Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Goldhawk-Road]

Agree on the first para. On the second, we will perhaps never agree as it is harder to prove either way, but I think the comparison with the Holocaust falls down for a few reasons even though I can understand where you are coming from. Firstly, because many of those Jewish individuals who fled in the 1930s were able to escape with some level of wealth. Secondly, because all of those who escaped had a higher initial level of education. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because they were [on the whole] white, and the fundamental point I was making with slavery is that the deeply ingrained dehumanisation of black people was applied to a whole race. By contrast, you can't tell at a glance that someone is Jewish, and there isn't (or wasn't) that same therefore that same type of ingrained racism. If anything, I'd say the contrasting paths of the two different people group's therefore precisely proves my point! However, I appreciate we're unlikely to agree on this, and happy to disagree agreeably. I may do some more research into this at some point, as I'm hypothesising at the moment and I'm sure there would be literature on this somewhere.

I have sympathy with both sides too - the police have an extremely difficult job, I hope no one would deny that.

[As an aside, I don't think it is necessarily something that has been 'put behind them' given the actions of the State of Israel, but that's a whole separate discussion I'm not going to get into!!]

Ok, on the Holocaust comparison:

1. Most Jews left Nazi Germany with very little. In the second half of the 1930's, Jewish people were stripped of their assets for being granted the privilege of escaping the country. And of course, a lot of Jewish people came to the UK as children, and alone. There was real poverty among Jewish areas like the East End of London. They have risen above that in a generation. In contrast, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and still BLM and liberals are using this as an excuse for some Black Brits (mostly young men) under-performing and turning to crime.

2. Those Jews had a higher level of education than whom? Than slaves in the C19th century, sure, but their descendants have had 200 years of an increasingly good, latterly state-paid education since then.

3. You say African Brits can be recognised as descended from slaves. This is your best point. I accept that, although I really don't believe citizens of the UK look up on African Brits in this way, that their great, great, great grandparents might have been slaves. I certainly don't. And here's the irony. While slavery or the Holocaust should never be forgotten in the annals of wickedness, BLM seem to want us to remember and personalise it as relating to current, living people. For me, that approach and the liberals that support it (nothing personal, Ravers), are merely providing an excuse for failure. The future for Black Brits should be one of aspiration. They have risen to the top in sports, and are beginning to make headway in other areas. Let them strive for their own successes, make their own history rather than see themselves as victims for a calumny that happened to others and ceased 200 years ago.

 

[colognehornet]

Ok, on the Holocaust comparison:

1. Most Jews left Nazi Germany with very little. In the second half of the 1930's, Jewish people were stripped of their assets for being granted the privilege of escaping the country. And of course, a lot of Jewish people came to the UK as children, and alone. There was real poverty among Jewish areas like the East End of London. They have risen above that in a generation. In contrast, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and still BLM and liberals are using this as an excuse for some Black Brits (mostly young men) under-performing and turning to crime.

2. Those Jews had a higher level of education than whom? Than slaves in the C19th century, sure, but their descendants have had 200 years of an increasingly good, latterly state-paid education since then.

3. You say African Brits can be recognised as descended from slaves. This is your best point. I accept that, although I really don't believe citizens of the UK look up on African Brits in this way, that their great, great, great grandparents might have been slaves. I certainly don't. And here's the irony. While slavery or the Holocaust should never be forgotten in the annals of wickedness, BLM seem to want us to remember and personalise it as relating to current, living people. For me, that approach and the liberals that support it (nothing personal, Ravers!), are merely providing an excuse for failure. The future for Black Brits should be one of aspiration. They have risen to the top in sports, and are beginning to make headway in other areas. Let them strive for their own successes, make their own history rather than see themselves as victims for a calumny that happened to others and ceased 200 years ago.

Only those of Caribbean origins could be descended from slaves Goldie - not those who have come direct from places like Ghana or Nigeria. You say that Black Brits are making headway in some areas - that is true, but these are mostly areas which support the sterotypes which many have of black people. If a child of Caribbean origins says to his teacher that he wants to be a footballer or athlete, or a top boxer then this supports the stereotype, and he will get lots of encouragement in that direction. If he says he wants to be a chess grandmaster then it would probably not be taken too seriously. I agree however that if you go through life thinking of yourself as a victim then you will likely remain that way. The question of why black British are more likely to end up in prison than other ethnic groups should be changed to Jamaican (as opposed to Black British) because there is no evidence that those from Trinidad or direct from Africa are overrepresented in the crime statistics.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Only those of Caribbean origins could be descended from slaves Goldie - not those who have come direct from places like Ghana or Nigeria. You say that Black Brits are making headway in some areas - that is true, but these are mostly areas which support the sterotypes which many have of black people. If a child of Caribbean origins says to his teacher that he wants to be a footballer or athlete, or a top boxer then this supports the stereotype, and he will get lots of encouragement in that direction. If he says he wants to be a chess grandmaster then it would probably not be taken too seriously. I agree however that if you go through life thinking of yourself as a victim then you will likely remain that way. The question of why black British are more likely to end up in prison than other ethnic groups should be changed to Jamaican (as opposed to Black British) because there is no evidence that those from Trinidad or direct from Africa are overrepresented in the crime statistics.

I'm not sure that's right, is it Cologne? The European slave traders were taking direct from the West Coast of Africa back to Europe. And there was presumably slavery in the British African colonies, S Africa, Uganda, Kenya etc.

A breakdown of ethnic groups in prison is beyond my pay grade, but you're right, Jamaica has high crime. I worked in Trinidad for some weeks on a project and, yes, my perception was of a country more at ease with itself without high crime rates

 

[Staines R's]

I'm not sure that's right, is it Cologne? The European slave traders were taking direct from the West Coast of Africa back to Europe. And there was presumably slavery in the British African colonies, S Africa, Uganda, Kenya etc.

A breakdown of ethnic groups in prison is beyond my pay grade, but you're right, Jamaica has high crime. I worked in Trinidad for some weeks on a project and, yes, my perception was of a country more at ease with itself without high crime rates

My brother in law is mixed Trini/English and has been in and out of prison all his life.....but agree, Trinis are a lot more laid back over all

 

[colognehornet]

I'm not sure that's right, is it Cologne? The European slave traders were taking direct from the West Coast of Africa back to Europe. And there was presumably slavery in the British African colonies, S Africa, Uganda, Kenya etc.

A breakdown of ethnic groups in prison is beyond my pay grade, but you're right, Jamaica has high crime. I worked in Trinidad for some weeks on a project and, yes, my perception was of a country more at ease with itself without high crime rates

I think that Britain had stopped all direct trade in slavery with Africa well before 1800 Goldie - there may be a few of their descendents wandering around but the overwhelming majority of Britain's African population are post 70s migration, with the majority coming from Ghana and Nigeria. As far as I know around a third of Britain's black population is directly from Africa and two thirds Caribbean - the former of those two would have been, more or less, untouched by slavery. Jamaicans make up around 55-60% of the black population and appear to be overrepresented in prison compared to the rest of the black population. Why this is the case I don't know but my feeling as that they are a) more likely to resist arrest and b) less likely to snivel and show remorse in court ! There may also be a larger number of wrong arrests because police can't recognize them so easily ! Another point is that slavery, although abhorrant, was not unusual at the time it happened (in the same way as the holocaust was) - it was a well established evil which Moslems and Christians had been practicing on each other for centuries (Galley slaves and all the rest of it). When we think of 'the slave trade' we think only of what Europeans did to Africans forgetting that whole nations had been sold into slavery as a result of lost wars. It is also forgotten that most of the African slaves were initially taken by Arab traders and then sold to the Europeans - Europeans being reluctant to go to far into the African hinterland.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I think that Britain had stopped all direct trade in slavery with Africa well before 1800 Goldie - there may be a few of their descendents wandering around but the overwhelming majority of Britain's African population are post 70s migration, with the majority coming from Ghana and Nigeria. As far as I know around a third of Britain's black population is directly from Africa and two thirds Caribbean - the former of those two would have been, more or less, untouched by slavery. Jamaicans make up around 55-60% of the black population and appear to be overrepresented in prison compared to the rest of the black population. Why this is the case I don't know but my feeling as that they are a) more likely to resist arrest and b) less likely to snivel and show remorse in court ! There may also be a larger number of wrong arrests because police can't recognize them so easily ! Another point is that slavery, although abhorrant, was not unusual at the time it happened (in the same way as the holocaust was) - it was a well established evil which Moslems and Christians had been practicing on each other for centuries (Galley slaves and all the rest of it). When we think of 'the slave trade' we think only of what Europeans did to Africans forgetting that whole nations had been sold into slavery as a result of lost wars. It is also forgotten that most of the African slaves were initially taken by Arab traders and then sold to the Europeans - Europeans being reluctant to go to far into the African hinterland.

As I understand it, some slaves that were taken from Africa to the Americas were effectively sold to the traders by other African tribes that had taken them prisoner with that intent in mind. Sadly, where there's a demand there's always somebody stepping in to provide a supply.

...my feeling is that they are: a) more likely to resist arrest and b) less likely to snivel and show remorse in court ! There may also be a larger number of wrong arrests because police can't recognize them so easily !

It's a good job you're recognised as one of our resident Lefties; had a Righty made a sweeping generalisation such as that I can imagine the uproar!

 

[colognehornet]

As I understand it, some slaves that were taken from Africa to the Americas were effectively sold to the traders by other African tribes that had taken them prisoner with that intent in mind. Sadly, where there's a demand there's always somebody stepping in to provide a supply.



It's a good job you're recognised as one of our resident Lefties; had a Righty made a sweeping generalisation such as that I can imagine the uproar!

There are a couple of problems with your last sentence Uber - my left wing politics and my liking for living in a multi cultural society have nothing to do with each other. The issue of left and right have nothing to do with race whatsoever - this will maybe cause a further storm amongst fellow lefties because it has been conveniently forgotten how racist both Marx and Engels were - in fact ethnic cleansing was built into mainstream Marxist thinking up until World War 2, at least for those cultures and races which were considered incapable of forming a proletarian consciousness. In fact the holocaust could easily have been initially championed by Friedrich Engels. Placed against this background it is also difficult to place National Socialism and Fascism as far right wing movements because both were born on the left. It is also a surprise to realize that there is nothing endemically racist about Fascism (as opposed to the Nazi variation) in fact Mussolini was far less conscious of race than most politicians of his era in the UK, France or the USA were. So the whole question of left and right can be turned on its head when talking about this. Racism, as such, has no real place on the political spectrum - in a way it's a kind of sickness which can occur anywhere and which also occurs in Africa between certain tribes - more or less all African countries have some kind of hierarchy based upon ethnic,or tribal, origins.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

There are a couple of problems with your last sentence Uber - my left wing politics and my liking for living in a multi cultural society have nothing to do with each other. The issue of left and right have nothing to do with race whatsoever - this will maybe cause a further storm amongst fellow lefties because it has been conveniently forgotten how racist both Marx and Engels were - in fact ethnic cleansing was built into mainstream Marxist thinking up until World War 2, at least for those cultures and races which were considered incapable of forming a proletarian consciousness. In fact the holocaust could easily have been initially championed by Friedrich Engels. Placed against this background it is also difficult to place National Socialism and Fascism as far right wing movements because both were born on the left. It is also a surprise to realize that there is nothing endemically racist about Fascism (as opposed to the Nazi variation) in fact Mussolini was far less conscious of race than most politicians of his era in the UK, France or the USA were. So the whole question of left and right can be turned on its head when talking about this. Racism, as such, has no real place on the political spectrum - in a way it's a kind of sickness which can occur anywhere and which also occurs in Africa between certain tribes - more or less all African countries have some kind of hierarchy based upon ethnic,or tribal, origins.

None of which I disagree with, Odie.

 

[BobbyD]

There are a couple of problems with your last sentence Uber - my left wing politics and my liking for living in a multi cultural society have nothing to do with each other. The issue of left and right have nothing to do with race whatsoever - this will maybe cause a further storm amongst fellow lefties because it has been conveniently forgotten how racist both Marx and Engels were - in fact ethnic cleansing was built into mainstream Marxist thinking up until World War 2, at least for those cultures and races which were considered incapable of forming a proletarian consciousness. In fact the holocaust could easily have been initially championed by Friedrich Engels. Placed against this background it is also difficult to place National Socialism and Fascism as far right wing movements because both were born on the left. It is also a surprise to realize that there is nothing endemically racist about Fascism (as opposed to the Nazi variation) in fact Mussolini was far less conscious of race than most politicians of his era in the UK, France or the USA were. So the whole question of left and right can be turned on its head when talking about this. Racism, as such, has no real place on the political spectrum - in a way it's a kind of sickness which can occur anywhere and which also occurs in Africa between certain tribes - more or less all African countries have some kind of hierarchy based upon ethnic,or tribal, origins.

you have mis interpreted what uber said.

Basically Uber was saying if someone like Goldie said it, he may have got a few responses back because he's more right of the main debaters here.

as you are pretty left, you saying it holds more weight in the argument as it's not from a perspective of right wing bias so thankfully you said what a right wing person might want to say

 

[colognehornet]

you have mis interpreted what uber said.

Basically Uber was saying if someone like Goldie said it, he may have got a few responses back because he's more right of the main debaters here.

as you are pretty left, you saying it holds more weight in the argument as it's not from a perspective of right wing bias so thankfully you said what a right wing person might want to say

It's not actually a misinterpretation Bobby - I understood what Uber was saying it's just that I don't think that the issue of left vs right has much relevence here. What I actually said was not inflationary or racist - just the observation that Jamaican youth may be more likely to resist arrest than white youths would be, and less likely to show remorse in court - the reasons why both of those appear to be the case could be any number of factors, but, whatever the reasons, it leads to stiffer sentencing. It's also not inflationary to say that the police can identify suspects of their own colour more easily than they can with other races - which raises the risk of wrong arrests occurring, together with resultant resistance.

It could also be said that the Jamaican population in the UK is unique in that they arrived in the UK with English names, nothing but the English language, and could not form a distinct cultural grouping in the same way that Indians or Pakistanis could. A place of 'cultural escape' in coping with the difficulties of adapting to a new country. The only reason for their exclusion could have been race - not religion, not language, not culture. The Africans coming to the UK. do still have access to distinctive cultures which they have brought with them - which helps. They also come from countries which are, themselves, riddled with racism based upon tribal origins and religion.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

It's not actually a misinterpretation Bobby - I understood what Uber was saying it's just that I don't think that the issue of left vs right has much relevence here. What I actually said was not inflationary or racist - just the observation that Jamaican youth may be more likely to resist arrest than white youths would be, and less likely to show remorse in court - the reasons why both of those appear to be the case could be any number of factors, but, whatever the reasons, it leads to stiffer sentencing. It's also not inflationary to say that the police can identify suspects of their own colour more easily than they can with other races - which raises the risk of wrong arrests occurring, together with resultant resistance.

I find the use of the word 'inflationary' quite inflammatory.

 

[colognehornet]

I find the use of the word 'inflationary' quite inflammatory.

I meant inflammatory

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I meant inflammatory

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

I think that Britain had stopped all direct trade in slavery with Africa well before 1800 Goldie - there may be a few of their descendents wandering around but the overwhelming majority of Britain's African population are post 70s migration, with the majority coming from Ghana and Nigeria. As far as I know around a third of Britain's black population is directly from Africa and two thirds Caribbean - the former of those two would have been, more or less, untouched by slavery. Jamaicans make up around 55-60% of the black population and appear to be overrepresented in prison compared to the rest of the black population. Why this is the case I don't know but my feeling as that they are a) more likely to resist arrest and b) less likely to snivel and show remorse in court ! There may also be a larger number of wrong arrests because police can't recognize them so easily ! Another point is that slavery, although abhorrant, was not unusual at the time it happened (in the same way as the holocaust was) - it was a well established evil which Moslems and Christians had been practicing on each other for centuries (Galley slaves and all the rest of it). When we think of 'the slave trade' we think only of what Europeans did to Africans forgetting that whole nations had been sold into slavery as a result of lost wars. It is also forgotten that most of the African slaves were initially taken by Arab traders and then sold to the Europeans - Europeans being reluctant to go to far into the African hinterland.

Yes, there has always been slavery (and still is today), but the practice of slavery has differed in different cultures in different times. By way of example, it was possible for Roman slaves to 'earn' their freedom, go on to become full citizens and accumulate wealth. I think it's broadly agreed that the slave trade was a particularly vicious form of slavery, not only relating to the numbers of those enslaved, but also because of how those slaves were treated [separation from families; brutal Atlantic crossing; nature of working on cotton plantations etc] and the singular focus on skin colour, unlike in other cultures where those of any heritage could end up as a slave through accident of birth, accumulation of debt, defeat in war etc. It's a nuanced point, but an important one.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Ok, on the Holocaust comparison:

1. Most Jews left Nazi Germany with very little. In the second half of the 1930's, Jewish people were stripped of their assets for being granted the privilege of escaping the country. And of course, a lot of Jewish people came to the UK as children, and alone. There was real poverty among Jewish areas like the East End of London. They have risen above that in a generation. In contrast, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and still BLM and liberals are using this as an excuse for some Black Brits (mostly young men) under-performing and turning to crime.

2. Those Jews had a higher level of education than whom? Than slaves in the C19th century, sure, but their descendants have had 200 years of an increasingly good, latterly state-paid education since then.

3. You say African Brits can be recognised as descended from slaves. This is your best point. I accept that, although I really don't believe citizens of the UK look up on African Brits in this way, that their great, great, great grandparents might have been slaves. I certainly don't. And here's the irony. While slavery or the Holocaust should never be forgotten in the annals of wickedness, BLM seem to want us to remember and personalise it as relating to current, living people. For me, that approach and the liberals that support it (nothing personal, Ravers), are merely providing an excuse for failure. The future for Black Brits should be one of aspiration. They have risen to the top in sports, and are beginning to make headway in other areas. Let them strive for their own successes, make their own history rather than see themselves as victims for a calumny that happened to others and ceased 200 years ago.

On the first point, yes, many who fled int he second half the 1930s fled with very little, but perhaps with something which is more than any slave might have had. And those who fled in the earlier 1930s could have fled with much more. But you're right that there was much poverty in the Jewish community and many have risen through that in a generation.

I think the education point stands; Jews fleeing in the 1930s would have had a comparatively good education to any of their compatriots. Which means in 'starting again' in a new culture there is no attainment gap for them to bridge. By contrast, the slave population - when freed - would have had little or no education, with most unable to read or write. That naturally makes it harder to educate your children and establishes a generational entrenchment of poverty which is hard to escape from.

To the last point - which I agreed in my original post ist he most important - I think it's worth emphasising that while slavery may have been abolished (in the UK) in 1833, discrimination in law existed until much more recently, based on the colour of ones skin - within the lifetime of many of who post on this board. So we're not talking about overcoming the impact of slavery over five generations - we're talking about overcoming the impact of slavery and a subsequent century of legal discrimination - with many alive today who lived in an era where discrimination was legal.

I very much agree to your point on aspiration and don't want the above to be used as an excuse [not taken personally at all - it's an interesting discussion and more civil than most on this board], but instead to set context and explain why there is systemic discrimination in parts of the UK today. The sports example is a good one - you say black people have risen to the top, which they have as players. But what explains the lack of black managers, directors, FA staff? Are we really going to stick with single-parents as the reason for that, or are we going to accept some of the complexity as a result of historic treatment of black individuals?

 

[colognehornet]

Yes, there has always been slavery (and still is today), but the practice of slavery has differed in different cultures in different times. By way of example, it was possible for Roman slaves to 'earn' their freedom, go on to become full citizens and accumulate wealth. I think it's broadly agreed that the slave trade was a particularly vicious form of slavery, not only relating to the numbers of those enslaved, but also because of how those slaves were treated [separation from families; brutal Atlantic crossing; nature of working on cotton plantations etc] and the singular focus on skin colour, unlike in other cultures where those of any heritage could end up as a slave through accident of birth, accumulation of debt, defeat in war etc. It's a nuanced point, but an important one.

Don't get me wrong here Raving, I am not trying to make slavery less evil than it was by placing it in a historical context. However - at the time of slavery our own prisoners were being whipped in prison, we were sending people off to Australia for trying to form trade unions and about a century earlier we were branding people or cutting tongues out for blasphemy - and we were doing these things to our own people ! So it was a time and an age where brutality was a part and parcel of everyday life, and sensitivities were different from today. The brutal Atlantic crossing was also quite horrific for everyone who did it - of the normal migrants who went to Ellis Island the fatality rate of the crossing was over 10%. Whether there was a singular focus on skin colour I am not really sure - it was a brutal exploitation of a group of people purely for financial reasons (and we still get the same theme today) and I think the racism arose as a justification for this, rather than it being the other way around. Why, for example, did they never try to make slaves of the native American Indian population, which would have involved no transport whatsoever - maybe they realized it was not possible, and so the opportunity was there and the Capitalist of the day closed his eyes and counted the money - but they still do that today !

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Don't get me wrong here Raving, I am not trying to make slavery less evil than it was by placing it in a historical context. However - at the time of slavery our own prisoners were being whipped in prison, we were sending people off to Australia for trying to form trade unions and about a century earlier we were branding people or cutting tongues out for blasphemy - and we were doing these things to our own people ! So it was a time and an age where brutality was a part and parcel of everyday life, and sensitivities were different from today. The brutal Atlantic crossing was also quite horrific for everyone who did it - of the normal migrants who went to Ellis Island the fatality rate of the crossing was over 10%. Whether there was a singular focus on skin colour I am not really sure - it was a brutal exploitation of a group of people purely for financial reasons (and we still get the same theme today) and I think the racism arose as a justification for this, rather than it being the other way around. Why, for example, did they never try to make slaves of the native American Indian population, which would have involved no transport whatsoever - maybe they realized it was not possible, and so the opportunity was there and the Capitalist of the day closed his eyes and counted the money - but they still do that today !

Don't worry, didn't think you were trying to make it less evil! Just offering historical context, and I was trying to add further context too. I think it's still fair to say slavery has taken very different forms through the ages, and this was a fairly barbaric form of it. I'd find it hard to say there wasn't a singular focus on skin colour when all those taken were black - from the various different culture, tribes and countries which existed in East Africa at that point in time. I'd need quite some convincing on that one!

 

[kiwiqpr]

FBI investigation finds NASCAR 'noose' not racial hate crime


Grant Chapman
20 hrs ago

You must log in or register to see images

© Twitter Bubba Wallace and NASCAR rivals.
An FBI investigation has found the 'noose' discovered in the garage of African-American NASCAR race driver Bubba Wallace was not a racially motivated hate crime.

It was a piece of rope used to open the garage door.

"The FBI has completed its investigation at Talladega Speedway and determined that Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime," says a NASCAR statement.

"The FBI report concludes - and photographic evidence confirms - that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall.

"This was obviously well before the [number] 43 team's arrival and garage assignment. We appreciate the FBI's quick and thorough investigation, and are thankful to learn that this was not an intentional, racist act against Bubba.

Click to expand

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

FBI investigation finds NASCAR 'noose' not racial hate crime








FBI investigation finds NASCAR 'noose' not racial hate crime

You must log in or register to see images

"We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all who love racing."

The investigation findings are sure to spark outrage from the NASCAR's largely southern fanbase, many of whom have spoken out on social media against the organisation's embracing of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement.

Earlier this month, the US motor-racing promotion banned Confederate flags from its events, after African-American George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, sparking BLM protests around the world.

While southern states regard the flag as a tribute to soldiers who died in the American Civil War, others see it as a symbol of racial oppression.

Confederate flags were still visible outside the Talladega racetrack this week, after a piece of rope was found in Wallace's garage and reported as a noose, also regarded as a representation of black oppression and slavery.

NASCAR called on the FBI to investigate and, on Tuesday (NZ time), rival race teams showed their support for Wallace by pushing his No.43 car to the front of the start grid for the pre-race national anthem.

Wallace is the only fulltime black driver in the series and has become a beckon for the Black Lives Matter movement in the racing community.

"I told you it was another hoax," tweets one fan. "The hysteria needs to stop."

Said another: "You owe your fans an apology."

And another: "NASCAR congratulations on achieving your lowest point since inception."

Many compare the case to that of former actor Jussie Smollet (Mighty Ducks, Alien: Covenant), who reported to police last year that he was a victim of hate crimes, but those claims were eventually found to be false.

"Comparing Bubba Wallace to Jussie Smollett is blatantly disingenuous," tweets one supporter. "Bubba didn't report the noose, he never even saw it and most importantly, he never directly accused anyone of anything.

 

[Willhoops]

It appears the lad who arranged the banner to fly over the Burnley game not only has been banned for life from watching Burnley games he’s also got the sack from work.

if that doesn’t constitute a bad day, his girlfriend has also got the sack for some racist **** she posted online.... one of the company directors? Her now jobless boyfriends mum.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Staines R's]

It appears the lad who arranged the banner to fly over the Burnley game not only has been banned for life from watching Burnley games he’s also got the sack from work.

if that doesn’t constitute a bad day, his girlfriend has also got the sack for some racist **** she posted online.... one of the company directors? Her now jobless boyfriends mum.

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

Yay.......a resounding victory !!