The Knee

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

Do you have a link?

Can't find it anywhere.

the third post on page 6 mate 

[Vestan Pance]

24 minutes ago, LCFCbwoi said:

Could there be discourse about another way to show an anti racism message before the game? Probably yes

Do I think fans will boo even if it showed no sign towards ‘BLM’? Almost definitely 

Personally I'd vehemently support any anti-rascism campaign but not one with links to BLM.

Edited 23 May 2021 by Vestan Pance

[BlueSi13]

10 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Why? Only those who chose to can't seperate it when everyone else can and understands the cause. Let's face it, honestly those booing today are not because they have an issue with BLM or the movement has "run its course". It is because they are racist. I didn't expect there to be many in our fan base but I'm more disappointed in this than the fall out of the top 4.

Or maybe, just maybe, some people are tired of the relentless identity politics that is severely damaging race relations in this country.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/black-lives-matter-has-increased-racial-tension-55-say-in-uk-poll

 

55% of the country feel BLM has increased racial tensions

44% of BAME respondents also feel like it has damaged race relations.

 

Standing up to racism is vital, but as I said before there is absolutely no chance you can de-link taking the knee with BLM.  The Premier League are trying extremely hard but Comcast aren't letting it go without a fight.

[Buce]

34 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I've seen different arguments regarding the battles in the US, but I'm sorry British black people are not being killed by police in the UK

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4j8x/remembering-police-brutality-victims-uk

[peach0000]

3 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Do you have a link?

Can't find it anywhere.

 

[LCFCbwoi]

4 minutes ago, Vestan Pance said:

Personally I'd vehemently support any anti-rascism campaign but not one with links to BLM.

Even if the players, including Wes Morgan, repeatably tell you that the two are not linked? Even if the taking of the knee was around way before BLM and used by MLK? Even then, you couldn’t grasp the idea that they’re literally only doing it in solidarity against racism?

[Larry_LCFC]

7 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

You're missing the point a bit there. The significant take away from those stats is that 2.5 times more black people per capita are killed in police custody than white people. That to me is statistically significant. 

Those stats prove nothing. The UK has one of the most tolerant, regulated, scrutinised and least racist police services in the world. You can put the deaths in custody down to racism if it suits an agenda, but that doesn't make it true. 

[blueharmie]

I'm not comfortable with the fact that this taking the knee was started due to a scumbag in the U. S being killed. Im sure white scum bags have had similar. 

 

Should not be doing this before matches. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark_w]

Just now, Larry_LCFC said:

Those stats prove nothing. The UK has one of the most tolerant, regulated, scrutinised and least racist police services in the world. You can put the deaths in custody down to racism if it suits an agenda, but that doesn't make it true. 

Those stats prove a lot more than you just saying what you want to believe.

[splinterdream]

38 minutes ago, Blue-fox said:

what this fails to address though is what percentage of the 3% of black people are in police custody compared to the other percentage of the population? I think these stats don't tell the whole story.

 

22 October 2020

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has today released their annual statistics on deaths during or following police contact in England and Wales. 

In the financial year 2019/20, there were 18 deaths in or following police custody, three police shootings, 24 deaths related to road traffic incidents, and 54 apparent suicides following custody. The IOPC also investigated 107 'other' deaths following contact with the police in a wide range of circumstances. 

The IOPC report includes the following data:  

• Of the 18 deaths in or following police custody, 14 people were White, three were Black and the ethnicity of one person was unknown at the time of publication.  
• 11 of the 18 people were identified as having ‘mental health concerns’ and 14 were known to have a link to alcohol/or drugs. Two people were detained under the Mental Health Act. 
• Eight of the 18 people who died in or following police custody had force used against them either by officers or members of the public before their deaths. Of the people who were physically restrained, six were White and two were Black.  
• Of the 24 road traffic fatalities, 19 were pursuit related.
• Of the 54 apparent suicides, three people detained under the MHA, and 37 had known mental health concerns.
• Of the three fatal shootings, two were terrorism related.

[5waller5]

3 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I don't think Tony Sewell being a black man makes him the definitive voice on the presence of institutional racism - his opinion is dwarfed by those of countless other black people in the UK I've seen write or talk on the issue.

 

Let me get this straight ....

We don’t listen to all black men, just the ones that agree with you.
 

All people that disagree with the taking the knee gesture are racists.

We seem to be drawing the lines nicely here - no nuances, no complex opinion, just 2 opinions; one right, one wrong.

Debate shut down.

 

Not a single racist person has become less racist. Good work. 

[srex9]

I really do not want to enter a heated argument here but a lot is being said with little validity. One of the biggest issues we have is the inability to listen to opposing views without getting angry. For what it's worth I study history and have a masters degree in the field. I also completely detest all forms of racism and discrimination.

 

Firstly the comments on Churchill and the UK here largely reflect the agenda that a lot of media outlets push. Thats also what is currently being taught in schools and Universities as a whole. It's a worrying trend. The British Empire obviously committed atrocities like any empire has done. However there still needs to be more clarity on the Empires role in the slave trade. The below is largely being untaught in schools.

''The British Empire was a late participant in the slave trade. It was also one of the first major powers to ban it throughout its global empire. It then used the might of that empire to try to pressure other empires into banning their own slave trades. The British Empire put to work the West Africa Squadron and East Africa Station to suppress both the illegal slave trade and the slave trades of other empires. Britain then applied great diplomatic pressure at the Congress of Vienna and Treaty of Paris (1815) to get other empires to officially condemn slavery and commit to abolishing the trade. London hosted the signing of the first multilateral treaty for abolishing the slave trade. Britain established the Anti-Slavery Society (the world's oldest Human Rights Organisation) to fight slavery around the world, something it still does today. Britain became a crucial champion in the war against slavery. Without the British Empire, slavery would have likely continued around the world for far longer than it ultimately did.''

African leaders enslaved their own people and sold them like livestock. Many were even castrated in Eastern countries to stop them reproducing. The United Kingdom was far from the worst however it was also in the countries interests to abolish slavery in order to weaken it's rivals. It wasn't purely for humanitarian reasons so let's not pretend it was. The song rule Brittania refers to African slavers taking British citizens from the coasts and using them as slaves, another thing often overlooked.

 

As for Churchill, a bit of context is needed. Certainly a man of his time, outspoken and often terms he used would not be appropriate by today's standards. However, if you want to compare him to his peers at the time he is not even in the controversial category. 

 

British soldiers massacred nearly 400 people during a protest at Amritsar in India in 1919, when Churchill, who was war secretary, sacked the commanding officer Reginald Dyer. Then in the House of Commons, he condemned the use of military force against peaceful demonstrators and referred to it as terrorism.

 

India also is the place where Churchill is accused of racism and genocide. It was in 1943 when a terrible famine hit the state of Bengal with a death toll of millions. This was at the same time the world war was taking place. This famine resulted from a combination of poor harvests in India made worse by a major cyclone the year before. Previous food shortages had been alleviated by importing rice from Burma, a recourse made impossible because the entire region was occupied by the Japanese army at the time, which still aimed to conquer India.

Yes more have been done. But things aren't always so simple. The Allies were confronted with a global shortage of shipping. Nowhere was this more acute than on the Southeast Asian battlefront. Hunger and starvation were twin features of this conflict in far too many places. To accuse Churchill of using this disaster to commit mass murder is a grotesque distortion of history. 

 

As for taking the knee, I agree it's become an empty gesture and more real work needs to be done. I do condone the booing but I also believe that there is more to it than everyone booing is a racist. The world isn't that black and white and I can't imagine a working class person scraping a living taking too well at being told they are privileged, not that it is in any way an excuse for blatantly racist behaviour. From my experience the UK has gone further than most nations to create a fair and free society for all. That is currently in jeopardy as we become more and more divided on these issues. I'd love for us to all band together to stop actual racists where it's clear and obvious, and help the poorest areas of society, no matter their colour, race, religion have better lives. That is surely preferable to empty gestures like tearing down or defasing statues whilst filming it on phones likely made in sweatshops by actual slaves that are still alive today. 

 

Also for a little more context I'd be interested to know if anyone has lived, worked or been to South Africa and experienced the racism there which happens on a daily basis? White farmers and their families being murdered by racist mobs. Black men and women being shot dead by white land owners for even setting foot on land that isn't theirs, mainly out of the fear of the above. Not much of which gets reported on by our media. I feel we are quite lucky to live where we do. 

 

Apologies for the essay but I hope it can help give a little context to both sides of the argument. I suspect not. Back to the football now? 

 

 

[FOXSE]

This thread. Jesus. I would say close it before someone says something they will regret, but that must have been 10 pages ago now.....

[splinterdream]

10 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I don't think Tony Sewell being a black man makes him the definitive voice on the presence of institutional racism - his opinion is dwarfed by those of countless other black people in the UK I've seen write or talk on the issue.

i've also seen many arguments and counter arguments, especially in the house of commons, thats why it is debateable.

[BlueSi13]

18 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

Fair enough, but that means we have a problem of black people being massively disproportionately likely to be taken into police custody in the first place. If 3% of the population are black, and 8% of deaths in police custody are black people, then we have a serious institutional racism problem somewhere.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest

 

Sure black people are more likely to be taken in to custody, 32 out of every 1,000 in fact, whites are 10 out every 1,000, asians are 12 out of every 1,000.  But is that institutional racism?

 

If it was institutional racism, assuming whites are favoured, then you'd expect whites to be the lowest in terms of arrests?  But no, breaking down the data and you'll find Indians are arrested at a rate of 6 out of 1,000 and the Chinese 3 out of 1,000.

 

No denying racism exists, sadly it will probably always exist.  But let's not play 6th form politics and make out we're living in apartheid South Africa!

 

 

Edited 23 May 2021 by BlueSi13

[peach0000]

Just now, FOXSE said:

This thread. Jesus. I would say close it before someone says something they will regret, but that must have been 10 pages ago now.....

I’ve been reading all of it without getting involved very much. I agree and disagree with different posters but I believe everything has stayed the right side of the line and has been respectful. I never get why people on here are so quick to try and suppress debate on controversial issues by suggesting locking threads.

[LCFCbwoi]

4 minutes ago, blueharmie said:

I'm not comfortable with the fact that this taking the knee was started due to a scumbag in the U. S being killed. Im sure white scum bags have had similar. 

 

Should not be doing this before matches. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s starting a conversation so it’s clearly working, please educate yourself where ‘taking a knee’ was started

[iancognito]

See fans can sit there and say "oh booing it is disgusting/racist/ignorant etc etc" but team by team, clubs are slowly stopping the gesture. In the PL only Zaha has stood up against it but their opinion is all the same - it's a meaningless gesture and it's not changing anything. And it's not. All season they've done it and how many reports per week has there been of racism on social media towards players? Loads. Zaha's right, why should he HAVE to take a knee? He feels degraded having to do it.

 

The social media blackout a couple of weeks back....have the companies changed their policies? Have they employed more people or set up algorithms to root out the perpetrators? Nope, nothing. Look at the abuse Amartey got from Chelsea "fans" last week. Look at the posts popping up about helicopters crashing. The blackout was a gesture and nothing has changed.

You can't say that because people boo taking the knee that they're racist. You've no idea what people's thought or prejudices are. Same as saying , they're not booing it because it's linked to BLM. You don't know that. Taking the knee to a lot of people is a sign of submission and especially when used with the clenched fist. Also, are we really saying we kick people out of the ground for booing something they don't agree with? I personally wouldn't boo it. I think it's had it's day and it's been ineffective but it's up to the players. If people in the ground want to boo, that's up to them.

[Larry_LCFC]

Just now, Mark_w said:

Those stats prove a lot more than you just saying what you want to believe.

Every custody suite is covered in audio and visual recording. Officers all have body worn video. I think a racist death in police custody would make the headlines. The IOPC scrutinise everything. 

This is not America.

[Mark_w]

Just now, BlueSi13 said:

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest

 

Sure black people are more likely to be taken in to custody, 32 out of every 1,000 in fact, whites are 10 out every 10,000, asians are 12 out of every 10,000.  But is that institutional racism?

 

If it was institutional racism, assuming whites are favoured, then you'd expect whites to be the lowest in terms of arrests?  But no, breaking down the data and you'll find Indians are arrested at a rate of 6 out of 10,000 and the Chinese 3 out of 10,000.

 

No denying racism exists, sadly it will probably always exist.  But let's not play 6th form politics and make out we're living in apartheid South Africa!

 

 

Ugh when did I say white people are favoured? I'm just saying black people are disporportionately impacted and the stats bear that out. If black people are that much more likely to be taken into custody then, unless you think skin colour makes someone more likely to be criminal, that is an institutional problem. And I'm sure there are tons of reasons for it, it's likely a combination of institutional racism in the police making arrests of black people more likely, and racism in society giving black people fewer economic and educational opportunities. It's all a part of the same societal problem.

[5waller5]

4 minutes ago, srex9 said:

I really do not want to enter a heated argument here but a lot is being said with little validity. One of the biggest issues we have is the inability to listen to opposing views without getting angry. For what it's worth I study history and have a masters degree in the field. I also completely detest all forms of racism and discrimination.

 

Firstly the comments on Churchill and the UK here largely reflect the agenda that a lot of media outlets push. Thats also what is currently being taught in schools and Universities as a whole. It's a worrying trend. The British Empire obviously committed atrocities like any empire has done. However there still needs to be more clarity on the Empires role in the slave trade. The below is largely being untaught in schools.

''The British Empire was a late participant in the slave trade. It was also one of the first major powers to ban it throughout its global empire. It then used the might of that empire to try to pressure other empires into banning their own slave trades. The British Empire put to work the West Africa Squadron and East Africa Station to suppress both the illegal slave trade and the slave trades of other empires. Britain then applied great diplomatic pressure at the Congress of Vienna and Treaty of Paris (1815) to get other empires to officially condemn slavery and commit to abolishing the trade. London hosted the signing of the first multilateral treaty for abolishing the slave trade. Britain established the Anti-Slavery Society (the world's oldest Human Rights Organisation) to fight slavery around the world, something it still does today. Britain became a crucial champion in the war against slavery. Without the British Empire, slavery would have likely continued around the world for far longer than it ultimately did.''

African leaders enslaved their own people and sold them like livestock. Many were even castrated in Eastern countries to stop them reproducing. The United Kingdom was far from the worst however it was also in the countries interests to abolish slavery in order to weaken it's rivals. It wasn't purely for humanitarian reasons so let's not pretend it was. The song rule Brittania refers to African slavers taking British citizens from the coasts and using them as slaves, another thing often overlooked.

 

As for Churchill, a bit of context is needed. Certainly a man of his time, outspoken and often terms he used would not be appropriate by today's standards. However, if you want to compare him to his peers at the time he is not even in the controversial category. 

 

British soldiers massacred nearly 400 people during a protest at Amritsar in India in 1919, when Churchill, who was war secretary, sacked the commanding officer Reginald Dyer. Then in the House of Commons, he condemned the use of military force against peaceful demonstrators and referred to it as terrorism.

 

India also is the place where Churchill is accused of racism and genocide. It was in 1943 when a terrible famine hit the state of Bengal with a death toll of millions. This was at the same time the world war was taking place. This famine resulted from a combination of poor harvests in India made worse by a major cyclone the year before. Previous food shortages had been alleviated by importing rice from Burma, a recourse made impossible because the entire region was occupied by the Japanese army at the time, which still aimed to conquer India.

Yes more have been done. But things aren't always so simple. The Allies were confronted with a global shortage of shipping. Nowhere was this more acute than on the Southeast Asian battlefront. Hunger and starvation were twin features of this conflict in far too many places. To accuse Churchill of using this disaster to commit mass murder is a grotesque distortion of history. 

 

As for taking the knee, I agree it's become an empty gesture and more real work needs to be done. I do condone the booing but I also believe that there is more to it than everyone booing is a racist. The world isn't that black and white and I can't imagine a working class person scraping a living taking too well at being told they are privileged, not that it is in any way an excuse for blatantly racist behaviour. From my experience the UK has gone further than most nations to create a fair and free society for all. That is currently in jeopardy as we become more and more divided on these issues. I'd love for us to all band together to stop actual racists where it's clear and obvious, and help the poorest areas of society, no matter their colour, race, religion have better lives. That is surely preferable to empty gestures like tearing down or defasing statues whilst filming it on phones likely made in sweatshops by actual slaves that are still alive today. 

 

Also for a little more context I'd be interested to know if anyone has lived, worked or been to South Africa and experienced the racism there which happens on a daily basis? White farmers and their families being murdered by racist mobs. Black men and women being shot dead by white land owners for even setting foot on land that isn't theirs, mainly out of the fear of the above. Not much of which gets reported on by our media. I feel we are quite lucky to live where we do. 

 

Apologies for the essay but I hope it can help give a little context to both sides of the argument. I suspect not. Back to the football now? 

 

 

Superb post. Really enjoyed reading and learnt alot

[theessexfox]

4 minutes ago, 5waller5 said:

 

Let me get this straight ....

We don’t listen to all black men, just the ones that agree with you.
 

All people that disagree with the taking the knee gesture are racists.

We seem to be drawing the lines nicely here - no nuances, no complex opinion, just 2 opinions; one right, one wrong.

Debate shut down.

 

Not a single racist person has become less racist. Good work. 

Yep that's what I said, nice one mate

[when_you're_smiling]

You can trot out all the evidence you want, but as this thread shows, some people will hang on to any evidence they can (no matter how tenuous) to not support a bid for equality.

 

Just in this thread alone, you’ve seen some people would rather hang on tweets made by one person years ago to not support a whole race’s equality drive.

 

You’ve seen people mention about the defund the police movement as an excuse to not support it, despite them clearly having not even bothered to research what it means.

 

If you’re one of those people looking for an excuse then the gesture is aimed at you and so is evidently very much needed.

[TonyN11]

8 minutes ago, blueharmie said:

I'm not comfortable with the fact that this taking the knee was started due to a scumbag in the U. S being killed. Im sure white scum bags have had similar. 

 

Should not be doing this before matches. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you not think too many scumbags are being killed / treated unfairly?

[Buce]

1 hour ago, LCFCbwoi said:

Saying ‘there’s not a lot of white people in Leicester anymore’ doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist, sounds more like a wolf whistle

 

Say what now?

 

Do you mean Dog Whistle?