So you use a black child for your advertisement in order to be PC and to prove your diverse credentials. [3% of the population identify as black (last census: tinyurl.com/m7nvuwu ) so choosing a black child was almost certainly a positive decision rather than a matter of taking the next child in line.]
And then you are accused of racism because you've chosen a black child to model the item
uk.yahoo.com/style/weeknd-ends-ties-h-m-over-racist-advert-055200484.html
because it's wearing a tee-shirt that states "the coolest monkey in the jungle"
Now, calling a child a monkey is pretty common practice. But it takes a black person to think that because the child is black, and being called a monkey, that it's racist. For a white, middle-class man such as myself the idea of comparing a black child to a monkey died well before I was born (didn't it?).
Would it have been better if the child had been white? Fewer diversity points, but fewer racism points perhaps? Probably not making the item of clothing in the first place would be the only solution, but that's just being silly, isn't it? What child doesn't want to be "the coolest monkey in the jungle"?
So I'm going to point the finger of racism at the 27-year-old musician (whose name doesn't seem to be in the article anyway), without whom nobody would have thought about it.
|
Are you joking?
Pretty much all of the black pioneers in football had bananas thrown at them and monkey noises from the crowd when they got the ball.
The lack of intent is almost certainly the case as only a moron would think that sticking a black kid in a monkey T-shirt is good advertising.
|
"...only a moron would think that sticking a black kid in a monkey T-shirt is good advertising."
What is even more worrying is that it was probably more than a single moron that made the decision - surely there would have been a "marketing committee" (or whatever they're called) that must have okayed the ad.
|
>> Pretty much all of the black pioneers in football had bananas thrown at them and
>> monkey noises from the crowd when they got the ball.
>>
The monkey chants at football are, unfortunately, pretty common to this day; more so abroad, but not unknown in the English Leagues.
The connotations would have been clear to much of the target audience (and should have been clear to the perpetrators).
|
>> For a white, middle-class man such as myself the idea of comparing a
>> black child to a monkey died well before I was born (didn't it?).
No. The black person/monkey thing is regrettably alive and well. Assertive stewarding has seen off monkey chants when a black player has the ball at a UK footie stadium. You'll certainly hear it at this summer's World Cup though.
So no you don't need to be black to think that, at best, that child in that top was an image best left unpublished.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 12:40
|
>> No. The black person/monkey thing is regrettably alive and well. Assertive stewarding has seen off
>> monkey chants when a black player has the ball at a UK footie stadium. You'll
>> certainly hear it at this summer's World Cup though.
>>
>> So no you don't need to be black to think that, at best, that child
>> in that top was an image best left unpublished.
OK, I was entirely unaware of that. Not for the first time one might be led to think that banning football might be a good thing.
Presumably the people who chose, shot and published that photograph were similarly unaware of the current nature of this abuse. You can't expect people in fashion in London to be aware of the chants on the terraces in Russian football stadia.
|
>>You can't expect people in fashion in London to be aware of the chants on the terraces in Russian football stadia
You b***** can. It's their damn job to understand their target audience.
So they are s*** at their job, deliberately racist or intentionally sensationalist.
Any of which make them unpleasant people and at least 2, perhaps 3, of which should get them fired.
|
>> But it takes a black
>> person to think that because the child is black, and being called a monkey, that
>> it's racist.
The statement above is blatantly racist.
|
>>So I'm going to point the finger of racism at the 27-year-old musician<<
I think you should take a long hard look at yourself before pointing any fingers Mappy.
Pat
|
There will always be someone who will insert their chisel in the gap and blow something apart which is perfectly innocent and non-inflammatory.
Google 'Cheeky Chimps' you will find plenty of child care nurseries with that name so clearly the term has an association with children regardless of gender, colour and ethnicity.
Seems someone has played the race card for a bit of attention.
|
You'd like to think that somebody was being stupid or naive - the inevitable connotations and certain furore should have been obvious . It seems inconceivable that it could be racially motivated.
However, so many people see and approve these things that I do wonder if it was deliberate. Done knowing the likely media s*** storm.
|
>>However, so many people see and approve these things that I do wonder if it was deliberate. Done knowing the likely media s*** storm.<<
I think this is the case.
Not having any children I had seen the advert and thought it was a bit close to the matk but no big deal. I didn't know who the frim involved was though.
Today after reading the paper and listening to the radio I am in no doubt it is for H&M..
It worked.
Pat
|
>> However, so many people see and approve these things that I do wonder if it
>> was deliberate. Done knowing the likely media s*** storm.
I have worked with plenty of people who just fall into line behind a senior manager, especially the 'don't bother me with facts I have a decision to make' kind commonly found in retail, although this might just be a case of an approved template being used without management sign off.
I struggle to believe it was deliberate. Too stupid.
It's an odd one though. I'm pretty sure I will have called my two grandchildren "little monkeys" at some point (they assuredly are, being great climbers). Would that be racist if they were black/mixed race? Or if I was?
|
If you said to a black child that you had a connection with " who is a cool little monkey then?" I doubt anybody would think a thing.
Adding the words "..in the jungle" though would make me at least look at you a bit sideways.
|
>> It's an odd one though. I'm pretty sure I will have called my two grandchildren
>> "little monkeys" at some point (they assuredly are, being great climbers). Would that be racist
>> if they were black/mixed race? Or if I was?
I've certainly called my own kids little monkeys when they were climbing stuff and/or being mischievous. About 20 years ago I just stopped myself in time when a black colleague's 6 year old who was visiting the office climbed onto a filing rack....
If it's family you'd fine, unless you're on white side of mixed race grandchildren and there are 'issues' with, say, your daughter's black partner.
|
OP said "27-year-old musician (whose name doesn't seem to be in the article "
The link you posted includes "weeknd-ends-ties-h-m-over-racist-advert".
The article begins "The Weeknd has severed ties with H&M"
So I looked in Wikipedia, which says
"Abel Makkonen Tesfaye ... born 16 February 1990), known professionally as The Weeknd, is a Canadian singer, songwriter, and record producer.
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 13:59
|
>> So I'm going to point the finger of racism at the 27-year-old musician (whose name
>> doesn't seem to be in the article anyway), without whom nobody would have thought about
>> it.
You are an idiot.
|
It does seem a bit crass and insensitive though it seems unlikely that it was deliberately racist.
Our society is too PC nowadays though, here's an example:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42623021
|
>> Our society is too PC nowadays though, here's an example:
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42623021
>>
What's wrong with that?
|
I've had a few disagreements being called a Dutch b.That was mild.>:)
|
>>I've had a few disagreements being called a Dutch b.That was mild.>:)
Have you, or anyone you know, ever been called a Dutch r****** though.?
:o)
|
|
I'm not sure I haven't been called an arancino in Italy.
|
>> I'm not sure I haven't been called an arancino in Italy.
Do you mean arancini? We were trying to get a cold drink in Sicily once and the bar didn't have staff who understood. We though we'd ask for orange juice.... they thought they understood because we'd used 'arancia'...
.. well they nearly brought us two arancini :-) Which isn't what you want when thirsty.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 23:13
|
>> >> Our society is too PC nowadays though, here's an example:
>> >>
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42623021
>> >>
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
Quote:
"The Football Association will interview at least one applicant from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background for future roles in the England set-up."
It's positive discrimination, the candidates interviewed should be the best candidates based on relevant criteria such as experience and ability.
The point is that race is a totally irrelevant critetia though this approach makes it one.
|
>> The point is that race is a totally irrelevant critetia though this approach makes it
>> one.
As I read it the BME candidate still has to have same qualifications. This approach just makes sure at least on of them gets on the shortlist.
Civil Service and Public Appointments (Quango membership etc) have had similar schemes for disabled since well before 2000. And it was needed. An otherwise decent man who managed the court I worked at in mid-eighties invited a disabled candidate for a clerical post to interview and then focused on how he'd get to his desk as the lifts were (a) unreliable and (b) served the public rather than the staff entrance.
|
>> >> The point is that race is a totally irrelevant critetia though this approach makes it one.
>>
>> As I read it the BME candidate still has to have same qualifications. >>
Of course they do!!
>> This approach just makes sure at least on of them gets on the shortlist.>>
And that's the problem, they should not be on the shortlist because of their skin colour, they should be on the shortlist because of their skills and experience, their suitability for the job.
Just like all-women shortlists this approach simply serves to put a spot light on race and undermines the equality which exists in law.
Disability needs to be handled differently because a disabled person may have different needs.
|
Why is that PC?
I wouldn't agree with it if it entailed the wrong person getting the job, but ensuring that the interview selection is broad is surely a good thing?
Why don't you like it, Mappy?
|
....22 of 482 roles across England's top-four leagues were filled by coaches from BAME backgrounds.
Yeah, looks like the status quo is working a treat.
25yrs ago 1/6 of the premiership footballers were BAME, and now it's 1/3 - you'd expect a reasonable chunk would aim for management roles after their careers?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 19:14
|
>> 25yrs ago 1/6 of the premiership footballers were BAME, and now it's 1/3 - you'd
>> expect a reasonable chunk would aim for management roles after their careers?
Not excusing it, because its true, but one of the probable reasons is that of the 33% of black footballers, more than 25% of them will not be resident here at the end of their contracts. They are contracted footballing mercenaries not from the UK.
|
|
True, Z, but how many Premiership managers are likewise mercenaries from outwith the UK?
|
>>True, Z, but how many Premiership managers are likewise mercenaries from outwith the UK?
Was about to make same point but got caught up arranging Mrs B's trip to West Country to sort out our daughter's wedding dress.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 21:34
|
>> True, Z, but how many Premiership managers are likewise mercenaries from outwith the UK?
Lots, which limits the opportunities for all UK resident managers, Black or White.
Not excusing it mind, I know racism in football management is prevalent.
Grass roots football, at schoolboy/youth level is fantastic. Progression up the whole tree is pathetic. Its no wonder the English national team is crap.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 22:26
|
>> ....22 of 482 roles across England's top-four leagues were filled by coaches from BAME backgrounds.
>>
>> Yeah, looks like the status quo is working a treat.
>>
>> 25yrs ago 1/6 of the premiership footballers were BAME, and now it's 1/3 - you'd
>> expect a reasonable chunk would aim for management roles after their careers?
>>
That's the premiership, I wonder how many players are bame in the top four leagues?
|
What percentage of British citizens are BAME?
Against that, what percentage of players in the Premier League are British?
Within that, how do the BAME proportions differ between the English group and the Foreign player group?
Anybody know?
|
>> What percentage of British citizens are BAME?
>> Anybody know?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post. 3% (according to the census).
Most intrigued by the thought of Brompton not addressing a child as a monkey because it was black. Any other child he would have called a monkey, but he treated a black child differently from any other child with a non-black skin. I am not suggesting for even a moment that by doing this he intended any slight against the child, indeed far from it. But isn't racism all about singling out a different race for different treatment?
|
>> I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post. 3% (according to the census).
I think that figure refers to those who identify as black ie African/Caribbean etc. BAME total including other groups is around 7%.
You acknowledged on your OP that there is history of the word monkey being used as a racist epithet for black people. There are still people out there who think that way. Ask your black colleagues if they've ever been racially abused.
Treating people appropriately is not discrimination.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 10 Jan 18 at 11:11
|
>>Treating people appropriately is not discrimination.
Of course treating people appropriately is appropriate! All I was saying is, odd.
|
>> Treating people appropriately is not discrimination.
>>
>>
absolutely
On a point raised earlier there are indeed a number of nurseries / playgroups etc named "cheeky monkeys" or similar, there is one near here in Warwick.
I do wonder if there are any in Brixton or similar areas in, for example, Birmingham.
It is a shame when words which are used innocently by most people are appropriated by the morons on football terraces and similar but I guess that is just part of society, and it does mean that context and choice of words becomes very important
|
"It is a shame when words which are used innocently by most people are appropriated by the morons on football terraces "...
Conceivably the term moron could be deemed offensive...
Just sayin' :-)
|
>> It is a shame when words which are used innocently by most people are appropriated
>> by the morons on football terraces and similar but I guess that is just part
>> of society, and it does mean that context and choice of words becomes very important
When it comes to the term "Monkey" as a form of racial abuse, don't blame the people on the football terraces, its a term first employed as a form of racial abuse in the early days of slavery. Probably extensively by Mappys forebears and ancestors as it happens. It is possibly the first and earliest such form. (tho to be fair we also called the French "monkeys")
Of course you can use the term "Little Monkey" to describe the antics of children, even black children in a mixed racial group. Its all about being appropriate to the prevailing situation, as the Anti Racist and Racist both appreciate and both ignore because it does not suit their argument.
Any idiot should realise that a black child wearing a hoodie with monkey and jungle on it is extremely inappropriate. To argue otherwise is to simply promote your own inappropriate agenda.
|
>> >> What percentage of British citizens are BAME?
>> >> Anybody know?
>>
>> I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post. 3% (according to the census).
>>
Very selective on the statistics
Mixed/Multiple ethnic group NON UK BORN is 3.2%. BUT....
UK BORN is 2. %
and the B in BAME
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British. NON UK BORN is 13.2%. and
UK BORN is 1.8%
So I make that 3.8% of uk born are BAME
and 16.4% of non UK born are BAME.
Not a simple answer but from a quick glance at the ONC figures I think that is more accurate
|
>>
>> So I make that 3.8% of uk born are BAME
>> and 16.4% of non UK born are BAME.
>>
>> Not a simple answer but from a quick glance at the ONC figures I think
>> that is more accurate
>>
That doesn't tell you any though as you need to know what % of the total population are non UK born as the 16.4% will only apply to that figure. I.e. if 10% of the total population are non UK born then it would be 1.64% who are non UK born BAME.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 10 Jan 18 at 11:21
|
>> >> What percentage of British citizens are BAME?
>> >> Anybody know?
>>
>> I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post. 3% (according to the census).
Are you mixing up BME and BAME?
According to
tinyurl.com/hz7saup
in 2011 (last census) 7.5% were Asian/Asian British, and 3.3% were Black/African/Caribbean/Black British.
That's 10.8% before considering 2.2% Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups, and 1% Other ethnic group.
"White" presumably of any nationality, was 86%.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 09:31
|
|
Won't it be nice when one day there are just "people", and no one knows or cares what % are this or that, and the terms will be meaningless because we shall all be colour-blind.
|
>> Won't it be nice when one day there are just "people", and no one knows
>> or cares what % are this or that, and the terms will be meaningless because
>> we shall all be colour-blind.
Yes it would, which is the undesirable and paradoxical aspect of positive discrimination - you can't have it without focusing on those differences that you seek to ignore.
|
>> which is the undesirable and paradoxical aspect of positive discrimination - you can't have it without focusing on those differences that you seek to ignore. >>
Well put Manatee!
|
"... the terms will be meaningless because we shall all be colour-blind."
I don't think this is the issue at all. Being colour-blind, in this context, would mean being totally unaware of some people's skin colour (and presumably other racial/ethnic markers).
It is not desirable, or probably even possible, to be unaware of such things and it's naive to expect it to happen. I'm sure we shall continue to register the fact that skin colour varies, as does hair colour, eye colour, facial shape, height, weight and so on. Some people will be muscular, others flabby, some women will have voluptuous figures and others as straight as a rake - and all shapes and sizes in between.
And people who observe these things may well have personal preferences, and there's nothing wrong with that either.
What is wrong, and what it would be good to get rid of, is the idea that these personal characteristics have any deeper significance - that based on the outward physical characteristics of someone you can make any meaningful judgement about them; or that their basic, essential inward humanity is somehow compromised in any way.
|
>>
>>
>> It is not desirable, or probably even possible, to be unaware of such things and
>> it's naive to expect it to happen.
>>
I can remember an occasion 30 years ago in an office in London, when a group of us genuinely were oblivious to the colour of one of our number. It manifested itself when the person making the coffee shouted across, "Winston, are you white?" He very clearly had given no thought to any other connotations, was simply asking whether the bloke wanted milk or not, just as people often do.
Winston normally spoke cockney, but answered in a mock West Indian accent, "No man, ah's a black", which he was.
I noticed at the time, no one was embarassed, offended or apologetic, it was just a good joke shared by all.
I don't think it could happen innocently now, because we have all been schooled to notice such things and be touchy about avoiding them.
|
I'm pretty sure that my daughters don't notice skin colour any more or less than they notice hair colour.
To judge someone by either simply would not occur to them. To describe or notice them according to either would be quite natural to them.
The issue only comes when one makes a value judgement based upon something the other person has no control over - hair / skin / gender etc. etc. And they don't do that.
|
As a postscript we had a staff meeting at work today. Outside speaker was from local Rights and Equality outfit.
As part of her spiel, and without any prompting, she told us they'd handled cases in last two years where black staff in warehousing had been subjected to monkey chants by white employees.
|
>> As a postscript we had a staff meeting at work today. Outside speaker was from
>> local Rights and Equality outfit.
I am astonished that there are still establishments where people need to be told to treat people equally.
|
>> I am astonished that there are still establishments where people need to be told to
>> treat people equally.
It is part of an ongoing process, new employees, school & university leavers etc need to be educated in standards expected.
It has been part of our business conduct processes in our organisation for many years, which we all need to certify understanding of on an annual basis.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Jan 18 at 12:51
|
Harry Potter actor Emma Watson has written of how her being white gave her privileges:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/emma-watson-truth-race-white
|
My other half is doing a CIPD HR qualification at college at the moment, and I've been proofing some of her work before she submits it. From a recruitment and selection perspective, the challenge is not removing discrimination, but unconscious bias. Like it or not, our brains have evolved to make quick judgments and assessments of situations, risks, and even people. We are, by its definition, not aware of this as it happens, but it does feed into our ultimate decision making process.
I think it's fascinating stuff, personally.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 12:58
|
Reminds me of a course I went on around 2004, part of which was about interviewing. The theory is that many people make a judgement of a candidate within the first 5 seconds or so of meeting someone, and for a large percentage of the time they aren't far wrong.
I've no idea if that was scientifically proven...
|
>> Reminds me of a course I went on around 2004, part of which was about
>> interviewing. The theory is that many people make a judgement of a candidate within the
>> first 5 seconds or so of meeting someone, and for a large percentage of the
>> time they aren't far wrong.
>>
>> I've no idea if that was scientifically proven...
First impressions count, they do in every walk of life, and that is a valid required candidate attribute, because when employed and meeting customers for the first time, guess what - First impressions count.
What you need to do is discount non valid prejudice.
For example if a black guys walk in for interview dressed smartly, confidently with friendly open professional way then black prejudice goes out the window.
If the next black candidate walks in in a hostile 'hood manner with trousers down round his thighs 'gangsta style he is binned, (as would a white candidate, specially as they cant do the gangsta hood thing with any degree of credibility) . The hood type may claim its racial prejudice - it may be because they have imprinted that very prejudice, but at the end of the day its unsuitability for role.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 13:32
|
>> For example if a black guys walk in for interview dressed smartly, confidently with friendly
>> open professional way then black prejudice goes out the window.
>>
>> If the next black candidate walks in in a hostile 'hood manner with trousers down
>> round his thighs 'gangsta style he is binned, (as would a white candidate, specially as
>> they cant do the gangsta hood thing with any degree of credibility) . The hood
>> type may claim its racial prejudice - it may be because they have imprinted that
>> very prejudice, but at the end of the day its unsuitability for role.
The way bias works is that the first one would be seen as an exception, the second one as typical and confirming the recruiter's pre-judgement.
The biased recruiter might still give the job to the smartly dressed, confident black professional but would probably not change his innate bias.
|
|
A recruiter is biased (should be biased) towards suitability for role, a good interviewer/recruiter can shift that bias as required.
|
|
You posited a prejudiced recruiter.
|
>> The way bias works is that the first one would be seen as an exception,
>> the second one as typical and confirming the recruiter's pre-judgement.
>>
>> The biased recruiter might still give the job to the smartly dressed, confident black professional
>> but would probably not change his innate bias.
>>
You would hope that most professional recruiters, and indeed most professionals, in most organisations would not see anything out of the ordinary in the first candidate when applying for a professional job.
Within my view in an open officeI can see about 40-50 people probably about 50% "non white" and can't honestly say there is any difference in dress, behaviour, attitude or professionalism in any of them.
|
Such a lack of appreciation of the laws and what social views accept as the norm for behaviour is not surprising.
I recently attended an annual conference of a national and quite large charity of which I am a member. I represented my local branch.
As a delegate, I had to vote to confirm the suspension of a Trustee of the charity .. as required under the constitution. There were presentations from both sides and a long discussion.##
Given the ground rules for suspensions are basically enshrined in law for employees, one would expect the basis of those rules regarding process and fairness would be followed as a guide.
Imagine my (and other delegates' ) surprise when:
the individual involved appeared not to have been advised of the details of one charge - so defence was impossible,
the committee which ruled on his suspension included people who were clearly not independent,
and the individual accused was not given any chance to defend themselves before being suspended - or at any meeting where suspension was discussed.
Unbelievable.
(And the charity had taken no legal advice on how to conduct the proceedings- despite never having taken such a step before)
Needless to say the suspension was NOT confirmed.
## Full of votes, points of order, confusion. It was the worst meeting I have ever attended and a rather long one.
Edit : I suspect the consequences of all this may prove rather expensive.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 17 Jan 18 at 07:16
|
|
Madf - one word: incompetence.
|
>> Madf - one word: incompetence.
In employment it's reasonable to suspend someone on pay for a short period of time. That would assume a reasonably serious allegation and need to get them out of way while tempers cool or to remove possibility of them interfering with witnesses or evidence while an investigation is carried out. Suspension is not a presumption of guilt and should be with pay unless employees contract allows suspension without.
The suspension should be no longer than absolutely necessary, usually days and certainly not the weeks/months I was aware of in on CS office I worked in.
It would be followed by fact finding and or disciplinary interviews. Only when both sides have been heard would a sanction be applied.
If in this case the suspension is punitive then doing so without all allegations being put, responses recorded and a decision in light of ALL facts then suspendee has good grounds for complaint.
|
|
You need reasonable grounds to suspend.
|
>> You need reasonable grounds to suspend.
>>
If you are a teacher an accusation is enough, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to everyone involved.
|
|
Sadly, yes, that is seen as reasonable in the case of a teacher or similar. Though even there limits of reasonableness do exist.
|
>> You need reasonable grounds to suspend.
>>
. The time from first suspension to the Meeting I attended was at least four months. It was not announced as a temporary suspension but just "suspended". No hearings were held with the defendant in this time.
|
The rules for employment are pretty clear and there is always ACAS for a quick check on the correct procedures.
Trustees and directors are different as they are office holders not employees, and probably the rules, if any, are laid out in the Articles or trust deed.
|
Isn't getting out of hand with political correctness?
Nobody dare say anything anymore or you are branded as a racist.
I mentioned something on another web site regarding mostly Asian men abusing young children in Rotherham.
It was classed racist so be it.
|
>> Harry Potter actor Emma Watson has written of how her being white gave her privileges:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/emma-watson-truth-race-white
>>
Disagree: it was being good looking that gave her privileges.
|
>> Disagree: it was being good looking that gave her privileges.
So a good looking black girl with same aptitude for acting could have same opportunity?
Miss Watson started playing Hermione Granger while still pre-pubescent - careful what you say :-P
|
"Harry Potter actor Emma Watson has written of how her being white gave her privileges:"
Sorry, Emma, it's being from a privileged background that gave you privileges.
|
>> "Harry Potter actor Emma Watson has written of how her being white gave her privileges:"
>>
>> Sorry, Emma, it's being from a privileged background that gave you privileges.
Had she been black she wouldn't have had a privileged background.
|
"Had she been black she wouldn't have had a privileged background."
Oh, I think Mr Obama's girls will do alright.
|
|
Even you must agree that is an exception
|
The number of racist people never cease to amaze me.
I read recently that Cyrille Regis was sent a bullet in the post when he was selected to play for England.
There a some *x*x*x*x*x*x* sick people about!
|
"There a some *x*x*x*x*x*x* sick people about!"
Quite - I absolutely agree!
There are also some race-obcessed people about who will make a race issue out of everything.
|
Cyrille Regis MBE
(apologies)
|
>> There are also some race-obcessed people about who will make a race issue out of
>> everything.
Race issues may be less common then I think.
But they're far more prevalent than you imagine.
|
>> "There a some *x*x*x*x*x*x* sick people about!"
>>
>> Quite - I absolutely agree!
>>
>> There are also some race-obcessed people about who will make a race issue out of
>> everything.
>>
There are just some people around who are completely warped.
When my Father in Law died, he specifically stated he did not want flowers at his funeral. So notice of funeral contained notice "no flowers please - by wish of the deceased".
Cue two abusive letters to his widow complaining and saying how wrong she was not to allow flowers..
Last edited by: madf on Fri 19 Jan 18 at 10:16
|
>> Cue two abusive letters to his widow complaining and saying how wrong she was not
>> to allow flowers..
Probably from florists :-)
|
>> Probably from florists :-)
Or budding protestors?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Jan 18 at 13:36
|
>>Cue two abusive letters to his widow
What is wrong with people!
Donate to charity or a small remembrance shrub in the garden.
|
>>Cue two abusive letters to his widow complaining and saying how wrong she was not to allow flowers..
I'd post them on the internet, in the local newspaper, wherever I could.
Lowlife scumbags.
|
>> Lowlife scumbags.
Anonymous I believe...
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 20 Jan 18 at 17:43
|
Interesting review in the Observer of (ex Guardian staffer) Afua Hirsch's book on life as a mixed race Brit:
www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/29/british-by-afua-hirsch-review-identity-race-nikesh-shukla
I've ordered a copy on strength of review.
|
"Interesting .........."
I'm a 'person of accent', and people ask me where I'm from - but it doesn't bother me.
|
>> I'm a 'person of accent', and people ask me where I'm from - but it
>> doesn't bother me.
Are you having a laugh or have you just wilfully misunderstood Ms Hirsch's point?
|
"Are you having a laugh or have you just wilfully misunderstood Ms Hirsch's point?"
I'm having a laugh.
|
What a mess to get in - Lygonos
