Not conovirus, not Norwich.

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

https://www.football365.com/news/jesse-lingard-eric-dier-fans-john-nicholson-opinion

Though it's not directly ncfc related this guy has written an Interesting piece,  wouldnt normally repost anything from 365, but this article is not the usual  from them.

Edited March 10, 2020 by wcorkcanary

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

I am not sure I agree with all of that Corkie. These kind of incidents are isolated and when they are highlighted then they become media property and all the ensuing debate. Maybe sometimes, too much is broadcast. But then again we cannot halt progress and the ability to "be there". Just like the people who send in movies of their kids falling into rivers. Or the parent who misses their child's concert because they had a camcorder up to their face all night.

Is the supplier the real bad guy or the junkies he supplies? There are arguments for both sides of each coin and many fill their lives with such things. And then maybe complain they don't have time for things.

This is the only platform I use and at times have concerned myself with things I should have ignored. So the temptation is so obvious for us all to have our say. How we say it is a matter of manners or intelligence. And out of a crowd of 60K, several will have no clue of how to behave.

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I am not sure I agree with all of that Corkie. These kind of incidents are isolated and when they are highlighted then they become media property and all the ensuing debate. Maybe sometimes, too much is broadcast. But then again we cannot halt progress and the ability to "be there". Just like the people who send in movies of their kids falling into rivers. Or the parent who misses their child's concert because they had a camcorder up to their face all night.

Is the supplier the real bad guy or the junkies he supplies? There are arguments for both sides of each coin and many fill their lives with such things. And then maybe complain they don't have time for things.

This is the only platform I use and at times have concerned myself with things I should have ignored. So the temptation is so obvious for us all to have our say. How we say it is a matter of manners or intelligence. And out of a crowd of 60K, several will have no clue of how to behave.

Agree with most of that , but think the most salient point in the article is his questioning of a supporters 'right' to abuse merely because they have paid a few quid. I accept that idiots exist and that In  a crowd of 60k you'll have afew. The other interesting point( to me anyway) is his referral  to the likes of Danny Murphy  giving it "just get on with it".....if we'd taken that attitude with homophobia/ racism then what a toxic place a match would still be. There is a long way to go but already a vast improve.ent on my early  days supporting City , 73 onwards.There is  no real excuse for this kind of behaviour , is there?

Personally I think Dier, Cantona et al  although  wrong per se, did the right thing, a vehement reaction is what these pillocks least expect. Behaviour like this must be challenged, much as Jobbo etc must be. Showing incidents  in full, at least shows actions may have unexpected consequences and deter other eejits  from joining in.

[Nuff Said 5,973]

Thanks for that Corking,  interesting piece, and an interesting debate.

 

The whole "snowflake" idea tends to seriously wind me up. It's generally used by those who are in effect saying "I should be allowed to say whatever I like and not be disagreed with", but whenever they take offence at something I find myself struggling to resist throwing it back at them. But while we live in a society where we believe there is, and ought to be, free speech, there have to be limits.

 

Everyone will draw their own personal line in the sand in a different place but through a process of consensus society has set boundaries, for example, by making racism unacceptable. Are these idiots at football games unacceptable?  I'd say so. But I'm aware I remember leaping to my feet, in front of my (adult) kids, and shouting F... off at an Everton player rolling around pretending (IMHO) to be injured. Is that OK? In the cold light of day,  I'd have to say possibly not.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Nuff Said

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

26 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Thanks for that Corking,  interesting piece, and an interesting debate.

 

The whole "snowflake" idea tends to seriously wind me up. It's generally used by those who are in effect saying "I should be allowed to say whatever I like and not be disagreed with", but whenever they take offence at something I find myself struggling to resist throwing it back at them. But while we live in a society where we believe there is, and ought to be, free speech, there have to be limits.

 

Everyone will draw their own personal line in the sand in a different place but through a process of consensus society has set boundaries, for example, by making racism unacceptable. Are these idiots at football games unacceptable?  I'd say so. But I'm aware I remember leaping to my feet, in front of my (adult) kids, and shouting F... off at an Everton player rolling around pretending (IMHO) to be injured. Is that OK? In the cold light of day,  I'd have to say possibly not.

True  Nuffo, as the old saying goes, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I know that I've been a pillock on occasions, but times change and people, some anyway,  grow up.  I am pretty thick skinned but would snap for sure if anyone verbally attacked a member of my family. That is the point of the article I reckon, there is a line ,beyond which the line crosser must be prepared to face consequences . Human responsibility is not suspended for the duration of a match. 

[sgncfc 1,332]

Some years ago I was at an England v Italy match at Wembley and Ian Walker was in goal, I think making his debut. He was a Spurs player and was taking some serious abuse from an Arsenal fan. A Spurs fan sitting in front of me quite politely asked the Arsenal fan to stop having a go at him and support England. The Arsenal fan told him to eff away, saying that he had paid his money and could do what he liked. The Spurs fan stood up, walked over to him and lumped him, saying that he had also paid his money and also had a right not to listen to abuse. The Arsenal fan was attended to by paramedics; the Spurs fan was ejected. I don't know what happened to either, but the point is that we all have rights, supposedly conferred on us by having paid for admission.

If your level of comfort is offended by someone you have the right to protest, at whatever level you deem appropriate. Whilst I wouldn't condone violence in that situation, I suspect that Arsenal fan thought twice before abusing players again.....as I hope did the Crystal Palace "fan" who abused Cantona.

It's not right that just because you're at a football match, where passions run riot, that you should be allowed to say and do things which genuinely offend people. You should still behave appropriately even if Ipswich score an offside, injury time winner. Disappointment and frustration are not reasonable excuses for abuse. Personally, my comfort level will depend on who I'm at the game with - if I'm with my wife or grandchildren I would object to certain things; if with my adult sons or friends, I probably wouldn't. But if I felt any of them were physically threatened I'd struggle not to do an Eric Dier…...

[Nuff Said 5,973]

These idiots mouthing off in the crowd remind me of Internet trolls, they seem to think they're safe from comeback, and therefore able to behave in a way that wouldn't be acceptable face to face. We've seen some pushback recently in the light of what happened to Caroline Flack,  but for me a reasonable test to set yourself is would I feel comfortable if the person I was addressing or who is subject to my behaviour was physically in front of me. At the end of the day it comes back to having a degree of empathy for others.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Thing is Nuff, I believe the majority of these idiots fathers were at matches years ago and their grandfathers before them. that is no excuse but maybe a reason for some of it. 

On the other hand, as we have all said, we have all been guilty of crossing the line, although the line does keep moving somewhat. I remember playing for my nearest village team in the late 80's in the Cornwall Junior Cup against a team called Castle United, that now have to be called travellers.

My son was playing as well and one of them, not for the first time (the spectators threw golf balls at you) as he liked to do things with the ball, was kicked from **** to breakfast time and a large cut on his thigh. I ran across shouting "I'll kill you, you **** Basted". "You'll be eating hedgehog through a straw".

Funnily enough, they didn't take offence and just laughed probably thinking, well there are two hundred of us here and 14 of you so go ahead.

I don't regret what I said. Sticks and Stones. And funnily enough, one of them started selling flowers in the town and we had a good laugh about it.

I understand Dier's anger and sympathise but a line has to be drawn as to what retaliation, if any, a player or anyone else for that matter, is allowed.

Very tricky and the debate about it could be interesting.

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Very tricky and the debate about it could be interesting.

Which is exactly why I posted the article.  It got me thinking more than most 365 clickbait rubbish. We've had the 'snowflake or not 'argument on here before, I believe some do take offence too easily, haavng said that, I cannot abide the kind of a use that Dier received.

Does the entrance fee to events include abusing those we've paid to watch? I think not. Would love to hear the reasons why any out there think its o.k.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Would love to hear the reasons why any out there think its o.k.

I imagine the two words "my right" would be popular with them

[Nuff Said 5,973]

22 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Would love to hear the reasons why any out there think its o.k.

I imagine the two words "my right" would be popular with them

I think most reasonable people would agree that all rights have boundaries. For example, free speech does not include the right to incite hatred on the basis of race, ****,  sexual orientation etc. It could be argued that what these "supporters" are doing is also (trying to) incite hatred. Is it OK if not done against a protected minority? At the moment, it seems it is OK for some, not others. 

 

Interesting to see which way the pendulum will swing. If Spurs had identified the perpetrator,  would they have banned him?

[Nuff Said 5,973]

So I can say sexual but not s e x? 🤔

[Hucks6 188]

Who gives a money about them 2 lingard and Dier both underrated 

[Pugin 601]

I have always thought that it's very simple. Paying to attend a sporting event entitles you to verbally express approval or disapproval within established boundaries.

However nothing, ever, entitles you to stop behaving like a decent human being. This principle must always remain paramount.  

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

5 hours ago, Hucks6 said:

Who gives a money about them 2 lingard and Dier both underrated 

Monkey, overrated? Makes sense.