Wolves fan arrested after calling aways fans something not nice

[joe jordans teeth]

On a serious note is this what has become of this country,I don’t really want to hit someone over the head with a object,can we not sing old school songs without being accused of all and sundry 

[BigTone]

16 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Yes

I'll have a pint Sir

[Son of Fred]

6 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Are Swansea/Cardiff/Newport not Sheepshaggers anymore. Asking for a friend? 

It's the sheep I feel sorry for

[BigTone]

9 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

On a serious note is this what has become of this country,I don’t really want to hit someone over the head with a object,can we not sing old school songs without being accused of all and sundry 

Nope

[Dolman_Stand]

I can never really decide on this kind of stuff, it's pretty clear that football is far more sanitised than it was 20 years ago yet I wouldn't even consider going to an away game anymore due to the level of bone head knuckle draggers we (and all other clubs) seem to attract which is far worse than I can remember even a decade ago. For all the clamping down on chanting (most of which is obviously a good thing I.e. racial abuse etc) is it actually working? Same goes for society as a whole really, with all the cancel culture/"wokeism" that is prevalent in modern Britain societal behaviour is in the mud.

[BigTone]

Just now, Son of Fred said:

It's the sheep I feel sorry for

Especially Baabara & Maary

[joe jordans teeth]

Just now, BigTone said:

Nope

So I’m better off actually doing it because the old bill will be to busy going round houses to tell people to stop watching illegal streams or silly songs is what you’re telling me 

[BigTone]

16 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

I can never really decide on this kind of stuff, it's pretty clear that football is far more sanitised than it was 20 years ago yet I wouldn't even consider going to an away game anymore due to the level of bone head knuckle draggers we (and all other clubs) seem to attract which is far worse than I can remember even a decade ago. For all the clamping down on chanting (most of which is obviously a good thing I.e. racial abuse etc) is it actually working? Same goes for society as a whole really, with all the cancel culture/"wokeism" that is prevalent in modern Britain societal behaviour is in the mud.

I went to see City a few years back away at QPR.  A  group of young morons headed up by the chief moron decided to give it large to the QPR supporters adjacent the away end big time. Problem for me was that most of the QPR contingent were families with young kids. Frankly I was disgusted and embarrassed by our travelling support (not all I must add). Hence my thoughts on having our Ultras (as they have decided to be known for no other reason than it makes them sound tough in their own tiny minds) in close proximity to opposition supporters. Planks the lot of them with IQ's that have never seen double figures and never will.

Edited January 13, 2023 by BigTone

[BigTone]

16 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

So I’m better off actually doing it because the old bill will be to busy going round houses to tell people to stop watching illegal streams or silly songs is what you’re telling me 

Can't answer that one for you.

Edited January 13, 2023 by BigTone

[joe jordans teeth]

10 minutes ago, BigTone said:

I went to see City a few years back away at QPR.  A  group of young morons headed up by the chief moron decided to give it large to the QPR supporters adjacent the away end big time. Problem for me was that most of the QPR contingent were families with young kids. Frankly I was disgusted and embarrassed by our travelling support (not all I must add). Hence my thoughts on having our Ultras (as they have decided to be known for no other reason than it makes them sound tough in their own tiny minds) in close proximity to opposition supporters. Planks the lot of them with IQ's that have never seen double figures and never will.

Don’t get the ultra stuff myself,is it a branch of the csf who like to stand at the back but don’t want to get involved 

[BigTone]

2 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Don’t get the ultra stuff myself,is it a branch of the csf who like to stand at the back but don’t want to get involved 

That's them I think

[joe jordans teeth]

1 minute ago, BigTone said:

That's them I think

Bless ‘em 

[BigTone]

2 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Bless ‘em 

My thoughts exactly. So tough they eat the red smarties first.

Edited January 13, 2023 by BigTone

[joe jordans teeth]

6 minutes ago, BigTone said:

My thoughts exactly. So tough they eat the red smarties first.

Bloody nutters 

[BigTone]

Just now, joe jordans teeth said:

Bloody nutters 

That's being derogatory of nutters !!

[Rebounder]

5 hours ago, ooRya said:

Thank you for that considered response.

I DO get where you're coming from, but at the same time still struggle with how people are so easily offended these days.

Having said that, I will readily admit to being of the generation that grew up during the 1970's - a decade where stereotypes were one of the main sources of humour/comedy, so accept that I'm probably very "out of date!"

Back then a lot of people were offended by Men openly kissing in public. There are still  people around now that would struggle with it. I think it's a bit of a myth that society wasn't so easily offended back then, it's just we're not offended by the same things now. In the 70's a lot of those jokes did hurt and offend a lot of people, they just didn't have the voice  to be able to call it out, and society generally didn't care that they were being discriminated against. 

It's not "easily offended" when you have been assaulted and abused for your sexuality. Using sexuality as an insult towards someone else indicates that there is something wrong with it, and that feeds into a narrative that they are less than. The person making the joke might not be homophobic, but they are helping to perpetuate that idea and that does lead to real life discrimination of gay people. 

I totally acknowledge that we all make mistakes and I've made loads of jokes that I look back on and regret - I will definitely do it again I'm sure. Language is also changing constantly and I think most people are more scared of getting something wrong so they retreat into a defensive stance straight away - "people are just to easy to offend these days" I think it's okay to get something wrong and to reflect on it. People also have the right to challenge us on something we've said even if we don't agree with it. 

As always context and situation are important. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Rebounder

[joe jordans teeth]

3 minutes ago, Rebounder said:

Back then a lot of people were offended by Men openly kissing in public. There are still  people around now that would struggle with it. I think it's a bit of a myth that society wasn't so easily offended back then, it's just we're not offended by the same things now. In the 70's a lot of those jokes did hurt and offend a lot of people, they just didn't have the voice  to be able to call it out, and society generally didn't care that they were being discriminated against. 

It's not "easily offended" when you have been assaulted and abused for your sexuality. Using sexuality as an insult towards someone else indicates that there is something wrong with it, and that feeds into a narrative that they are less than. The person making the joke might not be homophobic, but they are helping to perpetuate that idea and that does lead to real life discrimination of gay people. 

I totally acknowledge that we all make mistakes and I've made loads of jokes that I look back on and regret - I will definitely do it again I'm sure. Language is also changing constantly and I think most people are more scared of getting something wrong so they retreat into a defensive stance straight away - "people are just to easy to offend these days" I think it's okay to get something wrong and to reflect on it. People also have the right to challenge us on something we've said even if we don't agree with it. 

As always context and situation are important. 

Are jokes not able to offend whatever subject you want,be it racism,sexuality or religion because at the moment it’s clearly people getting offended on others behalf (I’m going to use the I have loads of black friends stereotype because I actually do) and none either young or old couldn’t care less if you call them black or coloured but the PC brigade say it must be black,as for Mohammad and religious jokes that’s a minefield but God jokes fill your boots 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

11 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

It would be the right in this country that is shutting down free speech and free thought most certainty not the left.

[Rebounder]

1 hour ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Are jokes not able to offend whatever subject you want,be it racism,sexuality or religion because at the moment it’s clearly people getting offended on others behalf (I’m going to use the I have loads of black friends stereotype because I actually do) and none either young or old couldn’t care less if you call them black or coloured but the PC brigade say it must be black,as for Mohammad and religious jokes that’s a minefield but God jokes fill your boots 

Is it clearly people getting offended on others behalf though? That's not been my experience. A lot of my female friends find jokes about rape distasteful for example. I can understand why those jokes are really problematic now even though growing up I just thought they were funny. I used to think Sickapedia was the funniest thing on the internet. 

I know my family network used to make a lot of racist jokes which had an impact on me as a teenager and that's why I think it's good to think carefully about the narratives you're feeding into. Like a lot of white people I have been racist in the past and said racist jokes. I could either double down on that and talk about how everyone's so easily offended, or I could reflect on my behaviour to understand where it came from, the impact it had and think about how I want to be moving forward. 

As far as I know no black person I have ever been friends with, or worked with has had a problem with being called black and that's always how they've described themselves so why would I say coloured? Some really don't like the word coloured particularly those around my age as it was dying out then - so naturally I am not going to use it. I also recognise that it's not helpful to jump down peoples throat if they do use it, and that just because someone does use it that they are racist. I know for a fact I am not perfect. 

It's worth remembering that we are not one homogenous groups of people. I couldn't speak for the entire LGBT community and there will be people that would disagree with me - I definitely disagree with others a lot. Just like not all black people agree about what is racist, and what's not. It's more complex than a set of binary laws made in Westminster. 

In terms of comedy whose making the jokes? I have been to see a Muslim comedian who uses some of his experiences in comedy. It was really funny and also interesting to hear from his perspective. I guess that could feed into a narrative, but it was really clever and thoughtful rather than "Mohamad :laugh:." I've also seen some great comedies made by people who grew up in a similar environment to me and it was way better than any of the shit made by posh public school/university kids. Making jokes about your own culture is quite different to making them about someone else's in my opinion, but maybe that's wrong? I also don't think it's necessarily true you cant make a joke about another culture, but I think it's a lot harder to do without falling into tropes and merely causing offence. So be good at it and clever I guess? 

Comedy always sails a bit close to the wind and sometimes it oversteps it. I don't feel it's as under attack as people make out as there are some great small comedy nights around. You won't necessarily find much racism. Not only because its not accepted, but because what's left of that material that hasn't been said already? 

Sorry for the long post again. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Rebounder

[Davefevs]

@Reboundergood post, think it shows that “awareness” is pretty important in all of this.  Some of it needs to be self-education, some of it sometimes needs others to do the educating.

[BrizzleRed]

5 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Back then a lot of people were offended by Men openly kissing in public. There are still  people around now that would struggle with it. I think it's a bit of a myth that society wasn't so easily offended back then, it's just we're not offended by the same things now. In the 70's a lot of those jokes did hurt and offend a lot of people, they just didn't have the voice  to be able to call it out, and society generally didn't care that they were being discriminated against. 

It's not "easily offended" when you have been assaulted and abused for your sexuality. Using sexuality as an insult towards someone else indicates that there is something wrong with it, and that feeds into a narrative that they are less than. The person making the joke might not be homophobic, but they are helping to perpetuate that idea and that does lead to real life discrimination of gay people. 

I totally acknowledge that we all make mistakes and I've made loads of jokes that I look back on and regret - I will definitely do it again I'm sure. Language is also changing constantly and I think most people are more scared of getting something wrong so they retreat into a defensive stance straight away - "people are just to easy to offend these days" I think it's okay to get something wrong and to reflect on it. People also have the right to challenge us on something we've said even if we don't agree with it. 

As always context and situation are important. 

There’s also an important thing that’s often passed over in these sort of situations.  

Whilst ‘mainstream’ society is told it should be accepting and tolerant towards the various minority groups, that same same level of tolerance doesn’t seem to be expected from the minority groups themselves.

Until that gets addressed, we’ll probably never get to a point where we reach true equality for everyone sadly.

[Rebounder]

12 hours ago, BrizzleRed said:

There’s also an important thing that’s often passed over in these sort of situations.  

Whilst ‘mainstream’ society is told it should be accepting and tolerant towards the various minority groups, that same same level of tolerance doesn’t seem to be expected from the minority groups themselves.

Until that gets addressed, we’ll probably never get to a point where we reach true equality for everyone sadly.

Again I don't think that's completely true, but I do agree in some ways that certain elements of the circles I have mixed in have been guilty in the stuff they've overlooked when supporting certain groups. I don't want to fall into left and right narratives, but the left rightly do get pulled up on this both internally and externally though not enoguh. Due to the nature of the right it's much easier for them to pick and choose what's acceptable. 

Can you give some examples of where equality isn't expected both ways? Genuinely is helpful and I can probably think of some too. Like I remember when I was quite young and naive I didn't realise how much Anti-Semitism there was in Pro Palestine groups (not all) and how easy it was for it to slip in. Made me very wary of those groups and the people that mix in them. Also supporting groups on a racial issue, but maybe ignoring their blatant sexism?  Do you mean that kind of stuff? 

Really there can never be true equality in this country, but not due to these issues. We are taught to hate and distrust eachother whilst the people that control our essential resources make record profits. Government's (left and right) and the people that support them rely on there being an enemy that they can deflect that on too, whether it's working class people striking, migrants, people who use drugs, people that need benefits, or the young people. It's never them and the people they support. In my opinion at least

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Rebounder

[BrizzleRed]

3 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Again I don't think that's completely true, but I do agree in some ways that certain elements of the circles I have mixed in have been guilty in the stuff they've overlooked when supporting certain groups. I don't want to fall into left and right narratives, but the left rightly do get pulled up on this both internally and externally though not enoguh. Due to the nature of the right it's much easier for them to pick and choose what's acceptable. 

Can you give some examples of where equality isn't expected both ways? Genuinely is helpful and I can probably think of some too. Like I remember when I was quite young and naive I didn't realise how much Anti-Semitism there was in Pro Palestine groups (not all) and how easy it was for it to slip in. Made me very wary of those groups and the people that mix in them. Also supporting groups on a racial issue, but maybe ignoring their blatant sexism?  Do you mean that kind of stuff? 

Really there can never be true equality in this country, but not due to these issues. We are taught to hate and distrust eachother whilst the people that control our essential resources make record profits. Government's (left and right) and the people that support them rely on there being an enemy that they can deflect that on too, whether it's working class people striking, migrants, people who use drugs, people that need benefits, or the young people. It's never them and the people they support. In my opinion at least

 

Interesting points Rebounder, but I think we massively differ on your second paragraph, given the huge and disproportionate power advantage Israel hold over the Palestinians.  

The Israeli state seems incapable of taking criticism and it often claims any legitimate criticism of their treatment of the Palestinian people as being anti-semitic.  

The beleagered Palestinians, virtually imprisoned in the ever shrinking scrap of their own land they’ve been left with, don’t have the luxury of that extra shield!

I’m far from saying anti-semitism doesn’t exist, but there do seem to be many people who try to dodge straightforward criticism by claiming it’s anti-semitic.

As for my previous post, the equality issues I’m referring to are more to do with the negative aspects of the ever growing woke culture.  

My problem with it is, although promoted as positive action, it can often be negative.  Rather than promoting equality, very often the woke community actually increase division.  Whether it’s racial issues, sexual orientation, climate change or whatever, they aren’t celebrating what we as a people have in common, but are just magnifying and arguing over the differences.  

Not only that, but there is often no tolerance of alternative views.   Rather than agreeing to disagree, cancel culture often kicks in and there is a concerted drive to destroy anyone who persists with an alternative opinion to theirs.  We’ve seen many examples of this and we are never going to achieve the harmony most people would prefer while this ideology persists. 

I can’t ever remember so many divisions in this country during my lifetime and we are now getting to the ridiculous situation when even the gay and trans communities are now forced into battling each other.

I agree with you there are people who are deliberately sowing and benefitting from this division, though I suspect much of this comes from powerful individuals and self interest groups, with the government just being dragged along, rather than actually leading.

While this situation is allowed to continue, imho we’ve got zero chance of real equality, as that wouldn’t suit many of the same self-interest groups, as it would diminish their own power.

 

[WessexPest]

On 13/01/2023 at 04:16, Super said:

Noticed this the other day

‘Chelsea rent boy’ chant now a breach of discrimination rules, FA confirm | The Independent

That’s disgusting.

Bristol Rovers are the Rent Boys. We trademarked that moniker in the 1990s.

[MarcusX]

 

On 13/01/2023 at 14:23, ooRya said:

A genuine question............what is homophobia?

I totally understand that to persecute a gay person, either by words or actions, is clearly homophobic, but if for example one were to call a straight person a queer, or similar, I struggle to see how that falls under the homophobia label.

to do so would suggest there is something wrong with being “queer” otherwise why else are you calling them that word?

I was subjected to homophobic abuse on the pitch just a few weeks ago, because I’ve got pink boots and had long hair (I’m sure some on here will think that’s fair!). I’m not gay, but statistically someone on that pitch could have been, and will be scared to come out because of abuse like this. 
 

On 13/01/2023 at 19:39, Harry said:

So we even know what was said yet? 

I think I saw on Twitter a post from the guy who reported it (he is gay), can’t remember exactly but think it was prolonged abuse rather than just one word. 

 

 

[Harry]

46 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

 

I think I saw on Twitter a post from the guy who reported it (he is gay), can’t remember exactly but think it was prolonged abuse rather than just one word. 

 

So we still don’t know for sure then? 

[Rebounder]

4 hours ago, BrizzleRed said:

Interesting points Rebounder, but I think we massively differ on your second paragraph, given the huge and disproportionate power advantage Israel hold over the Palestinians.  

The Israeli state seems incapable of taking criticism and it often claims any legitimate criticism of their treatment of the Palestinian people as being anti-semitic.  

The beleagered Palestinians, virtually imprisoned in the ever shrinking scrap of their own land they’ve been left with, don’t have the luxury of that extra shield!

I’m far from saying anti-semitism doesn’t exist, but there do seem to be many people who try to dodge straightforward criticism by claiming it’s anti-semitic.

As for my previous post, the equality issues I’m referring to are more to do with the negative aspects of the ever growing woke culture.  

My problem with it is, although promoted as positive action, it can often be negative.  Rather than promoting equality, very often the woke community actually increase division.  Whether it’s racial issues, sexual orientation, climate change or whatever, they aren’t celebrating what we as a people have in common, but are just magnifying and arguing over the differences.  

Not only that, but there is often no tolerance of alternative views.   Rather than agreeing to disagree, cancel culture often kicks in and there is a concerted drive to destroy anyone who persists with an alternative opinion to theirs.  We’ve seen many examples of this and we are never going to achieve the harmony most people would prefer while this ideolo

 

gy persists. 

I can’t ever remember so many divisions in this country during my lifetime and we are now getting to the ridiculous situation when even the gay and trans communities are now forced into battling each other.

I agree with you there are people who are deliberately sowing and benefitting from this division, though I suspect much of this comes from powerful individuals and self interest groups, with the government just being dragged along, rather than actually leading.

While this situation is allowed to continue, imho we’ve got zero chance of real equality, as that wouldn’t suit many of the same self-interest groups, as it would diminish their own power.

 

Yeah fair thanks. 

On Palestine - I was losely around some of the groups in Bristol and it was quite clear how Anti-Semitism was easily slipped into there unchallenged. Even if it wasn't intentional for some it was there. I only truly recognised it when I reflected back. I think we largely agree in Palestine, but there are massive issues with both sides of the debate.

If we are now more divided then ever did things like the Bus Boycott, Brixton Riots, Southmead, Hartcliffe and St Paul's riots not happen? Were there not suppression of the miners strikes, poll tax riots, stonewall riots etc. Those are just some of the social upheavals that spring to mind out of many that existed before I was born. Speaking to people I know from then it doesn't sound like it was a time of harmony and equality. That ignoring the huge geo political situations that were happening then too. 

I think what has changed since then is that lot of discrimination has been fought against, and the Internet has changed how information is shared and the world has got a lot smaller with everything more in our faces. Groups of people who didn't have a space for their voice, from all backgrounds, now have access to potentially millions of viewers through social media and services like YouTube etc. It's one of the biggest changes since Industrialization here and we are still trying to get to grips with it. 

I do agree that people jump down peoples throats too quickly and are to quick to fire accusations without even trying to understand where someone is coming from, or how they developed. I don't think you can squarely lay the blame at the feet of woke people.

If you think that it's solely woke people and cancel culture that are the issue then that means ignoring Incel Ideolgy, the Alt-Right, and all the other grubby stuff that's out there that is also polluting the water. I fail to see how they are promoting our similarities, but it becomes an issue of wokeness if they are challenged? 

I am not a fan of cancelling people, but I do think people have a right to challenge something they don't agree with just as much as someone has the right to say it. The people who love to talk about woke people are often the same people crying because of criticism of the royal family after the Queen died. Feels that cancel culture is okay when it's the right voices being cancelled. 

Thanks anyway - I don't fully agree with what you've said and where the issues lie, but I just think it's more complicated than simply being an issue with wokeness and I don't believe that we are necessarily more divided, it's just in our faces more. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Rebounder

[MarcusX]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

So we still don’t know for sure then? 

I’m wrong, the tweet I saw was a Forest fan calling out two other Forest fans for directing abuse towards Wolves players and the ref

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

11 hours ago, MarcusX said:

I think I saw on Twitter a post from the guy who reported it (he is gay), can’t remember exactly but think it was prolonged abuse rather than just one word. 

 

If that is correct, then I think it's reasonable that this dick was removed from the game. Direct personal abuse of someone is never acceptable.

I suppose if the '53-year-old Wolves fan' just made the strange assertion that Forest fans were gay en masse, that's no less stupid, but a bit less serious.

The BBC story mentioned threats as well, so I think this was one of the cringeworthy middle-aged men who loses it in such situations and thinks they're some sort warrior. It's embarrassing when teens and 20-somethings do that, but by the time you're in your 50s, you should really have grown up and know better. 

[BrizzleRed]

10 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Yeah fair thanks. 

On Palestine - I was losely around some of the groups in Bristol and it was quite clear how Anti-Semitism was easily slipped into there unchallenged. Even if it wasn't intentional for some it was there. I only truly recognised it when I reflected back. I think we largely agree in Palestine, but there are massive issues with both sides of the debate.

If we are now more divided then ever did things like the Bus Boycott, Brixton Riots, Southmead, Hartcliffe and St Paul's riots not happen? Were there not suppression of the miners strikes, poll tax riots, stonewall riots etc. Those are just some of the social upheavals that spring to mind out of many that existed before I was born. Speaking to people I know from then it doesn't sound like it was a time of harmony and equality. That ignoring the huge geo political situations that were happening then too. 

I think what has changed since then is that lot of discrimination has been fought against, and the Internet has changed how information is shared and the world has got a lot smaller with everything more in our faces. Groups of people who didn't have a space for their voice, from all backgrounds, now have access to potentially millions of viewers through social media and services like YouTube etc. It's one of the biggest changes since Industrialization here and we are still trying to get to grips with it. 

I do agree that people jump down peoples throats too quickly and are to quick to fire accusations without even trying to understand where someone is coming from, or how they developed. I don't think you can squarely lay the blame at the feet of woke people.

If you think that it's solely woke people and cancel culture that are the issue then that means ignoring Incel Ideolgy, the Alt-Right, and all the other grubby stuff that's out there that is also polluting the water. I fail to see how they are promoting our similarities, but it becomes an issue of wokeness if they are challenged? 

I am not a fan of cancelling people, but I do think people have a right to challenge something they don't agree with just as much as someone has the right to say it. The people who love to talk about woke people are often the same people crying because of criticism of the royal family after the Queen died. Feels that cancel culture is okay when it's the right voices being cancelled. 

Thanks anyway - I don't fully agree with what you've said and where the issues lie, but I just think it's more complicated than simply being an issue with wokeness and I don't believe that we are necessarily more divided, it's just in our faces more. 

A lot of interesting stuff there and you make some really valid points.  We could go on a very long time with this discussion, though I’m sure we’d be struggling for time!

To explain my statement about feeling we are more divided than I can ever remember, I mean us as a society.  The older examples you gave, such as the miner’s strike and the various riots in particular were the people against the authorities.  

Now it feels to me to be far more divisive, as it’s within society itself and is people against people.  In addition to the examples I previously mentioned, I’ll add Brexit to the modern examples and I doubt there’s anybody who would deny that was and is a massively divisive issue within the population!

Whereas those disputes of old eventually had a final resolution, my concern for our modern differences is their potential for escalation,  easily fuelled through social media.  I fear racial issues are a particularly dangerous one and a potential powderkeg.

Although as you mention, social media can be  a brilliant communication tool, it can also be a devastating weapon when used in a negative way.  The potential for sowing unrest within society through mis-informatiin is limitless and can have the effect of throwing fuel on the fire in disputes when used in a malovolent way.  

As you say, we’re still coming to grips with this media and it’s a massively complex issue.  You need freedom of speech, though deliberate misinformation can be very dangerous, whilst on the other hand, censorship is equally dangerous.  Then you have the very real issue of hacking by criminals and even by rival nations.  

Who knows how this will all pan out, but the genie is out of the bottle, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

Anyway, as it’s a football forum, better get back to the main subject …… great win yesterday!!!

[Harry]

So no one still has any idea what has been said? 

[richwwtk]

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

So no one still has any idea what has been said? 

I expect the people that matter know exactly what was said.

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I expect the people that matter know exactly what was said.

Just trying to quantify what was said to explain this 4 page thread. 
Not a single person in 4 pages has been able to clarify anything about this incident. 
Just think it would be good to know, so that we can all make a proper judgment. 
Not saying this was or wasn’t the right course of action - just would be good to understand the full context. 

[italian dave]

43 minutes ago, Harry said:

So no one still has any idea what has been said? 

Well, I think we’ve got some idea………….

[robinforlife2]

I don't get how fans can take the moral high ground over this.

I recall around 40,000 City Fans at Cardiff Millennium Stadium in 2004, and for a lot of the game the majority sang towards the Brighton fans "Does your boyfriend know you're here".

Times have changed, and it's not a chant that could ever be sung again in all honesty, but fans can't take the moral high ground slating other fans and clubs, when 18 years ago, a lot of us, had done the very same at the Millennium stadium. 

[italian dave]

On 14/01/2023 at 03:13, BrizzleRed said:

There’s also an important thing that’s often passed over in these sort of situations.  

Whilst ‘mainstream’ society is told it should be accepting and tolerant towards the various minority groups, that same same level of tolerance doesn’t seem to be expected from the minority groups themselves.

Until that gets addressed, we’ll probably never get to a point where we reach true equality for everyone sadly.

I came across this - from a Forest fan - which touches on this and suggests why there’s a difference.

https://nedwood.uk/2023/01/03/the-wrong-atmosphere/
 

[AppyDAZE]

On 13/01/2023 at 14:07, harrys said:

Difficult to know what is and isn’t allowed these days (though I stopped throwing abuse at opposition players/fans at least 30 years ago) would it be ok to sing the song about the referee being illegitimate? 

Or what he gets up to when his wife's away.

[italian dave]

39 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

I don't get how fans can take the moral high ground over this.

I recall around 40,000 City Fans at Cardiff Millennium Stadium in 2004, and for a lot of the game the majority sang towards the Brighton fans "Does your boyfriend know you're here".

Times have changed, and it's not a chant that could ever be sung again in all honesty, but fans can't take the moral high ground slating other fans and clubs, when 18 years ago, a lot of us, had done the very same at the Millennium stadium. 

I agree, but in fairness I think that’s the point lots of people are making. Just because it was OK 18 years ago doesn’t make it OK now.

18 years ago we’d only just made gay sex properly legal (on equal terms) and it wasn’t long since Section 28 had been repealed.

 

[BigTone]

1 hour ago, richwwtk said:

I expect the people that matter know exactly what was said.

And it wasnt nice

[BrizzleRed]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

I came across this - from a Forest fan - which touches on this and suggests why there’s a difference.

https://nedwood.uk/2023/01/03/the-wrong-atmosphere/
 

We’ll if that’s the opinion of the Forest fan, then he’s perfectly entitled to it.  

I’m right with him in terms of the obnoxious chants, but as soon as he starts banging on about the various privilages, that’s when I’m out!

All this privilage guff is exactly what’s causing divisions in our society.  It’s turning people into either a superior or victim, strictly due to gender, sexual orientation or skin colour.

Imho, that’s total crap and people are what, or who they are and nobody gains anything from having these discriminatory labels attached.  

As far as I’m concerned, that’s just the sort of divisive rubbish we should be getting rid of.  Rather than driving massive wedges between various elements of our society, they should be emphasising what we all share in common, as there’s plenty.

 

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, BrizzleRed said:

We’ll if that’s the opinion of the Forest fan, then he’s perfectly entitled to it.  

I’m right with him in terms of the obnoxious chants, but as soon as he starts banging on about the various privilages, that’s when I’m out!

All this privilage guff is exactly what’s causing divisions in our society.  It’s turning people into either a superior or victim, strictly due to gender, sexual orientation or skin colour.

Imho, that’s total crap and people are what, or who they are and nobody gains anything from having these discriminatory labels attached.  

As far as I’m concerned, that’s just the sort of divisive rubbish we should be getting rid of.  Rather than driving massive wedges between various elements of our society, they should be emphasising what we all share in common, as there’s plenty.

 

But isn’t that the point he’s making? That one thing we don’t all share, for example, is being able to show affection for your partner in public without the fear of being abused. 

Do you think that’s not the case? And if it is the case, don’t you think that the person who is able to do that is in a privileged position compared to the person who can’t?

It’s not articles like this that are creating that division: it’s society. 

[!james]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Just trying to quantify what was said to explain this 4 page thread. 
Not a single person in 4 pages has been able to clarify anything about this incident. 
Just think it would be good to know, so that we can all make a proper judgment. 
Not saying this was or wasn’t the right course of action - just would be good to understand the full context. 

There was an arrest and police and the club have confirmed homophobic language was used. But until you know exactly what language was used you can't make a proper judgement? Bit odd. 

[BrizzleRed]

40 minutes ago, italian dave said:

But isn’t that the point he’s making? That one thing we don’t all share, for example, is being able to show affection for your partner in public without the fear of being abused. 

Do you think that’s not the case? And if it is the case, don’t you think that the person who is able to do that is in a privileged position compared to the person who can’t?

It’s not articles like this that are creating that division: it’s society. 

In my opinion, the division is being caused by the people creating or quoting the labels.

Society has moved on a long way, but granted there will still be the occasional brainless ignoramous making improper comments regarding ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, tall, short, disability, you name it.  That doesn’t mean the rest of normal society should have a negative label attached to them, just because of the idiots.

Another issue is appropriate behaviour.  As an example, I’ll bet many of us have seen a straight couple who are getting a bit worked up, to a level where it can make some people around them uncomfortable and it could well attract negative comments.  If a gay couple were behaving in the same way, would everyone around them have to keep quiet, for fear of being accused of being homophobic?

The way I see it, it’s down to all of us to be respectful of the feelings of the people around us and behave appropriately.  As in my example, that applies equally, whether you are straight or gay, or come under any other label you want to attach.  If you then get morons throwing insults, they should be dealt with appropriately in return.  

It definitely doesn’t achieve anything by sticking a label on everyone in society though.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, !james said:

There was an arrest and police and the club have confirmed homophobic language was used. But until you know exactly what language was used you can't make a proper judgement? Bit odd. 

Odd? Not really. Police arrest people for all sorts of things and it turns out it wasn’t the case. 
A friend of mine was once arrested at Ashton Gate for racism and he actually never did a single thing. He was later released without charge and following Cctv review the club confirmed that an error had been made and that it was the wrong guy. 
So yes, it would be nice to understand exactly what may have been said. I’m not saying it was right or wrong at this stage, just that we don’t have any idea what we’re actually talking about here. 
 

A couple of posters have suggested that they know but they won’t say. So what is it? What was actually said. And then we can make a fair judgement. 

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

In my opinion, the division is being caused by the people creating or quoting the labels.

Society has moved on a long way, but granted there will still be the occasional brainless ignoramous making improper comments regarding ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, tall, short, disability, you name it.  That doesn’t mean the rest of normal society should have a negative label attached to them, just because of the idiots.

Another issue is appropriate behaviour.  As an example, I’ll bet many of us have seen a straight couple who are getting a bit worked up, to a level where it can make some people around them uncomfortable and it could well attract negative comments.  If a gay couple were behaving in the same way, would everyone around them have to keep quiet, for fear of being accused of being homophobic?

The way I see it, it’s down to all of us to be respectful of the feelings of the people around us and behave appropriately.  As in my example, that applies equally, whether you are straight or gay, or come under any other label you want to attach.  If you then get morons throwing insults, they should be dealt with appropriately in return.  

It definitely doesn’t achieve anything by sticking a label on everyone in society though.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'labels'? 

I don't disagree with anything you say here (other than that, which I'm just not sure about) - and in answer to your question why would others around them keep quiet - provided the negative comments weren't along the lines of stereotyping gay couples as behaving this way.

It isn't about "blaming" anyone in the rest of society - it's about recognising that there are still differences and inequalities between what you've called in your earlier post "mainstream" society and minority groups, and why there is - for example - equalities legislation that recognises those differences and the need for special protections to be enshrined in law. The difference, if you like, between calling someone a fat b*** (to use an example that was mentioned earlier) and a black b***. 

So, yes, I get what you say, and yes in an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary. But you haven't answered the question I put which was just what it is you disagree with - using the example of a couple expressing affection in public. Because that's not about labelling anyone, that's just about recognising the underlying inequalities of experience, expectation, that still exist. 

[TV Tom]

5 hours ago, AppyDAZE said:

Or what he gets up to when his wife's away.

Or letting Stanley Bowles know his wife is with the milkman ?

[BrizzleRed]

26 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'labels'? 

I don't disagree with anything you say here (other than that, which I'm just not sure about) - and in answer to your question why would others around them keep quiet - provided the negative comments weren't along the lines of stereotyping gay couples as behaving this way.

It isn't about "blaming" anyone in the rest of society - it's about recognising that there are still differences and inequalities between what you've called in your earlier post "mainstream" society and minority groups, and why there is - for example - equalities legislation that recognises those differences and the need for special protections to be enshrined in law. The difference, if you like, between calling someone a fat b*** (to use an example that was mentioned earlier) and a black b***. 

So, yes, I get what you say, and yes in an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary. But you haven't answered the question I put which was just what it is you disagree with - using the example of a couple expressing affection in public. Because that's not about labelling anyone, that's just about recognising the underlying inequalities of experience, expectation, that still exist. 

The labels I’m referring to Dave are white privilage, male privilage and straight privilage.

Although I didn’t directly answer your question, it was what I inferred in my answer.  Just to clarify, of course a gay couple should be able to show affection.  

As I said, they should just be mindful of the same standards of public decency and respect to others that we’d expect from a straight couple.  

There will obviously be some people who might find the actions of a straight couple as an acceptable standard, while the same level with a gay couple could make them uncomfortable.  That’s a personal thing for them, but in this day and age, they’ll just have to suck it up and accept it.

The only issue I see is if a gay couple go completely OTT, and then start shouting homophobia if someone gets upset by that.  

[italian dave]

11 minutes ago, BrizzleRed said:

The labels I’m referring to Dave are white privilage, male privilage and straight privilage.

Although I didn’t directly answer your question, it was what I inferred in my answer.  Just to clarify, of course a gay couple should be able to show affection.  

As I said, they should just be mindful of the same standards of public decency and respect to others that we’d expect from a straight couple.  

There will obviously be some people who might find the actions of a straight couple as an acceptable standard, while the same level with a gay couple could make them uncomfortable.  That’s a personal thing for them, but in this day and age, they’ll just have to suck it up and accept it.

The only issue I see is if a gay couple go completely OTT, and then start shouting homophobia if someone gets upset by that.  

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I honestly don’t think those are labels that are intended to somehow demonise people, or indeed are labels that are directed at individuals at all. They just explain a state of affairs. 

You say that a gay couple should be able to show affection without fearing that they’ll be abused. (Nothing OTT, just holding hands, kissing, whatever). And of course you’re right. But that’s not the case. You may think they should be able to, I’m sure you wouldn’t abuse them, but it’s nevertheless the case that it happens and therefore they are always mindful of that. 

On the other hand, a straight couple - doing exactly the same - will have no such fear.

That’s the difference. And that phrase expresses that. Straight people probably don’t even think about it, let alone see themselves as being ‘privileged’ to be able to do it. But to that gay couple, they are.  

[BrizzleRed]

12 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I honestly don’t think those are labels that are intended to somehow demonise people, or indeed are labels that are directed at individuals at all. They just explain a state of affairs. 

You say that a gay couple should be able to show affection without fearing that they’ll be abused. (Nothing OTT, just holding hands, kissing, whatever). And of course you’re right. But that’s not the case. You may think they should be able to, I’m sure you wouldn’t abuse them, but it’s nevertheless the case that it happens and therefore they are always mindful of that. 

On the other hand, a straight couple - doing exactly the same - will have no such fear.

That’s the difference. And that phrase expresses that. Straight people probably don’t even think about it, let alone see themselves as being ‘privileged’ to be able to do it. But to that gay couple, they are.  

Understand where you’re coming from re the labels issue, but they can be viewed in multiple ways.  They can most certainly carry negative connotations to many people and cause a great deal of resentment though.

Yes, gays can certainly be more prone to insults from mindless individuals, but while things sre improving, unfortunattely we don’t live in a perfect world.  It’s unrealistic to expect that everything could actually be perfect.  

Life is tough for everyone in different ways.  Try telling the poor folks living in shop doorways who are getting pee’d on by drunks, that they are actually straight privilaged and maybe white privilaged too.

There’s a big danger when you start pinning what may be viewd by many as a negative label as being straight privilaged.  Instead of helping the cause of gay people, you could just be fuelling further resentment in tbe straight community.  

Same goes for any other privilage label out there, because in spite of what you explained earlier, that still appears to categorise a huge number of the population in a negative way, like it or not.
 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

I don't get how fans can take the moral high ground over this.

I recall around 40,000 City Fans at Cardiff Millennium Stadium in 2004, and for a lot of the game the majority sang towards the Brighton fans "Does your boyfriend know you're here".

Times have changed, and it's not a chant that could ever be sung again in all honesty, but fans can't take the moral high ground slating other fans and clubs, when 18 years ago, a lot of us, had done the very same at the Millennium stadium. 

I can shamefully admit I was one of them. I'm embarrassed of my younger self for joining in with that chant, as I'm sure the vast majority of the 40k are. 

We should have known it was wrong. We didn't think of how that would have made even our own fans feel.

There are zero excuses. We should have been better people. If anyone reading was there that day, or any other times that we played Brighton and were rightfully offended then I am sorry. 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[Rebounder]

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

Understand where you’re coming from re the labels issue, but they can be viewed in multiple ways.  They can most certainly carry negative connotations to many people and cause a great deal of resentment though.

Yes, gays can certainly be more prone to insults from mindless individuals, but while things sre improving, unfortunattely we don’t live in a perfect world.  It’s unrealistic to expect that everything could actually be perfect.  

Life is tough for everyone in different ways.  Try telling the poor folks living in shop doorways who are getting pee’d on by drunks, that they are actually straight privilaged and maybe white privilaged too.

There’s a big danger when you start pinning what may be viewd by many as a negative label as being straight privilaged.  Instead of helping the cause of gay people, you could just be fuelling further resentment in tbe straight community.  

Same goes for any other privilage label out there, because in spite of what you explained earlier, that still appears to categorise a huge number of the population in a negative way, like it or not.
 

 

Things aren't really getting better at the moment though. They are regressing as hate crimes have been rising over recent years and we had a full on shooting spree at a gay bar in America just last year. There is still a lot to be vigilant about and we shouldn't accept people being attacked due to their sexuality as a way of life - just like we shouldn't accept it if straight person was attacked simply for being straight. (Though I agree we'll never stop all of it )

I do think there are massive issues with using the words Privileged, as when you're a white kid on an estate it's hard to really see that as privilege. I can see though that the black people I grew up with had more challenges to face even if our economic backgrounds were the same. For example a Black Woman is much more likely to have to deal with Sexism and Racism than I did in the UK growing up and as an adult.  That's all that people are saying. 

That's not to say the white straight male has had an incredibly Privileged life. 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Rebounder

[BrizzleRed]

9 hours ago, Rebounder said:

Things aren't really getting better at the moment though. They are regressing as hate crimes have been rising over recent years and we had a full on shooting spree at a gay bar in America just last year. There is still a lot to be vigilant about and we shouldn't accept people being attacked due to their sexuality as a way of life - just like we shouldn't accept it if straight person was attacked simply for being straight. (Though I agree we'll never stop all of it )

I do think there are massive issues with using the words Privileged, as when you're a white kid on an estate it's hard to really see that as privilege. I can see though that the black people I grew up with had more challenges to face even if our economic backgrounds were the same. For example a Black Woman is much more likely to have to deal with Sexism and Racism than I did in the UK growing up and as an adult.  That's all that people are saying. 

That's not to say the white straight male has had an incredibly Privileged life. 

 

Now you’re really talking about a country with massive social problems, when you get onto the subject of America!  I think we can safely say we’re way ahead of them on that score and they could learn a lot from us.

I think you could also find cases of mass shootings in just about every possible situation over there and as we all know, schools seem to be partiicularly popular.  It does seem to be a massively divided country on so many fronts and with their ridiculous gun laws, that can only have one outcome sadly.

Certainly agree with what you say in this post

[Leveller]

18 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

I don't get how fans can take the moral high ground over this.

I recall around 40,000 City Fans at Cardiff Millennium Stadium in 2004, and for a lot of the game the majority sang towards the Brighton fans "Does your boyfriend know you're here".

Times have changed, and it's not a chant that could ever be sung again in all honesty, but fans can't take the moral high ground slating other fans and clubs, when 18 years ago, a lot of us, had done the very same at the Millennium stadium. 

In my experience actual gay fans find that one quite funny and not really offensive. It was designed to annoy straight Brighton fans, I imagine, and probably worked.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Leveller said:

In my experience actual gay fans find that one quite funny and not really offensive. It was designed to annoy straight Brighton fans, I imagine, and probably worked.

 

Brighton fans tend to respond with "We don't fancy, we don't fancy, we don't fancy you at all". Gay and straight Brighton fans that is, as they're very used to the Boyfriend chants.

[Leveller]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Brighton fans tend to respond with "We don't fancy, we don't fancy, we don't fancy you at all". Gay and straight Brighton fans that is, as they're very used to the Boyfriend chants.

Fair point. And it’s hard to know where witty banter ends and real offence starts, that’s the problem. Homophobia’s unpleasant, but this chant is, objectively, less offensive than calling Welsh fans sheep shaggers, which still seems to be widely accepted as harmless. That will probably change, but at the moment the targets don’t seem too upset.

[italian dave]

17 hours ago, BrizzleRed said:

Understand where you’re coming from re the labels issue, but they can be viewed in multiple ways.  They can most certainly carry negative connotations to many people and cause a great deal of resentment though.

Yes, gays can certainly be more prone to insults from mindless individuals, but while things sre improving, unfortunattely we don’t live in a perfect world.  It’s unrealistic to expect that everything could actually be perfect.  

Life is tough for everyone in different ways.  Try telling the poor folks living in shop doorways who are getting pee’d on by drunks, that they are actually straight privilaged and maybe white privilaged too.

There’s a big danger when you start pinning what may be viewd by many as a negative label as being straight privilaged.  Instead of helping the cause of gay people, you could just be fuelling further resentment in tbe straight community.  

Same goes for any other privilage label out there, because in spite of what you explained earlier, that still appears to categorise a huge number of the population in a negative way, like it or not.
 

 

Pretty much what @Rebounder has already said above - and more eloquently than I could have!

The intent is not to label anyone as 'privileged' in a general sense and I thought that the blog made that point. It's just about highlighting the inequalities that - like it or not - have and still exist and the impact that has on some people and not on others.

Of course life is tough for lots of people, plenty of them white, straight, males - but I don't see the term as being used in that general way. You could, I suppose, talk about your folks in shop doorways in terms of housing tenure privilege or some such - but that's moving into different territory really - that's affected by circumstances and events, not just about who you are. 

Yes, I agree though that term can be problematic (and has certainly become so because there are people who want it to be - not suggesting that's you for a moment BTW) and I do get what you're saying - and clearly there are plenty who react against it. I just don't know what a better word would be. And even though I probably hit most of the 'xx privilege' buttons in relation to those protected characteristics under the equalities legislation, I cant say that I've ever felt it to be negative - it just makes me think. And, in the context it's intended, often makes me think of things that just hadn't occurred to me before. 

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Leveller said:

Fair point. And it’s hard to know where witty banter ends and real offence starts, that’s the problem. Homophobia’s unpleasant, but this chant is, objectively, less offensive than calling Welsh fans sheep shaggers, which still seems to be widely accepted as harmless. That will probably change, but at the moment the targets don’t seem too upset.

Yeah, that's very true - and as you and @Red-Robbo say it's a very fine line sometimes. And often very nuanced. The 'boyfriend' one is an example, I think, where the first time it's really very funny - and says more about the reputation of Brighton as a place than about either the football club or any individual or group. But by the umpteenth time it's just stopped being funny, gets boring, or at worst is no longer a joke about Brighton but is stereotyping anyone from Brighton as gay - which I know isn't far from the original joke, but that joke's stopped being funny.

On the 'sheepshaggers' - have you seen the Reginald D Hunter sketch on that - hilarious! 

[BrizzleRed]

4 hours ago, italian dave said:

Pretty much what @Rebounder has already said above - and more eloquently than I could have!

The intent is not to label anyone as 'privileged' in a general sense and I thought that the blog made that point. It's just about highlighting the inequalities that - like it or not - have and still exist and the impact that has on some people and not on others.

Of course life is tough for lots of people, plenty of them white, straight, males - but I don't see the term as being used in that general way. You could, I suppose, talk about your folks in shop doorways in terms of housing tenure privilege or some such - but that's moving into different territory really - that's affected by circumstances and events, not just about who you are. 

Yes, I agree though that term can be problematic (and has certainly become so because there are people who want it to be - not suggesting that's you for a moment BTW) and I do get what you're saying - and clearly there are plenty who react against it. I just don't know what a better word would be. And even though I probably hit most of the 'xx privilege' buttons in relation to those protected characteristics under the equalities legislation, I cant say that I've ever felt it to be negative - it just makes me think. And, in the context it's intended, often makes me think of things that just hadn't occurred to me before. 

I appreciate the thoughtful and well put point of view ID.  The point where we completely differ is whether there is a need for a word privilage at all.  You say you don’t know what a better word would be, but I say, there shouldn’t be any word at all!

When you’re basically telling a whole ethnic group that they are under-privilaged, it creates a very negative mindset.  I believe everything should be viewed on a person by person basis, not on skin colour alone. 

There is absolutely no evidence that every white person has an advantage from birth, whilst every black person has a disadvantage and is discrimated against.  Taking this point a step further, the Asian community seem to show pretty high academic and business achievemts, so would they qualify as advantaged or disadvantaged under this form of categorisation?

In short, categorising entire groups within our society in terms of a single word, regardless of their individual situations seems absolutely pointless, as well as being very negative and divisive imho.  

The only real gain I can see, is for those who want to foster and promote a racial divide in this country, rather than try to eliminate it.  I will point out, as you did with me earlier, I’m certainly not suggesting you are one of these people.

I’m sure we’ll never agree on this one to be honest, but it’s been an interesting discussion, all the same.

[Leveller]

19 hours ago, italian dave said:

Yeah, that's very true - and as you and @Red-Robbo say it's a very fine line sometimes. And often very nuanced. The 'boyfriend' one is an example, I think, where the first time it's really very funny - and says more about the reputation of Brighton as a place than about either the football club or any individual or group. But by the umpteenth time it's just stopped being funny, gets boring, or at worst is no longer a joke about Brighton but is stereotyping anyone from Brighton as gay - which I know isn't far from the original joke, but that joke's stopped being funny.

On the 'sheepshaggers' - have you seen the Reginald D Hunter sketch on that - hilarious! 

Your point about repeated jokes echoes my earlier point in the Ultras thread about “Is this a library?” Etc being sung every sodding game. After the second time, it’s no longer funny and sets my teeth on edge. This is the problem with singing sections- most of what they come up with is just dire. I don’t hate singing per se - hearing the Kop rendition of “You’ll never was alone” is genuinely uplifting. But very little reaches this level. I still contend that the best atmosphere in grounds arises organically from exciting football.

[Red-Robbo]

Away fans who sing "is this a library?" are always the sort who have never ever been in a library - or picked up a book, for that matter.

Maybe it's a genuine query?