by Victor Meldrew » 05 Apr 2019 19:22
by AthleticoSpizz » 05 Apr 2019 20:40
by Hoop Blah » 06 Apr 2019 08:16
by Victor Meldrew » 06 Apr 2019 10:59
by genome » 06 Apr 2019 11:24
by Victor Meldrew » 06 Apr 2019 12:09
genome Because they shouldn't have to.
by Franchise FC » 08 Apr 2019 12:56
by Hoop Blah » 08 Apr 2019 13:46
Franchise FC Posted this elsewhere (a little faux pas on my part)
In response to whether personal responsibility can be taken for crowd 'intervention'
Take the incident in the Motherwell/Rangers game at the weekend. If the relevant authority made it a rule that either the culprit was pointed out by the crowd section or that whole section was escorted out, there may be some movement to stop it. I can't see a whole section being happy with missing the rest of a game. It would prevent an opposition fan causing a problem to get a stadium closed or a game abandoned. (It'll give the stewards something to do as well)
May work for the racist stuff as well, although may be a little more difficult to identify someone shouting than throwing something.
by John Madejski's Wallet » 08 Apr 2019 13:47
Hoop BlahFranchise FC Posted this elsewhere (a little faux pas on my part)
In response to whether personal responsibility can be taken for crowd 'intervention'
Take the incident in the Motherwell/Rangers game at the weekend. If the relevant authority made it a rule that either the culprit was pointed out by the crowd section or that whole section was escorted out, there may be some movement to stop it. I can't see a whole section being happy with missing the rest of a game. It would prevent an opposition fan causing a problem to get a stadium closed or a game abandoned. (It'll give the stewards something to do as well)
May work for the racist stuff as well, although may be a little more difficult to identify someone shouting than throwing something.
I can't see a whole section of away fans being escorted out when they won't even ask them to sit down for fear of sparking a riot!
by Hoop Blah » 08 Apr 2019 13:55
John Madejski's Wallet No, but the whole section could be banned for the next game. Easy enough to block on the electronic cards.....
by Franchise FC » 08 Apr 2019 14:20
John Madejski's WalletHoop BlahFranchise FC Posted this elsewhere (a little faux pas on my part)
In response to whether personal responsibility can be taken for crowd 'intervention'
Take the incident in the Motherwell/Rangers game at the weekend. If the relevant authority made it a rule that either the culprit was pointed out by the crowd section or that whole section was escorted out, there may be some movement to stop it. I can't see a whole section being happy with missing the rest of a game. It would prevent an opposition fan causing a problem to get a stadium closed or a game abandoned. (It'll give the stewards something to do as well)
May work for the racist stuff as well, although may be a little more difficult to identify someone shouting than throwing something.
I can't see a whole section of away fans being escorted out when they won't even ask them to sit down for fear of sparking a riot!
No, but the whole section could be banned for the next game. Easy enough to block on the electronic cards.....
by Sanguine » 08 Apr 2019 14:34
Victor Meldrewgenome Because they shouldn't have to.
That's bleedin' obvious.
This is not a perfect world, in case you hadn't noticed, so sometimes it requires people to stand up for things and take action rather than sit on their hands and do oxf*rd all.
by Victor Meldrew » 08 Apr 2019 15:18
SanguineVictor Meldrewgenome Because they shouldn't have to.
That's bleedin' obvious.
This is not a perfect world, in case you hadn't noticed, so sometimes it requires people to stand up for things and take action rather than sit on their hands and do oxf*rd all.
The point being that it shouldn't be up to players to do so because they happen to be black, not least since that can/might lead to more instances of abuse. It is something for the game to deal with, not black men. It isn't good enough to say 'well you're black, stop playing if you don't like it.'
by Sanguine » 08 Apr 2019 15:41
Victor MeldrewSanguineVictor Meldrew
That's bleedin' obvious.
This is not a perfect world, in case you hadn't noticed, so sometimes it requires people to stand up for things and take action rather than sit on their hands and do oxf*rd all.
The point being that it shouldn't be up to players to do so because they happen to be black, not least since that can/might lead to more instances of abuse. It is something for the game to deal with, not black men. It isn't good enough to say 'well you're black, stop playing if you don't like it.'
In an ideal world yes but it is not an ideal world.
Rather than just walking off the pitch, which no longer seems to happen,I believe it is up to the referee to stop the game and take the players off.
In the meantime, as I posted earlier,our FA needs to lobby FIFA and EUFA much more strongly than they appear to have done-if that then fails then the players should do what I have suggested, withdraw their labour and refuse to play for their country.
Sometimes in life positive action needs to be taken to bring about change rather than just always expect other people to sort out your problems.
by Victor Meldrew » 08 Apr 2019 15:55
SanguineVictor MeldrewSanguine
The point being that it shouldn't be up to players to do so because they happen to be black, not least since that can/might lead to more instances of abuse. It is something for the game to deal with, not black men. It isn't good enough to say 'well you're black, stop playing if you don't like it.'
In an ideal world yes but it is not an ideal world.
Rather than just walking off the pitch, which no longer seems to happen,I believe it is up to the referee to stop the game and take the players off.
In the meantime, as I posted earlier,our FA needs to lobby FIFA and EUFA much more strongly than they appear to have done-if that then fails then the players should do what I have suggested, withdraw their labour and refuse to play for their country.
Sometimes in life positive action needs to be taken to bring about change rather than just always expect other people to sort out your problems.
Wow.
Vic - racism is not Danny Rose's problem, or Raheem Sterling's. It is football's problem. It's a problem with society.
by Sanguine » 08 Apr 2019 16:02
Victor MeldrewSanguineVictor Meldrew
In an ideal world yes but it is not an ideal world.
Rather than just walking off the pitch, which no longer seems to happen,I believe it is up to the referee to stop the game and take the players off.
In the meantime, as I posted earlier,our FA needs to lobby FIFA and EUFA much more strongly than they appear to have done-if that then fails then the players should do what I have suggested, withdraw their labour and refuse to play for their country.
Sometimes in life positive action needs to be taken to bring about change rather than just always expect other people to sort out your problems.
Wow.
Vic - racism is not Danny Rose's problem, or Raheem Sterling's. It is football's problem. It's a problem with society.
A bit of an extreme example but do you think the late great Martin Luther King thought that he should leave everything to the authorities?
If everybody who felt victimised in life just sat on their hands and did nothing do you think things would still get done (perhaps so in the world of Theresa May and her cohorts)?
People are looking for solutions here and if it is as serious a matter as we are constantly told then perhaps a more radical solution is needed and the withdrawal of labour could be a good starting point.
Nobody else seems to come up with anything more than "somebody ought to sort this out"-words but no action.
BTW I now put you in the same category as Snowflake, i.e. always looking to make an argument where an argument often doesn't exist, something that I notice have been guilty of recently..
by Hoop Blah » 08 Apr 2019 16:35
Franchise FCJohn Madejski's WalletHoop Blah
I can't see a whole section of away fans being escorted out when they won't even ask them to sit down for fear of sparking a riot!
No, but the whole section could be banned for the next game. Easy enough to block on the electronic cards.....
I wonder how many would be able to 'get away with it' though. It would only take one or two to point out the culprits.
by Franchise FC » 08 Apr 2019 16:45
Hoop BlahFranchise FCJohn Madejski's Wallet No, but the whole section could be banned for the next game. Easy enough to block on the electronic cards.....
I wonder how many would be able to 'get away with it' though. It would only take one or two to point out the culprits.
Which begs the question, could fans get stitched up and wrongfully accused by other fans with a bit of an axe to grind?
by Victor Meldrew » 08 Apr 2019 17:18
SanguineVictor MeldrewSanguine
Wow.
Vic - racism is not Danny Rose's problem, or Raheem Sterling's. It is football's problem. It's a problem with society.
A bit of an extreme example but do you think the late great Martin Luther King thought that he should leave everything to the authorities?
If everybody who felt victimised in life just sat on their hands and did nothing do you think things would still get done (perhaps so in the world of Theresa May and her cohorts)?
People are looking for solutions here and if it is as serious a matter as we are constantly told then perhaps a more radical solution is needed and the withdrawal of labour could be a good starting point.
Nobody else seems to come up with anything more than "somebody ought to sort this out"-words but no action.
BTW I now put you in the same category as Snowflake, i.e. always looking to make an argument where an argument often doesn't exist, something that I notice have been guilty of recently..
I disagree that an argument doesn't exist. It's your language I'm questioning. This isn't a couple of people who feel picked on so need to make a change to their life, or a group of people who have decided that they 'feel victimised', it's a societal problem that we all bear responsibility for. Well, most of us, anyway, based on
if it is as serious a matter as we are constantly told.
It's not much a stretch to suggest that you don't believe that it is.
by Sanguine » 09 Apr 2019 09:15
Victor MeldrewSanguineVictor Meldrew
A bit of an extreme example but do you think the late great Martin Luther King thought that he should leave everything to the authorities?
If everybody who felt victimised in life just sat on their hands and did nothing do you think things would still get done (perhaps so in the world of Theresa May and her cohorts)?
People are looking for solutions here and if it is as serious a matter as we are constantly told then perhaps a more radical solution is needed and the withdrawal of labour could be a good starting point.
Nobody else seems to come up with anything more than "somebody ought to sort this out"-words but no action.
BTW I now put you in the same category as Snowflake, i.e. always looking to make an argument where an argument often doesn't exist, something that I notice have been guilty of recently..
I disagree that an argument doesn't exist. It's your language I'm questioning. This isn't a couple of people who feel picked on so need to make a change to their life, or a group of people who have decided that they 'feel victimised', it's a societal problem that we all bear responsibility for. Well, most of us, anyway, based on
if it is as serious a matter as we are constantly told.
It's not much a stretch to suggest that you don't believe that it is.
So, apart from your version of somebody ought to do something about it-what do you suggest?
i have come up with an idea that might be radical but also might get a message across.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests