Should he have known Barkley's heritage? I didn't.
Should he have known Barkley's heritage? I didn't.
So taking the emotion out and returning to facts, Mackenzie has called Barkley thick (not something I imagine he'd struggle to back up if required) and suggested that there are lots of criminals and joblessness in Liverpool (again, something readily provable if required).
Just because something upsets people from Liverpool it doesn't make it wrong. In fact, there are few things that don't upset people from Liverpool.
I'm not even sure he was wrong.Wrong and unfunny?
Are those really grounds for suspension?
If that were the criteria the red tops would have no hacks left.
Should he have known Barkley's heritage? I didn't.
So taking the emotion out and returning to facts, Mackenzie has called Barkley thick (not something I imagine he'd struggle to back up if required) and suggested that there are lots of criminals and joblessness in Liverpool (again, something readily provable if required).
Just because something upsets people from Liverpool it doesn't make it wrong. In fact, there are few things that don't upset people from Liverpool.
I never had a clue Barkley had black heritage either.Should he have known Barkley's heritage? I didn't.
So taking the emotion out and returning to facts, Mackenzie has called Barkley thick (not something I imagine he'd struggle to back up if required) and suggested that there are lots of criminals and joblessness in Liverpool (again, something readily provable if required).
Just because something upsets people from Liverpool it doesn't make it wrong. In fact, there are few things that don't upset people from Liverpool.
I agree that there was no racism (whether by intent or not). I disagree though, that people should know his heritage.Yes, I think he, or sports editors / sub-editors (or whoever) should have known that.
I think it was pretty widely known. I even remember a poster on here referring Barkley's "African genes".
Believe me, I have zero love for Mackenzie or the S*n, but what I'm not sure about though is that there was anything racist in what he said.
Can it not only be read in a racist way if one makes a correlation between being black (or mixed race) and being a gorilla?
Wasn't the (juvenile) point he was trying to make was that Barkley is like an animal at the zoo?
I recall the furore after Hodgson's innocent "feed the monkey" story / phrase and how that got picked up on, and I wonder if this aspect of this incident is attracting some of the same, willful outrage.
I'm not sure I've expressed what I wanted to say in the most eloquent of terms, but I hope I've got across the point sufficiently. I'm not sticking up for MacKenzie whatsoever, and there is no place for racism in society - I'm just not sure this is an example of it.
I agree that there was no racism (whether by intent or not). I disagree though, that people should know his heritage.
There are 20 teams in the PL, each with 18 matchday players. Ignoring squad rotation, that's 360 players you're suggesting staff should know the heritage of. If you're only going back two generations (as in this case) that's 1,440 grandparents to know the birthplace of.
That's just not possible.
The Mirror knew because the "journalist" was specifically writing an article based on pointless facts about Barkley. He was intentionally finding out things that most people don't know.If the Mirror knew in 2013 then it's not unreasonable to think that other publications and journalists should know.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mi...s/evertons-ross-barkley-ten-facts-2956132.amp
I knew, via a poster here. I haven't looked, but I'd bet it's on wiki too, and any other number of online outlets.
MacKenzie should have measured twice and cut once.