Billy Vunipola

[Puja]

Rokoduguni also failed to take a knee.
He had a far better rationale IMO

What was it, out of interest?

Puja

[Puja]

Think I've read/heard that the white saffers didn't do it because they'll only kneel for god.

I feel sorry for their poor wives/husbands.

Puja

[padprop]

The difficulty of this whole thing is the separation between the fundamental idea that black lives should of course matter as much as all lives vs the BLM political movement. Its been quite telling that Prem rugby has been very deliberate in their distancing from the BLM, referring repeatedly to how they support the words that black lives matter, and not the actual organisation, probably after feedback from players. This is understandable when a quick google of the webpage discusses destroying the nuclear family and defunding police, which despite what you might say to justify them, are radical ideas that don't belong in the mainstream neutral sporting arena.

Not kneeling man = bad is quite a reductionist argument as a result IMO. It's not as cut and dry as alot of people like to make out and really destroys dialogue when judgements are made without thinking of possible reasons as to why they could be the case, whether it be religion, personal belief that its too political, family in the police etc etc.

Of course Billy's excuse is laughable and religion offers some of the greatest contradictions, but we've got to be careful of blanketing players that don't fit the status quo.

[Oakboy]

Well said. I think the best polcy for rugby and sport in general is to quietly drop 'taking the knee'. That in no way diminishes support for the principle that black lives matter nor does it indicate any reduction of fighting against racism. Aligning with the political body BLM may harm the cause in the long run by forcing individuals to make decisions that are bound to lead to unhelpful debate.

[TheNomad]

Ironic that 'oh Jesus' came to mind when I read this. What a plank

[Raggs]

Well said. I think the best polcy for rugby and sport in general is to quietly drop 'taking the knee'. That in no way diminishes support for the principle that black lives matter nor does it indicate any reduction of fighting against racism. Aligning with the political body BLM may harm the cause in the long run by forcing individuals to make decisions that are bound to lead to unhelpful debate.

Who's aligning with the political body BLM? Every club seems to have made it extremely clear that they haven't done so.

[Stom]

Guys, it’s very important to understand BLM for what it is. It’s American to start and that means the phrase defund the police does not mean what you think it means most likely.

When it was explained to me, I completely agreed. Basically, if an organization is so corrupt and power hungry, you can’t simply enact changes, you need to start again.

There American police is nothing like the British police and sporting defunding of the British police should not come into it, but in many us states, it makes a lot of sense.

As for their talk of dismantling the nuclear family, remember again that the American version of this is a far more extreme version of the British one, a system that is already pretty broken and which many of us younger people already reject in favor of different structures. Structures similar to what BLM are preaching.

So no, I don’t get the problem with BLM at all, apart from the fact they want change and the right wing press does not.

Is there anything else negative about BLM other than defunding the police or disrupting ( not dismantling) the nuclear family?

As I sure as hell cant see it and I had problems with it years ago when there were some pretty intolerable people in positions of power.

Guess what? They kicked them out.

[Stom]

Rokoduguni also failed to take a knee.
He had a far better rationale IMO

What was it, out of interest?

Puja

I’d also be interested in this.

[twitchy]

The idea that god would be against blm is pretty amusing.

My favourite dumb thing related to this was that dominic raab thought "taking a knee" was from game of thrones.

[Oakboy]

Well said. I think the best polcy for rugby and sport in general is to quietly drop 'taking the knee'. That in no way diminishes support for the principle that black lives matter nor does it indicate any reduction of fighting against racism. Aligning with the political body BLM may harm the cause in the long run by forcing individuals to make decisions that are bound to lead to unhelpful debate.

Who's aligning with the political body BLM? Every club seems to have made it extremely clear that they haven't done so.

Ah, but that is the difficulty. Originally, in football, for, say, the first 3 or 4 games, everyone taking the knee looked unanimous, structured and non-contentious. The gesture had meaning. Once the BLM as a political unit debate fired up any club announcing that it was not aligning was on the edge of politics no matter what was said. Allowing players to make their own choice just poured fuel on the fire. I just think the debate has drifted off subject and the gesture of taking the knee no longer has the original meaning. Basically now, it is more trouble than it is worth, IMO. If I was a player I would not take the knee for that reason and I would refuse to debate my decision. Once that stage is reached, I think that quietly dropping the action is the best policy.

[twitchy]

The footballer james mclean refuses to wear the poppy and constantly gets abused for it.


Latics' official website published a letter from McClean addressed to Wigan chairman Dave Whelan before kick-off on Friday night in which the winger, who was named among the substitutes, clarified his stance.

In it he said that he has "complete respect" for those who fought and died in both world wars.

He said: "But the poppy is used to remember victims of other conflicts since 1945 and this is where the problem starts for me.

"For people from the North of Ireland such as myself, and specifically those in Derry, scene of the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre, the poppy has come to mean something very different. Please understand, Mr Whelan, that when you come from Creggan like myself or the Bogside, Brandywell or the majority of places in Derry, every person still lives in the shadow of one of the darkest days in Ireland's history - even if, like me, you were born nearly 20 years after the event.

"It is just a part of who we are, ingrained into us from birth.

"For me to wear a poppy would be as much a gesture of disrespect for the innocent people who lost their lives in the Troubles - and Bloody Sunday especially - as I have in the past been accused of disrespecting the victims of WWI and WWII. It would be seen as an act of disrespect to those people; to my people."

He also said he was "not a war monger, or anti-British, or a terrorist or any of the accusations levelled at me in the past".

[Digby]

Guys, it’s very important to understand BLM for what it is. It’s American to start and that means the phrase defund the police does not mean what you think it means most likely.

When it was explained to me, I completely agreed. Basically, if an organization is so corrupt and power hungry, you can’t simply enact changes, you need to start again.

There American police is nothing like the British police and sporting defunding of the British police should not come into it, but in many us states, it makes a lot of sense.

As for their talk of dismantling the nuclear family, remember again that the American version of this is a far more extreme version of the British one, a system that is already pretty broken and which many of us younger people already reject in favor of different structures. Structures similar to what BLM are preaching.

So no, I don’t get the problem with BLM at all, apart from the fact they want change and the right wing press does not.

Is there anything else negative about BLM other than defunding the police or disrupting ( not dismantling) the nuclear family?

As I sure as hell cant see it and I had problems with it years ago when there were some pretty intolerable people in positions of power.

Guess what? They kicked them out.

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

[twitchy]

The police in the UK have already been defunded by the dangerous communist militant organisation called the "conservatives".

[Digby]

The footballer james mclean refuses to wear the poppy and constantly gets abused for it.


Latics' official website published a letter from McClean addressed to Wigan chairman Dave Whelan before kick-off on Friday night in which the winger, who was named among the substitutes, clarified his stance.

In it he said that he has "complete respect" for those who fought and died in both world wars.

He said: "But the poppy is used to remember victims of other conflicts since 1945 and this is where the problem starts for me.

"For people from the North of Ireland such as myself, and specifically those in Derry, scene of the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre, the poppy has come to mean something very different. Please understand, Mr Whelan, that when you come from Creggan like myself or the Bogside, Brandywell or the majority of places in Derry, every person still lives in the shadow of one of the darkest days in Ireland's history - even if, like me, you were born nearly 20 years after the event.

"It is just a part of who we are, ingrained into us from birth.

"For me to wear a poppy would be as much a gesture of disrespect for the innocent people who lost their lives in the Troubles - and Bloody Sunday especially - as I have in the past been accused of disrespecting the victims of WWI and WWII. It would be seen as an act of disrespect to those people; to my people."

He also said he was "not a war monger, or anti-British, or a terrorist or any of the accusations levelled at me in the past".

I've met the lad when he was at Albion, and that's a weirdly generous take on his views. He does come across as being a massive wanker, wherein despite his instinctual revulsion for the English (other than those he meets oddly turning out not too bad) he's here because it's the most money he can get in his career. So he'll take the money from the fans and judge them as arseholes but that's okay because it works to his advantage.

Jon Snow doesn't wear a poppy in his public role, and he manages not to come across as a prat because of it. McClean does come across as a prat, but I suspect because he is. That said much of the abuse McClean gets is as informed as McClean's take on the poppy an' on the English

[Stom]

Guys, it’s very important to understand BLM for what it is. It’s American to start and that means the phrase defund the police does not mean what you think it means most likely.

When it was explained to me, I completely agreed. Basically, if an organization is so corrupt and power hungry, you can’t simply enact changes, you need to start again.

There American police is nothing like the British police and sporting defunding of the British police should not come into it, but in many us states, it makes a lot of sense.

As for their talk of dismantling the nuclear family, remember again that the American version of this is a far more extreme version of the British one, a system that is already pretty broken and which many of us younger people already reject in favor of different structures. Structures similar to what BLM are preaching.

So no, I don’t get the problem with BLM at all, apart from the fact they want change and the right wing press does not.

Is there anything else negative about BLM other than defunding the police or disrupting ( not dismantling) the nuclear family?

As I sure as hell cant see it and I had problems with it years ago when there were some pretty intolerable people in positions of power.

Guess what? They kicked them out.

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

Yes sorry, wasn’t clear enough on that.

And I agree, as they become international, they need to adapt some of their language.

However, their website does have a section explaining what defund the police means and why they want it. So if anyone does any research, they can understand it.

And oakboy, I severely disagree. The change in meaning is thanks to a right wing press wanting to silence a protest that might shine some uncomfortable light on their own bigotry, racism, sexism and corruption.

It should be ignored but football is too beholden to sponsors to do it. It’s why F1 has no agreement, because they need disgusting corporations like Gasprom or Philip Morris and so on, so they’d be happier if no one took a knee.

We should be severely reprimanding these saffas, billy, and anyone else by telling them in no uncertain terms that taking the knee is support for a movement designed to create equal rights for all people and if they can’t get behind that, they have no place in our sport.

[twitchy]

I've met the lad when he was at Albion, and that's a weirdly generous take on his views. He does come across as being a massive wanker, wherein despite his instinctual revulsion for the English (other than those he meets oddly turning out not too bad) he's here because it's the most money he can get in his career. So he'll take the money from the fans and judge them as arseholes but that's okay because it works to his advantage.

That is certainly another take on his views. You got all of that from your meeting? It must have been quite a free wheeling conversation you had.

[Digby]

I've met the lad when he was at Albion, and that's a weirdly generous take on his views. He does come across as being a massive wanker, wherein despite his instinctual revulsion for the English (other than those he meets oddly turning out not too bad) he's here because it's the most money he can get in his career. So he'll take the money from the fans and judge them as arseholes but that's okay because it works to his advantage.

That is certainly another take on his views. You got all of that from your meeting? It must have been quite a free wheeling conversation you had.

It wasn't my meeting, it was the point of the meeting

[Raggs]

The police in the UK have already been defunded by the dangerous communist militant organisation called the "conservatives".

It's also the case that a catch phrase can only be so long, and "Defund the police and reassign those funds to mental health, re-training and educational purposes to tackle the causes of crime and also have more appropriate responses for many people in distress." doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

Police shouldn't have to deal with mentally ill people having a bad time, at the very least, they shouldn't have to deal with it without having a specialist to assist. It's dangerous for them and the patient.

[Digby]

Guys, it’s very important to understand BLM for what it is. It’s American to start and that means the phrase defund the police does not mean what you think it means most likely.

When it was explained to me, I completely agreed. Basically, if an organization is so corrupt and power hungry, you can’t simply enact changes, you need to start again.

There American police is nothing like the British police and sporting defunding of the British police should not come into it, but in many us states, it makes a lot of sense.

As for their talk of dismantling the nuclear family, remember again that the American version of this is a far more extreme version of the British one, a system that is already pretty broken and which many of us younger people already reject in favor of different structures. Structures similar to what BLM are preaching.

So no, I don’t get the problem with BLM at all, apart from the fact they want change and the right wing press does not.

Is there anything else negative about BLM other than defunding the police or disrupting ( not dismantling) the nuclear family?

As I sure as hell cant see it and I had problems with it years ago when there were some pretty intolerable people in positions of power.

Guess what? They kicked them out.

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

Yes sorry, wasn’t clear enough on that.

And I agree, as they become international, they need to adapt some of their language.

However, their website does have a section explaining what defund the police means and why they want it. So if anyone does any research, they can understand it.

And oakboy, I severely disagree. The change in meaning is thanks to a right wing press wanting to silence a protest that might shine some uncomfortable light on their own bigotry, racism, sexism and corruption.

It should be ignored but football is too beholden to sponsors to do it. It’s why F1 has no agreement, because they need disgusting corporations like Gasprom or Philip Morris and so on, so they’d be happier if no one took a knee.

We should be severely reprimanding these saffas, billy, and anyone else by telling them in no uncertain terms that taking the knee is support for a movement designed to create equal rights for all people and if they can’t get behind that, they have no place in our sport.

But a lot of people aren't going to research what they mean by defund the police. Tbh most people are never going to even hear the slogan, certainly not from BLM, they just don't interact with news that much, and for those that do they'll hear the slogan and that's it. The % who hear it and go on to consider what it means is really very small, and a chunk of those will intentionally misrepresent what it means, actually that misrepresentation goes to a much wider audience than BLM get and it's much harder to try and and explain yes that's true but what it really means is than to simply call it a lie, and it's hard to call it a lie when it's true.

Part of the issue is BLM never expected to get much attention, and thus that a lot of its language is couched in marxist terms wasn't going to be a problem, but it comes with the thinking that property is theft. As BLM has expanded there's been more of a drive in the thinking property is theft when attached to a white patriarchy rather than just property is theft, but even that needs to fade as the thinking goes more mainstream. They're at something of a tipping point, do they want to be a single issue movement, do they want a wider public role, do they want to be sustained into the future? I'm not sure they know beyond there's a range of views in their leadership and the views of BLM aren't exactly shared by those marching so it's a big old guess to wonder how it shakes out

[padprop]

Guys, it’s very important to understand BLM for what it is. It’s American to start and that means the phrase defund the police does not mean what you think it means most likely.

When it was explained to me, I completely agreed. Basically, if an organization is so corrupt and power hungry, you can’t simply enact changes, you need to start again.

There American police is nothing like the British police and sporting defunding of the British police should not come into it, but in many us states, it makes a lot of sense.

As for their talk of dismantling the nuclear family, remember again that the American version of this is a far more extreme version of the British one, a system that is already pretty broken and which many of us younger people already reject in favor of different structures. Structures similar to what BLM are preaching.

So no, I don’t get the problem with BLM at all, apart from the fact they want change and the right wing press does not.

Is there anything else negative about BLM other than defunding the police or disrupting ( not dismantling) the nuclear family?

As I sure as hell cant see it and I had problems with it years ago when there were some pretty intolerable people in positions of power.

Guess what? They kicked them out.

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

Yes sorry, wasn’t clear enough on that.

And I agree, as they become international, they need to adapt some of their language.

However, their website does have a section explaining what defund the police means and why they want it. So if anyone does any research, they can understand it.

And oakboy, I severely disagree. The change in meaning is thanks to a right wing press wanting to silence a protest that might shine some uncomfortable light on their own bigotry, racism, sexism and corruption.

It should be ignored but football is too beholden to sponsors to do it. It’s why F1 has no agreement, because they need disgusting corporations like Gasprom or Philip Morris and so on, so they’d be happier if no one took a knee.

We should be severely reprimanding these saffas, billy, and anyone else by telling them in no uncertain terms that taking the knee is support for a movement designed to create equal rights for all people and if they can’t get behind that, they have no place in our sport.

Do you not see the irony in trying to support a movement that advocates equality, but severely reprimands people that may have a different set of ideas or values as to what the movement represents? Stephon Tuitt in the NFL and Jonathan Isaac in the NBA refused to kneel in the US, are you suggesting they don't support the idea that all lives are equal? People can come to their own conclusions, there's no right or wrong answers (Excluding the people on polar extremes).

[Stom]

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

Yes sorry, wasn’t clear enough on that.

And I agree, as they become international, they need to adapt some of their language.

However, their website does have a section explaining what defund the police means and why they want it. So if anyone does any research, they can understand it.

And oakboy, I severely disagree. The change in meaning is thanks to a right wing press wanting to silence a protest that might shine some uncomfortable light on their own bigotry, racism, sexism and corruption.

It should be ignored but football is too beholden to sponsors to do it. It’s why F1 has no agreement, because they need disgusting corporations like Gasprom or Philip Morris and so on, so they’d be happier if no one took a knee.

We should be severely reprimanding these saffas, billy, and anyone else by telling them in no uncertain terms that taking the knee is support for a movement designed to create equal rights for all people and if they can’t get behind that, they have no place in our sport.

Do you not see the irony in trying to support a movement that advocates equality, but severely reprimands people that may have a different set of ideas or values as to what the movement represents? Stephon Tuitt in the NFL and Jonathan Isaac in the NBA refused to kneel in the US, are you suggesting they don't support the idea that all lives are equal? People can come to their own conclusions, there's no right or wrong answers (Excluding the people on polar extremes).

What set of values are not universal? I can’t see any...

It’s why I’m interested in why Roko didn’t take the knee.

I can’t see a single reason for not supporting this other than not understanding it or actual racism. Do you need to be very firm in your education and saying it’s not acceptable because this is not an exclusion, it is an inclusion.

[Digby]

If someone only wanted to say I don't want to join in cult like behaviour where everyone responds in the same way that seems a perfectly reasonable reason not to take a knee. And it's nothing to get upset about either. Or people might have their own causes they support and conclude this is a perfectly reasonable cause, I just don't want to support it specifically because my focus is on my other causes, that too is fine.

Equality is on a wonky footing if it wants to insist we must all learn to think for ourselves in the same way

[Mikey Brown]

Can we please just get back to whether Eddie should play BV at prop?

[Oakboy]

Can we please just get back to whether Eddie should play BV at prop?

So he gets even more injuries, you mean?

[morepork]

And to develop some of that I don't think they do talk about dismantling the nuclear family either, though I think they could spare themselves some needless conversations if they changed the phrase defund the police. They have spoken about disrupting the nuclear family, but in the sense of there being wider support structures than closed off individual families or more of a community if you will, and even then only community to the degree a given family is comfortable with it, they also have some spiel on dismantling patriarchy.

I've never heard them talk about dismantling family, though maybe on some of their literature it says dismantle rather than disrupt, it's certainly not what they tend to talk about

Yes sorry, wasn’t clear enough on that.

And I agree, as they become international, they need to adapt some of their language.

However, their website does have a section explaining what defund the police means and why they want it. So if anyone does any research, they can understand it.

And oakboy, I severely disagree. The change in meaning is thanks to a right wing press wanting to silence a protest that might shine some uncomfortable light on their own bigotry, racism, sexism and corruption.

It should be ignored but football is too beholden to sponsors to do it. It’s why F1 has no agreement, because they need disgusting corporations like Gasprom or Philip Morris and so on, so they’d be happier if no one took a knee.

We should be severely reprimanding these saffas, billy, and anyone else by telling them in no uncertain terms that taking the knee is support for a movement designed to create equal rights for all people and if they can’t get behind that, they have no place in our sport.

You have the wrong end of the stick there brother.

Do you not see the irony in trying to support a movement that advocates equality, but severely reprimands people that may have a different set of ideas or values as to what the movement represents? Stephon Tuitt in the NFL and Jonathan Isaac in the NBA refused to kneel in the US, are you suggesting they don't support the idea that all lives are equal? People can come to their own conclusions, there's no right or wrong answers (Excluding the people on polar extremes).