Confirmed gone:

Well, it's a start I suppose . . .

A start of what exactly? Silly season?

If I was in such a position I’d refuse to speak in public as someone somewhere will be scrutinising my every word in the hope of being offended and push their agenda. It’s utterly pathetic.

He was chairman of the FA.

It was a big part of his job to speak in public.

There are far too many dinosaurs who still treat football as a gentleman's club with no understanding of how football should be structured.

I certainly wasn't hoping to be offended by his comments.

I was offended and saddened by his comments.

Apart from using the word coloured which is probably a easy mistake to make did he say anything else offensive?

Crazy, I thought he had gone on a neo nazi rant the way the BBC had headlined the story.

Apart from using the word coloured which is probably a easy mistake to make did he say anything else offensive?

He said being gay was a life choice. Certainly made my blood boil.

Apart from using the word coloured which is probably a easy mistake to make did he say anything else offensive?

No

He was chairman of the FA.

It was a big part of his job to speak in public.

There are far too many dinosaurs who still treat football as a gentleman's club with no understanding of how football should be structured.

I certainly wasn't hoping to be offended by his comments.

I was offended and saddened by his comments.

How should football be structured?

Which of his comments were you offended by?

It's part of his job to communicate with the media and the public, and whilst nothing he said offended me personally, when I saw the clip I can now understand the furore it has caused and the reason he has resigned.
Far from coming over as FA Chairman he was more like an old drunk uncle at Christmas.
Let's hope it has the effect of getting some younger blood in positions of power at the FA.

He described being gay as a lifestyle choice.

He also cameout with: "If you go to the IT department at the FA there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro Caribbeans. They have different career interests."

Not to leave women out, another of his statements, "Girls don't like balls hit at them hard".

I find it really sad that anyone could think what he said was acceptable, to be fair even he realised it wasn't.

Apart from using the word coloured which is probably a easy mistake to make did he say anything else offensive?

No

Yes, as Bumble has stated above.
I think you will find yourself in the minority if you didn't find anything wrong in what he said.

Whilst they are, in my opinion, not exactly horrific statements in themselves you really have to think that for a man in his position it's not good enough.
Well past his sell by date.

It's a minefield and he stepped on as many as he could

He described being gay as a lifestyle choice.

He also cameout with: "If you go to the IT department at the FA there's a lot more South Asians than there are Afro Caribbeans. They have different career interests."

Not to leave women out, another of his statements, "Girls don't like balls hit at them hard".

I find it really sad that anyone could think what he said was acceptable, to be fair even he realised it wasn't.

How about putting the quote about women into context? He was quoting a women’s coach as a reason given why there was a shortage of women keepers. Nowhere did he state these views were his own.

The FA have been getting it in the neck about inclusion for years, especially with regards Asian footballers. Surely pointing out an observation that Asians or South Asians in particular would rather do clerical jobs for the FA than actually playing as an explanation to dismiss the lack of inclusion claim is a fair comment.

Would you be equally offended if someone came onto a building site asking why there weren’t more women on the tools only to be told that most would rather work in the offices? It’s merely an observations used as an explanation.

The FA have been getting it in the neck about inclusion for years, especially with regards Asian footballers. Surely pointing out an observation that Asians or South Asians in particular would rather do clerical jobs for the FA than actually playing as an explanation to dismiss the lack of inclusion claim is a fair comment.

Would you be equally offended if someone came onto a building site asking why there weren’t more women on the tools only to be told that most would rather work in the offices? It’s merely an observations used as an explanation.

I think the point is do they actually prefer to do those jobs, or would they rather do the other ones but feel excluded/not welcome? If people feel excluded from certain roles, but you refuse to acknowledge that and instead insist that they are simply choosing to be in other roles then your "observation" could be seen as a bit offensive.

I think the cocktail rather than the individual components caused his downfall to be honest.

No surprise SallySunderlandSupporter is this forum's resident racist, sexist homophobe.

More or less proves there's a link between this and a clear lack of intelligence.

Aside from the other issues, I find the use of the term 'coloured' cringingly inappropriate.
Still hear it in common usage and people who do saying/thinking there is nothing wrong with it.
I totally hate it.

These days his comments are probably unacceptable, however I watched a documentary about Bob Dylan from the 60s, which showed a poster for an upcoming concert of his in Greenwich Village NY, which stated that it was 'a benefit for colored people' (America spelling). There was obviously no taboo about the term in those days, in fact Dylan was helping black people.

So beware people, the terminology you use today might be deemed totally unacceptable in few years time and if the thought police come after you, you've no excuse.

I agree with a lot of the points on here, in that the incremental effect of his speech made it so much worse. The whole tone of the speech was excruciatingly embarrassing.

When two respected organisations who work alongside the FA (Kick it Out and Women in Football) both make public statements against what has been said by the chairman of the FA, then surely the wrong man was the chairman of the FA. That was what I meant about dinosaurs and old boys club. Mr Clarke simply cannot have been chosen to do that job because he would be a great spokesperson for the FA and yet in this day and age surely he should have been.

I have been reading this morning there are calls for the next chairman to be black or a women. . . . Oh for goodness sake, let's just have the best person for the job, black, white, 18 or 80, it really doesn't matter as long as they can do the job and bring an outdated institution into this century.

Well said Bumble. The question is though, has anyone asked what they prefer to be referred as.

Hire the best . Dont hire to suit any agenda is my thought . Wether that is a 70 year old white guy or a 30 year old gay black female . As long as they are the best and dont manage to suit any agenda and help the game .
My only questionable thought is when the BBC introduce the fa cup stuff they introduce the male pundit for example who won it with Arsenal Twice in the 2000s and the female pundit who has won it 6 times with Arsenal, City and Chelsea .
No she hasnt its a completely different competition. For the record some of the female pundits are very good and often better than the men. That is comparable but the mens and womens game isnt . Doesnt mean i don't watch WSL highlights as there are often some great goals and some horrific goal keeping and is enjoyable in a different way.

These days his comments are probably unacceptable, however I watched a documentary about Bob Dylan from the 60s, which showed a poster for an upcoming concert of his in Greenwich Village NY, which stated that it was 'a benefit for colored people' (America spelling). There was obviously no taboo about the term in those days, in fact Dylan was helping black people.

So beware people, the terminology you use today might be deemed totally unacceptable in few years time and if the thought police come after you, you've no excuse.

Exactly. The term “coloured people / people of colour” was considered to be the preferred terminology back in around the 1960s. The term was promoted by the do gooders of the day but as the years went by more and more black people made it be known that they didn’t like the terminology, until eventually it became the big taboo of today, where everyone is offended by everything on everyone else’s behalf. Pushed by an endless media drive for political correctness.

I have heard so many old people aged around 70 or above who still use the terminology “coloured people”. They seem genuinely surprised or frustrated when you politely advise them that that term is considered outdated and offensive. They are surprised or frustrated because years ago they had it drummed into them that this was the preferred terminology and that saying “black man” or “black woman” used to be terminology which was considered offensive. The older generation are usually not meaning to be offensive, and making the conscious effort not to be actually causes the slip up.

Yes, Clarke is well past his usefulness and it’s about time he was replaced. Is he a racist bigot? Not from these comments I see no evidence of it. He is an old man who pointed out some facts and voiced some opinions, while seeming to regularly make slip ups while failing to adapt to the constant changes of political correctness.

Try to show some sympathy and humanity. It will probably happen to us all one day in the future.You will be an old man or woman and stuck in your outdated ways of saying “he”or “she” and some non gender specific person will become offended by you not referring to them as “they”. Do it in public and suddenly its not just one person you’ve offended, but everyone is offended of their behalf. You old bigot.

Diane Abbott has experience of large organisations, she'd be a perfect choice for the role

Well said Bumble. The question is though, has anyone asked what they prefer to be referred as.

The accounts of NFL players I look at It seems the most popular one starts with the letter N.

These days his comments are probably unacceptable, however I watched a documentary about Bob Dylan from the 60s, which showed a poster for an upcoming concert of his in Greenwich Village NY, which stated that it was 'a benefit for colored people' (America spelling). There was obviously no taboo about the term in those days, in fact Dylan was helping black people.

So beware people, the terminology you use today might be deemed totally unacceptable in few years time and if the thought police come after you, you've no excuse.

Exactly. The term “coloured people / people of colour” was considered to be the preferred terminology back in around the 1960s. The term was promoted by the do gooders of the day but as the years went by more and more black people made it be known that they didn’t like the terminology, until eventually it became the big taboo of today, where everyone is offended by everything on everyone else’s behalf. Pushed by an endless media drive for political correctness.

I have heard so many old people aged around 70 or above who still use the terminology “coloured people”. They seem genuinely surprised or frustrated when you politely advise them that that term is considered outdated and offensive. They are surprised or frustrated because years ago they had it drummed into them that this was the preferred terminology and that saying “black man” or “black woman” used to be terminology which was considered offensive. The older generation are usually not meaning to be offensive, and making the conscious effort not to be actually causes the slip up.

Yes, Clarke is well past his usefulness and it’s about time he was replaced. Is he a racist bigot? Not from these comments I see no evidence of it. He is an old man who pointed out some facts and voiced some opinions, while seeming to regularly make slip ups while failing to adapt to the constant changes of political correctness.

Try to show some sympathy and humanity. It will probably happen to us all one day in the future.You will be an old man or woman and stuck in your outdated ways of saying “he”or “she” and some non gender specific person will become offended by you not referring to them as “they”. Do it in public and suddenly its not just one person you’ve offended, but everyone is offended of their behalf. You old bigot.

Great post, and right on the money.

What is right, and what is wrong, could someone tell me ? I got pulled up a few years ago by my daughter for referring to black people as coloured. She quickly informed me it was not an acceptable way of referring to black people, and as stated by thefoot, I told her well if I said black, I thought that was deemed to be racist.

The problem is complex, as with all these issues, their are agenda's all over the place.

By banning anything gives it power.

The Clarke resignation opens a hornets nest for those of his age and generation to be picked off adhoc due to a lack of familiarity of what is politically correct and what isn't.

Diversity is natural, it comes with numbers, vested interest groups gain power as numbers increase, footy has come on a million miles and is moving the right way, not sure what effect forcing it will have.

There will always be racism, it's a human reaction, as is bullying, name calling, all part of human and animal development and herd/pack/group/swarm/ selection.

We have never stopped bullying wrecking lives at school, so what chance has racism, diversity or any other forced narrative.

I was no Clarke fan, and am pleased to see the back of him. The FA had one motive and driver, money for the Premier League.

Taylor at the PFA should be next to be booted out, a shocking example of ' Old Boys Club ' excess.

I agree when people say political correct gone mad etc and that people are a product of their upbringing/background and also that people should respect their elders.
I do think there is more than just language that is a problem though.
When I was a lad there was a lot of casual racism about and whereby a lot of it wasn't intended to be malicious, some of it definitely was.
The other subject which sticks firmly in my mind is hatred and intolerance towards homosexuals. This was not just 'banter' it was out and out bullying, abuse and hatred. This would be displayed by otherwise seemingly decent folk.
So I do think people should be willing to reflect on that and accept that times have changed, rather than seeing everything as being down to people being hypersensitive snowflakes.

These days his comments are probably unacceptable, however I watched a documentary about Bob Dylan from the 60s, which showed a poster for an upcoming concert of his in Greenwich Village NY, which stated that it was 'a benefit for colored people' (America spelling). There was obviously no taboo about the term in those days, in fact Dylan was helping black people.

So beware people, the terminology you use today might be deemed totally unacceptable in few years time and if the thought police come after you, you've no excuse.

Exactly. The term “coloured people / people of colour” was considered to be the preferred terminology back in around the 1960s. The term was promoted by the do gooders of the day but as the years went by more and more black people made it be known that they didn’t like the terminology, until eventually it became the big taboo of today, where everyone is offended by everything on everyone else’s behalf. Pushed by an endless media drive for political correctness.

I have heard so many old people aged around 70 or above who still use the terminology “coloured people”. They seem genuinely surprised or frustrated when you politely advise them that that term is considered outdated and offensive. They are surprised or frustrated because years ago they had it drummed into them that this was the preferred terminology and that saying “black man” or “black woman” used to be terminology which was considered offensive. The older generation are usually not meaning to be offensive, and making the conscious effort not to be actually causes the slip up.

Yes, Clarke is well past his usefulness and it’s about time he was replaced. Is he a racist bigot? Not from these comments I see no evidence of it. He is an old man who pointed out some facts and voiced some opinions, while seeming to regularly make slip ups while failing to adapt to the constant changes of political correctness.

Try to show some sympathy and humanity. It will probably happen to us all one day in the future.You will be an old man or woman and stuck in your outdated ways of saying “he”or “she” and some non gender specific person will become offended by you not referring to them as “they”. Do it in public and suddenly its not just one person you’ve offended, but everyone is offended of their behalf. You old bigot.

I do get what you are saying but it doesn't really work for me.

I am 65, I really don't feel past my usefulness quite yet.

I remember the 60's when the word coloured was acceptable, and when to be gay was illegal, and woe betides the women who left the kitchen sink. Thankfully in a lot of ways, the world has moved on. I just don't find it acceptable to use age as an excuse not to move on with it.

We can all jumble our words, and say the wrong thing, particularly under stress, some more than others. This wasn't an odd error, it was a car crash.

I really don't find it acceptable that those choosing the chairman of a national organisation didn't think it was important that their figurehead was able to speak well for the organisation in public.

Bumble, I think we are all in agreement that it is a good thing that Clarke is stepping down. He has definitely overstayed his usefulness. BUT let’s not act like he has committed some heinous crime.

Age IS a valid excuse for people being stuck in their ways and failing to adapt to change, or even simply forgetting and reverting back to outdated terms and ideas.

If you feel like you are an exception then you are lucky, but remember that growing old isn’t linear and the metal decline which can happen to old people in just a few short years can be devastating and catastrophic.

These days his comments are probably unacceptable, however I watched a documentary about Bob Dylan from the 60s, which showed a poster for an upcoming concert of his in Greenwich Village NY, which stated that it was 'a benefit for colored people' (America spelling). There was obviously no taboo about the term in those days, in fact Dylan was helping black people.

So beware people, the terminology you use today might be deemed totally unacceptable in few years time and if the thought police come after you, you've no excuse.

Exactly. The term “coloured people / people of colour” was considered to be the preferred terminology back in around the 1960s. The term was promoted by the do gooders of the day but as the years went by more and more black people made it be known that they didn’t like the terminology, until eventually it became the big taboo of today, where everyone is offended by everything on everyone else’s behalf. Pushed by an endless media drive for political correctness.

I have heard so many old people aged around 70 or above who still use the terminology “coloured people”. They seem genuinely surprised or frustrated when you politely advise them that that term is considered outdated and offensive. They are surprised or frustrated because years ago they had it drummed into them that this was the preferred terminology and that saying “black man” or “black woman” used to be terminology which was considered offensive. The older generation are usually not meaning to be offensive, and making the conscious effort not to be actually causes the slip up.

Yes, Clarke is well past his usefulness and it’s about time he was replaced. Is he a racist bigot? Not from these comments I see no evidence of it. He is an old man who pointed out some facts and voiced some opinions, while seeming to regularly make slip ups while failing to adapt to the constant changes of political correctness.

Try to show some sympathy and humanity. It will probably happen to us all one day in the future.You will be an old man or woman and stuck in your outdated ways of saying “he”or “she” and some non gender specific person will become offended by you not referring to them as “they”. Do it in public and suddenly its not just one person you’ve offended, but everyone is offended of their behalf. You old bigot.

I do get what you are saying but it doesn't really work for me.

I am 65, I really don't feel past my usefulness quite yet.

I remember the 60's when the word coloured was acceptable, and when to be gay was illegal, and woe betides the women who left the kitchen sink. Thankfully in a lot of ways, the world has moved on. I just don't find it acceptable to use age as an excuse not to move on with it.

We can all jumble our words, and say the wrong thing, particularly under stress, some more than others. This wasn't an odd error, it was a car crash.

I really don't find it acceptable that those choosing the chairman of a national organisation didn't think it was important that their figurehead was able to speak well for the organisation in public.

I agree, particularly as he should have been leading the charge to improve diversity and inclusivity. However, what next ? what are the expectations and where is the action plan. It's like BLM, and the demand for change. Fine, but how is it to be achieved, please tell us ??

The comments about Asian's and priorities was correct (not politically). In the City suburbs, very few of Asian and Indian decent are unemployed. Why is that ? When we are willing to start to face up, and drill down into the reasons, then we will start to realise it's partially due to historical political agenda's of the day that has created what we have today, and their is no easy fix.

Cultural influence is strong in our mixed race Country, strong ethics in some towards working and providing for you're family, not so much in others.

Why do we not drill down ? because we fear what we would discover if we do.

Benedict Cumberbatch made the same "coloured" slip a couple of years ago and got caned for it and I remember having sympathy for him at the time, because his overall comment was well intentioned.

While I get the explanation about the historical use of "coloured", if it is deemed unacceptable then I don't see how "people of colour" is a better alternative.

There was a time not so long ago when people would actually use "coloured" instead of "black" when trying to avoid causing offence, now the latter has come into vogue. Even though no-one is literally black and it could just as easily be deemed an offensive exaggeration of their colour.

While Greg Clarke is an arse and probably deserved to go for other reasons, people should look at the intention behind the words in such cases.

If that had been his only faux pas he might have got away with it. Surely those at the FA must have known letting him talk to MPs was never going to end well

Whatever happened to sticks and stones?

I think intention is at the heart of it , I remember having an argument with a relative about the use of wording. He was saying that calling someone a "black b*****" was not racist as it's a descriptive word, to this day he still does not think it's racists. He's not a racist man but it's hard to change the Langue of some .

I remember having this conversation on here a while ago when Bumble pointed out to a few people that “coloured” was no longer an acceptable term, quite a few replies were from people who genuinely had no idea (me included). I’m by no means old but I remember when coloured was the preferred term and black was frowned upon - when did this dramatic turnaround happen? who instigated it? who decided that it was correct to stop using one term and start using another? what is “black’s” expiry date? what will the new politically correct word which we should all use? how will we know, will there be an announcement?

Context is obviously the all important word here and in a lot of other instances. The fact he used coloured at the start of a sentence when describing the “vile racist abuse suffered by many online” shows you the true context in which it was meant. This however doesn’t fit some people’s narrative and they only hear the words they want to hear, a bit like Bumble did with the quote he made about women footballers.

"Coloured" has been considered a highly offensive, racist, term since the 1970's.

It's true you're by no means old, just racist and ignorant.

I find the whole saga rather tedious,lno more comments ,I will be called a racist which I certainly am not.
Mings calls for a black person to replace Clarke ,is that not discrimination .?

I find the whole saga rather tedious,lno more comments ,I will be called a racist which I certainly am not.
Mings calls for a black person to replace Clarke ,is that not discrimination .?

I think the idea behind that is "Affirmative action" also known as positive discrimination.

"Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, creed or nationality in areas in which they were excluded in the past such as education and employment"

The basic idea is that if black people have always been under represented in a job, an employer can specifically choose to hire a black person over another candidate to try and even the balance. That kind of discrimination is legal if the employer reasonably thinks that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. It's a controversial idea which personally I'm not a fan of.

"Coloured" has been considered a highly offensive, racist, term since the 1970's.

It's true you're by no means old, just racist and ignorant.

Tell the police that then, when I had my race & diversity training with the police in 2008 the term coloured was perfectly fine and to write in statements to describe someone.

I had no idea it became offensive either. It’s not something I would use but no idea when it became a derogatory term.

What is the correct phrase to use to say the police require a coloured person that was in attendance that may be witness to a robbery?

Can you use black? Can you use coloured? Can you say person with dark skin?

"Coloured" has been considered a highly offensive, racist, term since the 1970's.

It's true you're by no means old, just racist and ignorant.

Tell the police that then, when I had my race & diversity training with the police in 2008 the term coloured was perfectly fine and to write in statements to describe someone.

I had no idea it became offensive either. It’s not something I would use but no idea when it became a derogatory term.

What is the correct phrase to use to say the police require a coloured person that was in attendance that may be witness to a robbery?

Can you use black? Can you use coloured? Can you say person with dark skin?

An IC3 Male

But seriously I would say black rather than coloured. Person with dark skin seems fine too.

"Coloured" has been considered a highly offensive, racist, term since the 1970's.

It's true you're by no means old, just racist and ignorant.

Tell the police that then, when I had my race & diversity training with the police in 2008 the term coloured was perfectly fine and to write in statements to describe someone.

I had no idea it became offensive either. It’s not something I would use but no idea when it became a derogatory term.

What is the correct phrase to use to say the police require a coloured person that was in attendance that may be witness to a robbery?

Can you use black? Can you use coloured? Can you say person with dark skin?

Why are you always tying up police time Mullen, that's about 3 threads you've mentioned contact with the coppers, you'll be on some timewaster list in the station

Hardly a surprise there's institutionalised racism in the police force.

I didn't have down as being a racist, Mullen, but here we are.

Institutional racism doesn't mean what you seem to think it does Piglet.

Hardly a surprise there's institutionalised racism in the police force.

I didn't have down as being a racist, Mullen, but here we are.

What would you use in my example to describe someone?

The word was commonly used in the 60s but from the 70s onwards was considered absolutely racist.

This is because it strips black people of their identity and reduces them to the most superficial physical identifier, as opposed to their African ethnicity.

The origins of the term are also the problem. It comes from the ideology of racism, that white people are white, and everyone else is somehow other coloured. It fails to recognise that everyone has an ethnicity and is an inadequate "one-size-fits all" description.

Nor was it a term chosen by those it refers to, but instead imposed by the wider - and white - society.

It's sad to see racism alive and well amongst our supporters in this day and age, but not very surprising if we're honest, is it?

Why do we need to refer to people by their colour or orientation? If there is truly no difference between us then such distinctions are irrelevant.

Says the old, out of touch chap...

The word was commonly used in the 60s but from the 70s onwards was considered absolutely racist.

This is because it strips black people of their identity and reduces them to the most superficial physical identifier, as opposed to their African ethnicity.

The origins of the term are also the problem. It comes from the ideology of racism, that white people are white, and everyone else is somehow other coloured. It fails to recognise that everyone has an ethnicity and is an inadequate "one-size-fits all" description.

Nor was it a term chosen by those it refers to, but instead imposed by the wider - and white - society.

It's sad to see racism alive and well amongst our supporters in this day and age, but not very surprising if we're honest, is it?

Oh shut up Piglet, Mullen isn't racist and anyone who reads a handful of his posts would know that. Coloured used to be considered the appropriate word to use. It isn't any more, but there was never an official announcement to that effect. So there are still plenty of people who use that term not because they are racist but because as far as they know that's still the proper term. This is why I said you have to look at the wider context of what someone is saying, not just the words they use.

"Coloured" has been considered a highly offensive, racist, term since the 1970's.

It's true you're by no means old, just racist and ignorant.

Tell the police that then, when I had my race & diversity training with the police in 2008 the term coloured was perfectly fine and to write in statements to describe someone.

I had no idea it became offensive either. It’s not something I would use but no idea when it became a derogatory term.

What is the correct phrase to use to say the police require a coloured person that was in attendance that may be witness to a robbery?

Can you use black? Can you use coloured? Can you say person with dark skin?

Why are you always tying up police time Mullen, that's about 3 threads you've mentioned contact with the coppers, you'll be on some timewaster list in the station

I’m well known - not really

I remembered that training and some things always stuck with me.

If a person described themselves as a black coloured speccy pikey one armed spakka tranny, then that’s how you’d refer to them but if you wanted to find a person like that you couldn’t use any of those words apart from coloured.

Why do we need to refer to people by their colour or orientation? If there is truly no difference between us then such distinctions are irrelevant.

Says the old, out of touch chap...

Has anyone actually said there is absolutely no difference at all? There are times when referring to people by the colour of their skin is relevant and appropriate. For example if a victim tells the police they were attacked by a white man, they should mention it was specifically a white man and not just "a man" to help narrow the search.