Everton instate ban on reporters from The Sun

Saturday 15 April 2017  183 Comments  [Jump to last]

Everton have responded to Kelvin MacKenzie's disgusting article in The Sun on Thursday by banning the newspaper's journalists from club premises.

MacKenzie drew anger and disbelief from Evertonians and the football community at large for a piece published in the “red top” in which he derided Ross Barkley and compared him to an ape while also disparaging the people of the city of Liverpool.

News UK, the organisation which publishes the paper, suspended MacKenzie in response and Everton have now answered calls to follow Liverpool FC in banning any of their reporters from Goodison Park and Finch Farm.

"Yesterday Everton Football Club informed the Sun newspaper it was banned from Goodison Park, the USM Finch Farm training ground and all areas of the Club's operation,” a club statement read.

“Whilst we will not dignify any journalist with a response to appalling and indefensible allegations, the newspaper has to know that any attack on this City, either against a much respected community or individual, is not acceptable."

 

Reader Comments (183)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Dermot Byrne
1 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:05:40
Now that is the very best response. No ban on what individuals do. Just one company telling another to sod off.

Well done. Great dignity.

William Cartwright
2 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:16:18
About time too. I simply could not believe what on earth was going through MacKenzie's mind to initiate such an abusive, personal attack on a professional sportsman, especially on such a sensitive date.

What on earth was his motivation for writing such shit, and what was the editorial team's role in this grubby affair?

Eric Myles
3 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:23:08
I was one of the 25% that voted no to banning their reporters. Why?

Because after Hillsbourough the City as a whole, blue and red, shunned the rag and effectively banned its presence in our city, but LFC, aware of public disgust, did nothing.

So after how many years did they decide to take action? And for us to do the same at that time would have seemed an equally hollow gesture.

But now there is cause to show that the editorial bias has not changed with regard to our city, and I fully support the ban of their rag from our premises and applaud the dignified manner in which it was done.

Richard Lyons
4 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:23:31
Makes me proud. Well done Everton!
Dermot Byrne
5 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:27:34
Now let's move on and leave The Sun behind...
Dan Davies
6 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:27:58
Well done to those in charge at the club, a good statement that.
Stan Schofield
7 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:32:39
I hope and trust that this is merely the first stage in banning the entire Murdoch empire, which would mean not renewing any contracts with Sky.

Such a wider ban would focus on the root cause of what The Sun does, and would make a far greater moral statement than the current ban.

Paul Burns
8 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:37:06
Kelvin MacKenzie is a sleazebag of the highest order, a sweaty bully hiding behind his grim mouthpiece, The Sun. He thinks the law doesn't apply to him and he's safe in his ivory tower.

About time king rat himself was dragged out of his hole to face the full force of the law.

Sean Patton
9 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:40:03
I might be putting my head above the parapet here but I don't agree with the ban. It is a dangerous precedent to ban someone or an organisation that you don't agree with or who has views that you don't like.

Surely nobody takes Mackenzie seriously –he is a gormless opinionated idiot like Clarkson and Hopkins; the three of them are peas in a prejudiced pod.

Everton as a club should do their own thing and not be influenced by the mayor or our neighbours because the timing of this looks like we have pandered to them.

Stan Schofield
10 Posted 15/04/2017 at 18:52:11
Sean, the particular reporter is just a rotten cog in a large and very rotten machine we know as the Murdoch empire. More important than him writing the piece is the fact that it was published, and more important than that is the fact that the culture of the Murdoch empire encourages and profits from such publishing.

I also don't agree with banning The Sun if that is all that takes place, but agree with banning The Sun if the entire Murdoch organisation is boycotted.

If folks really mean anything by supporting a ban, they will refuse to renew their Sky subscriptions, not use pubs that use Sky TV, not buy or read anything published by the Murdoch empire, etc.

Colin Glassar
11 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:01:58
Sean Custiss, I believe, is the Chief Sports Editor of The Sun. He would've seen, and approved, this piece of libellous crap.

Now for those of you who don't know wtf Sean Custiss is, he's a fat, belligerent Geordie bastard who thinks anything goes (his words) as far as his "paper" goes. He never backs down, or apologises so I imagine the "apology" came from someone further up the food chain.

I hope his fat brother had already left Newcastle for Goodison when he found out he was banned.

Dermot Byrne
12 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:04:02
Nah Sean. The company, EFC, made a decision that was dignified, supportive of player and City, and one that I think is well considered. It was above local football rivalry and politics and does not presume to tell fans what they do as individuals.

I think they have done exactly what you said: 'Everton as a club should do their own thing". If they felt the timing with Hillsborough or they agree with Joe Anderson, that is fine surely.

Jay Griffiths
13 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:18:05
There's something quite sinister about the whole story. Why would a senior journalist write such provocative words? Is this wretched man deliberately making news via hostile statements?

Afterall it really is news now. The paper would never sell on Merseyside with or without his recent defamatory words. Nothing lost to them and they've made news.

Heinrich Hein comes to mind: "Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance."

Hope its the man just being a complete and utter twunt and not playing us for "news".

Also, well done EFC for making a good choice.

Jim Wilson
14 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:27:45
Well said, Stan, I couldn't agree more. It's time to get rid of your Sky boxes. Say no to anything Murdoch!
Martin Mason
15 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:40:46
The management of The Sun will be smiling. Any exposure is good for them, that is how they sell newspapers
Paul Birmingham
16 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:51:06
A great win double today, great news the rag and its entrails are banned from all EFC estates. A victory for the good people of the city and the football world.

And a good hard-earned win on the park. Enjoy the beers tonight!
Steve Jones
17 Posted 15/04/2017 at 19:55:27
Yeah thats the problem with this – they've lost nothing.

Now they just get to preface any report on Everton with "Following Liverpool FC's principled stance Everton have denied us access" because they know its an easy wind up.

The football results that they print is common knowledge on the internet the minute it happens anyway and they can put an away fan in to write up a match report easy enough. It's not going to stop them doing anything they want to do with their reporting and, as they don't sell their crap in Liverpool anyway, it's of little consequence.

What we have done is shown solidarity with our boy though. Nothing to do with the paper – we've shown Ross, and the rest of the playing staff, that we will react and react big when one of our own is victimised. That's it's own reward of course its the right thing to do. Doesn't hurt that its good PR for the way we go about things either.

As to Custis I found this description on a citeh site and thought it worth sharing: "Sean Custis, geordie bullshit merchant and stream of rancid anal seepage, works for The Sun."

I think that about sums it up.

Stan Schofield
18 Posted 15/04/2017 at 20:02:03
It's quite ironic how any of the Murdoch publications (in this case, The Sun) could deride a footballer's intelligence. Murdoch journalists are not the brightest kids on the block, hardly paragons of intellectual achievement, dealing in trivial gossip, general drivel, and obvious propaganda.

As Jim says, say No to anything to do with Murdoch.

John Audsley
19 Posted 15/04/2017 at 20:12:52
Col

Was the horrible article in the sports section or was it some sort of weekly rant from Kelvin the madman?

I agree with what you say about the Custis brothers, they are very poor and arrogant journos but "slightly thinner than the other one" Sean might not have seen it for it was in the main paper.

Let's be honest, this article had to go through editors and the paper's legal team. They saw nothing wrong when the world did. Fucking horrible people.

Andy Crooks
20 Posted 15/04/2017 at 20:47:55
Martin (#15), in my view your comment makes no sense. How on earth will this sell them them more newspapers? What reader of of another paper will think, "Fuck me, this is a good story, no more Guardian for me".

Nor will it make someone decide to buy a newspaper for the first time. The publicity that the News of the World got killed it. This will harm The Sun badly.

The idea, especially in print journalism,that there is no such thing as bad publicity is dead and buried.

Sean Patton
21 Posted 15/04/2017 at 20:48:12
Absolutely agree, Stan. You can't pick and choose; if you are banning one thing, go the whole hog and ban all the Murdoch media.

And I hope Barkley sues him and gives his settlement to a local animal charity!

Colin Glassar
22 Posted 15/04/2017 at 20:54:24
John, if it was in the main paper than, like you said, Sean probably had nothing to do with it. He's still a slimey greaseball though.
Mike Keating
23 Posted 15/04/2017 at 21:37:35
Sorry Stan but most of these journos have University degrees in English Lit or Journalism. They deliberately dumb down their delivery because they know what their market is.

So pleased the club made some sort of stand and hope The Sun goes the same way as the News of the World.

Colin Glassar
24 Posted 15/04/2017 at 21:58:40
Well the fight back for "press freedom" has already started. There's a piece by Stephen Daisley in the Scottish Daily Mail saying while the write up is reprehensible blah blah blah one must stand up for blah blah blah... Unfortunately, I don't know how to post the link.

In other words, it's a fucking mafia who can do whatever they want in the name of freedom of the press.

Patrick Murphy
25 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:09:35
As Mike states, the standard of English in The Sun is exceptionally high and is in fact as my old English teacher used to profess, is at a level to be sought after by all who seek to put pen to paper.

However, the content of their prose is suspect and often times malicious but that is not by accident as every full stop and every insinuation is considered and that is what makes it a dangerous vehicle as it tries to sway public opinion on a whole raft of subjects.

It might be crass, it may be offensive but it has always sought to put forward a particular point of view which many fair-minded people would find distasteful but it isn't amateur and it isn't careless and it knows exactly what it is doing when it takes a view on all aspects of life.

It's not alone but it certainly changed the media for ever, and not for the better, as other more lauded outlets have followed the lead of that newspaper, usually to the detriment of those struggling to earn a living or those who have fallen on hard times.

Chris Williams
26 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:11:07
The Mail has been fighting for so called Press Freedom since Leveson. Sadly nobody has nailed that griislie publication so far. At least as far as anything untoward behind the scenes. But they are damned by what they write on their pages.

Thatcher, smaller government , Brexit, and beggar your neighbour. Just mouthpieces, just like The Sun. That's why they must be resisted even in small ways just like now.

Murdoch is powerful for a reason and it is his reach and influence on ordinary people which makes a difference.

It was the Sun what done it! – Remember that?

Stan Schofield
27 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:19:55
Mike @23: Well, it depends on how much you view a degree in English Lit or journalism as an intellectual achievement.

That said, #18 is simply an aside. The most important point I'm making is in my other posts on this thread.

Brent Stephens
28 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:28:39
Stan, we've had one poster bragging about his law degree in recent days – and what did that tell us about intellect (per se)?!
Stan Schofield
29 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:32:51
Brent, yes, just seemed to confirm that some forms of bullshit have a veneer of respectability that's easy to see through on closer examination.
Mike Keating
30 Posted 15/04/2017 at 22:55:35
Stan, you're the one who raised the issue of 'intellectual achievement'. I simply made the point that the journos you have no time for are actually qualified (and probably end up somewhere 'Better' after a stint at The Sun).

I don't think they are ignorant – I think they know exactly what they're doing.

Clive Mitchell
31 Posted 16/04/2017 at 01:39:59
Once again the club have handled a situation well, but the mayor's ill-judged remarks on Friday left the club in a position it patently did not deserve to be in. I hope that, at least privately, the mayor has apologised to the club for that.
David Hallwood
32 Posted 16/04/2017 at 02:10:56
What people tend too forget is why The Sun run the Hillsborough shite, and the answer is that Kelvin Cockney-Shithouse has been anti-scouse for at least 10 years before Hillsborough.

I used to argue with mates at the time that read The Sun, and it was always the same excuses; its good for the racing, page 3, it's a laugh FFS.

It probably stems from the Derek Hatton/Toxteth riots as a challenge to Thatcher, who The Sun hero worshiped. Plus jealousy on the part of Cockney-Shithouse (who's a Millwall supporter) and the fact that the city of Liverpool was the football centre of the universe in the 70s & 80s.

Him and Littlejohn, another cockney wanker, wrote plenty of articles pre-Hillsborough slagging the city, and I'm delighted that the club has followed suit, and hope for the day when The Sun is no longer available anywhere on Merseyside.

Peter Lee
33 Posted 16/04/2017 at 04:04:09
People attack you if they fear you or the challenge you represent. (There are psychos and those the worse for indulgence in their favourite substances who'll do it for no reason of course.)

Facts are that this city has more than punched its weight in so many fields for years, particularly in showbiz and the media but also in the business field at senior levels.

It wouldn't be surprising if no-talent gobshites like MacKenzie (Liddle is another one) resented that impact and the power it accrues.

They are also of a generation of pseudo-working class "blokes" who had their younger years of following football ruined by the dominance of LFC in the main (if we're honest) but also by the Blues.

Be proud if they are having a go; it means that they know we are a class apart.

Will Mabon
34 Posted 16/04/2017 at 04:49:48
Peter – the relatively indomitable nature of the people of Liverpool in the wider sense, has never gone down well with the establishment, either. This has been reflected across much of the mainstream media for decades now, whatever their supposed political leanings.
Dan Egerton
35 Posted 16/04/2017 at 07:12:31
Agree Will 34.
Ian Jones
36 Posted 16/04/2017 at 08:26:48
I don't think this will harm the newspaper that much. I am not playing down the content and seriousness of the incident but in the overall picture it's only a news story involving a player from Everton. It will be interesting to see if Ross or the club take it further.
Stan Schofield
37 Posted 16/04/2017 at 09:18:18
Mike @30: It was actually a journalist (the one from the Sun) who derided Ross' intelligence (as have many folks on TW). I simply pointed to the irony of doing that.

You're right that there's a large element of manipulation by the media, but there's also a large element of stupidity. Too many journalists seem incapable of getting simple facts right, putting together a coherent story, being internally consistent with their reporting, and getting basic English right. That includes the so-called 'good' newspapers.

The likes of the Sun and other elements of the Murdoch organisation are basically the worst side of it. Having a 'university' certificate of qualification is not necessarily the same as having intellectual ability, and too many journalists show little of the latter.

Keith Harrison
38 Posted 16/04/2017 at 09:37:57
Patrick (#25), how on earth did you write that after I had to carry you out of my car, parallitically drunk at 8 pm last night?
Eugene Ruane
39 Posted 16/04/2017 at 10:36:01
Martin Mason # 15 - The management of The Sun will be smiling. Any exposure is good for them, that is how they sell newspapers

Even if that were true (nb: and losing an entire city from your potential market, plainly isn't how to sell newspapers) it wouldn't matter.

It's about doing the right thing (or trying to) - that simple.

And all the semantics and 'yeah but no but..' in the world can't deflect from that.

The Sun is a (proven over and over) hateful, putrid, lowest common denominator rag aimed at the hard of thinking and fucking it off was 100% the right thing to do.

Clive Mitchell # 31 - "..mayor's ill-judged remarks on Friday left the club in a position it patently did not deserve to be in. I hope that, at least privately, the mayor has apologised to the club for that."

Patently?

As a politician/Mayor, Anderson might not be perfect, but as an Evertonian, his remarks on Friday perfectly reflected the views of thousands of blues - ie: 'ban these twats today!'

So apologise for what exactly?

It's great that the club banned the Sun on Saturday, but in the opinion of many, there should have been no delay and the ban should have come immediately.

(My guess is that, if there was any apology, it would have come from the club to the mayor.)

Matt Traynor
40 Posted 16/04/2017 at 11:03:28
MacKenzie calling anyone thick is bit rich, given he left school with a single O'Level – in English Literature.

I was amused to see this from the Popbitch weekly email (which comes out on a Thursday – before this really blew up):

>> Product displacement <<
MacKenzie faces double chop

If you're one of the remaining
few who can still bear to read
Kelvin MacKenzie's column in the
Sun, you'll maybe have wondered
why he's been mentioning his
price comparison website, A
Spokesman Said, so much. Well,
it's because he desperately
needs it to take off.

Kelv is facing an expensive
divorce. Remember a couple of
years back we reported that
he was having an affair with
a secretary at the Sun, and
was all set to shack up with
her until getting cold feet
at the last minute? His wife
has finally decided to give
him the boot and is set to
take him to the cleaners.

Presumably the reason he's
working the self-promotion
angle so hard is that he knows
Rebekah Brooks is aching to bin
his £300k a year column - cutting
costs and helping to detoxify
the Sun's brand in one easy
move. He's hanging on by a
thread (thanks to support from
editor Tony Gallagher and owner
Rupert Murdoch) so is almost
literally trying to make hay
while the Sun shines.

Tony McNulty
41 Posted 16/04/2017 at 11:15:52
The really hateful (and possibly illegal) part of this for me was the "missing link" caption and photograph placed next to the article. It was apparently removed quite quickly.

I suspect Mackenzie will eventually get away with his behaviour because he will claim that he was responsible for neither the caption nor the accompanying pictures.

You may be correct, Martin, about the exposure. However if Premier Leaguee footballers of all races were now to go en masse to their clubs and insist The Sun were banned, then it might go the way of its sister paper the News of the World. Now that would be an interesting development. And I doubt the management would then be smiling.

Jamie Tulacz
42 Posted 16/04/2017 at 11:25:36
I have to admit, I wasn't aware of Ross's Nigerian ancestry. Nevertheless, having looked this up, the information is freely and easily available on the internet and I would expect that any self-respecting journalist/rag (of which MacKenzie/The Sun can't be classified) to do a little research before writing such racist trash. Ignorance in this case isn't a defence.

Added to which, the offence to the city and people of Liverpool is equal to racism in my opinion (and libellous) in discriminating against one single group of people on the grounds of where they're from.

I wouldn't even use this rag to wipe my arse and hope they get sued out of existence.

Andy Kirby
43 Posted 16/04/2017 at 11:45:56
Everyone is missing the bigger picture. Mr Big Anderson is getting behind the banning of the rag and good on him. Surely everyone knows him doing this also gets more votes when it's time to vote again.

Why didn't he go to our club talk to them about it behind closed doors. Why not put his hand in his big pockets and have flyers done to be placed on seats at the ground. That way we would've all seen them.

Going public just gets the rag in the headlines more and Big Joe. I'm all for backing anything for the 96 in our city, always will be. But I really think it's been used for all the wrong reasons. COYB

David Hallwood
44 Posted 16/04/2017 at 12:07:25
Jamie (#42) that surprises me given that it was widely reported that Nigeria were sniffing round Ross to represent them rather than England.
Chris Williams
45 Posted 16/04/2017 at 14:14:34
Colin,

I see your mate, the odious Custiss major, was on Sunday Supplement this morning. I tuned in late so I was wondering whether The Sun ban was discussed or ignored.

Peter Lee
46 Posted 16/04/2017 at 14:15:25
How about if the Kick Racism Out campaign suggested that players and managers should not give interviews to reporters from the rag?

How powerful would it be if those who made their names in football who currently associate with it pulled out?

Seamus McCrudden
47 Posted 16/04/2017 at 14:42:51
Chris, it was discussed for all of two minutes I believe. The programme had been building up to it as Custiss was in a weird mood, seemingly jovial enough, reasonably quiet with not his usual forthright opinionated performance.

At least Neil Ashton looked as though he was disgusted by it all, but Custiss blustered his way through his piece about journos getting banned all the time from football grounds trying to compare the situation to when the BBC were banned by Ferguson at OT. Pathetic really.

I cannot recall him saying MacKenzie was wrong either? maybe police enquiries could jeopardise his workmates case if he did say something. The guy from the Independent, Miguel Delaney, when asked, didn't hold back though & called it for what it was.

Chris Williams
48 Posted 16/04/2017 at 14:47:40
Thanks Seamus,

They never fail to live down to your lowest expectations do they?

Seamus McCrudden
49 Posted 16/04/2017 at 14:54:29
Seamus McCrudden
50 Posted 16/04/2017 at 15:03:10
No, Chris, but then what did we expect from a Murdoch TV show has to be the question? I'd nearly prefer this than some faux apology that deep down they couldn't give two fucks about.

The only thing that concerns me on the opposite side of that coin is that it somehow builds the antipathy towards Merseyside in other places around the country, especially in the light of the recent Brexit anti Government. vote.

This type of nonsense can appeal to the disenfranchised almost alienating Merseyside from the rest of the country. Maybe that was the game plan? By the way I'm Irish & live in Ireland but just my thoughts.

Habib Erkan Jr
51 Posted 16/04/2017 at 15:11:09
Finally, something on which all Evertonians can agree!
Chris Williams
52 Posted 16/04/2017 at 15:13:41
Seamus,

It may well play that way among some folk. It probably already does with many. I am constantly amazed by the antipathy and prejudice that Liverpool and Scousers seem to attract still. And not necessarily from recognisable knuckle-draggers.

I've long since ceased trying to understand it and try very hard not to fulfil their prejudices and not telling them to fuck themselves.

Seamus McCrudden
53 Posted 16/04/2017 at 15:25:29
That's my point exactly, Chris.

I recently (well maybe two years ago) had a conversation about Hillsborough with a chap who is very well educated & a Man Utd fan from Yorkshire. I couldn't believe the absolute shite that he was coming out with which went along the lines of, "typical crying scousers, do they want us to put the whole police force of South Yorkshire on trial for this, it's too big to sort out" etc.

I was actually stunned that this was coming out of this guys mouth. An educated moderate type but, when push came to shove, the stereotypical rubbish he was speaking was simply frightening. Hence my previous post.

Chris Williams
54 Posted 16/04/2017 at 16:01:51
Prejudice and ignorance are not necessarily the preserve of the poorly educated or underprivileged; that's also my experience, Seamus.
Martin Mason
55 Posted 16/04/2017 at 16:26:33
Chris, as part-scouser I can perhaps try to answer your question.

First, Scousers are very much a tribe apart in the UK with a cultural identity as unique as that of the Geordies, Cockneys and Brummies especially in having a unique accent. Scousers for sure have their idiosyncrasies, individually they are nothing but together and amplified they become caricatures that then can be mocked. For example, Scousers are thick, they all have permed hair and moustaches, wallow in grief, etc.

Then the worst idiosyncrasy rises up which is the laager mentality where Liverpudlians rally around the tribe and become defensive and paranoid about how they perceive they are treated.

We also need to understand that the South has a misunderstanding of Northern culture and the Metropolitan elites a sneering contempt for what cities like Liverpool represent to them.

The answer is not to be thick-skinned and to laugh it all off. But I must say that the stuff that MacKenzie wrote about Ross and Liverpudlians in general was the most disgusting I have ever seen in a mainstream paper; if it had been against a coloured culture, he would be in prison.

Brian Williams
56 Posted 16/04/2017 at 16:43:38
Coloured? Wtf?
John G Davies
57 Posted 16/04/2017 at 16:49:04
A poor choice of word, Martin.
Stan Schofield
58 Posted 16/04/2017 at 16:52:55
Regarding stereotyping, not just of scousers, but of many things, there's an awful lot of dim people out there, across all levels of 'education' (or pseudo-education in many cases). I believe it's a minority, but unfortunately a loud minority. My mother would have called them a mouthy and brassy lot. There's a lot of 'journalists' amongst them.

I'm not even sure that 'journalism' is a profession, in the way true professionals would understand the term.

Alan McGuffog
59 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:34:49
Give us Barabbas!
Brian Williams
60 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:37:00
Well it IS Easter, Alan!
John Daley
61 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:37:26
"Scousers for sure have their idiosyncrasies, individually they are nothing but together and amplified they become caricatures that then can be mocked."

On our own, we're complete non-entities and in a pack we're a comedic platoon ripe for ripping the piss out of? So, basically fucked either way?

No, wait! There is a solution: "The answer is not to be thick-skinned and to laugh it all off." In other words "just put up with it".

Martin Mason: defying prejudice the Duane Doberman way.

Still, small mercies; at least we know your middle name isn't Militant.

Martin Mason
62 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:38:22
We also need to understand that slagging Scousers lost tThe Sun no circulation in Liverpool and massive extra circulation everywhere else because they reinforced the scouse stereotype.

When I started school in Northwich, my teachers were appalled by my scouse accent which I had from my parents and eventually lost for a Northwich accent which I've cultivated through school, University and a working life with proper posh people.

Martin Mason
63 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:49:40
John@61

With all due respect you don't know me or my political persuasion. I also didn't say you should laugh it off.

Brian Williams
64 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:52:58
Anyone else ever find themselves in the situation where you can't quite decide whether somebody is being intentionally inflammatory, or they're just a bit of a dick?
John Daley
65 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:53:16
"We also need to understand that slagging Scousers lost The Sun no circulation in Liverpool and [resulted in] massive extra circulation everywhere else..."

Really? People from every corner of the country, who wouldn't buy that particular rag under normal circumstances, suddenly rushed out to pick up a copy purely because they were having a pop at the people of Liverpool? What possible evidence is there of that?

Seamus McCrudden
66 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:54:17
Maybe the 'and' should have been an 'or' Martin. I got what you meant but if you read it again you can see how John perceived it that way.
Keith Harrison
67 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:56:29
Oh Marty, one does go on, doesn't one. Haw haw.
Martin Mason
68 Posted 16/04/2017 at 17:57:20
Definitely Brian :-)
Keith Harrison
69 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:02:14
Are you trying to say scousers are only faux posh people, as opposed to proper posh people, Martin?

My mate's business is based in Northwich. I'll get him to drop you a spade off. And I mean an earth removing implement, digging yourself a bigger hole for the purpose of.

Ray Roche
70 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:02:45
"eventually lost for a Northwich accent which I've cultivated through school, University and a working life with proper posh people."

Sounding a bit JohnWilsonian there, Martin. Proper Posh People... like me, innit?

Colin Glassar
71 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:03:07
Chris, I've just got home from work so I'll watch Sunday Supplement after me tea. On second thoughts, if Custiss is on, I might watch it before. I don't want to puke up my roast lamb.

Seamus, cheers for the link.

Martin, coloured? Next you'll be calling him half-caste.

Brian Williams
72 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:08:48
Martin. I'd like to apologise for thinking you were being intentionally inflammatory. :-)
Stan Schofield
73 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:14:18
Surely Martin means blue coloured, this being TW?

Seriously, I'd love a journalist to have a go at the subgroup of Evertonians who reside on TW. He or she wouldn't last five minutes, and it'd be the height of entertainment.

Colin Glassar
74 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:21:50
I just want to know what a "coloured culture" is Stan. I'm sure Martin will explain.
John Daley
75 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:25:51
"I also didn't say you should laugh it off"

Martin,

On a second read, I see I was thrown by the way you phrased the sentiment (and the fact it led directly into: "But I must say that the stuff that MacKenzie wrote about Ross and Liverpudlians in general was the most disgusting I have ever seen in a mainstream paper") so I apologise for that one.

However, the first half of your post (@55) still doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

.

Martin Mason
76 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:30:14
Brian, I'd never be intentionally inflammatory honest but am happy to stimulate a good debate on anything of interest to Evertonians.

Ray, come on, I'm not posh. I'm a working class hero and I denounce poshness wherever it raises its ugly head. I'm stinking rich but never posh.

Keith, Scousers like us can't be posh mate. The most detestable accent in the world is a scouser trying to speak all posh like Paul McCartney.

Andy Meighan
77 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:32:21
Martin (#55)... "Coloured"!!! Whoah there, fella. Didn't realise this was an early 70s thread.

Ignorance... pure and utter ignorance.

Keith Harrison
78 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:38:56
Martin, I'm not a scouser mate. Congrats on your being stinking rich, I won't even make any crass jokes about robbing your uber posh acquaintances.

Have you considered buying all us Twebbers with a dodgy sense of smell a boatload of drink in The Winslow before a game. Unfortunately for me, I'm just stinking.

Kevin Tully
79 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:51:44
I wonder if he knows????
Paul Ferry
80 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:53:24
Martin – 'scousers like us'...

I don't really think that you are a scouser mate not least given your life-long commitment to getting rid of the accent you said you once had.

The terms in which you couch this are very poor and very demeaning. But fair play – you got rid of your verbal disability; Sue Lawley did the same... hated her Black Country twang, she did.

'Scousers like us'! Mickey Mouser mind yer car, mate, Mart, and shell-suit Keith!

Keith by the way is a jolly and generous fella with full-on Cumbrian twang who calls people "wazzocks" and has never tried to get rid of his accent as he is very proud of where he comes from – not least, its cheese.

Barry Jones
81 Posted 16/04/2017 at 18:55:16
Hmmm, this thread appears to have meandered (posh word) a bit. Going back to The Sun, Mackenzie was also the guy behind the "Gotcha!" and "Stick it up your Junta" articles during the Falklands war. He specialises in tastelessness.
Eugene Ruane
82 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:21:13
Martin Mason # 62 - 'We also need to understand that slagging Scousers lost The Sun no circulation in Liverpool and massive extra circulation everywhere else because they reinforced the scouse stereotype.'

I say this is staggering bollocks, absolutely invented nonsense, complete and utter shite, someone tapping the keys simply to hear the click-click sound.

However, if I'm wrong, why not provide some (even a tiny tiny bit of) evidence to back up what we 'need to understand.'

A graph maybe or some pre/post ban readership figures.

Earlier you 'inform' us..

"Then the worst idiosyncrasy rises up which is the laager mentality where Liverpudlians rally around the tribe and become defensive and paranoid about how they perceive they are treated."

I'm guilty of this, for instance I get very defensive and paranoid when I read "the reality is that at £60,000 a week and being both thick and single, he is an attractive catch in the Liverpool area, where the only men with similar pay packets are drug dealers and therefore not at nightclubs, as they are often guests of Her Majesty."

(I have to ask, are you really that fucking dumb?)

Dermot Byrne
83 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:25:30
Love the analysis of "posh".
Paul Swan
84 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:27:51
Andy (#43), I think you are being a bit unfair about Joe Anderson here.

My son is studying at John Moores University and some complete tosser of a lecturer insisted that they needed to review newspaper articles from that arse rag of a newspaper. Despite complaining about this and pointing out how insensitive this was in Liverpool, he would not change this.

My lad contacted Joe Anderson and he received a lot of advice and support about this, none of which was in the name of self-publicity or vote-winning.

Steve Ferns
85 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:28:52
You can be posh, Martin (#76). The accent doesn't make you from Liverpool. And watch a clip of Dixie Dean and see just how the people of Liverpool and Birkenhead spoke in the 1930s. I was always brought up to be proud of my city, and were I'm from, to speak correctly. Of course, Londoners can tell where I'm from, but most Liverpudlians can't!
Brian Williams
86 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:29:08
Kevin (#79).

Kev I find it really, really, REALLY difficult to believe he doesn't.

He must do, surely!

Brian Williams
87 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:33:22
Eugene (#82).

Would you mind if I took a stab at answering the question in your last sentence?

Brent Stephens
88 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:40:44
I was about to post this: in fairness Martin in #55 wrote the "laager" mentality not "lager". Before posting this I went back to #55 and it's (now?) "lager". I was sure he wrote "laager". My mind or gremlins?

Maybe it was a posh spelling of "laager".



[Sorry, my bad. It should of course be 'laager'. I had been drinking. Fixed now... belatedly! – The Editor]
Steve Ferns
89 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:43:30
When it comes to the London dislike of Liverpool, I think some of you don't know the full history.

In the first years of the 20th century, just before the Liver Building was built. Liverpool was arguably the richest city in the empire and ergo the world. 3 out of every 4 ships sailed in or out of here. Every major trading company had an office here and they were all making their head offices here.

Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby (him who gave ice hockey it's Stanley cup and who's descendants own the safari park and the Lord (should be earl) Derby estate), anyways Lord Stanley tabled a motion in Parliament that we should move the Capital of the UK and Empire to Liverpool. It was a heavily defeated motion but it showed Liverpool's rise and wealth. Something that London and the establishment didn't like. Also, Liverpool was only about 100 years old as a city at the time and as nuveaux riche there was a lot of animosity.

This was largely forgotten about in Liverpool's rapid decline from World War 1 to the end of World War 2 when we were left flattened and saw none of the rebuilding London got, nor did we get any real investment until the EU invested heavily in the 90s.

John G Davies
90 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:49:05
http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/laager
Colin Glassar
91 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:49:24
Just watched Sunday Supplement and boy did they skirt around the issue. Trying to be contrite, Custiss just showed what he is, a big, fat ignorant hypocrite. "Oh, we've all been banned. It happens. What can you do" etc?

Delaney (independent) had a go but the other two looked like they'd rather talk about anything else and leave fat boy to blabber on.

ps: That dick Delaney said he didn't think Lukaku should've been on the PFA shortlist.

Andy Meighan
92 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:49:37
Barry (#81), God remember them crass headlines. The all time classic being "BASTARDS" when a British ship had been sunk. What a rag!
Martin Mason
93 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:52:56
Eugene

The word was Laager not Lager.

Am I? A better question is obviously are you?

Keith, I'd love to buy you a pint before the next game I come up and see. I'm trying to come up but tickets aren't easy to get now and it's a long way to get there.

Bloody hell you Scousers are so touchy

Brent Stephens
94 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:53:40
John (#90) thanks. Didn't realise the alternative spelling for "laager". I pointed out what I thought MM had written as I thought it could be taken as another sleight by him if people thought he'd written "lager" in relation to the "tribes" in Liverpool.

Sod him, let him dig himself out of his own hole (if you get my point).

Seamus McCrudden
95 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:55:15
Colin, yeah, I heard Delaney say that Lukaku had tailed off too? Mistake obviously. But not doing it in the big games might have been on his mind (or not?).

That eejit Custiss looked like a right meek lamb from the get go, bit pasty faced & chastened while dreading the fact that he would have to give his bullshit toe-the-line speech for Sky.

Keith Harrison
96 Posted 16/04/2017 at 19:59:57
Wazzock is a Yorkshire word which originally was a term for a bulls' penis, or huge prick. Which is where I assume you come in, Paul.

Haha 😁😁

Keith Harrison
97 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:03:59
Martin, tickets are readily available on Stubhub. There is always someone who can't go at the last minute.

A long way? I drive 150 miles each way, mate. Are you having problems finding parking for the Lear Jet?

Steve Ferns
98 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:22:42
Lukaku "not doing it against the big teams" is a myth. Did you see the table they produced on either Sky or MotD? I forgot which. Lukaku had 3 against the then top 6; whereas Costa and Kane had two each and none of the other of the Premier League's top 10 goal scorers had more than 1. So, Lukaku does it do against the big sides, in the same way Costa, Kane and Ageuro do.

The statistic against Rom which is more telling is the fact that we lose a lot less points when you take his goals out of the team than the likes of Kane do. Often Rom scores the last goal(s) of the game when we're already ahead and the opponent is on the ropes; case in point: Burnley... rather than the decisive goal, which Barkley's have mostly been.

Dermot Byrne
99 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:24:58
Martin (#93): I can see your point to an extent about scousers and probably every group of fans being touchy.

However, based on the people I work with and know, my experience is most scousers would say the piece is insulting etc and then get back to living their lives.

Those of us on here represent just a section of the city. Let's not blow this out of proportion. For a lot of folk, The Sun doesn't cross their path & neither does Premier League football. Hard to believe... but true!

Seamus McCrudden
100 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:39:31
Steve, regardless of the tables on MotD, in the last nine fixtures against top clubs (just had a quick look back), Rom has scored in three of those games. Three out of nine doesn't suggest a myth to me. Scoring against everyone else is still great though.
John G Davies
101 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:51:06
Brent (#94),

No worries mate. Wasn't being a smart arse; I didn't want to leave you open to a smug reply.

Brent Stephens
102 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:52:21
Thanks, John.
Steve Ferns
103 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:52:53
The point is he scored more than Kane, Ageuro and the rest of the top ten leading Premier League scorers. Those teams are the hardest to score past. So everyone struggles against them. And this seaon, Rom less so than the rest.
Graham Mockford
104 Posted 16/04/2017 at 20:59:57
Steve 98

Rom has scored the first goal nine times.

We have only won three games all season when he didn't score. The other twelve games he failed to score we drew 6 and lost 6.

All this "his goals have only got us so many points" I see bandied around is nonsense.

When he goes, as I expect him to do, we have a massive gap to fill.

Steve Ferns
105 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:02:40
https://i4-liverpoolecho-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/i4.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article12707515.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Table-without-top-scorers.jpg

Slightly out of date, graham, it makes interesting reading.

But I'd agree with you. Regardless of what the stats show, Rom is irreplaceable. If we are to be without him next season we are going to have to be even better and the midfield will need to step up.

Dave Abrahams
106 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:09:58
Graham (104) Graham do you mean to tell me / other readers that Lukaku has failed to score in fifteen league matches, I thought he was a goal scoring machine.
Martin Mason
107 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:11:03
Brent @94,

You missed the point of my post. I was trying to explain why the rest of the UK has the attitude that it does toward Scousers and perhaps why Scousers themselves contribute to this. It was a pro-scouse post, not anti-scouse in any way.

Keith, thank you and touche. I was taking the piss btw. For me it's about 250 plus miles each way and until now it's been impossible to get there as we've been looking after a daughter who is autistic.

Seamus McCrudden
108 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:11:12
Steve, I understand the comparison that you are making but I wasnt comparing him to the other leading Premier League strikers in big games. Just making an observation that has been levelled at Rom in the past from the press & Evertonians alike.

Defining 'not doing it in big games' was recently alluded to by Carragher in that Rom, when not scoring in a game doesn't ever put in a MotM performance such as Drogba or Costa would have for example. They may not have scored in a game but were still able to influence the game massively. But then maybe that can be attributed to lack of service, playing a lone striker role, still only 23 to name but a few.

Ashley Williams shouting at him to work harder in the Man Utd game kind of springs to mind.

Colin Glassar
109 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:18:22
Martin, I'm still waiting for an explanation.
Brent Stephens
110 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:20:34
Martin (#107). No, you missed the point of my post. Read it again. If you're still not sure, I'll spell it out for you.

The clue is "in fairness Martin #55 wrote...". I was coming to your defence. Read carefully!


Graham Mockford
111 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:21:29
Dave 106

It's a better record than Kane, Aguero, Sanchez et al.

If you score in half your games a season, you are probably a 25-goal-a-season striker.

Martin Mason
112 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:23:12
Brent, you spoiled it by implying that I'd dug myself into a hole. That was my point.

Colin my love, what explanation were you waiting for. :-)

Graham Mockford
113 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:27:03
Steve

I don't understand that table. How does it work?

Colin Glassar
114 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:27:34
What did you mean by "coloured culture"? I'm sure you have a reasonable explanation.
Martin Mason
115 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:31:10
Ah yes Colin and sorry I was trying not to upset those with delicate PC tendencies. By coloured culture I mean any other culture in the UK whose people don't have "white" skin and purely Caucasian genetics such as my wife and kids.
Brent Stephens
116 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:43:07
Martin, now you're demeaning my defence of you by saying I "spoiled it".

Even when somebody comes to your defence, you're too fecking obtuse to realise it. You really are are the laughing stock on TW.

Colin Glassar
117 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:47:24
I haven't got a clue what you're on about, Martin. Are you comparing your family to a packet of M&Ms?
John G Davies
118 Posted 16/04/2017 at 21:48:21
Have we time warped to fuckin Alabama or Johannesburg in the sixties???
John Daley
119 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:01:21
"Coloured" was the PC version for the benefit of those with a "delicate" palate?

Someone who is not white hasn't had their skin 'coloured', Martin.

Steve Ferns
120 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:04:46
It's very crude, Graham. It simply takes away the goal or goals Lukaku or the other top scorer for each team and then sees if it effects the result. Whilst we are down, we're not as down as other sides who appear to rely massively on their strikers.
Graham Mockford
121 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:08:21
Steve

Still don't get it – we have more points after the goals are taken away.

Dave Abrahams
122 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:09:30
Graham (111), I wrote that mostly tongue in cheek, but Lukaku has scored thirteen of those goals in five games versus Bournemouth, Sunderland, Watford, Hull and Leicester and I know you are not claiming that Rom is better than the three strikers you named.
Graham Mockford
123 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:13:29
Dave,

He has been this season and I believe he will be better than all of them in the long run.

I appreciate it's not a universal view in these parts.

Steve Ferns
124 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:16:48
Because the other sides have their top scorer taken away too.

For example, say Chelsea 3 Everton 2. Costa hat-trick, Lukaku 1 and Barkley 1. This now becomes Chelsea 0 Everton 1. Everton win.

Dave Abrahams
125 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:20:29
Graham whether it's a universal view or not you are entitled to that opinion, can't say I agree with it or that he will be better than them in the future, time will tell.

If he does, unfortunately it will not be with Everton, and I know you will agree with that last part.

John Daley
126 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:21:18
"Lukaku does do it against the big sides, in the same way costa, Kane and ageuro do"

Steve,

I think that's more the myth if you look beyond the stats solely for this season. When it comes to total Premier League goals against the 'big 6', Aguero is way out in front and Kane is only a couple behind Lukaku having featured in a lot less games.

Graham Mockford
127 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:25:48
Steve

Got you. All a bit meaningless then. For instance we got a draw against Liverpool, beat United, beat Hull away, drew with Spurs away.

It's got as much to do with how many other teams top scorers score against us.

Brian Williams
128 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:27:12
Martin, people stopped referring to those who aren't white as "coloured" a long time ago. The reason people stopped using the term is that it is deemed offensive and racist.

You've attempted to convince us how clever you are and how much better you are because you cultivated a non-Scouse accent, not that you are a Scouser... or are you? The reason I ask is (no reply necessary for reasons which will become obvious before my post ends) that, within this post, you've considered yourself a Scouser, and stated you're not a Scouser, to suit your argument at that time.

You've failed to convince me of your intelligence despite the fact that you're "filthy rich" was it? What you've convinced me of, and not just because of your use of the term "coloured" but that in the main, but also for a myriad of other reasons, is that you are a complete and utter prick of the highest order.

You cannot justify your posts being a "windup" when you resort to certain terms. Nobody's interested how rich you are. Anyone with anything about them wouldn't dream of bragging on here about how well off they are and go on like you have.

I'm just saying what loads of others on here are thinking. You're a prick, a totally genetically Caucasian prick.

Steve Ferns
129 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:27:22
John, I Just find it patronising the way the press talk about him. He's not done it in Europe and his record is poor against the big clubs. They seem to not do a direct comparison and dismiss his almost goal a game ratio in the Europa League.

It seems to me that it's as if they are trying to either undermine him or us, particularly with regards to getting his price down. "He can't be worth £90m, he's unproven at the highest level; his record is poor against the big 6; he's not as good on the biggest stage" and all the rest of the bollocks they come out with.

Or maybe I'm just sceptical.

Graham Mockford
130 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:35:08
John (#126),

I think it would be a fair view to say he does it less against the top 6 teams but we as a team do it less against the top 6 teams.

It seems to be that he being the 'star player' gets disproportionately more stick about it.

I suspect neither Kane or Aguero live on a diet of long balls pinged at him by their centre halves in such games.

What he doesn't seem to have in his game is the ability to influence games when service is limited. It's why I think if he was playing in a dominant side he would be scoring 30+ a season. And why I suspect he wants to go.

Graham Mockford
131 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:43:01
Brian,

My nan is 82 and calls people of mixed ethnicity 'coloured'. It is not a term I would use although it is something I might have used in the 70s and 80s.

Is my nan being racist?

John G Davies
132 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:44:33
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/unions-back-protest-against-liverpool-12902303

If your free on June 3rd, Martin.

Colin Glassar
133 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:50:44
Brian, can I second that? Graham, my mum also used the word "coloured" her entire life and no, she wasn't a racist, completely the opposite in fact. But, as you say, it was a generational thing born out of ignorance.

Now I'm sure Martin is not an octogenarian so I don't know why he uses that term which is almost like something out of 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I think he's just trying to be a provocateur on here.

Dan Davies
134 Posted 16/04/2017 at 22:51:25
Steady on, Bri!
Ray Roche
135 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:09:19
Colin, Graham, calling people "coloured" was always regarded as acceptable years ago which is why your Nan uses it, along with other people of her generation, before it was decided that it was now racist. It doesn't mean she, or they, are racist.

At Christmas, I was in a conversation with a liberal social worker who touched on the subject of "coloured" people. I asked what was the difference between a "coloured person", which is now unacceptable, and a "person of colour" which is now okay. She couldn't answer, but did a lot of waffling about it being disgusting for anyone to use such a term. (I hadn't, by the way.) Confusing.

John G Davies
136 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:15:06
Ray,

It wasn't regarded as acceptable if you were queuing for a bus in the Jim Crow states. Or getting a drink of water from a public fountain in South Africa.

I take your point re the older generation; elder members of my own family used the term until the younger members told them.

Colin Glassar
137 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:17:49
Ray, I'm not PC, far from it. As a kid I heard all sorts of racial slurs which were, apparently, acceptable at the time.

All these new terms like 'people of colour' or 'brown people' drive me up the wall. I think it's time we moved on from categorising people by the colour of their skin.

I blame the yanks for all this confusion!

John Daley
138 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:19:55
Steve (@129),

The way Lukaku is portrayed in the press seems to be based entirely on the most recent performance they witnessed. Bag a couple of goals and he's a contender for best striker in the country and far too potent to be pissing about at 'plucky little Everton' for much longer. Fail to have an impact in a 'big' game and they'll bang on about how it might not be wise for any Champions League club to get too close, as it seems he could have a bad case of the Cottee's.

I tend to side more with Graham's view that he'll be difficult to replace, rather than your own of him being "irreplaceable" (especially taking into account the kind of fee speculated), but I do think Lukaku has improved considerably this season, in both consistency and all-round centre-forward play.

He has also stepped up the number of goals he's involved in, other than those he finishes off himself. Just skimming his goals off the top and seeing where that would leave us obviously doesn't take into account his overall contribution to the teams collection of points.

I've criticised him strongly on occasion, mainly for not putting a shift in and/or not being able to keep his mouth shut, but (United game aside) have not had much cause to get on his case since Koeman came in.

Graham Mockford
139 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:21:50
John (#136),

I get that completely. Etymology has historical and cultural influences.

I guess my point is that words in themselves do not necessarily make someone racist.

Especially when the poster who has got so offended goes on to call someone a "Caucasian prick".

Ray Roche
140 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:22:51
John G Davies, to my knowledge I've never heard of the Jim Crow states and I've never been to South Africa so I can't comment on what was acceptable there and what wasn't.

I DO know what was generally regarded as acceptable in the early 1950s and 1960s though. I remember very little from the 1940s! Maybe the smell of a freshly filled nappy...

Steve Ferns
141 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:25:14
A 'person of colour' can mean anyone who is not white. A coloured person means a person of mixed race.

"Coloured" is not a racist term in itself, it's just now deemed to be an outdated word, that is usually used in a racist context.

I have a close friend who happily describes herself as "coloured", but she wasn't born in the UK and English is not her first language.

For me it's always about context. I once successfully argued in court that the term "Scouser" was more racist than "Paki" in the context of the case. Scouser is a term that was initially popularised as an insult, go back to the 50s / 60s and it was rare you'd hear it.

My father hates it. If anyone calls him a scouser he gets very annoyed and points out he's from Liverpool and is a Liverpudlian. Personally I never liked 'Liverpudlian' as it seemed to go hand in hand with the evil reds. But he's not the only one of his generation who despises the term.

John G Davies
142 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:29:55
Ray,
Google it and let me know what you think of the acceptability tomorrow.

Thanks

Colin Glassar
143 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:31:16
Steve, you're just confusing things now.

"I'm from Liverpool" or "I'm a scouser" is one thing. "I'm a Liverpudlian" is "I'm a RedShite" in my book. Like "I'm an Evertonian". I would never ever say "I'm a Liverpudlian".

Steve Ferns
144 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:32:25
-Maybe 'irreplaceable' is a bit strong, but imagine we got £100m to replace him, who we gonna get that is as good? It ain't enough to persuade the very best to drop down to our level, and anything else is a bigger gamble.

I still think we'll get £60-70m, and if that Jose is the replacement then we're going to be far less potent next season. For me, if Lukaku leaves we need a marque player there, or the best up-and-coming player in the world – eg, Dolberg or someone of that ilk.

Dan Davies
145 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:32:44
Steve Ferns or anyone, pardon my ignorance but can someone explain where the term 'scouse' or ' scouser' comes from please?
Ray Roche
146 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:33:19
John G Davies

Just had a look. I know what you mean now by the Jim Crow States but I don't recall it by name. Shameful.

Steve Ferns
147 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:33:41
But Colin, a Liverpudlian can be someone from Liverpool or it can be a fan of Liverpool FC.
Graham Mockford
148 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:36:30
Dan

It's a shortened version of lobscouse. A meat stew commonly known as Scouse introduced into Liverpool by Norwegian sailors which became popular.

Colin Glassar
149 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:37:53
It's a long story Dan but it's of Nordic origin and refers to a very popular stew.

Steve, they hijacked the term in the 50s and I would never call myself a Liverpudlian. No offence to you or your dad btw.

I prefer to say I'm from Liverpool, period. Oh shit, that's a yank term isn't it? Sorry.

Steve Ferns
150 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:44:40
I'm happy to be a scouser, Colin, it's fine! And my dad's issue is all the negative stereotyping.

Lobskaus is worth a google, Dan, you'll see it's similar to Irish stew and a few other regional delicacies.

Damn iPad autocorrected 'lobskaus' to 'labskaus', two very different meals!

Dan Davies
151 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:47:59
Thank you, Graham, Colin and Steve. I shall do my homework!
Stan Schofield
152 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:49:04
In my experience, 'scouser' is more often (perhaps always) used in a derogatory context, sometimes accompanied by remarks about nicking the wheels off cars. This is no doubt mainly the fault of the media, including the BBC.

I don't like the term 'scouser', because of the derogatory context, and also because I've found that the people who use it in that context seem generally ignorant and uncultured.

Although an Evertonian, I'd prefer to be called a Liverpudlian than a scouser. I'm an Evertonian Liverpudlian, as opposed to a Liverpudlian Liverpudlian. Context again.

Colin Glassar
153 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:56:41
I don't find being called a scouser derogatory by any means. In fact, I'm proud to called one. I bet mancs, geordies, brummies, cockneys etc... aren't bothered either.

Now, if you're from Wrexham and you're called a sheepshagger, I bet that would hurt.

Dan Davies
154 Posted 16/04/2017 at 23:59:26
Stan, not being a scouser myself (although I do have family in the area), I wouldn't say the word has any negative meaning in my experience.

I love the people and the accent. Salt of the earth in my opinion. In most cases! Lol

John G Davies
155 Posted 16/04/2017 at 00:00:26
Me neither Colin. Scouser born and bred.

I consider the term a badge of honour.

Dan Davies
156 Posted 16/04/2017 at 00:04:17
Col, I'm not from Wrexham mate but I am Welsh. Those jokes are outdated but we don't care anyway!

Did I mention my missus name is Baarbra! Hahaha

Steve Ferns
157 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:08:49
What happened to whacker, or was it wacker? When did the term disappear and why? Anyone know?

I did learn that it didn't mean it wasn't anything to do with being a hardcase, as my old man led me to believe!

Phil Bellis
158 Posted 16/04/2017 at 00:09:03
Late to the party yet again but, did Mr Martin not post elsewhere / somewhere. "I'm not a Scouser {can't recall upper or lower case and / or per se) although I was born in Liverpool? If not, Martin, apologies
Confused of Liverpool 8
Colin Glassar
159 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:09:59
I meant to say Chorley, Dan. Oops!
John Daley
160 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:11:14
"All these new terms like 'people of colour' or 'brown people' drive me up the wall"

Far from new, Colin. Martin Luthor King's "I had a dream" speech coined the phrase "citizens of colour".

"Coloured" is considered offensive to many, because it implies 'white' skin is the norm and something 'unnatural' has been added/is present. 

As I said earlier, someone who is 'not white' has not "coloured" their skin (an entire legion of scouse lasses sporting a strange orange glow that would result in the Reddy Brek kid feeling self-conscious as fuck notwithstanding). 

Even a really arl arsed Elvis wasn't having any of that:

Link

Colin Glassar
161 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:15:43
I used to have a neighbour called Wacker Burke, Steve. I don't know why he was called Wacker as I think his real name was Arnold or Reginald.

"Alright wack", was a common expression but I'm not sure if it's still used anymore.

Liverpool 8 Phil? Now that's hardcore scouse.

Phil Bellis
162 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:16:01
Steve.. the Great Man always said he wasn't a Scouser but a Whacker... like a Badge of Honour
John Daley
163 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:18:17
"I used to have a neighbour called Wacker Burke"

"Wacker Burke"? Don't know why it has amused me so but I'm defo stealing that name for future use.

Phil Bellis
164 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:19:23
Colin
Toccie? Toccie? Where the fuck is Toccie?
Colin Glassar
165 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:20:29
Toccie, isn't that where our Wayne is from?
Colin Glassar
166 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:21:11
Almost as bad a Crocky...
Phil Bellis
167 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:26:04
Long day, Colin... Can't spell Tocky or Wacker... Time for bed bed, said Zebidee.
Colin Glassar
168 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:26:13
Big Irish family, John. Paddy and Margaret Burke used to serenade the street every Friday and Saturday night on their way home from the pub.
Dan Davies
169 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:26:33
No worries Col, bring it on... lol
Graham Mockford
170 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:35:42
Steve (#157),

If you are interested there's a great read called 'Lern Yerself Scouse' edited and notated by Fritz Spiegel.

Spiegel was an adopted Scouser from Austria who was an interesting guy. He wrote Johnny Todd (Z-Cars theme) which we all know well; however, he was a Red. And lots more.

Anyway his view was 'whack' is related to pea-wack soup for what it's worth.

Rob Halligan
171 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:45:15
Been out tonight with mates, one who is an alleged Man Utd fan. (I use the word 'fan' lightly.)

Anyway, he buys The Sun for, he says, the bingo numbers. My personal view, which I slung in his face, was that he buys that rag to wind up his squash-playing mates, most of whom are Liverpool fans.

He was born and bred in Liverpool, been here all his life, yet says he hates being called a scouser.

"So why don't you fuck off then", I said to him. No reply was forthcoming, yet I know the reason why. It's because he likes the area where he lives.

Oh and by the way, he says he fully agrees with everything that slimeball McKenzie says.

Steve Ferns
172 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:47:06
Graham, the origin I learnt was that it related to a "share", and came from dockers parlance. Supposedly they were asking for their share or cut, and the term was soon spread by the out of town dockworkers to refer to inhabitants of the city.
Peter Lee
173 Posted 17/04/2017 at 00:59:42
A few more ramblings to a rambling thread. During the war my dad and others from the city in the forces were called scouse. "Alright scouse?" It was never taken as an insult just as all the Scots were spoken to as jock, Welshman as taff and Irishmen as paddy, all without rancour.

It appeared on the radio show ITMA with the Liverpool comic Tommy Handley responsible.

So it predates the 50's and wasn't a term of abuse.

"Whack" is a word that meant "share". As in "I've done my whack." Or "Where's my whack." Large amounts of spoils were "Whacked out". I think that this was more centred on the city in its use but might have been more widely used.

To be "whacked" meant very tired or to be hit.

Related to this was pea-whack, a thick split pea soup made with ham bones or ribs. When I was a kid my name was soften shortened to "Pea". Oddly this was extended to "Pea-whack" and, bizarrely, by one mate as "Pea-Whackadiddlyio". Eventually I was just called Whacker or Whack. That was until Tom O'Connor serenaded the class with a cowboy ballad
called "Stacker Lee". But that's another story. Lots of lads my age then, I'm 63 now, who were called Peter ended up with Whacker as a nickname.

Going back, I remember Liverpool people being known as scousers, but never as wackers, with or without the "h".

The late Fritz Spiegel wrote a couple of little books called "Learn yerself scouse". To be honest I think he made a lot of it up. For example, his use of the phrase "mutton dagger" for penis was never current to my knowledge, although I get where he was coming from.

Rob Halligan
174 Posted 17/04/2017 at 01:00:42
Colin (#161). Liverpool 8, now that's hardcore Scouse.

I was born and raised in Liverpool 8, albeit many years ago. Does that still make me a hardcore Scouser? Something which I am fiercely proud of, and I will always defend the city I come from.

Dan Davies
175 Posted 17/04/2017 at 01:13:00
Exactly Peter, a term of endearment I thought? Nothing negative.
Joe Hurst
176 Posted 17/04/2017 at 01:17:54
You can't help but think sometimes though, that scousers aren't trying to be rubbed out...

Where I was born, Sefton General on Smithdown Road: demolished, now an Asda or something like that.
Primary school, St Cyrils in Belle Vale: also demolished
Secondary, SFX (the lower part of which was Queens Drive by the fiveways,): also demolished

Feckers have been after me for years, but they won't take me down... Like this club we love, we'll eventually have the last laugh,
Coyb

Michael Kenrick
177 Posted 16/04/2017 at 03:24:37
I too was puzzled last time this "coloured" business came up and can only think it is relatively recent PC corruption of the word (in the last 20+ years?). Here's what the Urban Dictionary has for it:

A mixed race person or people, especially if the mix includes African and European, or an adjective describing these people. Can be either a recent mixture with parents or grandparents of different races, or members of old mixed race groups like the Cape Coloureds of South Africa or the Rehobothers of Namibia. It is not derogatory or perjorative per se, but may be used that way by those who disapprove of racial mixing. Used throughout Anglophone Sub-Saharan Africa, from Colonial British English.

What does the NAACP think about all this? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People probably look upon it as a spelling mistake.

David Barks
178 Posted 17/04/2017 at 05:30:53
Michael,

If you're not a person of color or colour, best to just not say anything since you can not relate. The day that there are sections designated as "whites section", where failing to adhere to that designation will be greeted by beatings, dogs being set on them, and being arrested and followed by lynch mobs, then it can be placed in the same context. But that history doesn't belong to white people, but most certainly does to "coloured people" who lived through that and continue to live through the more subtle oppression that exists today.

The term "people of color" was brought forth after the darkest days of the civil rights movement as a bit of a unification of minority peoples. The NAACP was formed when Black people in the US were second class citizens and "colored people" was the nicest term that you could find used in public discourse, with the other terms starting with the letter N.

Regardless of any of that, what often matters most is the context and who is using it. When someone uses it to reference a negative stereotype, or any negative actions, not difficult to see it as a racist term. When someone uses it in the way the NAACP does, talking about the Advancement of Colored People, it's different. It's not a PC thing. "Colored people" has a deep negative history, while "people of color" has come out of that and refers to not just Black people of African decent, but can also include Hispanic when they are a significant percentage of the population and even Arab decent now.

So, that's my two cents on what I found to be an interesting conversation above and my true pleasure in the club banning that scum rag.

Eric Myles
179 Posted 17/04/2017 at 05:57:28
Phil & Colin (164 & 165) isn't Tocky, Toxteth?
Michael Kenrick
180 Posted 17/04/2017 at 06:33:47
Nice history lesson, Barksy. It highlights the problem of condemning words outright, which in this case shows up a rather large inconsistency that you dance around.

I did find this in a piece in the New York Times (from nearly 30 years ago!) that seems to provide a partial answer:

If 'black' has become the preferred term, why does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People hold on to its name? According to James Williams, an N.A.A.C.P. spokesman, who must get asked this often: ''Times change and terms change. Racial designations go through phases; at one time 'Negro' was accepted, at an earlier time 'colored' and so on. This organization has been in existence for 80 years and the initials N.A.A.C.P. are part of the American vocabulary, firmly embedded in the national consciousness, and we feel it would not be to our benefit to change our name.''

Can't argue with that. Seems more genuine than your befuddled contextual distinction.

Eric Myles
181 Posted 17/04/2017 at 06:37:58
Andy (#43) "Everyone is missing the bigger picture. Mr Big Anderson is getting behind the banning of the rag and good on him. Surely everyone knows him doing this also gets more votes when it's time to vote again."

Surely you know, Andy, that Mr Anderson is not standing for re-election as Mayor?

Will Mabon
182 Posted 17/04/2017 at 06:56:03
Wow, oh wow is language buckling under the strain. It's becoming everything Mr. Orwell said it would. Another fifty years tops, it will be almost impossible to speak (or write) without recourse to ratified Newspeak.

As a caucasian, I resent the highjacking of the correct technical description of my chroma, that being, person of colour - for white is the presence of all colours of the visible spectrum.

What we perceive as black is the absence of all colours of the spectrum, so a black man or woman actually has no colour... so I want them correctly described as "People of colourlessness".

Anything else is quite simply, Technical Incorrectism, which triggers me greatly and makes me want to retreat to a nominated safe space.

Colin Glassar
183 Posted 22/04/2017 at 09:30:12
I just want to reject the rag's half-hearted "apology" to Ross. You're banned from our installations and long may it continue.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.