[Politics] Rhian Brewster

Buzzer · Dec 30, 2017

warmleyseagull said:
Problem is that it is not the racists who are antagonised; it is the rest whose sympathies thereby tend towards the racists. Put it like this: if you are a racist, and an incident occurs where your home country is humiliated by a country over a racist incident with whom you and your fellow countrymen have little affinity, are you not delighted? Even better if the facts cant be proved.

There are ways of supporting our players that use the proper channels. Agree that FIFA is useless, but it is the only choice. Understand your sentiment entirely, but regrettably the real politik determines that a boycott would win support here but doubtless make sweet FA difference where it needs to.

FIFA have shown, by disbanding their anti-racism campaign that they are useless so it's up to individual FAs to make a stand. I am absolutely positive that if England made a stand like this then other big footballing countries that have significant numbers of ethnic minority players - France, Belgium, Holland, Italy will take a similar stand.

This is bigger than football, if an English player representing our country is continually getting abused then we all need to stand by him. Why should he be the one who has to make a stand by himself? I think that pressure would become unbearable on FIFA and EUFA so that they wouldn't be able to ignore it.

Wardy's twin · Dec 30, 2017

That sounds pretty arrogant. Before you say people should not be praised for not being racist, you should perhaps consider the journey that older generations have trod on the road to becoming not racist. A generation that spent it's early years learning about natives who lived in the jungle and sometimes were cannibals, who were then later taught in schools not to call people black but to use the term 'coloured people', to get to college at a time when the Black Power people were shouting, 'Don't you go calling me coloured, I'm black!' - then into a work place where those staunchest of Labour supporters, the trade unions, often made it their business to let management know in no uncertain terms that if any black man ever appeared on the production line, an all-out strike would instantly ensue. Confused? Yes, we were probably entitled to be!
Same as homosexuality. Many of us were brought up when being homosexual wasn't just a bit queer, it was downright illegal!
Maybe some of the younger moralists around should stop a while and give a little bit of credit to those of us in the older generations who have had to completely change views that were commonplace and normal when we were younger. Happy to be anti-racist and anti-homophobic - I personally never hated different races or homosexuals myself, but for some it has been a hell of a journey!

This post nails it for me. The transition in the last 40 years has been absolutely amazing and that could only be achieved by people working on changing their own and others views so that abuse (racial, sexism and Homophopia) are tolerated by the minority now.

knocky1 · Dec 30, 2017

GT49er said:
That sounds pretty arrogant. Before you say people should not be praised for not being racist, you should perhaps consider the journey that older generations have trod on the road to becoming not racist. A generation that spent it's early years learning about natives who lived in the jungle and sometimes were cannibals, who were then later taught in schools not to call people black but to use the term 'coloured people', to get to college at a time when the Black Power people were shouting, 'Don't you go calling me coloured, I'm black!' - then into a work place where those staunchest of Labour supporters, the trade unions, often made it their business to let management know in no uncertain terms that if any black man ever appeared on the production line, an all-out strike would instantly ensue. Confused? Yes, we were probably entitled to be!
Same as homosexuality. Many of us were brought up when being homosexual wasn't just a bit queer, it was downright illegal!
Maybe some of the younger moralists around should stop a while and give a little bit of credit to those of us in the older generations who have had to completely change views that were commonplace and normal when we were younger. Happy to be anti-racist and anti-homophobic - I personally never hated different races or homosexuals myself, but for some it has been a hell of a journey!

Brilliant post.

warmleyseagull · Dec 30, 2017

Buzzer said:
FIFA have shown, by disbanding their anti-racism campaign that they are useless so it's up to individual FAs to make a stand. I am absolutely positive that if England made a stand like this then other big footballing countries that have significant numbers of ethnic minority players - France, Belgium, Holland, Italy will take a similar stand.

This is bigger than football, if an English player representing our country is continually getting abused then we all need to stand by him. Why should he be the one who has to make a stand by himself? I think that pressure would become unbearable on FIFA and EUFA so that they wouldn't be able to ignore it.

We dont disagree - continual abuse that is not acted upon would have in the extreme to be unilaterally acted on; and chances are that several countries would be affected so a concerted effort could be effective. My case is that a lone example acted on without concrete proof by one country would not, and would risk being counter-productive. All I am warning against is not understanding that societies that see few black people (I have seen one in five extensive visits to eastern Europe) have a different perspective. We see that in the views that Hungary and Slovakia take regarding Syrian refugees that Germany unilaterally dictates they should take. It might not seem tasteful but it is the reality.

Buzzer · Dec 30, 2017

warmleyseagull said:
We dont disagree - continual abuse that is not acted upon would have in the extreme to be unilaterally acted on; and chances are that several countries would be affected so a concerted effort could be effective. My case is that a lone example acted on without concrete proof by one country would not, and would risk being counter-productive. All I am warning against is not understanding that societies that see few black people (I have seen one in five extensive visits to eastern Europe) have a different perspective. We see that in the views that Hungary and Slovakia take regarding Syrian refugees that Germany unilaterally dictates they should take. It might not seem tasteful but it is the reality.

I think that tip-toeing around East European sensibilities should be left to FIFA. Just speaking for myself, I'd have no problem with the FA saying that they will no longer play against countries whose fans routinely racially abuse our players. They can cite safety reasons but also that it's unacceptable to put an England player in a position where they will have to face all that.

warmleyseagull · Dec 30, 2017

Buzzer said:
I think that tip-toeing around East European sensibilities should be left to FIFA. Just speaking for myself, I'd have no problem with the FA saying that they will no longer play against countries whose fans routinely racially abuse our players. They can cite safety reasons but also that it's unacceptable to put an England player in a position where they will have to face all that.

So we are in total agreement. Routine abuse would of course have to be acted on unilaterally. That was not my point.

Buzzer · Dec 30, 2017

warmleyseagull said:
So we are in total agreement. Routine abuse would of course have to be acted on unilaterally. That was not my point.

Then sorry but I don't get your point.

warmleyseagull · Dec 30, 2017

Buzzer said:
Then sorry but I don't get your point.

Well, thought I had set it out in several posts below. In summary, be careful of appearing to be pompous Anglophile talking down to Johnny Foreigner in a self righteous way, and acknowledge that countries that have little history of immigration might be behind the curve in terms of racial tolerance. But I do agree that consistent racial abuse would require unilateral action if FIFA are their usual useless selves.

Buzzer · Dec 30, 2017

warmleyseagull said:
Well, thought I had set it out in several posts below. In summary, be careful of appearing to be pompous Anglophile talking down to Johnny Foreigner in a self righteous way, and acknowledge that countries that have little history of immigration might be behind the curve in terms of racial tolerance. But I do agree that consistent racial abuse would require unilateral action if FIFA are their usual useless selves.

Isn't the point though that this poor kid is consistently getting racist abuse? I'm going to have to agree to disagree that making a stand against it unilaterally is in some way talking down to anyone. I don't think it pompous at all to say that we won't play where this keeps occurring. The FA have a duty of care towards these lads. It's clearly affected Rhian Brewster deeply and it's not fair to put him in a position where he expects to be abused.

GT49er · Dec 30, 2017

Kazenga <3 said:
In the modern context which is where the issue in question is situated, managing not to be racist is not an achievement it is just a basic standard of decency. I don't see how that can possibly be argued against and I don't think those who were racist because it used to be acceptable but now aren't deserve any special praise.

Racist (in today's definition) many of us were. No, we didn't hate black people or homosexuals, but we happily watched ****** minstrel shows on the tele, referred to homosexuals as poofs or queers, and frequently popped round to the Paki shop for a packet of fags; the words were used completely without malice, but fair enough, I'm perfectly happy we don't use such terms now. Quite rightly. But what of the generation that started the protests against discrimination, who marched to prevent South African teams playing in Britain (and yes, we succeeded in stopping tours) which lead to the boycotting of South Africa until they abolished apartheid. Which generation was it that challenged its elders and betters and instigated, through protest and direct action, change to both the law and to social mores? Yes, that's right - the generation you seem determined not to give any credit to.

Kazenga <3 said:
As for adjusting in future, there may well be practices now that are looked back upon as barbaric, but I somehow doubt it'll be anything on the scale of racism- I can't think of any accepted views inherent in society at the moment that are essentially based on hate.

No? Funny thing is that 50 years ago most people thought exactly the same as you. All was fine with the order of things as it was, and certainly they didn't even imagine in their wildest dreams that their views on blacks, Pakis and queers were anything unacceptable, or would be challenged by the young who are now old, or that they would ultimately be completely changed. It was unthinkable - but the generation of now much derided oldies was the generation that started the revolution.

Kazenga <3 · Dec 31, 2017

GT49er said:
Racist (in today's definition) many of us were. No, we didn't hate black people or homosexuals, but we happily watched ****** minstrel shows on the tele, referred to homosexuals as poofs or queers, and frequently popped round to the Paki shop for a packet of fags; the words were used completely without malice, but fair enough, I'm perfectly happy we don't use such terms now. Quite rightly. But what of the generation that started the protests against discrimination, who marched to prevent South African teams playing in Britain (and yes, we succeeded in stopping tours) which lead to the boycotting of South Africa until they abolished apartheid. Which generation was it that challenged its elders and betters and instigated, through protest and direct action, change to both the law and to social mores? Yes, that's right - the generation you seem determined not to give any credit to.

Bit in bold is unfair- refer you back to my previous post:

Kazenga <3 said:
Of course those who helped shift such rhetoric should rightly be commended, there is no doubt about that.

Obviously I completely agree those who paved the way for progress should be celebrated. What I don't agree with is the idea that white English people now should be afforded praise for managing to sit through a football match without making monkey noises- regardless of your upbringing that is no great achievement. And even if people have been brought up in a context whereby casual racism was acceptable, managing to refrain from doing so outwardly requires no special effort or moralistic sacrifice.

GT49er said:
No? Funny thing is that 50 years ago most people thought exactly the same as you. All was fine with the order of things as it was, and certainly they didn't even imagine in their wildest dreams that their views on blacks, Pakis and queers were anything unacceptable, or would be challenged by the young who are now old, or that they would ultimately be completely changed. It was unthinkable - but the generation of now much derided oldies was the generation that started the revolution.

Suspect maybe it could be gender norms in future. However I really can't think of anything comparable in scale to racism i.e. systematic persecution based purely on who you were born as.

Simontheseagull · Dec 31, 2017

to stop racism on the pitch, it shouldn't be difficult to include a microphone on the paraphernalia a player wears to collect stats, heart rates etc (those things they wear under the shirts). Collect the evidence and then take the appropriate action. Might also improve players behaviour towards refererees.

If this happeneed at the top level to start with where the cost can be covered, good standards of behaviour should filter downwards. It's about time solutions to problems are introduced instead of just talking about problems and not taking any action.

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ · Aug 18, 2020

According to the BBC we're interested in getting him in on loan along with a bunch of other Premier League and Championship clubs

Rhian Brewster: Liverpool striker wanted by Premier League clubs

stss30 · Aug 18, 2020

Not sure about this rumour, would we play him in front of Connolly?

Undoubtedly he'd improve our squad depth and we all know Potter likes to rotate his players, but can't see Liverpool being keen to loan him out to us given he'd be a bit part player.

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ · Aug 18, 2020

stss30 said:
Not sure about this rumour, would we play him in front of Connolly?

Undoubtedly he'd improve our squad depth and we all know Potter likes to rotate his players, but can't see Liverpool being keen to loan him out to us given he'd be a bit part player.

An additional striker would get plenty of rotation, especially with the games coming thick and fast next season. We only have Connolly, Maupay and Murray as out and out strikers. We know Klopp seems to be a fan of Potter's coaching so that could be appealing to him in terms of Brewster developing with us. If he does well we can DEMAND Liverpool sell him to us!

blue-shifted · Aug 18, 2020

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ;9464825 said:
According to the BBC we're interested in getting him in on loan along with a bunch of other Premier League and Championship clubs

Rhian Brewster: Liverpool striker wanted by Premier League clubs

I don't necessarily have an issue with being a loanee club if we need to cover a position for a year, it can be a pragmatic thing to do. However I'm not sure about doing it for a young player who would be learning on the job and effectively be taking Connolly's chance. I'd rather we developed Connolly.

A purchase is another matter. Most will think we have no chance. Possibly this is true, but players are now increasingly ready to move away from big parent clubs in order to develop their careers. At present, Brewster would probably be about 8th choice forward at Anfield. In a year's time, at best he might be 5th choice. He'll know this and might be looking at the "Lamptey" option. Some young players will be happy with different loans every year. Some less so.

Swansman · Aug 18, 2020

blue-shifted said:
A purchase is another matter. Most will think we have no chance. Possibly this is true, but players are now increasingly ready to move away from big parent clubs in order to develop their careers. At present, Brewster would probably be about 8th choice forward at Anfield. In a year's time, at best he might be 5th choice. He'll know this and might be looking at the "Lamptey" option. Some young players will be happy with different loans every year. Some less so.

No chance this summer. But a loan deal would possibly make Brighton his preferred choice if he only does a "decent" season and Liverpool decide to sell him the next summer.

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ · Aug 18, 2020

blue-shifted said:
I don't necessarily have an issue with being a loanee club if we need to cover a position for a year, it can be a pragmatic thing to do. However I'm not sure about doing it for a young player who would be learning on the job and effectively be taking Connolly's chance. I'd rather we developed Connolly.

A purchase is another matter. Most will think we have no chance. Possibly this is true, but players are now increasingly ready to move away from big parent clubs in order to develop their careers. At present, Brewster would probably be about 8th choice forward at Anfield. In a year's time, at best he might be 5th choice. He'll know this and might be looking at the "Lamptey" option. Some young players will be happy with different loans every year. Some less so.

Yeah I agree, would much prefer a permanent signing for a striker, and I think the club would too. Doesn't seem likely we'd go for Brewster unless there was a chance of a permanent deal. He's got 3 years left on his contract.

GT49er · Aug 18, 2020

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ;9464848 said:
An additional striker would get plenty of rotation, especially with the games coming thick and fast next season. We only have Connolly, Maupay and Murray as out and out strikers. We know Klopp seems to be a fan of Potter's coaching so that could be appealing to him in terms of Brewster developing with us. If he does well we can DEMAND Liverpool sell him to us............

....and for the PRICE that WE tell THEM is the FAIR one!

blue-shifted · Aug 18, 2020

Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ;9464863 said:
Yeah I agree, would much prefer a permanent signing for a striker, and I think the club would too. Doesn't seem likely we'd go for Brewster unless there was a chance of a permanent deal. He's got 3 years left on his contract.

And the thing is, we could get him on loan, the better he does, the less likely Liverpool are to sell. Even if Liverpool do decide to sell, probably West Ham offer him an extra £30k p/w and he goes there anyway. If we have to loan someone in, I think it should be an experienced player to cover a short term gap. If not, lets let others play that game

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Rhian Brewster

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Test 805843

Eye from the sky

Hove / Παρος

Registered User

Hove / Παρος

Banned

Pro-peace

Hove / Παρος

Well-known member

Banned

Share this page