|
Post by darksideofthemoon on Jan 20, 2012 11:35:15 GMT
I don't mind a fair fight wiv bike chains..........as long as you take the bikes off 'em
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jan 20, 2012 11:45:43 GMT
What surprises me about some of the people who have been quick to abuse those who are saying they were involved a long time ago, is their inability to see the context of the time- A terrorist war costing 400 lives a year in the UK, Picket line clashes involving police and thousands of middle aged men, a history of casual violence in schools, the pubs and on the streets when you could get your head kicked in for wearing the wrong clothes or hair cut- i went to gigs where there was far worse violence than I ever saw at the footie and thats saying something....add to that the economic recession which lasted from 1974- 85- and then never stopped in Stoke after and you had a shit load of angry young people.....Football and it s aggression was an outlet for me, though I would never claim to be an active hoolie- I certainly understood it and i was only a kid at the begining....it was also way way from my biggest problem at the time...as a previous poster said context is everything But surely none of that justifies random violence??? Would you say that the looters and rioters in the summer were justified because many of them live in shitty estates with little hope for the future??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:47:20 GMT
What surprises me about some of the people who have been quick to abuse those who are saying they were involved a long time ago, is their inability to see the context of the time- A terrorist war costing 400 lives a year in the UK, Picket line clashes involving police and thousands of middle aged men, a history of casual violence in schools, the pubs and on the streets when you could get your head kicked in for wearing the wrong clothes or hair cut- i went to gigs where there was far worse violence than I ever saw at the footie and thats saying something....add to that the economic recession which lasted from 1974- 85- and then never stopped in Stoke after and you had a shit load of angry young people.....Football and it s aggression was an outlet for me, though I would never claim to be an active hoolie- I certainly understood it and i was only a kid at the begining....it was also way way from my biggest problem at the time...as a previous poster said context is everything But surely none of that justifies random violence??? Would you say that the looters and rioters in the summer were justified because many of them live in shitty estates with little hope for the future?? i believe it's called the "I have no prospects cos i can't be arsed to do anything about my own problems so will do what i want, take no responsibility for anything and blame it on everyone else" argument!
|
|
|
Post by offthewall on Jan 20, 2012 11:50:12 GMT
What surprises me about some of the people who have been quick to abuse those who are saying they were involved a long time ago, is their inability to see the context of the time- A terrorist war costing 400 lives a year in the UK, Picket line clashes involving police and thousands of middle aged men, a history of casual violence in schools, the pubs and on the streets when you could get your head kicked in for wearing the wrong clothes or hair cut- i went to gigs where there was far worse violence than I ever saw at the footie and thats saying something....add to that the economic recession which lasted from 1974- 85- and then never stopped in Stoke after and you had a shit load of angry young people.....Football and it s aggression was an outlet for me, though I would never claim to be an active hoolie- I certainly understood it and i was only a kid at the begining....it was also way way from my biggest problem at the time...as a previous poster said context is everything I take your point, in hard times it always seems to go this way from blaming Jews in Germany in the 1930s to foreign dole scroungers this morning. Much easier to get angry and hit another bloke than to actually think what the real problem is. I was at many/most of the matches that have 'gone down in history' and I can honestly say that I was never interested in hitting another random bloke for fun...... that is simply, psychotic behavior. I got my excitement from chasing after as many girls as I could not hanging around with a group of blokes looking for another group of blokes to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:50:49 GMT
Very pious Lads...not much of a chance of a discussion about social and economic causes for human behaviour then?...never mind Im happy enough for you to continue with a very simple moralistic view of the world
|
|
|
Post by manchesterpotter on Jan 20, 2012 11:51:40 GMT
What surprises me about some of the people who have been quick to abuse those who are saying they were involved a long time ago, is their inability to see the context of the time- A terrorist war costing 400 lives a year in the UK, Picket line clashes involving police and thousands of middle aged men, a history of casual violence in schools, the pubs and on the streets when you could get your head kicked in for wearing the wrong clothes or hair cut- i went to gigs where there was far worse violence than I ever saw at the footie and thats saying something....add to that the economic recession which lasted from 1974- 85- and then never stopped in Stoke after and you had a shit load of angry young people.....Football and it s aggression was an outlet for me, though I would never claim to be an active hoolie- I certainly understood it and i was only a kid at the begining....it was also way way from my biggest problem at the time...as a previous poster said context is everything But surely none of that justifies random violence??? Would you say that the looters and rioters in the summer were justified because many of them live in shitty estates with little hope for the future?? For a lot of the people involved in the riots that was their only way of having their voice heard. It was the last resort. Unfortunately a lot of people used it as an excuse to do what they wanted. Underneath it all there was a message that a lot of young people out there are pissed off that our government isn't providing them with things that a country like ours should be able to give them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:56:12 GMT
durbans of course there is but only if it relates to this thread.
as has been pointed out, a lot of "Hoolies" were actually highly intelligent professionals,i'm guessing their excuse was they were fighting because of the lack of opportunity for their fellow man was it? they were honourably standing up for those who couldn't get the jobs they had?
what i don't like is the constant excuse people make to say "It was because of the government/lack of opportunities at the time" etc. etc.
millions of people were in the same situation (if not worse) than those that chose to meet up to batter the hell out of each other but simply decided to get off their arse and do something about it and take some responsibility for their own lives instead of using any excuse for a ruck and blaming the social climate of the day.
really really poor reasoning to be fair, if it was to do with social and economic causes for human behaviour then why did only about 0.1% of humans in the UK behave this way???? simply doesn't work as any kind of argument
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 12:02:52 GMT
MickMills- the point i was putting accross is that you could not isolate the problems of violence at football from the gereral problem of societal violence as yo suggest. At the time it all merged into one from my perspective and not being a hard lad i was often on the wrong end of it on a weekly basis- so Im a victim of crime hundreds of times over- violence was everywhere, the Police were violent, I went to a Christian Brothers school which was stuffed full of teaching nutcases etc etc- i also question your view of the numbers involved- ive been to games where the numbers who would get involved numbered in thousands. This all happened a life time ago and there were reasons why it happened and reasons why it stopped- a sensible discussion would recognise that.....by the way I hated Christain Brothers more than any football hooligan I ever met
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jan 20, 2012 12:11:14 GMT
MickMills- the point i was putting accross is that you could not isolate the problems of violence at football from the gereral problem of societal violence as yo suggest. At the time it all merged into one from my perspective and not being a hard lad i was often on the wrong end of it on a weekly basis- so Im a victim of crime hundreds of times over- violence was everywhere, the Police were violent, I went to a Christian Brothers school which was stuffed full of teaching nutcases etc etc- i also question your view of the numbers involved- ive been to games where the numbers who would get involved numbered in thousands. This all happened a life time ago and there were reasons why it happened and reasons why it stopped- a sensible discussion would recognise that.....by the way I hated Christain Brothers more than any football hooligan I ever met And a sensible discussion is what we're having...... Clearly there were all kinds of socio-economic reasons for hooliganism, as there are for all kinds of things. The fact remains however that acts of random violence are as much attributed to the individual as to the society they live in. Personally I have no problem with two hooligans battering each other to a pulp, or even 2,000 hooligans doing likewise. My problem is when innocent people get affected. I missed out on the 70's but saw it first hand in the 80's and 90's and I saw very little "honour" amongst the actions of the hooligans. The best word I would use to describe their actions would have been cowardly eg. 10 lads attacking 2 teenagers.
|
|
|
Post by siminor on Jan 20, 2012 13:39:00 GMT
The Good Thing Is About Hooliganism,it sorts out the Supporters From The Johnny Cum Latelys?? Hooliganism is not about as much now a days but if it was then you can be sure that Stoke City Would Be Top Of The tree!!!! FACT..
|
|
|
Post by siminor on Jan 20, 2012 17:02:05 GMT
Coleen Is Naked Shes Lyen In His Bed, Shes Lyen There Dripping For Dean Whitehead!!
|
|
|
Post by Boyceys been up the attic on Jan 20, 2012 20:53:47 GMT
What surprises me about some of the people who have been quick to abuse those who are saying they were involved a long time ago, is their inability to see the context of the time- A terrorist war costing 400 lives a year in the UK, Picket line clashes involving police and thousands of middle aged men, a history of casual violence in schools, the pubs and on the streets when you could get your head kicked in for wearing the wrong clothes or hair cut- i went to gigs where there was far worse violence than I ever saw at the footie and thats saying something....add to that the economic recession which lasted from 1974- 85- and then never stopped in Stoke after and you had a shit load of angry young people.....Football and it s aggression was an outlet for me, though I would never claim to be an active hoolie- I certainly understood it and i was only a kid at the begining....it was also way way from my biggest problem at the time...as a previous poster said context is everything Agree with your post, unfortunatly it was a lifetime ago and some people have short memories. The others just seem to want to pontificate with tedious cod philosophy. And the ones at Brum, yes they were heroes for a day
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Jan 20, 2012 22:29:19 GMT
lol at this thread, Utd no 1 mob as Stoke will find out soon, always been that way Are you hallucinating you glory hunting chunk of shite. Even in numbers you cunters were fucking wank. Now piss off and watch sky like the rest of you spineless twats from Surrey. You're not worthy of more than one comment and wouldn't take more than one fucking punch so fuck theesen off.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Jan 20, 2012 22:48:30 GMT
But surely none of that justifies random violence??? Would you say that the looters and rioters in the summer were justified because many of them live in shitty estates with little hope for the future?? For a lot of the people involved in the riots that was their only way of having their voice heard. It was the last resort. Unfortunately a lot of people used it as an excuse to do what they wanted. Underneath it all there was a message that a lot of young people out there are pissed off that our government isn't providing them with things that a country like ours should be able to give them. Slightly off topic. The riots were nothing to do with having voices heard. It was simply opportunists, idiots and youngsters who did it for no obvious reason and were able to hide behind the old "oh but shows how pissed off they are with the government". I would imagine that the vast majority couldn't give a jot about politics!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2012 11:01:01 GMT
First of all, what an excellent thread this is. For the most part, barring a few folk who appear incapable of not resorting to abuse should someone dare to hold a differing view, some very interesting points from those who were involved and those who hated hooliganism. Anyone on this thread waiting for a solid intellectual argument supporting the notion that hooliganism was in the round a good thing is going to have to whistle because there isn't one to be made. What is undeniable is that it was a massive, addictive, adrenalin rush for many and sometimes there is just a meaness in this world. It can actually be intellectualized, if you want to call it that. The "Dionysian" is an ancient greek expression that refers to the ecstasy of losing yourself and becoming part of another more powerful being or creature. In ancient greek times they often did this through alcohol and drugs, and people would pretend they were animals. Educated, intelligent people would do it, they weren't necessarily blood thirsty apes. It might have gotten violent but the emphasis was on becoming an animal rather than to cause serious injury or kill someone. They would want to become an animal because they were fed up of living in their head the whole time, or fed up with who they were. As i said, very educated people a lot of them that did it. This same "Dionysian" thing i think explains football hooliganism to a tee. Its about being part of the more powerful identity of your tribe, your club. It brings this same sense of ecstasy that the greeks got pretending they were animals. For 99% of people that get involved in football violence it isn't about wanting to bring someone within an inch of their life. Its just about the chaos and the ruckus. 99% would probably prefer it if everyone dusted themselves down afterward without serious injury, so long as they have the satisfaction of scaring their opponents shitless, of proving the strength of their animal their tribe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DionysusThe above is a cracking point. I've been reading this thread and trying to get some indication from those involved of what it was all about. Adrenalin, the buzz etc seem to be the main drivers. But what it boils down to, imo, is that some form of "tribal warfare" is hard-wired into us. Which is after all why we go to football in the first place - to win against the other tribe. Deplorable though it may be to those of us who have had these violent animal urges "civilised" out of us, you could argue that the hooligans were simply being truer to their basic evolutionary urges. im sure the scarfers at brum in 92 were very happy to see the "lads" protecting them on the fence , if we hadnt that would of been a hillsborough situation , no doubt il get carted for this post . No you're absolutely right on that one mate. If there had been no intervention by some of those who would be called animals, scum, and thugs on here then a great many 'scarfer' stokies that day would have ended up in hospital or even worse. Add to that the fact that if we hadn't shown ourselves to be prepared to stand our ground the Vic would have seen far more trouble from visiting fans. It was, to a degree, the reputation and willingness of the stoke lads to get stuck in, the reason why many people could watch their game in peace without another clubs fans running riot across the stoke terraces. I've seen that justification before and I don't think it holds any water to be honest. If it were the case, you'd see fans of Charlton, Fulham and all the other "non-hooligan" clubs getting pasted on a regular basis simply because they had no boys to look after them, but it didn't happen. Having a firm invited other firms which invariably led to innocent fans getting hurt. On the whole, their presence made violence and injury to innocents more not less likely.
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Jan 21, 2012 11:47:22 GMT
First of all, what an excellent thread this is. For the most part, barring a few folk who appear incapable of not resorting to abuse should someone dare to hold a differing view, some very interesting points from those who were involved and those who hated hooliganism. It can actually be intellectualized, if you want to call it that. The "Dionysian" is an ancient greek expression that refers to the ecstasy of losing yourself and becoming part of another more powerful being or creature. In ancient greek times they often did this through alcohol and drugs, and people would pretend they were animals. Educated, intelligent people would do it, they weren't necessarily blood thirsty apes. It might have gotten violent but the emphasis was on becoming an animal rather than to cause serious injury or kill someone. They would want to become an animal because they were fed up of living in their head the whole time, or fed up with who they were. As i said, very educated people a lot of them that did it. This same "Dionysian" thing i think explains football hooliganism to a tee. Its about being part of the more powerful identity of your tribe, your club. It brings this same sense of ecstasy that the greeks got pretending they were animals. For 99% of people that get involved in football violence it isn't about wanting to bring someone within an inch of their life. Its just about the chaos and the ruckus. 99% would probably prefer it if everyone dusted themselves down afterward without serious injury, so long as they have the satisfaction of scaring their opponents shitless, of proving the strength of their animal their tribe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DionysusThe above is a cracking point. I've been reading this thread and trying to get some indication from those involved of what it was all about. Adrenalin, the buzz etc seem to be the main drivers. But what it boils down to, imo, is that some form of "tribal warfare" is hard-wired into us. Which is after all why we go to football in the first place - to win against the other tribe. Deplorable though it may be to those of us who have had these violent animal urges "civilised" out of us, you could argue that the hooligans were simply being truer to their basic evolutionary urges. No you're absolutely right on that one mate. If there had been no intervention by some of those who would be called animals, scum, and thugs on here then a great many 'scarfer' stokies that day would have ended up in hospital or even worse. Add to that the fact that if we hadn't shown ourselves to be prepared to stand our ground the Vic would have seen far more trouble from visiting fans. It was, to a degree, the reputation and willingness of the stoke lads to get stuck in, the reason why many people could watch their game in peace without another clubs fans running riot across the stoke terraces. I've seen that justification before and I don't think it holds any water to be honest. If it were the case, you'd see fans of Charlton, Fulham and all the other "non-hooligan" clubs getting pasted on a regular basis simply because they had no boys to look after them, but it didn't happen. Having a firm invited other firms which invariably led to innocent fans getting hurt. On the whole, their presence made violence and injury to innocents more not less likely.[/quote] It wasn't a justification mate just an aside, a bonus if you like. Maybe it wouldn't have made much difference, but it certainly made people think twice. As for justification there simply is none. I hold my hands up and admit that, for me, as it appeared to be with many others, the adrenaline was the driving force along with the obvious tribalism. I'm not religious but you see similar behaviour from extreme religious groups. I was slightly different in that most of what I did was 1v1 or 2v2. All I know is that at the end of any matchday I was completely fucking knackered, washed out, a side effect of too much adrenaline. Interesting discussion and it's good how admin have moved it over here where we tend to have a more liberated debate.
|
|
|
Post by siminor on Jan 21, 2012 17:53:43 GMT
What Makes Me Laff At Munich Manc Up There Is,Why Are Man Utd So Obsessed With Stoke City??? They're On Every Stoke Site,this,Oatcake,facebook stoke,Loads even youtube!!!! why????
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Jan 21, 2012 18:50:44 GMT
What Makes Me Laff At Munich Manc Up There Is,Why Are Man Utd So Obsessed With Stoke City??? They're On Every Stoke Site,this,Oatcake,facebook stoke,Loads even youtube!!!! why???? We make them feel inadequate because we are proper fans who support our hometown team. For them to feel less plastic their team would have to be renamed Surrey Town and play their games somewhere in the stockbroker belt ;D
|
|
|
Post by paulinespens on Jan 21, 2012 22:46:57 GMT
Mr Sausage..
every post you put on this thread is bang on mate..
people underestimate what could have happen that day at brum. if it was'nt for some folk them blue nose fuckers would have been in that stand and without a doubt a stokie would of been killed, it was that serious..
now if that had happened (thank god it didnt) would there family members be asking "why didnt someone do something"
i dont think i'll ever have so much adrenaline run through body as i did that day...whether it was fear or excitment i'll never know but i didnt sleep for days after.
|
|
|
Post by supersmashinggreat on Jan 21, 2012 23:09:03 GMT
Mr Sausage.. every post you put on this thread is bang on mate.. people underestimate what could have happen that day at brum. if it was'nt for some folk them blue nose fuckers would have been in that stand and without a doubt a stokie would of been killed, it was that serious.. now if that had happened (thank god it didnt) would there family members be asking "why didnt someone do something" i dont think i'll ever have so much adrenaline run through body as i did that day...whether it was fear or excitment i'll never know but i didnt sleep for days after. A bit of an exaggeration in fairness.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jan 22, 2012 0:51:18 GMT
Do you need to be a hooligan to stand up for yourself though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2012 1:01:45 GMT
Well I don't like hooligans and I don't like man united fans, but which is better? There's only one way to find out!!!!!! Have a discussion on the oatcake
|
|
|
Post by siminor on Jan 23, 2012 11:32:11 GMT
i duna think ya need be an hooligan to stand up for yaself,i know loadsa lads who can walk the walk and they are'nt Hooligans!!!
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jan 23, 2012 18:50:44 GMT
I agree siminor. And it logically follows from this that people didn't need hooligans to leap to their defense at Birmingham that time (dunno exactly what happened because I was just a kiddie at the time)
|
|
|
Post by mistersausage on Jan 24, 2012 1:30:20 GMT
I agree siminor. And it logically follows from this that people didn't need hooligans to leap to their defense at Birmingham that time (dunno exactly what happened because I was just a kiddie at the time) This post evidences just how far removed todays fans are from what was the reality of that day. Oh how I'd like to take some of them back through time and ask them again about it.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jan 24, 2012 23:42:51 GMT
Sausage:
I'm probably not representative of today's fans because I would have been about six at the time the event you are describing happened. My point is that by your own admission you were a hooligan in your younger days and now you are not a hooligan. Presumably, if you were faced with a similar situation again today you would still do the right thing and protect other Stoke fans (particularly women and children) from getting their heads kicked in. Therefore although those people may have been 'heroes' they were heroes in spite of being hooligans, not because of being hooligans. If that makes sense?
|
|