Wolves fan arrested after calling aways fans something not nice

[Slack Bladder]

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

[View from the Dolman]

Homophobia is just "banter", eh?

[GlastonburyRed]

Probably not 'banter' for a gay person, or someone perceived to be gay, on the receiving end of this.

Same would go for racist slurs, thankfully not in the 70s anymore.

Dinosaurs will eventually become extinct, even though you wouldn't think it looking at the state of the world today.

Edited January 13, 2023 by GlastonburyRed

[cidered abroad]

3 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Homophobia is just "banter", eh?

NO!

[Cider red]

Face palm, enough said

[Vidal]

17 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

Idiot.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Vidal

[italian dave]

10 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

Does it ever occur to you that said change might be for the better?

[slartibartfast]

I think the OP wasn't condoning the actions but just stating how it was "then". I bet in the 60's to 90's a lot of posters on here would have used chants etc. as slurs to the opponents (I know I would have), but times and sensibilities have changed and I wouldn't do it now .

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

I think the OP wasn't condoning the actions but just stating how it was "then". I bet in the 60's to 90's a lot of posters on here would have used chants etc. as slurs to the opponents (I know I would have), but times and sensibilities have changed and I wouldn't do it now .

Describing it as ‘banter’ suggests otherwise. Banter is defined as “the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks”.

[slartibartfast]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

Describing it as ‘banter’ suggests otherwise. Banter is defined as “the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks”.

Well, of course I may be wrong, just giving another side .

[Vidal]

1 minute ago, slartibartfast said:

Well, of course I may be wrong, just giving another side .

I suppose if he was using racist terms would you be taking the same alternative view ?

[Super]

Noticed this the other day

‘Chelsea rent boy’ chant now a breach of discrimination rules, FA confirm | The Independent

[richwwtk]

25 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

Yes banter is part of football.

You'll probably find it's society in general that has moved on and left you behind rather than football.

[Clutton Caveman]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Describing it as ‘banter’ suggests otherwise. Banter is defined as “the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks”.

Banter is dead because everyone has such a thin skin and no sense of humour. 

[Vidal]

1 minute ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Banter is dead because everyone has such a thin skin and no sense of humour. 

It’s just about basic respect tbh. 

[CiderCraig]

1 minute ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Banter is dead because everyone has such a thin skin and no sense of humour. 

Well, post no. 666 for you will be memorable.

Telling people who are anti-homophobia that they are thin skinned and have no sense of humour... 

 

Stay classy.

[Clutton Caveman]

1 minute ago, CiderCraig said:

Well, post no. 666 for you will be memorable.

Telling people who are anti-homophobia that they are thin skinned and have no sense of humour... 

 

Stay classy.

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

[tin]

37 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

One of my mates was nicked at Wolves in the GJ era for singing “town full of gypos” in response to the whole of the South Bank singing similar at us, so it’s nothing new. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by tin

[CiderCraig]

2 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

Homophobia alive and well in Clutton I see. 

It isn't banter, I'm not 'ultra-left' - I am just an accepting human being, you should try it some time.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

1 minute ago, Percy Pig said:

Golly, could you vomit out any more alt-right, culture war clichés? I think I'm one short of a line and two away from a fullhouse. 

 

Cultural Marxism for a bonus prize. 

Don't think you're allowed to say "Golly"any more.

[Kodjias Wrist]

I mean looking at where society is nowdays , I can envisage this sort of thing being non existant in 10 - 20 years.  Unfortunately some of societies lowest are pretty prevalent at football.

[IAmNick]

33 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

"I think you should be allowed to shout hurtful homophobic slurs at people"

"That's not acceptable"

"Well let's just agree to disagree"

What a ridiculous argument. That's just saying "I'm right and refuse to even discuss this" in different words - sad.

Fascinating you associate being a decent person and not abusive with being "ultra left" wing though, hah.

Edited January 13, 2023 by IAmNick

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

My immediate question would be "how do you know you've called people worse given the article doesn't actually tell us what he said?"

I honestly don't believe the police have got the time or resources to go around arresting everyone who says anything and everything inappropriate at a football match. The fact it says it was aimed at players and fans makes me suspect it may not have been something someone said once but someone aiming a fairly constant barrage of abuse. I don't know what that abuse was exactly but I'd not expect someone to be allowed to shout homophobic abuse at a stranger on the street so I'm not quite clear why we're expecting it to be accepted at a football match. 

[Bris Red]

1 hour ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

Will be almost impossible to Police this at football but fair play there should be no place for homophobia in football just like racism.

[LondonBristolian]

48 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

Except that's not true, is it? 

What's actually happened if you've made a comment and someone has disagreed with you, which is not surprising on an internet message board. Someone has expressed an opinion different to yours and your response has been to claim that, because someone disagrees with you, "agreeing to disagree is dead"  and "free speech and free thought is being shut down".

Perhaps taking a long hard look in the mirror would be the best way to identify which poster on this thread is trying to shut down disagreement and speech and ideas different to their own? (Spoiler: It's you). You don't strike me as an "ultra left minority" but I guess I could be wrong. 

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, Vidal said:

I suppose if he was using racist terms would you be taking the same alternative view ?

But he's not, is he !   If my auntie had .........................etc.

[Slack Bladder]

Sorry, when I asked is banter dead at football I was speaking in far more general terms.

Like for example, in one of ours songs (that we have sung for decades) we always to refer to the current Rovers managers mother being a 'whore' which in all honesty, is probably not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CiderJar]

2 hours ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

A lot worse than what? The article does not say what was said.

[Vidal]

7 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

But he's not, is he !   If my auntie had .........................etc.

I’m asking you.

[David Brent]

2 hours ago, Slack Bladder said:

 

Oh how football has changed since I was a lad. I'm pretty sure I've called away fans and players a lot worse over the years.

Is banter part of football?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64256724

Good

[Bas's perfect hattrick]

1 hour ago, Clutton Caveman said:

My statement was a general one about banter but your comment makes my case.

Agreeing to disagree is dead. If you disagree you are a bad person, if you dare to express a personal opinion that differs in any way from the current popular position you are automatically a bigot.

Free speech and free thought is being shut down by an ultra left minority. God help us.

You just used free speech and free thought to make that post...?

Noone is stopping you saying what you want. However freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Society as a whole has decided that homophobic insults are not acceptable and if someone chooses to yell these out at a football match, they will get into trouble. 

Just to add: it might be tempting to believe there is some big left wing conspiracy to stop people saying what they want, but reality is, some words/language have always been socially unacceptable. Its not unique to the current day and age

Edited January 13, 2023 by Bas's perfect hattrick

[David Brent]

2 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Banter is dead because everyone has such a thin skin and no sense of humour. 

Caveman indeed 

[LondonBristolian]

29 minutes ago, Slack Bladder said:

Sorry, when I asked is banter dead at football I was speaking in far more general terms.

Like for example, in one of ours songs (that we have sung for decades) we always to refer to the current Rovers managers mother being a 'whore' which in all honesty, is probably not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I've always thought that's one of our most tedious chants. It's not particularly witty or imaginative, the tune is an utter dirge and frankly, if that's the best we can direct at Joey Barton, then that shows an even worse lack of creativity than the displays we frequently see on the pitch. On top of which, why on Earth are we chanting about a small team who haven't been in the same division as us in the last two decades? 

[ooRya]

A genuine question............what is homophobia?

I totally understand that to persecute a gay person, either by words or actions, is clearly homophobic, but if for example one were to call a straight person a queer, or similar, I struggle to see how that falls under the homophobia label.

[Super]

1 hour ago, Slack Bladder said:

Sorry, when I asked is banter dead at football I was speaking in far more general terms.

Like for example, in one of ours songs (that we have sung for decades) we always to refer to the current Rovers managers mother being a 'whore' which in all honesty, is probably not true.

 

That song is moronic in fairness.

[OneTeamInBristol]

Would it be the same reaction and outcome if a fan had shouted abuse at a player due to their appearance or something else they cannot control?

If not, why not?

[DaveF]

Surprised no-one has used the term 'woke' yet.

I blame the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati for all it.

Bloody 'lefties' trying to make the country a better place...

[LondonBristolian]

23 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Would it be the same reaction and outcome if a fan had shouted abuse at a player due to their appearance or something else they cannot control?

If not, why not?

Potentially. You are basically describing racism there. 

The Equality Act covers nine protected characteristics. 
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Literally the whole point of it is to protect people from abuse and discrimination relating to aspects of themselves they cannot control.

[LondonBristolian]

29 minutes ago, ooRya said:

A genuine question............what is homophobia?

I totally understand that to persecute a gay person, either by words or actions, is clearly homophobic, but if for example one were to call a straight person a queer, or similar, I struggle to see how that falls under the homophobia label.

The law changed in 2010 so there is now a concept of “discrimination by perception”. It was brought in specifically because straight people who were perceived as homosexual were experiencing abuse and discrimination and had no legal rights up until that point. 

[TV Tom]

Difficult to know what is and isn’t allowed these days (though I stopped throwing abuse at opposition players/fans at least 30 years ago) would it be ok to sing the song about the referee being illegitimate? 

[OneTeamInBristol]

10 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Literally the whole point of it is to protect people from abuse and discrimination relating to aspects of themselves they cannot control.

What about the way someone looks or their height?

People cannot control those aspects.

Why was there not this reaction every time Peter Crouch was targeted due to his height?

[ooRya]

15 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The law changed in 2010 so there is now a concept of “discrimination by perception”. It was brought in specifically because straight people who were perceived as homosexual were experiencing abuse and discrimination and had no legal rights up until that point. 

Thanks for that explanation.

However, as most people's comments seem to be based on a moral stance rather than a legal stance, I am still interested to know what those people's interpretation of homophobia is in relation to calling straight people gay names.

[LondonBristolian]

Just now, OneTeamInBristol said:

What about the way someone looks or their height?

People cannot control those aspects.

Why was there not this reaction every time Peter Crouch was targeted due to his height?

This may shock you but I didn't actually write the Equality Act. If you want to campaign for a change to the law, by all means do so. 

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, ooRya said:

Thanks for that explanation.

However, as most people's comments seem to be based on a moral stance rather than a legal stance, I am still interested to know what those people's interpretation of homophobia is in relation to calling straight people gay names.

I think if you're in a public place loudly screaming homophobic abuse at a straight person, it is extremely likely that there will be some LGBT people within earshot who will be affected by that abuse. If it's not acted on, it also tells kids that it's okay and they'll then start abusing LGBT people at school. It seems a bit daft to see someone publicly shouting abuse at someone as something isolated that will have no impact on people around them. 

[Super]

3 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

What about the way someone looks or their height?

People cannot control those aspects.

Why was there not this reaction every time Peter Crouch was targeted due to his height?

Does the circus know you're here!

[richwwtk]

4 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Thanks for that explanation.

However, as most people's comments seem to be based on a moral stance rather than a legal stance, I am still interested to know what those people's interpretation of homophobia is in relation to calling straight people gay names.

I would say that, if you choose to use gay names on a straight person as a form of abuse, then in your eyes there is obviously something wrong or 'pisstake' worthy about being gay. A very definition of homophobia is it not?

[richwwtk]

6 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

What about the way someone looks or their height?

People cannot control those aspects.

Why was there not this reaction every time Peter Crouch was targeted due to his height?

Because calling someone tall is not implying there is anything wrong with being tall. Tall people have not thoughout history being singled out for abuse or discrimination because of their height.

[REDOXO]

Are Swansea/Cardiff/Newport not Sheepshaggers anymore. Asking for a friend? 

[OneTeamInBristol]

7 minutes ago, Super said:

Does the circus know you're here!

Would have been easier for you to say you couldn't answer the question but never mind.

[Super]

5 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Would have been easier for you to say you couldn't answer the question but never mind.

That's what they sang about Crouch!

[BCFCGav]

16 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Thanks for that explanation.

However, as most people's comments seem to be based on a moral stance rather than a legal stance, I am still interested to know what those people's interpretation of homophobia is in relation to calling straight people gay names.

Well if you're calling a straight person gay using a phrase like 'queer' or others which I wont list but we all know, you're (almost certainly) doing so derogatorily. You're calling them gay as an insult, therefore being homophobic. To clarify, I'm saying 'you' here as in the person in question, not you the poster 

It's so straightforward - don't be racist, sexist or homophobic and you're probably fine. As for the whole 'yOu CaN't SaY AnYtHiNg ThEsE dAYs Cuz EverYOnE's A SnoWflAKE' - get yer head out yer arse. No, you can't be a dick to people without consequence anymore - get over it.  

[ooRya]

4 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

I would say that, if you choose to use gay names on a straight person as a form of abuse, then in your eyes there is obviously something wrong or 'pisstake' worthy about being gay. A very definition of homophobia is it not?

Not necessarily.

Nothing wrong with being gay, but pisstake worthy? Maybe,

Let's say I had a friend (John) who has just had an ear operation. I'm sat in the pub with some other friends, and in walks John with a bandage wrapped around his head. "look out, Osama Bin Laden has just walked in" I shout.

Now, whether you would find that funny or not, would you argue that I am morally wrong to have made that comment?

 

Not trying to be controversial, but this is where I struggle when people start to take offence, as I wouldn't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Similarly, if John walked into the pub wearing a pink shirt and I said "backs to the wall lads", I struggle to see why that would be offensive rather than funny.

 

Totally different context to chanting at a football match I agree, so maybe I'm straying from the original point a bit, but I am genuinely interested in how people actually perceive the meaning of homophobia to be.

[Big C]

7 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Not necessarily.

Nothing wrong with being gay, but pisstake worthy? Maybe,

Let's say I had a friend (John) who has just had an ear operation. I'm sat in the pub with some other friends, and in walks John with a bandage wrapped around his head. "look out, Osama Bin Laden has just walked in" I shout.

Now, whether you would find that funny or not, would you argue that I am morally wrong to have made that comment?

 

Not trying to be controversial, but this is where I struggle when people start to take offence, as I wouldn't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Similarly, if John walked into the pub wearing a pink shirt and I said "backs to the wall lads", I struggle to see why that would be offensive rather than funny.

 

Totally different context to chanting at a football match I agree, so maybe I'm straying from the original point a bit, but I am genuinely interested in how people actually perceive the meaning of homophobia to be.

A Muslim person or a gay person in the same pub would find it offensive

[IAmNick]

37 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Not necessarily.

Nothing wrong with being gay, but pisstake worthy? Maybe,

Let's say I had a friend (John) who has just had an ear operation. I'm sat in the pub with some other friends, and in walks John with a bandage wrapped around his head. "look out, Osama Bin Laden has just walked in" I shout.

Now, whether you would find that funny or not, would you argue that I am morally wrong to have made that comment?

 

Not trying to be controversial, but this is where I struggle when people start to take offence, as I wouldn't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Similarly, if John walked into the pub wearing a pink shirt and I said "backs to the wall lads", I struggle to see why that would be offensive rather than funny.

 

Totally different context to chanting at a football match I agree, so maybe I'm straying from the original point a bit, but I am genuinely interested in how people actually perceive the meaning of homophobia to be.

Sure, a lot relates to context and intent. Just not intending to be rude/homophobic isn't a good excuse for saying whatever you like though. Just because you don't mean to cause offence doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Are you morally wrong? I don't know. Not sure I'd go that far personally. Are you perhaps pretty inconsiderate, or sometimes a bit of a dick? Yeah maybe. Could it be funny in the right situation - maybe privately with a well known group of friends? Sure.

 

In your situation above, if you were from the middle east, had no mates at school due to how you looked, were bullied, felt you were passed over on jobs due to it, had abuse shouted at you in the past, every time you got on a bus or train you could see people looking at you out the corner of your eyes, mistrusting you, if you had that for 20 years say. Continuously. Then you're sat in the pub, having a quiet pint, and someone makes a loud Bin Laden joke, well that's probably going to make you rather shit, or at least uncomfortable, no? Put yourself in someone in that groups shoes, not your own shoes.

You don't see anything wrong, because it's an isolated incident to you and you're in the group with power in that situation. I would be too in that situation, it's a fact not a criticism. The people in the group who are being mocked or associated with something undesirable (wearing something on his head - a well known muslim - might have a bomb or whatever) will feel differently though.

Replay the same situation but being gay, the mental anguish of maybe coming out to family and friends, the isolation many people feel/felt, and so on. Your gay example also has loads of other connotations (which I'm sure you didn't mean) but it's rooted in people's perception that gay folk were dangerous, more likely to be involved in sexual assault, and that kind of thing.

These things aren't offensive unless you're in the group who are being targeted.

As I said though, I wouldn't think you were some morally reprehensible scum... but I'd hope if someone explained to you, you'd go "Oh shit sorry mate, I had no idea, I'll try not to say that again"

Edited January 13, 2023 by IAmNick

[richwwtk]

38 minutes ago, ooRya said:

et's say I had a friend (John) who has just had an ear operation. I'm sat in the pub with some other friends, and in walks John with a bandage wrapped around his head. "look out, Osama Bin Laden has just walked in" I shout.

Now, whether you would find that funny or not, would you argue that I am morally wrong to have made that comment?

Probably not morally wrong as you are hardly claiming he is literally Osama Bin Laden, and you are referring to a perceived similarity to his clothing.

38 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Not trying to be controversial, but this is where I struggle when people start to take offence, as I wouldn't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Similarly, if John walked into the pub wearing a pink shirt and I said "backs to the wall lads", I struggle to see why that would be offensive rather than funny.

In this case, though, you are using being gay as something worthy of ridicule. I can't see how you would fail to appreciate that it could be offensive.

Edited January 13, 2023 by richwwtk

[Unan]

39 minutes ago, ooRya said:Not trying to be controversial, but this is where I struggle when people start to take offence, as I wouldn't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Similarly, if John walked into the pub wearing a pink shirt and I said "backs to the wall lads", I struggle to see why that would be offensive rather than funny.

 

Yes because all gay men are prone to also be rapists.

[REDOXO]

My friend also asks why this forum has so many threads about homophobia/racism/sectarianism etc etc!.?

From my friends perspective, he doesn’t care where you put your penis, or what stage of losing it you are, what your color, religion and denomination is outside or inside a football ground. If you play for us your an all around good egg, if you don’t, then your failings maybe reviewed! As our players often are. The vicinity of sheep to our players is often reviewed at away grounds as is their possible Welsh Nationality, their parental position and there mothers profession (a review that often occurs at Ashton Gate in respect of a lady named Irene)

Edited January 13, 2023 by REDOXO

[Slacker]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

Are Swansea/Cardiff/Newport not Sheepshaggers anymore. Asking for a friend? 

Yes they are.Answering for a friend.

[ooRya]

27 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Sure, a lot relates to context and intent. Just not intending to be rude/homophobic isn't a good excuse for saying whatever you like though. Just because you don't mean to cause offence doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Are you morally wrong? I don't know. Not sure I'd go that far personally. Are you perhaps pretty inconsiderate, or sometimes a bit of a dick? Yeah maybe. Could it be funny in the right situation - maybe privately with a well known group of friends? Sure.

 

In your situation above, if you were from the middle east, had no mates at school due to how you looked, were bullied, felt you were passed over on jobs due to it, had abuse shouted at you in the past, every time you got on a bus or train you could see people looking at you out the corner of your eyes, mistrusting you, if you had that for 20 years say. Continuously. Then you're sat in the pub, having a quiet pint, and someone makes a loud Bin Laden joke, well that's probably going to make you rather shit, or at least uncomfortable, no? Put yourself in someone in that groups shoes, not your own shoes.

You don't see anything wrong, because it's an isolated incident to you and you're in the group with power in that situation. I would be too in that situation, it's a fact not a criticism. The people in the group who are being mocked or associated with something undesirable (wearing something on his head - a well known muslim - might have a bomb or whatever) will feel differently though.

Replay the same situation but being gay, the mental anguish of maybe coming out to family and friends, the isolation many people feel/felt, and so on. Your gay example also has loads of other connotations (which I'm sure you didn't mean) but it's rooted in people's perception that gay folk were dangerous, more likely to be involved in sexual assault, and that kind of thing.

These things aren't offensive unless you're in the group who are being targeted.

As I said though, I wouldn't think you were some morally reprehensible scum... but I'd hope if someone explained to you, you'd go "Oh shit sorry mate, I had no idea, I'll try not to say that again"

Thank you for that considered response.

I DO get where you're coming from, but at the same time still struggle with how people are so easily offended these days.

Having said that, I will readily admit to being of the generation that grew up during the 1970's - a decade where stereotypes were one of the main sources of humour/comedy, so accept that I'm probably very "out of date!"

[italian dave]

4 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

My immediate question would be "how do you know you've called people worse given the article doesn't actually tell us what he said?"

I honestly don't believe the police have got the time or resources to go around arresting everyone who says anything and everything inappropriate at a football match. The fact it says it was aimed at players and fans makes me suspect it may not have been something someone said once but someone aiming a fairly constant barrage of abuse. I don't know what that abuse was exactly but I'd not expect someone to be allowed to shout homophobic abuse at a stranger on the street so I'm not quite clear why we're expecting it to be accepted at a football match. 

100% this, LB. A bit like the Burnley fans on the other thread, banned for standing. But apparently, when you read behind the headline, only after being repeatedly asked not to and having turned down the opportunity to move to somewhere they could stand.

Sadly, there are some people who’s idea of “banter” seems to be a constant stream of “f off you c……..paedo……..take it up the a….” and other such unimaginative crap. And that happens with depressing regularity at City away games in my experience. No-one, whether they’re in a football ground or anywhere else should have to put up with listening to that. And that’s before you get into outright racist or homophobic abuse (which happily is less prevalent at City games)

People who seem to think that their right to shout such abuse over-rides anyone else’s right to not have to listen to it. People who think that their right to stand over-rides someone else’s need to sit.

As far as I’m concerned, what’s happened to these Wolves and Burnley fans is great news, and certainly not something to be lamented as some kind of threat to the traditions of football. It makes football a better experience, and it’s a shame they didn’t do the same to the people throwing bananas 40 years ago. 

[LondonBristolian]

22 minutes ago, ooRya said:

Thank you for that considered response.

I DO get where you're coming from, but at the same time still struggle with how people are so easily offended these days.

Having said that, I will readily admit to being of the generation that grew up during the 1970's - a decade where stereotypes were one of the main sources of humour/comedy, so accept that I'm probably very "out of date!"

Even in the 70s though, you had people being very easily offended. It was just by different things.

I find it hard to believe how of Life of Brian, or the Sex Pistols swearing TV had anywhere near the impact it did. And people might have not get upset then by homophobic abuse but something as banal as two men kissing each other would have caused uproar in a lot of places. Even a black person kissing a white person in many others. I honestly don't think it easy to portray a society upset by people kissing each other as less "easily offended" than one that doesn't really like people screaming abuse at each other. 

[cheese]

9 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Even in the 70s though, you had people being very easily offended. It was just by different things.

I find it hard to believe how of Life of Brian, or the Sex Pistols swearing TV had anywhere near the impact it did. And people might have not get upset then by homophobic abuse but something as banal as two men kissing each other would have caused uproar in a lot of places. Even a black person kissing a white person in many others. I honestly don't think it easy to portray a society upset by people kissing each other as less "easily offended" than one that doesn't really like people screaming abuse at each other. 

Just thinking of all those Judge Dread songs that were banned (cancelled) back then.  Host of others too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC

[Open End Numb Legs]

As an older person, I try hard to adapt to today's standards and as far as I know I manage to do that.

It isn't easy though as there are many new initiatives and therefore pitfalls to avoid. As such it is pretty easy to make an innocent mistake and then have to learn from it which I am more than happy to do.

So in this context, seeing as there is enough unintentional hurt going on, it does seem unacceptable to intentionally go out to pass on discriminative hate to someone. As others have pointed out, you don't know what their threshold is for accepting the abuse.

An analogy would be, there will always be accidental collisions on the pitch with serious injuries, so to go out and deliberately hurt another player is not acceptable.

My moral compass on this is a good friend and work colleague who is mixed race and incidentally hates forced box ticking, the like of which we see in business and to his view causes more problems than it solves.

[Victory Park Reds]

6 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

The way this was phrased I was expecting the word used to just be a swear word. 

To then read you're disappointed that someone has been punished for being a bigot is pretty damning.

Yes times have changed. For the better. Homophobia, transphobia and Racism have no part in "banter". And quite rightly. We still have some way to go, it wasn't all that long ago as a teen I remember joining in with chants at Freddy Eastwood "the wheels on his house"... having grown up and learned more about the hate and prejudices faced by the RGT community I feel shame that I ever thought that was acceptable. 

I think it's important we all accept our unconscious biases and how they manifest in the way we talk. Terrace culture should be a means to unite ourselves around the values that make Bristol the best city in the world. Tolerance, self deprecation and humour. A fierce and formidable loyalty to each other, our club and our city. It doesn't have to spill into hatred. 

Except the Gas. I hate them... 

I totally agree with the last line of your post.I would add I really really hate them as much as I hate plant based food .Sorry for intolerance about plant based foods.I hang my head in shame

[joe jordans teeth]

8 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

Homophobia is just "banter", eh?

Is it not,if someone calls me a fat barsteward can I get them arrested 

[View from the Dolman]

9 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Is it not,if someone calls me a fat barsteward can I get them arrested 

Quite possibly, yes.

If it causes you alarm or distress - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

If it was done with intent and causes you alarm or distress - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

[Harry]

So we even know what was said yet? 

[BigTone]

44 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Is it not,if someone calls me a fat barsteward can I get them arrested 

But are you really a Bar Steward ?

[joe jordans teeth]

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

But are you really a Bar Steward ?

Yes

[joe jordans teeth]

1 hour ago, View from the Dolman said:

Quite possibly, yes.

If it causes you alarm or distress - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

If it was done with intent and causes you alarm or distress - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

Thank you,do you think I could get a Netflix series out of me being a bar steward and fat