Blackpool fan killed at weekend

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Now I do agree with that.

I was going to "like" but my daily ration is used.

Isn't that exactly what hooligans are looking to do? Injure someone else, put their's and others life at risk. And ignore all the consequences of their actions. That's what you were originally implying wasn't pathetic

Edited March 7, 2023 by spudski

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, spudski said:

Isn't that exactly what hooligans are looking to do? Injure someone else, put there's and others life at risk. And ignore all the consequences of their actions. That's what you were originally implying wasn't pathetic

 

Only with respect to hooligans as couched in the lazy monotone pen portraits of people like @KegCity above.

Watch a few minutes of the cued up Bill Gardner interview if you would like to develop a more informed and nuanced view.

And he certainly would never have described himself as a hooligan and would actively have rejected the term.

[Silvio Dante]

I’ve made my feelings on hooligans/“football” violence clear previously - if blokes want to have a dust up, have a dust up. However don’t do it in the name of a club who don’t condone that activity, or do it where people who don’t want to be involved in it get caught in the crossfire. 

As for this incident, I totally get the original outpouring of grief, support and emotion as it was originally reported as “fan dies after game”.

If, however, facts have become clear subsequently that suggest the deceased deliberately went to start a fight - in no way did he deserve to die, but equally in no way does he deserve to be celebrated by football more widely. 
 

I think that’s the bottom line here.

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Only with respect to hooligans as couched in the lazy monotone pen portraits of people like @KegCity above.

Watch a few minutes of the cued up Bill Gardner interview if you would like to develop a more informed and nuanced view.

And he certainly would never have described himself as a hooligan and would actively have rejected the term.

I've read numerous books on hooliganism and the reasoning behind it. 

Desmond Morris's The Soccer Tribe being the most information.

I've a balanced view and understand it.

However...it still comes down to having No respect for the consequences and actions to others who don't wish to be involved. Often by default. 

It also often shows a lack of self respect and failings in other parts of their lives.

If they had fulfilled lives they wouldn't need it. 

It's misguided. And totally selfish. And yes imo...pathetic.

[daored]

Pretty sick to think there is a video in circulation of the incident 

[KegCity]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

If anyone has a vaguely open mind rather then simply belching the usual knee jerk reaction this is worth a watch.

There is no glorification of hooliganism whatsoever, unlike within the several books published over the last twenty years, and he clearly says "I don't want to fight" but he was going to football at a time when fans going to games were prone to being attacked.

It's a lengthy piece at 46 minutes but I have cued it up at a typical example.

Obviously it's his own words and we all paint ourselves better than we are, but to me it all has the ring of truth.

It's interesting from the start if anyone has an interest in social history, he spent his teenage years holding down a job whilst living by himself in a cemetery in London which I used to walk past daily.  Though not at that time.

It's a different world these days and people, generally, choose if they wish to be involved but go back to the eighties and before that and having a few people like this standing in the way helped out many ordinay fans over the years.

 

 

To me it just comes across as a bit sad. Talking about "the best fighting the best" and talking about backing people up flights of stairs. Everyone has their thrills I suppose but I can't wrap my head around it and the glorification of it. If you want to fight and prove you're the best or whatever else then there's actual ways of doing so where you don't risk a manslaughter charge or getting your own head cracked open.

[Topper 123]

Unfortunately this debate of fighting mobs has been done to death and will never go away teddy boys v greasers / mods v rockers , skinheads suede heads  punk rockers  gangs that go back and back and who’s members were your dad /your grandad or his dad and this goes right back through time ,these kids are not the problem ( tell that to the Blackpool family who lost that member ) this is a unusual occurrence a death at footy , very rare , the violence at football nowadays very rare but that said 1 death is too many RIP 

 

[IAmNick]

59 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Not on this board they aren't.

And it's an absolutely clear parallel; trotting out a stock internet phrase doesn't change that.

It's not a parallel at all.

Obviously people are more likely to discuss football violence on a football forum.

And there is no relation... and it's not an internet phrase, it's a well known phrase from the cold war era with a clear meaning. Either way, one being true (drink driving takes up emergency service time) has no bearing on the fact that football violence does. One doesn't make the other OK or not, and you can call one thing out without having to call out every other example.

[Eddie Hitler]

3 minutes ago, KegCity said:

To me it just comes across as a bit sad. Talking about "the best fighting the best" and talking about backing people up flights of stairs. Everyone has their thrills I suppose but I can't wrap my head around it and the glorification of it. If you want to fight and prove you're the best or whatever else then there's actual ways of doing so where you don't risk a manslaughter charge or getting your own head cracked open.

 

There are indeed such ways.

What I am trying to point out is that anyone with a lengthy history of following City, going back to the mid eighties or earlier, will probbaly have had reason to be grateful to have had a "firm" on their side given that an opposition "firm" was looking for trouble.

The Bill Gardner video, and yes I'm referencing again, is incident after incident of his being there when fans were attacked and defending them.

I haven't listened to it for a while but his defence could take the form of stepping forwards despite being heavily outnumbered in order to allow the normal / not looking for a fight fans he was with to avoid being attacked.  Okay all his version of it but the one time he did come to trial he was found not guilty.

I'm not defending some nasty scrote with a Stanley knife here but pointing out that there have been times in the past when Bristol City fans will have been grateful that an element of their fans have been up for a fight because it meant that they didn't have to be.

That's very far from glorifying it IMO.

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

It's not a parallel at all.

Obviously people are more likely to discuss football violence on a football forum.

And there is no relation... and it's not an internet phrase, it's a well known phrase from the cold war era with a clear meaning. Either way, one being true (drink driving takes up emergency service time) has no bearing on the fact that football violence does. One doesn't make the other OK or not, and you can call one thing out without having to call out every other example.

 

I'm not calling either OK.

I am pointing out that one form of reckless behaviour in dangerous or reckless driving, which kills and injures far more people than football violence, does not attract the same shouts of ire and disgust despite it being something which people make the choice to do.

I was pulling this example out because it happened on the same day and yet there is no queue of people lining up to call the driver "pathetic" despite their killing two or three people.

[Topper 123]

8 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

There are indeed such ways.

What I am trying to point out is that anyone with a lengthy history of following City, going back to the mid eighties or earlier, will probbaly have had reason to be grateful to have had a "firm" on their side given that an opposition "firm" was looking for trouble.

The Bill Gardner video, and yes I'm referencing again, is incident after incident of his being there when fans were attacked and defending them.

I haven't listened to it for a while but his defence could take the form of stepping forwards despite being heavily outnumbered in order to allow the normal / not looking for a fight fans he was with to avoid being attacked.  Okay all his version of it but the one time he did come to trial he was found not guilty.

I'm not defending some nasty scrote with a Stanley knife here but pointing out that there have been times in the past when Bristol City fans will have been grateful that an element of their fans have been up for a fight because it meant that they didn't have to be.

That's very far from glorifying it IMO.

This is true mate and I’ve witnessed it on quite a few occasions through 70s 80s 90s and noughties 

[Silvio Dante]

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

There are indeed such ways.

What I am trying to point out is that anyone with a lengthy history of following City, going back to the mid eighties or earlier, will probbaly have had reason to be grateful to have had a "firm" on their side given that an opposition "firm" was looking for trouble.

 

Just on this point, and I remember making it when Paul Lumber made a visit to the forum.

One often cited excuse for “firms” is that it was cultural, and if you didn’t want to get involved you didn’t.

However, equally, as you say above City fans may have been grateful to have a firm on their side bearing in mind another firm was looking for trouble.

Respectfully, both of those statements can’t be true. If firms only fight like minded individuals then I, as someone with no interest in violence, have no need for the protection of the city firm.

So, the only conclusion from this statements that “firms” involved in violence aren’t guys out to fight like minded individuals but instead are low life scumbags who’ll punch anybody.

And that’s far worse than sitting on a games console.

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

3 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I'm not calling either OK.

I am pointing out that one form of reckless behaviour in dangerous or reckless driving, which kills and injures far more people than football violence, does not attract the same shouts of ire and disgust despite it being something which people make the choice to do.

I was pulling this example out because it happened on the same day and yet there is no queue of people lining up to call the driver "pathetic" despite their killing two or three people.

I assume you are referring to the tragic accident in Cardiff that resulted in three young people losing their lives.

To the best of my knowledge, the full circumstances have yet to be established and whilst, given that the accident occurred in the early hours of the morning after the group in question had apparently visited a number of bars, assumptions will, of course, be made, I think it is a bit too soon to be suggesting alcohol or poor driving was the underlying cause.

The vehicle may have swerved to avoid an animal or a tyre may have suffered a blow out.

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, Magger1 said:

This is true mate and I’ve witnessed it on quite a few occasions through 70s 80s 90s and noughties 

 

Thank you for confirming this, Magger.  Everyone else must either have very short memories or just be very ungrateful to people who have protected them.

 

[IAmNick]

Just now, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I'm not calling either OK.

I am pointing out that one form of reckless behaviour in dangerous or reckless driving, which kills and injures far more people than football violence, does not attract the same shouts of ire and disgust despite it being something which people make the choice to do.

I was pulling this example out because it happened on the same day and yet there is no queue of people lining up to call the driver "pathetic" despite their killing two or three people.

What. There's stuff all over the place about drink driving. On TV, in pubs/clubs, in the driving test, it's absolutely everywhere.

It's way more of a talking point that football violence (unless you're on a football forum, shock horror).

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

There are indeed such ways.

What I am trying to point out is that anyone with a lengthy history of following City, going back to the mid eighties or earlier, will probbaly have had reason to be grateful to have had a "firm" on their side given that an opposition "firm" was looking for trouble.

The Bill Gardner video, and yes I'm referencing again, is incident after incident of his being there when fans were attacked and defending them.

I haven't listened to it for a while but his defence could take the form of stepping forwards despite being heavily outnumbered in order to allow the normal / not looking for a fight fans he was with to avoid being attacked.  Okay all his version of it but the one time he did come to trial he was found not guilty.

I'm not defending some nasty scrote with a Stanley knife here but pointing out that there have been times in the past when Bristol City fans will have been grateful that an element of their fans have been up for a fight because it meant that they didn't have to be.

That's very far from glorifying it IMO.

Wasn't the opposition firm just protecting their fans from ours though?

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

22 hours ago, Mad Cyril said:

For all the dialogue on this forum reminiscing about the terrace culture of old, "running" other fans, taking home ends etc perhaps worth just considering.... Smacking another football fan for loving a team other than yours is a bit weird isn't it. Not big, not clever, not hard. Just wrong.

My best mate is a Rovers fan. 

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

Just on this point, and I remember making it when Paul Lumber made a visit to the forum.

One often cited excuse for “firms” is that it was cultural, and if you didn’t want to get involved you didn’t.

However, equally, as you say above City fans may have been grateful to have a firm on their side bearing in mind another firm was looking for trouble.

Respectfully, both of those statements can’t be true. If firms only fight like minded individuals then I, as someone with no interest in violence, have no need for the protection of the city firm.

So, the only conclusion from this statements that “firms” involved in violence aren’t guys out to fight like minded individuals but instead are low life scumbags who’ll punch anybody.

And that’s far worse than sitting on a games console.

 

 

You are the one making the assertion that firms only fought each other; I am very clearly not asserting this and am actually saying the opposite by noting that they often served as protection for the non-fighting fans of the same club.

And the games console example was not about which was objectively worse but specifically which was most pathetic.

[IAmNick]

Just now, Eddie Hitler said:

And the games console example was not about which was objectively worse but specifically which was most pathetic.

Easy answer: Going out and fighting in the streets is infinitely more pathetic than playing games.

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

You are the one making the assertion that firms only fought each other; I am very clearly not asserting this and am actually saying the opposite by noting that they often served as protection for the non-fighting fans of the same club.

And the games console example was not about which was objectively worse but specifically which was most pathetic.

Isn’t the point that if two firms are only there for protection of shirters there won’t be a fight?

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

Isn’t the point that if two firms are only there for protection of shirters there won’t be a fight?

 

They aren't that though. I haven't said that.

You have crowbarred in the word "only" to that sentence where it doesn't belong.

I'm not particularly having a go at you but there a lot of straw man arguments going on here as people dust off old posts to give them another airing.

[spudski]

14 minutes ago, daored said:

Pretty sick to think there is a video in circulation of the incident 

It's thought provoking in many ways, and just goes to show how hypocritical we are as a human race. 

No family, friend or relative wants to see their loved one killed. 

So much is shared in various forms, censored or uncensored. 

Think how much is shown of people being killed in Sport, accidents, terrorism, war etc. All have relatives and families. Yet no one seems to question this. 

Especially right now as an example with the Ukraine war. Everyday, footage being uploaded by both sides showing death, people being killed. Frontline uploads. Executions. 

Fighting, killing, injuring is such a complex topic. 

Doing it in the name of country, government, flag,  war, belief ( terrorism). 

You can ' lawfully ' kill, decided by people in power. Does that make it right...because a few decided it was? 

Think how hypocritical we are as humans, where we deplore violence in general, but will pay to watch and be entertained by boxing and cage fighting. Where the intention is to knock someone out, injure them. Often the injuries life changing. And we pay to enjoy it, because it's legalised. Loosely..the only difference I can see, compared to hooliganism is it's controlled, legal, insured, rules. If someone dies from their injuries, it's seen as a tragic accident...yet the intention is to do as much harm as possible!

It's like sticking your head under a guillotine hanging by a thread and saying it's a tragic accident when the thread breaks. 

I've often wondered where the laws stands with Ice Hockey where punching the crap out of one another is allowed and part of the game. If someone dies from a punch... manslaughter, murder?

The same with football...a player reacts to a physical challenge and throws an elbow to the head...someone dies. Is it part of the game? Challenges have happened in football and people have died...a challenge within the rules or a reaction out of the rules can be all the difference. 

The disparity between the cotton wool society we live in, H&S and the opposite end of fighting, killing within ' rules and laws' is often mind boggling when you step back and think about the bigger picture. 

I've massively digressed, but it's all relevent on how we react and judge violence.

 

 

 

[Rob k]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

It's thought provoking in many ways, and just goes to show how hypocritical we are as a human race. 

No family, friend or relative wants to see their loved one killed. 

So much is shared in various forms, censored or uncensored. 

Think how much is shown of people being killed in Sport, accidents, terrorism, war etc. All have relatives and families. Yet no one seems to question this. 

Especially right now as an example with the Ukraine war. Everyday, footage being uploaded by both sides showing death, people being killed. Frontline uploads. Executions. 

Fighting, killing, injuring is such a complex topic. 

Doing it in the name of country, government, flag,  war, belief ( terrorism). 

You can ' lawfully ' kill, decided by people in power. Does that make it right...because a few decided it was? 

Think how hypocritical we are as humans, where we deplore violence in general, but will pay to watch and be entertained by boxing and cage fighting. Where the intention is to knock someone out, injure them. Often the injuries life changing. And we pay to enjoy it, because it's legalised. Loosely..the only difference I can see, compared to hooliganism is it's controlled, legal, insured, rules. If someone dies from their injuries, it's seen as a tragic accident...yet the intention is to do as much harm as possible!

It's like sticking your head under a guillotine hanging by a thread and saying it's a tragic accident when the thread breaks. 

I've often wondered where the laws stands with Ice Hockey where punching the crap out of one another is allowed and part of the game. If someone dies from a punch... manslaughter, murder?

The same with football...a player reacts to a physical challenge and throws an elbow to the head...someone dies. Is it part of the game? Challenges have happened in football and people have died...a challenge within the rules or a reaction out of the rules can be all the difference. 

The disparity between the cotton wool society we live in, H&S and the opposite end of fighting, killing within ' rules and laws' is often mind boggling when you step back and think about the bigger picture. 

I've massively digressed, but it's all relevent on how we react and judge violence.

 

 

 

and in Rugby, it was ‘part of the game’, widely accepted that punching was fine. The fans loved a good punch up and in society it was generally deemed acceptable as they all shook hands and had a beer after the game. 

[Major Isewater]

15 minutes ago, Rob k said:

generally deemed acceptable as they all shook hands and had a beer after the game. 

Except the players in A&E . 

[Banjo Red]

Sadly every club has these idiots they just need to **** off and let real fans enjoy the game as it's supposed to be. If they want a punch up go do it on your own time and not in the name of any football team. Stamp out racism and stamp out hooliganism.

[Numero Uno]

35 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

They aren't that though. I haven't said that.

You have crowbarred in the word "only" to that sentence where it doesn't belong.

I'm not particularly having a go at you but there a lot of straw man arguments going on here as people dust off old posts to give them another airing.

My view is simple on this. If you want a row then organise it out of harms way. In terms of the Blackpool fan if there is a minutes applause I will just stay silent tbf rather than boo or ruin it but I hope the club show a bit more sense than to hold one.

[Oh Louie louie]

Jesus finding somewhere in Blackpool out of harms way, thats a job, no joking last time I went I saw three rows before I got to the north pier, a domestic a drugs argument, and someone getting dragged out a pub

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

My view is simple on this. If you want a row then organise it out of harms way. In terms of the Blackpool fan if there is a minutes applause I will just stay silent tbf rather than boo or ruin it but I hope the club show a bit more sense than to hold one.

It's definitely a thought provoking subject @Numero Uno 

Even having an organised brawl out of harm's way, who picks up the pieces of the injured?

Paramedics, Police, Courts, lawyers, hospital beds etc, etc. They can all be involved. 

Taking up time and resources needed elsewhere. 

Again theirs the counter argument of smoking, alcoholism, drugs etc...people do it knowing it can cause harm. 

It's so complex. 

 

[Unan]

14 hours ago, redkev said:

Spend a weekend in London , mainly post code gang wars but loads of bike / watch thefts etc going on in broad daylight by youths on mopeds , 10 times worse than football problems but all brushed under the carpet by the corrupt mayor Khan 

That’s weird, I’ve spent 350 weekends here (and the weekdays in between), I’ve never seen a single incident in person.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Marcus Aurelius

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's definitely a thought provoking subject @Numero Uno 

Even having an organised brawl out of harm's way, who picks up the pieces of the injured?

Paramedics, Police, Courts, lawyers, hospital beds etc, etc. They can all be involved. 

Taking up time and resources needed elsewhere. 

 

 

 

They also are used to justify the oppressive measures that football fans have to put up with at games. Heavy handed policing and in-ground restrictions. 

Whether it's near grounds or miles away in an organised tear-up, people fighting in the name of football teams tarnish the sport and harm its reputation with others.

Even if no "civillians" are caught in the crossfire, those of us who go to watch football rather than to dress up as nondies and grapple with other men, suffer the consequences. 

[Barrs Court Red]

I’m surprised it’s crept back in, although seemingly spurred on by social media. 
 

Authorities are seemingly slow to adapt to emerging trends, and it’s not just football - look at how there seems to be concerted efforts to get into venues now without tickets, directly causing deaths already.