Wycombe: We always see things from our own agenda and we sometimes agree and sometimes not.
I am not sure why the RFU has decided to address the singing of Swing Low. If nothing else, it is unlikely to stop people doing so.
They could instead consider whether they need to learn to look at their own organisation and how representative it is. An investigation by Telegraph Sport has found:
- Just three per cent of board members of taxpayer-funded national governing bodies (NGBs) are black, according to the most recent published data.
- 64 per cent of funded NGBs have no Black And Minority Ethnic (BAME) board members at all.
- Some of the country’s biggest funded and unfunded sports bodies have only one black board member between them.
- No Premier League club and virtually no English Football League club has a black owner, chairman or chief executive.
The fact the Football Association, Rugby Football Union, England and Wales Cricket Board, Lawn Tennis Association, England Golf, UK Athletics and British Cycling had one black board member between them showed the need for much firmer action.
I think Maggie Alphonsi is the only BAME representative in the RFU's hierarchy of committees. I don't know about the WRU before anyone comments but I guess it is unlikely to be very different. Would we prefer the RFU to bother with Swing Low or address a much more substantial issue?
To widen the issue of representation, a joint report from Sport England and UK Support identified that there is
on average 5% BAME board members identified across their membership. Only 5% (29) of board members declared or consider themselves to have a disability, compared to around 22% in the wider UK population; 96% of board members reported having no disability. 3% of board members identified as being openly LGBT+. This is slightly above the national average for the UK population; 2% of UK residents identify as LGBT+, although this rises to 4% among 16 to 24 year olds. Sports boards are more likely than the wider population to have attended private schools and prestigious universities. Olympic and Paralympic sports boards also have a higher than average proportion of Oxbridge board members.
Those figures show that most bodies, and it applies on company boards too, fail to represent the different sections of UK society. Should we be concerned about that?
I was disappointed that an early contributor to this thread said he was getting frustrated by the "Slavery Guilt Trip" and that other nationalities and African groups also profited from slavery? Is that a reason to get frustrated? A number of large businesses in this country, particularly financial ones, have recognised and apologised in recent days for how they benefited from the slave trade. The British Empire as a whole did very well from the slave trade and from exploiting other races, although most people then living in this country probably did not. There have also been recent court cases and jail sentences because of slavery in this country in the last year or so. Largely involving immigrants, legal & illegal, and people with learning disabilities.
And it worth saying that the issue of Black Lives Matter has arisen to the forefront because of the murder of George Floyd in the US and the disproportionate numbers of BAME people, particularly NHS and care home staff, who have died in the last few months. That has all happened this year - and it has revived the issue of, particularly, statues, mostly of men, who profited from slavery and the exploitation of people of other races. Should we still honour them?
I worked in different industries for all my career. I am aware that the first legislation against racial discrimination came into force in 1965. And the first legislation seeking equal pay for women came into law in 1970. Significant discrimination still exists and women are still a long way from equal pay.
Another contributor here commented that he was aware of opinions he might have held and TV programmes he watched a couple of decades ago were no longer acceptable. We might benefit from reflecting about what actions we accept now might be seen as unacceptable in 2040.
With apologies for the length of this contribution.