The Football Thread

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by Devius

A very good point....racism of all types is wrong. End of.

No, that's not the end. Abuse of all types is wrong.

It's rather idiotic that we make such a song-and-dance about racism. Someone's race is a trivial aspect of their overall persona, but we risk making it a major aspect the more we focus on it with these witch-hunts.

Calling someone a "black b*stard" should be equally as obnoxious as (and no more obnoxious than) calling someone a "green-eyed b*stard", or a "tall b*stard", or some other trivial characteristic followed by the word "b*stard".

[pierrelm]

One more concern about the 'Kick It Out' debate. The cynical side of me wonders how much Jason Roberts is seeking an opportunity to be seen as a spokesman as his career winds down and he looks to raise his media profile?

I don't doubt his sincerity but I do have a misgiving about his motive for taking such a public stance - I get a sense that he's grandstanding and could approach his concerns by taking a far more constructive approach - don't look to undermine what's there but engage, involve and influence.

This isn't the way that Ces Podd, Brendan Batson, Paul Elliot and noted others have taken a leading role in the education of not only the football world but out in the local communities where they've made a genuine difference, with a more mature and considered approach.

Oh, and as for the moron on the pitch at Hillsborough the punishment is simple - life ban from all sports grounds and criminal charge for assault and anything else the authorities want to chuck at him. Sadly, idiots like this seem to think they are representing something to do with a tribal allegiance when they behave like this. They don't and they ain't, they are just thugs and need to be treated as such.

Incidentally, do you know which sport apparently has the most arrests each year for criminal activity and bad behaviour amongst spectators?

Horse Racing.

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by pierrelm

Incidentally, do you know which sport apparently has the most arrests each year for criminal activity and bad behaviour amongst spectators?

Horse Racing.

That's surprising, but also quite funny! Can you provide a link to a report that verifies it as fact?

[victor meldrew]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

No, that's not the end. Abuse of all types is wrong.

It's rather idiotic that we make such a song-and-dance about racism. Someone's race is a trivial aspect of their overall persona, but we risk making it a major aspect the more we focus on it with these witch-hunts.

Calling someone a "black b*stard" should be equally as obnoxious as (and no more obnoxious than) calling someone a "green-eyed b*stard", or a "tall b*stard", or some other trivial characteristic followed by the word "b*stard".

I actually agree with that, having managed staff in my working days, you had to be fair to everyone, regardless of colour, creed or if you liked them or not.

If its true that Anton had a dig a Terry, regarding the Mrs Bridge affair, then to me that is just as bad.

However, I would add, having played football, although at grass roots level, I have said things to people I would not normally say, officials would also cop some static. My father used to wonder, who this individual was, that was supposedly his son.

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by victor meldrew

If its true that Anton had a dig a Terry, regarding the Mrs Bridge affair, then to me that is just as bad.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The affair with 'Mrs Bridge' was a voluntary action taken by John Terry - nothing to do with some trivial or arbitrary aspect of his appearance. Like anyone, he deserves to held accountable for his actions, and that includes teasing, winding-up, ridicule, etc.

Where I'm trying to draw the line is between:

1. trivial aspects of a person over which they have absolutely no control (such as skin colour, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, height, eye-colour, hair-colour, etc.), and
2. a person's choices regarding what they do (or don't do) or what they believe.

In my opinion, it is abusive to treat a person differently due to something in the first category, but it is not abusive to criticise a person's actions or beliefs, so long as that criticism is conducted in a reasonable and non-threatening manner and with respect to circumstance.

[victor meldrew]

Here again, what might be classed as banter to one, might been seen as offensive to another. In the work place you have to be fair to all,regardless.

Are we saying it is unacceptable to pick on colour or creed, but it is acceptable for personal choice?

[pierrelm]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

That's surprising, but also quite funny! Can you provide a link to a report that verifies it as fact?

Came to me from my next door neighbour, a serving member of the -ss-x constabulary; I'll see if I can get something verifyable from him...

I think it's not unrelated to the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol - I now live near Newmarket and the pubs are open and thriving, literally at breakfast time on racedays, and there's also a large amount of organised pickpocketing. I'm sure he also said that the amount of violence related arrests and cautions was proportionately higher amongst race-goers than football crowds especially toward the end of the day when folk get a little tired and emotional; apparently rugby union crowds are the best behaved overall.

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by victor meldrew

Here again, what might be classed as banter to one, might been seen as offensive to another. In the work place you have to be fair to all,regardless.

Well, you certainly have to be fair and reasonable, but that doesn't mean you have to automatically accept that someone claiming offence means that something unreasonable has been said or displayed.

Otherwise, we'd end up living in a country where you couldn't make a satirical point of any kind, such as, for argument's sake, putting a name-badge on a pineapple.

Originally Posted by victor meldrew

Are we saying it is unacceptable to pick on colour or creed, but it is acceptable for personal choice?

'Creed' is a synonym of 'religion', which is of course a personal choice and so should be completely open to discussion, debate and, where appropriate, ridicule.

[pierrelm]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

'Creed' is a synonym of 'religion', which is of course a personal choice and so should be completely open to discussion, debate and, where appropriate, ridicule.

I'm fundamentally opposed to anything fundamental.

In the meantime, whilst throwing together the Sunday Roast, I'm mostly listening to the quietest crowd I can recall for a very long time,at Loftus Road. Someone, it seems, has pinched all the atmosphere. Alan Green is doing his best(?) to fill the gaps, along with the utterly uninspiring Mike Ingham (at least I think it's him - he has one of those voices that defies you to pay attention and instead subliminally encourages you start drifting off...)

Any grounds you've noted for their lack of atmosphere? Ipswich is currently the one that has stood out for a few seasons as being one to visit if you like a nice peaceful afternoon, with no rowdy cheering. Very, very polite.

Arsenal's move from the library to the Emirates seemed to have managed the impossible, ie find a ground with less crowd enthusiasm. And Roy Keane was so right about Old Trafford - the contrast pre- and post- Premier League/seating is staggering.

[arkon4]

Originally Posted by IngramJohn

Well, here we are again!

When the police actually catch-up with the scum Leeds United supporter (and I use the word 'supporter' sparingly) who hit the Sheffield Wednesday goalkeeper ... What SHOULD happen to him and to the Club?

I'll start off with ...

The guy should be jailed for 5 years and banned from football games for life.

The Club should be fined heavily and deducted 12 points.

What do you think fellas?

With the benefit of relatively informed knowledge here's how the land lies.

The man in question has a criminal record and believe it or not has a current football banning order. He did not buy his ticket from the club under his own name. The club operates a membership scheme whereby only members and season ticket holders can buy away tickets. It is the responsibility of the home club to ensure that tickets are checked against the membership card before allowing entry.

Leaving his actual behaviour to one side as we all agree on that and what should happen to him, the next question is where were the stewards and the Police? How did he get onto the pitch and back off again without a single steward appearing in camera shot? I'll tell you. Just before that point, the home fans had actually broken through a cordon and across a fifteen to twenty seat block of empty seating to attack the area where the LUFC supporters were. The Police and stewards from the front of the Leeds supporters had been moved to form a buffer.

What about Dave Jones' rant? Why were Leeds fans singing songs about Jimmy Saville? I'll tell you why, because before that the Wednesday fans had been singing that Leeds is "just a town full of pedos" which is why the Leeds fans retorted with there's only one Jimmy Saville. Black humour at its worst - but thats all it was.

Dave Jones was hugely out of order and is already frantically back peddling on his line that all Leeds fans are vile animals as the inbox at the Football League's office is groaning under the strain from the thousands who weren't there (let alone those who were!). He was being subjected to a barrage of abuse about his past which again had been exacerbated by Sheffield Wednesday's fans choosing to sing about the murder of two Leeds fans in Turkey. That is a red rag to Leeds fans (despite their antipathy for that colour!).

Anyway, the fact is that both sets of fans were as bad as each other and neither set can be in anyway proud of what they did. However there is something to be said for even handed reporting of what was said and what went on with both sets of supporters. Also it has to be taken into account in the context of the tribalism that football supporters are brought up with. For those suggesting points deductions and banning of fans, well there could be problems there. Sheffield Wednesday themselves had a pitch invasion two years ago when Crystal Palace beat them at Hillsborough and relegated them to League 1 on the last day of the season. Clint Hill who played for Palace at the time was caught up in the invasion and punched by "seven or eight" people - his own words. No penalty was levelled at Sheffield Wednesday.

At Carlisle in the Northern final of the JPT a couple of seasons ago, there was a similar invasion when Carlisle beat Leeds on penalties (we'll gloss over the laser pen in the home end where the penalties were taken) but three Leeds players were assaulted - no action taken by the Football League. Lets try the League One semi-final play off first leg a couple of years ago Millwall v Leeds. Millwall scored, there was an invasion and guess what - the Leeds keeper was assaulted on live TV and guess what happened to Millwall? Yep diddly squat.

I can appreciate the high feelings running through the football world and the wringing of hands of oh we must do something, but for the authorities to take action now would be ironic in the extreme. Oh hang on a minute........ anyone remember David Axcell? He was a referee in the early days of the Premier League and he famously did an over exaggerated pratfall after being pushed by one Paulo Di Canio. Who was Paulo playing for then? Sheffield Wednesday? Surely not!

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Oh and by the way like the media I seem to have forgotten to mention the flare that the Wednesday fans threw onto the pitch after their goal and the lad who bitch slapped Kirkland (no one can call that a punch) is likely to get a very severe kicking if the Leeds message boards are anything to go by.

Peace out