Good ol sis

[Socrates]

All thats going to be left when the pc brigade has had their way is humourless mard arses.

If you aren't capable of being funny without being a bigot then I feel very sorry for you.

[Breks]

Do you think I am being a mard arse about the incident with the steward??

You need broad shoulders in this World. I take my 3 year old and people swear but i'm not going to tell them to stop it beause i have a choice to leave or not. If you don't like to hear things like that then just don't go. Otherwise i'm afraid that you just have to ignore it. Thick skin and broad shoulders is what you need.

[Im_Spartacus]

You need broad shoulders in this World. I take my 3 year old and people swear but i'm not going to tell them to stop it beause i have a choice to leave or not. If you don't like to hear things like that then just don't go. Otherwise i'm afraid that you just have to ignore it. Thick skin and broad shoulders is what you need.

I agree what you say about the little un, but calling joe Hart a useless cunt is a very different thing to someone shouting what they would in reality be arrested for if they did it in the centre of Manchester.

I sort of have a little sympathy for your view that people do need broad shoulders but this lady was simply doing her job - at the end of the day the issue then becomes wider, as city, or showsec have a responsibility as an employer to protect the individual from discrimination at work - which isn't a wishy washy issue, it's law.

If its law that you have protection from being treated that way at work, and such behaviour on the streets of town would see you arrested, I have to conclude that it seems very illogical that this behaviour is tolerated in a football ground yet is a criminal offence anywhere else

[Slim]

A slide tackle would be cause for arrest anywhere outside a football match as well.

[Breks]

Should it be a criminal offence? Its just name calling. If i called someone a ginger cunt or fat bastard, why is that not illegal? Why is it different when it regards race or sexual orientation? Its all name calling.

[Socrates]

Should it be a criminal offence? Its just name calling. If i called someone a ginger cunt or fat bastard, why is that not illegal? Why is it different when it regards race or sexual orientation? Its all name calling.

It is a criminal offence. As is most bullying for that matter. It's also extremely rude.

[nottsblue]

Out of curiosity, do other sports such as rugby (league or union), have this problem. I say this as i go to a lot of cricket both long and short form and dont hear anything like the abuse thats talked about on here. I say abuse as well rather than banter because if you called that to a random person in the street you would be arrested more than likely. It is different between mates though there is line which once crossed can never be erased.

The example of a brother calling another fag in jest may be acceptable but it does rely on the other to take it in good faith. If he says he's not happy with it it then crosses that line if it continues. That said the comment on thick skins is true. We as a people have always just got on with things and brushed off negative comments. Sticks and stones may break my bones and all that.

Is it then a football problem rather than a society problem that this is allowed to go unchecked just because more than one person is shouting/chanting things that in other situation would be considered a criminal offence and what, if anthing can be done?

[daveh1962]

Should it be a criminal offence? Its just name calling. If i called someone a ginger cunt or fat bastard, why is that not illegal? Why is it different when it regards race or sexual orientation? Its all name calling.

Is calling someone "n****r" OK? as its just name calling. I think you are getting confused as to what is name calling and what is an offence and calling names based on religion, sexuality and race are crimes calling someone fat is not...........hope that helps

[Breks]

Is calling someone "n****r" OK? as its just name calling. I think you are getting confused as to what is name calling and what is an offence and calling names based on religion, sexuality and race are crimes calling someone fat is not...........hope that helps

Why is not? That is my point, why is name calling based on race, religion, sexuality deemed to be worse than name calling based on size, age, hair colour etc. Simply saying because it's a crime is not a good enough answer.

[mr_nool]

Is calling someone "n****r" OK? as its just name calling. I think you are getting confused as to what is name calling and what is an offence and calling names based on religion, sexuality and race are crimes calling someone fat is not...........hope that helps

Why is not? That is my point, why is name calling based on race, religion, sexuality deemed to be worse than name calling based on size, age, hair colour etc. Simply saying because it's a crime is not a good enough answer.

Old, corpulent geezers with ginger hair haven't really had to deal with genocide, apartheid, Crow laws, gay bashing, hate crimes, forced sterilization, discrimination on the job market, etc.

Although you have a quasi point, you ignore the bigger picture and the historical context.

[patrickblue]

I think you're putting words in peoples mouths here. Breks as far as I can see was not suggesting that the n word is just name calling, he was asking why one form of abuse is deemed worse than another. He's obviously not getting confused as to what is an offense or not as his actual point is asking why one is deemed to be worthy of being legislated against, and why one isn't.
Suggesting someone may think it's ok to use a term which is historically been used to denote someone as being inferior due to their race, as well as being downright nasty and offensive is not constructive.
If I've misunderstood you Breks, and you are ok with racial abuse, do say.

[Breks]

I think you're putting words in peoples mouths here. Breks as far as I can see was not suggesting that the n word is just name calling, he was asking why one form of abuse is deemed worse than another. He's obviously not getting confused as to what is an offense or not as his actual point is asking why one is deemed to be worthy of being legislated against, and why one isn't.
Suggesting someone may think it's ok to use a term which is historically been used to denote someone as being inferior due to their race, as well as being downright nasty and offensive is not constructive.
If I've misunderstood you Breks, and you are ok with racial abuse, do say.

No you haven't misunderstood me but some people have.

[Breks]

If you aren't capable of being funny without being a bigot then I feel very sorry for you.

Your a total empty head and typical lefty. Lets all use the word bigot or racist when someone disagrees with our point of view. Grow up you sad fucker.

[mr_nool]

I think you're putting words in peoples mouths here. Breks as far as I can see was not suggesting that the n word is just name calling, he was asking why one form of abuse is deemed worse than another. He's obviously not getting confused as to what is an offense or not as his actual point is asking why one is deemed to be worthy of being legislated against, and why one isn't.
Suggesting someone may think it's ok to use a term which is historically been used to denote someone as being inferior due to their race, as well as being downright nasty and offensive is not constructive.
If I've misunderstood you Breks, and you are ok with racial abuse, do say.

I don't know if you were answering me. I genuinely tried to answer the question why one form of abuse is worse than another. And to me that answer lies in historical and a sociological context.

Edit: just saw that your answer probably wasn't directed at me.

[patrickblue]

I think you're putting words in peoples mouths here. Breks as far as I can see was not suggesting that the n word is just name calling, he was asking why one form of abuse is deemed worse than another. He's obviously not getting confused as to what is an offense or not as his actual point is asking why one is deemed to be worthy of being legislated against, and why one isn't.
Suggesting someone may think it's ok to use a term which is historically been used to denote someone as being inferior due to their race, as well as being downright nasty and offensive is not constructive.
If I've misunderstood you Breks, and you are ok with racial abuse, do say.

I don't know if you were answering me. I genuinely tried to answer the question why one form of abuse is worse than another. And to me that answer lies in historical and a sociological context.

Edit: just saw that your answer probably wasn't directed at me.

No, I was referring to Daveh1962's post. I don't disagree with what you said, I just felt that Breks point was being missed. It seemed to me that it was going somewhere it wasn't intended to.

[Cocacolajojo1]

On the one hand, there has to be some sort of self-correction procedure with the football crowd. There are some outdated insults going around and it's not nice. I can't tell for sure but I honestly don't think that most football players will care if fans sing that they take it up the arse or whatever. It's the relationship with their co-workers that has most influence for them. But other fans probably won't like it and they shouldn't have to feel excluded just because some other fans think it's ok because they don't take offens.

On the other hand, the spontaneity in watching football is something that should be cherished and guarded against most or all attempts to regulate and direct the football crowd. Read a really good article about the fact that UEFA chose to play seven nation army each time any team scored during the European championship or that the announcer during Sweden's international game always tries to hype up the current game, regardless whether we're playing Germany or San Marino. Why can't the people in the football crowds in Manchester, Kiev or Stockholm get to decide how they wan't to celebrate goals or what chants they get to sing in order to mock someone or if they want to treat the current game as a boring non-event?

I'm fine with banning a lot of racism and other phobic words from any stadium but we should also be aware that for each step we take this way through any other mean than self-regulation, we are playing into the hands of people who want to change football games into events into a combination of sensations of several senses through a directed experience, soundtracked by generic music in dolby surround sound.

And that's why I don't like any regulation of speech inside football stadiums, although I at the same time detest simple minded racism.

On the other hand, he shoot's he scores, he eats your labradors is pretty fucking funny. And I think there's a difference between calling a black man a monkey just because he's black, and making something like the above chant about a player from South Korea (where they by the way don't eat dogs if I recall correctly, which makes the chant not racist at all (because it's false) and very racist at the same time).

And I think that homosexuality should and could be joked about in a fun way, but then it has to be joked about in a.... new way. I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Fuck it, I couldn't make a point even if it hit me on the forehead.

[Socrates]

Your a total empty head and typical lefty. Lets all use the word bigot or racist when someone disagrees with our point of view. Grow up you sad fucker.

Hilarious being told to grow up by someone who wants to call people names.

[Breks]

Hilarious being told to grow up by someone who wants to call people names.

Really? Where have i said that?

[dazby]

English crowds are well behind the times. We began self censoring in the late 90's. when someone yelled out something inappropriate comments about family atmosphere were made. It became a great challenge to take the mick without swearing and keeping it PC.

[Im_Spartacus]

English crowds are well behind the times. We began self censoring in the late 90's. when someone yelled out something inappropriate comments about family atmosphere were made. It became a great challenge to take the mick without swearing and keeping it PC.

Same has happened here since time began mate, and if one individuals blurted something really inappropriate, they would likely get at least a volley of abuse back, if not a slap in in most stands.

But in certain areas of the ground people wouldnt bat an eyelid to homophobia.....racism having been on the agenda for longer would probably not be let slide in any area of the ground if it were said loud enough.