Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

It all kicked off in Bristol (Merged)


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

They were only protecting you! How very dare you. 

Interesting stuff. I remember where my attitude changed. 

Away at Chelsea in about 78. City coaches were late and no more than fifty were stood in the North Stand at Stamford Bridge

The chant from The Shed started ‘North Stand Do Your Job’ and about 500 charged women and kids and a few adults. 

I went down the front and started to haul my old man over the barbed wire at the front to get out and a copper grabbed me and said you get out and you are both arrested. 

Never forget it. 

As I said earlier different days. Supporting City wasn’t the same and nor were the times. 

Defend yourself or get a kicking no one cared. 

The arrangement culture that followed made it safer to stand and watch. 

Just a fact. 

Edited by REDOXO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm...here's my twopenneth, and I know some of these points have already been made.

1. There is an inherent contradiction - people are saying only "firms" who "represented" clubs were involved and fought with like minded people. In the same breath they are saying they were the protectors of those who didn't want to get involved - both of those CANNOT be true - so which is it? And don't say CSF we're the only firm who didn't target "innocents" because that holds no water.

2. I'm about 40. I went to my first game in 1983. I've never had a punch up at football, never needed to - never wanted to. Been to games with gas mates, left them at 5 to 3 and met up at 4:45 and discussed the game. Would I want to sit with them 3-4:45? Prob not. Would I want to punch them? Hell no. They were, and are, my mates and even if they weren't, what the hell was their crime?

3. I now take my daughter to football. She's 9. If there was violence around football, her mum wouldn't allow her to go and not would I. The people involved lost a whole lot of people to the game and hurt the club they claim to represent. When I said I liked football in c1988 I was looked on like dirt. Why? Because of some people who didn't speak for me and wanted to start punch ups.

If you want a fight with a like minded individual do it - it's your right, I'll never stop you or judge you. But never say you speak for me, represent me, or youre representing me if you do it under the BCFC badge. You did it because you enjoyed it, and by misappropriating that badge, you caused untold damage to our sport that is only just being repaired.

So, no, won't be buying the book. Don't wish you success - if you were reticent may be a different matter but the posts here seem to still be trying to justify something that in my opinion was clearly wrong.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this and when i saw it i immediately thought of a few of you on this forum.

Why do online critics hide behind dopey fake names on the internet ?

They Don’t Want People To Know It’s Them.
This is the most common excuse and also the least convincing because its employment immediately suggests you are not being true to the world or honest with yourself. You do not want to be held accountable for the fires you set and the online brush fires you start.

Or you think by not using your Real Name you can have an online life that is disconnected from public responsibility. You prefer to tear down than build up and you need the anonymity of the online experience to dagger in your daring deeds. All of those excuses do not reconcile with reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Mmmm...here's my twopenneth, and I know some of these points have already been made.

1. There is an inherent contradiction - people are saying only "firms" who "represented" clubs were involved and fought with like minded people. In the same breath they are saying they were the protectors of those who didn't want to get involved - both of those CANNOT be true - so which is it? And don't say CSF we're the only firm who didn't target "innocents" because that holds no water.

2. I'm about 40. I went to my first game in 1983. I've never had a punch up at football, never needed to - never wanted to. Been to games with gas mates, left them at 5 to 3 and met up at 4:45 and discussed the game. Would I want to sit with them 3-4:45? Prob not. Would I want to punch them? Hell no. They were, and are, my mates and even if they weren't, what the hell was their crime?

3. I now take my daughter to football. She's 9. If there was violence around football, her mum wouldn't allow her to go and not would I. The people involved lost a whole lot of people to the game and hurt the club they claim to represent. When I said I liked football in c1988 I was looked on like dirt. Why? Because of some people who didn't speak for me and wanted to start punch ups.

If you want a fight with a like minded individual do it - it's your right, I'll never stop you or judge you. But never say you speak for me, represent me, or youre representing me if you do it under the BCFC badge. You did it because you enjoyed it, and by misappropriating that badge, you caused untold damage to our sport that is only just being repaired.

So, no, won't be buying the book. Don't wish you success - if you were reticent may be a different matter but the posts here seem to still be trying to justify something that in my opinion was clearly wrong.

Are you unsure of your age?

;)

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cider-Head23 said:

Cracking firm Paul, Weston back in the summer proved that. 

My family and myself were unfortunate to be on a train to W.S.M on this Saturday. Didn't know at the time why there were so many foul mouthed guys on the train with us; guess that would explain it. My 6 and 8 year old's were quite intimidated. The wife was pretty uncomfortable too.

Yeh great firm indeed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Lumber said:

Just read this and when i saw it i immediately thought of a few of you on this forum.

Why do online critics hide behind dopey fake names on the internet ?

They Don’t Want People To Know It’s Them.
This is the most common excuse and also the least convincing because its employment immediately suggests you are not being true to the world or honest with yourself. You do not want to be held accountable for the fires you set and the online brush fires you start.

Or you think by not using your Real Name you can have an online life that is disconnected from public responsibility. You prefer to tear down than build up and you need the anonymity of the online experience to dagger in your daring deeds. All of those excuses do not reconcile with reality.

Well I'm using my own name and I can say I wholeheartedly agree with every criticism of you, your book, your mindset and your "justification" of what I deem to be an utterly pathetic way of life.  Silvio Dante's post just now pretty much covered most of the bases.

Hooligans saying they represent "my club" are deluded.  What they do is project a negative outlook of a club trying to do everything the right way.  The worrying thing, Paul, is that where some people talk about what it was like to be involved in this, you and a few others talk about it in the present tense, showing not that it was a way of life, but still is. 

Sorry Paul, but you and your ilk are a relic that the vast majority of us do not want associated with our club.  If you want your fight club, have it...away from anyone else.  In the forest like the Europeans, as mentioned earlier in the thread...  Just don't waste NHS resources getting yourselves patched up and don't do it in the name of Bristol City Football Club, because all you are doing is dragging that name through the mud when you do.

Edited by Steve Watts
  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Well I'm using my own name and I can say I wholeheartedly agree with every criticism of you, your book, your mindset and your "justification" of what I deem to be an utterly pathetic way of life.  Silvio Dante's post just now pretty much covered most of the bases.

Hooligans saying they represent "my club" are deluded.  What they do is project a negative outlook of a club trying to do everything the right way.  The worrying thing, Paul, is that where some people talk about what it was like to be involved in this, you and a few others talk about it in the present tense, showing not that it was a way of life, but still is. 

Sorry Paul, but you and your ilk are a relic that the vast majority of us do not want associated with our club.  If you want your fight club, have it...away from anyone else.  In the forest like the Europeans, as mentioned earlier in the thread...  Just don't waste NHS resources getting yourselves patched up and don't do it in the name of Bristol City Football Club, because all you are doing is dragging that name through the mud when you do.

Couldn't have said it better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Lumber said:

Just read this and when i saw it i immediately thought of a few of you on this forum.

Why do online critics hide behind dopey fake names on the internet ?

They Don’t Want People To Know It’s Them.
This is the most common excuse and also the least convincing because its employment immediately suggests you are not being true to the world or honest with yourself. You do not want to be held accountable for the fires you set and the online brush fires you start.

Or you think by not using your Real Name you can have an online life that is disconnected from public responsibility. You prefer to tear down than build up and you need the anonymity of the online experience to dagger in your daring deeds. All of those excuses do not reconcile with reality.

Or maybe some of us just aren't attention seekers? 

Others on the other hand..........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paul Lumber said:

 

Why do online critics hide behind dopey fake names on the internet ?

 

Good point Paul but you are always going to get keyboard warriors who get all controversial and aggressive when no one knows them (especially when fuelled by a few drinks). Anyone wants my full name it is clearly shown in my profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pheasant plucker said:

My family and myself were unfortunate to be on a train to W.S.M on this Saturday. Didn't know at the time why there were so many foul mouthed guys on the train with us; guess that would explain it. My 6 and 8 year old's were quite intimidated. The wife was pretty uncomfortable too.

Yeh great firm indeed.

That's the nature of large groups of lads/blokes travelling together, it's not just football fans. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

Well I'm using my own name and I can say I wholeheartedly agree with every criticism of you, your book, your mindset and your "justification" of what I deem to be an utterly pathetic way of life.  Silvio Dante's post just now pretty much covered most of the bases.

Hooligans saying they represent "my club" are deluded.  What they do is project a negative outlook of a club trying to do everything the right way.  The worrying thing, Paul, is that where some people talk about what it was like to be involved in this, you and a few others talk about it in the present tense, showing not that it was a way of life, but still is. 

Sorry Paul, but you and your ilk are a relic that the vast majority of us do not want associated with our club.  If you want your fight club, have it...away from anyone else.  In the forest like the Europeans, as mentioned earlier in the thread...  Just don't waste NHS resources getting yourselves patched up and don't do it in the name of Bristol City Football Club, because all you are doing is dragging that name through the mud when you do.

I was going to reply but I can’t possibly put it any better than you have.

Absolutely spot on. 

Edited by BRISTOL86
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

Well I'm using my own name and I can say I wholeheartedly agree with every criticism of you, your book, your mindset and your "justification" of what I deem to be an utterly pathetic way of life.  Silvio Dante's post just now pretty much covered most of the bases.

Hooligans saying they represent "my club" are deluded.  What they do is project a negative outlook of a club trying to do everything the right way.  The worrying thing, Paul, is that where some people talk about what it was like to be involved in this, you and a few others talk about it in the present tense, showing not that it was a way of life, but still is. 

Sorry Paul, but you and your ilk are a relic that the vast majority of us do not want associated with our club.  If you want your fight club, have it...away from anyone else.  In the forest like the Europeans, as mentioned earlier in the thread...  Just don't waste NHS resources getting yourselves patched up and don't do it in the name of Bristol City Football Club, because all you are doing is dragging that name through the mud when you do.

I think hooligans "attach" themselves to a club as a means of gaining an identity for their firm. Not saying they aren't supporters because I'm sure they are. However, to say they represent the club is incorrect in as much that they certainly don't represent my thoughts and opinions via their activities. Further the term "represent" implies that it is organised and supported by the club which definitely is not the case.

 

Edited by BigTone
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 14:46, Markman said:

The alleged "author" of this alleged book is allegedly known for Footie Issues (from L.W I think) - but me thinks maybe a tad young for the "real" CSF

(no intention to defame or categorize anyone was made in replying to this post!)

Categorise

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SX227 said:

It's fascinating to see the anti-CSF vitriol on here from some posters.

 

I just find it ironic, that despite knowing exactly who these guys are, where they stand/sit and certainly where they drink, not one of the posters getting so irate about their activities have gone over and expressed their feelings about their activities to their faces.

If Scotty can find PL then I'm sure the angry otib anti-CSF brigade can find him as well.

 

I'd imagine a fair few of those mentioned in the book will be around at the next couple of home games, so I'm sure they would be more than happy to have a chat with you before the game. And I mean a chat, not a 'car park' chat.

 

It's that simple.

If you want to read the book - read it.

If you hate the CSF and all they stand for, go and tell them why.  Nobody will lay a finger on you, I guarantee that.

And don't read the book.

I don’t know what makes you think we “know exactly who these guys are”.

There seems to be a belief that everybody in the ground is part of what you might call the “behind the goal culture”. We’re not.

Let me explain. I’ve been going to Ashton Gate for 50 years. I have an ST in the Lansdown stand and was previously in the Dolman. I’ve watched perhaps 10 games from behind the goal in those 50 years - that is purely because I don’t like the view, as I prefer to watch football from the halfway line. That just depends how you grew up. I don’t live in Bristol and from the age of 11 was driven in by my father, so I’ve never attended with mates from Bedminster or whatever.

Just consider the stadium. Probably around two thirds of City fans watch from the sides and a much bigger proportion from outside the “singing section”. I would gues the vast majority have no idea what the CSF is. If it wasnt for OTIB I would never have heard of it, and apart from witnessing a few scuffles it has had no impact whatever on my 50 years at Ashton Gate. I have no wish to meet its members and certainly wouldn’t know them if I saw them. I’m probably more typical of a Bristol City fan than they are.

Edited by Leveller
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, harrys said:

We are talking about things that happened in the main over 20 years ago and it happened at every ground in the Country, it’s not about romanticising it’s about telling a story of what it was like watching football in the 80’s & 90’s and again just just for the record I’m glad those days are behind us

The book may not be romanticising - I haven’t read it, and won’t - but there are several posts on this thread saying what a great time people had as part of these events. They are certainly praising what happened, if not romanticising. From my point of view, I’d prefer it if they were reconsidering those views with a bit of mature hindsight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cityloyal473 said:

Still waiting for someone to pop up on this thread. Amazed he hasn't so far. His fingers must be numb from sitting on them.

Presume you mean me? Not sure there's any need. People far more eloquent than me are putting the knuckle draggers firmly in their place.

Whilst the glamourising of football violence on certain threads here saddens me (though I understand it has to be allowed as I am against censorship), it also gladdens me that, at long last, this sort of thread has a majority now condemning it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leveller said:

I would gues the vast majority have no idea what the CSF is. If it wasnt for OTIB I would never have heard of it, and apart from witnessing a few scuffles it has had no impact whatever on my 50 years at Ashton Gate. I have no wish to meet its members and certainly wouldn’t know them if I saw them. I’m probably more typical of a Bristol City fan than they are.

Precisely this...just like I'd have had no idea about any link with Willem II if I'd not read this forum and I'd have no idea who these people actually are. I've been travelling away for decades, on my own or with friends and family and I'd say, from the photo posted with Scott Murray, that I've never seen Paul in my life. No disrespect to him but there's obviously more than one City culture.

Edited by Red Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigTone said:

Good point Paul but you are always going to get keyboard warriors who get all controversial and aggressive when no one knows them (especially when fuelled by a few drinks). Anyone wants my full name it is clearly shown in my profile.

Is anybody expressing views that are anti violence actually being controversial or aggressive though? I think if your views are reasonable it’s immaterial whether you are named.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leveller said:

Is anybody expressing views that are anti violence actually being controversial or aggressive though? I think if your views are reasonable it’s immaterial whether you are named.

My point was more of a generalisation rather than just at this thread in particular.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion and therefore that is relevant despite what others might think. However, you have been on this forum long enough to see some of the comments posted and insults thrown. In my mind this would be a far less frequent occurrence if the poster was man / woman enough to identify themselves. I am happy enough to say my name is Tony Jones and I fail to see why others feel the need to hide away behind an online persona.  Anyway back to the thread and my opinion.  Why are some people criticising a book they aren't even prepared to read ?  I do not condone football hooligans in any way but I will read the book and make up my own mind about it after doing so. Let's remember also that mob violence is not just exclusive to football. Back in the 70's I had long hair, wore an old RAF greatcoat and listened to heavy music. If I walked through Bristol and ran into a bunch of Skinheads (for example) then they would want to kick 12 levels of crap out of me for no other reason than I had a different "look". Nowt to do with football and it was highly likely they were Bristol City fans as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigTone said:

My point was more of a generalisation rather than just at this thread in particular.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion and therefore that is relevant despite what others might think. However, you have been on this forum long enough to see some of the comments posted and insults thrown. In my mind this would be a far less frequent occurrence if the poster was man / woman enough to identify themselves. I am happy enough to say my name is Tony Jones and I fail to see why others feel the need to hide away behind an online persona.  Anyway back to the thread and my opinion.  Why are some people criticising a book they aren't even prepared to read ?  I do not condone football hooligans in any way but I will read the book and make up my own mind about it after doing so. Let's remember also that mob violence is not just exclusive to football. Back in the 70's I had long hair, wore an old RAF greatcoat and listened to heavy music. If I walked through Bristol and ran into a bunch of Skinheads (for example) then they would want to kick 12 levels of crap out of me for no other reason than I had a different "look". Nowt to do with football and it was highly likely they were Bristol City fans as well.

I used to have my full name and location on here, but took it off when a few posts got quite nasty, just in case - you never really know what other posters are capable of. It suddenly occurred to me that some nutter could easily track me down. Paranoid maybe, but I’m a bit more local than Poitou Charente! If I thought I was only likely to be debating with reasonable people, I would be happy to have my full name back on here. Currently I’m not that certain. Anyway, I’m not using anonymity to enable me to insult people - rather the opposite, which is kind of the mirror image of your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I used to have my full name and location on here, but took it off when a few posts got quite nasty, just in case - you never really know what other posters are capable of. It suddenly occurred to me that some nutter could easily track me down. Paranoid maybe, but I’m a bit more local than Poitou Charente! If I thought I was only likely to be debating with reasonable people, I would be happy to have my full name back on here. Currently I’m not that certain. Anyway, I’m not using anonymity to enable me to insult people - rather the opposite, which is kind of the mirror image of your point.

I understand your point and at the same time you are confirming my point which is that many posters on here can get nasty. I doubt that many of these would have the guts to say the same things to your face and only get "tough" when behind a computer screen with the curtains pulled. I'm also sure many of them would shut up if it was a prerequisite to give their full names.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, richwwtk said:

Presume you mean me? Not sure there's any need. People far more eloquent than me are putting the knuckle draggers firmly in their place.

Whilst the glamourising of football violence on certain threads here saddens me (though I understand it has to be allowed as I am against censorship), it also gladdens me that, at long last, this sort of thread has a majority now condemning it.

high horse time.........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I was there through thick and thin from the late 60s. 

Saw loads of trouble over the years, although I am very reliably informed showed up to late for a nasty one at Dulwich/Corinthian Casuals. 

Context is those times had social issues and struggles and football became a de facto battle ground. Rioting on the streets in London, Bristol, Liverpool Manchester and Birmingham was common. 

This was coupled with A religious war in Northern Ireland and bombing across the country. If you were anywhere near some of that horse shit you were bound to push back somewhere. 

Since the middle class take over of football the movement of working class jobs abroad and 911 which finally classified Irish Nationalists as terrorists in the USA where the funding came from times have changed. 

If you are out there fighting today you do it because you like it, but usually prearranged.

If a few blokes want to meet up for a ruck more power to them as long as the rest of us don’t get dragged in. 

Life is soooo twee now days,unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NOTBLUE said:

Life is soooo twee now days,unfortunately.

Not sure it's unfortunate BLUE but the key board snowflakes are a manifestation of how easy the preceding generations have made it for them to be holier than though about different times!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, REDOXO said:

Not sure it's unfortunate BLUE but the key board snowflakes are a manifestation of how easy the preceding generations have made it for them to be holier than though about different times!

 

That’s it exactly,it was a different time,I must admit that modern life bores the pants off me,far too conformist for my liking.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one of the reasons hooliganism is dying down is due to the introduction of unleaded petrol?

The rise and comparative fall of aggression in modern society, including football hooliganism, shows a correlation to lead in petrol, with it's subsequent removal leading to a marked reduction in violence generally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Perhaps one of the reasons hooliganism is dying down is due to the introduction of unleaded petrol?

The rise and comparative fall of aggression in modern society, including football hooliganism, shows a correlation to lead in petrol, with it's subsequent removal leading to a marked reduction in violence generally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

 

Whoever came up with that theory probably sniffs too much petrol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...