 1940s! Maybe the smell of a freshly filled nappy...

"Coloured" is not a racist term in itself, it's just now deemed to be an outdated word, that is usually used in a racist context.

I have a close friend who happily describes herself as "coloured", but she wasn't born in the UK and English is not her first language.

For me it's always about context. I once successfully argued in court that the term "Scouser" was more racist than "Paki" in the context of the case. Scouser is a term that was initially popularised as an insult, go back to the 50s / 60s and it was rare you'd hear it.

My father hates it. If anyone calls him a scouser he gets very annoyed and points out he's from Liverpool and is a Liverpudlian. Personally I never liked 'Liverpudlian' as it seemed to go hand in hand with the evil reds. But he's not the only one of his generation who despises the term.

Thanks

"I'm from Liverpool" or "I'm a scouser" is one thing. "I'm a Liverpudlian" is "I'm a RedShite" in my book. Like "I'm an Evertonian". I would never ever say "I'm a Liverpudlian".

I still think we'll get 㿨-70m, and if that Jose is the replacement then we're going to be far less potent next season. For me, if Lukaku leaves we need a marque player there, or the best up-and-coming player in the world – eg, Dolberg or someone of that ilk.

Just had a look. I know what you mean now by the Jim Crow States but I don't recall it by name. Shameful.

It's a shortened version of lobscouse. A meat stew commonly known as Scouse introduced into Liverpool by Norwegian sailors which became popular.

Steve, they hijacked the term in the 50s and I would never call myself a Liverpudlian. No offence to you or your dad btw.

I prefer to say I'm from Liverpool, period. Oh shit, that's a yank term isn't it? Sorry.

Lobskaus is worth a google, Dan, you'll see it's similar to Irish stew and a few other regional delicacies.

Damn iPad autocorrected 'lobskaus' to 'labskaus', two very different meals!

I don't like the term 'scouser', because of the derogatory context, and also because I've found that the people who use it in that context seem generally ignorant and uncultured.

Although an Evertonian, I'd prefer to be called a Liverpudlian than a scouser. I'm an Evertonian Liverpudlian, as opposed to a Liverpudlian Liverpudlian. Context again.

Now, if you're from Wrexham and you're called a sheepshagger, I bet that would hurt.

I love the people and the accent. Salt of the earth in my opinion. In most cases! Lol

I consider the term a badge of honour.

Did I mention my missus name is Baarbra! Hahaha

I did learn that it didn't mean it wasn't anything to do with being a hardcase, as my old man led me to believe!

Far from new, Colin. Martin Luthor King's "I had a dream" speech coined the phrase "citizens of colour".

"Coloured" is considered offensive to many, because it implies 'white' skin is the norm and something 'unnatural' has been added/is present. 

As I said earlier, someone who is 'not white' has not "coloured" their skin (an entire legion of scouse lasses sporting a strange orange glow that would result in the Reddy Brek kid feeling self-conscious as fuck notwithstanding). 

Even a really arl arsed Elvis wasn't having any of that:

Link

"Alright wack", was a common expression but I'm not sure if it's still used anymore.

Liverpool 8 Phil? Now that's hardcore scouse.

"Wacker Burke"? Don't know why it has amused me so but I'm defo stealing that name for future use.

If you are interested there's a great read called 'Lern Yerself Scouse' edited and notated by Fritz Spiegel.

Spiegel was an adopted Scouser from Austria who was an interesting guy. He wrote Johnny Todd (Z-Cars theme) which we all know well; however, he was a Red. And lots more.

Anyway his view was 'whack' is related to pea-wack soup for what it's worth.

Anyway, he buys The Sun for, he says, the bingo numbers. My personal view, which I slung in his face, was that he buys that rag to wind up his squash-playing mates, most of whom are Liverpool fans.

He was born and bred in Liverpool, been here all his life, yet says he hates being called a scouser.

"So why don't you fuck off then", I said to him. No reply was forthcoming, yet I know the reason why. It's because he likes the area where he lives.

Oh and by the way, he says he fully agrees with everything that slimeball McKenzie says.

It appeared on the radio show ITMA with the Liverpool comic Tommy Handley responsible.

So it predates the 50's and wasn't a term of abuse.

"Whack" is a word that meant "share". As in "I've done my whack." Or "Where's my whack." Large amounts of spoils were "Whacked out". I think that this was more centred on the city in its use but might have been more widely used.

To be "whacked" meant very tired or to be hit.

Related to this was pea-whack, a thick split pea soup made with ham bones or ribs. When I was a kid my name was soften shortened to "Pea". Oddly this was extended to "Pea-whack" and, bizarrely, by one mate as "Pea-Whackadiddlyio". Eventually I was just called Whacker or Whack. That was until Tom O'Connor serenaded the class with a cowboy ballad
called "Stacker Lee". But that's another story. Lots of lads my age then, I'm 63 now, who were called Peter ended up with Whacker as a nickname.

Going back, I remember Liverpool people being known as scousers, but never as wackers, with or without the "h".

The late Fritz Spiegel wrote a couple of little books called "Learn yerself scouse". To be honest I think he made a lot of it up. For example, his use of the phrase "mutton dagger" for penis was never current to my knowledge, although I get where he was coming from.

I was born and raised in Liverpool 8, albeit many years ago. Does that still make me a hardcore Scouser? Something which I am fiercely proud of, and I will always defend the city I come from.

Where I was born, Sefton General on Smithdown Road: demolished, now an Asda or something like that.
Primary school, St Cyrils in Belle Vale: also demolished
Secondary, SFX (the lower part of which was Queens Drive by the fiveways,): also demolished

Feckers have been after me for years, but they won't take me down... Like this club we love, we'll eventually have the last laugh,
Coyb

A mixed race person or people, especially if the mix includes African and European, or an adjective describing these people. Can be either a recent mixture with parents or grandparents of different races, or members of old mixed race groups like the Cape Coloureds of South Africa or the Rehobothers of Namibia. It is not derogatory or perjorative per se, but may be used that way by those who disapprove of racial mixing. Used throughout Anglophone Sub-Saharan Africa, from Colonial British English.

What does the NAACP think about all this? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People probably look upon it as a spelling mistake.

If you're not a person of color or colour, best to just not say anything since you can not relate. The day that there are sections designated as "whites section", where failing to adhere to that designation will be greeted by beatings, dogs being set on them, and being arrested and followed by lynch mobs, then it can be placed in the same context. But that history doesn't belong to white people, but most certainly does to "coloured people" who lived through that and continue to live through the more subtle oppression that exists today.

The term "people of color" was brought forth after the darkest days of the civil rights movement as a bit of a unification of minority peoples. The NAACP was formed when Black people in the US were second class citizens and "colored people" was the nicest term that you could find used in public discourse, with the other terms starting with the letter N.

Regardless of any of that, what often matters most is the context and who is using it. When someone uses it to reference a negative stereotype, or any negative actions, not difficult to see it as a racist term. When someone uses it in the way the NAACP does, talking about the Advancement of Colored People, it's different. It's not a PC thing. "Colored people" has a deep negative history, while "people of color" has come out of that and refers to not just Black people of African decent, but can also include Hispanic when they are a significant percentage of the population and even Arab decent now.

So, that's my two cents on what I found to be an interesting conversation above and my true pleasure in the club banning that scum rag.

I did find this in a piece in the New York Times (from nearly 30 years ago!) that seems to provide a partial answer:

If 'black' has become the preferred term, why does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People hold on to its name? According to James Williams, an N.A.A.C.P. spokesman, who must get asked this often: ''Times change and terms change. Racial designations go through phases; at one time 'Negro' was accepted, at an earlier time 'colored' and so on. This organization has been in existence for 80 years and the initials N.A.A.C.P. are part of the American vocabulary, firmly embedded in the national consciousness, and we feel it would not be to our benefit to change our name.''

Can't argue with that. Seems more genuine than your befuddled contextual distinction.

Surely you know, Andy, that Mr Anderson is not standing for re-election as Mayor?

As a caucasian, I resent the highjacking of the correct technical description of my chroma, that being, person of colour - for white is the presence of all colours of the visible spectrum.

What we perceive as black is the absence of all colours of the spectrum, so a black man or woman actually has no colour... so I want them correctly described as "People of colourlessness".

Anything else is quite simply, Technical Incorrectism, which triggers me greatly and makes me want to retreat to a nominated safe space.

Link

MacKenzie, writing in that beacon of enlightenment, The Spectator, claims that Trevor Phillips, the (black) ex-chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, sympathized with MacKenzie, telling him in a text message:

"WTF? I have to confess I had no idea Barkley was a brother. Sad to see a great city wallowing in victim status. Unbelievable."

If you read the link, it appears genuine and not fabricated by Mackenzie.

Very curious take on events from someone like Philips, considering the position he held.

I don't know why they are complaining. The few times I have bothered to read a match report from the rag, it's usually a couple of paragraphs long. Most of which will have nothing to do with game itself and could have been written whilst sitting in a bar in Cyprus.

Now comes this as reported in The Daily Post recently.

It seems they feel their Sun journalist members are being penalised for something beyond their responsibility. It wasn't us, guv! It was the paper.

It also seems that despite the odious Kelvin's denial of any knowledge of Ross's heritage, there was an article in the rag about his eligibility for Nigeria back when it was in all the other Newspapers and all over the blogosphere and on Wikipedia.

Gobshite!

Apparently this maggot also added in that some of his money will go to black people in his will. So that's okay then.