All Matches Postponed Until At Least 12/9/22

[pillred]

2 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

The joke about the red button I took as more of a joke about OTIB and posts on match day threads, the Queen was just sub context

I agree totally I just thought it was a little ill-judged, I'm surprised at the reactions I have had mostly negative and especially from him which I thought was a bit bitter and personal that's all, in almost any other way his post would have been funny a bit like the stick robbored gets when he says about things only being right if they are on the OS.

[PHILINFRANCE]

7 minutes ago, pillred said:

Do you know what and this is being totally honest I hate your posts mostly and only 2 hours ago decided I would give you a second chance after having you on ignore for the past 3 years what a mistake that was as your just as much an a**e as you were then, I won't make that mistake a second time the reason I reacted to sheltons army the way I did is he made a remark about my posts which according to the reactions I have received over the years was totally wrong, anyway goodnight and goodbye for ever. 

I assume you won’t be able to read this post , but should like you to know that I have given you another ‘laugh’ reaction.

You see, no hard feelings; I am still trying to boost your ratings .

Oh, and by the way, it’s ‘You’re’ .

Edited September 10, 2022 by PHILINFRANCE

[IAmNick]

 

13 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

As I am sure you are aware, despite your self-deprecating comment, your goal videos are much valued and greatly appreciated.

I usually give you a ‘Thanks’ or a ‘Like’, but confess that, on occasion, I am rushing so quickly through the thread trying to find out what is happening that I forget - for which I apologise profusely.

What I would be interested to know, however, is how many Thanks/Likes you received for your recent hand drawn cartoons of our goals against ? - I have forgotten which match it was, but can still picture the pathetic wonderful cartoon goals.

89, somehow!

 

[Out of his pie crust]

56 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

A- excellent boy

[Northern Red]

6 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

 

89, somehow!

 

Missed this at the time, superb!

[PHILINFRANCE]

55 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

Many thanks for yet another excellent and extremely interesting and informative post.

I may not agree entirely with absolutely everything you have posted in your trilogy - are you going to make it a tetralogy? - but that is not important.

Your three posts have been thought provoking and, of course, extremely enjoyable to read, for which I thank you.

In addition, every day’s a school day and all that, I have also learned a new word, Nugatory. I am tempted to change my username.

Good Luck and Good Health in your retirement.

 

 

[red panda]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

You make a number of points, as have others, that merely suggest you've a poor understanding of how the UK is governed, its very Constitution, that being the subject of my post.

As was attested today, Parliament serves the Monarch yet the Monarch consents to obey the will of the people as reflected through members elected. The Monarch inherits great wealth, but offers it all back to Parliament in return for sufficient funds to discharge the Monarch's state functions. In the UK, at National (Parliamentary) election, one doesn't vote for a party, one elects an individual to represent one in a first past the post ballot. The individual elected owes no allegiance to any party nor the policies they promote, as evidenced by MPs being able to vote against party whips to which they might profess allegiance or by them  'crossing the floor' as they see fit. They do not have to adhere to the wishes of their constituents, once elected they've free reign to do as they wish. The largest group of like-minded MPs (usually a political party) is invited by the Monarch to form a Government. Should the largest group be a political party its for its membership to decide who both their leader and PM should be (usually the same but it doesn't have to be.) Parties have their internal procudeures as to how this is discharged. In the case of political manifestos there's no obligation on that elected to Government to fulfill any if its promises. For various reasons most  commitments are never delivered. In which case the majority of your second paragraph is nugatory. Fair to criticize if you think the system flawed (as do I,) but you snipe and carp as though there's been connivance and wrong-doing this week when all you describe is how the system is prescribed to work.

The opening to your second paragraph hasn't been 'cherry-picked' and is a pragmatic demonstration as to why tinkering with the UK's model constitution isn't necessarily a good thing, even should some consider wholly elected bodies to be in some way 'more' democratic (sic). If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) As there, a good comparison here are National and Local elections where historically the party in Government gets thrashed by its opposition come Local elections. All that does is make delivering benefits of policy to the people more difficult and antagonistic, Local power thwarting National policy whether or not its for the best. Tit for tat politics.

Without question there is a signal difference between the continuity of Monarchy, where the incumbent is a function not an individual (hence the affirmations of allegiance required today.) Matters not palaces, jewels and crowns, they're functions of state, not for sale. They exist on behalf of us subjects. For that reason it matters little a Monarch is for life (or until they abdicate,) unlike many Republics where Presidents, once elected, have enacted legislation that may never see them (in some cases their chosen successors,) removed from office. Ditto wealth. What was ours through ERII becomes ours through CRIII. Contrast the likes of Putin. A President paid around $130k per annum who in the past decade has amassed a personal wealth in excess of $200bn, no need to declare or explain, no questions asked (unless one is unafraid of poisons and falls from great height.)

Our Constitution is far from perfect, but on balance its hard to think how immediately it might signally be improved given the present poverty of political understanding and debate in our nations.

 

Gosh, what an unpleasant and patronising response.  You don't know anything about me or about my understanding of how Government works in practice (clue - I don't work in the private sector).  This is a forum (the clue is in the name) but if this is how you respond to opposing views (and if you really believe what you've written then good luck to you) then I'm really not sure it's worth continuing.  Your statement that "one doesn't vote for a party" is perhaps correct on a very, very pedantic level, but in reality it's so far from how politics works that I really haven't a flipping clue what planet you're on.  Over and out.

[bpexile]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

Out of all of your post this statement will always stick with me, my late dad always used this attitude towards life 

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Thanks for the examples, I didn't know of either. Unfortunately unverifiable and adding more anecdotal evidence onto the pile does nothing to strengthen that however.

I find it odd that a group of senior military leaders content with overthrowing the government were accepting of being talked down by the Queen Mother, who then just told the PM to sort himself out a bit. Hmm.

The Hitler example is interesting, but I don't think it's the best example for you to bring up here which implies to me you're struggling a little to back up your words with anything concrete: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

“We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.”

Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”.

Protecting our democratic values and stability indeed.

Probably getting into politics forum territory, but I also wasn't asked to be governed by anyone in our current cabinet as far as I'm aware...? I hear the "they can veto UK legislation" line a lot, but when we get down to fundamental reasons why, or how often it actually happens to our detriment, people are rarely so forthcoming.

I am concerned by almost everything our current government does.

It's a fair point that I made and one you've completely skirted rather than answering, because you have no answer.

I'm not talking about reparations. I simply think it's dishonest to point at countries around the world as examples of states in turmoil with the implication it's because they are lacking a monarchy, when we (while BEING a monarchy) had a large hand in their current turmoil. I'd include a fair portion of Africa and the Middle East in there which are both in your list of examples.

You are happy to point at (sort of) examples from the past of where the monarchy has been a force for good, but if we bring up where it has presided over awful suffering (such as the famine, starvation, and misery you mention in fact!) then that's summarily dismissed.

Either you accept it into the discussion, or you day-zero it as you've said. Which is it?

Actually they aren't 'unverifiable', you can try and obtain the relevant documents from the public record but many remain embargoed. There are plenty of references in autobiographies, though the official records to Wilson deny he was under Soviet /Czech influence. Its also amazing that which is open currency in the Forth Estate but that, for reasons not obvious or transparent, are never to be reported. That extends from politicos, Royals to some interesting entertainment and sporting celebrities. I believe what aren't any longer embargoed are the photo archives and reports at The Evil, they were D Notice but may have been released after 75 years. Others on this forum may also have had relatives who had experience of the Bristol insurrections. My paternal family came from Hotwells and Ashton Gate, my great grandfather having built a couple of the roads adjacent Ashton Gate in which my father and many of his relatives grew up. During the early air raids many in the area made use of the tunnels in the 'Rocks Railway' in the gorge (the Council had promised to deliver thousands of Anderson Shelters but through incompetence and, some say, corruption, they never materialised.)  A few thousand South Bristolians slept there each night. That was until the war took a turn for the worse, Hitler looked liked invading and the Police and Military took physical action against South Bristolians evicting them using force from the tunnels. The tunnels were earmarked as the BBC's emergency HQ should they be forced from London. The Bristol Blitz occured shortly thereafter, Churchill attended the scene expecting to provide a morale boost and was roundly booed, spat at and subject to abuse, Bristolians having considered themselves abandoned by the Government. Reports taken were embargoed and fabricated. But not those my parents, aunts and uncles (all now dead,) who oft recounted the 'unofficial' version of events they'd witnessed. In which case I wholly agree we should have more access to records, save only where it serves the public good. That can be a marginal call.

You remain concerned by our Government, many of us are, but if you participated in the last election then , yes, you did elect this Government. Even if you chose not to participate they're still your Government. That's how the democratic system works. The Government represents everybody, not merely those who voted for them. Though many like to proclaim by dissociation, ' they're not my Government', they are. To deny they aren't is to condemn the democratic process.

Having worked extensively in the Middle East and Africa you're correct that many of the issues evident there today may be traced to the UK 'abandoning' them at end of Empire. But that only goes to strengthen the argument for the level of constitutional control a democratic Monarchy may deliver. When such controls were abandoned and nations left to govern themselves, the supposed honeymoon of democracy was shown to be the farce that it is. What do you want? We're uncertain? When do you want it? Immaterial, you're getting it now, like it or not. Goodbye and goodnight. As in this nation we've generations who rattle on about 'their' freedoms and liberties, by which they refer to 'their rights' (sic) otherwise to be controlled and provided for by the state.

If you want practical examples of where the ECHR has intervened contrary to the will of the UK Government, ask any Home Secretary these past 30 years. It's the reason that whilst, ad nauseam, Home Secs have promised to protect borders, control terrorists, repatriate those without leave to remain, they're unable to discharge the laws passed by Parliament. Not for here but I could cite examples that would have reasonable folks screaming like rabid Daily Mail readers. 

 

[red panda]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

But isn't this a massive argument AGAINST the Monarchy? If a band of reprobates plotted a coup in 1974, isn't it deeply worrying that they thought they could succeed with the support of the royal family? Fortunately the particular royals at the time were reasonable enough not to go along with it. But a monarchy is hereditary so there is absolutely no control over who takes over the reins (or the reigns, sorry!) and a different set of royals might have gone along with it. 

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

 

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

I rarely, if ever take any notice of reputation. It’s meaningless.

........the Kenneth Williams of OTIB.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, IAmNick said:

I only liked this to give you more because I felt sorry for you

Just wait until people discover the leaderboard: https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topmembers/

3 hours ago, Colombo Robin said:

Impressive stats, but you can tell @Davefevs if he's watching i'm still fighting for this emoji title and he's got to go to the politics forum and get something, and i'll tell you honestly, i will love it if i beat him, love it!

3 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

Eeeeek, eff me!

It’s certainly not something to be proud of is it?

I see that I joined as a glory hunter!!!

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Davefevs

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Bring it on, Sunshine.

 

I'll raise you Maggie's Willy!

[phantom]

11 hours ago, pillred said:

Apparently, there was quite a lot of booing at the Hearts and Arsenal (not sure whether it was the Swiss fans) Thurs games during the minutes silence, so perhaps they were worried it would be repeated elsewhere.

In a quiet stadium you'd only need a small number of people to ruin it and that's before any reaction from oth

Seeing the graffiti around Glasgow I'd dread how the Celtic supporters would have reacted and here in England liver supporters would have no doubt caused concerns too

[phantom]

7 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

I literally just spat out my breakfast reading this 

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Genuine question - can you give any examples of the monarch being held to account by the privy council recently?

Not off the top of my head. I'd see that as a positive as it demonstrates that we have a benevolent monarchy that respects its modern position within the constitution.

[kit]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

In a quiet stadium you'd only need a small number of people to ruin it and that's before any reaction from oth

Seeing the graffiti around Glasgow I'd dread how the Celtic supporters would have reacted and here in England liver supporters would have no doubt caused concerns too

That doesn't stack up though, if that was the reason to postpone which I doubt it was then it just delays everything by a few days as they can just react in the same anticipated way when the next game is scheduled.

Let's just postpone a whole weekend off football games at every level on the off chance that some Liverpool fans might cause some disruption only to delay the reason until next weekend or the weekend after...

[Port Said Red]

7 hours ago, downendcity said:

I'll raise you Maggie's Willy!

 

I'll put all my money on this one 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Port Said Red

[phantom]

For anyone still not realising why games were called off, on Twitter search Liverpool and Celtic and read the comments from supporters as so many additional clubs to these too 

[MarcusX]

16 minutes ago, phantom said:

For anyone still not realising why games were called off, on Twitter search Liverpool and Celtic and read the comments from supporters as so many additional clubs to these too 

I presumed that and/or police resource would be the reasons - however it still makes no sense towards grassroots / amateur football and kids football.

Those lower league clubs now have to face loss of cash flow, a midweek game in winter most likely where they need to power the flood lights (and likely smaller crowd). Clubs like ourselves who still had to pay for the venue because we had it booked.

I still think they got this all wrong, even accepting those 2 above reasons for calling for the professional game.

[Port Said Red]

35 minutes ago, phantom said:

For anyone still not realising why games were called off, on Twitter search Liverpool and Celtic and read the comments from supporters as so many additional clubs to these too 

It's a sad day when policy is dictated by ******* on Twitter. Nothing would have happened at the games, those people are all mouthy keyboard warriors who probably don't attend matches.

I wouldn't waste my time with trawling that cesspit any more than I would read the Bristol City fans Facebook group.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

 

I'll put all my money on this one 

A little Willy!

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by downendcity

[Port Said Red]

Just now, downendcity said:

A little Willy!

Cue Sweet!

 

[downendcity]

8 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Cue Sweet!

 

Already done!

[Betty Swallocks]

49 minutes ago, phantom said:

For anyone still not realising why games were called off, on Twitter search Liverpool and Celtic and read the comments from supporters as so many additional clubs to these too 

You’re taking social media far to seriously. On Twitter, you will always get people being edgy to provoke a reaction.

In the real world, across the 46 games in the PL & EFL this weekend, the only place where there would be any chance of disturbances would have been Liverpool. That wouldn’t have made football look bad, that would look bad on Liverpool fans and Liverpool fans alone.

[bearded_red]

If we’re waiting for people on the internet to stop saying offensive things we better not play any games of football ever again. A truly absurd argument.

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

You’re taking social media far to seriously. On Twitter, you will always get people being edgy to provoke a reaction.

In the real world, across the 46 games in the PL & EFL this weekend, the only place where there would be any chance of disturbances would have been Liverpool. That wouldn’t have made football look bad, that would look bad on Liverpool fans and Liverpool fans alone.

This was the one minutes silence at Hearts. This sort of thing is why they cancelled the football.

The FA wanted to show universal respect. 

You won't get that at football. 

More scenes like this would be dissected by the media and folk around the world.

 

[Nogbad the Bad]

11 hours ago, pillred said:

Do you know what and this is being totally honest I hate your posts mostly and only 2 hours ago decided I would give you a second chance after having you on ignore for the past 3 years what a mistake that was as your just as much an a**e as you were then, I won't make that mistake a second time the reason I reacted to sheltons army the way I did is he made a remark about my posts which according to the reactions I have received over the years was totally wrong, anyway goodnight and goodbye for ever. 

 Ha ha, the last thing I was expecting was a pillred/philinfrance fall out.

Thanks for lightening the mood chaps, genuinely entertaining exchange. 

Please think again about putting Phil on ignore @pillred we need more of this! 

 

[IAmNick]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Eeeeek, eff me!

It’s certainly not something to be proud of is it?

I see that I joined as a glory hunter!!!

 

 

Presumably the forum has some kind of protocol should anything happen to you, black banner at the top, a ceremony where @TomF reveals your password to Joe so he can carry on your work etc.

[pillred]

11 hours ago, red panda said:

Gosh, what an unpleasant and patronising response.  You don't know anything about me or about my understanding of how Government works in practice (clue - I don't work in the private sector).  This is a forum (the clue is in the name) but if this is how you respond to opposing views (and if you really believe what you've written then good luck to you) then I'm really not sure it's worth continuing.  Your statement that "one doesn't vote for a party" is perhaps correct on a very, very pedantic level, but in reality it's so far from how politics works that I really haven't a flipping clue what planet you're on.  Over and out.

Don't lose any sleep over it, I criticised somebody on here yesterday for what they thought was humour "is the queens funeral on the red button" and wished I hadn't as I was called humourless and received a hell of a lot of flak, I'm afraid from behind keyboards many on here say things they would never dare say if the person was right in front of them. 

[phantom]

2 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

You’re taking social media far to seriously. On Twitter, you will always get people being edgy to provoke a reaction.

In the real world, across the 46 games in the PL & EFL this weekend, the only place where there would be any chance of disturbances would have been Liverpool. That wouldn’t have made football look bad, that would look bad on Liverpool fans and Liverpool fans alone.

Twitter was just the lazy evidence for me to quote, you only have to look at this thread and the one in the politics section to see there is real dislike amongst OUR fans. 

@MarcusX hit the nail on the head above 

We've all seen minutes silences ruined by one or two people in the past it wouldn't have taken much 

I saw footage of a guy who walked up to Buckingham Palace on Friday night to view his displeasure in front of thousands of people 

2 hours ago, spudski said:

This was the one minutes silence at Hearts. This sort of thing is why they cancelled the football.

The FA wanted to show universal respect. 

You won't get that at football. 

More scenes like this would be dissected by the media and folk around the world.

 

@Port Said Red

[Betty Swallocks]

6 minutes ago, phantom said:

Twitter was just the lazy evidence for me to quote, you only have to look at this thread and the one in the politics section to see there is real dislike amongst OUR fans. 

@MarcusX hit the nail on the head above 

We've all seen minutes silences ruined by one or two people in the past it wouldn't have taken much 

I saw footage of a guy who walked up to Buckingham Palace on Friday night to view his displeasure in front of thousands of people 

@Port Said Red

Football clubs will most likely be holding one minute silences before games this midweek and possibly next weekend as well. 
The football authorities have realised that whilst they thought they were doing something that made them look good, it has in fact made them look so far out of touch. 
Fear of fans booing a minute silence is just a terrible excuse to cover their asses for calling all football off from elite level down to under 7’s. 

There should be 1000’s of kids out there playing football right now if it wasn’t for the ridiculous decision to call off this weekends games. 

[Port Said Red]

17 minutes ago, phantom said:

Twitter was just the lazy evidence for me to quote, you only have to look at this thread and the one in the politics section to see there is real dislike amongst OUR fans. 

@MarcusX hit the nail on the head above 

We've all seen minutes silences ruined by one or two people in the past it wouldn't have taken much 

I saw footage of a guy who walked up to Buckingham Palace on Friday night to view his displeasure in front of thousands of people 

@Port Said Red

One. In Scotland. Yep would definitely be replicated across the country.

[Barrs Court Red]

16 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

There should be 1000’s of kids out there playing football right now if it wasn’t for the ridiculous decision to call off this weekends games. 

Mine just did. A fair few teams have been “training” this morning 

[Northern Red]

 

[Northern Red]

 

[Betty Swallocks]

3 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

 

Ah, those one minute silence’s that were definitely, 100%, the reason why this weekends games got called off…………..

[Mr Popodopolous]

Rangers v Napoli, and Napoli v Rangers.

Neither will have away fans. The latter because there won't be Napoli fans at this weeks game, linked to logistics and policing and deemed sporting integrity respectively.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Malago]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Rangers v Napoli, and Napoli v Rangers.

Neither will have away fans. The latter because there won't be Napoli fans at this weeks game, linked to logistics and policing and deemed sporting integrity respectively.

Just as well.  Naples is a great city to visit as a tourist, but I wouldn’t visit there as an away support under any circumstances.

[Northern Red]

59 minutes ago, Malago said:

Just as well.  Naples is a great city to visit as a tourist, but I wouldn’t visit there as an away support under any circumstances.

And it definitely isn't the sort of place that would take kindly to a load of Rangers fans deciding to turn up to take in the atmosphere even though they won't get in.

[Redandproud]

It states on Sky sports news,games will only be played  from Tuesday if they are not policed,

[Lanterne Rouge]

10 minutes ago, Red-Al said:

It states on Sky sports news,games will only be played  from Tuesday if they are not policed,

No worries with ours at Norwich at least I should think. That could be comfortably done with stewards and a few PCSOs.

[Super]

27 minutes ago, Red-Al said:

It states on Sky sports news,games will only be played  from Tuesday if they are not policed,

Must rule out CL games.

[Lanterne Rouge]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

Must rule out CL games.

And a couple of Championship games will definitely be at risk - Millwall v QPR and Reading v Sunderland.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Must rule out CL games.

A few clubs could risk a forfeit then. If it was Liverpool e.g. that would put them in a tight spot in that group, their away games aren't exactly easy.

Chelsea too in theory if it came to that. Doubt Salzburg at home poses a great risk however.

Tottenham are away so they wouldn't be affected, Man City would win enough games in any event even if they did.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sheltons Army]

1 hour ago, Red-Al said:

It states on Sky sports news,games will only be played  from Tuesday if they are not policed,

Don’t understand that tbh , if it’s true 

In the Met area , I can understand , but outside of London I don’t see where Forces have significant commitments in relation to the Queens passing 

[Malago]

For those desperate for a bit of football, The Argentine Super clásico Boca v River kicks off at 9.  You’ll get a stream if you Google Redit soccer streams and scroll down.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for us, yeah unless it's a) London or b) A 'risk game' I don't see the issue. Increasing numbers of games are not policed now, certainly pre Covid and I think people have a fair idea of which might pose significant issues requiring a greater police presence and which won't.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for us, yeah unless it's a) London or b) A 'risk game' I don't see the issue. Increasing numbers of games are not policed now, certainly pre Covid and I think people have a fair idea of which might pose significant issues requiring a greater police presence and which won't.

Excuse my ignorance, aren’t all games policed?  Or is there a difference between “policed” and police presence?

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Excuse my ignorance, aren’t all games policed?  Or is there a difference between “policed” and police presence?

I'll give it a go.

It's a while since I've looked in depth but from memory varied football games only have a few spotters and obviously 'stewards' and security.

Depends on category, risk, history etc but again my info could be a bit outdated. Will look a bit further and see what I can find.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Northern Red]

Man City have already said their CL game is going ahead.

[Lanterne Rouge]

It will depend on how many plod are drafted in to London next week. For example it`s Burnley v PNE on Tuesday and Baggies v Birmingham on Wednesday - if WMP or Lancs Police say they can`t cover those `potential` trouble games due to lack of numbers they`ll be off.

[Silvio Dante]

What I’d say is that it seems like the policing pull will be London only - there was a school of thought that there would be scores of people wanting to pay tribute across the UK but this is the aerial view of College Green at the proclamation ceremony today.

Potentially those who want to acknowledge are heading to London, but I think it probably shows that, while no doubt historically momentous, it’s not really the all encompassing event for everyone that has been suggested.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Silvio Dante

[The Swan and Cemetery]

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

What I’d say is that it seems like the policing pull will be London only - there was a school of thought that there would be scores of people wanting to pay tribute across the UK but this is the aerial view of College Green at the proclamation ceremony today.

Potentially those who want to acknowledge are heading to London, but I think it probably shows that, while no doubt historically momentous, it’s not really the all encompassing event for everyone that has been suggested.

 

 

Agree with this and don’t think the Met will be making significant requests from other forces given such a short time period involved. So think it will come down to football authorities being comfortable with London clubs (and their opponents) getting behind more than the rest of the country, as Met likely to say they can’t police other events until after the funeral, but doesn’t seem insurmountable. Football is the big outlier, eg was at the Oval today and hardly any police presence. 

[redkev]

Massive own goal calling football off for the weekend with all the other sports going ahead and touching tributes to her majesty has proved what a poor decision it was , 

I’m sure like the black lives knee farce they were so scared of offending anybody they got the decision totally wrong 

[Lew-T]

This thread

[Mr Chappers]

Don’t suppose that the EFL could consider the fans and just make a decision, rather than dithering until the last minute.

[MarcusX]

22 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

It's a sad day when policy is dictated by ******* on Twitter. Nothing would have happened at the games, those people are all mouthy keyboard warriors who probably don't attend matches.

I wouldn't waste my time with trawling that cesspit any more than I would read the Bristol City fans Facebook group.

Except Liverpool have (very recent) history of booing the national anthem. If you think that wouldn't have happened you're very naive - Celtic potentially too. There's videos emerging from Ireland, albeit different historical circumstances, of fans singing about her being dead.

At best, some fans may have tried it and others took actions in to their own hands to stop it.

[MarcusX]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As for us, yeah unless it's a) London or b) A 'risk game' I don't see the issue. Increasing numbers of games are not policed now, certainly pre Covid and I think people have a fair idea of which might pose significant issues requiring a greater police presence and which won't.

Plenty of police at Blackpool away, not sure that's a particularly risky game - perhaps being the bank holiday?

[spudski]

10 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Except Liverpool have (very recent) history of booing the national anthem. If you think that wouldn't have happened you're very naive - Celtic potentially too. There's videos emerging from Ireland, albeit different historical circumstances, of fans singing about her being dead.

At best, some fans may have tried it and others took actions in to their own hands to stop it.

There were party's in N Ireland celebrating her death. I've Irish friends who have fallen out over it. Idiots 

There is also footage of a TV programme in Argentina where the presenters are opening Champagne, laughing and celebrating her death.

Some sick disrespectful people out there 

 

[Port Said Red]

45 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Except Liverpool have (very recent) history of booing the national anthem. If you think that wouldn't have happened you're very naive - Celtic potentially too. There's videos emerging from Ireland, albeit different historical circumstances, of fans singing about her being dead.

At best, some fans may have tried it and others took actions in to their own hands to stop it.

Fine. Then we should cancel football anytime a prominent person dies, in case there are potentially people in the crowd who may have disagreed with their views or politics. 

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Except Liverpool have (very recent) history of booing the national anthem. If you think that wouldn't have happened you're very naive - Celtic potentially too. There's videos emerging from Ireland, albeit different historical circumstances, of fans singing about her being dead.

At best, some fans may have tried it and others took actions in to their own hands to stop it.

The irony here however is I think they’ve now generated the “Streisand effect” writ large if the narrative of not playing to not have bad publicity of booing is true. By stopping football on the weekend there will be a pocket of people to whom it’s generated resentment, and they may now choose to disrespect the anthem/silence as a type of “protest”.

(These people are idiots btw)

[IAmNick]

13 hours ago, redkev said:

Massive own goal calling football off for the weekend with all the other sports going ahead and touching tributes to her majesty has proved what a poor decision it was , 

I’m sure like the black lives knee farce they were so scared of offending anybody they got the decision totally wrong 

They let that go ahead though, and people had a right to boo it no matter what others thought of them. Why should this have been any different?

For your point to make sense they would have had to have cracked down on the booers then, surely. In one situation they allowed people to express their opinion, in the other they didn't - that's not the same.

1 hour ago, spudski said:

There were party's in N Ireland celebrating her death. I've Irish friends who have fallen out over it. Idiots 

There is also footage of a TV programme in Argentina where the presenters are opening Champagne, laughing and celebrating her death.

Some sick disrespectful people out there 

 

You might disagree with them but that doesn't make them sick.

Surely you can understand why some people around the world would have very strong negative feelings towards our country and by extension our monarchy... whether you agree with them or not.

I expect there are a fair few world leaders revered in their own countries we'd both be happy to see the back of!

Edited September 12, 2022 by IAmNick

[spudski]

21 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

They let that go ahead though, and people had a right to boo it no matter what others thought of them. Why should this have been any different?

For your point to make sense they would have had to have cracked down on the booers then, surely. In one situation they allowed people to express their opinion, in the other they didn't - that's not the same.

You might disagree with them but that doesn't make them sick.

Surely you can understand why some people around the world would have very strong negative feelings towards our country and by extension our monarchy... whether you agree with them or not.

I expect there are a fair few world leaders revered in their own countries we'd both be happy to see the back of!

Celebrating a death, is different to being happy about the passing of someone because of an association with politics. 

I find that behaviour ' sick'. 

They are still a mother and Grandmother. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

11 minutes ago, spudski said:

Celebrating a death, is different to being happy about the passing of someone because of an association with politics. 

I find that behaviour ' sick'. 

They are still a mother and Grandmother. 

There have been plenty of world leaders that have been parents and grandparents who you would not want to mourn.

Everyone is entitled to their own views, but the present censorship by media (the failure to air anything that suggests anything other than an overwhelmingly positive view of the late Queen) is bound to frustrate those who don’t share those feelings.   I doubt that many people are actually happy about the Queen’s death (yes, that’s ‘death’, not ‘passing’) but there may be many who are disinterested or indifferent, and I’m not sure why their view is any less valid than anyone else’s, whether you agree with them or not.
 

[!james]

Quote

 

The EFL fixture programme will return as scheduled from Tuesday 13 September, with tributes to be paid to Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II at grounds around the country.

A minute’s silence will be held before matches, with black armbands to be worn by participants, flags to be flown at half-mast and the National Anthem to be played in stadiums.

With a national policing plan now in operation, the League and Clubs will continue to work with forces in respect of any challenges that may emerge regarding policing of specific fixtures.

Consideration to individual circumstances will be made on a case-by-case basis, in line with standard match Safety Advisory Group (SAG) protocols.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by !james

[Silvio Dante]

As expected, back on from Tuesday with postponements considered on game by game basis:

 

[Strictly Obi]

15 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

There have been plenty of world leaders that have been parents and grandparents who you would not want to mourn.

Everyone is entitled to their own views, but the present censorship by media (the failure to air anything that suggests anything other than an overwhelmingly positive view of the late Queen) is bound to frustrate those who don’t share those feelings.   I doubt that many people are actually happy about the Queen’s death (yes, that’s ‘death’, not ‘passing’) but there may be many who are disinterested or indifferent, and I’m not sure why their view is any less valid than anyone else’s, whether you agree with them or not.
 

Totally agree, and I think we should stand with Celtic and Liverpool fans that have been subjected to vile abuse for booing an imaginary anthem at matches that didn't even take place! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, MarcusX said:

perhaps being the bank holiday?

Overtime guv, innit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, spudski said:

Celebrating a death, is different to being happy about the passing of someone because of an association with politics. 

I find that behaviour ' sick'. 

They are still a mother and Grandmother. 

I don't really want to get into this. Celebrating a death is out of order but I wouldn't expect some parts of the former British Empire to be sad, put it that way.

Can only assume the Argentina thing was Falklands related but would have thought their ire would be aimed at Thatcher not the Queen. Am sure they absolutely hate Thatcher over there.

https://www.barrons.com/news/argentine-reverence-for-queen-elizabeth-marred-by-falklands-memories-01662774307%23

Seems like reaction or views were mixed.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous