UK To Ban Online Racists From Soccer Games (pbs.org) 160
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PBS: U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson says the government plans to ban anyone guilty of online racist abuse from soccer matches as authorities continue to respond to the lawlessness connected to England's loss in the final of the European soccer championship. Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that it was time to act after three Black members of England's national team were targeted by racist abuse on social media after they failed to score during the penalty shootout that sealed the team's loss to Italy on Sunday night. The government plans to add online racism to the list of offenses for which fans can be barred from matches, he said.
"What we are doing is taking practical steps to ensure that the football banning regime is changed so that if you are guilty of racist abuse online on football, then you will not be going to the match," Johnson said during his weekly prime minister's questions session. "No ifs, no buts, no exemptions, no excuses." Courts are allowed to issue banning orders if a fan is convicted of a "relevant offense" linked to a match, including crimes such as disorderly behavior or possession of weapons.
"What we are doing is taking practical steps to ensure that the football banning regime is changed so that if you are guilty of racist abuse online on football, then you will not be going to the match," Johnson said during his weekly prime minister's questions session. "No ifs, no buts, no exemptions, no excuses." Courts are allowed to issue banning orders if a fan is convicted of a "relevant offense" linked to a match, including crimes such as disorderly behavior or possession of weapons.
Nanny state (Score:2)
Why is the government getting involved in this?
Shouldn't the decision of who to admit be up to the football leagues?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a slippery slope. It's more like dry level pavement.
Democratic governments really are loath to restrict citizens' freedoms. Why? Because imposing anything on the citizenry generally means you will lose the next election. Voters now expect nothing but carrots. But in this case, the citizenry and the businesses involved see keeping racist butt-hurt fans out of the stadiums as a huge carrot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, no. It's a rather more simple 'racially abuse footballers and we will remove you from football'.
Football hooligans can and will still meet outside the ground, and it's likely that none of the five people from the UK that posted racial abuse online at the weekend are members of a firm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the government getting involved in this?
Shouldn't the decision of who to admit be up to the football leagues?
The football leagues probably don't have the legal power to compel social media sites to turn over IP addresses of those posting the offending comments, nor the power to compel ISPs to turn over subscriber information corresponding to these IP addresses.
Hating Has No Functional Part of Society (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Without hate, there would be no politics,
People think politics is about "right" or "wrong" but it's not. That's ethics.
Politics is how different groups use power to get what they want, or compromise. It's not about "right" or "wrong," it's about desires/wants.
Sport is becoming irrelevant in Europe (Score:2)
European teams are international selection of players from all over the world, there is absolutely no reason to root for any of them. Poor countries get players from poor countries, and will always be second class.
Re:Sport is becoming irrelevant in Europe (Score:4, Funny)
European teams are international selection of players from all over the world
Err you're basically describing every sport in every country. Except Baseball in America where for some reason only American teams participate in a World Series.
Down with Italy!! (Score:2)
Isn't "Down with Italy" racial abuse? The whole sport is predicated on one race attacking another on the pitch.
Re: Down with Italy!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One prosecutor? What about the judge that tried all seven of the scientists, convicted them of a crime, then sentenced them to 6 years in prison? source [sciencemag.org] Sure, eventually the conviction was overturned but it took 7 years of paying lawyers and court appearances to put it to bed. That's not just an overzealous prosecutor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't "Down with Italy" racial abuse? The whole sport is predicated on one race attacking another on the pitch.
Oh dear. Look if in future you don't know what racism is I highly suggest ticking that "post anonymously" button before posting about it publicly. This doesn't look good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to decide if this is the stupidest post on the thread. Since it's a thread about racism, there's some exceptionally stiff competition but you might just be the winner.
Are they actually racist? (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that in many cases, the people slinging these insults are not actually inherently racist, but are using the hysteria over racism to attract more attention towards their insults.
Consider this. When the team was winning, people were praising the players including the non-white players and there were little/no insults of any kind being levelled at them. Had they won the final it's almost certain that would have continued.
Now that they have lost, supporters are angry and looking for someone to blame. Those players who missed their penalties are the obvious targets, and angry supporters will use whatever words they believe are most likely to have the most impact.
It's not about racism, it's about hostility towards someone perceived as being responsible for the team's defeat.
If racism wasn't such a touchy subject and noone cared, people would be finding other ways to try and insult the same players.
If white players had missed their penalties, they would have received no less hostility it just would have been phrased differently and attracted less attention.
Re:Are they actually racist? (Score:5, Insightful)
And also consider...
Those who are genuinely racist are offended by the mere presence of non-white players in the team at all, irrespective of the results of any matches.
Racists would be even more angry to see a team win because of the efforts of non-white players.
Racists would be happy to see a team containing non-white players lose, especially to an opposition team consisting of white europeans. They would see this as a demonstration of the racial superiority they believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether they're inherently racist or just casually racist - they're not the types of people you want at the games
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but by making it all about racism you are mixing two different things.
On the one hand you have sore losers who will abuse players when they don't get the result they want. They will abuse players irrespective of race.
On the other hand you have racists who will abuse any race they don't like, irrespective of their actions. They will abuse players even if they are winning, and they will abuse non football players too.
There is undoubtedly some overlap between the two, but it's coincidental. Makin
Re: (Score:2)
The person that pointed out international sporting competitions are inherently nationalistic brought up an irrelevant point. They're not complaining about people saying "Italians suck", they're cracking down on people calling the British black players racial slurs.
People should have to tolerate abuse because of their race. It's absolutely fair for the white players if they do this and people only are bitching about them playing poorly or whatever. They're not stopping people abusing the players, they're s
But not from the government (Score:2)
Common knowledge the PM is racist in his words and actions.
The Home Secretary Priti Patel is pushing through a bill in parliament that
seeks to remove the right of GRT people to exist.
We are led by racists.
Racist tweets were from India, Egypt, and UAE (Score:2)
Only about 0.0075% of the posts were from the UK. And those were from suspiciously newly created accounts.
The Sportsball Scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmc12n5uCPU
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK has always had a problem with "soccer hooligans", e.g. young men who show up explicitly to get into fights & riot. They're not there for the game, they're there for the fights, like Randy Marsh of South Park in that Little League episode.
Laws like this basically let the cops remove the trouble makers before they can start the riot they showed up to start. The down side is you give up a lot of free speech protections.
The US, BTW, does this too, but we do it by letting our cops arrest anyone for any reason (and letting the cops beat you senseless if you "resist"). I'm not entirely sure if that's better or worse. We get more free speech and the cost of more police beatings.
All that said, I don't know a solution to the problem of people showing up to events specifically to cause a riot. If you just let them riot sooner or later people get badly hurt and/or killed.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like the old
It's like an old story I heard, where a journalist was drinking and the bartender sees a couple guys walk in and tells them in no uncertain terms to get the fuck out. Journalist asks why, because the guys didn't look like they were there to cause trouble. Bartender says they recognized a couple of neo-N@zi patches on their jackets. Not Swastikas, but the kind that let their friends know who they were.
Journalist asks, why not just let them drink? Seemed like more trouble to kick them out.
The Bartender said: "Those guys are here to test the waters. You let them in and they'll bring their friends. Before long your bar gets a reputation as a place N@zis hang out. They stop wearing the patches nobody recognizes and they'll be flying the SS Flag.
It's like that. It's the paradox of tolerance. You've got to be intolerant of intolerance or you lose tolerance.
Just a Maximization Problem (Score:3)
It's the paradox of tolerance. You've got to be intolerant of intolerance or you lose tolerance.
It's not a paradox it's just a maximization problem. We want to maximize the number of different viewpoints and ideologies that society can tolerate but that maximum does not occur when you just tolerate everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, what would be the benefit of that? Having so many points of view that no consensus is viable? I' prefer just a few, that makes life a lot easier for all.
Re: Just a Maximization Problem (Score:2)
Having so many points of view that no consensus is viable It's called atomisation. It's like divide and conquer but everyone has to play. And be conquered.
Re: Good luck with that (Score:2)
It's like that. It's the paradox of tolerance. You've got to be intolerant of intolerance or you lose tolerance.
This "paradox" relies on the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a great example of how a private stadium should be able to manage its clientele. But there are different concerns with the present case,
(1) This is a government action. The government can in theory expand the reasons for discriminating, the locales, the severity of enforcement to almost arbitrary extent, so there is an immediately question not just of 'is this a good outcome in this case' but 'is this emblematic of the kind power the government should be able to exert on its citizens in general.'
(2)
While that's true (Score:2)
The problem here is that people are showing up to cause a violent riot. The UK's solution is that they've identified that the vast majority of these people tend to be racists, that they can identify them on social media, and that banning them will stop the riots.
As I mentioned the US does this too, but they do it by arresting everyone an anyone who looks at a cop funny.
Both solutions more or less work, and both have advantages and
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why the police do not pursue an arrest/beat up all these morons here, is because soem of them actually relish the notion of fighting with the police, and also know that if the police gets too engaged they will probably engage more support from other morons.
This is why other tactics are used, such as you are NOT allowed to re-sell football tickets, they can only be sold from the offical places or their permitted agents. Other tickets (thertre, shows, etc) do not have this restriction.
During the fi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like the old /. trolls ...You have shut them down before the trouble starts because by the time they do your venue to completely overrun.
I may disagree with you, sir, but I will defend to the death my right to say:
Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, covered in hot grits.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a straw man (Score:2)
Re: Good luck with that (Score:2)
Wow, you sound so smart with all these swearwords, so much better and smarter than those meanie leftists
Re: (Score:2)
the leftists at the same level of the far right are 2 sides of the same coin so you are fighting yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I'll accept your "far right" badge and add it to my collection of flair earned from speaking up in defense of actual liberal values.
Values, that would necessitate protesting that racist soccor holligans or even neonazis being used as the excuse for giving the government power to monitor your digital communications, so they can decide what venues you're allowed to visit, with no accusation of a crime, or even any form of due process.
I'm not sure why there isn't more "far right" people like myself, be
Re: (Score:3)
I believe quite firmly that a lot of (if not all) "nazi punching" videos are completely staged. Nobody would be able to deck a guy at a pro-fascist rally without A: Getting the shit beaten out of him by the crowd, and B: Getting photographed and the police called on him. I believe that those videos are staged by nazis and spread under the guise of an antifascist movement, when in truth it's to give someone an excuse to retaliate against the enemy in a legal manner.
Waving a nazi flag in the US is protected u
Re: (Score:3)
>The UK has always had a problem with "soccer hooligans", e.g. young men who show up explicitly to get into fights & riot. They're not there for the game, they're there for the fights, like Randy Marsh of South Park in that Little League episode.
That's already illegal
Re: (Score:2)
This is a problem across Europe and in some other countries. Which is why UEFA has rules about fan behavior which can cause penalties, bans, and restrictions on the teams even if all the team members behaved appropriately.
(sorry, too much sports for slashdot)
Read my post again (Score:2)
Re: Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Vancouver.
Re: (Score:2)
The way it usually works is they get a ban on buying tickets, and if they go to the area anyway the police can apply for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) that prevents them from being there on match day. Then if they violate that they can be arrested and prosecuted.
Sometimes the police also use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR, number plates are what we call car licence plates) to stop people as they are driving to a match too.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, based upon how boring soccer is to watch, what are the required swear words to be permanently banned. Hey BoJo yah pommie git, you jacked up monarchist arse kissing pommie scum bag, you white face red necked pommie cunt. I mean do they have to be directed at jock strap douche bags in love with their own genitals, or can it be directed at any pommie cunt, Just saying. I don't see as being banned from pommie soccer matches to be all that much of a punishment, more of a reward, so reward me you pommy WAS
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
By modifying a 32 year old piece of legislation that is entirely uncontroversial. Specifically the Football Spectators Act 1989 to include stuff posted online. Racist or obscene chanting at a match is sufficient to get you a ban at the moment so quite why anyone would think that this should not apply to social media is quite beyond me.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk... [legislation.gov.uk]
A court order for the social media company to turn over the identity of a poster will unmask real life identities.
I would note one person has already been arrested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk]
This is the UK while you have a right to free speech the right of the elected government to curtail that speech is much greater than the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
By modifying a 32 year old piece of legislation that is entirely uncontroversial.
That would cover the policy part of the law. The implementation is what I believe the PP is interested in. Some sort of bureaucracy will have to be formed which will tie on-line identities to individuals, scan social media sites for violations and then carry out penalties as written in to the newly expanded law.
Re: (Score:2)
The teams and stadiums already have systems in place to prevent banned people from attending matches - the thing you think is missing is actually already in use.
For foreign matches, individuals can have their passports confiscated for the duration - again, something else already in place.
Re: (Score:2)
This
Doxing people will now become government policy. And you all thought that Ring doorbells were a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
The old "if we can't make something 100% perfect we shouldn't try at all" argument.
Does that have a formal logical fallacy name?
80% of everything is crap, including people. The vast majority of racist agitators are crap racist agitators. Yeah the more skilled ones will be able to attend the matches, but what are they going to do all alone in a hostile crowd?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the UK while you have a right to free speech the right of the elected government to curtail that speech is much greater than the USA.
The right to freely say things that everyone finds inoffensive isn't really free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it will include booing players taking the knee. Priti Patel said that was fine, Johnson declined to condemn it. Those people are part of their base and the foot soldiers in their culture war, but they are also a government where policy is set by opinion polls so turning on them wouldn't be a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, this is more like the UK government acting like it's doing something.
English football (soccer) fans have not acquitted themselves well during the recent Euro tournament. In fact they've been an utter disgrace and I believe England deserved to lose because of the way England's fans have been acting. Its not just outright racism, there was the laser pointer at the Danish goalkeeper as well as various acts of violence against fans of opposing nations (also that twitter bollocks calling the crying G
Re: (Score:2)
For one start banning people stupid enough to post racist comments under real name.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh give over. The UK has been dealing with football hooliganism for decades. There's even a wikipedia page on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This hsa nothing to do with "aping China".
Re: (Score:2)
Conflating verbal abuse with GBH is going to lead to problems.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be the racist Johnson that's appointed a muslim of Asian origin as his Health Minister, a hindu of Indian origin as his Home Secretary and another man with Asian ancestry as his Chancellor of the Exchequer?
That's half the Great Offices of State, and the most important ministerial position of the pandemic, and we haven't even touched on the rest of the Government such as the African immigrant who is Minister for Equality.
That racist Johnson? The one giving minorities the most powerful jobs in the coun
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. That's the one. Because he's been lucky enough to find politicians whose ethnicity gives him and them air cover for their racist words and deeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Which racist words and deeds?
Shilly shilling again. You really are a nonsense child.
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to Louis Armstrong's quote about jazz.
Also: "oznayim lahem v'lo ya'azinu" feels especially apt for you. Tehillim 135. Tzeh u'l'mad. And have a think about why I might have quoted that to you in Ivrit, too
Re: (Score:2)
Gibberish to me. What the fuck is Ivrit and did Louis Armstrong even know it?
I'm not looking it up because you're being an obnoxious cunt on purpose. I'm only even replying so that you know I realise this.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been trying to do that for a couple of decades already.
Right Wing Conservatives = Chinese Communists (Score:2)
Shocking.
Horseshoe theory (Score:2)
Are you saying the Right Wing UK Conservatives are the same as the Chinese Communists?
They are similar in a way. Authoritarianism, when implemented thoroughly, loops around and overwhelms left-right distinctions. It's called horseshoe theory [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I’m not saying all Trump supporters are racist, I’m just saying I’ve never seen a Biden flag at a white power rally.
Re: (Score:2)
When I needed an operation I told the hospital that under no circumstances would a career surgeon touch me. See how dumb that argument is?
Re: (Score:2)
When I needed an operation I told the hospital that under no circumstances would a career surgeon touch me. See how dumb that argument is?
Of course I see how stupid that argument is. It implies you'd prefer the career surgeon, even if they were notorious for botching operations, and even if they were so incapable and senile that aids have to help them hold the scalpel in the right direction.
I'm going to be generous and give you more credit than you deserve, and assume that was just in your list of assigned talking points and you didn't actually come up with that kind of moronic drivel on your own. Just like Biden reads off his note cards to s [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They'd much rather support a senile puppet like Donald Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
Poor kids / white kids
Racial Jungle
You Ain't Black
Indian Accent
Those are the more notorious ones. The thing of it is, Progressives ignore the obvious racism of their own, and pretend it doesn't exist.
The most racist things I've ever actually heard out of average people all come from Progressives. The paternalism of progressives and their Black pets is astounding; it is as if only white saviors can help the black communities. It is actually sickening once you see it.
It doesn't work like that. (Score:2)
plans to ban anyone guilty of online racist abuse from soccer matches
I.e. It is not a (strictly) preventive measure - it is a prohibitive disciplinary measure.
And there's no anonymity issue.
All those who will get the "banhammer" will already be identified.
Being found "guilty of online racist abuse" is a prerequisite, not a result.
The goal (no pun intended) is not to remove all possible racists from football stadiums.
The goal is to thin the football-fan herd of the dumbest racists with poorest impulse control. I.e. The troublemakers who spoil the game for all the other racist
Re: (Score:2)
OK, Johnson, Patel and Elphicke didn't know how to keep their racist gobs shut
?
Oh, nicely done. Set yourself up for a libel case there.
Unless of course you can actually back up those baseless accusations. Tell me, what has Patel done that you call her racist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's look at this.
compared Muslim women to âoeletterboxesâ
Islam isn't a race so this isn't racist. It's also fucking hilarious. Offending people that dress stupidly isn't illegal or wrong.
described Black Africans as âoepiccaninniesâ with âoewatermelon smilesâ
No, he did not. He referred sardonically to Africans putting on false watermelon smiles to welcome their great white saviour. The target of that job was the white British Prime Minister, and the purpose of the comment was to highlight that the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo did not need him stirring up trouble in their country.
Similarly pica
Re: (Score:2)
Islam isn't a race so this isn't racist.
I'd love to see you try that argument in front of a judge and jury when you attempt to sue someone for libel for calling you racist. The only downside of doing it in the UK is it won't be recorded on video for us to have a good laugh at on youtube. Maybe the court sketch artist will give a good rendering though!
No, he did not. He referred sardonically to[...]Similarly picanniny means 'small black child'
No he didn't except that yes he did and anyway it's not racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Well fuck you for calling me a racist. Here, repeat after me:
Racism against black people is bad.
Racism against brown people is bad.
Racism against white people is bad.
Racism is bad. Don't be racist.
Go on, you can get through it all, even if you don't believe it. I do.
I also believe that white people, brown people, black people and people of any skin colour can be stupid enough to believe in some mythical thing they call Allah. Pointing out that they're all stupid can't be racist, as at no point does their ra
Re: (Score:2)
Well fuck you for calling me a racist.
Well you are defending Johnson for using racial slurs and otherwise bending over backwards to justify whole rafts of borderline and less borderline racist stuff.
So yeah.
If you want to not be called racist, how about not being?
I'll happily tell a judge that.
Well, good luck in your libel case then.
Re: (Score:2)
Comedy. You call me a racist but refuse to decry racism.
Says it all. Project much?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comedy. You call me a racist
Because you are. On the one hand you say the simple thing "racism is bad", but you jump through the most astonishing mental hoops in order to justify racist acts of other people. The latter invalidates the former.
but refuse to decry racism.
This is about you, not me. Nothing I can say can have any effect on whether YOU are racist.
An you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you fucking blind as well as stupid? Look two posts above, where I decry racism.
Something he hasn't done and something you haven't done. Yet you both call me the racist? Fucking pair of fuckwits.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't justified racist acts. I've pointed out that hyperbolic accusations of racism need evidence.
I'm still waiting for it.
Shit, you haven't provided any that I'm a racist either. Because you can't, because I'm not.
And unlike you, I speak out against racism. Actual racism. Go for it, or are you too racist?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't justified racist acts
Yeah you have. "Picaninny" is a racial slur, and you bent over backwards to justify how Johnson wasn't being racist for using it.
And you're defending Priti Patel as not being racist, but "supporting the right to protest". This is absurd: she has actually been cracking down on the right to protest in general. The only protests she supports are the ones against BLM.
But noooo not racist.
And you about BLM: "A bunch of violent racist cunts trying to burn war memorials, attacking th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not racist. I have said racism is bad, including racism against brown, black, white and any other skin colour.
You are racist. How do we know? You refuse to do that.
You keep fucking telling me I'm racist and have yet to highlight a single fucking racist thing I've said or done.
BLM: Actively campaigned for people to be freed from prison because of (and only because of) their skin colour. That's racism. Like you.
Patel: Hasn't done anything racist. Hasn't said anything racist. She is however racially attack
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not racist. I have said racism is bad.
Saying "racism is bad" while being racist doesn't make you not racist.
You keep fucking telling me I'm racist and have yet to highlight a single fucking racist thing I've said or done.
I have, repeatedly. It's not my fault if the truth hurts you so much that you keep ignoring it.
Patel: Hasn't done anything racist.
Right so you didn't read my post. Supports protests against BLM as "freedom to protest" while massively cracking down on the freedom to protest against liter
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my fault if the truth hurts you so much that you keep ignoring it
Truth? You don't know the truth. You sure as fuck aren't sharing any.
For example:
Supports protests against BLM
This is not racist.
Not racist. NOT RACIST.
It doesn't matter how much you lie and pretend and make things up and try and deny reality, this is not racist.
I mean sure people are imprisoned because of their skin colour, but we shouldn't release them because that would be RACIST!
No, they are not. You're fucking deluded or lying on purpose.
Just fuck off with your racist trolling. Cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry of amazed. You know you snipped relevant context, which is why you snipped it. If you didn't then it'd be clearly obvious that you're wrong. So on some deep level you know you are wrong, but somehow outs more important to look right than to be right.
No, they are not
Uh yes they are.
And here's another way you're racist. Denying obvious racial bias in the criminal justice system serves to maintain the biased status quo.
There's only one reason to do that: racism.
It's OK though, it's not like this is
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck you keep lying. You're lying to me, you're lying to everybody else here and you're lying to yourself.
Nobody in the UK goes to jail because of their skin colour.
Now fuck off you miserable lying racist cunt that can't even denounce actual racism and instead makes false accusations based on their own lies. What a shit fucking life you must lead.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how when you've been thoroughly refuted on one point you quietly drop it an move on to the next. Like "welp oops I was racist there BUT I'M NOT RACIST let's try again here".
Nobody in the UK goes to jail because of their skin colour.
Except uh yes they do.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
https://www.jurist.org/news/20... [jurist.org]
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
https://www.crimeandjustice.or... [crimeandjustice.org.uk]
https://assets.publishing.serv... [service.gov.uk]
Even the government's own research says the justice system is racist. Denying racism w
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the problem that's in the spotlight, though. The problem in the spotlight is thousands of racist comments on Twitter, FB, Insta, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
What’s to understand about dimwitted people being racist because their sports team lost? They know most people don’t find it acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the BBC investigated the 105 racist tweets and could only find 5 originating in the UK it's very likely that most of the people weren't supporting that sports team at all.
So one thing to understand is indeed their motives. Are they just hateful creatures, or is there an attempt to push a given agenda? Certainly the overblown media and political response suggests an agenda at play.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Racist chants, violence at games, no respect for ground staff and shining lasers in goal-keepers faces have no doubt not been missed by the authorities.
Yes, but if they ban the Royal Family from attending, the game just won't be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes as much sense as complaining to a cancer society that they should care about other diseases as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why is it called "Black Lives Matter" rather than "All Lives Matter" the standard claim for universal human rights?
Because black lives are currently treated as if they matter less than other lives.
If I'm having a problem with my wheel bearings I don't say ALL CAR PARTS MATTER. I fix the fucking wheel bearings.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the order is:
Step 1. Ban racists from football match
Step 2. Ban Jews from holding public office
I'm not sure you're entirely as familiar with the anthem as you think you are.