Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 4, 2004 23:47:49 GMT
I think people moving to our country should have the decency to respect our country and culture. Obvisously most of them do, but there are too many who come over here and complain just because we are not doing things "their" way.
For an example of this, I think it was in Hanley Park the council wanted to put a British flag in the middle. Can't remember for what reason. But they couldn't do it because a group of foerigners (I think it was a group of Asian people, but not sure) said it would be an insult to them to have some other countries flag flying. Well sorry pal, but if you feel like that then FUCK OFF to another country.
RRP I have to agree with that. My folks came to England and respected everything about a country they now call home.
We must be one of the few nations who show so little respect for their own culture and are willing to let it go so not to upset others,
I saw a school last year that had to remove a cross from it's 100 year old blazer badge because some ethic minorities didnt like it. I also notice shopping centres banning Xmas carols for the same reasons. Totally unjustified. IMHO you have to adapt if you are living in another country etc, that shouldn't adapt for you.
I have no problem with folk learning and practising their own cultures, religion etc but it shouldn't change the way we live.
I think we are in danger of losing out heritage somewhat. Going a bit PC crazy for me.
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 5, 2004 0:05:52 GMT
I too have no problem with other people practicing whatever religion they like. As long as they don't force it on me, the minute they try forcing it is the minute I lose respect for them.
As for all that accepting others beliefs bollocks in religion, what a load of cobblers. Religion starts more arguements and wars than it bloody solves. Why the hell these people can't practice their religions in privacy god only knows ("god", there goes me with me religous ramblings )
Religion starts more arguments and wars than it bloody solves.
Has religion ever solved an argument?
I'm in danger of going off one one about my theory that religion is the biggest heap of shit I have ever heard in my life, but I'll save that for another day when I'm on my own and there's no-one listening.
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 5, 2004 0:26:11 GMT
I have no problem with religion at all. It's the way that people "practice" it that piss's me off.
Why does everyone have to know you believe in God/Jesus/Allah/Guru Gobbinsing. We certainley don't want you standing in the middle of the high street spouting some shit about something or other. Just fucking leave us alone. Go to church/synagogue/temple and say all your bullshit there, don't come calling round our frigging houses cos we don't want to hear it. If we wanted it, we know it's out there and we'd go and get it for ourselves.
You said you were in danger of going off on one, well i've done it for you
Whilst I respect everybodies right to believe what they want, as a someone who has studied science I do find it amazing that people still cling to stuff which has been proved to be the biggest pack of shite ever written.
Oh and that 3 of the main religions are actualy factions of the same original religion with bits added down the line, (eg, that bloke who gave 5000 crumbs out and convinced everyone they were full up.... well I've seen a hypnotist convince 5 people that the glasses of water in front of them were their favouritist ever drink, and they believed it too, and I'm not worshipping him) and they have then spent the rest of their time fighting each other about it.
The people that complain about flags being put up, holidays being celebrated etc tend to be the same tree hugging (white) do gooders that tell you that you can't smoke in public (I don't smoke, but its your choice at the end of the day!), you can't drink, speed cameras are good, swearing on TV is bad, computer games make people murder others - You know, the Mary Whitehouse brigade.
If you look into some of the articles in the press where flags are concerned, its only the complaints of the odd voice that are taken note of and not the concencus of the majority. Many people of Asian descent are firmly behind the British flag as its their own, its only the PC absurdity of do gooders with no backbone that cause more issues than than they prevent.
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 5, 2004 8:46:55 GMT
Robo - we seem to have gone full circle here. You make a fine speech about the people who complain about flags etc - at the end of a long thread started by you which took Smeegs to task for using a particular flag as his avtar!
Seems to me that some double standards are at work here?
I was surprised at Smeegs Choice of avtar but surely we should defend his right to use it on the board if he wishes. If he waved it at matches that might be different as it could be regarded as provocative just as BeB's "no surrender" song could be regarded as provocative. But as an avtar for an occasional Rangers supporter does it do any harm?
My own avtar of a devil might not be to the taste of those who abhor satan and all his works and who see him under every stone. Would they be right to ask me to change it - I don't think so.
Mind you I do like the pink wabbit - I would be tempted to use it but I might get confused with Smeegs!
The Hanley (Cobridge, actually) Park flag incident wasn't that clear cut mate.
The flag was erected by 'Jackboot' Jenny Holdcroft, a Holocaust-denying former councillor who recently heckled a concentration camp survivor at a public meeting.
This is a woman who has arranged 'rights for whites' marches through the city centre. To see her positioning a Union flag in the middle of an ethnically-sensitive district as anything other than deliberately shit-stirring is naive, IMHO.
PP...you say it's ok for smeegs to put up the avatar but provocative to sing "No Surrender" at matches. Remind me of what was written under the flag again? What's the difference between it on here and at the ground?
If he wants to do that then fine by me but why at football?....
If you want sectarianism at Stoke City then fair enough, interesting the week Northern Ireland's Gerry Taggart thanks the fans we have these children singing about something they seem to know very little about.
Would it be OK for someone to use an Irish tricolour with "The Free State will rise again" under it?
Let's put it this way, if some Rangers supporting tossers think they can try to pollute our ground with their shite then I have to think twice about being a Stoke supporter. Why do we have these people singing songs from other clubs? Would we accept it if some twat started singing Manure songs? If you want to sing Rangers songs, fuck off to Rangers.
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 5, 2004 10:04:15 GMT
JR, I know what you mean but it seems to me that there is a distinction between free speech and provocation/incitement. If you look back at my posts on this thread to BeB you will see that I do understand the Irish problems as seen at first hand by members of my family on both sides of the sectarian divide. Flying certain flags and singing songs adopted by terrorists does seem provocative to me.
On the other hand, as someone who does believe in the concept of free speech I don't see that I have any right to proscribe the use of a particular flag as an avtar on a message board.
An analogy might be with Naziism (apologies to Smeegs and BeB - I am not equating you with the Nazis, I am simply taking the most extreme example I can think of). If someone gets up in a public place and makes a speech with the same content/intent as Hitler did then they would probably be (rightly)arrested and charged with incitement to race hatred. Yet Mein Kampf is still legally on sale in this country - not that many people go out and buy it.
Tricky thing is democracy and we must all draw the line at the place our conscience tells us to.
Firstly, Smeegs AVATAR wasn't an attempt to celebrate the fine country in which he lives, but combined with the statement underneath is support for a terrorist organisation that in their on right have killed dozens (hundreds?) of innocent people - This doesn't justify in any way the violent behaviour of the IRA, but certainly doesn't make them any better in my book.
Equally, as JR pointed out, the attempt in Cobridge to fly the flag again wasn't an attmept at national pride, but an attempt to be confrontational by known right wingers, especially if you look at the timing (it was in the middle of the spate of race riots around the country - Supposed Stoke 'fans' joining other hooligans around the country causing havoc in towns such as Oldham, Burnley etc (and Cobridge!))
Flying the flag to celebrate in the spirit of national pride is one thing, flying it to provoke a reaction and to hide your racist beliefs behind it is another!
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 5, 2004 11:20:26 GMT
JR, I doubt if BeB knew much about the history of his song - but he probably knows a bit more now - so that's good - in my opinion.
Smeegs, I am sure, does know far more about the history of the troubles but if he wishes to have that particular flag as his avtar then he has a right to do so - just as those who don't like it have a right to point out why.
Robo - see my reply to JR above. I actually share your views on terrorists of all persuasions and of the messages that provocative songs or flag waving send out. I wish they had no place in football and where they tread over the line between bad taste and provocation and incitement, I am all for the full force of the law being brought to bear.
My point in my post to you on the previous page was simply to draw comparison between your post on "PC" reactions (or should that be over-reactions) to the emblems of others and your criticism of Smeegs for his avtar.
Like I say freedom of speech (as represented by an avtar) is as important to democracy as the need to fight sectarianism, racism and all the other "isms". In your own way you are as "PC" as some of the people you criticised in the post I replied to - and I applaud you for that!
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 5, 2004 11:25:36 GMT
GlennA, thanks for filling me in the WHOLE picture. It still seems mad to me that we can't fly our flag in OUR country without complaint, whatever the reasons.
About the race riots in Cobridge. As far as I know these weren't 'race riots' at all. The fighting was all to do with drugs but I believe the Asian community turned it into a 'race riots' to provoke sympathy. I have heard this from a couple of very reliable and respected sources.
I'd like to add this is just a rumour, but a fairly strong one by all accounts. I havn't heard it from any hooligans that were trying to defend themselves. Indeed one was my R.E. teacher from a few years back
Just to speak up for some of my own Ulster friends here... the chant 'No Surrender' to them is no more provocotive than say, the Sinn Fein motto/slogan of "Our time will come" - it's an affirmation of the sense of belonging to their own community.
The "No Surrender" words (dating back to the siege of Londonderry in 1688) are entrenched in Protestant folklore in a way similar to that in which many of us get a warm glow whenever they hear Winston Churchill's "We'll fight them on the beaches..." etc. To label it simply as the 'slogan' of a terrorist organisation is wrong and unfair. It's as unfair in fact as the belief that flying a Union Jack or Cross of St. George makes you a rabid right-winger, filled with racial hatred.
As with most things in life, context (with words and flags) is what is important. In respect of the chant being used by English football fans then it does have a very different connotation and that depresses me enormously. People sing songs about a subject in which they have no real understanding and for all the wrong reasons.
My own tuppence worth is that we'll all be better off when slogans and mottos from four centuries ago are left behind and we start to look to the future. That day can't come soon enough.