Palace Fans Against Racism

eastern boy said:
Thank you for your post. I haven't the time to respond to all on here, or indeed all your points but I thought your response was well balanced and has given me food for thought.

In answer to why have I "self appointed" I just felt the need to do something. The subject has been debated at length on some other Palace forums, such as the BBS , with the majority feeling the same way as me. So far we have over 60 followers who feel strong enough about the subject to come alongside.

It was also discussed during last season with the club by the fans advisory board, following incidents. So this is by no means exclusive to me.

I am also in contact with another club's hierarchy and their fans who has or had similar problems to see if there are lessons learnt or a way forward we could adopt.

I agree that the proportion of fans who may have racist views is proportionly low, but some, maybe an equally organised group, seem intent on publishing their views.
You could argue that this movement is a response to them. Without the chants, attacks, salutes, flags and stickers there would be no reason for our existence. You can discuss the merits of the latter two, but the Mateta chants, attacks, salutes? Can you or anyone really justify them as anything other than racist?

Yes we could be inadvertently putting minorities from our area from attending by highlighting our concerns. That's a danger I grant you. Alternatively we could be making it safer to attend. Attendance from minorities at Selhurst is already low.

Of course I will review where we go with this on an ongoing basis.

Thanks for your time.
Click to expand...
We dont have any 'problems'. There is no racist abuse and we all want to stop the boats. In fact I think we should all start a new song in the stands just for you entitled 'Stop the boats, wont ya stop the boats baby'
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
So immigration does not affect unemployment, taxes, or the use of roads? Not to mention housing shortages or crime.

That is the daftest thing I have read for a while.
Click to expand...
I said negative immigration won’t reduce unemployment, taxes or mend the roads.

Fewer people in the UK is likely to mean lower demand and fewer businesses to serve that demand - the most likely impact is higher not lower unemployment for those that remain.

Fewer people paying taxes similarly with increase the tax burden on the rest.

And there’s absolutely no reason to expect any of this will provide more council tax revenue for fixing roads.
 
maddog said:
I said negative immigration won’t reduce unemployment, taxes or mend the roads.

Fewer people in the UK is likely to mean lower demand and fewer businesses to serve that demand - the most likely impact is higher not lower unemployment for those that remain.

Fewer people paying taxes similarly with increase the tax burden on the rest.

And there’s absolutely no reason to expect any of this will provide more council tax revenue for fixing roads.
Click to expand...
There is an unknown number of people here illegally but estimates run up to a million or more. What happens in 10 years time when all their children need school places, medical treatment, etc?
 
TheBigToePunt said:
Sarcasm aside, saying 'stop the boats' doesn't automatically discount someone from wanting a better system, does it? Or from being willing to accommodate some refugees? Or from feeling that immigration should be reduced, stopped, or even reversed, all without considering people of other races to be inferior or wishing them any harm?

A few posts ago you said it was a hateful slogan made up by the powers that be to control and distract the masses. My point is that, even if it is, it is also a position a reasonable person could hold, even if you do not. Even if I happen not to, for that matter.

Do you not accept that at all? Can you not conceive, in any way, of a reasonable person wishing to stop the boats for respectable reasons?
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstood your point. Let me have another go. Yes, many would reasonably say that people crossing the channel is not good for a lot of reasons and that we should look for a positive practical solution that stops this happening. I might say that myself. And someone else, unfamiliar with what has been happening, might logically summarise this position as wanting to “stop the boats” - if they were unaware of the phrase and the context in which it is being used.

Because in the context of what has been happening and what people who shout “STB” also say this is not what people generally (ever?) mean. Do they? Or do you have an example of someone saying this phrase or waving one of these banners in a positive, inclusive way?
 
maddog said:
I said negative immigration won’t reduce unemployment, taxes or mend the roads.

Fewer people in the UK is likely to mean lower demand and fewer businesses to serve that demand - the most likely impact is higher not lower unemployment for those that remain.

Fewer people paying taxes similarly with increase the tax burden on the rest.

And there’s absolutely no reason to expect any of this will provide more council tax revenue for fixing roads.
Click to expand...
Deporting people who do nothing and claim benefits and criminals clearly WILL impact on unemployment claims and the cost to the tax payer. What the government chooses to do with that money is another matter.
People who spend taxpayers' money via benefits on goods and services are not creating wealth.

Decreasing immigration would reduce GDP, but GDP is only beneficial if it increases GPC. The problem is that people perpetually on benefits produce nothing and cost the country. In theory, getting rid of them will increase the GPC.

In the end, any marginal difference either way is only part of the picture.
Negative immigration will only be a problem if the workforce dwindles. The way to avoid that is to make sure that people leaving school are usefully employed instead of going to university to study useless degrees or spending years claiming benefits.
 
maddog said:
I said negative immigration won’t reduce unemployment, taxes or mend the roads.

Fewer people in the UK is likely to mean lower demand and fewer businesses to serve that demand - the most likely impact is higher not lower unemployment for those that remain.

Fewer people paying taxes similarly with increase the tax burden on the rest.

And there’s absolutely no reason to expect any of this will provide more council tax revenue for fixing roads.
Click to expand...
People on the left always look at the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration which is questionable to say the least and the humanitarian question. They ignore the cost to our culture and way of life in importing millions of people from the Third World many of whom subscribe to an alien religion and have no intention of integrating into our society.
Its all been a terrible disaster.
 
maddog said:
Totally. The STSB crap is 100% total racist bollox!

Not saying anyone who uses the slogan is deliberately racist but the slogan itself has no other purpose than to stir up racism. It’s pushed on us by billionaires who seak to control everything in this country through their racist neo-fascist attack dogs like Faridge, Lackey-Lemon, and Low. These are the people who are harming Britain, destroying jobs and youth opportunities in Britain and trying to blame it on a relatively small number of vulnerable people with no money and no power.
Click to expand...
Another loony
 
maddog said:
Maybe I misunderstood your point. Let me have another go. Yes, many would reasonably say that people crossing the channel is not good for a lot of reasons and that we should look for a positive practical solution that stops this happening. I might say that myself. And someone else, unfamiliar with what has been happening, might logically summarise this position as wanting to “stop the boats” - if they were unaware of the phrase and the context in which it is being used.

Because in the context of what has been happening and what people who shout “STB” also say this is not what people generally (ever?) mean. Do they? Or do you have an example of someone saying this phrase or waving one of these banners in a positive, inclusive way?
Click to expand...
My question wasn't whether people were saying stop the boats in a positive, inclusive way. It was whether a reasonable person could say it, or only a racist (or a person incited, as you have it).

Unless I've misunderstood, you're telling me that whilst, in theory, a reasonable person could say STB, in reality it's actually only ever said to advocate racism?

This you have established by virtue of what other (more overtly racist) things are also said by people who say STB.

I mean, even if you set aside the support given to STB by the previous prime minister and home secretary who both happen to be Asian (and you really should test your idea against that pretty relevant bit of information) surely you see the shortcoming in your method?

You can't possibly have heard what else every person who supports STB has to say, can you? Or even the majority of them. Even if you spend all day every day trawling through social media on this subject and surveying other posts of STB supporters, you're only ever getting a limited sample size. Surely that's obvious? Surely you know better than to confuse the fact that a racist would say STB with the idea that anyone who says STB must be a racist?

For you to conclude that anyone saying STB is racist you also have to discount any other possible justification they might have. To repeat my earlier point, it's not a matter of whether you agree with people who are concerned about exponential population growth, social cohesion, pressure on services, or whatever. You may never agree with those arguments. You might be right not to. That, however, is not the same as dismissing them as validly held views by reasonable people.

This is my concern in a nutshell. You seem to be saying never mind the range and status of people prepared to support STB, or any of the reasons they give, because you feel you know what they really mean.

I assure you I'm not some troll. I've got no time for many of the people I've seen at asylum hotel protests and suchlike. There seem to be some proper bellends in the mix there to me. But that doesn't blind me to the respectable people making sensible points that happen to overlap with them. Or to the basic tenets of reason.
 
Last edited:
maddog said:
Well yes. Why are there no stickers and banners saying “implement safe routes”! Good question!
Click to expand...
There are safe routes but immigrants need to be honest with their personal details. Bearing in mind not one boat person has any ID and the channel is turning into a passport graveyard; me thinks they are all full of s*** and wouldn’t get in via the legal route because they’re blaggers. Taking the piss out of all of us, you included. BTW how many live with you atm. You could set an example.
Is this racist IYO out of interest.
 
cryrst said:
There are safe routes but immigrants need to be honest with their personal details. Bearing in mind not one boat person has any ID and the channel is turning into a passport graveyard; me thinks they are all full of s*** and wouldn’t get in via the legal route because they’re blaggers. Taking the piss out of all of us, you included. BTW how many live with you atm. You could set an example.
Is this racist IYO out of interest.
Click to expand...
There is no safe route to the UK to claim asylum. Unless your passport is from a select group of countries you must have a visa to travel to the UK - visas are not granted to people who state their reason for travelling to the UK is to claim asylum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top