Forum Topic

Black lives usually matter

But not when they are cheating, diving b**tards called Sterling.

John Connelly ● 1937d39 Comments

You've just highlighted why we need Black Lives Matter.

Nicole Ruduss ● 1936d

Cheats come in all colours.

John Connelly ● 1936d

His skin colour has absolutely sod all to do with his play.

Ed Saper ● 1936d

Bit harsh. What's your view on racist f**kwits posting on public forums?

John Hall ● 1936d

Looks like this was an example of not to post when drunk as it displays your nasty side.

Richard Greenhough ● 1936d

When he wakes up this afternoon for a brief moment he won't remember that England won and he made that post but it will be all down hill after that.

Francis Rowe ● 1936d

Probably the worst post made on this forum lately.

Ken Munn ● 1936d

Drunk or not, this is totally racist and i'd suggest it is removed and James is banned...

Lillie Green ● 1936d

John even!

Lillie Green ● 1936d

Gosh.I think the high point of this post is that you are quite happy to post something blatantly racist, but asterisk out the word bastard.That's an interesting internal filter..

Nick Goodliffe ● 1936d

For those of you who don't know, John is Scottish, so like many Scots he wouldn't have been pleased at the result last night.I knew John in a professional capacity for 5 years, albeit 15-20 years ago now, and there's no way I'd ever think of him as being remotely racist.His later post made it clear that he was singling out Sterling solely because of how he happened to be the player who was 'fouled' (and even the most fervent English person would admit it was a very soft penalty, had it gone the other way I (and millions of others) would have been cursing the ref, the Danes and anyone else at that particular point in time), not because of his colour.Would I have posted what he did ? - no.  Have I ever said or done things that in hindsight I regretted - of course.In reality I probably think many people have thread this thread and thought "oh that was abit clumsy, but understand what he was getting it", but no-one is brave enough to say so, so I will.

Adam Beamish ● 1936d

Adam, there was absolutely no need to relate Sterling's action on pitch to his skin colour.

Ken Munn ● 1936d

No Adam.  It was a nasty piece of racism.  John not only thought it, he also saw fit to post it on a public forum.We all know that insidious racism is still out there. But the fact that someone feels comfortable expressing such hatred on this forum shows how low things are sinking.The fact that "there's no way [you'd] ever thing of him as being remotely racist" and that the post was "not because of his colour" is undermined by the heading "Black lives usually matter".  What a deeply offensive heading.

T P Howell ● 1936d

Totally agree, but only 9 minutes later John did say "cheats come in all colours".I think it's a stupid opening post on a thread, it's asking for trouble and it does the author no favours.  But would I conclude solely on the basis of this thread that the OP is a racist ? - never.

Adam Beamish ● 1936d

"For those of you who don't know, John is Scottish, so like many Scots he wouldn't have been pleased at the result last night."Surely it high time a small element of Scottish people put behind them their historic prejudice against the English. Culloden and the like was a long long time ago and we need to move on.I write as someone who forefathers fought the English with both father and son being killed at Culloden.Independence? Sure, if that is the will of the people but I think it would be sad day.

Adrian Irving ● 1936d

No, it wasn't a nailed on penalty but England got the rub of the green for a change.The incident earlier in the game with Kane could have been called a penalty hey-ho.I don't remotely see what colour has to do with it and John should apologise for his petty mindedness or choke on his sour grapes.Sounds a bit like he's still fighting the battle of Culloden.

Keith Iddon ● 1936d

John, I should add that I am not in anyway saying you fall into the camp I have highlighted.Maybe you do, maybe you don't, I simply don't know.I do know however, when I visit my relatives North of the Border I do come across it.

Adrian Irving ● 1936d

When there was a post made on this forum a few weeks back that was allegedly homophobic someone explained to me how the law works on these matters currently. Basically if you make a pejorative comment about someone while at the same time referring to their race, religion or sexuality then you have probably committed a hate crime.Whether that makes the former leader of Hounslow Council a racist is subjective - we don't have a window into his soul. His best defence is that he is a mean drunk and a withdrawal of the comment and an apology might persuade some people to give him the benefit of the doubt.As there is likely to be no salvaging of John Connolly's reputation it is perhaps better to turn to restoring that of national treasure Raheem Sterling. I've watched thousands of amateur sports matches over the years, both rugby and football, and one thing it has taught me for sure is that it takes minimal contact to knock a player flying if he or she is already travelling at speed.Some other things we need to bear in mind:1) Referee Danny Makkelie is generally acknowledged to be a top referee. He was yards from the incident. Even with HD we all saw it in 2D, he saw it in 3D and thought it was a foul. Who is likely to be right on this - an experienced ref or an inebriated former academic who may not have actually played the game?2) The decision was reviewed by VAR. It didn't take two other qualified refs long to endorse the decision3) There were two fouls on Raheem, the trip and the body check. If you didn't think he was tripped then a penalty would still have been awarded for the second offence.4) In my unqualified view the earlier penalty appeal for the trip on Harry Kane should also have been given5) The trip for which Denmark were given a free kick was less of a foul than the one on Raheem6) England were in total control of the game by the time the penalty was given. If this one hadn't been given with Sterling, Foden and Grealish running at a tired Danish defence a player short there would almost inevitably have been another one in the second period of extra time.

Francis Rowe ● 1935d

Excellent post.

Ed Saper ● 1935d

Totally wrong on the VAR point though - for the decision of the ref to be overturned by VAR there has to be clear evidence the ref was wrong.  Had the ref not awarded the penalty I'm sure VAR would not have overruled that decision either for the same reason.

Adam Beamish ● 1935d

I agree with Adam, I have known John for more years than I care to remember and I think that the comment was more about not being overly fond of things English than anything to do with racism. Remember Andy Murray's comment of 'anyone but England' a few years ago?I think the title of the post WAS a tad clumsy, but hey! Let's be magnanimous in victory.

Vanessa Smith ● 1935d

Vanessa, someones performance on the pitch has nothing to do with their skin colour. I'd call it more than a little clumsy. Racism is rife within football and this is a prime example of it.

Lillie Green ● 1935d

Two quick points.  1 Hats off to Francis for a very persuasive defense of Sterling.  2.  I don’t believe that John C is a racist having read and enjoyed many of his posts but I do think the title of the thread is an astonishing mis-judgment.  One thing that obvious racists do time and again is to introduce skin color gratuitously so non-racists need to make an effort not to do this.  Though sometimes it sneaks in.  I’m somewhat old and the town I was brought up in was 100% white.  (And hardly a single man had a beard or long hair either).  So occasionally I find myself saying ‘This black guy …’ and suchlike but really it’s a kind of unconscious and unnecessary discrimination especially in such a diverse city as ours.  And again what might slip out in speech is one thing but the written word is something else, hence this extended discussion.

Alastair Banton ● 1935d

Andy Murray's comment was tongue in cheek (and he still got a lot of flack for it) and had nothing to do with skin colour. If this post had simply accused the England team of being cheats and diving that would have been in poor taste but probably acceptable, but highlighting the skin colour of the player concerned in the thread header was not.

Richard Greenhough ● 1935d

I wonder what John's reaction to a post from an English person where the headline gratuitously denigrated the Scots in some way.I think he would be all over them like a cheap suit, but I suppose we might never know as he has gone very quiet just now.

Keith Iddon ● 1935d

OK, let's try it and see. Personally I count myself as British, and was hoping for the Wales, Scotland and England teams to all go as far as possible in the tournament.

Richard Greenhough ● 1935d

Must admit I was extremely surprised by his comments especially from a former leader and Mayor of Hounslow Council but in my brief time knowing him when councillors he never came across as the slightest bit racist and fought equally for all residents

Paul Fisher ● 1935d

Paul,I am assuming you are of the same race as John.I don't think that highlighting his past achievements in public office does him or his party any favours in the context of this debate.Surely it makes it seem far worse.Whatever you think about that,he is not big enough to admit he showed poor judgement(that's if he didn't mean it)and simply apologise for the offence caused.

Keith Iddon ● 1935d

Like you, Richard I support all the British teams in any competition,and when any of them go head to head with England, I support England.

Keith Iddon ● 1935d

Well Richard, here is one Scottish person who does not have a chip on her shoulder and hopes that England plays to win on Sunday. I always fully support England, Wales and N Ireland - unless they are up against Scotland of course!  The title of your post is a bit hurtful 'Why do the Scots always ...', but I can generally laugh off any jibes at the nation of my birth.

Joan Adamson ● 1935d

Sorry, Joan - this was by way of response to Keith's suggestion of getting the OP to break cover, and wasn't intended to cover all people of Scottish descent. Perhaps I should have said "some" rather than "the".

Richard Greenhough ● 1935d

It's OK Richard, but thanks for the change of word. I actually agree that sadly that comment does apply to some of my compatriots.

Joan Adamson ● 1935d

This rather reminds me of the rather awkward conversation between Frank Skinner and Matthew Kelly afew years back about a joke Skinner had made which revolved around allegations about Kelly at that time.As far as I know there isn't a White Lives Matter movement, so the opening post simply wouldn't have worked from a purely factual perspective had the fouled player been white.  Therefore to me the opening post was a very poorly judged and clumsy use of a reference to a movement as the basis for labelling an individual as a cheat, which could have only 'worked' had the fouled player been black.I always think if people are going to be judged on everything they do or say, be it in public or in private for every second of their lives, then there's not a single human being on this planet who hasn't at some point been racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.

Adam Beamish ● 1935d

I am absolutely astonished that anyone could see fit to defend John, whatever their previous experience of him. The language is totally unacceptable whatever his intention.

Gina Thomas ● 1935d

Taking the posting in isolation , not knowing or interested in the OP's character or history, I find it a statement that invites comment and criticism.Because it's offensive language and perpetrates the myth that it’s perfectly OK simply because no harm was intended.Allowing such seemingly off the cuff remarks to go without comment simply perpetrates the endless daily onslaught of micro aggressions that so many people live with.I am BTW a bastard at birth, should we get started on that one ?

Tessa Russell ● 1935d

...that the moderator(s) would allow this thread to remain online. Is CW4 actually moderated?

Ken Munn ● 1935d

Yes, indeed, Ken. But that's another story, which needs to be told.

Robert Fish ● 1935d

I don't know John Connolly personally but I do have friends who were active in the Labour party. There are mixed opinions with some speaking very highly of him and some attributing an unpleasant and vindictive side to his character. Whatever the truth, he split with the party with some acrimony.Even his most adamant detractors never suggested any element of racism in his views. I don't think the post made by John Connolly proves he is either. It's undoubtedly ill-judged and probably was written when he was well refreshed but it can be taken in a number of ways. I'm struggling to understand the logic of people professing to be 'astonished' that the post remains extant. On the one hand they seem to believe it is too terrible for the rest of us to be allowed to see but then they excitedly respond to the thread boosting it back to prominence. If I see material posted online that is intent on stirring up racial division I report it to the police and if you believe John Connolly's post to be of that nature you shouldn't hesitate to do likewise rather than demanding someone else act on your behalf. In my view the most fitting punishment for the original poster is for his contribution to remain there for everyone to see.

Mark Evans ● 1934d

I have accused JC of nothing, beyond not being big enough to apologise for any offence caused by his ill judged post, but maybe he feels he has nothing to apologise for.I have a couple of arms length mates who could start a row in an empty house, especially when they have had a few.I think that's what we are seeing here, but who cares?

Keith Iddon ● 1934d