Jump to content

Danny Rose and Football!


panoma1
 Share

Recommended Posts

The point I was making was abuse is abuse, society has for whatever reason deemed certain types of abuse more serious than others, by applying "ist" to the end of the description.......I consider all types of abuse and bullying to be unacceptable, but on a sliding scale, I am of the opinion that the occasional verbal abuse issued by strangers to a football player during a match, would have less potential to harm the individual than persistent and debilitating bullying that some people in the work environment suffer on a daily basis.......

The fact that one earns £60,000 per week and another may earn £300 a week shouldn't have any bearing on the case, but when the highly paid employee can speak out without suffering any detriment and the other lower paid employee can't for fear of losing his job.....that in my opinion is unacceptable, as it's not equality of treatment or opportunity!

Its about sticking up for the little guy............the well paid celebrity guy has the wherewithal to stick up for himself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But the little guy typically doesn't have a voice or platform to bring awareness of his plight. By people in the public eye raising these issues they are putting the issues on the table and this should drive wider awareness and hopefully help the little guys as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, panoma1 said:

 

Like plod holding up £10 notes to the striking miners on picket lines, laughing and thanking them for the overtime, when the miners families were skint and desperate.........just to provoke them!.......and it certainly worked!

Nothing like it at all. Think about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The point I was making was abuse is abuse, society has for whatever reason deemed certain types of abuse more serious than others, by applying "ist" to the end of the description.......I consider all types of abuse and bullying to be unacceptable, but on a sliding scale, I am of the opinion that the occasional verbal abuse issued by strangers to a football player during a match, would have less potential to harm the individual than persistent and debilitating bullying that some people in the work environment suffer on a daily basis.......

The fact that one earns £60,000 per week and another may earn £300 a week shouldn't have any bearing on the case, but when the highly paid employee can speak out without suffering any detriment and the other lower paid employee can't for fear of losing his job.....that in my opinion is unacceptable, as it's not equality of treatment or opportunity!

Its about sticking up for the little guy............the well paid celebrity guy has the wherewithal to stick up for himself!

The well paid celebrity guy was sticking up for himself and saying that he will be glad to be finished with the vile bigotry and racism that far too often pervades football, yet you gave him stick for it.  

By making those statements in the public arena, where his profile is sufficient to draw attention to what he is saying, he is doing a good thing.  The fact that he is paid a fortune doesn't diminish the weight of what he has to say.

A points penalty for the club where their fans are shouting racial or sectarian abuse will sort the problem out quickly, unfortunately there is so much money in professional football that will never fly because of pressure from sponsors, tv companies, betting companies, investors, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

Nothing like it at all. Think about it. 

I think it is, you as a footballer showing a blown up copy of your contract and highlighted the inflated salary, is designed to be provocative, the police showing the striking miners £10 notes was also designed to be provocative!

You think about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I think it is, you as a footballer showing a blown up copy of your contract and highlighted the inflated salary, is designed to be provocative, the police showing the striking miners £10 notes was also designed to be provocative!

You think about it!

No, you clearly haven't thought about it at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The well paid celebrity guy was sticking up for himself and saying that he will be glad to be finished with the vile bigotry and racism that far too often pervades football, yet you gave him stick for it.  

By making those statements in the public arena, where his profile is sufficient to draw attention to what he is saying, he is doing a good thing.  The fact that he is paid a fortune doesn't diminish the weight of what he has to say.

A points penalty for the club where their fans are shouting racial or sectarian abuse will sort the problem out quickly, unfortunately there is so much money in professional football that will never fly because of pressure from sponsors, tv companies, betting companies, investors, etc.

As reported he didn't say he "would be glad to be finished with vile bigotry and racism" what I understand he did say was, he would be glad to be finished with football! Because the FA didn't take it seriously! He also said "I spend more on a night out in London than the fines the FA impose" presumably for unacceptable chanting........well that's gonna endear him to everyone innit?

Him "drawing attention" to it, does nothing for genuine equality or protecting everyone! it merely tips the balance further towards positive discrimination, to the benefit of himself and other black people, to the detriment of other sections of society who have no such protection/leverage.

Giving one section of society legal advantage over another (such as the 'isms') is not equality it's tokenism!

16 minutes ago, Scully said:

No, you clearly haven't thought about it at all. 

Well perhaps you could enlighten me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

As reported he didn't say he "would be glad to be finished with vile bigotry and racism" what I understand he did say was, he would be glad to be finished with football! Because the FA didn't take it seriously! He also said "I spend more on a night out in London than the fines the FA impose" presumably for unacceptable chanting........well that's gonna endear him to everyone innit?

 

What he is trying to highlight is the minuscule fines that are imposed and not boasting to his nighttime expenditure.

But if that’s the way you see it then you clearly of the ‘older generation’ in your understanding.

Think you need some lessons in ‘youth speak’ 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

As reported he didn't say he "would be glad to be finished with vile bigotry and racism" what I understand he did say was, he would be glad to be finished with football! Because the FA didn't take it seriously! He also said "I spend more on a night out in London than the fines the FA impose" presumably for unacceptable chanting........well that's gonna endear him to everyone innit?

Him "drawing attention" to it, does nothing for genuine equality or protecting everyone! it merely tips the balance further towards positive discrimination, to the benefit of himself and other black people, to the detriment of other sections of society who have no such protection/leverage.

Giving one section of society legal advantage over another (such as the 'isms') is not equality it's tokenism!

Glad to be finished with football because of the racism, it's all the same.  Yes his comments about his spending on a night out in London are perhaps a little bit ill judged when he ought to know that there are so many commentators who would jump on that comment so they could cry foul at his 'favourable treatment' under the protection of the law and slate him instead of actually considering the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is that there is still a large number of people in society who think it's ok to verbally abuse someone because they are black.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that him complaining about people verbally abusing him somehow disavows others of their rights.  Are you suggesting he should just know his place and shut up and accept it without saying anything?  Maybe his reasoning should be 'as a black man i must not complain about the vile abuse i receive because of my skin colour, after all the white people don't have anything to complain about and I would hate for them to think that i receive some sort of preferential treatment under the law as a result,'??

On balance would you rather have the benefit of positive discrimination of the law that gives you a very tenuous level of protection from, or redress against, someone calling you a black ****, or would you prefer to not have anybody abuse you in the first place and have no need of specific laws in respect to the '...isms'?  I can bet you I know what Danny Rose's answer would be.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

What he is trying to highlight is the minuscule fines that are imposed and not boasting to his nighttime expenditure.

But if that’s the way you see it then you clearly of the ‘older generation’ in your understanding.

Think you need some lessons in ‘youth speak’ 🙂

You may well be right? 🤔 But surely the level of nighttime expenditure in relation to the level of fines imposed is relative to an individual's earnings?

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should suffer abuse at all,  abusers at all levels and in all walks of life should be arrested,  the club or bosses are responsible ultimately. and if they don't do something then they should be arrested/fined... it is against the law to issue threats and be abusive

protection from harrasment act 1977

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Glad to be finished with football because of the racism, it's all the same.  Yes his comments about his spending on a night out in London are perhaps a little bit ill judged when he ought to know that there are so many commentators who would jump on that comment so they could cry cry foul at his 'favourable treatment' under the protection of the law and slate him instead of actually considering the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is that there is still a large number of people in society who think it's ok to verbally abuse someone because they are black.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that him complaining about people verbally abusing him somehow disavows others of their rights.  Are you suggesting he should just know his place and shut up and accept it without saying anything?  Maybe his reasoning should be 'as a black man i must not complain about the vile abuse i receive because of my skin colour, after all the white people don't have anything to complain about and I would hate for them to think that i receive some sort of preferential treatment under the law as a result,'??

On balance would you rather have the benefit of positive discrimination of the law that give you a very tenuous level of protection from, or redress against, someone calling you a black ****, or would you prefer to not have anybody abuse you in the first place and have no need of specific laws in respect to the '...isms'?  I can bet you I know what Danny Rose's answer would be.

No I think it's utterly unacceptable to bully or abuse anyone! Racially or otherwise!  That is my point, everyone should have protection but no one should have more protection from abuse and bullying than anyone else!

Positive discrimination is illegal, because it's contrary to equality, and so it should be!..........but 'isms' are a form of legal positive descrimination which offers individuals, who do not fit into certain categories or racial groups (isms) less protection in law.

To clarify, yes I think he is absolutely right to speak out about this unacceptable abuse.....and I hope it helps stamp it out.......but as a highly paid employee to say "he will be glad to see the back of" his secure highly paid job, is as ridiculous as it is insulting to those who can't speak out because they have a less fortunate position in life!

















Sent from my iPad

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

No I think it's utterly unacceptable to bully or abuse anyone! Racially or otherwise!  That is my point, everyone should have protection but no one should have more protection from abuse and bullying than anyone else!

Positive discrimination is illegal, because it's contrary to equality, and so it should be!..........but 'isms' are a form of legal positive descrimination which offers individuals, who do not fit into certain categories or racial groups (isms) less protection in law.

To clarify, yes I think he is absolutely right to speak out about this unacceptable abuse.....and I hope it helps stamp it out.......but as a highly paid employee to say "he will be glad to see the back of" his secure highly paid job, is as ridiculous as it is insulting to those who can't speak out because they have a less fortunate position in life!

 

Where is someone afforded less protection in law because they are not part of a designated group and where does that disadvantage them?  Give some examples for the sake of debate.

Everybody can speak out, but of course not everybody will benefit from the same platform of publicity.

I'm also not so sure that his job is very secure either, one bad tackle or an accident and his very short lived career could be finished.  The fact he is highly paid doesn't matter, the vast majority of people work because they need the income to navigate life, so in terms of personal value one job is the same as another.  For someone to be keen to see the back of their low paid job because it brings them unhappiness is just the same as being happy to see the back of a very well paid one.

Yes Danny Rose could give it up now and if he had been sensible with his income to date i'm quite sure he would manage ok through the rest of his existence, but why should he?  He has exceptional talent that allows him to take advantage of a market that pays him ridiculously high amounts of money for a limited period of his life, but that doesn't mean that opportunism to make a bucket load of money means that he won't be glad to live without the bigotry he is exposed to every match day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

The issue at hand is that there is still a large number of people in society who think it's ok to verbally abuse someone because they are black.

Or in some places - Birmingham, Bradford, parts of London - White.   But that is ok as if they are caught or a complaint is made they simply say "He/She started it and are believed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Where is someone afforded less protection in law because they are not part of a designated group and where does that disadvantage them?  Give some examples for the sake of debate.

Everybody can speak out, but of course not everybody will benefit from the same platform of publicity.

I'm also not so sure that his job is very secure either, one bad tackle or an accident and his very short lived career could be finished.  The fact he is highly paid doesn't matter, the vast majority of people work because they need the income to navigate life, so in terms of personal value one job is the same as another.  For someone to be keen to see the back of their low paid job because it brings them unhappiness is just the same as being happy to see the back of a very well paid one.

Yes Danny Rose could give it up now and if he had been sensible with his income to date i'm quite sure he would manage ok through the rest of his existence, but why should he?  He has exceptional talent that allows him to take advantage of a market that pays him ridiculously high amounts of money for a limited period of his life, but that doesn't mean that opportunism to make a bucket load of money means that he won't be glad to live without the bigotry he is exposed to every match day.

 

Particularly true of Danny Rose. He's only recently returned from an apparently innocuous injury that took six months to heal. Plenty of footballers have started a match at the peak of their powers and finished it without a job. 

He's not even saying the abuse isn't worth what he's getting paid, he's just making a statement about the realities of some areas of professional football and that it is still not being taken seriously enough. I'd like to see points deductions at domestic level and a country's home games made into away fixtures at international. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

It's a debate, not a football match!.............So much as I appreciate your confidence in me.....I am not leading 3-0! 😉

Think he was foretelling the Norwich v QPR result..... Come on you Yellows 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Or in some places - Birmingham, Bradford, parts of London - White.   But that is ok as if they are caught or a complaint is made they simply say "He/She started it and are believed.

 

Absolutely there are more localised areas in the UK where there is racial abuse where white people happen to be in the minority in that area and that is as equally wrong. The law affords them equal protection.

Of course there are issues in the application of the law all across society that is heavily influenced by politics or campaign led agendas, but that is a different discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grrclark said:

Where is someone afforded less protection in law because they are not part of a designated group and where does that disadvantage them?  Give some examples for the sake of debate.

Everybody can speak out, but of course not everybody will benefit from the same platform of publicity.

I'm also not so sure that his job is very secure either, one bad tackle or an accident and his very short lived career could be finished.  The fact he is highly paid doesn't matter, the vast majority of people work because they need the income to navigate life, so in terms of personal value one job is the same as another.  For someone to be keen to see the back of their low paid job because it brings them unhappiness is just the same as being happy to see the back of a very well paid one.

Yes Danny Rose could give it up now and if he had been sensible with his income to date i'm quite sure he would manage ok through the rest of his existence, but why should he?  He has exceptional talent that allows him to take advantage of a market that pays him ridiculously high amounts of money for a limited period of his life, but that doesn't mean that opportunism to make a bucket load of money means that he won't be glad to live without the bigotry he is exposed to every match day.

 

Example! Bullying, unfair dismissal and abuse at work! For example is dealt with under employment law at Industrial tribuneral.....unless you have an 'ism' then it can be dealt with by either, or both employment and/or criminal law! 

Secure employment because he has a contract for I believe four years, worth over £13 million.....do you think he does not have insurance to protect himself from injury etc?

2 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Particularly true of Danny Rose. He's only recently returned from an apparently innocuous injury that took six months to heal. Plenty of footballers have started a match at the peak of their powers and finished it without a job. 

He's not even saying the abuse isn't worth what he's getting paid, he's just making a statement about the realities of some areas of professional football and that it is still not being taken seriously enough. I'd like to see points deductions at domestic level and a country's home games made into away fixtures at international. 

So he wasn't paid when he was injured? Otherwise comments as above!

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

Absolutely there are more localised areas in the UK where there is racial abuse where white people happen to be in the minority in that area and that is as equally wrong. The law affords them equal protection.

Of course there are issues in the application of the law all across society that is heavily influenced by politics or campaign led agendas, but that is a different discussion.

 

Yes you are right, there are "issues" in the application of the law equally across all society.........which is one of the points I was making!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Example! Bullying, unfair dismissal and abuse at work! For example is dealt with under employment law at Industrial tribuneral.....unless you have an 'ism' then it can be dealt with by either, or both employment and/or criminal law! 

Secure employment because he has a contract for I believe four years, worth over £13 million.....do you think he does not have insurance to protect himself from injury etc?

But why does that disadvantage someone in respect to their rights?

If bullying or abuse at work for everyone is covered by employment law then nobody is disadvantaged.  The fact that racism, as an example, has an extra consideration in law doesn't disadvantage anybody.  Broadly a white person bullied by a white boss cannot claim racial harassment or discrimination, neither could a black person bullied by a black boss, because neither would be racist so any specific law in relation to racism cannot apply.  But if black employee and white boss, or white employee and black boss then all are afforded the extra protection by the law should the bullying actually be motivated by racial prejudice.  If the bullying was sexual in nature then all have the extra protection afforded by law to sexual related offences.

The point being if the bullying or prejudice towards an individual is not motivated by race or religion or any other 'ism' then they do not need additional law to protect them from that, so they are not disadvantaged.

As to Rose's security of tenure, he is no more or less secure than many people across the pay spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, grrclark said:

But why does that disadvantage someone in respect to their rights?

If bullying or abuse at work for everyone is covered by employment law then nobody is disadvantaged.  The fact that racism, as an example, has an extra consideration in law doesn't disadvantage anybody.  Broadly a white person bullied by a white boss cannot claim racial harassment or discrimination, neither could a black person bullied by a black boss, because neither would be racist so any specific law in relation to racism cannot apply.  But if black employee and white boss, or white employee and black boss then all are afforded the extra protection by the law should the bullying actually be motivated by racial prejudice.  If the bullying was sexual in nature then all have the extra protection afforded by law to sexual related offences.

The point being if the bullying or prejudice towards an individual is not motivated by race or religion or any other 'ism' then they do not need additional law to protect them from that, so they are not disadvantaged.

As to Rose's security of tenure, he is no more or less secure than many people across the pay spectrum.

You have already conceded that there is a difference in the way different types of abuse, harassment, bullying whatever you want to call it are treated and dealt with....that fact disadvantages some in respect of their rights and the remedy they can secure for any  breach of those rights........Perhaps you could explain why that should be?

Why do you think if bullying or prejudice towards an individual is not motivated by race or religion" it deserves lesser protection? That is blatant inequality and positive discrimination against other sections of society!

£13 million against £300 a week? I think I know who would be the most secure, if both were to leave their jobs!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Worry not Jaymo, Raja Clavata will be along shortly to put the statistics right...... 4-0 

Yes, watched in totality- silly red card but to score a fourth with ten men, showed some class from what is essentially a ‘Poundland’ team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...