Bobzilla

So dangerous women criminals don't exist? The bar for female incarceration is way higher than for male incarceration. Genuinely. So proportionately, the female prison population should me more dangerous than the male (although I accept that the nature of offences is different between the two populations). And I wasn't talking about the question of jailing women. I was talking about the rights of women in prisons, well in all prisons really, but especially women's. Do you know anyone that has spent any time in a women's prison? One final note. Do you know how transgender prisoners are held? Do you think they just go into general female population as a matter of course? Do you think that prisoners considered dangerous, including murderers and sex offenders, are just sent into general population? If so, you know nothing, Jon Snow. And why do you think you know nothing? Who's controlling the narrative, and what's their agenda?

I'm in the 'let's own it' camp too. I was walking to Coventry this year from the Tesco car park, and some of their fans were doing a really crap impression, so I showed them how it was really done. Turned what could have been embarrassing into something funny. For me, it shows the passion. Sure, the sherry was strong in that one, but being drunk only empowers you to do what you want to do when sober. I'd much rather have an owner that gets drunk and shouts slightly ill advised things into a microphone than an international arms dealer, an oil billionaire that's a little too close to a fascist dictator or an autocratic regime that still executes people for blasphemy.

And tired...

Here's a dangerous concept. Some of them are.

Where were you arguing for female prisoner rights when it wasn't a question of whether you put a tabs woman into a women's prison? Where were any of those now shouting loudly about women's rights? The truth is no-one cared about female convicted and incarcerated criminals until the trans issue raised its head. Now, back under your bridge with you.

I'm not actually sure why the hell gender or sex is relevant here at all. Is a woman who murders cats and a person any more or less evil than a man that does it, or a trans man or woman? What's the relevance? Genuinely. If they were gay, would that be relevant? There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

I don't have the information to perform a full risk assessment, but on the basis that their victims were first a feline and second a man, I wouldn't house them in an RSPCA shelter, and whichever estate they went to i would expect that both the risk of them harming others and the risk of them being harmed would be adequately considered before making any decision about their provision. I would certainly hope that the views of a few guys on the Internet weren't taken into consideration in the carrying out of that risk assessment. For the hard of thinking, the short version of that response is: I don't know, you sure as hell don't know, and it shouldn't actually matter what either of us think based solely on publicly available information and associated spin.

Despicable behaviour...

I noticed that. It was painfully obvious on Saturday. He's masked it better in previous games, but I fear that he is nowhere near the player he was. And I was concerned on Saturday that he'd got another injury, rightly so it would appear. It wouldn't surprise me if he retired at the end of the season. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if he refused to - footballers can be stubborn like that.

Great. That’s only a 5.5 hour one way trip for me via London. Or 6.5 hours cross country via Sheffield. Probably worse on the Sunday coming back. I’m not even going to look at the cost of a ticket, which, all in all, would be a bit pointless because I can just imagine the conversation with my wife… *Edit* Sorry, that’s the train. You said bus. That’s only 12 hours solid each way and has to go via London. I’m sure my son and his stoma bag will be fine with that…

Sadly not available now. Does home membership but not tier 1 or 2 help me at all? I don’t mind paying an extra £12.50 to get tickets. My son’s membership is both home and away as a junior.

That was my immediate shout, showing my age. JD wasn't much better, but he was seriously undermined by Chase who sold everyone who was any good. We could have been great had we done something to replace Gunny that fateful season. Andy Marshall was a good keeper, Prem quality, but nowhere near ready for what we threw at him, and in that 4 down 2 up season, it was a really costly move. Especially when we were being offered Chris Woods as I recall. Simon Tracey wasn't the answer either - 1 appearance for us I believe.

Your evidence is a survey of one? Jog on.

We've missed that. Some people hate it, but it gets us going as a crowd.

We might be able to boo more at away games, but that seems to be really counterproductive. We're supposed to support our team to do their best, not berate them for not doing as well as we want, or in the manner that we would decide to do it were we in charge.

Funny story. I saw the last 20 minutes of that game with my son at the Sky stall at the Trafford Centre in Manchester. Sat next to us was a young city fan who was wearing a nice crisp light blue top that he'd got for his birthday a couple of days previously. I felt really bad for him. But not that bad...

I drive electric and generate my own electricity with solar panels. Next stupid comeback? Look, i know you're a teenage muppet with nothing better to do than troll people who actually have to make decisions about their life that don't revolve around their football club, but one day you'll understand, and you'll be the guy thinking that the next kid is a total idiot. That's the way of the world. Just perhaps try and grow up a little quicker, for all our sakes?

A white straight guy decided that homophobia was no longer an issue is what happened.

Me too. Not, but that doesn’t stop anyone here. I‘ve just been labelled a plastic…

A plastic? As in a non-fan? If so, I’ve been a plastic for nearly 30 years.

Let's take those issues. Female sports and 'biological females'. The issue is competitive advantage. The studies that have been done are, at best, ambiguous as to whether there is a competitive advantage when a trans female has gone through a male puberty. The anti-trans lobby would have you believe that they are conclusive, but not enough have been done because the data simply isn't available - professional/serious amateur sport is a very small pool to be fishing in anyway, and the trans population is minute, comparatively speaking. But here's the rub. It is perfectly possible to get a 'natal female' who has the same competitive advantage (muscle mass, testosterone) as a trans female; Castor Senyama come springs to mind. Do you ban them? Do you force them to take medication if they want to compete? That's a very slippery slope to appease a minority. Looking at the evidence, of the really was an issue, trans females would dominate female sport in a way that was disproportionate to their incidence in the pool. But that isn't happening. So, to my mind, and many others', the jury isn't even out - the prosecution hasn't even presented anything like full evidence - but various bad actors want the jury to provide an early guilty verdict. That's not right. Taking next the question of puberty blockers to 'children'. Define 'child'. In medical terms, the leading case is one of Gillick, from Norfolk as it happens. The case focused on a girl under 16 who wanted to be put on the pill, and an over-protective mother who wanted to control all the health choices of her daughter. This one went either to the Court of Appeal or House of Lords (can't remember which, can't be bothered to Google, there's no practical difference here). It held that a 'child' can choose their own treatment and parents don't have to be involved if the child is capable of fully understanding the treatment itself and the consequences of that treatment. In a case such as puberty blockers, that is going to be a very thorough process, despite what Panorama might tell you - I've professionally been a victim of that hatchet job of 'investigative journalism', and their recent piece on ADHD diagnosis was incredibly dubious, even harmful. You don't just get handed out puberty blockers (or ADHD meds) like candy. The psychological process involved for assessment is insanely rigorous. So, my stance on puberty blockers for 'kids' is that it's a difficult and nuanced question being handled in a difficult and nuanced way, and trying to give a blanket one size fits all solution is not desirable for society at large. If they do it for them, what about the rest of us? What can we as a general population be denied because we can be legally deemed to not understand, even though we do as a matter of fact? Also, there's a massive discrimination issue between the two above issues. You won't allow trans females that have gone through a male puberty to play sports, but you won't permit puberty blockers either? The two in conjunction sound very discriminatory to me. On the sentiment of the LGBT community at large, I'm seriously involved in DE&I efforts at my employer (I'm autistic and lead our neurodivergent network) and as such work closely with our pride network representing our LGBT community, including many members. I have seen a lot of support for the trans community there, and have never seen any reservations expressed. The only person I've ever had a discussion with where they've expressed issues is with a straight white older man, who clearly has a whole load of skin in that particular game... That conversation focused on the women's refuges that JK Rowling supports - he's a huge fan of her work, and thinks that allowing trans women in is abhorrent, and risks triggering women in there. But when you talk to the women, my understanding is that a significant majority aren't actually bothered by trans women - the issue is not as pervasive as portrayed by the media. But where's the line? White woman triggered by black people because her abusive partner was black? So let's exclude black women from the refuge? Would anyone even try to argue that sort of discrimination was acceptable? If a women's refuge is incapable of running an individual risk assessment on the people it lets through its doors, then there's a real problem there. And if it can do that, blanket bans are unnecessary. Remember, discriminating against trans people is only permissible for single sex spaces if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even if the aim is legitimate, the means has to be proportionate. Blanket bans when there should be risk assessment processes in place are not proportionate. Prisons might be more of an issue, but again, individual risk assessment. They do it every single day on general population. And you know what? The biggest issue, seed offenders, are likely to be in the Seg, separated out from general population, usually with other sex offenders, with a higher guard ratio, closer monitored, tighter controls, because violence against sex offenders, cis or trans, is a massive risk anyway. As for stonewall and money flow, i have no idea, but my bet is that general attitude is that if they can do it to trans people, they can do it to anyone. This is EVERYONE'S fight, whether they know it or not.

I'm a semi regular away supporter, but haven't been to a home game in years because I live miles away. I've got leave to go to the Ipswich game because of when it falls in school holidays. BUT... I'm an away member, not home, I need two seats together, so I'll be fishing in the general release pool for a pair of tickets. What are my chances? I'm not so fussy about where I sit, but is it likely to be a capacity crowd? Also, how smart is it to bring a 13yo into THAT game? He's pretty smart and we know how to stay away from trouble, but I know that game can attract it around the ground.

Anyone gone with Keith O’Neill, Chris Martin (not the Coldplay frontman) or the ego that is Craig Bellamy? Iwan Roberts?

But you said ‘all but disappeared’. Perhaps sir could put a precise figure on how many incidents per day are permissible before we must acknowledge that there is still a problem… As for your assertion that transphobia does not equal homophobia, 1 - technically you are correct, but, and more importantly, 2 - that doesn’t matter in the slightest bit. The point is that a court has ruled that having a hatred of a particular PROTECTED group is a belief system worthy of respect, so long as the person is only telling people that they are basically abhorrent rather than actually misgendering them…. I won’t deny that there are some in the LGB community that think that the trans issue is an existential threat to them as LGB persons, but by far the majority position is that the LGBT community needs to stick together rather than be splintered off. The prevalence of transphobia is directly concerning to them because, to misquote Richey Manic, ‘if you tolerate this, then [we] will be next’. If transphobia is acceptable, why is homophobia not acceptable? After all, it’s the same old recycled arguments being used now as they were 15 years ago against the gay community. The mere existence of transphobia as a legally sanctioned belief system worthy of respect is terrifying to everyone I know in the LGB community. And, to be brutally honest, the fact that you’re here telling the community how they should feel, and that 70 incidences a day is ‘all but disappeared’ is a massive red flag that actually the issue is as alive and healthy as ever.

It’s happening again, isn’t it…