I've actually come up against some pretty blatant affirmative action in this country - Skillset often offered funding for projects...but only if the people behind that project are from an Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan or Bangladeshi background. They didn't like the time I applied, was invited to an interview, and called them inverse racists of the worst kind.
Why the need to count them at all? The term "British Asian" reminds me of the Kriss Akabusi (awoooga) interview. Interviewer: So, Kriss, what does this [winning of the race] mean to you as an African-American? KA: I’m not American, I’m British Interviewer: Yes, but as a British African-American ... KA: I’m not African. I’m not American. I’m British. I think it's a culture thing, not a race thing. Would I be expected to play Kabaddi if I moved to India? Would my children? Believe me, they'd grow up watching and talking football, not Kabaddi. Football would be in their blood. And what about their children? Maybe it's too early in Great Britain. Maybe 3rd and 4th generation British Asians (yuk, I hate that term) will have weaker Asian cultural influences. Maybe they see football as too British; too much of the old Empire.
Your last para. I would have thought Cricket was even more old Empire but they embraced that. Maybe it's the opposite. Not enough 'ordinary working class' guys in the Empire playing football in India. Surely in India they embraced Cricket, Polo, Horse Racing, Hockey because these were the games the 'ruling class' played and the only people in India who could play anything were the Indian elite. The rest were busy surviving. Plus India is a very segmented society 'the cast system' so games from the 'top people' for the 'top Indian people' were the ones that dominated.
Not content with saying Spurs fans are racist, now he's accusing The FA of institutional racism. At this point, each of Spurs, the Spurs Supporters club and The FA have a valid cause against him. A brief look at the libel laws in England & Wales says the following two words should be high on the agenda: Defamation - the term applied to all public statements that can damage the reputation of another individual or party Libel - defamatory material in a permanent recorded form - in a newspaper, a book, on a TV or radio programme, a website, a blog, a drawing, or even a letter sent from one individual to another Herbert has no defence, as he cannot prove his allegations are true (because they aren't), he doesn't have Privilege (let alone Absolute Privilege or Qualified Privilege) to speak without restraint, he cannot claim Fair Comment, nor can he use the Reynolds Defence as he isn't a journalist. As I've been saying for some time, he needs to be stripped of his license to practice law - once he's run out of the legal profession, he's powerless. He might mouth off, but his credibility (to use the term loosely...) will be so damaged that nobody will pay any attention.
It seem's to me the only people paying attention to him are (suprise) the BBC.If they stop,(which they should)he would have no mouthpiece
No. I don't think anybody is surprised that those wastes of space are giving this rabble rousing horse's arse air time. If I still lived in the UK which, thank god, I don't, I would seriously object to paying a licence fee to keep that prat infested institution going!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20351685 Any reason this bit of lip service will be any different to the last bit of lip service?
Why is America's basketball a black mans sport? Why are swimmers mostly white? Is it their body makeup,I wonder? I can remember when a black footballer in Britain was rare. Actually a foreign footballer was rare at one time.Trautmann of Man City and Uutenbogart at Charlton do come to mind and Hull had a foreign full back.
p.s. Spurs winners of League and Cup in 1960-1.First in modern times. Arsenal,as usual made it look cheap with their choppers.Storey was the best chopper.Better than Harris...and that's saying something! Spurs never been out of Tottenham. Arsenal?Gypsy club!Where do you park your caravans these days?
A history lesson for the angry man above In 1886 – coincidentally Arsenal’s founding year – the Conservatives won a general election, but without enough seats for a majority. They allied themselves with the Liberal Unionists, who agreed to support the Tories in exchange for certain policies being implemented, one of which was reorganisation of local government. Accordingly, new county administrations were implemented under the Local Government Act of 1888, including the formation of a new County of London from 21 March 1889. The County of London was made up of the City itself and a large number of districts surrounding it on both sides of the River Thames. In 1900 the old local districts and parishes and their administrative councils were reorganised into 28 Metropolitan Boroughs, including Chelsea, Fulham, Woolwich (one of the largest in area) and Islington – which of course includes Highbury. So both Arsenal’s home (south of the river) at the time of the formation of the new county and the one they moved to in 1913 were within the official new London. Tottenham remained in Middlesex, where it had been ever since its formation as a small hamlet about 1,000 years ago. Things stayed this way from 1900 to 1965, when London’s increasing size necessitated further reorganisation. Under the London Government Act 1963 a new ‘Greater London’ was formed around the County of London, which then disappeared and became known as ‘Inner London’. At this point Tottenham became part of the new borough of Haringey, and for the first time part of London. Arsenal, a London club for decades longer than Tottenham. Not that this has anything to do with the topic bigsmithy9
regardless of what you say Spurs have alway's been called and classed as a North London club since it was formed your club was formed and had their first ground south of the river,we as you say have alway's been in Tottenham,so your the nomad's.
