I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.
So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.
That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...
If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.
And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).
Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).
Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.
Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?
My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.
Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
Have a muslim driving itInteresting, but the research does not include the co efficient of Everton fans, who may or may not be more likely to commit islamaphobic crime. Which means that the 20%, may actually be greater.
A top post, and it has got my logical senses into gear, more research on a wide range of topics is needed.
What would it take to make coach attacks 20 % less likely ?
I had a similar merry oil-related quip from one of them.The story is essentially fake news. The reporting of hate crimes goes up and down depending on the political climate. The biggest driver is public awareness ie there is a spike whenever a major incident occurs.
The level of racist vitriol against our owners on social media and in the mainstream media, especially comments on online stories, has gone off the scale in the last couple of years. Most of this has been driven by Liverpool fans. For example I was verbally abused in a pub before the CL match at Anfield by a woman who used the phrase "Arab owners and their dirty oil money." To suggest that Merseyside has become some sort of haven of tolerance because of Mo Salah is ridiculous. The opposite is true.
Liverpool becoming their own country, as per their banner statements (and everyone else’s wishes) and not being allowed into PL.What would it take to make coach attacks 20 % less likely ?
No team has won more Played more or played better than City during this period a clear indication that the TV companies are nurturing City`s ability to make money and increase our future fan base, with the FA`s blessing
I thought it was genuine if odd wording to express the kindness in showing Iittle city more than comparable little clubs like Fulham for example.Think you meant neutering, huge difference between the meaning of the two.....
Never heard any media doper refer to him as 25m a year Salah.Highest paid athletes in the world... United have a couple, LFC have one in there... No City players. Fuck the media narrative
https://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/
Never heard any media doper refer to him as 25m a year Salah.
Pogba and Ozil on that list. Two absolute spivs stealing a living.
Too true. And it's more than embarrassing that they're still that entrenched in their own narrative that they fail to recognise they've won cock-all. They cannot see beyond their own 'istry. I don't even use that as a stick to beat them with now, simply because it gives them some kind of hope that they're still significant.Sanchez even more so.
Let’s hope they don’t sign that hot new German prospect Adolf something or otherI've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.
So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.
That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...
If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.
And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).
Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).
Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.
Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?
My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.
Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
BBC Gossip publishes image of Star headline......"Pep plotting his Etihad exit......."
Is he a right winger?Let’s hope they don’t sign that hot new German prospect Adolf something or other
A master of the 'gegen press'. See Poland fixture.Is he a right winger?
The comical part, and don’t get me wrong I don’t give a fuck as I’ve only seen this by checking the gossip page, is that 3 newspapers - Mirror, Star and Express - all have it on their back page with Jeremy Cross as the reporter. Talk about pathetic.BBC Gossip publishes image of Star headline......"Pep plotting his Etihad exit......."
I heard this ‘correlation’ being trumpeted on ‘North West Tonight’ last week. Having spent a lifetime working in pharmaceuticals and reading clinical paper after clinical paper, I was amused to hear the presenter point out that the conclusion was reached after complicated, multiple analysis of the data. This ‘Salah Effect’ is an example of ‘data trawling’, i.e. ‘keep looking at the numbers until you find the data set or the conclusion that fits your original hypothesis’, nothing else. It’s pure tosh, end of.I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.
So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.
That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...
If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.
And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).
Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).
Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.
Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?
My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.
Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?