e.cantona
Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,564
Well, good luck to youI should look into whether or not you disagree?
Ok. I'm sure you are correct
Well, good luck to youI should look into whether or not you disagree?
Ok. I'm sure you are correct
If you're not trolling I've no idea what is happeningWell, good luck to you
Not necessarily, but you cant have black refs if there is none to choose from.Well it's like the manager thing and I think it goes deeper than that.
Are you saying if there are no black refs to choose from that there is no problem?
Well yeah that is what I was getting at but wasn't sure you were on the same page.Not necessarily, but you cant have black refs if there is none to choose from.
But then itd be an issue of why black people don't become refs. Is it purely coincidence or is there a history of racial bias therefore they dont bother wasting there time and that would need looked into then.
One of the weirder exchanges I've seen on the caf.If you're not trolling I've no idea what is happening
I can only go with what they said on the programme. They said that there are black referees but they never get posts in the premier league. There are coaches too who are very good and very good business people too but they don't get the chances to go forward.Well yeah that is what I was getting at but wasn't sure you were on the same page.
I don't think it invalidates Foxbatt's assertion that 'there must be a reason...' but it's quite a complex thing to unravel I suppose and I really don't believe in coincidences.
Yes, absolutely. They are clever enough to not admit it.Surely no one believes that they are not competent enough to referee or coach or manage a football club because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background?
There's definitely under-representation and if there are referees and it just so happens that none of them ever get the big jobs then it needs looking in to. Do you have a link to the programme out of interest?I can only go with what they said on the programme. They said that there are black referees but they never get posts in the premier league. There are coaches too who are very good and very good business people too but they don't get the chances to go forward.
It's the same in management too and on the boards. Surely no one believes that they are not competent enough to referee or coach or manage a football club because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic background? Or are there people who still believe it?
One of us is not understanding what the other one is saying. Is very possible I'm the one. Why would I be trolling? Are you trolling?If you're not trolling I've no idea what is happening
Kelly and ( Ian) Wright show. It was on the TV.There's definitely under-representation and if there are referees and it just so happens that none of them ever get the big jobs then it needs looking in to. Do you have a link to the programme out of interest?
Lucky the Raptors didn't think so and they made history.Yes, absolutely. They are clever enough to not admit it.
I didn't mean everyone, everywhere, of course. Although I'd think the NBA will buck trends in this because many of the roles in question are best filled by former players and currently African Americans make up over 80% of the league rosters.Lucky the Raptors didn't think so and they made history.
Im very confused by the last page.I didn't mean everyone, everywhere, of course. Although I'd think the NBA will buck trends in this because many of the roles in question are best filled by former players and currently African Americans make up over 80% of the league rosters.
You should look into it.If you're not trolling I've no idea what is happening
I agree entirely. I just dont like the assertion thats its racism right of the bat, it could be, but it might not either.Well yeah that is what I was getting at but wasn't sure you were on the same page.
I don't think it invalidates Foxbatt's assertion that 'there must be a reason...' but it's quite a complex thing to unravel I suppose and I really don't believe in coincidences.
Then why may I ask? Surely among all those people there would be at least one who is capable of running a football club? One who is capable of coaching a top football team and one who is capable of refereeing a PL football match?I agree entirely. I just dont like the assertion thats its racism right of the bat, it could be, but it might not either
I duno why, thats why i said it would need investigated, it could very well be racism a few posts up.Then why may I ask? Surely among all those people there would be at least one who is capable of running a football club? One who is capable of coaching a top football team and one who is capable of refereeing a PL football match?
Just saw the news that FA has launched a diversity code in trying to get rid of the old boys network. All the PL clubs have signed off apart from Southampton who is waiting for the PL code to come out.I duno why, thats why i said it would need investigated, it could very well be racism a few posts up.
Definitely worth it.Just saw the news that FA has launched a diversity code in trying to get rid of the old boys network. All the PL clubs have signed off apart from Southampton who is waiting for the PL code to come out.
Yes (he's a former player which might be unusual for an executive role) but it does stand to reason that over time we'll see more African Americans in these and coaching roles in the league.Im very confused by the last page.
Nick Nurse is white? Are you talking about Masai?
For sure, that‘s the case in Europe. It‘s not a UK thing....... There is certainly racism not only in football but every job in the UK. It's not only for black ethnicity but also against Asian and Muslims too.....
Certainly in UK too. Maybe not as bad as in Europe.For sure, that‘s the case in Europe. It‘s not a UK thing.
An adage we were taught in med school was that "uncommon presentation of a common disease is more common than an uncommon disease" meaning that you should go about by trying to exclude the usual suspects first before looking into more obscure possibilities.I agree entirely. I just dont like the assertion thats its racism right of the bat, it could be, but it might not either.
Its definitely worth looking into
Which is the opposite i suppose of what i was saying.An adage we were taught in med school was that "uncommon presentation of a common disease is more common than an uncommon disease" meaning that you should go about by trying to exclude the usual suspects first before looking into more obscure possibilities.
Racism, as a social disease is common, and it would make sense to exclude it first before looking at less likely causes.
I get what you mean. I wouldn't go so far as to label it racism, but rather to acknowledge racism as a very probable cause. If I can't find evidence to exclude it though, it's probably it.Which is the opposite i suppose of what i was saying.
I was always of thought if you jump to racism first and it isnt, that gives racists more opportunity to shout down genuine cases, with a "here we go again" or the "boy the cried wolf" attitude.
Its definitely a fine line.No one here thinking accusations of racism demands substantial evidence? It's not a small thing to be accused of
Isnt that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.I get what you mean. I wouldn't go so far as to label it racism, but rather to acknowledge racism as a very probable cause. If I can't find evidence to exclude it though, it's probably it.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral principle.Isnt that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
I get that, but can you call something racist without racist evidence, or do you assume racism and try to prove otherwise like jaqen said?Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral principle.
What is racist evidence? If someone is involved in a car crash I don't assume racism, but if they were shouting "white power" I might. I just don't see what cases you're thinking of where people just assume racism where there is no "racist evidence".I get that, but can you call something racist without racist evidence, or do you assume racism and try to prove otherwise like jaqen said?
We're talking about the lack of black referees in the PL and whether this is due to racism.What is racist evidence? If someone is involved in a car crash I don't assume racism, but if they were shouting "white power" I might. I just don't see what cases you're thinking of where people just assume racism where there is no "racist evidence".
Racism is a bias, and apart from people admitting to it (which is unlikely) there will be no solid proof. It can still be detected though through patterns of action on an individual level and statistics on a larger level.We're talking about the lack of black referees in the PL and whether this is due to racism.
Follow the posts back
Edit that probably sounds a bit bitchy
No, it's not.Racism is a bias, and apart from people admitting to it (which is unlikely) there will be no solid proof. It can still be detected though through patterns of action on an individual level and statistics on a larger level.
It's common enough that you can attribute to it anomalous patterns and statistics that cannot otherwise be explained.
I don't think the innocent until proven guilty bit applies because racism is not the crime, it's the motive. The crime is unfair treatment. Once it's established that X has been treated unfairly, and Y cannot come up with a plausible justification then it's safe to assume that the motive is racism.
Care to elaborate?No, it's not.
I agree with you When have no black referees or any in the board of a football club then if it's not racism then what?Racism is a bias, and apart from people admitting to it (which is unlikely) there will be no solid proof. It can still be detected though through patterns of action on an individual level and statistics on a larger level.
It's common enough that you can attribute to it anomalous patterns and statistics that cannot otherwise be explained.
I don't think the innocent until proven guilty bit applies because racism is not the crime, it's the motive. The crime is unfair treatment. Once it's established that X has been treated unfairly, and Y cannot come up with a plausible justification then it's safe to assume that the motive is racism.
What's (not) plausible?Care to elaborate?
There is no need to assume hypotheticals when you have racism, a real issue, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.What's (not) plausible?
What if race is not in the picture, is it then safe to assume whatever you want?