Safe-Standing petition

[St Pauli]

Having been acquainted with the 'skinhead' scene for a number of years, always found the “anti-fascists” just as bigoted, self-riotous, and annoying as the neo-nazi lot. Luckily for the most part in London the skins are apolitical and any such nonsense isn’t tolerated.

Just as bigoted?

You mean, as well as beating up Nazi skins they also P*ki bash and pogo on gays?

Dislike their self righteousness, and their style by all means, but to say they're all as bad as each other from a bigotry point of view is liberal oxf*rd.

They don't just beat up/hassle Nazis though do they. All and sundry are "fascists" in the eyes of those loons. They also seem to have an unhealthy fascination with the IRA, Basque separatism, and Palestine, causes not commonly associated with opposing Nazis. If you disagree with them then you are a “fascist”.

And yes I am happy to be called a Liberal.

Hmm I see what you mean. Fairynuff.

[St Pauli]

I'm not sure what your point is?

I would have thought it was quite obvious. Once you start saying that "violence is OK if it is against someone we don't like", then it becomes a slippery slope, who are the ones who define who it is allowed to bludgeon half to death? Obviously you could find yourself on the losing end of that decision quite fast.
Clearly the kind of people who go around bashing other people's heads in are scum, and the fact that you claim these people are great because they are St Pauli supporters and they attack people you don't like, just makes you a lesser human being.

You can't go around bashing people's heads in just because you disagree with their opinions, even a complete idiot like you should be able to understand that.

*sigh*

Beating up people for their opinions is wrong yes, well done Ideal, you've really cornered the intellectual market with that one.

The above stickers depict threats against the German 'White Pride' movement and the fascist organised political movement.

Whilst the German Anti Fascist movement doesn't advocate searching out individual racists and assaulting them, it does advocate physical violence against an organised political movement when necessary. To make this clear: Attacking a far right demonstration- OK. Attacking old man in pub who's just said he doesn't like the blacks- not OK.

You might disagree with this, but when the results of the German far right's organising are

-arson attacks on Vietnamese refugee families https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkUQ4n_1ALU

-arson attacks on, and the murder of, Turkish families http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_a ... ck_of_1993

-the murdering of Turkish and Greek men working as grocers or in kebab houses, and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the German police to deal with it http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... ded-police

then I think they've kind of lost their right to political organisation free of harassment from anti fascists.

[St Pauli]

You however, seem to think that if you are unhappy with something you should take matters into your own hands and start violently attacking people.
If that is what you do, then you are nothing less than a terrorist along the same lines as Breivik, and any person who possesses even moderate levels of intelligence understands that.
If you then proceed to in fact commit acts of violence and terrorism, then YOU should be sent to prison, even if the people you attack are scum.

The law should protect everyone equally, even muslims, nazis and paedophiles have the same rights to protection as everyone else, because that is what a civilized society is all about.

No. Because your incredibly simplistic argument doesn't take into account many variables and assumes a lot:

1) Assumes that the police and law courts function properly and without bias, and can and seek to protect all in German society, including migrants. As pointed out in one and arguably all of the links I gave this clearly isn't the case.

2) It assumes that all victims are equal. This isn't the case. Someone who is punched for choosing to be active in an organisation that encourages attacks on and attacks migrants, has not as much right to claim 'victim' status as someone who is punched for something outside their choice, for example, their skin colour.

3) It assumes that motivation doesn't play a role. It does. Institutions who use violence to prevent racist violence have higher moral ground than institutions that seek to commit racist violence because of point 2. This last one is a generally accepted point, (it's generally accepted that the Allies were the 'good guys' in WW2, and the Axis the 'bad guys') which you seem to disagree with.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Only positive of this season is that Y25/26 have been allowed to stand without hassle for the season.

Long may it continue.

[St Pauli]

Only positive of this season is that Y25/26 have been allowed to stand without hassle for the season.

Long may it continue.

Definite positive, agreed.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

Why was the chap thrown out yesterday?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Why was the chap thrown out yesterday?

for being a southampton supporter

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Peopel interested in safe-standing might enjoy this story from today's Indy....

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/exclusive-championship-clubs-set-to-push-for-safestanding-trials-8626274.html

[Jerry St Clair]

Cardiff now formally allow, and indeed encourage, standing at the Cardiff City Stadium.

After years of clubs keeping silent on the issue the genie now appears to be well and truly out of the bottle. More will surely follow.

http://fsf.org.uk/blog/view/Cardiff-Cit ... e-Frosdick

[Will95]

Great move, and indeed one I'd like to see Reading adopt in Y25/26

[Flash]

Safe standing petition appears to be picking up some steam - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25526329

Will the powers that be at Reading just consider us to be a 'family club' and say no without consulting fans etc? Is there any chance of this happening at Fortess Madjeski?

[ScottishRoyal]

This will be a good move, as you say there certainly appears to be some momentum behind this now.

I would imagine that a lot of clubs would be in support of safe standing as it enables them to increase capacity and thus gate revenues. If this was to be approved then perhaps standing would be incorporated into the designs for an extended Madejski stadium.

[SPARTA]

Safe standing petition appears to be picking up some steam - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25526329

Will the powers that be at Reading just consider us to be a 'family club' and say no without consulting fans etc? Is there any chance of this happening at Fortess Madjeski?

The club showed interest in the rail seats when the FSF came to the Madejski a couple of seasons ago. The club were supportive of the idea, so I doubt that has changed. It also means a small capacity increase. I think the FSF estimate that to be around 8%.

I would love to see at the very least the East Stand with these.

[tmesis]

I don't understand the push towards rails seats, as opposed to real terracing.

They only exist to allow terraces to be converted to seats for european games, which is not exactly an issue for us. You might as well just push for barriers to be added to the back of the current seats, and people being allowed to stand.

[Flash]

I suppose that if the law did get changed, even if we didn't get rail seats or otherwise into the stadium, at least the stewards would presumably have to stop trying to get people to sit down during games etc so would help out with the friction in y25 as well as improving that area as the standing area of the stadium.

All in all this would be a very good thing and thank god people in authority finally seem to be putting sentimentality to the side and finally talking about facts.

[handbags_harris]

I suppose that if the law did get changed, even if we didn't get rail seats or otherwise into the stadium, at least the stewards would presumably have to stop trying to get people to sit down during games etc so would help out with the friction in y25 as well as improving that area as the standing area of the stadium.

All in all this would be a very good thing and thank god people in authority finally seem to be putting sentimentality to the side and finally talking about facts.

No friction in Y25 for a good two years now as the heavy-handed approach to standing has been seriously relaxed. There's not been a great deal to credit the club with over the last few years but this is one facet of attending matches that is welcomed. And shock, horror, nobody's died.

To be honest I cannot ever envisage the East being converted. Personally, by far the best place to convert is the North. Get the atmosphere behind the goal (what atmosphere there is at the Madejski anyway) and have it carry down the ground. It's amazing how much different 300 Chesterfield fans sound from the South compared to the same amount of Reading fans in Y24/5/6.

You also have to consider the fact that the local Safety Advisory Group will want to defuse any potential flashpoints (standing crowds are notoriously harder to police than seated crowds) and so the East would not be considered for conversion for this reason.

And then you have the stadium logistics to consider. The concourses aren't exactly large, something would have to be done with them to accommodate the increase in capacity. Much easier to do behind the North than the East with all of the space behind it.

[Silver Fox]

Personally, by far the best place to convert is the North.

Sod off

[Cureton's Volley]

Don't really care where they make official 'standing' because we are going to do it in Y25/26 anyway

[Sanguine]

Don't really care where they make official 'standing' because we are going to do it in Y25/26 anyway

lol.

power to the people!

[handbags_harris]

If safe standing was introduced to another area of the stadium than Y25/26 you can bet your bottom dollar that the club would revert to enforcing the ground regulations relating to standing in seated areas in the same way that they used to. Good luck with not being ejected, CV.