Jump to content
IGNORED

CSF


Super
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Speak to any of them, they’ll tell you that they never went after people who didn’t want to get involved, and it was one firm against another. 
 

However, in the next breath they say how they protected all fans. Hell this was stated in the old Paul Lumber thread, and has already come up here (“glad they were there” etc)

Unless, by some miracle, the CSF are the exception to the rule and didn’t go after people who just wanted to watch the game, and every other firm did, then both of those things can’t be true.

From a personal experience what you say above is wrong

Yes these people do / did often only come against like minded people but the point you are missing is that the coming to the defence of people is at times when we have been at away games and supporters of other clubs attack anyone in their way, I can personally vouch that at a number of games if these people had not been there things would have gotten a lot worse for many others

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, phantom said:

From a personal experience what you say above is wrong

Yes these people do / did often only come against like minded people but the point you are missing is that the coming to the defence of people is at times when we have been at away games and supporters of other clubs attack anyone in their way, I can personally vouch that at a number of games if these people had not been there things would have gotten a lot worse for many others

I think you are missing the point.

Yes, innocent City fans may have been saved from a beating by other sides 'firms', but at the same time innocent fans of other clubs will have been in need of protection from the CSF.

Every 'firm' will claim that they do not pick on innocent fans, but in the end every single one of them does, and there is no reason to think any differently of CSF.

If there were no 'firms' then no innocent fans would need protecting and football would be all the better for it.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm a bit far along on the spectrum but is "All lives matter" really a racist term?

@richwwtk you say it with such conviction the way I read you saying it but it feels like a bit of a "newspeak" term where I've missed the memo so therefore if I say it then I'm branded racist thus alienating me from the conversation. To me it clearly means what it says even if it's in response to black lives matter - I don't know why it can't be taken at face value, e.g. that all lives do matter?

It's this kind of deliberate playing with language and it's meaning that really confuses me and someone just saying that it's different doesn't make it different IMHO. Obviously we all have to agree on language otherwise we're speaking different languages and once again communication breaks down.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

 

If there were no 'firms' then no innocent fans would need protecting and football would be all the better for it

Even the use of the word firm is tacit legitimisation. It’s not a firm. It’s nothing more than a sad bunch of see-you-next-tuesdays looking for a fight. With anyone. This quasi- romantic notion that they were our saviours is first class bullshit. 

They were. And still are. Actually the problem. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, INCRED said:

If you read the article in its entirety and put aside pre conceived opinions of the CSF it’s a well balanced interview which puts A&S police in a poor light and the source of some of the misinformed reported right wing slurs made against those that were protecting the cenotaph 

Well it is if you believe their side of the story.

displaying a banner with “all lives matter” is not about protecting the cenotaph, that plus getting pissed up and singing Eng ger land chants is antagonistic at best.

As for their statement that they’d have supported the democratic removal of the statue, did they actively add their support to this whilst people were trying to get it removed? (Honestly don’t know, but if there is evidence they did then fair play)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Trueredsupporter said:

Interesting mirrored what got written about it in the politics forum. They were not far right and racist and what did posters get called for pointing that out far right and racist!!

Do you have proof that not a single person there was far right or racially motivated? That was the question posed, not that everyone there was racist.

Again, adding “all lives matter” to that banner says a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sticks 1969 said:

Unfortunately like or loathe them they played a major part in Bristol city that only people of a certain age can appreciate 

 They - and other insecure closet cases like them, fighting their toytown wars - also played a major part in ensuring that football fans have to live under restrictions that no other sports supporters face - as well as giving genuine fans an undeserved reputation for imbecilic and unpleasant behaviour. 

Like them or loathe them?  Well, I loathe them - and all so-called "football firms".  The sooner they all **** off and stop using our sport as an excuse to grapple with other men, the better.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fuber said:

Tbf they do clearly state reasoning within the article.

They make it clear it was elements outside of BLM i.e. Antifa who could use the ruckus for their own agenda. Such as a Cenotaph. As well as the events in London where the Cenotaph was targeted.

Again, All Lives Matter is a direct “response” to BLM so I call bullshit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sixtyseconds said:

An opinion

Not a undeniable fact.

Which is a fact.

An undeniable fact was that there were other words written alongside your undeniably a racist slogan.

And those words were?  

As good as saying “I’m not racist but…”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pezo said:

Maybe I'm a bit far along on the spectrum but is "All lives matter" really a racist term?

@richwwtk you say it with such conviction the way I read you saying it but it feels like a bit of a "newspeak" term where I've missed the memo so therefore if I say it then I'm branded racist thus alienating me from the conversation. To me it clearly means what it says even if it's in response to black lives matter - I don't know why it can't be taken at face value, e.g. that all lives do matter?

It's this kind of deliberate playing with language and it's meaning that really confuses me and someone just saying that it's different doesn't make it different IMHO. Obviously we all have to agree on language otherwise we're speaking different languages and once again communication breaks down.

I get where you're coming from, but the term originated as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement in America made by white supremacist groups, pretty much cementing it's place a a racist slogan.

I am not branding anyone who uses it unknowingly a racist, but once it has been pointed out to someone then it would make sense that if that person continued to use it they would be deliberately using a slogan they know to be racist, and therefore have racist intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Well I thought it was a good read.

It is disgusting how our mainstream media deliberately put out certain narratives to portray groups of individuals just to silence them 'Far right, right-wing, Fascist'. Just because they're a big group of working class blokes

You do know that calling someone right wing is not branding them a racist right?

The current government is right wing, and whilst they certainly contain some questionable characters, I would certainly not describe them as racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with "All lives matter" isn't the words themselves - in isolation they should be clear and obvious to all. It is the context of how they are used as a rebuttal of the "Black lives matter" line. If only the phrase used had been "Black lives matter too", then we wouldn't have this as a linguistic issue where a conflict between the two phrases is generated

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Would you say the same if Scottish, Irish or Welsh were doing the same? 

Yes, why wouldn’t I? What purpose is there to chant “England” ? To me it comes across as antagonistic towards people who “don’t belong here” (and several people in the area at the time said they felt intimidated by it). City fans don’t sing “England” at football matches unless it’s against the Welsh. Or used to be heard often after a “small town in Asia” chant at places like Leicester and Bradford.

You'd be incredibly naive or deliberately ignorant to argue against the purpose of that chant when sang by football fans in particular, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarcusX said:

Yes, why wouldn’t I? What purpose is there to chant “England” ? To me it comes across as antagonistic towards people who “don’t belong here” (and several people in the area at the time said they felt intimidated by it). City fans don’t sing “England” at football matches unless it’s against the Welsh. Or used to be heard often after a “small town in Asia” chant at places like Leicester and Bradford.

You'd be incredibly naive or deliberately ignorant to argue against the purpose of that chant when sang by football fans in particular, IMO.

I think all of that is in your own paranoid overly sensitive mind if you genuinely believe people chanting England are deliberately trying to intimidate those that are not from England.

Maybe going to a Football game isn't for you and try Badminton as a Sport to attend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I get where you're coming from, but the term originated as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement in America made by white supremacist groups, pretty much cementing it's place a a racist slogan.

I am not branding anyone who uses it unknowingly a racist, but once it has been pointed out to someone then it would make sense that if that person continued to use it they would be deliberately using a slogan they know to be racist, and therefore have racist intent.

We’re back to that conundrum that sent Cowshed and the like into silence and killed the thread in the politics forum.

You can’t argue that taking the knee is intrinsically linked with BLM and it’s political meanings and cannot simply mean something non-political, and then argue that you can say “All lives matter” in response to a BLM protest and claim that it has no link to BLM and means something else.

Either both can be removed from their “political” or wider meanings, or they can’t.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2015 said:

I think all of that is in your own paranoid overly sensitive mind if you genuinely believe people chanting England are deliberately trying to intimidate those that are not from England.

Maybe going to a Football game isn't for you and try Badminton as a Sport to attend?

Why else would you sing Engerland in that situation?

Hilarious, you might care to remember this didn’t happen at a football match…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarcusX said:

Why else would you sing Engerland in that situation?

Hilarious, you might care to remember this didn’t happen at a football match…

What is wrong with being patriotic and proud of your Country? Just because you big up your own doesn't mean you hate every other country.. 

Just because patriotism is linked with far right and racism doesn't mean that everyone who chants England is a racist. 

English Patriotism isn't allowed we get that

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 2015 said:

What is wrong with being patriotic and proud of your Country? Just because you big up your own doesn't mean you hate every other country.. 

Just because patriotism is linked with far right and racism doesn't mean that everyone who chants England is a racist. 

English Patriotism isn't allowed we get that

Do you often wander around chanting 'Eng-Er-Land' to show how patriotic and proud of your country you are?

I'm patriotic and proud to be English, but I don't feel the need to sing songs in people's faces to prove it somehow, seems very insecure if you do.

Patriotism isn't linked with far-right and racism. Far-Right groups have tried to encourage that association to make themselves seem more palatable but I like to think they have, in the main, failed. When I see England flags being flown at times of national pride or during football tournaments I do not think those people are being racist, do you?

Patriotism is fine, nothing wrong with it at all. Aggressive Nationalism dressed up as Patriotism on the other hand......

  • Like 4
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, semblar said:

The problem with "All lives matter" isn't the words themselves - in isolation they should be clear and obvious to all. It is the context of how they are used as a rebuttal of the "Black lives matter" line. If only the phrase used had been "Black lives matter too", then we wouldn't have this as a linguistic issue where a conflict between the two phrases is generated

I couldn't agree more. I've always said that 'All Lives Matter' which it should be 100%.

When the 'Black Lives Matter' appeared I thought here we go as quite right the 'too' should have been on the end. This would have made the point to the less intelligent. I knew that 'Black Lives Matter' actually meant 'Black Lives Matter Too' but some didn't read it that way.

You then had the thickos who then started saying 'White Lives Matter' as in some sort of a fire back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, richwwtk said:

Without context and on it's own, it is just a slogan and not at all offensive, after all it encourages people to treat everybody equally.

The problem comes when it is used as a response to "Black Lives Matter" - BLM came about as a way of saying black lives shouldn't be worth less than white, and this was very much seen as a problem in society. When the response to this is "All Lives Matter" then it is about dismissing these fears and effectively saying things are fine as they are.

Andy Bennett did not call the protestors Far Right (I believe Right Wing was what he said, and being called Right Wing does not mean you are being called racist), so the banner was wrong and misguided from the beginning.

Eloquently put. 👏 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

 

2. All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter. The people with this banner may not have realised that and I'm quite happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

A couple of things on this.

Firstly, if the people with this banner didn't realise that "All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter", it cannot be a racist slogan, to them.

Notwithstanding the above, where is the rule written down which says "All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickJ said:

A couple of things on this.

Firstly, if the people with this banner didn't realise that "All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter", it cannot be a racist slogan, to them.

Notwithstanding the above, where is the rule written down which says "All Lives Matter is a racist slogan when used as a response to Black Lives Matter"?

I don’t think it’s racist but I do think it’s intentionally diminishing. As was said further up, ALM was a response to BLM - in effect saying “yeah they do but we do too”, in effect spiking the grievances that BLM may have had. 

I don’t think anyone disagrees that all lives matter. The question is whether it needed to be said at that point - it immediately moved the spotlight away from the very real problems people could see under BLM and into some kind of culture war.

As a socio-economic group, Black people do have less advantages, more discrimination etc than white people. That’s just a fact. But what you do is try and fix that, you don’t say “yeah but” which is what ALM was at that stage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

Even the use of the word firm is tacit legitimisation. It’s not a firm. It’s nothing more than a sad bunch of see-you-next-tuesdays looking for a fight. With anyone. This quasi- romantic notion that they were our saviours is first class bullshit. 

They were. And still are. Actually the problem. 

Indeed and I also don’t believe the “We are not far right” bullshit that they are coming out with.

I am pretty sure I had seen in the past sites and individuals linked to football firms frequently sharing posts from Britain First and that Paul Golding muppet who are about as far right as it gets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Am I the only person who didn’t know the CSF still existed?  Are they all pensioners now are are there young ones?

I was thinking that myself. I haven’t seen it kick off for a long time. Much rather have it like it is now, going to a game to watch the football 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...