'Racist' FA Recall DVD.

Time for another argument with the PC, Guardian reading, Liberal Democrat voting, salad eating, sandal wearing, 'Give them an all expenses paid trip to Euro Disney and ask them not to do it again', types, I reckon. :)

Seriously though - this is worthy of discussion I think.

The basic story for anyone who hasn't followed it:

The FA decided to include a DVD with its welcome pack for new members of the 17 greatest England players of all time - in their opinion, or the opinion of the group they appointed to sort out the list.

A short list was drawn up, handed to the people responsible, they selected their 17 favorites, and the DVD was released. No problem, right? Wrong.

No black players were included, which of course, as any self-respecting Guardian reader will tell you, was not because the group of people responsible for choosing the list of players to be included genuinely didn't think that any black player should make the list, oh no, it was of course because they are racist, BNP voting thugs, and action must be taken!

So, rather predictably, the FA, fearful that these PC nutters might flood the Guardians letters page with accusations of institutionalized racism within footballs governing body, they immediately recalled the DVD, apologized, and said they would re-release it with some black players added.

Now - please explain to me how that is going to work? Surely the original list, which showed no bias towards race at all is less racist and insulting than a list that has a few token black players included to keep the Guardian readers happy?

Surly re-releasing it would be insulting, patronizing and a lot less color-blind than keeping the original, and saying 'Irrespective of color, these are, in our opinion the 20 best players, nothing racist about it.'

Why does every public organization seem to run a mile when accused of racism, even if it’s obviously a knee-jerk reaction from a small group of PC cretins?

This is what Rio Ferdinand (Man U defender) had to say about it:

"It's a surprise to me as there would have been several black players on my personal list, such as John Barnes and Ian Wright," the Manchester United player said."

So? I couldn't give a badger’s arse who would have been on your personal list mate, nor Tony Blair’s, nor the surviving members of the cast of Dad's Army. What's your personal list got to do with anything? Surly the point is, if that's the player chosen, then you go with it, not pretend and hint at the fact that there might be some sort of racial reason.

Why should the FA be forced to include a black player, an Asian player, a white player, or any player if they genuinely don't think they deserve to be there? Surly be doing exactly what they did in the first place, and ignoring race (and therefore the fact that the final list had no black players) they acted in an acceptable manner - a lot more acceptable than feeling that they have top re-release it with token black players to keep some people happy.

Rio goes on: (And to be fair to him, seems to make the point that his personal list would differ but the main list shouldn't be changed)

""But players should not be judged on their color, they should only be judged on their ability."

I agree mate. Shame you'd never get away with it, as rather laughably, the sort of people who claim to be tolerant and PC wouldn't let you.

I mean, looking at the list, its not perfect (No Gordon Banks? Are you having a laugh?) but its not as if they have missed Pele off a list of world greats. I mean, the likes of Paul Ince and John Barnes were fine players, but it’s hardly a major shock that they don't get in. Certainly not racist.

Maybe in 5 years time the like of Sol Campbell, Ashley Cole and Rio will be contenders (will be 100% if they keep going the way they are), but to be forced to include them to silence a few PC Guardian readers, and in doing so patronize an entire group of people is tragic. It really is depressing to see the situation the Guardianistas have forced the right-thinking man with a bit of common sense into.

Do we now really live in a society so illogical, that it’s PC to insultingly include a token black football player in a list of this sort, but un PC to ignore race and include who you genuinely think should be? Has PC finally eroded the last shred of common sense from society?

You may think I've mentioned the Guardian a bit too much in this thread, so just for a laugh, I went to the website, to see how they had reported the story. The article made me laugh - textbook snide Lefty 'Oh my God, they must all be racists!' stuff. Next to the article is a picture of 'Mr Average' Paul Ince with the caption 'Ince: Not a good England player, apparently'. :D

Got to hand it to them, they never miss an opportunity to shout 'racist' when it’s obviously not the case. Mind you, as that is the single tactic of the snide Left, when discussing immigration or any other issue where race can be crowbarred in, its shouldn't come as a suprise really - like monkeys sitting in their own filth, they simply know no better. (The monkeys do have the excuse that they are monkeys though, of course) ;)

Anyway, opinions please. I've provided the link to the BBC Sport coverage of this story, and the snide, predictable attempt by the cess-pit that is the Guardian newspapers attempt to accuse the entire FA of being secret racists.

All I say is, pity the black players who are included on the edited 'PC Nutter Friendly' version. To be included because you have black skin and that is still something that the Guardian readers can not allow to go unseen, and not because of your footballing skill. Truly the ultimate insult to any footballer.

Can you imagine Alan Balls little face if he found out he'd been included because he has a funny voice and ginger hair, and not because he won the world cup? Tragic.

Oh, and if someone wants to make the case for Paul 'Average Midfield Performance' Ince being included on this DVD, please do so, I could do with a laugh. Maybe John Barnes could have scrapped in... I'd be glad to see black players, white players, purple players, anyone. Such a shame that you simply are not allowed to pick what you think are the 17 best if there isn't a black player.

How ironic that the one group of people not prepared to be colorblind on these issues are the same group that laughably claim to be champions of PC and non-racist views. Have to laugh at them really. Actually, point and laugh. I think I'll do it now. :heckle:

Funny really when I went to the Guardian website, for a few seconds it didn’t hit me, I thought ‘this isn’t that bad’, then inevitably the snide ‘everyone’s a racist really’ message became clear. It was a bit like meeting Hitler, when he’s just getting out of the bath or something, and thinking ‘Well, he’s not that bad a bloke really, he had one of those little yellow ducks that goes 'eek' and he kept lifting one foot then the other off the floor to stop them getting cold’, but within a few minutes, he’s dressed and giving a speech and you go… ‘Ah, fair enough, I see now’.

Ah well, debate is pointless now (from a football point of view) as the PC nutters have spoken once again.

Discuss...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4214617.stm

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_...399964,00.html ( :rant: )

Included: Bobby Moore, Gary Lineker, Sir Bobby Charlton, Paul Gascoigne, Alan Shearer, Bryan Robson, David Beckham, Terry Butcher, Martin Peters, Chris Waddle, Stuart Pearce, Steven Gerrard

I'd personally say that Steven Gerrard is a little out of place on this list. Put him against Peter Shilton in terms of england great and i tell you who would get my vote.

I'm not even sure Alan Shearer or david beckham truely deserve to be on here either to be honest...

TiG

It seems that the 'lefty nutters' have won again. What annoys me is that they can not see that including someone SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE SKIN COLOUR is racist. Those players in the edited version would not be there due to their 'greatest player' status.

It is probably arguable about who the 20 top English players ever are/were, but the chances of even one non-white player being included would be low at best. Looking at the people who have ever played for England, we could conclude that the vast majority of them would be white. This is because for most of the 20th century there weren't any black England players at all befire Viv Anderson pulled on the white shirt in 1978. Also we have to look at the 1966 World Cup winning team, of which there were exactly zero non-white players and the fact that we have not won the world cup since.

I think the Sun's Shaun Custis has is right:

"The truth is a white bloke had most reason to feel aggrieved by the FA’s choice.

For Gordon Banks, the finest goalkeeper of his generation, our World Cup-winning keeper and genuinely regarded to have made the greatest save of all time to keep out a header from Pele in 1970, was also omitted.

And guess who got picked instead? David Seaman!

Now there really is no logic to that."


He is basing it on football alone and showing how you can really question the choices of the FA panel without making yourself look a prize idiot.

To be utterly honest, I don't really give a damn who the finest players are.. or, to be more accurate, who SOMEBODY ELSE think's the finest players are.

I can only claim to have nothing more than a passing interest in football, which for various reasons has tailed off considerably in the last few years.

The main point is the 'reverse' racism being shown here, which, unfortunately, is indicative of society in general. Personally, I don't see colour as in issue in anything I do. I just don't see a difference between a white guy, yellow, black..tawny port... olive.. green.. pink with blue spots.. It makes no difference to me. I'd treat that person exactly the same as any other.

All that's been achieved here is to eschew players who deserve to be on the list due to their skill in favour of those who don't deserve to be there, but make the list by virtue of their colour. That is an insult to BOTH parties.

If I'm honest, I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about racial minorities... The very fact that we make a big fuss over something such as colour only PROVES that we, as a society, are STILL uncomfortable with it. The act of going out of our way to be seen to be fair only underlines and reinforces our awareness of colour differences.

Until society can actually ignore colour completely, we'll never be free of racism, the bad or (supposedly) good versions of it. But that's not going to happen while there are people who will play the racist card in their favour, ("Is it 'cos I is black?"), and there are those who'll have a rectal relaxation moment the minute there is a hint of a colour issue.

Anyway, I have to go now. I'm in the middle of sueing the LA Lakers for not letting me in the team. The fact that I'm short, fat and talentless gives me very good grounds for a size-ist, height-ist, talentness-ist case.... and failing that, I'll play the race card seeing as the majority of their players are black.

I'm against any form of discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination. Of course the FA should not include black players purely as a token gesture. I'm not much of a football fan either.

The thing is though, the DVD clearly does not actually represent the 17 best England players ever; the inclusion of David Seaman over Gordon Banks (and Peter Shilton for that matter IMO) shows that. I reckon they have tailored the DVD to appeal to the younger generation of England fans who are likely to be joining the fanclub. Steven Gerrard for example- a fine player, but as of right now one of the 17 best England players ever? Not really. In all honesty I would have put John Barnes on the DVD in Gerrard's place purely on merit- not only was he a fine player, but he also did the rap in the middle of 'World in Motion', which is clearly the finest football song ever;).

So, given that they're not basing the final lineup purely on merit, I think they missed a trick by not including at least one black player. I don't think that the fact that the lineup was all white is indicative of some huge racist conspiracy at the FA, it just shows their PR machine is in need of some polishing.

Rich :¬)

I read somewhere that on the original list there were some black players but they were removed because of time & size constraints of the DVD. Anyhow, no way should Paul Ince be on there, maybe Ian Wright, John Barnes definitely. But what about Viv Anderson, first black England player, maybe not a great but definitely important for breaking down race barriers. Stevie Gerrard & David Beckham not yet but certainly in future editions. I think the comment that it's trying to appeal to younger generation is spot on and how will the black players that are now included feel? Probably not to great as they'll feel that they're only on there to pacify PC brigade.

Folks we live in a world gone mad.

I was going up the wall when I heard this, totally agree that the lefty pc gits are destroying this countries right to freedom of speech.

We come from a country with a cold climate and thus we don't have an abudance of black english players. Obviously in recent years we have had a increase in the amount of imagrants and thus the ratio is increasing, but to say that John Barnes and Paul ince are better than the people on that list is just down right disgusting (and I am Liverpool fan loved JB).

Positive discrimination at its very worst.

[QUOTE=daniel_owen_uk]I was going up the wall when I heard this, totally agree that the lefty pc gits are destroying this countries right to freedom of speech.[QUOTE]

It's nothing to do with free speech, it's a question of whether the contribution of black players has been unfairly overlooked.

Quote:

---

but to say that John Barnes and Paul ince are better than the people on that list is just down right disgusting

---

Barnes: 12 goals in 79 appearances for England.
Gerrard: 5 goals in 31 appearances.

Yeah, as you say, what a disgusting suggestion:rolleyes:.

Rich :¬)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

Barnes: 12 goals in 79 appearances for England.
Gerrard: 5 goals in 31 appearances.

Yeah, as you say, what a disgusting suggestion:rolleyes:.

Rich :¬)

---

Different types of player though. Gerrard is better than Barnes was. (And I'm an EVERTON fan! :eek: )

Well fair enough. I don't know enough about football to argue it either way. The point is that it's clearly not a crazy thing to suggest.

Sorry if I've missed something, but can someone quote me from the article where, precisely, the "left PC gits" who are "destroying this country" have actually had anything whatsoever to do with this?

You can pick the peanuts out of poo if you want, ok so no article states that its "the left pc gits destroying the country", but neither did I say that that was a quote.

What I am saying is that its the FA's fear of those people that has forced them to make the desision to edit the DVD, not that someone in a newspaper article said it.

Sorry Rave but your comments clearly try to prove me wrong then you admit a whole 8 minutes later that you don't know enough to argue?

Fair enough maybe its not freedom of speech, but freedom of media then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel_owen_uk

Sorry Rave but your comments clearly try to prove me wrong then you admit a whole 8 minutes later that you don't know enough to argue?

---

What I was saying is that if suggesting that John Barnes might be the equal of some of those players is, and I quote directly here, 'disgusting', then your definition of disgusting is decidedly odd.

Rich :¬)

What I probably should have said is that to put Barnes or Ince in over the likes of Beckham or Gerrard, simply because of race is disgusting.

Although I stick by the fact that in a simply footballing sense it would have been wrong to put either Barnes or Ince in, maybe disgusting was a little harsh.

Fair enough. I tell you who I reckon should deffo have been in though: Sol Campbell. Excellent player, and in the current team of overpaid and underperforming whingers he is the one guy who always gives 120%. He has the true English never-say-die spirit. Discuss (if you like).

Rich :¬)

How pathetic. PC is getting ridiculous these days. I'd hate to be included in something just because of the colour of my skin... :rolleyes:

What about that big dude from Liverpool who played alongside Michael Owen, you know, the one who fell over on his face every time the ball came near him...

Stick him in the list, he's black...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

Fair enough. I tell you who I reckon should deffo have been in though: Sol Campbell. Excellent player, and in the current team of overpaid and underperforming whingers he is the one guy who always gives 120%. He has the true English never-say-die spirit. Discuss (if you like).

Rich :¬)

---

Granted Campbell is a good player, but he has yet to prove himself as a great player yet, if he carries on way he has been doing then will probably make it in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel_owen_uk

You can pick the peanuts out of poo if you want, ok so no article states that its "the left pc gits destroying the country", but neither did I say that that was a quote.

What I am saying is that its the FA's fear of those people that has forced them to make the desision to edit the DVD, not that someone in a newspaper article said it.

---

And what evidence do you have to substantiate such a statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster

And what evidence do you have to substantiate such a statement?

---

We all 'know' what daniel_owen_uk said is ture, so you can provide evidence to prove us wrong if you like! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

What about that big dude from Liverpool who played alongside Michael Owen, you know, the one who fell over on his face every time the ball came near him...

Stick him in the list, he's black...

---

Emile Heskey. Mate, even the Guardians letters page isn't enough to force the FA to put Heskey on, as if that were to ever happen, then the country as a whole, including Emile’s immediate family, would be forced (forced, you understand) to go on hunger strike until he was removed.

As for the whole 'John Barnes was quite good, better than Gerard, Ince wasn't' debate, the point is, that clearly Barnes was not omitted because he's black, and Gerrard was not included because he is white. Being forced to change the list to satisfy a few leftwing nutters who see a racist issue everywhere is a sad state of affairs.

What exactly are the FA going to apologize for, may I ask? For forgetting that its suicide in this country not to have a constant obsession with race when attempting to do anything?

Dabeeenster - Well, the FA said they received complaints, now, how this normally works is as follows:

1) Something completely and totally inoffensive, such as a Christmas card or this DVD is released.

2) No members of any ethnic minority are offended, really.

3) Large amounts of Lefty do-gooder types get offended on their behalf, in doing so managing to patronize and insult an entire race.

4) Scared of being called racists, no matter how nonsensical the tag would be, the people responsible for the 'offending' article immediately remove it, apologies (without really knowing what they are apologizing for), and correct their 'mistake'.

Seems pretty textbook this one. I've got black friends, people who know their football, and they are not going to be offended by the lack of John Barnes on a video of the 17 greatest players - guaranteed 100% to be offended when the re-release appears though, with token black player’s number 1, 2 and 3.

Still, as long as the Guardian readers are happy, all is well, in their insane little PC world.

Vaul, at the risk of REALLY winding you up, it's not exculsively Gruaniad readers who get all het up over this sort of thing...

The Sun does it, the Mirror does it, the Daily Mail does it (provided they think it can be blamed on Blair and they can prove a link to the drop in house prices)... in fact EVERYONE is too PC atm...

Unless it's very safe ground to be anti- something... such as Western hating clerics, peadiophiles and general definite 'very bad things'... Just try and find a paper taking a definite stance over euthanasia or abortion...

But now I've strayed off topic... back to the Gruaniad's column I go... there's this really interesting bit about how awful it is that people use the phrase "it's all there in black and white"....

Indeed, but I loathe the paper to such an extent, I tend to use 'the Guardian', 'Guardian readers' or 'Guardianistas' to represent the whole PC shower, a pox on them all. Personally, the Sun has talked nothing but sense on this issue (amazingly), basically saying that its a load of PC nonsense, and the DVD should be left as it is.

As for everyone being too PC, I'm not, and I know a bloke in Hartfordshire who said 'black magic' 3 years ago, so its not as bad as you think.

Vaul, you're so utterly predictable with this Guardian stereotyping thing, and it's getting quite tiresome. Should I stereotype Sun readers as thick layabout lager-drinking right-wing xenophobic casual-racist chavs, knowing full well you read said newspaper? Will that help the debate or will it just get people's backs up. Grow up for god's sake. Once or twice may be original or humorous but you come out with it time and again. For starters the article you quoted was from the press association, not one of the Guardian's writers. Want to read a Guardian writer's opinion on this? Try reading the actual paper, or failing that, here's a link: http://football.guardian.co.uk/comme...402308,00.html
How about a Guardian reader's opinion? I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with everything Rawling said in the above article.

Probably fair to say that all pc lefty gits read the guardian but not to say that all guardian readers are pc lefty gits.

Similarly fair to say that all the thick layabout lager-drinking right-wing xenophobic casual-racist chavs read the Sun, but not all Sun readers are thick layabout lager-drinking right-wing xenophobic casual-racist chavs :D

It's enough to make me want to e-person the Times... I would e-mail them, but that's sexist...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zathras

Vaul, you're so utterly predictable with this Guardian stereotyping thing, and it's getting quite tiresome. Should I stereotype Sun readers as thick layabout lager-drinking right-wing xenophobic casual-racist chavs, knowing full well you read said newspaper? Will that help the debate or will it just get people's backs up. Grow up for god's sake.

---

Touched a nerve I see. Suprised you didn't call me a racist...

I'll continue with my correct views on the average Guardian reader for as long as the Guardian continues to print the anti-British, snide, leftwing, 'everyone's a racist really' mush. If the Guardianistas don't get fed up with reading the same predictable tripe, then no reason for people or a more balanced view to get fed up reading my opinions.

Quote:

---

Try reading the actual paper

---

You amuse me greatly. I have read it from time to time, and as I said, its snide, Lefty tripe. I'd read the Daily Mail in a heartbeat over the Guardian.

Right. Well, I've had enough of the 1 dimensional stereotyping. If you want to debate the story, you are free to do so; the next post belittling the readership of any publication gets a slap. OK?

If you have an issue with "PC lefty gits" I would make an attempt to construct some sort of credible, rational argument. This story would be an ideal opportunity to do so. If you cant be bothered making that effort then I suggest you simply dont hit the reply button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel_owen_uk

Probably fair to say that all pc lefty gits read the guardian but not to say that all guardian readers are pc lefty gits.

---

The majority of the readership of the Guardian is made up of snide, Middle-class, Leftwingers, as no-one despises their own culture, customs and history more than these people, so what better paper to read?

I pity them to be honest - to have such a snide, self-loathing view of everything, and to be ashamed of the very things they should be proud of.

Can only hope they implode in a flaming ball of positive descrimination and false Islamaphobia claims, or whatver buzzword they are throwing around at the moment.

EDIT - DaBeenster made his post as I was making mine, its not an attempt to step on his toes. Appologies for that mate. Still, I believe it as firmly as the average Lefty believes that all Daily Mail readers are bitter racists.

Just the way it is.

I think it illustrates how empty certain people's arguments are that they have to resort to emotive stereotying and groupings. It's utterly pathetic in this case and thread in particular because the attribution of this furore over the DVD to the Guardian is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as I pointed out in my post. The actual comment from a Guardian writer was exactly the stance that pretty much everyone on this thread had, Vaul included.

No, I don't believe that ALL Daily Mail readers are bitter racists... Just as I don't believe that ALL Sun readers are homophobic chauvinists, or ALL Mirror readers are intellctual wannabes or ALL Times readers have chauffers and a bloke called Jeeves wiping their bums for them...

However... It's fair to say that the power of the written word is such that it places a huge responsibility on those who write for the papers, one they probably don't want OR ever thought they'd get. They have the power to sway public opinion in a heartbeat, and whatever they print really only has to hold water for the day, as tomorrow they can start anew.

You'll find that in GENERAL terms, certain mindsets of people will tend to buy a certain specific paper, because what they read in it appeals to them. Therefore, by reading the paper they buy, you get an insight into what is important to that person. A Daily Star reader WANTS to see Jodie Marsh in bugger all clothes...a Financial Times reader finds the stock market inifinitely more important...

FInd what is important to the paper and you'll find what is important to the reader... but ONLY in general terms on both counts.... Newspapers regularly contradict themselves, even in the very same issue... and they're ALL guilty of it.

The Sun ran a front page with headlines screaming about how child molestation is rife while at the same time running a column down the side showing Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger, and commenting on how good looking the then 14 year old actress was.

Or the Daily Mail columnist who fully supported Kilroy-Silk over his arab comments... while four pages on another columnist ripped Kilroy to shreds over the self same issue...

But now we're way off topic...

I reckon Barnes should be in the list cos he's black AND cos he can rap. Actually, no... Barnes should be taken out and shot for that rap.

In fact, lets go all Tony on this. The whole idea of a list of the best players is an abomination. Imagine the feelings of all the players NOT picked. How would that poor ginger headed Scholes be feeling? Or Terry Butcher, bravely playing on despite poruing claret over anyone who went near him... Gazza, nuff said... Best, Campbell, Banks, Hurst, Hoddle, Woddle, Ike, Hughes, Rush, Wright, Ardilles, Greaves... the list goes on and on. A footballers career is short enough, lets not make their twilight years worse by ignoring their shining moments too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zathras

I think it illustrates how empty certain people's arguments are that they have to resort to emotive stereotying and groupings. It's utterly pathetic in this case and thread in particular because the attribution of this furore over the DVD to the Guardian is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as I pointed out in my post. The actual comment from a Guardian writer was exactly the stance that pretty much everyone on this thread had, Vaul included.

---

A broken clock is right twice a day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

How would that poor ginger headed Scholes be feeling? Or Terry Butcher, bravely playing on despite poruing claret over anyone who went near him... Gazza, nuff said... Best, Campbell, Banks, Hurst, Hoddle, Woddle, Ike, Hughes, Rush, Wright, Ardilles, Greaves... the list goes on and on. A footballers career is short enough, lets not make their twilight years worse by ignoring their shining moments too!

---

Well, the players on the list who are not English will just have to put up with it. :D

Of course, you are right - the average Sun reader is a different animal to the average Guardian reader, and the sort of person who reads the Daily Star is not the same sort of person who reads the Financial Times.

End of the day, its Right vs Left, Middle class vs Working class, common sense and the right to speak your mind Vs PC madness.

Not something you give in to without a fight.

Not so sure its a class thing there though...

Our likes and dislikes tend, on the whole, to transcend class divisions...

Me, upper class snob... I hate Marmite just as much as the working class oik... I'm not necessarily going to go over and discuss my dislike with him, but if a war broke out over it, I'd be on the same side as him.

That's the thing with the Yanks you see and the current trend of it being 'in' the knock them - end of the day, if a war broke out, you can bet your arse that we'd be fighting on the same side. World War II, when we stood alone against the Nazis, it was the Yanks who were fighting with us when it all kicked off.

We are allies, and no matter how the much is gets up the nose of the anti-War, anti-American mob, if the chips were down, we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder with them.

As for the class thing - oh but it is. :D I doubt the Guardian has many working class readers, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the readers they do have look down on anyone reading the Sun as oiks.

Your rant against the Guardian is random to be honest Vaul. You should read the article Zathras linked to if you haven't already. I think you'll struggle to find anything to complain about.

Rich :¬)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

Your rant against the Guardian is random to be honest Vaul. You should read the article Zathras linked to if you haven't already. I think you'll struggle to find anything to complain about.

Rich :¬)

---

Yeah, just did, and I have to say John Rawling seems a cut above the likes of the average Guardian reporter. Was a good piece.

As I said, John Barnes himself is quoted as saying its PC gone mad, and I can assure you that the black players who might get in, Barnes, Ince, Viv Anderson are now hoping that they do not... no-one wants to be remembered as the token black player included to keep the PC crowd happy.

Oh, and why wasn't Peter Crouch included? Its a disgrace! :heckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaul

That's the thing with the Yanks you see and the current trend of it being 'in' the knock them - end of the day, if a war broke out, you can bet your arse that we'd be fighting on the same side. World War II, when we stood alone against the Nazis, it was the Yanks who were fighting with us when it all kicked off.

We are allies, and no matter how the much is gets up the nose of the anti-War, anti-American mob, if the chips were down, we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder with them.

---

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Because "we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder with them" means that people cant complain about what is happening in Afghanistan/Iraq? I realise this is totally off topic, but really, what on earth is your point?

What I'm interested to know is where this whole hue and cry originated from. Despite Vaul's contentions, the blame clearly cannot be laid at the door of the Guardian, so who was it who originally cried foul about the DVD?

I find this whole 'PC gone mad' thing a big annoyance to be honest. Whenever I read a story about some supposed example of it, I always wonder who noticed, and then who blew it up into a big story. TBH I'm becoming convinced that somebody with a hidden agenda goes around looking for things to complain about (like this DVD), and then makes a fuss. Then the tabloids wade in and make out like there's some great left-wing conspiracy to stifle freedom of speech and forcibly impose homogeneity on us all.

Before Christmas the Sun managed to fill up the front page and a double page spread with a 'Save our Christmas' campaign which was, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly spurious. A few probably apochriphal examples of 'PC gone mad', and a few quotes from Michael Howard (who lets face it would say anything to get some positive press from the Sun), and thousands if not millions of Sun readers are left with the entirely incorrect impression that Christmas might be taken away from them. The problem with this is that it's pernicious and one sided- 'PC gone mad' has become a stick with which to beat all manner of progressive and reasonable ideas and initiatives. When angry Christians were protesting about the Jerry Springer opera outside the BBC in a clear attempt at getting it taken off air (and thus at censorship), were the Sun and the Mail bleating about PC gone mad then? I don't think they were.

Rich :¬)