A Diversity of Penalties

The highlight of Sunday’s match probably came in the 88th minute when a ‘streaker’ (actually, a topless man) invaded the pitch and evaded capture by officials for almost a full minute to cheers from the crowd. He showed excellent movement off the ball and rode several attempted tackles with sudden bursts of speed. But viewers at home were left mystified what was happening because BBC cameras cut away and showed none of the fun.

The coverage was worthy of the East German Socialist Broadcasting Corporation, a far cry from Twickenham in 1982 when, in full view of the cameras, young Erika Roe ran topless onto the pitch, cigarette still in mouth, sporting a huge pair of tits, and cheered up the nation. Feminists were unhappy, but Erika was unapologetic and later commented, ‘Who gives a damn that I turned a few men on anyway – that’s what women should do’. Such sentiments, it should quickly be added, are now ‘completely unacceptable’.

Unfortunately, we did get to see the penalties last night. The BBC reporter later tried to put a positive spin on events. This heroic and unified England team was, he informed us, ‘more representative’ than some teams of the past. He meant that by having several black players (though no Asians), by bending the knee and ‘fighting racial inequality’, they symbolised a diverse inclusive multicultural society – as opposed to the England of old. But these cathartic unifying and diversifying effects seem to have been short-lived, with general outrage being expressed within hours at the racist abuse directed on social media at England’s black players, who coincidentally missed their penalties.

It is difficult to comment on the abuse since there is no way of discovering what it consisted in, all of it apparently having been removed and none of the mainstream media daring to repeat it. The outrage of those like Boris Johnson and Prince William, who have condemned it, must therefore been based on hearsay – unless they spend their evenings on social media sites.

Presumably the ‘N’ word was involved, though not even the letter ‘N’ has been alluded to. All we know is that the abuse was ‘vile’, but since all racism is vile – David Starkey, for example, is a ‘vile racist’, according to current norms – and all whites are racist one way or another, it is difficult to ascertain what we are dealing with.

More interesting are the comments on some of the right of centre news sites which suggest that the choice of a nervous teenager with no first-class experience of taking penalties to take England’s fifth penalty, when more experienced players were available – poor Saka was clearly a bundle of nerves – was motivated by the manager’s desire to have England’s winning penalty taken by a black player. Sadly, it backfired, and Saka ended as the sacrificial victim.

Nor can it have escaped the notice of viewers that although the England team was mixed race, the crowds of supporters were overwhelmingly white, both in the stadium and at venues in Central London, which is supposedly a beacon of multiculturalism. To echo Jon Snow, I have never seen so many whites gathered in one place. Were blacks scared to turn up, for fear of being racially abused, or did they generally not give a toss about supporting England? And where were the Asian supporters? Again, we are none the wiser. So much for the unifying effect of our new age England team.

But then what does one expect? Working class whites have been pilloried for years for being deplorables, and yet despite being labelled the beneficiaries of white privilege, condemned as unconsciously racist if they are not openly racist, they have been relegated to the bottom of the socio-economic and educational pile while select groups of non-whites – Chinese, black African, Indian – race ahead. Are they too supposed to ‘bend the knee’? More likely, they will ‘take the piss’. 

Such is the poison of critical race theory, the doctrine of white privilege and black victimhood, and the sad state of a diverse inclusive multicultural society where apparently all that matters is the colour of your skin.

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

21 Comments on A Diversity of Penalties

  1. I never watch sport contests, but this piece reminds me of my time as a groundskeeper at an insane asylum c. 1976. A group of Caribbean gentlemen politely and without even the slightest hint of menace – asked that I very carefully groom a cricket pitch and adjoining ground for their weekly Saturday game.

    That experience got me interested in the game, so much so that I took steps to find and purchase Hugh De Selincourt’s reminisce The Cricket Match (c. 1924) set in the fictional Village of Tillingfold, West Sussex.

    Football? Hugh de S. convinces me that cricket is the “one and only outdoor game which has remained purely English.”, an ideal which I’m sure resonates with most SR readers down the Rover’s Return.

    • Hello johnhenry. Allow me to recommend a book: The Golden Age of Cricket, written by Patrick Morrah and published by Eyre and Spottiswoode in 1967, with an introduction by the mighty Neville Cardus. If you’re able to obtain a copy, pay particular attention to the career of K S Ranjitsinhji, later the Maharajah Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, who was proud to represent England in Test Cricket (and India at the League of Nations) in the happy days when the fiction of “racism” hadn’t been invented by the Left and the monstrosity of “Limited Overs Cricket” wasn’t even a prophetic nightmare.

  2. In Today’s Daily Telegraph ‘Lord’ Peter Hain asks:
    ‘Is the Dream of South Africa in Tatters?’

    Comedy Gold.

    • The text of my Tw@ter post about the article:-
      “And what dream is that, Peter?
      Abhorrent as Apartheid may have been, the Boers at least kept the country together as a functioning state with an economy that indirectly supported other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

  3. You say “It is difficult to comment on the abuse since there is no way of discovering what it consisted in…”. Of course, you are right, we are so often told of racist comments or abuse, but never told what was actually said. Often the implication is that it is so vile that we need to be protected from experiencing it. Well, BBC and other media, I don’t want to be protected, I want to know what is said and I can make my own mind up on whether I think it is racist.
    You presume that the “N” word was involved. Why? You have no evidence of this. I might presume that the whole reporting if it is a lie and there was no abuse; without the evidence both positions are equally valid, or invalid!
    The banning of Ollie Robinson recently was a good example. It took a little while to track down what Ollie actually said (and if you want to know it is reported here: https://inews.co.uk/sport/cricket/ollie-robinson-what-say-tweets-england-cricketer-suspended-racist-sexist-twitter-oliver-dowden-ecb-1038468 ). Was it really vile racism and sexism, bearing in mind it was penned by a teenager 10 years ago? If we are presented with the evidence we can make up our own minds. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it was tasteless at worst, and probably just typical teenage banter.
    But that is not the point – the fact is that the BBC expects us to just accept that if they say it is vile racism, that is what it is. And it is getting worse. You may say that if you want to see the evidence you can easily Google it and find it somewhere. But that is under attack. More and more the social media are removing anything that they don’t agree with, and in case they don’t see it fast enough, banning anyone who just might post something they don’t agree with.
    We have to fight this, or we may be headed to a very dark place.

  4. The England Football Team’s winning tendencies in the European Cup was destroyed by the Manager Mr Southgate’s determination to use the Italian Penalty contest to display his support for BLM and political Liberal Left-wing “wokeness.”
    Southgate selected three African-skinned penalty takers who were late edition to the match, and nineteen-year-old player Bukayo Saka has never taken a penalty in senior football.
    Frustrated and angry England supporters have rightly turned their anger on the three African-skinned players whose opportunity to take the penalty was courtesy of Mr Southgate’s Political Correctness.
    England’s current tendency for employing and promoting men and women because of their Gender; LGBTQ, or skin-colour is the road to loss and ruin; just like Mr Southgate politically correct managerial decision to overpromote Mr Bukaya Saka to take the vital England Penalty.
    Chaka Artwell
    Secretary: Oxford African Caribbean Conversation.
    Barton, Oxford.

    • Another shocking omission that I have just noticed, having inadvertently watched several cuttings from this match sandwiched between other items of twaddle on the tivvy over the past few days: there were no women in either team.

  5. Another ridiculous diatribe from somebody who needs to get a life. They don’t show people running on the pitch any more because it’s basically what the person wants – fame and notoriety probably worth the fine and short term ban.

    And yes, I believe from first hand accounts I’ve heard that some minorities are put off attending because of the racists that we now know infest England’s support.

    Far from being a nervous teenager, he’s a highly trained professional footballer, well used to playing in front of massive crowds, and no more nor less likely to miss than say, Stuart Pearce or Gary Lineker in his final appearance for England. Pele dominated a world cup final at 17. Maybe you could write about something you know about in future. I’m not holding my breath.

  6. It is always blacks. One would never guess that there are several times as many non black ethnics in this country, given the attention given to blacks,

    This gross over representation of black people is evident everywhere but especially in the broadcast media. Every advertisement on television can figure a black man, either with a black family or just as often with a white woman.

    Why this strange phenomenon ? I would guess that blacks are perceived as being especially “oppressed “ by white people, or seen as being especially inferior and so efforts are made to show them as the reverse.

    It’s typical woke propaganda and very patronising of course. In fact, it is a form of racism. But then it’s so difficult not to be seen as ‘racist” these days isn’t it?

    • One element is subliminal racism of the “liberal elite” who share the mob view of the African physiognomy and psychology, but strive to repress it, with vicarious anti-racism. A Martian would certainly regard as curious the colossal number of TV advertisments devoted solely to a group that registered less than 4% at the last population census – though many times that can be expected from the results of the recent one. The public deificaton of Rashford resembles the Dianamania of yesterday.

    • I’m guessing they’re just trying to sell their stuff, mate, and if it doesn’t work they wouldn’t do it.

      Out of interest, did you ever complain about the implausibility of Martian robots eating instant mashed potato while sniggering at humans still eating real potatoes? Never mind talking meerkats. I guess not. Anybody who expects advertising to accurately reflect real life needs their head examined.

      • If selling stuff were the only consideration, why for example change the white househusband advertising a floor cleaner for a (less likely) black one? What about selling stuff to the larger and wealthier Indian population? Why the rapid development of black-only advertising after the Black Lives Matter scam?