The booing of the knee

I strongly believe that, now that supporters are being allowed back into the grounds to watch games, that the Lord's Prayer be introduced for the players and supporters to say whilst kneeling.

As Harry Kane says, it would be good for the children to learn, particularly if the words of the Lord's Prayer are flashed onto the big screens they now have at most football grounds.

I'm not against the players supporting a cause if they so wish or indeed the individual clubs taking a pro-active stance against Racism or any other cause which highlights any bigotted ideology.

However, not every fan will agree with public displays by players for a cause regardless of its merits. Sport is a powerful tool for helping to change elements of culture, but should it really need public displays to be used for a political cause?

Who decides which are worthy and which are unworthy causes? How do you stop political parties, further down the line weaponising sport for their own purposes?

I think taking the knee by the players is currently an acceptable way of showing support for the anti-racism cause, but I worry that less honourable issues may creep into sport in the coming decade and that's why I think your idea of a discussion is correct.

Well said, Les Ferdinand – it needs to be dropped.

It then becomes a vehicle for people or groups to promote an ulterior motive. I hear a lot of talk about there being no black managers in top-flight football, the reason for this is IMO is they are not good enough.

Like it or not, they aren't. Do people really believe a manager's colour would go against him if he was world class and winning trophies?

Case in point is John Barnes: he has been sacked by every club he's ever managed and must be the only manager in modern history not to have won a trophy managing Celtic.

Barnes is always bleating on about the lack of ethnic minorities in football management but never admits to his own failings as a manager.

I have 3 heroes in my footballing world: Socrates of Brazil, Alan Ball, and Eusebio, all carried themselves with dignity and humility.

Just googled and yes, they did, but thankfully it appears limited only to these 2 clubs.

Yes Colchester, they have a rough crowd, it's a barracks town. I've been there a few times, they also smashed up my home town after an FA cup match.

Dave,

Barnes is an extreme example. I would argue that Chris Hughton achieved more but was denied as many second chances as Mark Hughes, Alan Pardew, Tony Pulis etc. I'd also point out Gerrard, Lampard, both Nevilles, and now Rooney have been fast-tracked into decent jobs with no experience while the likes of Cole, Ferdinand, Wright, Campbell haven't. Ince did really well at MK Dons, had a tough spell at Blackburn and that was it for him. In contrast, look at Bryan Robson and the time and money he was given at Boro and West Brom. Or Michael Appleton for that matter.

To your point and Ferdinand's, personally I think once stadiums are full unfortunately more scum bags will boo at many clubs as they do in national anthems, and minute's silences. I think the FA should look at doing something more substantial. Have the tannoy guy announce some scheme locally to fight racism, eg, act – don't just make a token effort.

Hughton is the only black manager I know of who has made a fist of things at the top level.

To be fair, Gerrard and Lampard are doing well respectively, Ince was found out at the top level, Robson must have talked a great interview because he was hopeless as a manager.

I don't think Wright ever had any ambitions to manage though I may be wrong, the others will find a way if they are any good.

I hope Campbell makes the grade, he was a good pro and a decent man too boot.

I believe that, if people really understood the aims of the BLM Group they would be very reluctant to kneel and support their cause.

I don't recall the “Kick it out” movement ever being booed.

Where possible clubs must act against the perpetrators. Over time that may help to change behaviours inside stadia but of course it will not have much impact on underlying attitudes which seem to have regressed in recent years.

It doesn't. Clearly. How does the name itself suggest that? It simply says that black lives matter. Not that they matter above others.

Unfortunately a minority have used the BLM name for questionable purposes. And of course some will deny that black lives matter as much as those of others.

I thought that argument had long been dismissed. Sport is political in every aspect: finance, health, community, international relations and race relations to name but a few.

Just to make it clear - I am writing about how it is perceived by many and not my personal opinions.

My opinion - I think it is a shame. Prior to BLM, racism was becoming as abhorrent in social settings as drink driving is these days. Years ago there was sympathy if someone only had 3 pints and drove home, now it is largely socially unacceptable and generally frowned upon. Racism in this country was also going in this direction.

BLM has inadvertently caused far more racial tension than it will ever solve. For that reason, the QPR suggestion of linking arms in defiance of racism will be accepted more, as it is not affiliated to BLM.

You don't say what that flaw is!! I could equally say that the fact that you criticise the name suggests a flaw – and I've said what that flaw is. I'm just saying the name itself is neutral (the words themselves do NOT suggest that some lives are more important than others). Where is my flaw?

"Also, the fact that anyone who suggests that All Lives Matter are quickly vilified also suggests that one particular race is being put on a pedestal above all others."

I don't understand that point you're making. I'm suggesting all lives matter, not that some lives should be put on a pedestal. If you are as well, we're on common ground!

The problem with having no time-limit on the Taking the Knee gesture means that it will now seem racist to stop doing it. And, as Ferdinand also points out, meaningful change doesn't happen through virtue signalling, but through action. Taking the Knee every week changes absolutely nothing, but encouraging clubs to employ more black ex-players in coaching roles would achieve real progress in football.

Unfortunately, the name, the vilification of others who think differently and the political association make it a divisive group and therefore a divisive gesture to many a person.

Football being what it is lots and lots of children watch it. In my experience most kids aren't in the least racist, but their hero players taking the knee is likely to prompt many of them to ask "what's going on"? A small minority will live in racist environments and may receive a hideous explanation, especially in The Den. The vast majority will receive an enlightened explanation though, and will use that explanation to become ever more aware of the need on society and themselves to stamp racism out.

Us owd 'uns may think it trite and unnecessary, and in the 65 years of my life I've seen less overtly racist behaviour, but to contend it's not still abhorrent and active, especially to those on the receiving end, is misguided.

Taking the Knee may diminish racist behaviour, so it should stay IMHO. Taking issue with it without suggesting other proactive public action is, with respect, a bit lame.

My neighbors were shocked a couple of weeks ago when they saw another neighbor screaming at my wife "Go back to China" and then hung up an insulting banner about Chinese. Other folks in the neighborhood flooded us with texts, emails and sympathies -- kept saying they couldn't believe it. But we weren't one bit surprised.

Taking a knee is a universal cultural gesture of reverence, of peace. I think it's an ideal gesture to communicate the deep emotional impact of this phenomenon in society.

Ed #14, thanks for taking the discussion to the depths and illustrating the importance of this subject. You associate BLM with arson and looting. Not to a white cop asphyxiating a helpless black suspect on camera in front of a crowd... or another one shooting an unarmed black suspect nine times in the back... or three cops firing 32 shots blindly into an apartment and fatally wounding a black female paramedic, then giving her no medical aid for 20 minutes while she died... or a white supremacist gunning down nine black worshippers in church in hopes of starting a race war... or a white neo-Nazi shooting 20 people, including small children, at the Gilroy festival because he hated "mestizos"... or three Georgia rednecks pursuing and shotgunning a black jogger, then not being arrested for three months because they knew the local (white) district attorney. But all that, to you, isn't "violence"? Not like black protesters burning a car or smashing a store window, eh? Certainly no reason for those people to be enraged.

Politics sure does warp our values, doesn't it?

Alas to some, no matter what the message, they are unlikely to change the habits of a lifetime, but to many, it creates the awareness to educate their children and give it a moment's thought and act accordingly. That's long-term change, a societal change brought about by a change in one's values.

As much as we would like to think that it's the domain of the nationalistic, right-wing, white, uneducated, racist... or Millwall supporter, it isn't; it's evident in all walks of life – irrespective of education, job, colour, family member or religion, it's also been evident since the dawn of time, of one race who consider themselves better than another, for whatever perceived and erroneous reason.

The message has to change when its impact wanes, but the message intent must always be the same: it's not acceptable, we are all equal. For those who refuse to accept that, their condemnation of others is not acceptable, fine them, ban them, educate them but do not let them continue.

A last word them for freedom of speech. Nothing in life is free. You have responsibility for your actions and words and the harm they cause. That is a cost you have to bare.

Well captured. Forget the side shows, that's what it's about.

I am passive about the whole kneeling thing now. If players feel a need to do it still then that's up to them. But I personally feel Ferdinand has a point.

Fans booing, not surprised. Deeply unpleasant.

I think the general lack of successful black managers within UK football is aligned more to the general lack of opportunities for black managers than any particular lack of ability.

When black footballers started to play for professional British football clubs there was more pressure on them than on their team-mates; extra scrutiny from the fans, the media, and a pervading question of whether they belonged there. Now there are so many black and mixed ethnicity footballers playing professional football that the pressure of being “different” has dissipated, and the question of whether or not black players can succeed at the top level has been well and truly answered. I think it will be the same with black managers, and all it will take is time, opportunity, and open minds all-round.

As for the booing at Millwall, I wonder if it is less a question of flagrant racism and scumbaggery and more a reaction against compelled behaviours. Maybe I am being overly generous but I think there are many reasons to object to the ritual, and automatically reducing them all to racism does not recognise the nuance in the situation – and I think that is one of the problems that plagues public discourse and shuts down important debate about volatile issues.

I wrote about what happened here in Columbia, South Carolina. There was no bad behaviour by the cops but BLM had a "demonstration" all the same. They were chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" and other nasty stuff. Then they proceeded to smash some store fronts, set fire to a police car and loot a couple of bars and steal all the booze. About 40 people ended up being arrested and over half of them were from out of town and several were paid rabble rousers from New York and New Jersey.

I live in a town that is over 50% black and I have many black friends and neighbours. I attended the investiture of my friend Margaret Seymour when she became the first black female US Judge in South Carolina. I attended the wedding in a black church of Toshika Hudson who was the first black female to win an athletic scholarship to the Citadel after I had coached her for four years. I could go on. I love and respect many black people but BLM is led by professional trouble makers.

The removal of all people who aren't like them from where they live, or the removal of them from the planet? And if they achieved this, what would they do then, with all their weird, twisted hatred?

The novelist Toni Morrison was confronted by an angry racist once, and she just calmly asked him ‘What do you need this for?'

BS and malarkey. You're parroting right-wing conspiracies, and I suspect you know it. Troublemakers don't require payment to make trouble. Not the black criminals crossing state lines to loot bars, and not the white criminals crossing state lines to shoot down people in the streets, like that punk kid in Racine (who somehow escapes your outrage but gets a presidential callout).

Criminals are criminals. Legitimate protesters are not criminals. No matter how much you want to portray them as such.

I'm delighted you love and respect your black friends and neighbors, but you don't understand their issues unless you have sat down with them and asked them in detail about their personal history of racism. Until you've heard firsthand about being pulled over -- not once or twice but repeatedly -- for driving a car that looked too new for your color, you just don't get it.

As a Jew previously targeted for bigotry in my youth, I thought I understood racism until about 15 years ago, when the top scorer on my over-35 team showed up for a game with stitches in his forehead and a swollen eye. An immigrant from Mali, he'd had his head slammed into the roof of his own new Mercedes at 3am by a white Oakland cop who wouldn't believe it was his. The guy was driving home from his highly-paid job as overnight cargo operations supervisor at Oakland Airport. And he told me it had happened three times before. Including the broken wrist that had kept him out of our playoff game the year before. "It's just a hazard of my job coming home at that hour." It wasn't the Oakland gangbangers he had to watch out for, it was the cops. Two hours of talking to Mo changed my entire perspective on racism in this country. Even the liberal Bay Area.

Bet you never sat down with any of your black friends and asked them about their experiences, or about The Talk they all had with their parents and they now all have with their kids -- The Talk that white kids never have to hear.

You have a choice. You can ask your friends those questions and find out a little bit about what's really happening in this country. Or you can keep pissing online crapola about "paid" troublemakers. Your decision.

Football, like many other sports, has reached the glass ceiling in promoting race relations. Racism is no longer tolerated on the field of play and is increasingly being rejected in the crowd and beyond. At all levels of the game, there is a real and conscious rejection of bigotry and intolerance.

Until we get back off the field that is. The issue then pivots to the administrators, owners, managers and coaches who make their living out of the game. This is where the final and hardest battles for equality are yet to be fought; in the corridors of power themselves.

I feel as if the sort of cosmetic attempts at inclusivity and spreading equality have taken us as far as they can. It'll take real change in the board rooms, in the national parliaments, in the owners' boxes to get to the next step. Has anyone seen an appetite for that sort of change from these people? I surely haven't. We have a very long way to go.

This is about awareness, from that springs self-education, moving on to being an ally and if you have it in you to advocate for those who have to go through every second of their lives having to modify what they say and do.

It's ultimately about empathy and finding out, as you say, what people of color go through just to make it through the day. It's simply soul destroying that the last four years have emboldened what was already there lurking beneath the surface to be normalized.

I heard Allison Rudd of the Times, ‘defend' the Millwall fans, on ‘the Game' podcast. It's worth a listen. It's really poor for a journalist of their experience.

I love living in the USA, but the extent of everyday blatant racism is deeply saddening.

Perfectly said, JP. You really do understand this country in the year 2020.

I have always been deeply proud to be an American... but I have also never doubted for a moment the extent of the ugly undercurrent that still flows through our society even after nearly 250 years.

We can get better -- against my natural inclination I didn't punch out the morons screaming at my wife, and as a Buddhist and a pacifist she's proud of me for that -- but it's a long, hard process.

That's nice and all, Mike, but unfortunately doesn't make you best placed to fathom the motivations of the white working-class of South London.

This is what we are reduced to. If you boo the BLM then you are a racist conspiracy-theorist reactionary and if you kneel for them you are a violent Marxist thug.

My preference is to keep politics out of sport (they don't call footballers the world's stupidest millionaires for nothing) and definitely out of TW.

In England, I believe it is causing more divisions than it is solving.

No one has ever debated “Kick it out” or “Say no to racism” like they have done with this movement. The very essence of this thread is proof that BLM is a divisive subject, whereas other anti-racism movements gain unilateral support.

a) the idea that Black Lives Matter and
b) the organisation Black Lives Matter

I agree wholeheartedly with a) because in my world view all men and women are equal.

I deplore b) because of its cultural Marxist roots and agenda.

I suspect that like me, many people find it difficult to disassociate the “taking of a knee” with support for the BLM the organisation. Therein lies the problem.

Just reflecting on some of the comments here, in no particular order.

a) Many fans agree with Ferdinand that ‘the taking of the knee has reached a point of 'good PR' but little more than that'. My experience talking to football fans, particularly younger fans, is that they strongly identify with taking the knee. There is undoubtedly a generational difference at play, which is borne out by some of the comments posted here.

b) Politics and sports shouldn't mix - the idea that sport or any activity can operate in isolation of the political environment in which it is takes place is misplaced.

c) The name suggests that one race is being given primacy over another. I think we would all agree that one race is put on a pedestal above all others - Caucasians.

When you are fighting to overturn decades of institutionalised racism (political, economic, societal, penal), it will only done by activism and intense, ongoing protest.

Mike @ 27, sorry to hear about the incident with your wife. My wife is Asian and the one occasion I heard someone shout a racist comment at her in my presence, I went over and smacked the guy. Unfortunately, it was at Goodison Park in the Main Stand.

Personally, I think football now has far too many minutes of applause, silences etc, etc.
The teams lining-up, the handshakes, the knee, then 90 minutes of diving, shirt-pulling and disrespecting the officials.

Taking the knee just makes middle class white people think that everything is now okay. It's a fob, a token gesture. An easy option.
If we want to be serious about the issue then be open and bring in a quota system, like South African Rugby did.
Tell the clubs that a proportion of their coaching staff and excecutives have to come from Black and ethnic backgrounds.
See how many of them take it up.
The media and the clubs love taking their holier-than-thou stance but they're just paying lip-service.
So for me give the gestures a rest and do something proper.

Sadly, racism exists in the UK and the USA. Centuries old. When people take a stand against racism through words, few will argue against that.

The debate starts when it comes to taking a stand through actions. And I'm afraid BLM means different things to different people (to some it's just anti-racism; to others it means a specific US-based movement involving violence) so arguing for or against BLM becomes meaningless unless you define your terms.

Generally speaking, I'm four-square behind non-violent anti-racist action. More specifically, the thread is about taking the knee before games: I have no problem with that; equally I have no problem if the authorities decide there will be no more taking the knee before games. Movements and action against racism will continue. I hope that only those genuinely concerned about racism will continue to get involved, and in a non-violent way.

All lives do matter, but racism is still a huge issue and and i've witnessed it at Goodison over the years numerous times. The abuse against Yakubu and Lukaku stick out for me personally.

Kick it out is a total farce with no backbone which is why nobody has been up in arms about it and my biggest concern is that if players stop taking the knee now after this event then it will end because once again the white men don't like it. Defeats the whole point really?

This is largely the problem so why don't people begin by defining the movement by the words and behaviours of the ladies who actually started the movement.

It has been four years of relentless media cycling so at this stage you'd have to be pretty obtuse not to even be faintly familiar with their positions on reparations and prison amnesty etc. ,"BLM means different things to different people (to some it's just anti-racism; to others it means a specific US-based movement involving violence) so arguing for or against BLM becomes meaningless unless you define your terms."

This is largely the problem so why don't people begin by defining the movement by the words and behaviours of the ladies who actually started the movement.

It has been four years of relentless media cycling so at this stage you'd have to be pretty obtuse not to even be faintly familiar with their positions on reparations and prison amnesty etc. ,,,1,10:07:18,,213.205.196.222,ok,15262,12/08/2020 10:07:18,PeterGorman,reader,,,no 1113710,40166,toffeeweb,08/12/2020,Paul A Smith,paulos81@hotmail.co.uk,"Lets hope United take him.
Lets see how they feel buying Delph and Iwobi.
Lets see how they feel when he talks about how desperate he is to see talent come through, just before a transfer window.

Lets see them go all soppy when he gives Greenwoods Ma a team shirt with Mace on the back.

I reckon i'd miss a decent player more than any director of football.

I watched the Anton Ferdinand programme last week about what happened between him and John Terry, and how the courts came to the decision they did given all the evidence was puzzling to say the least. Seems John Terrys defence was he thought Ferdinand called him a black **** and he was just repeating it back to Ferdinand, in what sane world does that stand up to any scrutiny. I thought it was also very interesting when Ferdinand went to visit Jordan Henderson at Liverpools training ground. He didnt hold back when he said to Henderson how did you justify all backing Suarez in his dispute with Patrice Evra over racists comments. Henderson said he didnt think that was the best day in the clubs history.

He was a one man goal machine for us and still apparently it wasn't good enough, for a club with many years of history of non scoring strikers. They say he didn't want to be here, hes not on of us. He stayed for 4 years.

I also wondered if one of us means staying at the club for over10 years then joining the coaching team? He is still one of Europes top strikers.

I do think it's important as Les Ferdinand has done to question what the right thing to do is.

Ultimately the most important thing is that black (and asian) people can turn up to watch a football match with their kids and just enjoy the occasion without having to worry about all of this shit.

The only thing that puts me off taking my little lad is the language. If there were literally thousands of people booing a quick gesture that's supposed to represent my rights to equality then I'd feel pretty uncomfortable. So whatever the resolution it needs sorting out by the time we get people properly back in stadiums at the very least.

Of course the world is full of racists and I don't think it will ever be eradicated, for the simple reason that racists, mentally, will always be racists even if they don't come out and show it.

I don't know how people can be like that but they will forever be with us, sadly.

Similarly, when other people use the term BLM (differently), they might have no liking for, or even knowledge of, the origins of the term. As long as they also are clear. And hopefully people will also understand that.

There are people who object to the concept of Black Lives Matter. Whether it is because of their name, their political activities or the minority of them who let their frustration out by acting illegally in it's name. To assume the booing is purely because of racism is cheap. If the message was along the lines of "End Inequality" I believe the issue would be very different.

However, where do we draw the line? Do we have all players perform a coordinated dance routine at half time to stand against Boko Haram or Daiesh? That may seem pedantic but the point is entirely valid. We have got into a position where whenever we get back to football being football it will now become an issue of abandonment of the anti-racism message.

No white player has ever been verbally abused in a football match because of their skin colour.

The UK still has a massive problem of racism, as much as we like to pretend we don't.

Whether taking the knee is effective is another debate, but when you see how it obviously threatens the skum, it shows that it does have an impact.

I don't, on a personal level, think wearing a poppy is something necessary, but I don't attack those that do. And all clubs have poppies printed on their shirts. There is no uproar about football and politics there.

And many other instances. For as long as racism prevelant, then actions against it must be taken.

We, as a club, have a shameful history when it comes to racism, particularly in the 70s & 80s and the colossal majority of us are rightly ashamed and disgusted by that era and our own fans' conduct. There still remains a minority and always will sadly. However, I wouldn't look for it everywhere. Mike Trebilcock's FA Cup Final brace was before I was born but it doesn't stop him going down in history as a legend.

I think BLM has been divisive in the UK but maybe in good ways. Often it is has bought to many people's lives the awareness of an institutional racism that they may have easily dismissed "i've never really seen anything like that. I'm friends with a black person etc".

Nearly all political movements will have some idiots and troublemakers attached to it and certainly those rioting and looting have done BLM no favours but that does not change it's central messages from being an incredibly important, if occasionally uncomfortable, one.

I'd feel ashamed if any toffees were to boo players taking the knee. Even if it not something you agree with necessarily I'd hope we'd have the class to show some respect to the people for whom it is important. How would the likes of Holgate, Doucore, DCL etc feel if their own fans booed them whilst kneeling?

If the authorities decide to stop it then fair enough. Ferdinand is right that there are many more meaningful actions that could be taken to correct racism and propagate equality but gestures have their place, and the fact that people would consider booing suggests to me that there are many lessons still to be learnt.

An example is I often thought Duncan Ferguson let Everton down on many occasions with his discipline on the pitch, I even remember a Fulham player being strangled, I'm sure many of us do. Yes he's passionate about Everton, but at the same time is heralded as a legend by many. Strikers are supposed to score goals and he didn't score anywhere near enough.

I dunno, but even on Talksport there was a phone in on the fans treatment of Rom by Everton and Man U fans, and is it hidden racism. Andy Cole got slaughtered regularly by Utd fans but scored bucket fulls. Paul Ince claims its rife.

Think of Golden boy images of Beckham and Kane. It's a very deep and complicated issue, that as an Asian person myself I will never be able to understand.

Okay, so that's another debate for another time, but, as others have mentioned, the booing wasn't overtly racist (though I'm sure there are a good number of racist Millwall fans, possibly even more than there are racist fans of most other clubs), it was political. They associated it with BLM marchers who had defaced statues of someone they saw as a war hero (again, that's a different debate).

There have been some very eloquent posts about racism on here - particularly in America where the problem seems to be far worse than in the UK - but nobody on here is disputing that racism is a blight on football or any other part of society. The motivation for the boo-boys reaction was taking the knee, not racism as such. Now, you could say that booing the taking of the knee amounts to racism, but I think you'd be going down a pretty dangerous rabbit hole if you prevent people from responding negatively to an action they perceive as being ill-judged. They claim they weren't booing black players, and that seems totally plausible to me - it wouldn't make sense if they were, because they can do that during the match. They were booing the gesture.

Finally, Fran @58, I think there is a debate about poppies. At one point, didn't FIFA want to ban England players from wearing one on their shirt because it was a political gesture?

Racism is a societal issue, not strictly a political one as some attempt to pass it off as. As such, and given the ethnic diversity of football, the sport should be obliged to combat institutionalised and societal racism.

The notion that political and societal issues should be kept out of sport is an exceedingly naive one.

That some have hijacked or denounced the BLM to advance political dogma, both extreme right and left of centre, does not in itself reduce the core message of BLM to being a political one.

Each and every one of us has a personal responsibility to seek and strive for genuine equality for all in every aspect of life, not determined in any way by skin colour.

Taking the knee has not been an empty hollow message. Its repetition at every game for months has helped promote the question and issues of race to a national and global audience.

If the practice should continue is another debate. Asking the Milwall fans who booed why they did so could also be informative. But superficially, doing so at their first game back in half a year, is not a good look, given the club's history and reputation.

Regarding the Beckham & Kane observation, I vividly recall Baines having much better stats than Cole across the board but being overlooked. I am not implying it was positive discrimination but there are examples of the converse where the question is raised such as yours. Please don't think I am choosing not to 'walk in your shoes' as all I can do is empathise and hope awareness smothers bigotry over time. Just as my attempt at playing devil's advocate clarity in the debate.

Michael (63) Regarding your final paragraph, it was FIFA who wouldn't allow political statements even though the poppy is in remembrance of all the fallen regardless of allegiance and, as such, is apolitically political. Ironic that they gave something like a £4,000 to Argentina for their entire squad posing for an official photo after a match behind a banner stating "Las Malvinas son Argentines" - the Falkland Islands are Argentine! Hypocrisy much from football governance?

Finally I do think Leighton deserved to play in CL league, for a few seasons he was superb with SP, however personally I always felt Cole edged it (but only just). It's a bit like the Clemence v Shilton argument.

And that is the point, it was through a process of education and personal experience that I was lucky to have at an early age that I came to loath the abomination that is racism. The moment we start choreographing attempts at education, it begins to lose its impact after a while - as I think has happened with the "taking of the knee". I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone would boo the gesture though.

As for Yakubu and Lukaku getting racial abuse at Goodison? They certainly got lots of abuse for their occasional perceived "laziness" and attitude, but I never witnessed anything that could be labelled racist.

To boo something that is clearly about raising awareness of racial inequality is in itself rascist. If you have an issue with the organization then learn about it, open a dialogue and work through it.

They've used the freedom of speech to hide behind, it's cowardly.

Joe, 62. You see inherent micro-aggressions all the time against players, Lukaku & Cole especially were players who fell into that category. What people fail to realize is they experience this in the majority of their interactions, drip drip drip, wearing them down. Could you handle that?! Most white people don't even know what this is because they've never been challenged in their life, ever been stopped by a policeman at night and have to fear for your life?

I believe Iwobi currently gets the same treatment. The bias people operate under needs then to recognize, learn to temper it. They have their failings as footballers and are not immune to criticism but
these players are the first on the list as soon as anything goes wrong.
You have wonder why? It's racism on a level which is imperceptible to those who have no idea what that struggle is.

I have only ever posted how the BLM movement is perceived by many and, as far as I am aware, have not posted anything derogatory to any other poster, nor have I posted anything fabricated.

The fact that Ed associates the BLM movement with looting and a mob culture highlights what is fundamentally wrong with the movement. It does not hold universal support.

Incidentally - by trying to post a score, are you advocating the mob culture arising from the BLM movement as being justified because of the cause? If that is the case then you are advocating anarchy. Just because one group of people feel an unjust towards them, it does not give them the right to behave like many of the activists have.

Just to be clear, I have not challenged or disagreed with anything factual by Mike or anything, I have simply posted how BLM are perceived. I think Millwalls investigations into the cause of the booing also back up what both myself and Ed have posted, that the booing was not primarily for racial reasons.

Jay - very disappointed by your opening line.

Like I've said previously, Racism in England has made huge strides and is considered abhorrent in the vast majority of the country and suggesting that being arrested would make you fear for your life is probably not associated with England, and therefore is probably not associated with booing the knee.

Having said that, the point is fair. There's tons of subliminal racism around, and I've been guilty of it myself. I was chatting to a friend in the street the other day and I thought there was a dodgy kid hanging around behind her. I realised it was her son (her husband is black), and he looked dodgy cos he was a surly teenager, but would I have thought the same if he'd been white? I have never thought of myself as racist, but I stereotyped this kid on first glance. How hard must it be for him, every shop he goes into they've probably got their eye on him, a black kid in a hoodie with a surly face. Iwobi probably gets that every time he goes to buy his new Ferrari in town.

I don't buy the Churchill statue excuse. I seriously doubt the booers are educated on Churchill and history. I believe they latch onto him as a ruse to disguise racism behind “patriotism.” Case in point, in high school I worked with slightly older West Ham and Millwall fans. The majority had Irish surnames. Yet someone roped them into starting that riot in Dublin when the England game was cancelled. They came back to work with bruises and black eyes as the Irish police rightly beat them. They explained the riot was cause of the IRA and the Queen etc but couldn't explain how, what, when. One guy Lee was puzzled to learn my grandparent was Irish and knew his grandparents from the Irish club. Point being, they were ignorant and the Queen and country motif was a shield for them to be racist. This instance was unusual as Ireland was their target as opposed to the usual Pakistanis or black victims. In that vein I imagine the current crop of Millwall fans are much the same. Ignorant racists who suddenly wheel the statue of Churchill as their latest shield

Liverpool in the 60s was a brutal place for black people many of whom were scared to come out of their side of town because the would get bricks thrown at them.

I am pleased to say Liverpool has now become multicultural with Turks, Greeks, Asians and Indians forming an appreciated and respected part of the population mainly because those people have got their heads down and lead by example and become part of the community and achieved respect in doing so.

I get the feeling here in America that there are still chips on the shoulders of American Blacks and whites which is preventing them from showing each other mutual respect.

I don't think the BLM movement is helping that at all. IMO it is causing resentment on both sides. On the one hand it is stirring up the anger of those who are or have been subject to racism and on the other hand it is causing a backlash from whites who hold racist views.

IMO dialogue in the communities is a more productive way to create harmony and equality and this takes time.

We have seen progress since the days of slavery but for it to continue we need effective leadership and productive conversations not marches and movements.

Liverpool in the 60s was a brutal place for black people many of whom were scared to come out of their side of town because the would get bricks thrown at them.

I am pleased to say Liverpool has now become multicultural with Turks, Greeks, Asians and Indians forming an appreciated and respected part of the population mainly because those people have got their heads down and lead by example and become part of the community and achieved respect in doing so.

I get the feeling here in America that there are still chips on the shoulders of American Blacks and whites which is preventing them from showing each other mutual respect.

I don't think the BLM movement is helping that at all. IMO it is causing resentment on both sides. On the one hand it is stirring up the anger of those who are or have been subject to racism and on the other hand it is causing a backlash from whites who hold racist views.

IMO dialogue in the communities is a more productive way to create harmony and equality and this takes time.

We have seen progress since the days of slavery but for it to continue we need effective leadership and productive conversations not marches and movements.

Smithers : Uh, no, they're saying "Boo-urns, Boo-urns".

If that as a conversation point provokes such a reaction, it's a tiny fraction of what people of color go through everyday, then time to get uncomfortable folks. If you are secure in your education on the subject and can honestly say you understand, then fair dos.

I can't say that, my education is far from complete, I still mistakes, I still have bias I have to understand about myself and work hard to eliminate it.

Like I said before show awareness, educate yourself continuously, become an ally and if you have the strength advocate to for those who can't.

Kev #44 and Eddie #48, you make a valid point. I've spent only a couple of weeks in the UK in my life and know little of the cultural differences -- and there are many. Thanks for bringing that point forward.

Laurie #46, false. BLM is a movement. There is no organization called BLM, no leader, no director, no membership, just a loose confederation of unconnected groups. And there is no Marxist agenda. None. Heck, I doubt you could even define "Marxist agenda", but even if you could I challenge you to point to one aspect of the movement that is remotely Marxist.

Lee #59 and others, we can have varying and valid opinions on player criticism by fans, but I would submit that only the black players themselves can truly testify on whether the "stick" they have taken is racially based or not. They hear the remarks and the tone. Usually the fans don't.

Sam #60, Ray #69, Michael #75 and Michael #63, thanks for great posts. I don't really have an opinion on whether taking the knee has become passe', but I cannot understand why anyone would be offended enough to boo it -- unless, of course, the suspicion is correct of a racist undertone to the booing. But we have no way of knowing for sure.

Geoff #42, I thought it was a great quip. Who knows, it might actually happen someday. Imran Khan became prime minister of Pakistan.

If only you could disregard every single thing you wrote except for the last ten words. If only.

Having said that, in general, there is no doubt in my mind that even in the most multi-cultural places, like London, black people and Asians are still stereotyped and made to feel like outsiders. It must be incredibly hard at times, even if things have improved so much in my lifetime

Andrew, I don't think Brexit is an example of racism - the population of the countries of the EU are as white as we are, most of them even more so - it's perhaps an example of nationalism or xenophobia, but not racism. Similarly, Farage may be an arse of the highest order, but it's difficult to find an example of him being overtly racist. The poster with Syrian refugees is possibly the closest to overt racism that I can come up with.

Ridiculous assumption!

Jay, the anger of those subject to racism requires no "stirring up" -- it was already there. It is deeply felt through generations of racial bias. BLM is a way to express that anger in an organized way, not a source for it.

As to the backlash of racist whites, that's an ongoing phenomenon in our nation's history. From the massacres of the Reconstruction era to the lynchings of the 1920's to the murders and fire hoses of the original civil rights movement to the right-wing terrorism sweeping the nation now, racist backlash has always been the instant and overwhelming response to any anti-racist movement in this country.

Blaming BLM for either aspect is like blaming the National Weather Service for hurricanes.

Marches and movements are the only way things truly change in this country. Women never got the vote until they began marching for it. Civil rights in the 60's never gained traction until MLK began leading marches on TV. And we wouldn't be discussing the killings of black suspects by police right now, today, were it not for the demonstrations of BLM. Quiet community discussions never create societal change. Only mass movement does.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/dec/08/david-squires-on-the-booing-of-footballers-taking-a-knee?utm_term=614f7f53b4fd063c9e3f416257c49cde&utm_campaign=TheFiver&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=fiver_email

It is no coincidence that knife crime suddenly shot up when the authorities backed down to those complaining of racism and changed the criteria for stop and search.

Do you think the parents of the many victims of knife crime over the last couple of years appreciate that less black kids now get stopped, or do they wish that the person wielding the knife was searched prior to killing their kids?

More stick does not equal not racist!

All players get stick, however the way it's described and presented and it is often disproportionately skewed. Let me be clear I may not be right in my assertion regarding Iwobi here, but I am sure micro-aggressions and bias towards players of color do exist.

What I'm asking is that people think about how and why they criticize a player and if it's really about the game. Only they will truly know.

On Saturday Allan was at fault for the goal, a misplaced five yard pass was generally poor, he improved a bit in the second half in my estimation. Iwobi playing in an unfamiliar position was a threat throughout, produced two great crosses one for Calvert-Lewin, somehow Pope saved and one pull back for James who couldn't quite connect.
Despite being one of the better performers in the game Iwobi received a significant amount of criticism for his poor crossing, which had an element of truth to it, in the last 10mins he skied two or three. However were we the outcries of Allan who cost his team a goal? Whilst there were some, nothing compared to the amount of times Iwobi was name-checked negatively. Why?
It would seem Iwobi is an easy target, again I have to ask why?

So, perhaps, you can see why the question arises.

So what was the consequence of your action in the Main Stand?

And what was your wife's reaction to what you did?

Wow, I must have somehow missed all those "self-confessions"... good thing somebody here knows about them.

And how exactly do you"train" to be a Marxist? Do "bench oppressions" with a particularly heavy hammer-and-sickle? Run wind sprints in chains, then lose them?

Oy vey.

My own view of the taking of the knee, is that the point has definitely been made, and now that this point has been made, maybe it's time to move on before a lot of the good work gets unraveled?

I remember how much Hillsborough affected our city, it happened to supporters of Liverpool, but the city stood together, and I can still remember loads of Evertonians eventually booing a minutes silence at Goodison, and this type of thing has a very lasting effect on some people's memories.

'Jay - trying to score posters on this thread is very poor of you...very disappointed by your opening line.'

I'll somehow manage to live with myself.

In spite of your protestations, your posts @ 12 and 19 (and Eddie's post) do present in part a personal evaluation of the BLM and how you perceive it. YOU, Kevin. Not anyone else. YOU.

You make assumptions that you do not quantify and that cannot be easily quantified as you attempt without an extensive canvas of a diverse and broad demographic.

Your imagination continues to run wild in then presuming I advocate anarchy and 'mob culture arising from the BLM movement as being justified'.

I'm not even 'disappointed' by such comments. They're just nonsensical fabrication founded on nothing.

Oh! And I gave Mike Gaynes two upticks for eloquently sharing similar thoughts on the issue to mine. You and Ed didn't because your posts didn't resonate with me at all.

Simples.

What I'm saying is when a person is stopped the actions the police take are premeditated based on race even before they search a person with reasonable cause. They see a person of color, immediately it's assumed they are more dangerous, more likely to run, resist arrest and the interaction to become violent. Conversely people of color see a policeman and become anxious, scared and fear for their safety, because they've heard and seen too many bad stories.

The weapon is superfluous to this, it's a red herring, the profiling happens before the search. The bottom line is white people are given the benefit of the doubt, people of color are not, the police behave in a totally different way to white people.

If the numbers were equal I think you'd have a point. You simply don't know how many white people carry weapons because they're far far less likely to be stopped, therefore the numbers will always be skewed against people of color.

Again if the numbers were equal of those stopped and if people of color made up a majority of those carrying weapons. you'd have to delve deeper and wonder why they feel the need to?

There are, however, right-wing protesters out there wearing Nazi swastikas, chanting "Jews will not replace us", shooting down people in the street with AR-15s and running them over with cars, plotting to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan and the mayor of Wichita, sending death threats to Pennsylvania election officials, and showing up on the front lawn of Michigan's Secretary of State waving AK-47s while she was decorating her Christmas tree with her 4-year-old. Tell me, "are you not then just a teensy bit alarmed by that"?

Many of these victims, a very large % are in this position for the very simple reason that they are the wrong colour, it happens in England and many other countries but the amount of times it happens in America is unbelievable.

Sorry for going on a long ramble but racism in any form should never be tolerated and when it happens to those you love I can understand the anger you felt and it augers well on your ability to suppress that anger.

Completely different situation from police heavy-handedly assaulting people in anticipation of trouble. These guys had already rioted.

Yes, I agree that doesn't sound great. But you are openly supporting BLM (I'm not supporting those crazies in Michigan), and I am surprised you are relaxed about the fact that the founders of this organisation are committed communists. Not just two random members, but the people who set the whole thing up, just a few years ago.

Communists do not come to western societies with friendly eyes, with the intention of improving things. The exact opposite, Organise, Agitate, Educate. They aren't trying to improve things, they are trying to cause Blue Murder.

And so I find it very alarming when whole swathes of society swing behind their demands in double-quick fashion. The reason for this I think was that they exploited the revulsion felt by everybody over Minnesota, and now have a firm foothold in our society.

They aren't just protesting, they are affecting significant change in the here and now. Policies at local and national level are being altered, human resources policies being junked and rewritten, all on the basis of what happened in America. And it is causing division and exaggerating differences rather than bringing people together (which of course is the whole point if you're a Marxist).

I don't agree with sport being involved with political and social groups. Football is a release from real life, not to be reminded how shit life can be. Like others have said, the Kick It Out campaign hasn't had any issues, but the BLM group is too divisive.

To take a knee, you should have to agree with all that they stand for. Obviously black lives matter, but...

I do not agree with them wanting to defund the police!
I do not agree with them wanting to get rid of capitalism for Marxism.
I do not agree with the destruction of property and vandalism.
I do not agree with forcibly removing statues.

I think many (not all) of the people who 'take a knee' do not realise what they are kneeling for. Do you really think that football players who get hundreds of thousands of pounds a week really want to give up their wages and survive on minimum wage under a Marxist government? Pretty sure they would not.

Do all of those footballers who have had their houses burgled when they play games want to get rid of the police so the perpetrators do not get caught? I really doubt it.

Were the Man City team happy that their team bus was destroyed by the RS a few years ago? Pretty confident they weren't.

Taking a knee for freedom but then attempting to destroy the Cenotaph, a statue that commemorates the people who died for freedom. So why take a knee for an organisation that think it is acceptable to take similar actions?

Keep these movements (all movements) away from football.

Sorry, but the idea that BLM is somehow a gigantic Communist conspiracy because one of the original 2013 founders (ONE) proclaimed herself a Marxist is just plain ridiculous. This movement has produced more than 8000 US demonstrations (93% of them completely peaceful and crime-free, according to a study by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project) involving tens of millions of participants. Tell me, Kevin, are they all Commies? Or Communist dupes, mindlessly programmed to infiltrate Marxism into our society? Do you really believe the policy changes being carried out to protect the lives of black suspects and integrate police forces are actually part of a massive, secret Commie plot to overthrow America?

Yeah, you do. All I can say is I hope you get good snacks at those John Birch Society meetings. Geez.

I am happy for you that you are so familiar with the black experience while living in a State with a 2.2% black population. You must be talking with black friends and neighbors every day. How many black families are there in your neighborhood?

You may have a point, it's possible that the proportion of young white men carrying knives is the same as young black men carrying them. But it's unlikely to be the case, because young black men are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of knife crime, and are also disproportionately more likely to be the perpetrators of knife crime. There are many reasons for that, but surely the most important thing is to save black lives, and what would a black mother want more - her son not to be the innocent victim of a police stop and search, or not to be the innocent victim of a fatal stabbing?

Of course there's a terrible price to pay for this kind of policing, in terms of the mistrust in communities, and how shit it is for young black man to be treated like criminals when they're not, but how else do we deal with this epidemic in the short term?

One other point, the victims of stop and search are almost 100% young males. But then again, knife crime is committed almost 100% by young males. Should the police be stopping and searching more young women to make it fair?

"To take a knee, you should have to agree with all that they stand for."

Interestingly absolutist position. Is there a person on earth, let alone an organization, that you agree with 100% of the time? Not me.

Should I not stand for my national anthem because I believe my country's current policies toward immigrants are repugnant?

Should I not go to synagogue and worship because I disagree with the Israeli policy on Palestine?

Should I stop supporting Everton because Carlo plays Davies at right mid?

Everybody's entitled to their own decisions, but I think standing up for what's right often involves standing with people you don't necessarily agree with.

You don't need to hear my condemnation in clear and unequivocal terms do you? How does that add to our debate (other than I suppose to give you reassurance that you are not conversing with somebody from the far right, I suppose).

Like most debates of this nature, it pretty soon degenerates into arguments of bad faith, and one of the parties being accused of being a bit of a shit. I see that is my allocated role. It shows how difficult it is to even disagree with this juggernaut. It's not one person: have a look at their manifesto, it's full of craziness lifted straight from their little red book.

What, a bit like subscribing to, and recommending, ToffeeWeb - so agreeing with everything on ToffeeWeb?

Next time you go into a typical working class pub in England, speak to some of the regular working class people in there. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be massively divided opinions about the BLM movement.

How do I know this? I speak to plenty of people from all different backgrounds in England and gauge their opinion. I may not have produced a large statistical analysis, but there is a difference of opinion. Therefore it is not an assumption or imagination - it is a view that is perceived by many in England. Did I ever once say it was my view? If I did, kindly copy and paste that part of my post. Did I accuse you of advocating a mob culture? No - I asked if you did.

Indeed Jay, in assuming that I am making assumptions, it is actually you that is making assumptions.

Simples.

Now you go ahead and play the semantics game all you like.

Have I said there isn't divided opinions about the BLM movement? Nope.

Have I spoken about 'mob culture or anarchy'? Nope

You apparently don't wish to 'own' the claims you make, but you make them any way. Convenient.

@ 12 you posted:

'the name of the movement – Black Lives Matter – suggests that one race is being put on a pedestal above all others.'

Challenged on that by Brent, you responded @ 19 that:

'the fact that you have to defend the name suggests a fundamental flaw'.

Challenged again you started your row back in this thread. 'Yeah well, I'm not posting my own opinions, but raising how others perceive BLM.'

A very categoric and unsubstatiated assumption you DO make (@19) is:

'BLM has inadvertently caused far more racial tension than it will ever solve.'

But - hey! - you keep convincing yourself that you are not making presumptions (and predictions) on certain aspects of the issue.

Absolutely no false assumptions or reading the tea leafs on my part as you presume to do with my posts, while you continue to excuse and distance yourself from your own posted comments.

Carry on.

You, and some others, have made assumptions about a country that you don't reside in. Sure, you can read the media and get some sort of impression, however when you live here you realise that it has caused divisions and that racial tension that was previously subsiding has resurfaced in some parts.

Just because it is perceived differently in America or Brazil, does not mean it is automatically perceived the same way here. It is by some, but not by others.

Interestingly, after siding with Mike, I notice how he failed to respond when it was pointed out that he lived in a state where 2.2% of the population is black, compared with a significantly larger percentage in the persons state with whom he was initially arguing with.

That's not saying everyone is racist but minorities of us blues certainly are like every club has.

We can all have an opinion on what taking the knee means but I can only say that if I was on that pitch and other players were united in kneeling for something they believed in and was booed for doing so, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable playing for said club again.

The reality is being white I don't understand how it must feel to be racially abused but I have family who are black and seeing even something as small as taking a knee for what must be five to ten seconds on a football pitch is a small step forwards and hopefully in an ideal world the start of a more progressive approach. To Boo it as it's “too political for football”? Not having it. Doesn't ruin the match and if it does for you then that's the exact reason why it should stay as it highlights the issue. White men up in arms.

Each to their own but can't agree with booing it.

People got to work all week and just want to go the match and have a few pints. However, that shaking hands before the match is stupid, leave it until the end.

What we are now seeing worldwide is the divide between rich and poor getting wider, even in our rich countries as we continue to strip the world of its resources in a never-ending quest for growth.

Growth not to feed the poor and improve the lives of the masses, but growth to line the pockets of all of the gangsters either in government or in business or in banking.

It took you four posts in this thread to say you were referring to the UK, not the US, in the opinions you were expressing. I have made no such distinction because I don't believe one is necessary.

Whilst BLM has its origins in the US, this is a GLOBAL issue which resonates worldwide. The divisions you claim for the UK can be found in every nation. They are not exclusive to the UK as you seem to wish to present.

Yes, there may be local variations in the intensity of the movement, but the core issues of racism are pretty much universal.

As Mike Gaynes has already pointed out (contrary to your own expressed opinion), 'BLM hasn't caused far more racial tension, the tension is already there, always has been.' BLM has helped put a glaring spotlight on the issue. And it has the feel that this time it will not be easily appeased or suppressed, as happened with other Civil Rights movements down the ages.

The recent US election results, the highest elector turnout in a century and the highest number of blacks voting in a US election, rather reinforces that view.

Finally, I have not refuted nor denied your claimed personal experiences. What I have done is quite explicitly challenge the more general (not UK-centric) claims you have made.

A satirical take on...

Booing Footballers Taking a Knee

The gutter press had endless negative headlines about immigrants which had a big influence on the unquestioning British (English) public. Obviously those nasty things like Nationalism and xenophobia are involved too.

Getting back to the point in question, I just can't see why anybody would question the motives of BLM. We should support them.

Yes, the West does not have an unblemished record. Far from it. But has any country within it ever been responsible for the mass murder of its own citizens (not even starting on the issue of war with another nation)?

Now look at Russia, China, Cambodia. It's not a coincidence. The West may have caused much misery in the Middle East, but the Islamic world would have been at each others throats with or without the meddling of the West in my opinion.

Where would you rather live now, Russia or here? China or America? I think the answer is obvious to most people weighing the two. Let alone making that determination 50 years ago (that would be a no brainer).

By far and away, the most important principle of BLM is the protection of black people from death and persecution because of their race -- most particularly by the police who are sworn to serve and protect them. That's the overriding, core philosophy of the movement, and if you agree with that, taking a knee is perfectly appropriate and can be done without symbolizing support for defunding the police or burning cars.

For the record, I have never once heard any BLM protester or spokesperson advocate getting rid of capitalism for Marxism. That's a total fabrication, a deliberate right-wing misrepresentation of what the movement is all about. Sure, there are Communists in BLM marches. There are also church leaders, military veterans and -- most prominently -- mothers of young black people persecuted or even killed by police. They're not demanding Marxism. They're demanding safety for their children and equal protection under the law.

Nobody agrees with the destruction of property, including BLM. As I mentioned in a previous post, 93% of BLM protests have been completely peaceful and crime-free. The same cannot be said of right-wing counter-protest groups like the Proud Boys in Portland and the Boogaloo Bois, who murdered two police officers in California and sprayed a Minneapolis police station with gunfire under cover of the BLM demonstrations there. If you oppose political violence, your objections to those actions should be far louder than those opposing antifa's window-smashing. But somehow it's only the BLM protest-connected vandalism that ever gets mentioned by conservatives. Right-wing killings don't come up in their conversation, unless they're applauding the killers as Trump has.

I personally endorse pulling down monuments to Confederate war "heroes" -- they were, by definition, traitors to the United States. Most of their statues were erected 50 years after the Civil War as deliberate symbols of racial oppression. I find them obscenities to American history and applaud the community uprisings that produce their destruction. If you have a different view of the same phenomenon in Britain, I'd be interested to hear why.

I find deeply disappointing your belief that the athletes "taking a knee" don't understand what they're kneeling for. I'd say they understand very, very well -- those of color because they've lived their entire lives dealing with racism, and white athletes because BLM has enhanced their awareness of the issue. Characterizing them as ignorant or unaware typifies precisely the white dismissiveness they are objecting to. They'd say it's folks like you who don't get it.

However it would be interesting if it were possible to tot-up all of the peasants that were slaughtered or starved by the Tsars or the millions that died in WW1 in a war amongst the interbred European monarchies. Not forgetting our own wonderful British Empire that starved the Irish and had hundreds of thousands of its own citizens in poor houses and terrible poverty. Never mind the excesses of the Empire in India and Africa.

No, Kevin, I'm no apologist for commie death camps, but we ain't saints.

"Posted in ironic font."

However, like Les Ferdinand said, it strikes me it's ran its course. It also strikes me, as some others have said, that it's starting to cause controversy and my concern is that it may well cause disruption and lead to an 'us and them' attitude as opposed to unity.

I have only had a 2-minute read of the more recent posts on this thread but I do think both of you appear a little naive. The knee has undoubtedly become overly political as opposed to a symbol of unity (ie, unlike the rainbow 🌈 symbol) and the BLM movement itself and what it stands for is very political – not just about Black Lives Matter as much as anybody else's and I don't think most athletes know much about it. If you listen to some black athletes and commentators in the US who speak against it, they explain far better than me but, as an example, my understanding is that their ideologies I believe include breaking up family unit and that is shown to cost many black lives in the US and my opinion is it appears a very flawed ideology.

Each to their own and the very fact of debate and kids getting to hear about it and topics such as racism being norm to discuss is to me an overall good thing. The world is so stupid that colour of skin makes a difference to how people are perceived and treated.

Hitler's Germany perhaps? Or don't they count?

Some BLM are Marxist? How about 2 out of 3 founding members. They also occasionally advocate for segregation and black empowerment, a history buff like you will know that it's an old hobby horse of the black power movement, understandable in the States perhaps but evidently not welcome in the UK.

Some above have already dug into what the booing was about but it falls on deaf ears, at least we've all got that in common.

Peace to you all.

For the record, I've lived all over America, in white and black communities and everything in between. I have black family members. I've spent lots of time with black (and Latino) teammates and friends, dated black women.

And you know what? None of that means a damn thing unless you've sat down and talked, really talked, with people who have lived their lives under racial prejudice, lives of being treated differently because of their color, people who can have been confronted by police for WWB and DWB (that's "walking while black" and "driving while black") and who know what The Talk is about.

And if you've never had those conversations -- which Ed clearly hasn't, and which I suspect you haven't either -- it doesn't matter one bit where you live or how many black friends you claim to have, you just don't get it and never will.

My view of the issue was nonexistent until I had that long-ago conversation with my African immigrant teammate who had been beaten bloody by the police for driving a car that was too new and too nice to be his. My understanding of it now remains dim in comparison to his, and his family's, and even to those I love who happen to be black, because I've never lived it as they have. However, the single best thing about the BLM movement is that it's inspiring us white people to reach out and have those conversations -- often awkwardly, even foolishly, but have them. If BLM brings understanding of the issue to a wider spectrum of society -- which it undoubtedly has -- in my view it's worth all the anger and angst that comes with that process.

"Strictly speaking you have to include Hitler's Germany" in the west! I don't think there's any "strictly speaking" about it.

"Strictly speaking you have to include Hitler's Germany" in the west! I don't think there's any "strictly speaking" about it. ,,,1,23:39:53,,2.127.0.169,ok,10701,12/08/2020 23:39:53,Brent,reader,,,no 1113825,40200,toffeeweb,08/12/2020,Kevin Molloy,kmolloy50@hotmail.com,"So when people talk about the West, you think of Hitler's Germany?
Okay...

Communist countries have no monopoly on the mass murders of their own.

And don't ever dare to insinuate that I am part of the problem under the guise of 'they', because I do not agree with the BLM movement. I have been racially abused and attacked for being white and my wife has been racially abused for being black. So don't ever insinuate that I don't understand or see what's going on in the world around me.

And I do firmly believe that most footballers don't know what the movement is.

Like others have said, most do not have problems with the 'Kick it Out' campaign.

Move forward 50 to 60 years and I doubt very much that the use and abuse of "just causes", such as BLM, by anarchistic groups whipping up emotions for their own purposes, has changed. So, what happens is that the "just cause/right to peacefully demonstrate" becomes lost and the fingers are pointed at the "bad behaviour" of the demonstrators. In this instance, it stirs up the underlying racism and particularly through media coverage.

Also, in regard to BLM, I was concerned with the Premier League decision to kneel in the name of BLM for the very reason as has occurred at Milwall and Colchester. I felt then, as I do now, that it would have been more appropriate to use ALM as "All Lives Matter". I believe the message would have still been heard. Just my opinion!

I can't see racism being fully removed from society but this shouldn't prevent us from trying to improve.

Mike Gaynes: We get just a small amount of understanding about racism in USA from the various media outlets. For those of you living in USA, witnessing so much more at closer contact, I thank you for your explanations throughout this thread. People may think that we do not have racism in Australia but we do. It is not as ingrained as in USA or as obvious but is still there.

Not surprisingly, the thread has run the gamut of opinion that we see reflected across social media... with all the emotion and squabbling that goes with it!

Personally, as much as I'd prefer football (and sport in general) to be sacrosanct, the out-sized role that it plays in the national consciousness (be that in the UK, USA or any other sport-loving nation) makes it unavoidable that politics and social issues intrude and, for the most part, the power that players can have in boosting a particular issue is important if wielded correctly.

In the case of the knee, I think there is a danger it has lost its impact at this point and risks becoming a point of antagonisation if more fans like Millwall's voice their opposition to it. The mistake (in my opinion) that the Premier League made (at the behest of the players, admittedly) at the outset was to have Black Lives Matter on the back of the players' shirts rather than stick with their own Kick It Out campaign which encompasses discrimination of all races. I understand why they did it – it was the zeitgeist of a very emotionally-charged moment and it was what was being done by American sportsmen, specifically the NBA – but it did tie the gesture to the BLM organisation. (It should be noted that the protests over the summer conflated the movement/notion that black lives matter with the organisation Black Lives Matter and that really hasn't helped either.)

As much of this discussion proves, there is a lot of muddiness around the whole BLM thing. Mike G says, "For the record, I have never once heard any BLM protester or spokesperson advocate getting rid of capitalism for Marxism. That's a total fabrication, a deliberate right-wing misrepresentation of what the movement is all about," – but it's not a total fabrication where the leaders are concerned. There were plenty of local activists claiming to speak for BLM who were, just as those early BLM founders did, openly avowing to be Marxist, arguing (as someone mentioned above) that Capitalism had failed black people. As such, they defended rioting and looting as, in the case of the former, a justifiable expression of frustration and, in the case of the latter, a form of reparations.

When you start to layer in CHAZ/CHOP, Critical Race Theory, "cancel culture", "defund the police", affirmative action, etc and the fact that Antifa and other loosely organised anarchist groups (who were openly wearing hammer-and-sickle motifs on their clothes and home-made shields), you have a jumble of opportunism and controversies mixed in with a genuine and much-needed movement for the awareness of racism and the need for racial equality. That's probably why the intricacies are being parsed out over 100+ comments here – it's not a simple argument but it's one that desperately needs some clarity.

Finally, as a point of clarification, when we talk of The West, I think we mean "Western Democracies" as they came to be defined after WW2. Nazi Germany was anathema to those values, which the reaction from the rest of western Europe, the Commonwealth and America rather proved!

Perception is what matters. Most people think of Black Lives Matters as being about institutional racism. The fact the obscure founders have some other radical ideas is no more relevant to people than it is to Christians that St Paul aided and abetted the stoning of Christians.

The movement is broadly viewed as anti-racist. The right-wingers draw attention to controversy at its outset to undermine the whole thing. Just like the police when they kill an unarmed black man then leak his priors for petty theft or weed possession. It's a not so subtle way of justifying the status quo.

With regard to Marxism.:. where to begin. Frankly I'm more concerned with fascism but, if the idea of men in red shirts keeps you up all night, then each to their own.

If the leaders and influencers were to decide that a particular group within the country is a threat to the nation, it isn't difficult to manipulate a large number of people to believe them, as quite a few are predisposed to the idea that their group is superior to the others, or more likely that their group is being unfairly treated or their lifestyle is threatened by the others. Victimhood is a powerful emotion and it can be and is used by those in power for nefarious purposes.

I cannot understand how a significant proportion of the population of countries whose forefathers carried the fight against fascism in the last war, are seemingly welcoming with open arms those with similar ideas in the 21st Century.

Most of us want to lead a peaceful life, but racism and any forms of discrimination will threaten that notion, maybe not directly, maybe not today, but eventually, it will, whch is why it's important to recognise that there are issues with the way we treat each other and anything that makes us think about what we say and how we say it, and how it may be received and perceived by others, is important.

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but we as individuals can help to shape what that system should stand for and what we accept as fair and reasonable and what we deem to be outrageous. It's our call.

Patricia Cullors one of the three founders - " we have an ideological framework" - "we are trained marxists"

The Agenda of Black Lives Matter Is Far Different From the Slogan

On the Marxist agenda - well it has certainly evolved over the last 100 years. Here is an oversight.

Cultural Marxism

I have observed that much of what is described in the second article has transpired over the last 10 years.

More and more these days I find I have to decide whether to speak up or remain silent about such matters - and those decisions are getting harder and harder to make.

Credit to PSG for showing solidarity and not just thinking “Let's win an easy game and win the group.” Unbelievable that a referee in his professional capacity would think or make such statements. It's disturbing but, as I say, heart warming to see both teams and players make a stand, and for once (under duress?) Uefa to side with them.

There's a brilliant German drama on Netflix called Babylon Berlin. It's set in late 20s early 30s Berlin and terrifying because so much of it reminds me of the USA Today. Freedom is fragile.

I find it hard to believe that of all the many issues raised by the BLM movement and the challenges of institutionalized racism that we have talked about here today, that's what you and Peter and Nick and Kevin and Kev want to talk about. Marxism.

That's the most important issue? Really? Geez. Talk about missing the point.

Laurie, In my opinion, anybody who dismisses the BLM movement as Marxist because of the beliefs of a few of the participants is welcome to do so. If it wasn't that, it would be something else, but communism is a very convenient boogeyman.

Me, I live in a country where right-wing terrorists encouraged by the outgoing president are openly plotting to assassinate political leaders to impose his agenda, so you'll excuse me if I focus my concerns -- and my own "speaking up" -- on more urgent threats to society than an irrelevant (and failed) political philosophy that is essentially extinct outside of North Korea.

Mike Gaynes,

I recently tried to explain to my parents in England the damage caused by Fox News as being akin to the fake Prussian “protocols of the Elders of Zion.” I can sense your exasperation. All I can say is that I think (?) most of us agree with you. Without trying to be flippant, it's not often myself and Jay Woods are in agreement. Despite our petty differences, I think most of us “get it”.

Re the CL walk-off, do you think we would have seen such a unified response even a year ago? The world sure has changed, hasn't it?

As for UEFA, remember we're talkin' about PSG here. If it had been Basaksehir and Grasshoppers, or Levski, we might have seen a different ruling.

If I'd been Derby County on Saturday, I'd have marched my lads straight off. Sadly the balance between the right thing to do and protecting a football club still hangs heavily in this country. Perhaps Derby's current plight impinged on any potential decision to walk off.

We've come close a few times at international level, especially in Eastern Europe.

Laurie #46, false. BLM is a movement. There is no organization called BLM, no leader, no director, no membership, just a loose confederation of unconnected groups. And there is no Marxist agenda. None. Heck, I doubt you could even define "Marxist agenda", but even if you could I challenge you to point to one aspect of the movement that is remotely Marxist.

You put the challenge to me to which I thought very carefully about rising to because of the danger of being labelled or stereotyped.

Nevertheless here is the link again:

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-agenda-black-lives-matter-far-different-the-slogan

Sadly in your scenario we'd have seen a forfeit and 0-3. Thankfully Mbappe and his mates are grounded enough to realize the clout they have.

Uefa have brushed over this for far too long. Ever since Lenart Johansen cottoned into the financial ramifications of the English ban, Uefa have adopted a three monkeys approach to racism and sectarianism.

I say the latter as a son of a Celtic mad maternal family. Once upon a time, Celtic fans were a delight, now the psychotic minority have taken centre stage. Forget the money, do the right thing, throw the book at them.

Yep...

I wonder how we got here ?

The suggestion that people who took an instant dislike to the comments made by Lukaku, did so due to the colour of his skin, is disgusting.

Those who have battered away at Calvert-Lewin would be mortified by such a suggestion and rightly so,

It`s really bizarre to read some who have made the insinuation concerning the stick Lukaku took, are the very people who have hammered Calvert-Lewin for years.

Our fan base does have a small element of racist; it would be foolish to even try to deny that, but which large body of people doesn't? To the overwhelming majority of Evertonians, the only colour which counts is blue.

Several people applying double standards on this thread. As usual, they won't recognise themselves. Either stop throwing stones, or move out of the glass house.

Everton has a dark racist past. Frequent booing, monkey noises of black players, throwing bananas etc. Does anyone remember the small Nazi memorabilia shop with National Front affiliations near the ground?

A couple of Walton mates took a black London lad for a night out along County Road. They had to abandon that idea because of the shocking racism and near violence that provoked.

The Wimbledon great escape in ‘95 saw horrendous abuse for black Wimbledon players, all in my earshot from a little boy sat on his dad's knee!

Thankfully that's in the past at Goodison Park. Anything that can change people's attitudes to other races is to be welcomed. Education about how the BLM movement has arisen should be encouraged. Institutional racism has blighted lives in the UK and more markedly in the USA. Incarceration, police brutality, poverty, housing laws have all led to BLM. The shock of George Floyd brought the knee to the Premier League. Now it should be for players to use personally, for goal celebrations.

A far more effective reaction to racism is to follow the actions of the teams in the PSG game.

Walk off the pitch every time and it will soon stop.

Jay 126 - the original post was referring to fans in England booing - therefore I referred to perceptions in England. Since the post was about fans in England, I didn't feel the need to clarify I was talking about mixed perceptions in England and why that might have contributed to the booing.

Mike - somewhere - how do you know that certain posters haven't had discussions with people of different ethnic backgrounds? You don't, so don't assume that you know. Also - it is absolutely fine for people to associate BLM with what they have personally witnessed. If they live in a part of the country where BLM has caused more harm than good, they will obviously take the view that it causes more problems.

On a final note - well done PSG. Hopefully that will have a bigger impact than BLM, Kick it out or any other thing mentioned on this thread.

It's especially amazing considering that at the same time Marxist political parties don't manage more than a few hundred votes at general elections around the world.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13372458/war-heroes-black-lives-matter-protester-burn-cenotaph/

I tried to get a link from a more palatable news organisation but for some reason couldn't find anything on the BBC or the Guardian.

It's a pity that acceptance and discussion of that central concern, racism, has morphed into debate about Black Lives Matter as a movement, distracting from "black lives matter" as a principle. The principle that black lives, all lives, matter seems to be accepted.

I must admit I've posted without really reading the detail.

The official in question identified the only black coach as the “black one”. John Barnes has correctly pointed out, that if there was only one white coach, then they would have been referred to as “the white one”. Not necessarily racist, more like easily identifying someone. The word used was negru - which is black in Romanian. If you were attacked, you would use skin colour, amongst other identifiable features, to identify the perpetrators.

If one coach had a hat on, and the official said “the one with the hat on”, would that be discriminatory against hats?

Surprisingly the offer of some of our special outfits for free has met with no response - nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Surely this spikey attitude is damaging their cause certainly members of our chapter are quite disgruntled.

But if anyone else needs a set of long flowing robes with pointy hats we are at - Keep-Kissing-Kinky@wango.com

Right on brothers

Let me ask you a question - Did you listen to what Patricia Cullers one of the founding members of BLM had to say in the embedded YouTube video contained in that article?

In case you didn't I will quote her again - " we have an ideological framework" - "we are trained marxists". Her words not mine or the trustees of the Heritage Society.

Mike challenged me “ to point to one aspect of the movement that is remotely Marxist.”

So I did - and not without thinking very carefully before doing so.

But as Mike said the fact that a few of the organisers admitted to Marxist beliefs 5 years ago does not necessarily mean that the current BLM movement has a 'Marxist agenda'. Most people are capable of holding various different political ideas and leanings simultaneously and evolving them and even totally changing them over time. It's possible to draw comparisons and links between different political movements and agendas in many ways and certain buzzwords can be very effective in doing so but it seems clear to me that in this case Marxism is being used as some sort of dirty word to scare people with conservative leanings away from the BLM movement; which in America at least was much more closely aligned with Democratic principles and candidates in the recent election.

I (and I suspect many others) hadn't been aware of the marxist ideological basis of BLM (capitals, the movement) until recently. In supporting "black lives matter" as a principle I am supporting the (legal / legitimate) actions against racism. All lives matter including black - no more and certainly no less. That doesn't mean I (or you, I think) subscribe to the marxist principles of (capitals) BLM.

We're all against racism. I haven't heard one single denial of that.

He believed that no economic class—wage workers, land owners, etc. should have power over another. Marx believed that everyone should contribute what they can, and everyone should get what they need.
Sounds pretty good to me.

Contrary to popular belief I don't think we have ever seen the ideas of Marx put into practice.
You can see why it scares capitalists. It horrifies them that that they might have to share their billions with people like us let alone their workforce!

You are right to consider the source (and funding) of any website. I constantly do just that. It is astonishing just how many times a seemingly respectable and 'neutral' site, posting well-written and referenced articles are not all that they seem.

Such is the case with your own link to The Heritage Organization. This is what the Media Bias Fact Check site reports about it:

The Heritage Organization Fact Checked

The takeaways are:

* it is rated as extreme right politically
* it was founded by the Coors Brewery in 1973
* in its early years it heavily influenced policy in the Ronald Reagan Presidency
* its influence continued under the Trump Presidency and the staffing of his administration
* it is funded by the likes of the Koch family (BIG players in the US corporate world and political scene; time and again their name is associated with [superficially] 'legitimate' websites) and Altira (Marlborough cigarettes). They both support 'neo liberalism' - free market trade, deregulation of financial markets, a shift away from state welfare provision)
* as such, due to the above Heritage frequently take positions favourable to Big Tobacco, less central government influence and opposition to climate change
* since 1990, 96% of Heritage's campaign donations have gone to Republican causes and candidates

The video at the top of the article you link is clearly a Heritage compilation, a very polished production to add to their 'credibility'. As such, it is loaded with carefully selected images and words to present BLM in the worst possible light.

On the one hand - whilst broadly agreeing with Mike Gaynes in much of what he has contributed to this thread - he does (as you point out, Laurie) too easily deny and negate the indisputable fact that the founders and originators of the #BlackLifeMatters hashtag have openly declared Marxist leanings.

Personally, I find it laughable that some in this thread are referencing Marxist as a threat to US society as if all the ordinary folk whose awareness of the race issue has been heightened thanks to BLM will all become mindless sheeples and passively convert to a political ideology polar opposite to the civil liberties they enjoy.

Bernie Saunders has recently posted a few statistics on what has happened since this pandemic started:

* 25 million Americans have lost their jobs, or a significant part of their income
* 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty
* 290,000 (and rising) Americans have died from CV-19
*** 647 billionaires got $1 trillion richer

Some might just reflect on those numbers and conclude the threat to the US and the Western World is not Marxism, but rather the existing system of capitalism and Big Business holding such a disproportionate sway in national policy to the betterment of the few and the detriment of the many.

If Garza and the BLM leadership wish to replace capitalism with a more socially engineered model then that's fine and dandy but how many guesses would you like to work out in whose favour?

With the greatest of respect to you and Mike, who are obviously intelligent contributors on TW, you have a massive blindspot when it comes to seeing the wood.

In any case, it is difficult to be lectured on systemic racial prejudice in a country (UK obvs) where the white working class are now so behind other demographics in social mobility that even the BBC has started to report it, and where more than a handful of police forces have enabled the mass rape of white working-class children, but that's too dark a turn to go into, I've no doubt you at least know to what is being referred.

Are white working class people equal to, behind or ahead of ethnic minority working class people in the UK in terms of social mobility? And what's your source?

The sentiment, on the other hand, is one I'd hope all of us could support. Personally I see it less about police killings and especially white on black police killings- lest we forget a black person is very disproportionately likely to be killed by a fellow black person- but more about the everyday lives, jobs, prospects etc. To me that sentiment goes beyond what is fair and right but is a matter of economic advantage. To artificially limit the scope of any group is to limit your potential economic gain. We made this mistake with women decades ago. We should know better by now.

The question that seems to me to go to the heart of some of the more heated exchanges on here is whether the sentiment has now outgrown the movement and we can regard that latter as essentially stillborn. There is some good evidence for that. Few would argue that BLM is supported by large numbers who would oppose the original movement. Equally the movement itself- always decentralised and with no traditional leadership- appears to have somewhat faded in the background. So I would respect that view, although I am not entirely persuaded of it. Ideally the movement's name would not have become the name of the sentiment most, if not all of us support. I see no-one on here who is negative about the Kick it Out campaign.

Finally, virtue signalling only takes you so far and as I am sure many of us would feel, can start to grate. So rather than Sky or the EPL bombarding us with BLM symbols, they could instead do the honourable thing and put a black person on their respective boards. Give the disproportionate representation of black people in the game, that surely cannot be beyond them?

If it is how marginalised and deprived white working class families have become under the slow creep of neo-liberal politics since the days of Thatcher and Reagan, then I'm not blind at all, ta very much. The rising poverty levels of such families in the western world and the boom industry of food banks is a damning indictment of many a democratic government.

It saddens me deeply that peoples of all ethnicity are victims of said politics but - certainly under Trump in the last four years, as well as other populist nationalists around the world - there has been a deliberate stoking of fires to create greater division between particular demographics as a means to gain and retain power, pitting one against the other. It is shameless opportunism.

It further saddens me how malleable and easily manipulated some can be, as is currently evident in Trump supporters continuing to believe his unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, when the evidence overwhelmingly shows there was no such fraud.

If each one of us could step back and have real dialogue with those we see as 'other' (which is the crux of what Mike Gaynes appeals for), we could possibly find more common ground than we thought possible.

And we might just discover that love of God, Nation and Family is not the exclusive domain of the extreme right. Centrist and the left-leaning can also be religious, patriots and upholders of the nuclear family, whatever their ethnicity, religion or social status.

I'll say again it's waaay more likely that people of color will be worse off than any white socioeconomic equivalent because of attitudes towards race.

All will have significantly worse problems getting the appropriate health care, getting access to financial assistance or aid, legal help, jobs. The lot.
The semantics about the name really doesn't matter.

Jay - the blind spot I was referring to you that you seem to share with Mike is that BLM is simply an anti-racist movement as opposed to the reality of it having quite an extensive social agenda that has been elaborated on ad nauseum over the last 4 years. I've always taken it as read that nobody on TW was racist as I seldom encounter racists offline either - we've been debating the complexities of supporting aspects or the entirety of the movement, people should be free to boo it without trite accusations from John Pierce and Dion Dublin.

Brent - for evidence I'll just leave you the BBC links which explain what the white working-class have known for decades.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54278727
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47227157
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44196645

I note you don't even bother challenging the last bit about the police, and nor should you, so that's justice and education covered - which other 'systems' can we address to work out whether or not there is systemic racial bias?

It's a fucking minefield isn't it?

'the blind spot I was referring to you that you seem to share with Mike is that BLM is simply an anti-racist movement.'

Then you haven't read my posts in this thread very attentively. I very explicitly correct Mike on that very point, when he denies the Marxist leanings of some of its followers.

Where you (and others) appear to be confusing things is not making a distinction between (as Brent Stephens directly addressed you way back @ 56) BLM the movement and BLM, the principle.

In this thread I have not read anyone expressing resentment at the principle of striving for racial equality for all. That's healthy. I have seen people making wild claims that BLM, the movement, and its Marxists followers threaten to undermine the very fabric of Western Civilization. That's bonkers.

It's an inflated and diversory claim, IMO.

Sam at #180, you said it better and with more brevity than I did.

Kev #165, I didn't talk about people having general "discussions with people of different ethnic backgrounds" -- I was very specific about sitting down with black people and hearing directly about their experiences with institutionalized racism, specifically in their interactions with police. Are you saying you (or Ed) have actually done that? If so, please share that experience and I will willingly apologize for my presumption. If I'm correct and you have not, please share that too.

Brent #191, perfect.

So education is important in social mobility and so are family aspirations and support.

How would you characterise the extremist, libertarian, racist, christian evangelical and anti-intellectual movement subsidised by Koch brothers, right wing think tanks and media propaganda outlets like Fox News? A quasi-fascistic movement that is actively trying to subvert a democratically free election in one of the world's biggest democracy?

I know which I see as the greatest threat as it is backed by entrenched power and wealth.

Here's one (from "Addressing Ethnic Inequalities in Social Mobility -
Research findings from the CoDE and Cumberland Lodge Policy Workshop", University of Manchester):

"Ethnic minorities in Britain are experiencing growth in clerical,
professional and managerial employment (absolute mobility), however
they still face significant barriers to enjoying the levels of social mobility of
their white British peers (relative mobility)".

Here's a second (from "Integration Journey: The Social Mobility Trajectory of Ethnic Minority Groups in Britain", Li, Yaojun, Social Science Open Access repository, 2018):

"we find strong evidence of first-generation setback, and some signs of second-generation catch-up. Indians and Chinese are making progress, but the two black groups and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis are lagging behind. The analysis shows persisting ethnic disadvantages in the labour market in spite of their high levels of educational achievement, and it also shows an emerging order of ethnic hierarchy, running from Indian, Chinese, black Caribbean, Pakistani/Bangladeshi to black African groups".

Note the problem once people get beyond school / university.

Education is critical to social mobility - the research shown by the BBC states that white working class boys make up a mere 2% of students at top-tier universities which I think you'd agree is a massive under-representation and probably crucial for them to ever crack into the 'systemic power structures' whether it be politics, law, medicine etc.

Your point about familial aspiration and support for the children is a sage one but one that most would be reticent to make about any other colour or ethnicity for fear of being labelled a, what do you call 'em.

Measuring social mobility is always going to be tricky when the most disadvantaged group (with the possible exception of first generation, non-english speakers) appears to superficially resemble those in power, but I'd suggest treating them all as some homogenous group with built in 'privilege' serves only to reinforce what is already being done to improve their lot - absolutely sod all.

I'll definitely read up on those pieces you've cited. I am certainly not the most informed on this topic but having spent a lifetime in their world I do happen to know how the likes of the Millwall fans feel (backed by their own words as referenced above). It behoves us to seek an understanding of each side rather than bandy about that now meaningless accusation, something I'm sure Mike and I will find common ground on.

Democratic free election in the world's biggest democracy!!

You have to be joking, the recent, "Fraudulent Conspiracy" that took place 3rd November with the blessing of the CIA and the FBI's approval.

Thankfully I did not vote as it was a forgone conclusion of corruption.

For me the BLM movement is defined primarily and essentially by the BLM principle and therefore the Marxist or otherwise leanings of some of its participants does not feel entirely relevant.

I have no problem with Marxism per se. Obviously the idealogy has been used in the past to commit terrible crimes but the same might be said for socialism and capitalism and indeed any pervading ideology that corrupt humans can use as a front. Good things and bad things have come from all those ideologies so in a way they become irrelevant and must be looked past to see what the guiding desires and aims of the people labelled with them are.

In the case of BLM, both movement and principle, it would seem that those guiding desires are towards equality and freedom from discrimination. Of course there may be people withing the movement (there usually are) looking to profit in other ways or who have alterior motives but the claim that the movement is essentially Marxist feels either untrue or irrelavant or probably both to me.

Yes, agree, Peter. I hope I can be open-minded on these things. And I do retract claims if I see I'm not right. Cheers mate.

Great post at #204, by the way. If Marxists were trying to get the results of the presidential election thrown out, conservative heads would be melting down. Instead we have less than 10% of congressional Republicans willing to publicly recognize Biden's victory.

Sam #209, again, well said.I am envying your knack for brevity.

Quite frankly Kevin you have only displayed a very poor understanding of geopolitics, geography and ideology in this thread.

I'm really not clear from your posts where you reside, the UK, the US, or elsewhere.

But right now, THE single biggest threat to US democracy is not the BLM Marxist bogeyman you claim, but the single most powerful man on the planet. The sitting President. You should be more concerned at those already occupying positions of immense power and influence and their collusion by silence in not doing more to condemn or constrain Trump than the imaginary 'Reds under the Bed' you conjure up.

In the UK, another opportunist politician has ridden the wave of populism to deliver Brexit and the promise of returning to a totally independent sovereign state. It's going to take longer to discover, but the good citizens of those Isles will eventually face the stark reality that there is a price to pay for such inward looking nationalism and they will find themselves financially poorer for it.

I thought you didn't like it when people made predictions.

{ref. Post 99 - ‘ You make assumptions that you do not quantify and that cannot be easily quantified as you attempt without an extensive canvas of a diverse and broad demographic.'}

Bit hypocritical don't you think?

Play the ball, not the man.

Kevin P, the predictions are coming from others very much with their fingers on the pulse. Take note of the drastic falls of the value of sterling against all major currencies in the last 5 years since Brexit became 'a thing'.

Read up on the concerns expressed by the likes of the UK's Confederation of British Industry (CBI) still seeking clarity on how the hell their members are meant to plan for and conduct business under the (still non-existent) Brexit agreement.

Or the deep frustration of the British Road Haulers Association (RHA) on being stonewalled by government on what a post-Brexit world looks like for their members.

Or retailers, dependent on the likes of RHA, worried about bottlenecks at UK entry points impacting on them being able to stock their shelves with items from the mundane to the essential.

Throw in the cost and consequences of the pandemic and you have an imperfect storm.

The accumulative effect of the above (and many other factors not mentioned) will come at not only a financial cost felt by all (especially those on the bottom rungs of society), but also a negative impact on the qualitative value of their lives.

Kevin M, when someone posits a claim as you did on how non-European regimes suppress and eliminate their own people, then when challenged with the very stark example of Nazi Germany you reply 'yeah, well, strictly you have to include Hitler's Germany within the definition of the West. But - yer know like - it was just an aberration.'

The world's deadliest ever conflict. 75 million deaths. Russia alone lost 16 million people - 15% of its population. 6 million Jews and 11 million others exterminated in the Holocaust.

Some 'aberration', that.

It's commonly known as scaremongering.

The truth is, that there has never been a precedent for this so no one actually knows.

It is hypocritical that you dismiss anyone else's opinions that may differ from your own whilst at the same time making predictions yourself.

Anyway, as Michael 215 inferred, it was a cheap shot pointing out your hypocrisy. For that, I apologise.

This shouldn't be the forum for dealing with this but you are in full flow and your Brexit talk needs some counter point:

1) The cost and consequences of the pandemic dwarf the impact of Brexit, certainly short term. The former wiped 10% off GDP this year. Even Project Fear only anticipated a reduction in the rate of our medium term growth.

2) You talk about drastic falls in sterling. Much of this is structural, the changing nature of reserve currencies and the long term strength of the dollar arising from tax and banking policy. Looking at the 200 MA over time, it's one of steady decline, not what you describe. Equally the euro comparison only makes sense if you factor in the euro crisis of 13/14/15. Yes the pound was high then v the euro but only because of fears the eurozone would break up, in other words the euro was unusually weak. Otherwise from 2009 to 2013, sterling has traded in the 1.10 to 1.20 range for much of the time. Sterling is overall somewhat weaker, but it's not as you say.

2) Yes anyone involved in importing and exporting to the EU are going to find it somewhat more difficult/costly, and of course that is against their interests and they will say so. However it is the same way that we trade with the rest of the world outside the EU and since our non EU exports have been growing faster than our exports to the EU, it doesn't seem like it is an insuperable barrier.

3) Best of luck if you set too much store by long term forecasts. I trained as an economist at a top global uni and I think even those who created and produce output from econometric models might be uneasy about how they are now put to use and interpreted. We're still trying to finesse how dynamic models work, having moved on from near useless static models. If you don't believe me, check out how often forecasts have downgraded, not just from the UK but from every developed nation. However if you believe this is possible, then if you check out the CEBR and OECD ultra long term forecasts for the UK through to the mid 2030's, produced annually, last time in December 2019, they predict/guess that the UK will grow at least as much of Germany- which is incidentally a lot less than both are used to- and a fair way ahead of France and especially Italy. And that is my measure for Brexit. Do we at least match a composite of the EU big 3. I also think we will.

When you have a moment, I'd be interested to hear your definition of 'populist' and also what you regard as its opposite. I think these words are bandied around, usually in a perjorative sense, without all that much thought. Like neo-liberalism which appears to be a term the broad left use to scare their babies with, but to the extent I've seen it defined, does not exist here or anywhere else in Europe and never has in recent years.

Look back at my post @ 121 in which I used the word 'predictions' and how I used it in response to your own post @ 117 in which you denied making 'assumptions'.

In the opening of that post I make it clear I enjoy your contributions to TW, but I didn't agree with some aspects of your posts in this thread.

At no point do I denigrate your right to make assumptions or predictions. I do point out that contrary to your claims you HAD made an unsubstantiated claim (and prediction).

That's it.

For you to now accuse me of 'hypocrisy' based on that is, IMO, you offering yet another straw man, not legitimate counter points.

As for me 'dismissing' anyone else's opinions that may differ from my own, I again will disagree with you. Yes, I challenge opinions with my own, often backed up with referenced sources. It's not the same thing.

Isn't the exchange of differing opinions the point of debate?

And I'm sorry if it offends you, Kevin Molloy or anyone else, but I reserve the right to consider some posts and posters are more meritous than others whilst others...aren't.

I ignored Kevin M until he addressed me directly. Now Kevin is fully entitled to express the views he does. My personal judgement is that he wrote jumbled nonsense and I told him so, suggesting where he could better look as to who and what and how currently presents the greatest threat to US Democracy. And it ain't the 'Marxists' within BLM.

I'm comfortable with my contribution to this thread. If you're not Kevin(s), that's for you to deal with. Not me.

The setting up of the country was flawed - assuming that you object to slavery and the displacement and genocide of Native Americans.

And the key historic symbols that flow from both these facts are problematic and do need to be redressed.

Some people (I'm assuming you amongst them from the context of your post) find the sudden rate of change to be alarming. But the reality is that it's taken more than 200 years for things to come to a boil (I actually don't think we're at a boil yet, but slowly approaching it), and in that sense the rate of change has been painfully slow...

I'm not implying that the founding fathers were only evil, racist b*stards, but the fact is that the severe racism of that era has not been reckoned with yet (not satisfactorily), and that the reckoning does need to happen.

The reckoning so far is a largely symbolic one. Colin Kaepernick taking the knee was the most peaceful and quiet of all possible protests and yet half of America lost its shit over it...

The hauling down of statues of men who owned slaves. What is really lost here? Most of these men are obscure historical characters, and nobody knows what they did. People just assume they were pillars of society... And they were, except it was a society that was fine with slavery, so I think it's time that we stop venerating such people and the mores that they upheld...

You are a very informative person, sir.

A fine post. I enjoyed it. To reply.

1) Of course the cost and consequences of the pandemic torpedoed the UK economy, as it did ALL nations globally. The difference is that once (hopefully!) things 'normalise' if and when the disruption of the pandemic is minimalised or better still eradicated altogether, all nations other than the UK will simply reset to where they were pre-CV-19. The UK, by contrast, still has the considerable uncertainty of the true cost of divorcing from the EU to factor in.

As for the Project Fear predictions you reference, just before the pandemic hit the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney announced that the UK had already lost almost 2% of predicted growth and 4% from household incomes. He further added that this equated to 'the economy being £40bn smaller than it would have been without Brexit', amounting to a £15bn loss of tax revenue, or £300m a week, and of greater importance to families, a £900 loss per household.

This is WITHOUT throwing the pandemic into the mix. Not insignificant numbers then.

2) Currency markets. I accept they are determined by a multitude of influences, many of which cannot be predicted, such as CV-19, natural disasters, etc. However, since its recent peak 5 years ago (1.45 to the Euro) just ahead of the Brexit referundum date, sterling has lost 27% of its value and mostly traded in a lower band than you stated, 1.05 to 1.15. This has consequences for both the purchasing and selling, the import and export of goods, and for each and every UK citizen paying at the till, which leads to your next point.

3) You acknowledge that importing and exporting to the EU is going to be more difficult and costly. You also state we will simply 'trade with the rest of the world outside the EU and since our non EU exports have been growing faster than our exports to the EU, it doesn't seem like it is an insuperable barrier.'

Hmm...simple maths suggest that we will no longer be in an advantaged position to access the subsidaries and prefential treatment afforded between EU member countries. Rather, we will face a premium on EU imports that wasn't the case before whereas our exports will potentially find markets closed or reduced to them.

That slack has to be taken up elsewhere. Do the alternative markets you claim 'are growing faster than UK's EU exports' compensate for the shortfall?

Post Brexit, Boris has placed great hope in improved and favourable trade relations with North America. Only...the US might not play ball. With Joe Biden now the President elect he has made it very, very clear as an Irish American very much influential in the Ireland peace treaty that a hard border between the two Irelands will not be acceptable to his administration.

The UK likes to talk up its 'special relationship' with the US. This ignores that the US also has very good relationships with the likes of the EUs big economies, Germany and France, which arguably are on more stable and favourable terms than currently exists in the UK in the confusion of Brexit.

4) You get no argument from me Mark that predictions - especially financial forecasts - are...unpredictable. You reference Germany, France and Italy in comparison to the UK. All 3 remain in the EU. Once the pandemic is behind us, they will operate in 'the known'. The UK by contrast is now an outsider, operating in the unknown. Now it all may go swimmingly well. To me (and others, far more knowledgable than me on the matter) all the signs are that British Bluster in 'negotiating' with the EU has fallen on stony ground and as such I have some trepidation for the consequences for my birth nation and its citizens.

As for my definition of 'populist', I'll stick with Brexit, if you don't mind.

In 2016 during the campaign referendum, you had a Conservative sitting Prime Minister, David Cameron, casually call for a Brexit referundum in which he lobbied to 'remain', more as a tool to silence his noisy party Brexiters than with real conviction. Only he and his Chancellor George Osborne and the 'remain' movement in general ran a dreadful campaign, failing to demonstrate the benefits of remaining and allowing the 'leavers' to propogate all manner of (proven) lies. They took the electorate for granted. By the narrowest of margins, Brexiters won.

The leave campaign was headed by the very definition of populist, opportunist politicians. One of them never having been elected to the House of Parliament, Nigel Farage. He seemingly has had more political parties than a golfer has golf clubs. He was ably supported by his soul mates, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

Johnson, it is widely reported, penned both a leave and stay article before deciding to go with the former. A man of conviction, or just flippant?

Within 3 weeks of winning the referundum, which possibly took them all by surprise, all four walked away from the situation they were the architects of. Cameron resigned as Prime Minister to write his memoires. Gove reneged on a deal with Johnson NOT to stand for the vacant Tory leader and Prime Minister position, torpedoing both their chances of winning, clearing the path for the hapless Teresa May to assume 'power'. Farage just turned heel and went for a pint and a fag.

As for your comments about neo-liberalism Mark, as a (presumably degreed) economist, you might want to study more closely the ever-widening gap year-on-year between those in the lowest band of household income against those in the top band since the days of Thatcher and Reagan.

You might also want to ask how and why the vast majority of working folk in the UK since the collapse of the financial markets following the subprime mortgage scandal have not seen a rise in wages in TWELVE YEARS. And yet it was their money - public funds - that bailed out the bankers and brokers responsible for the illegal practices that caused the financial meltdown.

This is turn led to the most severe austerity measures which impacted on all vital public services, in particularly the NHS. Measures which conveniently have never been properly rescinded in an improved financial climate, but rather, further squeezed.

I hope that answers the challenges you put to me.

I stopped reading when you brought Mark Carney into your defence. I can only presume you did so because he's an Evertonian.

Your quote of his that the economy had 'already lost almost 2% of predicted growth and 4% of household income' made me chuckle. Anyone conversant with economic forecasts would know that they are hardly worth the paper they are written on.

The key in the quote is the word 'predicted' -- you don't seem to have even considered the possibility that maybe the forecasts of predicted growth/incomes (and/or the estimates of the size of the UK economy at the time) could be wrong. Or, just maybe, Carney was selecting projections that suited his purposes.

I'm not condemning America en masse and I recognize it has contributed many wonderful things to societ.y (I lived in Los Angeles for 11 years and loved every minute of it.)

I'm simply happy to listen when large groups of minorities try to point out that the system is much less fair to them than to the majority. I think that is a healthy thing.

And if that involves taking a hard look at the past and belatedly (or at least being prepared to consider one's long-held views) that the systemic racial injustices of 250 years reverberate today, so be it.

The issue isn't about judging individuals from 250 years ago and smugly condemning them. It's about understanding how our society works or doesn't, and if the roots of dysfunction – which are often hidden – stretch back to 250 years, then yes, let's sort that out and have the future be healthier for everyone.

I think we should be held to a higher standard of societal justice than autocracies such as imperial Rome, Russia, and Turkey. We can rightfully laud America for fighting the Nazis whilst also pointing out that it was wrong to proceed with Jim Crow laws decades past the settling of World War 2.

I'm not sure how much democracy and freedom there was for a little black girl in Alabama in the 60s who was set upon by German Shepherds for trying to go to school.

And let's get real here – America has intervened around the world to overthrow democratic regimes when it suited them: Allende in Chile, being an easy one to cite.

This is not anti-Americanism on my part. America has done wonderful things too (too many to enumerate here). Simply pointing out that if we live in a society that extols democracy and justice, then we should demand it delivers justice to everyone.

Anyway, the issue is rather complex for a footie blog. Boiled down, my point is that it's good to recognize the injustices of the past so we can mitigate their consequences in the future.

I hope my fears on that front are not realised. I am not trying to downgrade the experiences of black Americans, and I am all for the rooting out of injustices described.

I stand by my opening posts on this thread, that the Black Lives Matter movement is perceived differently, and for different reasons, by many people in England, and subsequently the booing at the Millwall game wasn't necessarily racist. I believe this thread vindicates that point.

I also stand by my comment about it continuing to cause more problems. It currently does, due to its divisiveness, and it is not likely to stop overnight. Therefore it is a reasonable comment and not unfounded.

I also stand by my point about you saying Mike 2 - Prytherch 0 being in poor taste. Mike was arguing that BLM can not be perceived as anything other than a push for equality, again this thread has proved that it does. It also became clear that we were talking about different countries. To comment as you did suggests that you did dismiss any notion of there being different perceptions about BLM out of hand.

Anything after this point was just petty, and I apologise for my part in that as it's often boring for others to read. I do also enjoy reading your posts.

Some here do not consider that a legitimate objective, and others view the movement itself as some sort of organized Marxist subversion plot, so of course it's obvious that there are differing perceptions of BLM, here and across society.

In all these posts, I may have missed it, so if you've addressed this question already, please forgive the repetition but if the booing at Millwall wasn't racist, what do you think it was?

If the anti-racist symbolic gesture of kneeling for 5 seconds before a game is so objectionable, you must surely realise that, if you are one the Millwall fans booing this, then you will obviously be perceived as racist by many if not all sane people (to throw the ‘different perceptions' bollocks back on its head).

We're meant to believe there's something nuanced about Millwall fans booing, because they dislike the obvious corporate PR that the taking of the knee has become, or they object to the political aims of BLM that they've read about in The Sun?

If it is such a hollow gesture (which arguably it is becoming), why boo it so vociferously? It take 5 seconds, and then the game starts.

I'll listen hard on Saturday as we slink in 0-3 down to Chelsea at HT. I'm sure the booing will be equally as nuanced – part anti-Kenwright, part "Ancelloti Out", part James is a lazy so 'n' so.

You must have missed it a couple of times, Mike. The Millwall fans told their club that they booed because of what the BLM protesters had done to statues (like Churchill) and the cenotaph (setting fire to the flag) in London.

So if revering historical figures, respecting the war dead and not being overly happy with those that dishonour them are all signs of being massively racist, then they are guilty as charged.

Or maybe they were just lying, afterall they have a reputation for it and it is fair to judge them on their reputation isn't it (except the black fans obviously, that'd be prejudiced).

A version which Andrew and John have elegantly responded to just above.

I asked Kevin what he thought it was all about.

The problem with ‘All Lives Matter' is that it can only come from the misinterpretation (apparently wilful at times) of the ‘Black Lives Matter' principle (BLMp) – the idea that BLMp is about raising a group up to pre-eminence rather than, once and for all, levelling things for all. We could never get to the ‘Colour Blind' status without eradicating discrimination and you won't eradicate discrimination whilst so many are oblivious to its more subtle elements.

The UK may generally be a place where overt racism is challenged but, in my experience, many otherwise benign and reasonable people are too easily swayed / influenced by pervasive and endemic stereotypes. That obviously isn't limited to racism, but it often seems to weaken the objections that are raised when the crimes of a few are portrayed as embedded in a culture or ethnicity.

I'm not an avid supporter of using sporting events to commemorate the passing of each and every sporting ‘icon' but I see no reasonable objection to it. Bending the knee may become passé but again, I can't see a good argument for binning it / construing it as a negative. As long as the players wish to do it, even if it is met by indifference or apathy from the spectators, I don't see a reason to deny them that right.

Frank McGregor – are you sure Catholic's can't be Prime Minister? Difficult, because appointments to the state religion (CoE) are historically legally protected from Catholic influence, but not actually impossible (Tony Blair attended Catholic mass with his wife and children although he didn't formally convert until 2007 and Boris Johnson was baptised a Catholic). Do you think there is active, or even subconscious discrimination against Catholics in British politics?

I'm also confused by your statement about being ‘thankful' at 208. Did you have the option to vote and choose not too? If your support is for the guy who lost, then surely that makes you more implicit in the result, not less?

I also greatly respect Ed P, with whom I have also connected outside TW -- we've emailed on shared topics ranging from Vatican tourism to cancer to Oregon track and field. But neither of us is good at being anything but blunt in our frequently differing opinions, and that's just fine.

My personal opinion is that there was an undoubted racist undertone amongst some of the booing; however, I think the things that have annoyed people the most in England range from the statues to the police kneeling in front of protestors during social distancing rather than breaking them up (they were issuing fines elsewhere for breaking social distancing restrictions). It came across that one group of people were fine to break restrictions above all others.

Do you honestly believe that any reasonable (and reasonably intelligent) person wouldn't intuit that, on balance, those footballers wouldn't be trying to send out a message of support to the destructive / negative elements of the movement? You are left with unreasonable (or simply idiotic) people booing what should be viewed as a demonstration of support for the very positive principle that exists.

We might as well give up on trying to resolve social injustice if people really can't differentiate between the police trying to moderate a volatile and emotional public protest for a worthy basic principle (let's ditch the confusing subtexts that come with it), and how they treat people who are deliberately being utterly selfish.

Could it be that this is part of what the BLM movement is advocating for, or is that too conspiratorial of me?

Though I'm a complete square when it comes to rule-abiding, it had never occurred to me that those who broke restrictions to visit vulnerable loved ones were just utterly selfish whilst those who wanted to trash a local Starbucks whilst gurning for Instagram were simply engaged in emotional protest… but, after all, I am new to this double-think malarkey.

Don't you realise that the police are (now) trained in conflict resolution? It's not about pandering to wrong-doers, it's about defusing potentially inflammatory situations and hopefully preventing things even worse than property damage.

If they knelt for any other reason, it could only be that they genuinely supported the protest (but not the bad behaviour that unfortunately came with it). Is that really what you are suggesting and expect others to believe?

Give me one example where someone simply visiting a vulnerable relative has actually been fined. The fines are for people blatantly and repeatedly breaking the rules, not for the genuinely well-intentioned. Some people have also needed to have things explained to them as they haven't understood the purpose of the restrictions.

Plain and simple: English people are offended by burning our flag, vandalising the cenotaph and defacing Churchill's statue.

Does that make make it inadmissible or me of the same political persuasion as the trustees of that organisation?

Mike # 232 - “Peter, please don't talk down to me like I'm some sort of uninformed idiot.”

You to me @ 82 - “Heck, I doubt you could even define "Marxist agenda", but even if you could”

Yeah.

Thanks for the compliment, I try my best.

Jay @223,

Thanks also to you for your detailed reply. I understand what you are saying; however, I don't agree with it, as follows, in line with your paras:

1) Carney is the worst type of Bank of England Governor – a politician and so talks with political motives. The problem here is Carney's version of the baseline, a prediction as to what otherwise might have happened.

Since the Bank of England routinely got this baseline forecast wrong long before the vote, I don't see how much store you could set by it now. They got it wrong in the first part of the decade by consistently over estimating productivity growth, which is actually the biggest problem for us and all developed economies, a far bigger impact in the longer term than either Brexit or the virus, and an issue that also long predated even the idea of having a vote.

As I indicated, I much prefer benchmarking as more realistic measurement and I invite you to compare UK GDP growth with a composite of Germany, France and Italy for this period. We do not compare unfavourably. Indeed in 2018-19 Germany was twice teetering on the brink of recession. That wasn't down to Brexit – we've been told it has minimal impact on the EU and in any case, Brexit hadn't actually happened, and still hasn't.

So what Carney is talking about is not a real loss but not having grown as quickly as predicted. But then that wasn't just us undershooting forecasts as I've said. It is exactly this sort of presentation of data that I referred to earlier, it gives econometric modelling a bad name.

2) I think currency has begun to have more short-term fluctuation around political events and certainly did so with Brexit to an extent. But I will challenge your implied hypothesis that this amounted to a 27% devaluation. That simply isn't true and I've explained why; there was a major Eurozone crisis – and it won't be the last – immediately before the Brexit vote. It wasn't so much a case of Sterling weakening as the Euro strengthening. Currency pairs are thus relative, not absolute measures of currency strength.

What is the evidence for that? Just look at Sterling:Euro rates for the period before that Eurozone crisis. I'll list some rates:

Feb 2010: 1.12 (the low point was 1.04 the year earlier)
Feb 2012: 1.19
Feb 2013: 1.18
Feb 2014: 1.21.

Then the Eurozone crisis hit and the Euro weakened hugely as Sterling peaked at 1.43 in November 2015. Note that the European Referendum Act that enabled the referendum was passed several months previously.

By the end of 2015, fears of a partial collapse in the monetary union receded and the Euro recovered from that point. By mid-January 2016 it had already strengthened to 1.31 Immediately prior to the vote, it was around 1.26.

I think it is fair to say our currency is probably weaker than it might otherwise have been but not in the range you quote. And it is moot whether it is better to have a strong or weak currency. Strong Sterling used to be a mantra and it brought us the ERM fiasco. China's economy has performed strongly partly as result of currency manipulation, in their case artificially weakening the Renmimbi.

In truth, there are pros and cons to either position. The important part is at least we have a floating currency as a relief valve, something Eurozone members uniquely do not and that is what originally caused the Eurozone crisis in the middle of the last decade and will cause more if they don't do something about it.

3) I think that to determine the medium-term impact of Brexit on prices, we first need to understand what the EU is. Contrary to some opinions that it is about promoting free trade, it is essentially a protectionist bloc. I'd leave it to others to discuss the merits or otherwise of such a position but essentially it means it is set up to protect its internal suppliers, not in all sectors, but many. Typically that means it will not pay 'world prices' on all goods and services it consumes.

It follows that, if you are not in the bloc, then 1) you will find it more difficult to export in sectors which are protected; but that 2) you do now have an opportunity to introduce world prices.

It is certainly not a given that costs to households will rise after Brexit. There are policy decisions to make that will influence that outcome but, in theory, leaving the EU can definitely reduce prices in a lot of sectors back down to world prices. In the longer term, the EU itself accepts that it will fall to around 12-15% of global GDP over the coming decades, from around double that now.

I see it as a strategic decision as to where and how to then focus your efforts; within a dwindling bloc or outside it. Of course we could mess up Brexit, politicians are good at that, but at the very least, there is a sound intellectual case for the path we are now pursuing.

4) I agree with you that the Remain campaign was lamentable. No positive case was made. But perhaps the problem was there are many types of remainder, just as there are many different ways that the EU will evolve in the coming decades, albeit we would only have had a small say in that.

This is a topic worthy of a wider debate because my concerns about how it will evolve, and what will then happen, is one reason I voted Leave. But even I can see the problem in trying to present a positive case because it draws you into that future evolution which is not only hard to articulate but impossible to predict. The reality is, staying in the EU was not really a 'status quo'. It has changed a lot since 4 decades ago and that won't stop.

On income distribution, the Gini co-efficient did increase from the early 60s to late 80s but, from the latter point, it has hardly moved. To the extent there has been neo-liberalism in the past 30 years, it must have failed! And I think this year of all years is the most un-neoliberal year in history!

Also, you talk about 'austerity' but Paul Johnson at the IFS correctly points at that government spending in real terms is much higher than in the 2000s. What happened in the last decade is the rate of growth in spending was slowed considerably and also spending increases where asymetrical, with large increases going to the NHS, with other departments bearing cuts.

So what austerity really means is a slowing in spending growth combined with a re-allocation of resources. That may have been a good or bad idea but words like 'austerit'y do not inform the debate much. I go back to the real problem underlying this: our productivity growth has stalled. But so has most of the developed world, especially in Europe. Hence our GDP growth is well below historic trend. How to fix this is too big an issue for here but I despair it is not much discussed.

It's a shame we couldn't do this over a point or glass of wine. As I say, this is not really the right forum.

Of course the article you linked to is not 'inadmissible' due to the site's political leanings. Link to whatever you like as far as I'm concerned.

I clearly compliment you on 'considering the source (and funding) of any website.'

I clearly agree with you that, in spite of his subsequent denials in this thread, Mike Gaynes in his post @ 82 DID negate any Marxist link with the BLM movement (and in doing so was unnecessarily gratuitously aggressive towards you) when quite clearly there is.

It was fair and just that you picked up the challenge and replied to Mike in the manner you did.

Zero issue from me on that score.

Declan #240, There's no need to respond to this because you've made your position clear. These inanimate objects that you speak of being “burned, vandalised and defaced”. If none of this damage had happened, for argument's sake, would those Millwall fans be fully on board with BLM and therefore have not booed the kneeling?

If the angry and emotional damage of property is all the real power you have in this society, then that's the action you are going to take, to deliberately upset people, so they take notice, and offence, just like yourself.

I'm an Englishman and, while I don't condone mindless violence, I can at least understand where it's coming from, instead of being manipulated into taking ‘offence', and therefore condemning an entire movement.

(and is that an offer to debate this further over an Irish 'point', or an English 'pint'..? ;-)

We'd best draw a line under this as much as I'm enjoying it, 'cos we have strayed even further away from the lead topic, the BLM movement and the taking of the knee.

I'll just conclude by repeating – given how the 'threat' of Marxism to western civilization has been thrown into the mix in this thread – it remains my opinion that it is the existing dominant politics which do adhere to the stated objectives of neoliberalism that you refute, that is of greater threat to a genuinely more equitible and fairer society.

What is happening post-election in the US is, to me, exceedingly disturbing and represents a much more real and present danger than the imagined 'bogeyman' of BLM Marxists unravelling the fabric of Western Democracy some claim.

It was the deregulated money markets (very much a neoliberalist mandate) that led to the subprime mortgage scandal nuking global economies for years. It is very much a neoliberal mandate to reduce the budget of social welfare as has happened in many Western Democracies. Drip by drip, it has led to greater poverty, real hunger and poorer health care for many in some of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

That is shameful. A disgrace.

Where do you guys get the time?

Mike Gaynes @232
"Peter, please don't talk down to me like I'm some sort of uninformed idiot."

American irony at its best

It was a pint though given I'm 1/4 Irish- isn't everybody?- maybe I just let it slip out.

I think others make the very valid point about us straying off topic but I'll indulge myself on one point. It is oft said that the financial sector was lightly regulated. This isn't true. It was awash with regulation, still is, and banks had whole floors dedicated to compliance, a cost that is all passed on to us, the end user.

However it was the wrong sort of regulation, more around consumer regs, and it was being implemented by a regulator set up largely with that focus in mind, at the end of the 90's. What was missing was a bigger picture regulator with the necessary skills to sense what was coming. And having smart enough people paid appropriately in the regulator to achieve that- it was seen as a second rate role whereas it needed to be attracting the best talent.

Nor do I view the bankrupt philosophy of Marxism as a current threat, from BLM or anywhere else. As Jay posted at some point above, by far the greatest danger to the US societal structure is a president-hoped-to-be-dictator actively working to overthrow the election he lost, in what is essentially an attempted coup supported by militia fanatics plotting to assassinate state and local officeholders who oppose them. Compared to that existential threat, BLM here is a political mosquito. And communism isn't even on the radar.

Is that all Anglish people you consider are offended?

I don't think that statement is factually correct.

Can anyone honestly say it would be allowed, not a chance, it would be seen as racial, and rightly so.

Now I am all for All Lives Matter, but at the moment, we are singling out a particular ethnicity – if that is the correct wording, before I get jumped on by the politically correct.

It needs changing to All Lives Matter, and each and everyone treated as equal.

Thanks for picking up on my comments at 208.

The answer is "Yes" a Catholic cannot hold the office of Prime Minister of England. Tony Blair became a Catholic only after he left office.

I was brought up in England and did receive a good education and employment, so I never felt discriminated against nor did any of my brothers.

I have lived in North America for over 50 years and honestly have had a good life and bringing up my family. My main concern at the moment is the direction the country is going in, believe you me it is not good.

I did not vote because I am not an American citizen; I am aware of people who did vote illegally. Both dead and illegal immigrants. My wife and family voted as they are citizens.

I won't get into the BLM debate as I live it every day here and know the objectives of the movement.

Worth a read. The author is a Blue.

Its a long time since I saw so many nails hit so firmly on the head.

You're like a roofer on Whizz!

I'm not implying that the founding fathers were only evil, racist bastards, but the fact is that the severe racism of that era has not been reckoned with yet (not satisfactorily), and that the reckoning does need to happen."

The problem with viewing the founding of America through a "presentist" lens like this is that it overlooks the fact that the country was "set up" the way almost all countries were at one time or another over history – through the conquest, subjugation, and theft by one people of and from another. I understand the impulse to hold the United States, as the beacon of the free world since World War 2, to a higher standard because of modern attitudes but it's absurd seeing as the colonies were established 400 years ago by another nation (Britain).

Slavery was also ubiquitous at the time (as was colonisation, annexation and displacement of indigenous peoples). It was not only accepted, it was central to much of the global economy. (It's also worth noting that 95% of the slaves trafficked to the New World ended up south of America, the plurality in Brazil). The crucial thing about the actual founding of the US after the Revolutionary War was that the Constitution, written by the "evil bastards" you mention, explicitly outlined slavery as anathema to freedom, codified that notion in a founding document and, together with Britain's own efforts, helped to begin the eradication of slavery.

The reckoning that needs to happen is a human one because racism (and discrimination against "others" of all kinds) is part of the human condition. Again, given its size, power and history, it's only natural that the US is on the bleeding edge of the protests and movement for change but, in my opinion, it's a reckoning needed not for the nature of America's founding but for the length of time racism and segregationist policies were allowed to continue through Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era and beyond, well into the 20th Century. And to the degree that "systemic racism", unconscious or otherwise, persists today. I reject the notion, however, that the US (or the UK, for that matter) is a fundamentally racist nation and certainly no more so than almost any other on earth. (I say "almost" because those Tibetans and Bhutanese seem pretty chill. 😉)

It seems I have several things in common with you:

I was raised in England and received a good education.
I emigrated 47 years ago to Australia - a wonderful country.
I have had good employment and raised my family.

My concern is that the people behind the BLM movement have hijacked a noble cause for ulterior motives which, if true, will have far-reaching consequences.

In my world view, what I think, say and do – or fail to do or say – has eternal consequences. Racism is one of the great evils of this world so if I am wittingly or unwittingly taking the side of racism or any other evil, that is a matter of grave concern for me.

You have stated that you live the BLM debate every day and that you know their objectives. I know it is a big ask but would you reconsider giving us your opinion on this very important matter.

'I reject the notion, however, that the US (or the UK, for that matter) is a fundamentally racist nation and certainly no more so than almost any other on earth. (I say "almost" because those Tibetans and Bhutanese seem pretty chill 😉).'

If only! One of those useless bits of information we accumulate through life that always stuck with me is that the Tibetan word for woman is 'lümen' or 'kyemen', which literally means 'inferior being' or 'lesser birth.'

I also recall the Dalai Lama in a Times magazine interview saying that the next Dalai Lama reincarnation could appear anywhere in the world and could be 'black, white, yellow... even a woman!'

Misogynous bastard! (written in heavy irony font).

Nice post, BTW.

We are all people first and foremost. Good and bad in every race. I regard myself as more non-racist than racist but, hey, if I see a group of problem looking' guys walking towards me, I do tend to cross to the other side of the street . whether they be white, black, coffee, yellow, grey, green, blue, red or any other colour!!

Sorry but your point is a bit of a shit one. When I was a teenager my mate at Notts Uni was upset they had an Asian night and like you two he said “they'd be mad if we had a white night”. Being ignorant and naive I thought he had a point at the time until I left my upper middle class white almost exclusively area and went to Uni myself. That's when I learned anyone from the Indian subcontinent was a second class citizen or “paki” and anyone from Southeast Asia was a “chink” according to earthier, urban classmates. You don't need a “day” or a “knee” if you can walk the streets without discrimination. You do if you're treated as less than human.

I'm disappointed in you as you seem like a reasonable guy but your “400 years ago” thing is demonstrably false. It was a mere 160 years ago in the USA that you could enslave another human being. Moreover, I worked in a bank in Alabama just 15 years ago and when we closed for the MLK federal holiday the bank called it “Mardi Gras Day” because so many of our white customers took exception to having a federal holiday for an “n word.” I know folks who had to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains and essentially live under an apartheid regime who are younger than my parents. Britain is far from perfect but America has much more recent egregious institutionalized racism with Jim Crow laws etc. Like you, I'm an expat here so it “ain't my fight” but people are people and you can't close your eyes to obscene injustice

The "400 years ago" thing was specifically addressing Robert's reference to the "setting up of the country" and the notion that it was flawed because of slavery. I was arguing that the founding of the nation of the United States (and the values codified in the Constitution) was actually ~170 years after the first slaves landed but also that, in any case, the colonies were established (by Britain) at a time of ubiquitous slavery, colonisation and conquest. The Founding Fathers' attitudes reflected how far the country had evolved by the time they were framing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but they also knew they had to strike a bargain with the southern states over slavery to prevent the whole thing from collapsing; as it was, the matter would come to a head in the 1860s.

You're right that it was "a mere 160 years ago" that you could enslave another human being in the USA and in suggesting that "it's a reckoning needed not for the nature of America's founding but for the length of time racism and segregationist policies were allowed to continue through Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era and beyond, well into the 20th Century," I was acknowledging what you go on to say about institutionalised racism, primarily in the South. But those were not nationwide, Federal policies and laws; there's a reason so many freed slaves moved north where they were more accepted and a reason why the country descended into Civil War in the first place.

So I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm closing my eyes to an obscene injustice. I'm not denying that racism still exists in the US or that in some parts of the country it is more entrenched and vociferous than perhaps anywhere else in the western world. Those old habits die very hard it seems. I know plenty of people in the South who are as racist as they come and I'm sure many of them would be just fine with the return of Jim Crow, segregation, etc. But it is very much a regional thing; I don't think you can say there is such a generalised thing as "an American" because of the sheer breadth and size of the place. The US as a whole is a hugely tolerant and welcoming country with fundamentally good and decent people. That was my final point.

But still, it was problematic and flawed. I think we can all agree on that right? Even realising they had different mores back then, I think most decent people agree that it wasn't a great thing for society to do - enslave millions of people?

For the record, I think the entire colonial era of that time (outside of the issue of slavery) was terrible. Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, and so many other countries were complicit in a system that did terrible things. I also get that that was the system back then and it was hard for a power to opt out, but still...

I'm Irish, btw, so my country is guiltless in all of this and I get to ride my high horse for a little bit! Giddy-up!

The original point though that I was trying to make, and maybe preceded me in the post, is that the BLM movement is simply a group of people telling other groups of people that they face problems these other groups don't, and that these other groups are not really aware of this difference... And of course, that can be traced back to slavery... I simply think these people should be heard.

And on that festive note, ho ho ho! Merry Christmas one and all.

Football is for the people (of all skin colours etc) and politics involved will only cause divisions and this thread proves it.
Therefore for me taking the knee or fist salutes have no place in football as we don't go for politics if anything it's a place to escape all that.
ALL LIVES MATTER

I would recommend reading a book called Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Racism. As a white working class bloke it was at times an uncomfortable read but also an eye opening experience, can help to understand the BLM motivation.

Oh, absolutely. I would hope that would go without saying. I was just making the point that slavery wasn't the preserve of any one nation or race — it was everywhere; at one time there were more white slaves on the Barbary Coast than any other race and there are more people enslaved to varying degrees today (an estimated 20m between India and China alone) than there ever were at the heights of slavery in the States. As an expression of power and dominance rooted in tens of thousands of years of human history, it was inevitable until attitudes evolved but it will always exist where humans can exert unchecked or unbreakable power over others.

I'm a firm believer that in a free society, the arc of history bends towards justice and the progress that has been made in America in particular (from slavery to the Civil War to the civil rights movement of the 1960s all the way to the BLM movement today) is evidence of just that. Obviously, there is a long way to go which is why we're having this discussion; the nub of it is that some just disagree over how to have it and some have concerns around the motives of the political organisation that has sprung up to advance the anti~racist movement. And that when it comes to football specifically, its initial focus was on one race specifically to the exclusion of others. (And, again, going back to my first post on the thread, I understand why.)

I hope everyone will boo players who persist in behaving in this self-centred way. Black Lives Matter and the taking of the knee has very little to do with promoting equality but more to do with causing division.