|
|
Post by meladben on Jun 12, 2024 7:12:50 GMT
Wonder what the chants were? Something do with flat caps and whippits for hudds? And something do with rent and boyfriend's for Chelsea... Football and clubs especially will be fooked if this is the cash as someone somewhere is ALWAYS going to be offended about something in this day and age.. With my limited intellect i'm gathering they were singing about Blackpool at both games so i'd assume it'd be along the same lines as our songs related to the great unwashed of bur slum |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 16:56:26 GMT
There is no need to speculate on any of this. It's all in the public domain - what was chanted in these two cases, the relevant FA regulations, the guidance on how they are to be applied, the guidance on sanctions, the fact that Preston pleaded guilty and the action plan adopted by the Club. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasonsEdit - enter Preston and season 2023/24 into the search box and it comes up There are some interesting and potentially challenging issues here. I think it is unhelpful and inaccurate hyperbole to suggest that this means that anything which might offend anybody will result in an FA charge. It won't. Although the regulation is quite widely framed, we talking essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting. The argument for taking action on discriminatory chanting is set out in para.21, which I agree with. That said, we don't want to see the game 'sanitised' and there will be debates and disagreements about where to draw the line. No doubt many posters of my generation will remember when it was commonplace for monkey chants to be directed at opposing black players. Few would now defend such behaviour, or other forms racism in football. In today's world the line is being extended to cover other types of discriminatory chanting and behaviour, which I think is a good thing. Delilah is a very interesting case. It was a pop song, sung by a national icon ( who performed at the D-day ceremony recently) which, as far as I know, has never been banned by a broadcaster ? But it's about a man who murders a woman with a knife in a fit of sexual jealousy - hardly a comfortable and pleasant topic in today's world ( and nothing to do with football or Stoke !) Our version appears to modify this to be about a man threatening rape. Now of course many will say that no fans singing it take the words seriously and that is true. And that complainants should lighten up. But I can see why the Club had complaints from parents who don't want to bring their kids to a game to hear that, and then want to join in, and why some women fans find it offensive. We don't want it to be a deterrent to some fans and some families coming to the game. The Welsh Rugby Union have banned it. Our Club has stopped playing it before games, and renamed Delilah's as Ricardo's. 'Wash your mouth out son' is a song sung by a few clubs about rivals, including us, and incidentally, both Preston-Blackpool fans about each other. I don't think it is discriminatory, although others may disagree. But I really dislike it as a football song because I don't want to call fellow football fans "scum" and sing about shooting them in today's world. It's an important and complex debate with various facets. I hope that as a fan community we can have a mature and respectful debate about it, without misrepresentation, exaggeration or hyperbole on any side, or simply try to dismiss it as the FA trying to ruin the game as we know it. |
|
|
|
Post by cheadlestokie on Jun 12, 2024 17:05:45 GMT
Well maybe it is about time that our fans found a new song.
To do it willingly would be good but not to be under pressure to do so which would not sit well with me at least.
No idea what the alternative could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 18:04:23 GMT
Well maybe it is about time that our fans found a new song. To do it willingly would be good but not to be under pressure to do so which would not sit well with me at least. No idea what the alternative could be. Certainly not a new song but personally I love "we'll be with you". Unique to Stoke, written by a local artist specially for the only time we have won a major trophy, and sums up perfectly the relationship between the fans and the team. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 12, 2024 18:19:32 GMT
There is no need to speculate on any of this. It's all in the public domain - what was chanted in these two cases, the relevant FA regulations, the guidance on how they are to be applied, the guidance on sanctions, the fact that Preston pleaded guilty and the action plan adopted by the Club. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasonsEdit - enter Preston and season 2023/24 into the search box and it comes up There are some interesting and potentially challenging issues here. I think it is unhelpful and inaccurate hyperbole to suggest that this means that anything which might offend anybody will result in an FA charge. It won't. Although the regulation is quite widely framed, we talking essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting. The argument for taking action on discriminatory chanting is set out in para.21, which I agree with. That said, we don't want to see the game 'sanitised' and there will be debates and disagreements about where to draw the line. No doubt many posters of my generation will remember when it was commonplace for monkey chants to be directed at opposing black players. Few would now defend such behaviour, or other forms racism in football. In today's world the line is being extended to cover other types of discriminatory chanting and behaviour, which I think is a good thing. Delilah is a very interesting case. It was a pop song, sung by a national icon ( who performed at the D-day ceremony recently) which, as far as I know, has never been banned by a broadcaster ? But it's about a man who murders a woman with a knife in a fit of sexual jealousy - hardly a comfortable and pleasant topic in today's world ( and nothing to do with football or Stoke !) Our version appears to modify this to be about a man threatening rape. Now of course many will say that no fans singing it take the words seriously and that is true. And that complainants should lighten up. But I can see why the Club had complaints from parents who don't want to bring their kids to a game to hear that, and then want to join in, and why some women fans find it offensive. We don't want it to be deterrent to some fans and some families coming to the game. The Welsh Rugby Union have banned it. Our Club has stopped playing it before games, and renamed Delilah's as Ricardo's. 'Wash your mouth out son' is a song sung by a few clubs about rivals, including us, and incidentally, both Preston-Blackpool fans about each other. I don't think it is discriminatory, although others may disagree. But I really dislike it as a football song because I don't want to call fellow football fans "scum" and sing about shooting them in today's world. It's an important and complex debate with various facets. I hope that as a fan community we can have a mature and respectful debate about it, without misrepresentation, exaggeration or hyperbole on any side, or simply try to dismiss it as the FA trying to ruin the game as we know it. Thanks for that MC. Having read the regulation, I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "inaccurate hyperbole" to be concerned about the potential for overreach, given the wording. You say we are talking "essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting", but "mass" is defined as "not an individual or a very small number", and "discriminatory" only enters as an aggravating factor. So the chargeable offence is in fact that a group of supporters "uses words which are improper or offensive". I appreciate that the offences in the case in point are more extensive than that (and there's a debate to had there), but I'd say it's an understatement to say the regulation is "quite widely framed"! |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 12, 2024 18:26:12 GMT
What a load of virtue signalling, snowflake, woke bollocks. What has this country become🤦🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 18:31:49 GMT
There is no need to speculate on any of this. It's all in the public domain - what was chanted in these two cases, the relevant FA regulations, the guidance on how they are to be applied, the guidance on sanctions, the fact that Preston pleaded guilty and the action plan adopted by the Club. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasonsEdit - enter Preston and season 2023/24 into the search box and it comes up There are some interesting and potentially challenging issues here. I think it is unhelpful and inaccurate hyperbole to suggest that this means that anything which might offend anybody will result in an FA charge. It won't. Although the regulation is quite widely framed, we talking essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting. The argument for taking action on discriminatory chanting is set out in para.21, which I agree with. That said, we don't want to see the game 'sanitised' and there will be debates and disagreements about where to draw the line. No doubt many posters of my generation will remember when it was commonplace for monkey chants to be directed at opposing black players. Few would now defend such behaviour, or other forms racism in football. In today's world the line is being extended to cover other types of discriminatory chanting and behaviour, which I think is a good thing. Delilah is a very interesting case. It was a pop song, sung by a national icon ( who performed at the D-day ceremony recently) which, as far as I know, has never been banned by a broadcaster ? But it's about a man who murders a woman with a knife in a fit of sexual jealousy - hardly a comfortable and pleasant topic in today's world ( and nothing to do with football or Stoke !) Our version appears to modify this to be about a man threatening rape. Now of course many will say that no fans singing it take the words seriously and that is true. And that complainants should lighten up. But I can see why the Club had complaints from parents who don't want to bring their kids to a game to hear that, and then want to join in, and why some women fans find it offensive. We don't want it to be deterrent to some fans and some families coming to the game. The Welsh Rugby Union have banned it. Our Club has stopped playing it before games, and renamed Delilah's as Ricardo's. 'Wash your mouth out son' is a song sung by a few clubs about rivals, including us, and incidentally, both Preston-Blackpool fans about each other. I don't think it is discriminatory, although others may disagree. But I really dislike it as a football song because I don't want to call fellow football fans "scum" and sing about shooting them in today's world. It's an important and complex debate with various facets. I hope that as a fan community we can have a mature and respectful debate about it, without misrepresentation, exaggeration or hyperbole on any side, or simply try to dismiss it as the FA trying to ruin the game as we know it. Thanks for that MC. Having read the regulation, I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "inaccurate hyperbole" to be concerned about the potential for overreach, given the wording. You say we are talking "essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting", but "mass" is defined as "not an individual or a very small number", and "discriminatory" only enters as an aggravating factor. So the chargeable offence is in fact that a group of supporters "uses words which are improper or offensive". I appreciate that the offences in the case in point are more extensive than that (and there's a debate to had there), but I'd say it's an understatement to say the regulation is "quite widely framed"! I think that's fair comment on the way it's worded, potterlog, which is what I meant by 'widely framed'. I was really thinking about how it has and is being used in practice by the FA. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the FA will start charging clubs for smaller groups of fans using non-discriminatory but "improper" (defining that would make plenty of work for m'learned friends !) or "offensive" language. Apart from anything else they could be overrun by cases ! I think their focus is on discriminatory chanting by large numbers. I could be wrong of course ( it has been known  ). |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 12, 2024 18:36:31 GMT
Thanks for that MC. Having read the regulation, I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "inaccurate hyperbole" to be concerned about the potential for overreach, given the wording. You say we are talking "essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting", but "mass" is defined as "not an individual or a very small number", and "discriminatory" only enters as an aggravating factor. So the chargeable offence is in fact that a group of supporters "uses words which are improper or offensive". I appreciate that the offences in the case in point are more extensive than that (and there's a debate to had there), but I'd say it's an understatement to say the regulation is "quite widely framed"! I think that's fair comment on the way it's worded, potterlog, which is what I meant by 'widely framed'. I was really thinking about how it has and is being used in practice by the FA. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the FA will start charging clubs for smaller groups of fans using non-discriminatory but "improper" (defining that would make plenty of work for m'learned friends !) or "offensive" language. Apart from anything else they could be overrun by cases ! I think their focus is on discriminatory chanting by large numbers. I could be wrong of course ( it has been known ). I'm sure you're right, and you make good points about trying to make incremental positive changes to behaviour - I just think they'd do well to be much more explicit in the wording (e.g. chants which make reference to race or sexuality) and not use these woolly subjective concepts like "offensive" and "improper" which are open to abuse if at some point you end up with particularly overzealous adjudicators. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 18:50:17 GMT
I think that's fair comment on the way it's worded, potterlog, which is what I meant by 'widely framed'. I was really thinking about how it has and is being used in practice by the FA. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the FA will start charging clubs for smaller groups of fans using non-discriminatory but "improper" (defining that would make plenty of work for m'learned friends !) or "offensive" language. Apart from anything else they could be overrun by cases ! I think their focus is on discriminatory chanting by large numbers. I could be wrong of course ( it has been known ). I'm sure you're right, and you make good points about trying to make incremental positive changes to behaviour - I just think they'd do well to be much more explicit in the wording (e.g. chants which make reference to race or sexuality) and not use these woolly subjective concepts like "offensive" and "improper" which are open to abuse if at some point you end up with particularly overzealous adjudicators. I agree with that. I think regulators (not just at the FA) sometimes draft rules very widely to give themselves maximum charging flexibility but end up creating unhelpful uncertainty about what is caught and what isn't. As someone who used to sit on FA Commissions I can just imagine a debate between the FA and defence lawyers about what "improper" means  "offensive" is perhaps a bit less uncertain, but, as you say, even that is subjective at the margins. |
|
|
|
Post by bridgnorthstokie on Jun 12, 2024 18:51:13 GMT
This is a slippery slope indeed.. As a country we're pandering to the woke brigade, frightened of offending some portion of society.. The sooner we wake up, and grasp the point that just because you find something offensive doesn't automatically mean it is offensive. You find it offensive you deal with it. its not correct the other 99% of the country have to change their outlook to appease you. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 12, 2024 19:10:50 GMT
I'm sure you're right, and you make good points about trying to make incremental positive changes to behaviour - I just think they'd do well to be much more explicit in the wording (e.g. chants which make reference to race or sexuality) and not use these woolly subjective concepts like "offensive" and "improper" which are open to abuse if at some point you end up with particularly overzealous adjudicators. I agree with that. I think regulators (not just at the FA) sometimes draft rules very widely to give themselves maximum charging flexibility but end up creating unhelpful uncertainty about what is caught and what isn't. As someone who used to sit on FA Commissions I can just imagine a debate between the FA and defence lawyers about what "improper" means "offensive" is perhaps a bit less uncertain, but, as you say, even that is subjective at the margins. I think "offensive" is the most uncertain of anything to be honest. Offence, almost by definition, is taken rather than given, so somebody has to be subjectively "offended" for any supposed infraction to take place. As an example and without wishing to be facetious, I find the wording of this FA regulation offensive - can I report it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 19:12:48 GMT
This is a slippery slope indeed.. As a country we're pandering to the woke brigade, frightened of offending some portion of society.. The sooner we wake up, and grasp the point that just because you find something offensive doesn't automatically mean it is offensive. You find it offensive you deal with it. its not correct the other 99% of the country have to change their outlook to appease you. I'm not quite sure who the "woke brigade" are or whether I'm a member or not  I think most football fans, and indeed members of wider society, support the notion, whether in football regulations, or the law of the land, that racist and discriminatory abuse should not be allowed, and that it should not be left to the victim to deal with it (which of course may be impractical at best or a risk to personal safety at worst). Quite apart from football, "abusive" language which is likely to cause "harrassment, alarm or distress" to those "within hearing or sight" is a Section 5 offence under the 1986 Public Order Act (long before the so-called woke brigade). |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jun 12, 2024 19:31:40 GMT
As a country we're pandering to the woke brigade, frightened of offending some portion of society.. The sooner we wake up, and grasp the point that just because you find something offensive doesn't automatically mean it is offensive. You find it offensive you deal with it. its not correct the other 99% of the country have to change their outlook to appease you. I'm not quite sure who the "woke brigade" are or whether I'm a member or not I think most football fans, and indeed members of wider society, support the notion, whether in football regulations, or the law of the land, that racist and discriminatory abuse should not be allowed, and that it should not be left to the victim to deal with it (which of course may be impractical at best or a risk to personal safety at worst). Quite apart from football, "abusive" language which is likely to cause "harrassment, alarm or distress" to those "within hearing or sight" is a Section 5 offence under the 1986 Public Order Act (long before the so-called woke brigade). Will we still be allowed to sing we've got another s**t ref? 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 12, 2024 19:35:04 GMT
I'm not quite sure who the "woke brigade" are or whether I'm a member or not I think most football fans, and indeed members of wider society, support the notion, whether in football regulations, or the law of the land, that racist and discriminatory abuse should not be allowed, and that it should not be left to the victim to deal with it (which of course may be impractical at best or a risk to personal safety at worst). Quite apart from football, "abusive" language which is likely to cause "harrassment, alarm or distress" to those "within hearing or sight" is a Section 5 offence under the 1986 Public Order Act (long before the so-called woke brigade). Will we still be allowed to sing we've got another s**t ref? 😆 I'm sure that unarguable statements of fact won't be outlawed, mickey |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jun 12, 2024 19:36:36 GMT
Will we still be allowed to sing we've got another s**t ref? 😆 I'm sure that unarguable statements of fact won't be outlawed, mickey Phew, that's my favourite song 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Jun 12, 2024 21:03:32 GMT
This is a slippery slope indeed.. As a country we're pandering to the woke brigade, frightened of offending some portion of society.. The sooner we wake up, and grasp the point that just because you find something offensive doesn't automatically mean it is offensive. You find it offensive you deal with it. its not correct the other 99% of the country have to change their outlook to appease you. If you ‘wake up’, you’ll surely be ‘woke’ and you will be even more of a confused cunter than you appear to be currently! Chill sister. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jun 13, 2024 9:32:36 GMT
Thanks for that MC. Having read the regulation, I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "inaccurate hyperbole" to be concerned about the potential for overreach, given the wording. You say we are talking "essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting", but "mass" is defined as "not an individual or a very small number", and "discriminatory" only enters as an aggravating factor. So the chargeable offence is in fact that a group of supporters "uses words which are improper or offensive". I appreciate that the offences in the case in point are more extensive than that (and there's a debate to had there), but I'd say it's an understatement to say the regulation is "quite widely framed"! I think that's fair comment on the way it's worded, potterlog, which is what I meant by 'widely framed'. I was really thinking about how it has and is being used in practice by the FA. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the FA will start charging clubs for smaller groups of fans using non-discriminatory but "improper" (defining that would make plenty of work for m'learned friends !) or "offensive" language. Apart from anything else they could be overrun by cases ! I think their focus is on discriminatory chanting by large numbers. I could be wrong of course ( it has been known ). Think you’re usually a voice of reason MC but I disagree with you here and it’s a very slippery slope, can we sing about Uzils eyes, short players, gingers etc? In use football experiences to educate my kids on the good and bad in life and I found it’s made them better people and more worldly wise. |
|
|
|
Post by ihaveadream on Jun 13, 2024 12:18:56 GMT
They admitted both charges, which related to failing to ensure their supporters conducted themselves in an orderly fashion as well as using improper language.
That suggests that it is up to a club to ensure that supporters use improper language
|
|
|
|
Post by ihaveadream on Jun 13, 2024 12:22:58 GMT
I’m guessing the Huddersfield one is “you dirty Yorkshire bastards” or similar given that it came from a Lancashire club. Seems that increasingly location is being treated as a protected characteristic. Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here but I would wager that the authorities see “dirty Yorkshire bastard” as more offensive than simply “dirty bastard” Mad. Would we be deemed Hygienist for our chants against Vale |
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 13, 2024 12:37:01 GMT
There is no need to speculate on any of this. It's all in the public domain - what was chanted in these two cases, the relevant FA regulations, the guidance on how they are to be applied, the guidance on sanctions, the fact that Preston pleaded guilty and the action plan adopted by the Club. www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasonsEdit - enter Preston and season 2023/24 into the search box and it comes up There are some interesting and potentially challenging issues here. I think it is unhelpful and inaccurate hyperbole to suggest that this means that anything which might offend anybody will result in an FA charge. It won't. Although the regulation is quite widely framed, we talking essentially about mass, discriminatory chanting. The argument for taking action on discriminatory chanting is set out in para.21, which I agree with. That said, we don't want to see the game 'sanitised' and there will be debates and disagreements about where to draw the line. No doubt many posters of my generation will remember when it was commonplace for monkey chants to be directed at opposing black players. Few would now defend such behaviour, or other forms racism in football. In today's world the line is being extended to cover other types of discriminatory chanting and behaviour, which I think is a good thing. Delilah is a very interesting case. It was a pop song, sung by a national icon ( who performed at the D-day ceremony recently) which, as far as I know, has never been banned by a broadcaster ? But it's about a man who murders a woman with a knife in a fit of sexual jealousy - hardly a comfortable and pleasant topic in today's world ( and nothing to do with football or Stoke !) Our version appears to modify this to be about a man threatening rape. Now of course many will say that no fans singing it take the words seriously and that is true. And that complainants should lighten up. But I can see why the Club had complaints from parents who don't want to bring their kids to a game to hear that, and then want to join in, and why some women fans find it offensive. We don't want it to be a deterrent to some fans and some families coming to the game. The Welsh Rugby Union have banned it. Our Club has stopped playing it before games, and renamed Delilah's as Ricardo's. 'Wash your mouth out son' is a song sung by a few clubs about rivals, including us, and incidentally, both Preston-Blackpool fans about each other. I don't think it is discriminatory, although others may disagree. But I really dislike it as a football song because I don't want to call fellow football fans "scum" and sing about shooting them in today's world. It's an important and complex debate with various facets. I hope that as a fan community we can have a mature and respectful debate about it, without misrepresentation, exaggeration or hyperbole on any side, or simply try to dismiss it as the FA trying to ruin the game as we know it. Delilah is a problem and it’s a conversation we should have as a support base. While I love the song and how we sing it, that “bit” makes me uncomfortable. I challenge anyone with a daughter to sit next to her at a match while Delilah is being sung and not be incredibly uncomfortable when that ‘bit’ is sung. |
|
|
|
Post by loosestools on Jun 13, 2024 13:26:15 GMT
'Why - why - why - Ricardo!'
Nah - it doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Jun 13, 2024 13:34:11 GMT
Madness , how can they control what the fans sing/chant With song sheets on all chairs. Then an appropriate ultra nominated through proper channels yet to be established can conduct said songs. Practice is to be encouraged by turning up early before kick off. Simples inteet. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 13, 2024 15:52:06 GMT
I think that's fair comment on the way it's worded, potterlog, which is what I meant by 'widely framed'. I was really thinking about how it has and is being used in practice by the FA. I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the FA will start charging clubs for smaller groups of fans using non-discriminatory but "improper" (defining that would make plenty of work for m'learned friends !) or "offensive" language. Apart from anything else they could be overrun by cases ! I think their focus is on discriminatory chanting by large numbers. I could be wrong of course ( it has been known ). Think you’re usually a voice of reason MC but I disagree with you here and it’s a very slippery slope, can we sing about Uzils eyes, short players, gingers etc? In use football experiences to educate my kids on the good and bad in life and I found it’s made them better people and more worldly wise. I'm not quite sure which bit you disagree about, Terry ? I don't think that many would advocate that anything goes just because it's inside a football ground ? Equally, as I said, we don't want to sanitise the game and the atmosphere. But neither do we want stokies to be deterred from going to the game because of what they hear. It becomes a question of where the line is drawn, i.e how far down the slope, slippery or otherwise, you stop. That's the discussion we, as the fanbase, need to have. I have recently advised a Stoke supporter who was ejected and accepted a Section 5 caution as an alternative to going to court for something shouted during the game, from which I learned that the fact that it's at a football game makes no difference whatever in law. We mentioned above that the FA rule is widely framed - but so is the 1986 Public Order Act, and we don't want the police arresting individual fans. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jun 13, 2024 16:08:11 GMT
What a load of virtue signalling, snowflake, woke bollocks. What has this country become🤦🏻♂️ Great lyrics Badge 👍 What tune is it to? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jun 13, 2024 17:10:02 GMT
What a load of virtue signalling, snowflake, woke bollocks. What has this country become🤦🏻♂️ Great lyrics Badge 👍 What tune is it to? Delilah 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by bridgnorthstokie on Jun 13, 2024 18:05:07 GMT
As a country we're pandering to the woke brigade, frightened of offending some portion of society.. The sooner we wake up, and grasp the point that just because you find something offensive doesn't automatically mean it is offensive. You find it offensive you deal with it. its not correct the other 99% of the country have to change their outlook to appease you. If you ‘wake up’, you’ll surely be ‘woke’ and you will be even more of a confused cunter than you appear to be currently! Chill sister. No offence taken, although some may find your choice of language offensive. Although I'm not offended does another person who does find it offensive have the right to label it offensive for everyone.. I'm chilled. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jun 13, 2024 20:44:44 GMT
Great lyrics Badge 👍 What tune is it to? Delilah 😆 They/them stood there virtue signalling, wooaahh, I put my snowflakey woke bollocks in their hand and they laughed no more! |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jun 13, 2024 20:45:56 GMT
They/them stood there virtue signalling, wooaahh, I put my snowflakey woke bollocks in their hand and they laughed no more! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 13, 2024 22:45:39 GMT
They/them stood there virtue signalling, wooaahh, I put my snowflakey woke bollocks in their hand and they laughed no more! Now that is funny. But I still maintain that if you bring your daughter to a match it’s a very difficult set of lyrics to sing without feeling a bit awkward, at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jun 14, 2024 11:31:54 GMT
What a load of virtue signalling, snowflake, woke bollocks. What has this country become🤦🏻♂️ Yes lets get back to Love Thy Neighbour,Spike Milligan's Pakistani Daleks,and all things sexist .Ahhh them were the days. |
|
). 
"offensive" is perhaps a bit less uncertain, but, as you say, even that is subjective at the margins. 
I think most football fans, and indeed members of wider society, support the notion, whether in football regulations, or the law of the land, that racist and discriminatory abuse should not be allowed, and that it should not be left to the victim to deal with it (which of course may be impractical at best or a risk to personal safety at worst). Quite apart from football, "abusive" language which is likely to cause "harrassment, alarm or distress" to those "within hearing or sight" is a Section 5 offence under the 1986 Public Order Act (long before the so-called woke brigade). 
