Can't Understand...

[InCider]

Sir C-T,

So following your logic, the West Ham and Millwall fans that kicked off outside the ground at the League Cup game last year should not be given football banning orders, just those that kicked off inside. Interesting. If your girlfriend went to a City game with you and was racially abused yards from the ground, would you not feel uncomfortable, if those responsible ended up sitting/standing next to you at subsequent games?

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Sir C-T,

So following your logic, the West Ham and Millwall fans that kicked off outside the ground at the League Cup game last year should not be given football banning orders, just those that kicked off inside. Interesting. If your girlfriend went to a City game with you and was racially abused yards from the ground, would you not feel uncomfortable, if those responsible ended up sitting/standing next to you at subsequent games?

Not at all - the West Ham & Milwall fans were involved in football related violence and should receive banning orders. The incident being discussed here has absolutely nothing to do with football IMO.

I think the problem here is that the incident was of a rascist nature, and that causes knee-jerk reactions because it is an emotive subject (an example of this was you presuming I am a 50's throwback bigot championing free speech for rascists!). I also think Rovers request for a banning order was a knee-jerk reaction because the club want to distance themselves from this sort of idiot. I still believe the link is too tenous to justify a banning order from all grounds. As I said previously, Rovers could have banned him for life from their ground.

If my girlfriend was racially abused yards from the gound I would probably ignore it. we're both too thick-skinned to be upset by a throwaway comment from a neanderthal. If those responsible ended up sitting next to me I wouldn't do anything, unless they abused her in the ground - then I would expect them to receive a banning order.

[Pezo]

Why did this guy get a banning order, when it was nothing to do with football, he just happens to have come from a game.

What he done was horrible and disgraceful, but how is that related to football? I know he was on his way back from a game, but the incident was completed independant of football.

Can anybody explain?

Tosspot

The bottom line for me is would I want him associated with my club or representing our country abroad - not a chance, in this respect the courts have done a good job.

The courts have managed to use a law that wasn't intended for this use (which is questionable) but this guy deserves everything he has got.

[kee mao]

Still playing here are you Meow ?

Nice post RednReady pretty much sums it all up. We have a population nearly the size of France, without the same area (over half Sq ft) to fit it all into.

I am yes...

Thanks.

meow

[Pezo]

Very odd, I suppose no-one would object to someone speeding on the way back from the game and getting a driving ban to include a ban from the Gate?

The difference is though that football has never had a problem with dangerous drivers way above and beyond what is happening generally in society. Football did have a racism problem which they have managed to get under control and they have made it probably more socially unacceptable than it is generally in society. football has made its image clean and they have distanced themselves from anything even close to racism.

[CotswoldRed]

The bottom line for me is would I want him associated with my club or representing our country abroad - not a chance, in this respect the courts have done a good job.

The courts have managed to use a law that wasn't intended for this use (which is questionable) but this guy deserves everything he has got.

I understand your thoughts, but just because you don't want him associated with your club etc is not justice delivered is it. There are plenty of people I would rather not turn up to AG, but I don't expect them to be banned for those reasons.

I don't want thieves associated with our club, so should we ban City fans who've been convicted of shoplifting? I certainly wouldn't mind that but I'll stop a long way short of expecting it to happen.

[Pezo]

I understand your thoughts, but just because you don't want him associated with your club etc is not justice delivered is it. There are plenty of people I would rather not turn up to AG, but I don't expect them to be banned for those reasons.

I don't want thieves associated with our club, so should we ban City fans who've been convicted of shoplifting? I certainly wouldn't mind that but I'll stop a long way short of expecting it to happen.

I think it is justice delivered, he clearly likes football and our our appointed punishment deciders have taken away something that he likes, doesn't cost the tax payer anything and gets him away from football.

What punishment do think would be appropriate? To me some community service and an ASBO would have probably been better and using select punishments as they were designed rather than shoe horning something brought up in the bad old days of football to stop thugs from ruining sporting events, but non the less this punishment does have the effect of saying we don't welcome all parts of society to football games, if your abusively racist anywhere in your life your not welcome.

[CotswoldRed]

I think it is justice delivered, he clearly likes football and our our appointed punishment deciders have taken away something that he likes, doesn't cost the tax payer anything and gets him away from football.

What punishment do think would be appropriate? To me some community service and an ASBO would have probably been better and using select punishments as they were designed rather than shoe horning something brought up in the bad old days of football to stop thugs from ruining sporting events, but non the less this punishment does have the effect of saying we don't welcome all parts of society to football games, if your abusively racist anywhere in your life your not welcome.

As a law abiding citizen I kind of like your approach. It sounds good and kind of fits my own view of natural justice.

BUT, in the cold light of day I'm not sure its entirely fair. If appointed "punishment deciders" come up with the idea that speeding offences could be punished in the same way would you also support that?

I think its a very slipperly slope.

[Pezo]

As a law abiding citizen I kind of like your approach. It sounds good and kind of fits my own view of natural justice.

BUT, in the cold light of day I'm not sure its entirely fair. If appointed "punishment deciders" come up with the idea that speeding offences could be punished in the same way would you also support that?

I think its a very slipperly slope.

Dont get me wrong this does set a worrying precedence, but as long as its applied sensibly then its OK. Football has had a problem in the past with racism so seems to feel the need to distance itself very very very far from anything remotely racist, a driving offence is not a problem with football or the football community so why use it in conjunction with football.

Some nightclubs have a problem with racism IMO so why not ban anyone that's abusively racist from these nightclubs that have this image, its a quick way to clean up the image of night club. This is not my opinion but can be drawn as a parallel in this circumstance I believe. I would like to hear what peoples opinions are if the emotive subject of football is taken out of the equation.

[InCider]

Not at all - the West Ham & Milwall fans were involved in football related violence and should receive banning orders. The incident being discussed here has absolutely nothing to do with football IMO.

Sorry, but that happened outside the ground. Your argument all along is that because the incident happened away from the ground, it isn't football-related.

I think the problem here is that the incident was of a rascist nature, and that causes knee-jerk reactions because it is an emotive subject (an example of this was you presuming I am a 50's throwback bigot championing free speech for rascists!). I also think Rovers request for a banning order was a knee-jerk reaction because the club want to distance themselves from this sort of idiot. I still believe the link is too tenous to justify a banning order from all grounds. As I said previously, Rovers could have banned him for life from their ground.

I made an assumption based on your defence of a racist. If I am wrong in assuming that, then I apologise for any offence caused.

If my girlfriend was racially abused yards from the gound I would probably ignore it. we're both too thick-skinned to be upset by a throwaway comment from a neanderthal. If those responsible ended up sitting next to me I wouldn't do anything, unless they abused her in the ground - then I would expect them to receive a banning order.

I am glad that you feel able to ignore it. Would a physical attack result in the same response? Do you feel that it is acceptable to ignore racism, bearing in mind that others will then suffer the same fate? Society will only move on when people are willing to challenge such idiots. If that means banning racist scum from football (or supermarkets, public transport, etc ...) then so be it.