Nobody was happy that Qatar, a nation without a single football stadium, was awarded the 2022 World Cup and there are many questions about bungs and corruption. Similarly, many questioned the extent to which the Russian oligarchs helped win their country the 2018 tournament and, after this evening's BBC Panorama programme, many now wonder how on earth Poland and Ukraine were given the right to host next month's Euros.
The solution is simple...
We should leave FIFA and UEFA and set up a new organisation, with rival tournaments and rival administration that aims to eliminate corruption, racism and everything else that's wrong with football at the moment.
It might only take one nation with guts and principles and the rest would follow - as long as they met strict suitability criteria.
Then countries can choose to take part in the clean or corrupt tournaments - they can join in the World Cup of hate or the friendly World Cup.
And please, don't think the UK is any better than Ukraine or Poland. We may have fewer racists on the terraces but the FA isn't anywhere near harsh enough with the racists and drug cheats on the pitch. Racism, cheating and corruption must be eliminated everywhere. Consistency is vital.
Sadly, I doubt the FA is sufficiently robust to stand up on principle, but I live in hope. I'd happily accept we miss a tournament occupying the international wilderness waiting for sufficient others to join.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Monday, 28 May 2012
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge
Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Stephen Lawrence, a poem
Letters of outrage but
Words cannot bring him back and
Sentences can never be long enough.
Books will be written,
Television programmes made,
Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,
For a young life so needlessly lost.
Shed no tears for his loss
Nor mourn with his family,
It is done. He is gone.
Cry, instead, for a broken society, OUR broken society,
Producing bigots, nurturing their hate, fuelling their ignorance,
And harbouring them from justice for years.
Books will be written,
Television programmes made,
Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,
For a young life so needlessly lost.
Sentences can never be long enough,
Words cannot bring him back.
Robert Steadman
3rd January 2012
The day the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were eventually found guilty
Saturday, 24 December 2011
OPNION: Racism in the UK
Along with many of the population, I was glad to hear that Luis Suarez, the Liverpool footballer, was to be banned for 8 matches by the F.A. for racially abusing Patrice Evra. The F.A. has long campaigned to "Kick Racism Out If Football" and this sent a strong message to the remaining Neanderthals associated with football, as well as the wider society. It also thumbed its nose at Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA, who, early this year, made the rash and, quite frankly, ridiculous claim that there is no racism in football. He said any "bad words" should be forgotten in a handshake.
Similarly, I was very glad to hear that John Terry, somehow still the England football captain, was to be charged with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.
See that Mr. Blatter, racism is alive and well and not just on the terraces, on the pitch.
Now I realise that racism is the wrong term for bad-mouthing based on skin colour. We are all humans. We are all part of one race, the human race, but it has come to be used as the terminology for ethnic hate derision, so I'll use it too!
So where are we with racism in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Is it still a problem?
Well, along with various premiership footballers, and any number of offensive chants at football grounds up and down the country, I believe racism is, sadly, alive and well throughout huge swathes of society.
A couple of years back a couple of Tory MPs got into hot water for telling racist jokes at dinner parties. I know a number of people who felt that, because they were at private events, they should be allowed to say what they want. It was all very 1984 and "Big Brother" and the Political Correctness brigade "picking" on "ordinary people".
Yes, really, supposedly educated people, some who are teachers, who, basically, defended the right to be racist as long as it was done in public.
To me that's appalling, and I told them so.
But, I guess, the problem is that we live in a society where the blatant racism of the monarchy's husband is laughed off as "eccentricity" and he's lauded as a "British institution" and a "National Treasure". Well, he's an ill-informed, ignorant racist and he should be pitied and/or prosecuted for his disgraceful comments.
It's only 30 years ago that sitcoms like Mind Your Language were broadcast in prime time. A sitcom whose only "humour" was racial stereotypes. Today, I'd like to think, such a programme wouldn't be made, though racial stereotypes can still be found on British television.
The brilliant sitcom character Alf Garnett should have put an end to racism. He showed how idiotic his views were and how mid-placed his fears were but, sadly, the far right saw him as a hero and not simply a buffoon.
One thing, however, niggles in the back of my mind. As a kid, I was taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" - should it really be an offence to call someone a name? Any name?
Nobody would end up in court for calling someone "four eyes" or "porky", both physical attributes, but use a racial term and there's the full weight of the law to punish. Is this right? Does it make sense?
Surely, the use of such name calling shouldn't affect the person being called but merely demonstrate that the caller is a bit stupid?
Surely, showing everyone that you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot is sufficient? Should verbal racism really be punishable? It is, after all, just name-calling.
Perhaps people from ethnic minorities need to get a thicker skin? After all, many black people happily use the term "nigger" to describe themselves but feel pain if a white person uses it. That surely can't be right. Words are words and they should belong to everybody. Would it be right is homosexuals were the only people allowed to use the term "gay"? I think not.
I think it's right that racists aren't allowed to hold positions of power and responsibility because their use of racially divisive language might suggest they will show preference to certain racial groups, but, if it never goes beyond words, should the law really be bothered?
I certainly don't want my country, or any country, represented by someone who uses racist language and, as such, I hope that, if found guilty, John Terry should never be selected to play for the national team again but I don't see any reason why he should go to jail. We can all mock his stupidity, his ignorance, how pathetic he is and, as such, hope his employer will educate him to understand that his racism is unacceptable and that is, probably, as far as things should go.
Maybe, now that it's over 50 years since the mass immigrations of the 1950s from former empire countries, it's time that all ethnicities learnt to live with each other and, as long as it is just words, maybe they should be laughed off?
Is it time for ethnic minorities to man up? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
I'm undecided.
Similarly, I was very glad to hear that John Terry, somehow still the England football captain, was to be charged with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.
See that Mr. Blatter, racism is alive and well and not just on the terraces, on the pitch.
Now I realise that racism is the wrong term for bad-mouthing based on skin colour. We are all humans. We are all part of one race, the human race, but it has come to be used as the terminology for ethnic hate derision, so I'll use it too!
So where are we with racism in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Is it still a problem?
Well, along with various premiership footballers, and any number of offensive chants at football grounds up and down the country, I believe racism is, sadly, alive and well throughout huge swathes of society.
A couple of years back a couple of Tory MPs got into hot water for telling racist jokes at dinner parties. I know a number of people who felt that, because they were at private events, they should be allowed to say what they want. It was all very 1984 and "Big Brother" and the Political Correctness brigade "picking" on "ordinary people".
Yes, really, supposedly educated people, some who are teachers, who, basically, defended the right to be racist as long as it was done in public.
To me that's appalling, and I told them so.
But, I guess, the problem is that we live in a society where the blatant racism of the monarchy's husband is laughed off as "eccentricity" and he's lauded as a "British institution" and a "National Treasure". Well, he's an ill-informed, ignorant racist and he should be pitied and/or prosecuted for his disgraceful comments.
It's only 30 years ago that sitcoms like Mind Your Language were broadcast in prime time. A sitcom whose only "humour" was racial stereotypes. Today, I'd like to think, such a programme wouldn't be made, though racial stereotypes can still be found on British television.
The brilliant sitcom character Alf Garnett should have put an end to racism. He showed how idiotic his views were and how mid-placed his fears were but, sadly, the far right saw him as a hero and not simply a buffoon.
One thing, however, niggles in the back of my mind. As a kid, I was taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" - should it really be an offence to call someone a name? Any name?
Nobody would end up in court for calling someone "four eyes" or "porky", both physical attributes, but use a racial term and there's the full weight of the law to punish. Is this right? Does it make sense?
Surely, the use of such name calling shouldn't affect the person being called but merely demonstrate that the caller is a bit stupid?
Surely, showing everyone that you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot is sufficient? Should verbal racism really be punishable? It is, after all, just name-calling.
Perhaps people from ethnic minorities need to get a thicker skin? After all, many black people happily use the term "nigger" to describe themselves but feel pain if a white person uses it. That surely can't be right. Words are words and they should belong to everybody. Would it be right is homosexuals were the only people allowed to use the term "gay"? I think not.
I think it's right that racists aren't allowed to hold positions of power and responsibility because their use of racially divisive language might suggest they will show preference to certain racial groups, but, if it never goes beyond words, should the law really be bothered?
I certainly don't want my country, or any country, represented by someone who uses racist language and, as such, I hope that, if found guilty, John Terry should never be selected to play for the national team again but I don't see any reason why he should go to jail. We can all mock his stupidity, his ignorance, how pathetic he is and, as such, hope his employer will educate him to understand that his racism is unacceptable and that is, probably, as far as things should go.
Maybe, now that it's over 50 years since the mass immigrations of the 1950s from former empire countries, it's time that all ethnicities learnt to live with each other and, as long as it is just words, maybe they should be laughed off?
Is it time for ethnic minorities to man up? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
I'm undecided.
Labels:
ethnic,
John terry,
Luis Suarez,
nigger,
prince Philip,
Racism,
racist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)