As a child we used to play cards. I had four younger sisters and my father had been brought up in a family where playing cards was something the family did together. Whist, Rummy, Bridge, and a variety of other exotic card games punctuated evenings, weekends and holidays. 

In some games more than others, one of the four suits would become ‘trumps’ and develop a superior power over the same card in other suits.

I was reminded of having to remember which suit was trumps when Tyrone Mings, a footballer, was reported in the media as rubbishing Priti Patel, the Home Secretary. 

I hadn’t heard of Mr Mings before, but that’s because I’m not an Aston Villa supporter; more than that, I am one of those culturally disabled and perhaps even primitive people who don’t understand football; actually it’s worse; I am totally baffled by it. I watched the Euros with increasing despair at my inability to work out what was captivating about 22 men knocking the ball around with nothing at all happening, except for perhaps once or twice when an admittedly impressive goal might (but might not) be scored. But honestly, there were too few goals to make hanging around for 90 minutes remotely worthwhile. I think to make watching worthwhile, I would have needed a goal after every five minutes of random, dull, often inept passing.

But back to Mr Mings. I understand of course that footballers are celebrities, and that like ballet dancers, they have short intense careers. But it’s a new thing to have footballers entering the political arena and treating politicians like a restricted form of pond life.

So what did Tyrone Mings think gave him such moral superiority to rebuke the Home Secretary with all the lofty moral grandeur that a Victorian Archbishop might bring to the table?

Mr Mings has just been very rude to the Home Secretary. Now, whether you are a footballer or not, I don’t think there can be any doubt that you need an altogether fuller intellectual tool box and a wider set of social skills to get to the top of the political greasy pole and formulate increasingly complex public policy than you do to be a ballet dancer or even centre-back for Aston Villa. That thought didn’t restrain Mr Mings for more than a nano second, if that.

So what did Tyrone Mings think gave him such moral superiority to rebuke the Home Secretary with all the lofty moral grandeur that a Victorian Archbishop might bring to the table?

In this great public debate about purity of mind, ‘trumps’ changes from one suit to another. Playing cards (invented by the French in about 1480 consisted of four suits representing four different sources of power in the land  clubs (peasants) , diamonds (merchants), hearts (clergy) and spades (royalty.)  The political suits we now use often but not exclusively comprise of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and hypocrisy. Which one is ‘trumps’ changes depending on the argument of the moment. 

Tyrone Mings got very cross because Piti Patel criticised the footballers for importing taking of the knee from Black Lives Matter in the States. BLM had a very clear philosophy; it was against racism and police brutality, obviously,  but also equally against the nuclear family and capitalism. BLM was founded by three ‘out and proud’ American women, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi. Cullors explained “We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories.” Alicia Garza describes herself and her ideals for the movement as “queer social justice activist and Marxist.”

Now it shouldn’t be a huge surprise to the Left that conservative politicians are wary of a movement that combines anti-racism, queer theory and Marxism. The question in the public space is whether it’s open to supporters to separate the anti-racism from defunding the police, queer theory and Marxism? 

Now it shouldn’t be a huge surprise to the Left that conservative politicians are wary of a movement that combines anti-racism, queer theory and Marxism. The question in the public space is whether its open to supporters to separate the anti-racism from defunding the police, queer theory and Marxism?  

Critics say that you can no more separate BLM’s taking the knee from its full programme than you can separate the Nazi salute from Hitler, insisting that you are perfectly free to use the salute because as far as you are concerned it stands for German economic revival and national pride which you quite like,  but you reserve the right to choose to disassociate yourself from anti-Semitism and the final solution.

Unable to reach for the ace of racism, Mings instead plays the queen of hypocrisy card.

There’s no sign that Tyrone Mings has worked out the question of what taking the knee as a supporter of BLM really does stand for, but he wants to attack Piti Patel using the suit of racism. Only he can’t, because her skin is about the same shade of brown that his is. Unable to reach for the ace of racism, Mings instead plays the queen of hypocrisy card. Piri Patel had complained that people in general, and the English Team in particular, haven’t thought taking the knee through and are indulging in ‘gesture-politics.’

At which point, he accuses her of being a hypocrite, which while not as strong a suit as accusing her of being a racist, is nearly as good.

“You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message  as ‘gesture politics’ and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we are campaigning against happens” he insisted.

Plenty of commentators have pointed out the football in this country has one of the best anti-racist records of any political or social organisation.

For the bystander, it’s hard to believe that some unimaginably  rich footballers borrowing a gesture from an American organisation like BLM that comes with some very clear ideological aims intended to derail our culture and our politics, is going to have the effect of making some racist football supporter think twice. Plenty of commentators have pointed out the football in this country has one of the best anti-racist records of any political or social organisation.

Do you get to sit light to queer theory and defunding the police while retaining a zeal to overthrow capitalism and outlaw all racism?

Many of us are left with two questions. Does taking the knee actually work to set the malodorous racist free from their moral mental corruption of their social crime? And can you separate one part of the BLM agenda from the whole? What about two out of four? 

Do you get to sit light to queer theory and defunding the police while retaining a zeal to overthrow capitalism and outlaw all racism? Or, can you go even further,and reduce it to one out of four?  If you are a very rich footballer and don’t fancy sharing your wage with the rest of the workforce, add the rejection of their Marxism as well?

It would be helpful to have an answer to these questions. Because without one, taking the knee does indeed look very like ‘gesture politics’, designed to win cheap moral public approval for social virtue, without either paying any personal price or doing anything in practice to change anyone or anything.