BLACK football managers are given less time than white counterparts to turn poor form around, claims John Barnes.The former Celtic, Jamaica and Tranmere boss told BBC Scotland he believes unconscious bias is commonplace.The 56-year-old said: “Results get you sacked. For the vast majority of black managers, they will be sacked quicker than a failed white manager.“There is no evidence. It’s just a feeling that we get and the statistics will suggest that.”Barnes, born in Jamaica, starred for Watford, Liverpool and England in the 1980s and ’90s. He was appointed head coach at Celtic in 1999, with fellow Liverpool favourite Kenny Dalglish installed at the same time as director of football.However, Barnes’ time at the Glasgow club was fraught and he was sacked following the 3-1 Scottish Cup defeat by second-tier Inverness Caledonian Thistle. His team had won 13 and drawn two of their 20 league games.In the past week he has expressed his views on Twitter and responded to comments made by fans about the restricted opportunities for black managers and how quickly they may be sacked relative to their white counterparts.“I was just engaging with people,” he explained. “It went on to become personal, or all about Celtic and all about racism in football, but that was not what it was all about.“How can you prove it? You can’t. Even with statistics, it could still be coincidence.“There’s not one British black manager who has been at a club more than one or two years, which would suggest if it wasn’t anything to do with bias whatsoever, all black managers are not good enough, because they’re black.”‘Celtic struggle nothing to do with my race’Barnes believes the issue is not so much one of prospective black managers being given the opportunity, but “the opportunity to be given time, trust, belief”.Of his time at Celtic, Barnes said his experiences “had nothing to do with my race”.“From the first week I lost the dressing room, but that had nothing to do with my colour,” he said. “There were other dynamics being told about me, my capabilities.“I was undermined straightaway by the fans who said, ‘Should John Barnes have been given the job?’“The chief executive said, ‘It’s a risk we’re taking but we’ve got Kenny Dalglish here,’ which undermined me straightaway.“I know that the hierarchy didn’t want me there, but Kenny Dalglish insisted and I thank Kenny for that to my dying day because I wanted to be a coach. “You had a big split in the dressing room. You had players who were bigger than others. It was very obvious the disrespect they had for Bobby Petta and Stiliyan Petrov. I had them crying in my office.“I knew it wouldn’t last. I said to my wife after one week, ‘Don’t move up, because this is not going to work,’ and that was when things were going well in the first six to eight games. I didn’t get another job for nine years.”‘Until we admit it, nothing will change’Barnes believes football is no different from society in general and his view is that the first step to resolving the problem is to admit it exists.“Where do you see black leaders in mainstream institutions?” he said. “The first thing is to own it. People will agree with you (on bias) but say it’s ‘not at our club’.“People think that racists are people who throw bananas on the field and hurl abuse, and if we don’t do it, we’re not racist. There are degrees of discrimination amongst all of us, from a sexist point of view, a homophobic point of view and a race point of view.“We are all biased to a certain degree. Until we admit it, nothing will change.” (BBC Sport)
DNY59/iStockBy ALEXANDER MALLIN, ABC News(WASHINGTON) — In a surprise ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overruled District Judge Emmet Sullivan and ordered him to accept the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.President Donald Trump reacted within minutes, tweeting that the ruling in favor of his first national security adviser, whom the president has repeatedly claimed was investigated and prosecuted unfairly, was “Great!”The three-judge appeals court panel ruled 2-1 in granting Flynn’s motion to overrule Sullivan, with Trump-appointee Judge Neomi Rao authoring the majority opinion for the order — spelling out how the court believes Judge Sullivan overstepped his authority by appointing an outside former judge to argue against the Justice Department and Flynn’s legal team.“A hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions, because “authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary,” Rao writes.Rao also notes the recent evidence surfaced by the Justice Department’s separate review of the case should give it the freedom to revisit the integrity of the overall prosecution.“Each of our three coequal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs. If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice,”The opinion denies one part of the motion from Flynn’s attorneys in their request to have Judge Sullivan reassigned from the case entirely.Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the ruling, noting the court’s extraordinary action to step in in the middle of a process to overrule the lower district court judge before he was able to hold a formal hearing on the DOJ’s surprise reversal in the case.“It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own,” Wilkins says. “This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling; the first time any court has held that a district court must grant “leave of court” … without even holding a hearing on the merits of the motion; and the first time we have issued the writ even though the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, on the theory that another party would not have had an adequate alternate remedy if it had filed a petition as well. Any one of these is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny the petition; together, they compel its rejection.”The Justice Department is already celebrating the ruling, with DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec tweeting the ruling as a “WIN.”Here is the appeals court ruling.This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.