"Burnley Fans are Racist" - The New Statesman

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:59 pm

morpheus2 wrote:Nah, post 37 is clearly very hurt and offended, pretends that they cannot see that the article more than insinuates that Burnley fans were being racist towards the black player, poster 37 was very defensive, almost foaming at the mouth in their scathing denial of the obvious essence of the race baiting article. Shame really, I thought people of intelligence would have accepted this article for what it obviously is.

"Burnley Fans are Racist" Yes, Rowls is correct, that is exactly what it says, it may well mean ALL white football fans are racist, but it singles out Burnley fans, don't pretend you cannot see that.

See whatever you want, it really doesn't bother me, nor does the article. It says there is racism in football, which as I said, is hardly revelatory. I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions or reasoning the author uses, but it's undeniable racism exists in scociety at large and as an extension football. But if you're seeing it as some sort of attack on Burnley fans then you're wide of the mark in my opinion.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:03 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:On reading I find no reference to Burnley fans being racist.

As I said, it implies racism without specifically stating that our booing of him was racist.

The implication is clear and easy to spot. It's an article about what the author perceives as racism in British football and to argue his case the author provides the specific example of Burnley fans booing Raheem Sterling.

It's a very, very clear inference. I'd expect a GCSE student to spot it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:05 am

martin_p wrote:You've got to be particularly over-sensitive to see this piece as any sort of attack on Burnley fans.

See above (post 10 on this page). If you cannot spot the implication that Burnley fans were booing Sterling because of 'racism' then I suggest you re-read the article and consider the sort of questions you might have been expected to answer about it in a GCSE English exam.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:09 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Is the author implying that all Burnley fans are racist, or that some Burnley fans are racist?
There is a bit of a difference.

He is implying that the booing of Raheem Sterling was motivated by 'racism'. Essentially the inference is that if you were one of the thousands who booed him, you are a 'racist'.

You could have discovered this for yourself by reading the article and using your own comprehension to come to this conclusion.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:18 am

OK, for those of you who haven't understood the article (the main offenders in this respect are martin_p, Walton, John_McGreal, MrTopTier, Lancasterclaret, ImplodingCharlie ... etc) let me explain what it says.

It says there are ongoing examples of what it perceives to be 'racism' in British football
It gives the example Burnley fans booing Raheem Sterling

At no point does the article explicitly say that Burnley fans are 'racist' but ask yourself a very simple question - in an article titled "Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands" would you give the example of Burnley fans booing Sterling if you did not want to associate the booing with perceived racism?

Can one of you guys who I've listed above attempt to answer this question for me:

Why do you think the paragraph about Burnley fans was given if it wasn't to imply that the booing was motivated by 'racism'?

It would tickle me dearly to read one of you attempt to answer that question and maintain that the article does not imply that the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:29 am

edit- I've thought better of this post. Maybe I'll repost it at a later time.

It's 3am and I ought to be in bed.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:44 am

TomBenderson wrote:It's not difficult to read and interpret unless you're either stupid or so intent on giving yourself the ability to call things racist and simultaneously deny it that you refuse to read it properly. There are both types of posters on here.

I agree Tom that if you take the article only of what it says explicitly it says very little and, indeed, contradicts itself.

But if you read the inferences of that which is not said specifically then there is only one conclusion - the author believes the Burnley fans who booed Raheem Sterling are 'racist' and he has chosen to use his position as a journalism for the New Statesman to publicly imply this.

Furthermore - there's a whopping big clue that this is specific intent in headline of the piece - "Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands".

Racism is CLEAR in the STANDS. It provides only two examples that this "clear racism" can be referring to - (1) Burnley fans booing Raheem Sterling and (2) Arsenal fans booing Ashley Cole.

This is a serpentine and weaselly article. The author wants moral righteousness but he doesn't even have the guts to come out and directly accuse the Arsenal fans who booed Cole or the Burnley fans who booed Sterling of being 'racist'.

Hey ho - the guy's on twitter. Perhaps somebody can ask him to comment on this thread?

I'd love for him to answer some simple questions:

* Do you think the Arsenal fans who booed Ashley Cole did so because they are racist?
* Do you think the Burnley fans who booed Raheem Sterling did so because they are racist?

I find the whole article to be spineless. It wants to obtain the righteousness of genuine civil rights campaigners whilst passing off snide and rotten insinuations on normal football fans.

It does a great disservice to those who have campaigned for racial equality.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:55 am

keith1879 wrote:Rowls starts a thread by criticising a left-wing magazine. It's hardly unusual.

This is one of the worst posts on this thread (amongst stiff competition) so I wanted to repeat something I'm bored of saying:

I LOVE well-written left-wing stuff. I cannot get enough of the Guardian and the New Statesman. Disagreeing with their -sometimes- bizarre articles does not constitute "criticizing a left-wing magazine".

Love live the Guardian! Long live the New Statesman!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:57 am

Greenmile wrote:Hi Paul
Re your point (1), wouldnt the headline (the most provocative part of the article, imo) have been written by someone else, after the article had been handed in?

This is a very interesting question - did the author of the article also write the headline? If he didn't, does he approve of the headline?

The headline is an unusual one - normally an article will reach a conclusion in the main body and the headline would perhaps pose a question to tempt the reader in. Something, in this case, like "Does Racism Still Linger in British Football?"

In this respect, the whole article is upside down. It's highly unusual.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:19 am

Well, I've sent a Twitter message to the journalist to see if he can clear up a few things for us.

In the hope that you're reading this!

Hi Daniel Harris,

Your recent article for the New Statesman has provoked an interesting debate (as you can see). I'd be grateful (nay, I'd go so far as to say I'd love it -LOVE it) if you could answer a few questions for us on 'Up The Clarets':

1. Your article implies that the Burnley fans who booed Raheem Sterling are racist - is this what you intended to say?
2. If not, why is your article titled "Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands"?
3. If you did intend to imply the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are racist, what evidence do you have for this?
4. Did you write the headline for your article and if not, do you approve of it?

Thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope you can find a few spare minutes to respond.

UTC

Rowls

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:28 am

https://twitter.com/PaulRowling/status/ ... 0484672516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:32 am

Fair play Rowls... I hope you'll post his reply... if indeed there is one!

Redbeard · Post by **Redbeard** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:30 am

Personally I joined in The Booing Of Sterling for four reasons:

1. He was playing for the opposition and it might have helped put him off his game - if to be fair he was hardly on it to start with on the day.

2. He comes over as a petulant prick who apparently rates himself far too highly. F*** knows how he got into the England team in the first place.

3. He runs like a girl, and keeps having stupid-looking hairdos - a bit like Balotelli or Pogba whom I also dislike.

4. He is a diving cheat, as witnessed on many previous occasions and as was duly confirmed in the return match at the Emirates, just ahead of Aguero's goal.

And that's it, really. It's football, and I'm a football fan.

His race, colour or religion do not come into it at all.

Just saying, like.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:01 am

Rowls wrote:OK, for those of you who haven't understood the article (the main offenders in this respect are martin_p, Walton, John_McGreal, MrTopTier, Lancasterclaret, ImplodingCharlie ... etc) let me explain what it says.

It says there are ongoing examples of what it perceives to be 'racism' in British football
It gives the example Burnley fans booing Raheem Sterling

At no point does the article explicitly say that Burnley fans are 'racist' but ask yourself a very simple question - in an article titled "Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands" would you give the example of Burnley fans booing Sterling if you did not want to associate the booing with perceived racism?

Can one of you guys who I've listed above attempt to answer this question for me:

Why do you think the paragraph about Burnley fans was given if it wasn't to imply that the booing was motivated by 'racism'?

It would tickle me dearly to read one of you attempt to answer that question and maintain that the article does not imply that the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

Not sure if you're being deliberately thick to continue the argument or it comes naturally. Everyone gets the point that the writer is linking the booing of Sterling with racism, and a lot (myself included) have said they don't agree with that conclusion. All I was saying (as you well know) is that citing Burnley as the most recent example doesn't make this in any way a specific attack on Burnley fans as your sensationalist topic heading implies. The article says there's racism in football (hard to deny), although the conclusions is draw's about the booing of Sterling are wide of the mark.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:05 am

Rowls wrote:This is a very interesting question - did the author of the article also write the headline? If he didn't, does he approve of the headline?

The headline is an unusual one - normally an article will reach a conclusion in the main body and the headline would perhaps pose a question to tempt the reader in. Something, in this case, like "Does Racism Still Linger in British Football?"

In this respect, the whole article is upside down. It's highly unusual.

But the headline is still a better representation of the article than 'Burnley fans are racist' which is how you've chosen to represent it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:11 am

TomBenderson wrote:Which other clubs' fans does he mention that have no traditional or personal rivalry with the player but engaged iin this (as he sees it) racist behaviour?

None. because he's just uses the example of the latest match Sterling had played before he put pen to paper and City are only allowed to play one team at once! He does say this is a regular occurrence.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:21 am

KRBFC and Saxoman are only dabble in the act of messageboard posting.

Rowls is truly the daddy. He gets enough of us riled, whatever he posts.

Bravo!

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:02 am

Perhaps you all need to take a deep breath and await the response to Rowls tweet, should he get one.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:KRBFC and Saxoman are only dabble in the act of messageboard posting.

Rowls is truly the daddy. He gets enough of us riled, whatever he posts.

Bravo!

Yes.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:38 am

Corky wrote:Perhaps you all need to take a deep breath and await the response to Rowls tweet, should he get one.

If the guy's got any sense he won't come near someone clearly spoiling for a fight.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:52 am

but the author 'picked on' Burnley. of all the other clubs he could have used as an example, he chose Burnley. i wonder why. may he thinks we're an easy target or the very epitome of a racist club. the media have been jolly quick to attach that little epithet to our club [and town] in the past. not being paranoid but i'd be interested to know why he mentioned Burnley and not some other club. there's examples of racism at most grounds and having a pop at Sterling wherever he plays; but he just happened to mention us.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:58 am

The article is spot on imo, the Burnley fans who booed Sterling were obviously targeting him based on the colour of his skin. The same bunch who were racist at the friendly against Bradford probably. Why was Sterling targeted and not Stones? both England internationals playing for the same club, the difference in skin colour was the reason one was targeted and the other wasn't that is racist imo.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:28 am

KRBFC wrote:The article is spot on imo, the Burnley fans who booed Sterling were obviously targeting him based on the colour of his skin. The same bunch who were racist at the friendly against Bradford probably. Why was Sterling targeted and not Stones? both England internationals playing for the same club, the difference in skin colour was the reason one was targeted and the other wasn't that is racist imo.

Nah! 3/10

Rowls is still the daddy.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:03 pm

biggles wrote:but the author 'picked on' Burnley. of all the other clubs he could have used as an example, he chose Burnley. i wonder why. may he thinks we're an easy target or the very epitome of a racist club. the media have been jolly quick to attach that little epithet to our club [and town] in the past. not being paranoid but i'd be interested to know why he mentioned Burnley and not some other club. there's examples of racism at most grounds and having a pop at Sterling wherever he plays; but he just happened to mention us.

Google ''Burnley racism''

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:09 pm

KRBFC wrote:Google ''Burnley racism''

Google "Roswell proof".

The results you'll get will no more prove that the Roswell incident involved aliens than your suggested search term will prove Burnley is racist.
Make better arguments.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:12 pm

did that yesterday. seems the media think of Burnley first when they want to do a 'racist b.stards' story.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:15 pm

Two idiots, one search term. And they both think it supports their opposing arguments.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Google "Roswell proof".

The results you'll get will no more prove that the Roswell incident involved aliens than your suggested search term will prove Burnley is racist.
Make better arguments.

race riots must have been a dream

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:29 pm

biggles wrote:turtle - you really are a grade 1 obnoxious, mentally disturbed tosser. end of argument. still crapping your pants over brexit and trump? loser.

Turtle's an expert in American Politics y'know

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:23 pm

biggles wrote:
turtle - you really are a grade 1 obnoxious, mentally disturbed tosser. end of argument. still crapping your pants over brexit and trump? loser.

You really need to calm down when having a "discussion" with Imploding Turtle. He use the terms"stupid" and "idiot" so often that they have lost any real meaning, in the same way that any "discussion" with him has no meaning, just a diatribe followed inevitably by an insult.

Hairylegs · Post by **Hairylegs** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:24 pm

Erm....the article picks out Burnley because its author is a Burnley fan. How did "read carefully" Rowls miss this?

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:27 pm

Strange choice of profile pic (Scholes scoring against Man City) for a Burnley fan

Hairylegs · Post by **Hairylegs** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:29 pm

Oops, or maybe not...

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:35 pm

martin_p wrote:Not sure if you're being deliberately thick to continue the argument or it comes naturally. Everyone gets the point that the writer is linking the booing of Sterling with racism, and a lot (myself included) have said they don't agree with that conclusion. All I was saying (as you well know) is that citing Burnley as the most recent example doesn't make this in any way a specific attack on Burnley fans as your sensationalist topic heading implies. The article says there's racism in football (hard to deny), although the conclusions is draw's about the booing of Sterling are wide of the mark.

I read the posts last night between 2am and 3am so perhaps some nuance in your posts escaped me? But here goes anyway.

1. "Linking" booing Sterling with 'racism' IS saying the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.
2. You can call my thread title "sensationalist" if you want but given the word limit it was the best I could do. I happily accept that ""The Burnley Fans Who Booed Sterling are Racist" - The New Statesman" would more accurately summarize the point I am making but thread titles have a small word limit. To be explicit and clear on this matter - I do not believe the journalist is saying that ALL Burnley fans are 'racist' but he is clearly implying that the fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

I accept that my thread title can be read in two different ways - you can read it to mean that the New Statesman article says all Burnley fans are 'racist' (not true) or you can read it to mean that the New Statesman article believes the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist' (true). The reason I was happy with this mild ambiguity is that if you take the time to read the article, you will (or rather, should be able to) understand the context of my thread title. A few people (notably John-McGreal) missed this. So just as the book 'Of Human Bondage' has nothing to do with physical whips and chains, the context of the thread title IS clearly discernible IF you have read and understood the context of the OP and the linked article.

I have not yet received a reply to the direct tweet I sent to Daniel Harris (the journalist who wrote the piece) but it was only sent last night and hopefully he may still contribute to this debate. It would be interesting to hear his personal point of view.

One of the things we can surely all agree on is that the article -as it is written- is not very explicit in what it is saying. There is a lot of insinuation but little in way of direct accusation. Perhaps that's why it's so easy for us to debate it? I'd love the opportunity to iron out these ambiguities on the matter.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:38 pm

Hairylegs wrote:Erm....the article picks out Burnley because its author is a Burnley fan. How did "read carefully" Rowls miss this?

MrTopTier · Post by **MrTopTier** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:44 pm

Congratulations Rowls you have excelled yourself.
Give yourself a pat on the back, we are in awe of your superior knowledge and how you are right all the time.
Without doubt you are the most boring and predictable poster on this message board and that takes some doing.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:53 pm

Rowls wrote:I read the posts last night between 2am and 3am so perhaps some nuance in your posts escaped me? But here goes anyway.

1. "Linking" booing Sterling with 'racism' IS saying the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.
2. You can call my thread title "sensationalist" if you want but given the word limit it was the best I could do. I happily accept that ""The Burnley Fans Who Booed Sterling are Racist" - The New Statesman" would more accurately summarize the point I am making but thread titles have a small word limit. To be explicit and clear on this matter - I do not believe the journalist is saying that ALL Burnley fans are 'racist' but he is clearly implying that the fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

I accept that my thread title can be read in two different ways - you can read it to mean that the New Statesman article says all Burnley fans are 'racist' (not true) or you can read it to mean that the New Statesman article believes the Burnley fans who booed Sterling are 'racist' (true). The reason I was happy with this mild ambiguity is that if you take the time to read the article, you will (or rather, should be able to) understand the context of my thread title. A few people (notably John-McGreal) missed this. So just as the book 'Of Human Bondage' has nothing to do with physical whips and chains, the context of the thread title IS clearly discernible IF you have read and understood the context of the OP and the linked article.

I have not yet received a reply to the direct tweet I sent to Daniel Harris (the journalist who wrote the piece) but it was only sent last night and hopefully he may still contribute to this debate. It would be interesting to hear his personal point of view.

One of the things we can surely all agree on is that the article -as it is written- is not very explicit in what it is saying. There is a lot of insinuation but little in way of direct accusation. Perhaps that's why it's so easy for us to debate it? I'd love the opportunity to iron out these ambiguities on the matter.

Well the good news is that your revised title wouldn't have broken any thread title character limit so you could have used it. You then go on to say in your first post on this thread

'It's happened again.

Metropolitan elite leftie journal the New Statesman is implying that Burnley fans are racist. '

Which seems fairly straight forward and not as nuanced as you're now claiming (seems Daniel Harris isn't the only failing to be explicit about what he means), use of the word 'some' would have been helpful.

I agree that the premise of the article, that the treatment of Sterling by football fans (with Burnley used as an example) is racist is far too simplistic, although that said I'm sure some of those booing get an extra kick from it being a black player that is being targeted. But as I've said previously in this thread, the fact that some football fans are racist (including some Burnley fans) isn't really news.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:03 pm

martin_p wrote:Which seems fairly straight forward and not as nuanced as you're now claiming (seems Daniel Harris isn't the only failing to be explicit about what he means), use of the word 'some' would have been helpful.

Agree with the main spirit of your last post but let's be entirely clear why you comparison between myself and Daniel Harris is NOT correct.

1. The context of my thread is derived from the context of his article. That should be clear from the OP and the linked article - I'm not the one who needs to specify only *some* Burnley fans are 'racist' because that is what his article implies.

2. I've been happy to clear up any confusion not because my context is unclear but because a number of people have evidently misunderstood it.

3. Daniel Harris' wrote his article without explicitly saying what he clearly implied. I cannot be accountable for his failure to make explicit what he clearly implied.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:16 pm

After the problems the other day ..... Season ticket had been switched to be near where we've sat the last couple of seasons after mentioning how I didnt want a run in with the stewards about where we sit every other week (or month with our run of away games) .... Nephew still doesnt want to go on tonight but i'm sure that'll change when Chelsea are in town.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:37 pm

Rowls wrote:Agree with the main spirit of your last post but let's be entirely clear why you comparison between myself and Daniel Harris is NOT correct.

1. The context of my thread is derived from the context of his article. That should be clear from the OP and the linked article - I'm not the one who needs to specify only *some* Burnley fans are 'racist' because that is what his article implies.

2. I've been happy to clear up any confusion not because my context is unclear but because a number of people have evidently misunderstood it.

3. Daniel Harris' wrote his article without explicitly saying what he clearly implied. I cannot be accountable for his failure to make explicit what he clearly implied.

1. The problem being that the context of his article wasn't anything to do with Burnley, but fans in general booing black players. So the context of your thread was very confusing! I expected to open the article and see something laying in to Burnley fans for racism, not a brief mention in passing on an article essentially about the mistreatment of Rahim Sterling.

2. See 1. I think this is what's caused the confusion.

3. I'm not holding you accountable for his article, just your skewed representation of it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:58 pm

martin_p wrote:1. The problem being that the context of his article wasn't anything to do with Burnley, but fans in general booing black players.

Sorry martin but this simply is not true. He specifically mentions Burnley fans:

Daniel Harris Article wrote:Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands ... Sterling was regularly jeered at away grounds and by away supporters ... in the most recent round of Premier League games, fans of Burnley felt unable to let him be."

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:04 pm

Rowls wrote:This is one of the worst posts on this thread (amongst stiff competition) so I wanted to repeat something I'm bored of saying:

I LOVE well-written left-wing stuff. I cannot get enough of the Guardian and the New Statesman. Disagreeing with their -sometimes- bizarre articles does not constitute "criticizing a left-wing magazine".

Love live the Guardian! Long live the New Statesman!

I accept your statements that you like well written well considered writing even if it disagrees with your own view. It is clear from many of your posts that that is the case.

I stand by my statement however.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:08 pm

Well, I accept we're splitting hairs at the end of the day keith1879. And yeah, yours is not "the worst" of anything. I was being unfairly bombastic with that accusation.

But I do reserve the right to draw the distinction between criticizing a publication (whatever politics it may have) and criticizing its articles.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:15 pm

Chobulous wrote:biggles wrote:
turtle - you really are a grade 1 obnoxious, mentally disturbed tosser. end of argument. still crapping your pants over brexit and trump? loser.

You really need to calm down when having a "discussion" with Imploding Turtle. He use the terms"stupid" and "idiot" so often that they have lost any real meaning, in the same way that any "discussion" with him has no meaning, just a diatribe followed inevitably by an insult.

Sometimes i call idiots 'stupid' before i explain why they're idiots rather than after.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:28 pm

Rowls wrote:Sorry martin but this simply is not true. He specifically mentions Burnley fans:

He does, but if you think that makes the article about Burnley fans then you're deluded. It uses a match involving Burnley as an example, nothing more.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:41 pm

I know I am breaking my own rules by getting involved in these type of tedious threads here, but, I will make a brief comment and then leave you to continue to bicker.

Below is how the article starts.

Racism in British football is clear in our newspapers as well as the stands
Ethnic minority players are often upbraided for behaviour that sports journalists ignore of white people.

It is generally accepted that when you want to make a point that people either remember or take on board it is always best to do it at the beginning or the end of - in this case - a newspaper article.

However obliquely the reference is made and however nebulous it may be I think it is perfectly understandable for people reading it to assume that this journalist chappie is inferring if not implying that Burnley fans were being racist in their taunting of Sterling.

I am now off to take the dogs for a walk before it gets too dark.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:57 pm

Corky wrote:
I am now off to take the dogs for a walk before it gets too dark.

Too dark?

Racist!

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:13 pm

morpheus2 wrote:Haven't got the time, but if you've read through again you'll have found there are one or two people on here who refuse to believe that there is any insinuation or implication from this article (which should be clear to anyone that it is a race baiting piece) that the Burnley fans picking on the black player were doing it for any other reason than racism...the whole theme is black vs white, the desire to cause racial division in some of these tabloids both left and right is unforgivable.

Actually I've just had a quick peep through the thread and note that you yourself have 'liked' at least one of the posts that emphasise my point.

OK - I have a bit of time this evening, so as you were too busy to quote a two digit post number, let's go through the posts I had liked at the time you posted the above to see if we can narrow it down.

All emphasis in the following quotes has been added by me...

martin_p wrote:You've got to be particularly over-sensitive to see this piece as any sort of attack on Burnley fans.

I don't agree with a lot of what it says, I think it's all overpaid, under-performing footballers that get stick, not just the black ones (Wayne Rooney hardly cuts a popular figure with opposition fans). But mentioning a match at Burnley as an example of a (perceived) wider malaise just because it happens to be the most recent match the writer can cite isn't really singling us out.

not really someone who is "a little offended that the thread is a critique of a piece in a revered left leaning rag", that one. Maybe you meant one of the others I had "liked"...

martin_p wrote:He's not even implying that. He's implying some football fans are racist. It's hardly revelatory.

It's Rowl's tabloid headline-esque interpretation that's the problem.

Falcon wrote:That story is a massive pile of bull excrement, and I'm probably what Rowls would term an elitist leftie i.e. anyone left of his own position.

However, it certainly doesn't say "Burnley fans are racist", so the OP is also a massive pile of bovine doo-doo.

Both of these are clearly having a go at the OP for being misleading, and not "defending the article" - the latter even says the article is b**lsh**.

...so it must be this one you mean

Imploding Turtle wrote:Thats a pretty polite way to call it bullshit.

Hang on, though. You "liked" that post too. Now I'm confused.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:17 pm

TomBenderson wrote:OK. Humour me, please.

So, to summarise, you take from that paragraph that the attitude displayed towards Sterling is simply the same as towards other particpants, both English and foreign, after previous tournaments. That seems to me completely at odds with the rest of the article. How do you square that?

I'll humour you if you are willing to apologise for stating (incorrectly) that something I wrote was "typically dishonest", thus implying that dishonesty is typical behaviour for me. If I have misunderstood your meaning (we do seem to have a different understanding of what common words actually mean), I'll settle for a clarification of this accusation.

Or, if either of those is too much for you, you can just read through my previous posts on this thread for your answer.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:26 pm

Rowls wrote: 2. You can call my thread title "sensationalist" if you want but given the word limit it was the best I could do. I happily accept that ""The Burnley Fans Who Booed Sterling are Racist" - The New Statesman" would more accurately summarize the point I am making but thread titles have a small word limit. To be explicit and clear on this matter - I do not believe the journalist is saying that ALL Burnley fans are 'racist' but he is clearly implying that the fans who booed Sterling are 'racist'.

Implying something isn't the same as saying it though, is it? Your thread title includes quotation marks, which usually signify a direct quote, especially when followed by a person or publication to whom you seem to be attributing the quote.

Having said that, my conversation with TomBenderson has left me thinking that the English language has evolved much more than I thought it had since I left school.

Rowls wrote:One of the things we can surely all agree on is that the article -as it is written- is not very explicit in what it is saying. There is a lot of insinuation but little in way of direct accusation. Perhaps that's why it's so easy for us to debate it? I'd love the opportunity to iron out these ambiguities on the matter.

I absoultely agree with this bit, which is what makes your use of quotation marks so misleading. In fact, take out the quotation marks from the thread title, and this would have probably only been a one-page thread, mostly made up of bfccrazy's unfortunate story and KBRFC's thoughtless response(s) to it.

But I think you knew that, didn't you? It's a pure "clickbait" title if ever I've seen one.