Jump to content

Louise Taylor


Guest Patrokles
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet strangely it's fine to infer all white people are racist (and again ironically racist as well). ("Caucasianophobic"?)

 

Or that all men or sexist. ("XYobphobic"?)

 

Or to infer all British people alive today are some how responsible for the slave trade (never mind that Britain neither invented not control the historically longest slave markets, yet was responsible for stopping slavery on most of the planet)..... ok I can't think of an "ophobic" for that one. :blush:

 

Since when has it been fine to infer those things? You're just making stuff up now.

He's not the brightest is he? :mellow:

 

I just realised you say that then agree with me 2 posts down. :razz:

 

Bitterness > intellect in your case clearly. :)

To "infer" means to "get the impression" of something. To "imply" means to "give the impression" of something.

 

You say it's ok to get the impression that all white people are racist. I don't agree and I don't see a contradiction in anything I've said.

 

Aye that's used in the wrong context if you're being pedantic, but it is quite accept to imply or infer that all white people are racist in the country and indeed the West as a whole.

 

In fact it's almost a unwritten rule (although as I said often almost directly written).

 

Equally here it's quite acceptable to imply or infer than non-white people are never racist when black on asian and asian on black violence is the faster rising area of crime in the UK, and if you travel outside the West racism is much more rampant throughout the rest of the world than in the West.

 

It's just broadly accepted and not used as a political bludgeon or lever (mostly because in those places it would be useless as such).

Couldn't agree less tbh. Who finds that true or acceptable?

 

The Guardian much of the time for a start, and the BBC in their own way (see the way they tailor wording in their bulletins etc.). You see it very often in reporting on race crime, issues like Zimbabwe, Dafur (and other African and Middle East racial unease), even down to the acceptability of racial slurs such as cracker/cracka etc.

 

It's probably the last form of PC "acceptable" prejudice along with assuming all men are misogynistic/sexist.

 

 

 

Although you're right that few would "agree" if it was pointed out that bluntly too them, but that still doesn't stop them being happily party to it when it's done in a more subtle and less in their face manner.

 

I just hate pseudo-equality and it's very common in the contexts above, because it's just "acceptable" prejudice (although I'm a massive believer in genuine equality).

Edited by Fop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet strangely it's fine to infer all white people are racist (and again ironically racist as well). ("Caucasianophobic"?)

 

Or that all men or sexist. ("XYobphobic"?)

 

Or to infer all British people alive today are some how responsible for the slave trade (never mind that Britain neither invented not control the historically longest slave markets, yet was responsible for stopping slavery on most of the planet)..... ok I can't think of an "ophobic" for that one. :blush:

 

Since when has it been fine to infer those things? You're just making stuff up now.

He's not the brightest is he? :mellow:

 

I just realised you say that then agree with me 2 posts down. :razz:

 

Bitterness > intellect in your case clearly. :)

To "infer" means to "get the impression" of something. To "imply" means to "give the impression" of something.

 

You say it's ok to get the impression that all white people are racist. I don't agree and I don't see a contradiction in anything I've said.

 

Aye that's used in the wrong context if you're being pedantic, but it is quite accept to imply or infer that all white people are racist in the country and indeed the West as a whole.

 

In fact it's almost a unwritten rule (although as I said often almost directly written).

 

Equally here it's quite acceptable to imply or infer than non-white people are never racist when black on asian and asian on black violence is the faster rising area of crime in the UK, and if you travel outside the West racism is much more rampant throughout the rest of the world than in the West.

 

It's just broadly accepted and not used as a political bludgeon or lever (mostly because in those places it would be useless as such).

Couldn't agree less tbh. Who finds that true or acceptable?

 

The Guardian much of the time for a start, and the BBC in their own way (see the way they tailor wording in their bulletins etc.). You see it very often in reporting on race crime, issues like Zimbabwe, Dafur (and other African and Middle East racial unease), even down to the acceptability of racial slurs such as cracker/cracka etc.

 

It's probably the last form of PC "acceptable" prejudice along with assuming all men are misogynistic/sexist.

 

 

 

Although you're right that few would "agree" if it was pointed out that bluntly too them, but that still doesn't stop them being happily party to it when it's done in a more subtle and less in their face manner.

 

I just hate pseudo-equality and it's very common in the contexts above, because it's just "acceptable" prejudice (although I'm a massive believer in genuine equality).

Still don't agree although I partly concur with the last sentence. To be honest though you can't take something like The Guardian as proving something is acceptable without taking into account the sort of line taken by papers such as The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, as well as, to a lesser extent papers like The Times and The Daily Telegraph too on wider issues of racism and the representation of racial/national stereotypes. The BBC on the other hand are normally considered as too establishment, too gay, too left-wing, too right-wing, etc. depending on who has an axe to grind with them which probably tells you a lot about their impartiality in general imo.

Edited by alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't agree although I partly concur with the last sentence. To be honest though you can't take something like The Guardian as proving something is acceptable without taking into account the sort of line taken by papers such as The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, as well as, to a lesser extent papers like The Times and The Daily Telegraph too on wider issues of racism and the representation of racial/national stereotypes. The BBC on the other hand are normally considered as too establishment, too gay, too left-wing, too right-wing, etc. depending on who has an axe to grind with them which probably tells you a lot about their impartiality in general imo.

 

For all their rubbish papers like the Mail aren't being prejudiced (these days) so much as being ignorantly popularist and blusterful (and in this context even anti-prejudice). The Guardian has no such excuse and given whom they aim themselves at must know it as well and should know better.

 

The BBC is reasonably impartial, but you only have to look at their broadcasting memos on what can be said and not said in varying contexts to see that sometimes not saying (or avoiding saying) something is actually being a long way from being "impartial" or even "non-discriminatory"..... just that they aren't worried about complaints of bias or discrimination from those areas (although they have been held up several times in recent years over bias issues).

 

For example it is often better to watch say a US network and a middle-east network (both pretty biased in their own way) to see the truth in between than the position the BBC comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't agree although I partly concur with the last sentence. To be honest though you can't take something like The Guardian as proving something is acceptable without taking into account the sort of line taken by papers such as The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, as well as, to a lesser extent papers like The Times and The Daily Telegraph too on wider issues of racism and the representation of racial/national stereotypes. The BBC on the other hand are normally considered as too establishment, too gay, too left-wing, too right-wing, etc. depending on who has an axe to grind with them which probably tells you a lot about their impartiality in general imo.

 

For all their rubbish papers like the Mail aren't being prejudiced (these days) so much as being ignorantly popularist and blusterful (and in this context even anti-prejudice). The Guardian has no such excuse and given whom they aim themselves at must know it as well and should know better.

 

The BBC is reasonably impartial, but you only have to look at their broadcasting memos on what can be said and not said in varying contexts to see that sometimes not saying (or avoiding saying) something is actually being a long way from being "impartial" or even "non-discriminatory"..... just that they aren't worried about complaints of bias or discrimination from those areas (although they have been held up several times in recent years over bias issues).

 

For example it is often better to watch say a US network and a middle-east network (both pretty biased in their own way) to see the truth in between than the position the BBC comes from.

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen the highlights but from what I heard on 5-Live, Mido was rightfully booked for encitement.

 

Regardless of what a minority of the crowd were or were not chanting, it doesn't give a professional footballer the right to do what Mido did so why the hell is she saying Mike Dean was pedantic for booking him?

 

Many can empathise with why Cantona decked that Palace fall all those years back, didn't mean that what he did was right and he was deservedly handed a lengthy ban for his actions.

 

Southgate should be keeping his trap shut as well - if he has a problem with what was going on in the stands, then he needs to speak with the club stewards and the police - NOT the fucking press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

 

Being ignorantly popularist and blusterful and prejudiced, aye. Because I suspect in all cases prejudice will be in the eye of the beholder, not in actual alluded (or more) to statements as are the issues we are discussing above (although before that I think we'd better get the definition of prejudice in this context down for a start :razz:).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

 

Being ignorantly popularist and blusterful and prejudiced, aye. Because I suspect in all cases prejudice will be in the eye of the beholder, not in actual alluded (or more) to statements as are the issues we are discussing above (although before that I think we'd better get the definition of prejudice in this context down for a start :razz:).

Glad you agree it amounts to the same thing anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

 

Being ignorantly popularist and blusterful and prejudiced, aye. Because I suspect in all cases prejudice will be in the eye of the beholder, not in actual alluded (or more) to statements as are the issues we are discussing above (although before that I think we'd better get the definition of prejudice in this context down for a start :blush:).

Glad you agree it amounts to the same thing anyway.

 

As you well know that's not what is written there. :razz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :mellow:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

 

Being ignorantly popularist and blusterful and prejudiced, aye. Because I suspect in all cases prejudice will be in the eye of the beholder, not in actual alluded (or more) to statements as are the issues we are discussing above (although before that I think we'd better get the definition of prejudice in this context down for a start :blush:).

Glad you agree it amounts to the same thing anyway.

 

As you well know that's not what is written there. :razz:

It does though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure semantics. Amounts to exactly the same thing in general.

Anything is the truth from a certain point of view (but whether that point of view is correct is another issue).

 

But give some examples then and well see. :razz:

You want me to give some examples of newspapers like The Daily Mail being prejudiced you mean?

 

Being ignorantly popularist and blusterful and prejudiced, aye. Because I suspect in all cases prejudice will be in the eye of the beholder, not in actual alluded (or more) to statements as are the issues we are discussing above (although before that I think we'd better get the definition of prejudice in this context down for a start :)).

Glad you agree it amounts to the same thing anyway.

 

As you well know that's not what is written there. :blush:

It does though.

 

It does not. (does. does not. does. does not. does. not. does. not etc. etc.) :P:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian Toon

vendetta Day 3

 

Yet more self righteous bollocks on Wednesday from Louise Taylor (anagram: orate lousily), who combines a career as a Guardian writer with that of moral arbiter for the nation.

 

(We hear she also does a neat sideline in penning tripe for the official mackem magazine - which may or may not be significant):

 

Newcastle United fans who subjected Mido, Middlesbrough's Egyptian striker, to Islamophobic abuse during Sunday's match at The Riverside could soon be banned from watching football.

 

The Football Association launched an investigation yesterday into events on Teesside when officials began studying audio and video footage of the game. Sources said that racist chants directed at Mido from visiting Newcastle supporters were "clearly audible" and it is understood that the FA will contact Cleveland police today and ask for their cooperation in identifying those involved before making them the subject of banning orders.

An FA spokesman said last night: "We are very much in favour of banning orders being imposed on anyone identified as engaging in racist behaviour in football. The FA will obviously work with the police on all football disorder related matters."

 

During Sunday's 2-2 draw, when Mido, a Muslim, scored Boro's first equaliser, the Egypt international was taunted with anti-Arab chants. Five arrests were made at the game and, while none were racism-related, police were aware of the abuse. But the police did not initially pursue the matter yesterday as Middlesbrough informed them the club would not be making a formal complaint. A Cleveland police spokeswoman said they would, however, cooperate with the FA investigation.

 

Newcastle's failure to issue a statement condemning Islamophobic abuse in football raised eyebrows in certain quarters - not least among their supporters in Egypt where the Tyneside club commands a sizeable following - but Middlesbrough will not be asking them to say sorry. "I don't think it's necessary," said Boro's manager Gareth Southgate, who is close to signing another Egypt international, Mohammed Shawky, a central midfielder from Cairo's Al-Ahly for £250,000. "I don't think a club can always take responsibility for the actions of its supporters."

 

From one of Louise's previous rants, some information about Mido:

 

"...the highly articulate 24-year-old, whose father is a wealthy businessman in Cairo."

 

So he speaks well and comes from good stock - what the hell has that got to do with price of camel dung?

 

Were his father to be a struggling businessman or the player be somewhat less eloquent would that reduce the severity of the alleged offences?

 

Just what the **** is this woman on?

 

nufc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more on the issue from the Guardian, did we shag their mum or something?

 

Hypocrisy needs a kick it out campaign

 

It would be typical if the FA's bark over the racism directed at Mido turned out to be an ineffectual bite.

Marina Hyde

August 29, 2007 11:59 PM

 

Much as one hates to pre-empt the outcome of another of those famously sabre-toothed FA inquiries, the stench of inaction is already beginning to hover around the fact that a significant number of Newcastle supporters racially abused Mido during their side's 2-2 draw with Middlesbrough on Sunday.

 

Soho Square has begun an investigation, and is talking of banning orders if the police identify the culprits, but Middlesbrough will not be demanding an apology. Quite unforgivably, meanwhile, Newcastle have refused to comment. And already, we have been treated to the views of apologists for the fans who persistently chanted "Mido, he's got a bomb you know; Mido's got a bomb" at the Egyptian striker, along with other Islamophobic abuse that somehow contrived to be even less artful.

 

Speaking to this newspaper, one Ian Cusack of the Newcastle fanzine True Faith described the chants as "unsavoury". "But I don't think they were racist," he went on. "Newcastle have Muslim players. Emre is a Muslim . . . The chants should be placed in the context of local rivalry."

 

It takes a special sort of idiotic blindness, really, to downgrade racism to something that can be excused on account of geography, and it would be nice to think that Mr Cusack might dedicate the next issue of his magazine to expanding on this point, perhaps extrapolating his argument to notable episodes in civil rights history.

 

In the meantime, there is only his we've-got-a-Muslim-too defence, which some might find redolent of the attempt by The Office's Chris Finch to bat away those tired charges of misogyny. "How can I hate women?" is his triumphant staple. "My mum's one."

 

Yet it is the mention of Emre that elicits associations of a different sort. The Turkish midfielder is arguably not regarded as the Premier League's poster boy for tolerance. For reasons upon which we can only speculate, accusations of racism have dogged him at several turns. Last season, he was accused of racially abusing Bolton's El-Hadji Diouf and Watford's Al Bangura, though neither claim drew a charge. But it was the claim made by Everton's Joleon Lescott and Tim Howard that he had racially insulted their team-mate Joseph Yobo - and the FA inquiry that followed it - which is perhaps more significant. Lescott stated in his written submission that Emre had called Yobo "a fucking negro"; Howard that he had called him "a fucking nigger". This proved just the discrepancy the lawyers needed. Emre denied the charge and the FA committee pronounced itself "not satisfied that the charge was proved".

 

Lescott subsequently gave a disillusioned interview which should be required reading for all of those who subscribe to the view that the English game has so totally eradicated racism from its pitches and stands that its only remaining work is to sit in morally superior judgment over the rest of Europe's baying savages.

 

Immediately following the incident at Goodison, it became apparent to Lescott that people were attempting to play down the incident. As for the inquiry, he "didn't agree with the way it was dealt with. It felt like [he and Howard] were on trial as much as Emre was . . . I felt hurt by [the result], having gone to the trouble of making a complaint, attending the hearing, making a stand."

 

Back to today, and Newcastle's failure to issue a statement at the very least condemning Islamophobia in football speaks volumes. The FA making the chanting a police matter should not be used as an excuse to let the club's distasteful mulishness slide.

 

It doesn't help that Mido was booked for holding his finger to his lips in front of the abusive fans, who will inevitably go largely unpunished - though the referee, Mike Dean, is understood not to have heard them. But it just doesn't look great, just as it looked suspiciously topsy-turvy when Fifa fined Cameroon £86,000 for wearing the wrong kit in the 2004 African Cup of Nations, and the Spanish FA £45,000 for the racist chanting during England's friendly in Madrid the same year.

 

Of the Kick It Out campaign, Lescott now says "I probably would think twice about wearing one of those T-shirts again." That is a profoundly depressing statement, and one that should force the FA to embark on a newly energised drive to eradicate the continuing and morphing instances of racism from the game. They could start by condemning Newcastle for their silence, and ensuring that events at October's Kick It Out Week of Action highlight these kinds of shaming failures, rather than dwelling solely - complacently, even - on the success stories. That is, unless they're all T-shirt and no trousers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.