Christoph's decision

[Herman 9,713]

Are people upset that "lefties" aren't upset that Zimbo stood up? 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Are people upset that "lefties" aren't upset that Zimbo stood up? 

Funny that Hermano, ive been waiting for this thread to appear for weeks now, im surprised it took so long really. Zimbo is a big boy, mentally and physically, its his choice, end of, he doesnt owe anyone an explanation. Live and let live.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

42 minutes ago, Herman said:

Are people upset that "lefties" aren't upset that Zimbo stood up? 

It is getting to the stage where you might be questioned for disliking someone. If I catch someone cheating at golf, do I confront them, ignore them, report them or copy them?

Of course I'm a TOG and big and ugly enough to use the choice democracy has given me.

Hang on, do I tell the others about the cheat? Oh no! Bring in State Control.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

4 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

And, of course, that’s just once a year and isn’t rammed down your throat every single match.

Which as you well know is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

What about other worthy causes to promote social justice?  Standing on one leg to end third world hunger?  Lying prostrate to signal opposition to animal cruelty?  Jumping up and down to show solidarity with the Uighurs?  And these actions must be completed before every match and anyone seen to be not taking part, let alone questioning the appropriateness of politics creeping into football, will be suspected of "wrong think", although they are of course free to say whatever they want so long as they accept the consequences (I think that's the current narrative).

Oh look - he's making loads of stuff up again. 

[king canary 7,578]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

I'm not sure offering his reasoning in the current climate will make a difference anyway. Plenty have decided to draw conclusions from it already without any knowledge whatsoever. I maintain that a white guy coming out and speaking about why he isn't taking the knee is onto the losing side immediately, despite how wrong that might be.

Players don't have to tell us all their political or social beliefs or what movements they agree with. When the Millwall fans booed taking the knee the argument was if you didn't agree then stand their in silence. Zimbo isn't stopping others taking the knee neither is he criticising those that do.

The rest of the squad are clearly happy enough with his reasoning and that *should* be good enough for the general public considering our squad is full of different nationalities and skin colours. Instead it feels a few white Caucasian English football fans want to draw conclusions on it.

He's an intelligent guy which means he'll know this sort of discussion is going to happen when he chose to not take the knee. 

Like it or not hes a public figure so what he does matters more than what the average fan does. If he doesn't want to give his reasoning, that is his right but its naive to expect he can do that and that the speculation will just stop.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

4 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

And, of course, that’s just once a year and isn’t rammed down your throat every single match.

Is it item 1 on the right wing posters to do list? Use the phrase "rammed down your throat" at each and every possible opportunity?

Wow - 15 whole seconds - 15 whole seconds where you can chat to your mates, look at your phone, sing On the Ball City. Poor little right wing snowflakes having to do what they normally do before a match for 15 whole seconds. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

He's an intelligent guy which means he'll know this sort of discussion is going to happen when he chose to not take the knee. 

Like it or not hes a public figure so what he does matters more than what the average fan does. If he doesn't want to give his reasoning, that is his right but its naive to expect he can do that and that the speculation will just stop.

Aye the chattering  will chatter. If theyve got nothing to chat about, someone will think of something, fear not, just so happens ,at the moment , its all about someone just standing there, doing not much, if thats what is causing a stir, I suggest  too many have too little to worry about, or they are worrying about the wrong thing. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

5 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

 

Is it item 1 on the right wing posters to do list? Use the phrase "rammed down your throat" at each and every possible opportunity?

Freudian slip perhaps? Secret fantasies revealed?. They are an odd bunch.

[Foxy2600 297]

Its funny nobody mentions other sports that interest me, not taking the knee.....

Quote: Leclerc and Verstappen were joined by Kimi Raikkonen, Carlos Sainz, Daniil Kvyat and Antonio Giovinazzi, the group said to be unsettled by the political direction taken by the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement.

And its bloody disastrous to take the elbow!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

He's an intelligent guy which means he'll know this sort of discussion is going to happen when he chose to not take the knee. 

Like it or not hes a public figure so what he does matters more than what the average fan does. If he doesn't want to give his reasoning, that is his right but its naive to expect he can do that and that the speculation will just stop.

I haven't read through this debate but the article, for what it is worth, does purport to give his reasoning:

The reality is that the defender feels the gesture has lost meaning. There is a willingness from his side for it to come to an end in the same that others, like the Rainbow Lace campaign, becomes an annual recognition. From his perspective, this is not something that can go on forever. 

It is not clear whether that is a reported-speech summary of what Zimmermann  has said to Southwell, or what Southwell understands Zimmermann's position to be, or an assumption.

[Jimthechip 39]

9 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

How far down the football pyramid does 'taking the knee' go?

Does it extend to ~Youth football?

Who decides?

I'd like to say the players themselves.....

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 minute ago, Jimthechip said:

I'd like to say the players themselves.....

Go on, its  Christmas, say it.

[Jimthechip 39]

Just now, wcorkcanary said:

Go on, its  Christmas, say it.

one more mulled wine and I just might.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

2 minutes ago, Jimthechip said:

one more mulled wine and I just might.

You devil! 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Never had mulled wine. Its not that I don't like wine. I don't like mulls.

[Fen Canary 793]

23 hours ago, kirku said:

Must've missed the "antifa woman in a communist skirt" running for mayor of Bristol, or the diners in Zak's having their "tables overturned" for not "raising the fist".

Could it be that a sporadically organised political movement from another country has very little relevance to the anti-racism protests here? 

Except they’re using the same name in Black Lives Matter, they’re copying the same kneeling gesture (originally intended as a protest against US police brutality) as that group and have the same logos and slogans. The people in the US calling for the police to be defunded and abusing members of the public who refused to join them, and those marching here in the summer defacing statues and attacking police did so under the same banners that are placed around football grounds. In my eyes I can’t see the kneeling as a simple gesture against racism, it is inextricably linked to the larger movement, and as such people should be free to reject, boo and ridicule it if they don’t agree with its aims and tactics. 

[kirku 1,332]

15 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Except they’re using the same name in Black Lives Matter, they’re copying the same kneeling gesture (originally intended as a protest against US police brutality) as that group and have the same logos and slogans. The people in the US calling for the police to be defunded and abusing members of the public who refused to join them, and those marching here in the summer defacing statues and attacking police did so under the same banners that are placed around football grounds. In my eyes I can’t see the kneeling as a simple gesture against racism, it is inextricably linked to the larger movement, and as such people should be free to reject, boo and ridicule it if they don’t agree with its aims and tactics. 

Makes sense. After all, they're taking the knee to help soften us up for the anarcho-communist new world order.

[Fen Canary 793]

21 minutes ago, kirku said:

Makes sense. After all, they're taking the knee to help soften us up for the anarcho-communist new world order.

So you’re trying to tell me that kneeling is in no way linked to the wider Black Lives Matter movement, despite it being on the players shirts after the restart, and the banners and logos being prevalent around the grounds and on the television coverage? Whatever the original meaning of the gesture, which was about police brutality, it is now linked to BLM, for better or worse. So if people don’t like the aims, tactics and personnel behind it, then they should be free to protest how they please

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

14 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’re trying to tell me that kneeling is in no way linked to the wider Black Lives Matter movement, despite it being on the players shirts after the restart, and the banners and logos being prevalent around the grounds and on the television coverage? Whatever the original meaning of the gesture, which was about police brutality, it is now linked to BLM, for better or worse. So if people don’t like the aims, tactics and personnel behind it, then they should be free to protest how they please

The ARE free to protest how they please. One of our fans did so at the Forest game. He was removed - that's because the Club are free to make and enforce the rules on their own private property. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’re trying to tell me that kneeling is in no way linked to the wider Black Lives Matter movement, despite it being on the players shirts after the restart, and the banners and logos being prevalent around the grounds and on the television coverage? Whatever the original meaning of the gesture, which was about police brutality, it is now linked to BLM, for better or worse. So if people don’t like the aims, tactics and personnel behind it, then they should be free to protest how they please

As long as it is within the confines of the law.

 

[Fen Canary 793]

16 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

The ARE free to protest how they please. One of our fans did so at the Forest game. He was removed - that's because the Club are free to make and enforce the rules on their own private property. 

Would that freedom extend to other businesses? Would a pub be free to ban somebody who voted Remain in the EU referendum if the landlord voted Leave for instance? Or could a shop refuse to serve somebody if they were of a different opinion regarding something like gay marriage? At what point does it cross the line for private businesses to refuse to serve people based on their opinions alone? 

[king canary 7,578]

13 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Would that freedom extend to other businesses? Would a pub be free to ban somebody who voted Remain in the EU referendum if the landlord voted Leave for instance? Or could a shop refuse to serve somebody if they were of a different opinion regarding something like gay marriage? At what point does it cross the line for private businesses to refuse to serve people based on their opinions alone? 

I would suggest it depends 9n how publicly and how disruptively those opinions were expressed. 

Just voting remain isnt the same as booing taking the knee. However if, say, a pub wanted to hold a 'brexit day' celebration when we left the EU and someone came in draped in an EU flag, shouting at the top of their lungs about how breixiteers were idiots then I'd suggest that pub would have every right to bar them.

[Fen Canary 793]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I would suggest it depends 9n how publicly and how disruptively those opinions were expressed. 

Just voting remain isnt the same as booing taking the knee. However if, say, a pub wanted to hold a 'brexit day' celebration when we left the EU and someone came in draped in an EU flag, shouting at the top of their lungs about how breixiteers were idiots then I'd suggest that pub would have every right to bar them.

At what point does it stop though? How about if in your example the was simply wearing a pro EU shirt, or was voicing their displeasure at leaving. Would it be ok for pro Leave businesses to refuse to serve them? If we evicted everybody in a football ground every time they booed or were a bit obnoxious we wouldn’t have much of a crowd left. 
If the club and players decided to unfurl a banner before the game in support of the Tories and you voiced your displeasure, would you be happy if they then kicked you out? 
To me evicting people for not agreeing with you, and in the wider cancel culture movement of trying to get people sacked for unfashionable opinions is a very slippery slope 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

47 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Would that freedom extend to other businesses? Would a pub be free to ban somebody who voted Remain in the EU referendum if the landlord voted Leave for instance? Or could a shop refuse to serve somebody if they were of a different opinion regarding something like gay marriage? At what point does it cross the line for private businesses to refuse to serve people based on their opinions alone? 

They're not removing them for their opinions though are they? The bloke was removed because of his ACTIONS, i.e. booing. I support the club in removing this bloke for his ACTIONS. In just the same way I would support the club if they removed somebody who chose to boo through the minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday. 

[Fen Canary 793]

49 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

They're not removing them for their opinions though are they? The bloke was removed because of his ACTIONS, i.e. booing. I support the club in removing this bloke for his ACTIONS. In just the same way I would support the club if they removed somebody who chose to boo through the minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday. 

Fair enough, I disagree though I don’t think you should be throwing people out for booing political acts they disagree with. If the club were to start parading around with other political banners, such as Labour/Tory ones, or being in support of fox hunting, would you say it’s ok to kick out people who booed those, or are certain opinions and causes more special than others? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Fair enough, I disagree though I don’t think you should be throwing people out for booing political acts they disagree with. If the club were to start parading around with other political banners, such as Labour/Tory ones, or being in support of fox hunting, would you say it’s ok to kick out people who booed those, or are certain opinions and causes more special than others? 

There are reasons to either support or protest against fox hunting for instance.

But there is no reason to hate or dislike someone, including strangers, because, in this case, the colour of that persons skin.

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Except they’re using the same name in Black Lives Matter, they’re copying the same kneeling gesture (originally intended as a protest against US police brutality) as that group and have the same logos and slogans. The people in the US calling for the police to be defunded and abusing members of the public who refused to join them, and those marching here in the summer defacing statues and attacking police did so under the same banners that are placed around football grounds. In my eyes I can’t see the kneeling as a simple gesture against racism, it is inextricably linked to the larger movement, and as such people should be free to reject, boo and ridicule it if they don’t agree with its aims and tactics. 

How many protest marches have you been on Fen?

[Fen Canary 793]

50 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

There are reasons to either support or protest against fox hunting for instance.

But there is no reason to hate or dislike someone, including strangers, because, in this case, the colour of that persons skin.

As has been said previously many people, myself included, see the kneeling as part of the wider BLM movement, rather than a simple anti discrimination stunt. When players had BLM on their shirts, the banners and logos are in the stadiums and on the television coverage, and the kneeling is a symbol of all that, I don’t think you can seperate it from those people in the summer who were defacing statues and assaulting the police under the same paraphernalia. As others have pointed out if the players simply stood with a kick it out banner before the game we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s only become an issue because of its links with BLM which is a very divisive movement 

[Pugin 601]

OK, let's make it 'black lives matter' instead of 'Black Lives Matter.'

That way, it's just a statement of support for a sector of society who face inherent prejudice, and in the States murder as sport, and nobody can make these fallacious claims that supporters are Marxists / Leninists / Trotskites / revolutionaries / anarchists / men from the moon / etc etc.