• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Greg Clarke

Status
Not open for further replies.

Southcoast Mackem said:
What pisses me of about this is the pressure to appoint someone black next. Ridiculous. If they don't do that they'll be accused of being racist. The best candidate should be appointed regardless of colour. If the best candidate is black then great, appoint him/her/they. The world has gone mad FFS.
Click to expand...

Hiring someone purely based on skin colour... surely that's what we're against, not for?

Interview and fair opportunities, yes, but appointing on skin colour is a slippery slope and in no way represents equality.
 
If I see someone who is black then I see a black person. It’s the same with Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people etc etc. I would imagine I’m seen as a white person. The problem is we live in a society full of snowflakes who get offended for the sake of needing to be offended by something. I’m not a racist and I suggest this fella from the FA isn’t either. People need to chill and focus on other more important things in life today. As for racism it’s vile aim all of its forms and should be eradicated from society. This I feel will never happen in my lifetime as there are some proper racist folk among us. Now back to the football.
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
You must be logged on to see external links
ffs man
Click to expand...

To be fair that seems to be another example of a slightly misleading headline. It makes it sound like he's saying the next chairman should be black. Instead he's been asked specifically what it would mean if the next chairman was black, so he's hardly going to say "it would mean nowt". His quoted comment of "we're not necessarily asking for the next chairman or chief to be black, what we're asking for is equal opportunities for both black and white people, or ethnic minorities" sounds fair enough.
 
Footballer John Barnes says former FA chairman Greg Clarke referring to footballers of colour as “coloured” was unfortunate, but he should not pay for it with his livelihood
 
Ultimately he's the one in charge so in fairness whilst plenty on here admit they don't know what they should or shouldn't be saying, he should know exactly what is and is not acceptable because it's a very important part of his remit to do the job he is doing.

If others don't know, that's because they haven't taken the time to find out - not a dig at you, but this stuff is important to get right and if you want to be part of the solution to racism then we all need to get on board and that might mean putting a bit of research in.

At some point the 'its PC gone mad' type of comments will disappear because nobody will have had to pull anyone up on inappropriate language or discrimination in whatever form, however minor it may seem at the time.

It will level out in time and with effort, in the same way women's rights have gradually improved over the last few decades, but using women's experience as an example, they aren't yet on an even standing with men and that will be a long time in coming.
 
I’m not being funny but I’m almost 48 and I’m sure when I was younger, you couldn’t call black people black, you had to call them ‘coloured’ and then it flipped.

I see gay people have now re embraced the term ‘queer’ I thought that was an insult.

It seems to flip between insult and correct phraseology
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
To be fair that seems to be another example of a slightly misleading headline. It makes it sound like he's saying the next chairman should be black. Instead he's been asked specifically what it would mean if the next chairman was black, so he's hardly going to say "it would mean nowt". His quoted comment of "we're not necessarily asking for the next chairman or chief to be black, what we're asking for is equal opportunities for both black and white people, or ethnic minorities" sounds fair enough.
Click to expand...

Mings made some great points, based off a slightly leading question and headline. Most people are not interested in the points though, they've already gone head first down the "pc gone mad" rabbit hole.
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Footballer John Barnes says former FA chairman Greg Clarke referring to footballers of colour as “coloured” was unfortunate, but he should not pay for it with his livelihood
Click to expand...
Haven't read the whole thread, but I tend to agree with this. As stated elsewhere, Clarke using this terms shows that he is out of touch with modern society rather than a racist. It's a lazy term, used in previous generations and is unacceptable in modern society. My Uncle uses that term and I always correct him. He looks confused when I explain why "coloured people" isn't acceptable, but he carries on using it because he's used it for his 70-odd years on this earth.

Should Clarke pay with his job? Probably not, but is it an opportunity for the The FA to modernise and embrace a culture where women and ethnic minorities are treated the same as white men.
Sidewinder2 said:
I’m not being funny but I’m almost 48 and I’m sure when I was younger, you couldn’t call black people black, you had to call them ‘coloured’ and then it flipped.

I see gay people have now re embraced the term ‘queer’ I thought that was an insult.

It seems to flip between insult and correct phraseology
Click to expand...
Slight difference there. Gay people have always taken an insult and "owned it" so much as to say, they take your insult and claim the word as their own - queer, gay, puff, poof, pervert etc etc - It's a brilliant approach IMHO and immediately douses the fire when someone tries to insult them with a word they now use.

I grew up in Edinburgh in the last 70s/early 80s and there were lots of words for black people and I think you are right - "Coloured" was used (as well as a lot of far less savoury terms) but it's a case of moving with the times and I don't think it unreasonable that someone with a different skin tone gets to choose what words are and are not acceptable to be used to describe them.
 
Last edited:
Sidewinder2 said:
I’m not being funny but I’m almost 48 and I’m sure when I was younger, you couldn’t call black people black, you had to call them ‘coloured’ and then it flipped.

I see gay people have now re embraced the term ‘queer’ I thought that was an insult.

It seems to flip between insult and correct phraseology
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct. I am a child of the 60's and coloured was the acceptable term and certainly not black.
The whole thing is bloody rediculous and inaccurate anyway. I mean I'm closer to pink or pale not white in the same way a British person of Afro-Caribbean heritage is Brown not Black.
We are all people of colour.
.
 
Last edited:
I'm generally against these kind of snap resignations, particularly when the comments have come from a place of sheer ignorance rather than an intention to offend. As expected, the resignation just turns the story into a "is x term offensive? bloody PC gone mad" debate as opposed to scrutinising the organisation that Clarke ran. What I'd be interested to know is if this kind of conversation is regularly held behind closed doors. The FA need to properly investigate their own corporate culture, not just appoint a black bloke.
 
Flash Gordon said:
It's embarrassing how many middle aged white blokes get so triggered by people trying to be inclusive. It's not woke, it's just the next step to equality, like when women got the vote or black people were no longer segregated in America or slaves were abolished. Middle aged white blokes were offended by those things too.

When you're absolutely seething at the things changing around you, despite how little they affect you, at least have a bit of self awareness before you start talking about snowflakes or people being offended by anything. Your outrage is hypocritical as fuck.
Click to expand...
Middle aged blokes in Britain haven’t known anything different from universal suffrage and at least improved conditions in the USA for descendants of slaves.

I don’t think that people are scared of change, they’re annoyed that they aren’t involved in the dialogue. If someone can be sacked for using the wrong terminology then some people will show their fear in different ways.

On a personal level I once had a bit of ‘banter’ with the British Indian ladies at work, one in particular would make joking references to ‘white people’ and I’d jokingly reciprocate. I have obviously changed my behaviour as do you think that a potential complaint that I made would be treated in the same way as that from a British Indian woman?
 
viccarlton said:
Genuine question to all those that are clearly in the know:-
If I was a witness to a crime on the street and was required to give a statement to the police as to what I saw and also if I could a description of the offender, how would I describe who I saw ?
Click to expand...
I had this happen to me. I had to describe the driver of a vehicle and felt under pressure not to use terms that might have been seen to be offensive. In the end I just said he "had an Arab look" and I wasn't arrested (unlike the Arab looking fella).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top