[We nicked the equaliser off Chelsea.]

We nicked the equaliser off Chelsea. How about going the whole hog and incorporating one step beyond, or Chelsea dagger 

And you call yourself a Chelsea fan?

Debunked and accepted as FAKE NEWS.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/28/facebook-posts/no-british-blm-leader-did-not-tweet-about-enslavin/

Manny please check your facts before coming on spewing bile and hatred.

She does seem a bit of a racist turdbag:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE7qJAUeM5c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPyV1HDPUJk

[Despite the protestations/claims of the England team, that mud has stuck and will never be removed.]

"The Knee" has created the very thing people hoped that it would condemn.
The Knee, like it or not, is associated with BLM; who are publicised as being a questionable organisation who claim to support a convicted US criminal, the de-funding of police, violent protests etc.
Despite the protestations/claims of the England team, that mud has stuck and will never be removed.

It was noticeable that SKY Sports ditched their BLM campaign and reverted to the 'Kick It Out'/'No Room for Racism' campaigns, almost immediately after the initial objections and well before the England Internationals.
We need to remain and concentrate on the existing campaigns, not one that has a questionable source that divides opinion.

Personally, I hope that The Cobblers do NOT continue with the pre-match taking of The Knee.
If they do, I will not boo, but I will stay on the concourse until The Knee has been completed and then take my seat.

The existing campaigns need to be promoted and afforded the requisite prominence in order to defeat racism in society as a whole, not just in football.

Well said.

Bit late reading the news but just read of Max Griggs passing.

I can't help wondering what might have been if certain individuals had not behaved in a certain way and other directors hadn't expected it always to be Max dipping into his pockets (which at that time were nowhere big as they became)

Whilst we all have thoughts on the R&D rise and fall Max was following his dream and still supported local football in Northampton even in those days.

A true football man RIP.

Yep, oh what might have been. RIP Max Griggs. Always a cobbler at heart.

[I agree with the players taking the knee,]

For what its worth I agree with the players taking the knee, racism is still a big part of our society and if you don't stand up then it grows. In my opinion if you don't call someone out when they make racist comments then thats on you for not standing up for an equal society.

I'm confused. Do you want them to kneel or to stand up?

[and in the case of Sancho, Rashford and Sako that has been their colour. Had it been Kane or Maguire who missed I'm sure they would have found something else to go for.]

Back at you Jolly... good post.

You're right about the younger generation. A few years back, rather sweetly, we had to explain what racism was to our then 8 or 9 year old daughter who really couldn't get her head around why anyone would be racist (once she knew what it meant!). She really was agog and just couldn't understand why anyone would act that way. That said, I'm conscious that she's been raised in a relatively middle class bubble where most of the parents are generally better educated, which generally goes hand in hand with more liberal attitudes. To continue the sweeping generalisation, I think in some less well to do areas there's less of an enlightened view that's been passed down from parent to child over the last few generations, particularly in less cosmopolitan areas where there are fewer people of colour, and that's predominantly where the overt racism still exists (I'm thinking mostly of the type of areas where the BNP and formerly UKIP have previously done reasonably well in elections).

I must say as well, I've bitten my virtual lip a few times in the last couple of days on the topic of Sancho, Sako and Rashford in comparison to previous players who've **** up at tournaments. In particular I've seen one post doing the rounds listing Gary and Phil Neville, Beckham and Southgate among white players who've also made mistakes and not been abused the way the latest set of lads have. Are they kidding?!? Some of the abuse thrown at them at the time was horrific! It just wasn't racial in nature, but it was vicious and cruel and totally disproportionate to their "crimes".

I'm in no way excusing the racial abuse. Yes, all three that missed were black, but that's purely coincidental and in no way a factor in the fact they all missed. Unfortunately the mindset of the sort of morons who go to town on an individual will focus on the easy route to abusing someone, and in the case of Sancho, Rashford and Sako that has been their colour. Had it been Kane or Maguire who missed I'm sure they would have found something else to go for. There's just some nasty, stupid f***ers out there who give football supporters in general a bad rep.

Absolutely. Whether someone has a big head or a big nose, or a hair lip or ginger hair, the haters will always hate and always go for the easiest target. And the media loves to throw fuel on a story.

It doesn't matter if you are black or white, anyone can take a sh*t penalty.
Although it probably won't go down too well if the new generation of the three amigos try to flog some pizza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvZWGYkTR7U

 

Once footballers have rid the world of racism what are they taking on next?

Peace in the Middle East? Prevent global warming?

An ill thought out gesture that obviously divides people, exactly what they're trying to prevent. They jumped on a woke media bandwaggon and now they cant backtrack.

I'm with Ivan Toney, get off the bloody floor and play football.

This.

Yes it would be, but that's not what I said. What it DOES do is legitimise an organisation in the eyes of a wider world of people who don't do their own research. 

BLM have, in my opinion, some seriously questionable views that go far beyond the admirable equality stance that makes up 95% of the coverage they receive. When the focus sits almost entirely on one aspect whilst ignoring what else they stand for it helps to put them on a pedestal where they are beyond reproach because, hey, how dare you criticise BLM? What are you? A racist!?!

For the record, if you care to look back through my posts at some point I admitted that I didn't know too much about BLM and then later reached a conclusion after doing some research. I certainly wasn't "hoodwinked" by the agenda of any newspapers or media outlets during this because the source of my research was BLM's own website!

Completely agree with everything you've said in this thread, BOTN, and well put. The problem is, it is easy to claim now that "taking the knee is a stance against racism," but the original mantra stated it was "in support of Black Lives Matter," and those two things don't neccesarily equate to the same thing.

Let's be honest, taking the knee is a hollow gesture (at least after the first few occasions), and it is also becming a self-fullfilling prophesy. To clarify exactly what I mean by this: I am old enough to remember the 70s and 80s, when racism cut a very real scar across this nation - and it was often savage (both physically and verbally). Does it still exist? Of course. It exists in many forms and in many 'different' camps, because there will always be dickheads who lack brain cells. But I honestly don't see Britain as being divided by colour, not anymore (religious ideology most definitely, but not skin colour). Today's younger generations do not even see people based on their colour, but the media continues to plug the BLM headline.
The majority of people today do not dislike someone because of the colour of their skin, but the current agenda being driven by the BBC and their ilk is creating a lot of ill will among white people sick of hearing about how poorly their fellow countrymen (and women) are being treated - by white society. People are sick of BLM monopalizing the headlines.

As for the racial abuse that followed the game. Dreadful. But there will always be idiots - and I'm sure many of them took it as a misguided opportunity to fire back at the constant stream of BLM promoted issues. But, do you remember the slaughtering that Gareth Southgate took in the past? The things said to him, and about his family, were equally appalling - perhaps even worse.
To be honest, it should be easy enough to close down the accounts of those people who post such hate online - although I appreciate that it would only be a short term fix. Should racism be dealt with? Of course. But stop using sports as a flogging horse for divisive agendas. Stop taking the knee.

Definitely a missed opportunity tonight and didn't give ourselves the best chance of winning despite a great start. That's what's annoying the most.

Shot ourselves in the foot there. Way to negative in the second half.

I’m over it now. Same old England. Great achievement getting to the final and Italy were there for the taking, but as usual we didn’t take ‘em.

Yep, I'm over it too. I wanted us to win, but the whole thing was soured by the continuing use of identity politics. It should have been about being English, and being English has nothing to do with the colour of your skin. f*** bringing politics into our national game.

[We aren't allowed to email them to ask them to opt in, but it's possible we can send them a letter and ask them to do so.]

Having attended some GDPR implementation workshops, one of the things GDPR  was introduced to stop was implicit opt ins, which is why websites have had to stop the trick they used to do of having various opt in/out tick boxes that used slightly different language to convey meaning. So for example you might see 3 tick boxes that would say "I agree for my information to be used for..." and one tucked away amongst them that says "I do not agree for my information to be used for..." meaning to fully opt out the consumer/client would have to thoroughly read the questions and tick some but not others. People being people, they'd read the first couple and then tick all the boxes, thereby giving the organisation their consent without realising it. That's not allowed now, every opt in has to be a positive choice.

That said, organisations are allowed to contact customers without specific consent if the customer might reasonably expect them to do so in relation to the service they are being provided with. In the case of my company, that means we are allowed to email a customer with order updates without an active consent (because why else would they give it to us) but we aren't allowed to market further things to them in the future. (EDIT: I should probably add we do still have to get a generic piece of consent about us acting as a data controller, but if the customer won't agree to that we won't accept their order in the first place)

We also have an ongoing debate with our legal advisors (a large, reputable firm who specialise in GDPR) about what to do about our marketing database. It stretches back years and predates GDPR consent but is very large and we're reluctant to write it off as a resource. We aren't allowed to email them to ask them to opt in, but it's possible we can send them a letter and ask them to do so. It's against the spirit of GDPR but possibly not against the letter of the law, but despite months of discussion even they can't give us a definitive answer, so it's a really murky area.

In terms of the Trust, if you're a member of an organisation, particularly  one you had paid to join, would you reasonably expect them to contact you about your permission for them to keep contacting you?  My personal opinion is yes, you probably would, but I wouldn't want to make a call on that one way or the other without legal advice!

Good post. And better worded than I managed. With regards the section I highlighted, that is certainly a part that wasn't very well thought out. But with regards to those existing recipients, I partially agree with Melbourne's legal mate. There has to be validity to an initial one-off soft opt-in email, otherwise a lot of companies would be left hanging. Of course, it's likely the Trust sent those emails out and they were never opened/responded to. They then have the problem of many listed members (most of whom have shown little interest in years), but with it being highly questionable as to whether those people wish to continue receiving. Does anyone know what the Trust's opening rate is for their mail?
This is one of the problems faced by business/groups run primarily by volunteers, and where smooth operating slips because of other life commitments. It is not a situation that is unique to the Trust.
I do wonder if some of those bashing the Trust about a lack of communication perhaps received emails in the past that they failed to respond to, and hence have been scrubbed from the database? It's just a thought.

ETA: Having just read the above posts it seems the Trust are on top of GDPR. I reiterate, I wonder how many of those moaning about lack of communication have previously failed to 'give consent'. Otherwise, perhaps they need to check their spam box.

Happened to be having an off the record chat to one of a legal bods and they reckon it would be classed as “soft opt in” and would be covered if supplying an “opt out” or unsubscribe option on each communication. I’m not paying for the official interpretation though, sorry.

If you say so, although that's not what we were advised via the horse's mouth. Either way, it shouldn't be an issue for a group such as the Trust. All they needed to do was send a consent/opt-out included in with whatever else the initial (pre-GDPR) newsletter covered - and then keep an opt-out attached to all subsequent communications.

This whole thing is unsavoury. The Trust certainly haven't covered themselves in glory, but then the NTFC staff response comes across as just as crass. All parties need to start rowing in the same direction, and realize that just because someone has a differing viewpoint, it doesn't make them the enemy. We all want what's best for the club, and that works best if all parties remain cordial - Let's cut out the 'personal' slurs... save those for Matt Hancock.

On that matter the letter was sent by email to a small number of the Trust Board members some 30-40 minutes before it was posted on the Club website…..

Interesting. And was it sent via the club's email account? Because if a member of my staff started firing off company headed emails without my consent I'd be royally pissed.

[unnecessary for the board to obtain permission to send emails or similar communications to its membership]

GPC, my understanding is that if you have an ongoing contractual relationship with another party their would be no restriction on communication. Therefore as paid members of the Trust it would be unnecessary for the board to obtain permission to send emails or similar communications to its membership, at least that’s my interpretation.

Incorrect. As the sender you must be able to supply written evidence of consent relevant to the implementation of GDPR.

So basically just finishing off the stand to a bare minimum.

Yep. Absolute crap. Might as well tear the seats out and have an old style open terrace.

Oldham away is always better in summer and on a Saturday - a midweek winter game is a miserable experience

Too true. Bloody cold up there in winter.

Is it just me that is reminded of Adam Smith when looking at Roberts both pictures and highlight reel?

I thought the same, especially how he throws himself with arms splayed. Still, if he has anything like the ability of (early) Adam Smith he'll be a vast improvement... actually, Smith at his worst was way better than what we have endured the last few seasons.

Good luck with your new keeper Roberts, boy you are going to need it !

No worries, mate. We're getting used to it.

Some of your ‘facts’ are worth a challenge 

Go on then. Challenge them.