Mr Magoo
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 112 
|
Post by Mr Magoo on May 23, 2024 18:39:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Stowmarket Shrew on May 23, 2024 18:47:29 GMT 1
I'm as liberal as the next guy (in fact probably more than most) but this just looks like s**t stirring faux outrage over absolutely nothing. Or, maybe, I'm turning into a gammon!
|
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on May 23, 2024 20:02:58 GMT 1
Load of owd nonsense
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 23, 2024 20:44:58 GMT 1
Looks to me like we are attempting to be exactly the opposite of racist
|
|
|
|
Post by belfastshrew on May 23, 2024 21:13:24 GMT 1
The Independent who are deliberately digging for this kind of stuff...as if wee Town would have used these terms deliberately...i've never even heard of one 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ it just smacks of virtue signalling or whatever it's called. Look as us, we're a good newspaper, digging deep into organisations to find underlying systematic racism.
Mountain out of a molehill. The journo who wrote it is their 'Race Correspondant'...that's her job...the world has gone mad and the I has gone down in my estimation...
|
|
|
|
Post by belfastshrew on May 23, 2024 21:19:41 GMT 1
I'm annoyed now. Shouldn't have read it hahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by ProudSalopian on May 23, 2024 21:24:31 GMT 1
The most offensive thing in the article was "Shrewsbury Town FC is a professional association football club based in Shropshire, the north of England"
|
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on May 23, 2024 22:17:14 GMT 1
The most offensive thing in the article was "Shrewsbury Town FC is a professional association football club based in Shropshire, the north of England" CBA to read it, but if that's the standard of it it was 100% the right decision. |
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on May 24, 2024 6:34:36 GMT 1
You've got to love people taking offence on behalf of other people. I imagine some reporter is just sitting on google typing in them words to try and find a story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2024 7:43:25 GMT 1
They've used the old badge as well!
Not great optics this. Probably a club statement to follow to clear this all up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2024 7:55:13 GMT 1
They've used the old badge as well! Not great optics this. Probably a club statement to follow to clear this all up. Not really. It was the Foundation not the club, and they’ve already responded via the media article. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on May 24, 2024 10:20:08 GMT 1
I don't doubt that they were trying to do a good thing and it was a mistake rather than anything malicious....but c'mon. "Mongaloid?" "Negroid?" "The Four Major Races of the World Population?"
This is language that would have looked questionable forty years ago, let alone now where it looks incredibly jarring and undoubtedly offensive.
Good on the foundation for at least recognising the massive error they made, unlike seemingly every poster on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 24, 2024 10:28:11 GMT 1
I don't doubt that they were trying to do a good thing and it was a mistake rather than anything malicious....but c'mon. "Mongaloid?" "Negroid?" "The Four Major Races of the World Population?" This is language that would have looked questionable forty years ago, let alone now where it looks incredibly jarring and undoubtedly offensive. Good on the foundation for at least recognising the massive error they made, unlike seemingly every poster on this thread. 40 years ago ? it even avoided the pc brigade on here 20 years ago blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/1315/racism |
|
|
|
Post by ar**chairfan on May 24, 2024 10:32:25 GMT 1
Yes, it is "jarring" and "questionable", but the pathetic the article is pathetic journalism, seeking to sow division where none exists except in the tiny mind of the author; equally, the Foundation's writer must be incredibly dim!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 24, 2024 10:46:47 GMT 1
Yes, it is "jarring" and "questionable", but the pathetic the article is pathetic journalism, seeking to sow division where none exists except in the tiny mind of the author; equally, the Foundation's writer must be incredibly dim! Jamie ? |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on May 24, 2024 11:15:53 GMT 1
Yes, it is "jarring" and "questionable", but the pathetic the article is pathetic journalism, seeking to sow division where none exists except in the tiny mind of the author; equally, the Foundation's writer must be incredibly dim! He no longer with us, put it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on May 24, 2024 14:10:00 GMT 1
I don't doubt that they were trying to do a good thing and it was a mistake rather than anything malicious....but c'mon. "Mongaloid?" "Negroid?" "The Four Major Races of the World Population?" This is language that would have looked questionable forty years ago, let alone now where it looks incredibly jarring and undoubtedly offensive. Good on the foundation for at least recognising the massive error they made, unlike seemingly every poster on this thread. 40 years ago ? it even avoided the pc brigade on here 20 years ago blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/1315/racismNot remotely sure how one weird post from a poster I don't recognise from 20 years ago on a three post thread remotely contradicts any of my post, but as ever you continue to do you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 24, 2024 14:48:23 GMT 1
Clearly you're not sure
I was just pointing out that those same references to difference races didn't bat an eyelid on here from anyone just 20 years ago, trust me when I suggest at least one of the almost 300 that viewed the thread would have spoken out had there been the remotest hint it was deemed offensive at the time
This is all just a bit Edward Colston to me and as much as I dislike the chap who was likely in charge of creating this content I think it's a case of nothing to see here , move on
|
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 24, 2024 16:13:55 GMT 1
ffs
When are we going to stop endlessly apologising for some perceived slur, description or comment?
|
|
|
|
Post by ar**chairfan on May 24, 2024 16:31:48 GMT 1
ffs When are we going to stop endlessly apologising for some perceived slur, description or comment? Agreed - this thread should be allowed to die a natural death, so I won't comment further. |
|
|
|
Post by gtismygod on May 24, 2024 17:16:40 GMT 1
Everyone is absolutely petrified of offending others, and everyone is desperate to be offended on behalf of others. Truly pathetic stuff all round.
Imagine spending three years studying for a degree in journalism only to end up spending your days writing absolute trash articles like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 27, 2024 9:53:34 GMT 1
"The language forms part of a discredited classification system which asserts that race is a scientific construct rather than a social one"
Absolutel tripe.
|
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on May 27, 2024 10:11:03 GMT 1
"The language forms part of a discredited classification system which asserts that race is a scientific construct rather than a social one" Absolutel tripe. That depends. If you were an anthropologist explaining the origins of life and the spread of civilisation it’s the exact language you’d use or has that been discredited too? (Genuine question) |
|
|
|
Post by pughywasfree on May 27, 2024 10:33:36 GMT 1
I don't doubt that they were trying to do a good thing and it was a mistake rather than anything malicious....but c'mon. "Mongaloid?" "Negroid?" "The Four Major Races of the World Population?" This is language that would have looked questionable forty years ago, let alone now where it looks incredibly jarring and undoubtedly offensive. Good on the foundation for at least recognising the massive error they made, unlike seemingly every poster on this thread. Massive error? |
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 27, 2024 11:01:11 GMT 1
"The language forms part of a discredited classification system which asserts that race is a scientific construct rather than a social one" Absolutel tripe. That depends. If you were an anthropologist explaining the origins of life and the spread of civilisation it’s the exact language you’d use or has that been discredited too? (Genuine question) If race is not a scientific construct then why do we have ancestry DNA tests to find out our history? Sure, the social stuff is important too, but it doesn't remove the science completely. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on May 27, 2024 11:35:47 GMT 1
That depends. If you were an anthropologist explaining the origins of life and the spread of civilisation it’s the exact language you’d use or has that been discredited too? (Genuine question) If race is not a scientific construct then why do we have ancestry DNA tests to find out our history? Sure, the social stuff is important too, but it doesn't remove the science completely. Due to two thing's I guess, migration and millions of years of ‘the melting pot’. Maybe the club were starting at a ‘scientific’ level not a social level. |
|
|
|
Post by WATR on May 27, 2024 11:43:46 GMT 1
If singing “I’d let you Sh** my wife” is deemed worthy of bans and arrests, there will surely be some pretty serious consequences here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 27, 2024 20:30:10 GMT 1
If singing “I’d let you Sh** my wife” is deemed worthy of bans and arrests, there will surely be some pretty serious consequences here. I like this bit the best in this article Founded in 1886, Shrewsbury Town FC is a professional association football club based in Shropshire, the north of England |
|
|
|
Post by cmonsalop on May 28, 2024 11:29:36 GMT 1
Yes, it is "jarring" and "questionable", but the pathetic the article is pathetic journalism, seeking to sow division where none exists except in the tiny mind of the author; equally, the Foundation's writer must be incredibly dim! He no longer with us, put it that way. From what I understand nobody in the Foundation actually wrote it as it was bought in! The error was therefore to not spot what had been written was unacceptable |
|
prawnsarnie
Midland League Division Two
[k4r]
Posts: 245
|
Post by prawnsarnie on May 28, 2024 18:11:54 GMT 1
Whilst this is regrettable and embarrassing for all concerned, the Foundation relied upon a specialist provider of such material and included their report which has subsequently been picked up as questionable.
I actually learned from it when I originally read it.
The article seeks to demonise the charity and question our very ethos.
The new Foundation Director dealt with this quickly and effectively having only been in post a few weeks.
Not sure why any of the other dozens of organisations who trusted the same providers weren’t mentioned, but there you go.
I long for a world where the papers (especially the Nationals) highlight the hugely positive impact such Foundations have on their local people, whatever age, ability or ethnicity they may be.
That probably wouldn’t generate enough debate or sell papers/ get clicks/ attract advertisers.
|
|
