Greg Clarke..

I watched a lot of CNNs coverage of the US election and was shocked how much the term was used openly when talking about Kamala Harris. Constantly asking Abby Phillip “As a PoC you must be very proud?”

Not defending Clarke. He’s not in America and should have thought it’s not acceptable when he was.

 

Has resigned.

If he was an ordinary bloke would feel sorry for him but as someone who is in an elite position, I'd assume he has had some sort of racial training? Just an amateur mistake really.

 

Can someone explain the offence here? To me it just looks like something my grandad would have said. It sounds old-fashioned for sure but doesn't appear to have been meant in an offensive way, so why is it a resigning matter?

 

Looks like a culmination of a few different comments rather than just one? He’s managed to make a few generalisations about woman, gay people, as well as black and Asian people.

No one comment on its own was probably that bad, but altogether it makes him look very out of touch.

 

It can be difficult for a middle-aged heterosexual white man to get it right all the time. It wasn't meant pejoratively, but if persons of colour (as opposed to coloured people) take offence at his clumsy wording then he had to go. With the huge gulf between the number of non-white people on the pitch and in management and in the boardroom, it's important that we are seen to be treating them with respect - we've got several hundred years of non-respect to make up for.

Incidentally, aren't those of us whose skins are various shades of pink more coloured than those whose skins are various shades of black or brown?

 

Ill judged and outdated and unseemly of the head or ex head to be behind the times in terms of acceptable language.
Having said that my half wit of a colleague has used this term in a meeting with the LTA head of safeguarding and didn't understand his error. However he is as thick as a whale omelette and Clarke really should have known better.
Why do these figures not have anyone to proof read their announcements?
I'm available for the next month if anyone from the ngb is reading,although I'd like to watch 'Tigers in the House at 4.15pm if possible each day.

 

I wonder if the leaks and pressure to resign have something to do with his instigation of and support for 'Project Big Picture'? That couldn't have made him very popular with many of the clubs he was supposed to represent, and the government seemed to hate the idea as well. The timing is rather convenient just after the plan has had an initial knock-back. His job would have been very precarious anyway because of it.

 

Clarke is a white, middle aged man - he never stood a chance.

 

An over reaction to some poor choices of word, but its a huge leap of stupidity to equate this to racist homophobic bigotry.

 

In this case it wasn’t an announcement that could be proofread, it was in a reply in a Q & A.

 

That’s true, but we all, especially those in public positions, have to try not to make those sort of mistakes.

 

Agreed, not the same.

Still poor though.

The problem with coloured is what’s the opposite?

White, brown & black are all colours. It’s a sticky one but never liked Clarke anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps because as I've speculated it was just an easy excuse to get rid of him, whereas really people have wanted him gone due to his recently disclosed heavy involvement in the plans of the Big 6 which after its failure in effect made his position untenable.

 

It would be useful if you produce a guide to acceptable terms that we can use with complete certainty that we wouldn't get the sack fro using it. Already I've seen in discussions over Clarke this evening that even the community that is apparently offended can't seem to agree on what is offensive and what isn't.

Several on here seem quite clear that he crossed the line, Maybe you could provide the definitive list.

 

Lol, so all black people worldwide must agree on what is offensive and not? Enough are offended, isn’t that enough.

Why when it comes to any minority, black, Muslim whatever it may be, the whole population must speak out but when it’s a white matter a few opinions are ok? Is there anything the whole white community all agree on? No, it’s not a thing, there’s not “coloured” WhatsApp group where people ah yeah this word is offensive, this one isn’t. What a silly thing to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not up to me to say what's offensive as I wasn't covered by anything he said. But since writing my first post I've found out that he managed to be offensive about South Asians and Afro-Caribbeans in general, and also female footballers.

So he's an idiot, not just an old fart who made an unfortunate slip of the tongue.

 

OK, so it's pot luck.

 

You might say that it isn't up to you, but you are calling him an idiot, you said that he has been offensive to South Asians and Afro-Caribbeans, so you have decided what is offensive. Enlighten us.

 

We have recently heard how the fear of causing racial offence stopped a security guard at the Manchester Arena from approaching an Asian man after a member of the public drew attention to his suspicious behaviour. The same chap went on to detonate himself at the Ariana Grande concert - killing 23 and injuring over 800. And then of course there's the Police's lack of action in the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

There are laws against genuine racial abuse, but every time someone is made public enemy number one for some minor linguistic blip the chances of a repeat of the mistakes made in Manchester or Rotherham increase

 

I've seen excerpts of what he said, and he seemed to be making some observations and exploring the reasons for the lack of diversity, and how on earth can we solve the problems without discussing them. In my view, we should be able to discuss the issues without losing our job because we used the wrong term. Surely, by identifying that South Asians seem less interested in becoming footballers than other races, it enables us to tackle the it if we do want diversity.

 

I haven't decided, I've merely noted that those concerned are offended. It's their call.

But Lloyd makes a good point about Manchester and Rotherham.

If you remember, in my first post I expressed some sympathy for one slip of the tongue (while neverthess agreeing with him standing down), but after seeing how maladroit he was throughout I called him an idiot. Not a racist, but an idiot.

 

He called Black people coloured, said being gay was a lifestyle choice, said woman footballers don’t like getting hit by footballs and that Asian people like working in IT.

Plenty for enough people to get offended about. Each comment on its own probably isn’t the end of the world, but they’re all very lazy generalisations, you’d probably get away with it down the pub, but for someone in his positions it’s clearly not acceptable.

 

Well not really, as you have heard the views of a mere fraction of the non-whites (is that term allowed?), in the UK. Do you think that that handful are qualified and entitled to speak on behalf of the others?

 

For years when I was younger, black people told us to use the term coloured. He is a similar age to me, and I don't fully understand why the expression "people of colour" is perfectly ok, and "coloured people " is so offensive to the extent that someone that uses it, or gets mixed up over the words, is unfit to keep their job and livelihood.

It took me about 5 seconds to find this article on a lesbian activist, newspaper columnist and author who also thinks it is a lifestyle choice. Agree, or disagree, does she deserve to lose her job over it. And, because Clarke agrees with her (although it was a short two word phrase used under pressure rather than 30 years of promoting those views like Julie Blundel), should he lose his job over it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sexual-orientation-choice-9582897.html

He was asked to explain why women goalkeepers are so poor and he suggested that young girls didn't seem to like having the ball kicked at them and therefore didn't want to be a goalkeeper when they took up football. My granddaughter does't like having footballs kicked at her either, and like my mates, I didn't like the non-contact netball compared with the physical basketball. Is it offensive to say that?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss why a minority do not become footballers, when part of your job is to try and make football more diverse? Has he said anything untruthful?

The use of a possible incorrect words, when said for the right reasons just requires a little tolerance, not condemnation and bile.

I think people need to be a bit mature and understand that unless we can discuss these issues, identify why it is happening, sustainable solutions will not be found.

 

I truly feel sorry for the wealthy white men of this world. Must be very tough.

 

I can’t speak for your granddaughter but does she want to be a professional footballer?

The standard of goal keeper in the woman’s league is nothing to do with them not wanting to be hit by the ball, that’s just an idiotic comment.

Not many aspiring footballers with real footballing talent choose to be a goalkeeper, it’s only a fairly recent phenomena in the men’s game that some of them have any actual footballing skill at all.

In the woman’s game it’s a self fulfilling prophecy, if there are no good keepers there are no role models for players to aspire to emulate. Any woman player with a modicum of skill won’t aspire to play in goal, it’s obviously going to come across as nothing other than massively sexist to say it’s because they don’t like getting hit with the ball.

 

You are wrong. He is an ignorant white, middle aged man who should have known better in his position of authority. I've known that 'coloured' has been offensive for over 30 years, even though there is language that is clearly worse. But it wasn't only that word that exposed him, it was one of a number of outdated attitudes he expressed.

I also don't think you can equate the Manchester bombing & Rotherham scandals with this. There's a difference between his type of offensive ignorance and the deliberate decisions made to avoid accusations of racism. Those people had a duty of care to those who suffered in those respective tragedies but they neglected that duty, with the Rotherham police particularly culpable.

 

So you think he is massively sexist on the basis of that comment. Wow! Could he not just be wrong or mistaken?

Ok, what about the other points I've made?

 

So by his logic it’s amazing any woman are footballers, what if the opposition get a free kick and they have to form a wall? Keepers very rarely get ‘hit’ with the ball, you’re far more likely to get hit with the ball as an outfield player.

it’s just a misguided, sexist comment.

 

You are just ignoring the reasonable points I made in post #27. Why is that I wonder? Maybe it is more like "hiding" from the truth.

Well at least you've retracted from a completely over-the-top hyperbolic description of "massively sexist" to a more measured description of "misguided".

But it wasn't even his opinion, he was expressing what a women's football coach had told him about goalkeeping.

And if you look at the context that he was talking about lifestyle choice, he wasn't on a soapbox preaching that being gay was a lifestyle choice, he was talking about how we wants gay footballers to be able to make the lifestyle choice of "coming out", and living as a gay without having to spend their life hiding it. The clamour to jump on him and criticise means that what he actually said was ignored.

My main point is, that he was talking about all these subjects because he was pointing out that the lack of diversity, the hate that gay and "coloured" footballers received via social media or from the terraces needs to be sorted out - he is on their side, and he ha been forced out because he didn't use the latest trending words.

It really is childish and immature for those that want to stamp out these problems to suppress debate on them.

In my view, your anger should be directed at the people who intentionally insult through racism or sexism, as they are the villains, not those who want to prevent it.

 

I've never understood this either. Can someone explain as I'd genuinely like to know.
As ZZ says it used to be "coloured not black" then seemingly overnight switched to "black not coloured" yet "people of colour" is still fine ? I still have to be very careful to use the right terminology having been used to using the other for many years.

 

I haven’t bothered with your other comments because I can see it’s simply not worth it.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice no matter what article you dredge up from a gay person saying it is.

It’s simply not worth my time trying to discuss something you have such fixed views on.

No matter whether you agree our not, coloureds is no longer an acceptable word in this country.

Of the top of my head this was highlighted a good 20 years ago in the office when it was used by Gareth as a way to show he was more ‘multicultural’ than his dad, but of course was being used to show how ignorant he actually was. That was a full 20 years ago.