That is against the law, extreme behaviour injuring people is obviously wrong.
Restore Britain.
- Topic starter Matov
- Start date
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
England
I've seen first hand how immoral activists on the far left can be.
This is just another example.
This is just another example.
In that case I hope the police go after whoever it was and prosecute them. I know is says anonymous but the police have tools to investigate where the complaint came from and should use them.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Indeed, as harassment and as deliberate wasting of police time it's a crime.
There should be some kind of negative consequence for doing this.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
That any player felt pressured doesn’t alter the fact that they chose to participate. You criticised here, without any issues. If you booed at a game and got criticised for doing so both parties were freely expressing their opinions. No action would have followed just booing. If anything did happen then so did something else.
You are perfectly free to oppose politics in sport. As free as those who decide the opposite. Until either do something illegal.
Why John Terry decided to delete his post is known only to him. Not to me, nor you or “all”. Your obsession with trying to blame every event you dislike on the “far left” is as ridiculous as it is pathetic. It’s an assertion without evidence.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
There you go again. Letting your obsession dominate reasoning.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this involved anyone from the “far left”.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yes, some UK football clubs did take action against individual fans for booing or protesting the knee-taking during matches in late 2020.Specific examples include:
- Cambridge United (League Two): During their home match against Colchester United in December 2020 (when limited fans were allowed back), a small number/section of supporters booed players taking the knee. The club investigated individually, resulting in: bans to the end of the season (with season tickets refunded) for some; requirements for education and discrimination lessons before return for others; and education/support without bans in additional cases. CEO Ian Mather stated the club would take the same action again if it occurred.
- Exeter City (League Two): On 15 December 2020, during their match against Harrogate Town at St James Park, one fan booed as players took the knee (after the referee's whistle). The fan was ejected from the stand about 10 minutes into the game, and the club said appropriate further action would be taken.
- An unnamed Championship club briefly suspended a season ticket holder for booing players taking the knee (incident referenced in early 2021).
Separately, another Championship club threatened a lifetime ban against a fan for the same reason in December 2020
Errr....I've just shown you that your statement isn't accurate.
It is an assertion with evidence.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
The clubs investigated and decided they could do without some people’s business. We aren’t party to those investigations, or the defences offered but if any club concluded that they were safer, or better off, without certain individuals present then that’s entirely their right. It’s their space. Not ours. What their reasoning might have been is unknown. All that is known is that the precursor was booing during a protest.
No you haven’t.
Not that I have seen! All I can see is an over active imagination.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
At our own club, Zaha wouldn't take the knee. Which I wanted to point out as we saw it with our own eyes.
It is not up to anyone to just arbitrarily ban people. That could easily be considered discrimination. Depending on the legal grounds in whichever framework. Which would be firstly UK equality law and then EU equality law while the court has jurisdiction. Again, you would have argued that the cake people had to make the gay cake. In fact you did. You did not give them the freedom to ban whoever they decided they wouldn't need to do business with.
You will find EU legislation protects people under the grounds of political belief. Yet, funnily enough none of those cases have been taken as far as I'm aware. Although I will say - the EU has been questioning Germany's approach to the AfD. It was suggested that they are trying to cover up political dialogue that they find unsuitable. I wonder why that might resonate.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I want Wisbech's reply here to stand for neutral observers as to the nature of this poster.
He says A.
I provide evidence that A is wrong.....events that are documented.
He double downs and denies the evidence that clearly refers to the point he made.
To anyone new, this is what we have to deal with on the left that we get on Hol.
Dishonest to the core.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
If those banned wanted to legally challenge the decisions they were free to do so. Did they? The arguments would be considered by a Judge and if considered purely arbitrary they could well have won. The circumstances of the “cake case” were well known and clear cut. For me there was obvious discrimination involved and the judgement incorrect. Something the government appears to agree with as they have promised to introduce legislation to ensure if it happened again there would be a different outcome.
These incidents are not clear cut. We don’t know the justification for the exclusions. Perhaps known trouble makers were involved and accused of incitement.
Zaha made his own decision. Was he booed?
Germany’s attitude towards the AfD is perfectly understandable given their history. Not that you will accept that as you refuse to acknowledge any linkage.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Fantasy!
You provided no real evidence and certainly no documentation. You presumably referenced press reports. Nobody other than the parties have any documentation. Everything else is supposition.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
I wasn't aware I had refused anything. I would agree with parts of your response. How would we know exactly what happened? Much is indeed supposition. I believe Zaha was booed by some opposition fans but not by Palace fans. Which I presume was more football rivalry or a misunderstanding of the situation. However, I feel compelled to suggest that someone should be allowed to have the political opinion of disagreeing with taking the knee. Even to the extent of booing it. You might find it disrespectful, most people might find it disrespectful but it's still really just voicing their opinion whether anyone else likes it or not. I'll also say this: I'm not into blanket free speech like some of the extremes in the USA. Honestly people shout atrocities into people's faces that would incite and rightly disgust even very reasonable people. I find people like "The Westboro Baptist Church" just crazy. Booing taking the knee isn't really that extreme though is it? It's just a definite and full show of disapproval. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this push, as I see it, with having to approve of one thing or another or being vilified. Even prosecuted. It's getting a bit much Wisbech. It really is. I personally wouldn't boo taking the knee. In the very first original US case in NFL I half agreed with him. When that all spread and the George Floyd stuff and everyone was doing it: that was over the top and seemed coerced in many cases. Or pressured by the weight of society. I believe people can have quite unsuitable views and we just have to put up with it. I think there are limits but this isn't it.
Living In Hope
Member
- Location
- Petersfield
- Country
-
England
Wisbech,
I admire your steadfast responses to opposing views on here and despite a right wing view I often agree with you, but I have to take issue with this. They did not "choose to participate". Any white player with half a brain refusing to take the knee knew full well that he would have been subjected to a firestorm of abuse and accusations of racism, which may have been career-ending.
In my view it is scandalous that in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy people were expected to make a demonstration of a particular political allegiance in order to participate in sport. That demonstration was to support a Marxist organisation. I found it appalling at the time, but sadly it is symptomatic of the way our freedom of expression has come under attack from, I am sorry to say, the left wing.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
My apologies. You haven’t, but others do.
Of course people are free to express their opinions. Just as football club owners are free to decide who are allowed into their ground. If someone is sold a ticket to watch football then they have a right to expect to see it.
So I feel pretty sure that those who received any kind of exclusion orders must have either done rather more than just boo or have had previous warnings of some kind or another.
I have no particular feelings about “taking the knee” but can respect the fact that others did. I would neither take the knee myself, nor boo those who do.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
That any player might have felt pressure, not so much from his peers as from his employer and his union, to comply is beside the point. They still had the choice. In fact I sense a great deal of brotherhood between the players, whatever their ethnicity, and sympathy for the awful racism that some suffer. They appeared to do so willingly.
You make the same incorrect assertion about “Black Lives Matter” that was widespread at the time. The protest had no association whatsoever with the organisation which calls itself by that name. They had no involvement at all and the protests were entirely separate to it, being spontaneous reactions to Floyd’s murder.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
The fact that you won't call out coercion when it supports your politics is very revealing.
I'm not surprised you have no issues with a situation where people felt compelled to 'take the knee' for fear of the consequences. It fits in with your authoritarianism as Covid showed.
No one should feel under threat if they don't support a political stance, however that is the situation and it is being called out by those with ethics, but again....not by you because you support coercion.....Again as Covid taught everyone here.
I have very little doubt that once the tables are turned politically in the west that you will adopt the position of 'no pressure to support' any political situation on the right.
To repeat what's often observed, the only standard the left have is the double standard.
This is absolute nonsense and it's directly provable because the whole joke started with BLM logos straight from that organisation that were being used by the FA. They only changed them once that organisation started receiving bad press for its anti white and anti capitalist stances.
BLM is anti white at its core and no amount of weasel words that try to sanitize is excusable.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
It was obvious that the bakery owners did not discriminate against gay-rights agitator, Gareth Lee, because he was a homosexual. The bakery owners objected to the message that he/she/they/other wanted on the cake. Whatever the sexual tastes of the deviant Lee had been they would have refused to put the message on the cake. Certainly the case should not have got to the Supreme Court. The original judge, Isobel Brownlie, had a record of bringing in dubious verdicts in favour of left-wing interests and no doubt the importance and reverence given to gay matters influenced her and the Appeal Court. The Supreme court threw it out as they baulked at sanctioning a miscarriage of justice.
Last edited:
Agreed. This is stale news. The shop rightly pointed out they were not obliged to make a cake with a political message.
So if Tommy Robinson went to a T shirt shop and ordered 50 shirts with a legal political slogan and the owner refused the left would be outraged? Of course not they would be supporting the owner all the way.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
I will call out coercion when it’s the subject. Coercion can though be resisted. It’s a choice.
Anyone feeling compulsion to do anything should seek help to overcome it, if it is their wish to. We all have to balance our feelings against those of others and decide how to respond. We make choices. Sometimes, as with Covid, following the law, or deciding to break it, makes a choice simple for every law abiding citizen.
No one is under threat from not supporting a political stance. They are only under threat if they participate in unlawful, or otherwise restricted, actions. Not supporting is passive.
I would continue to do precisely what I do now. Act lawfully. Argue fiercely.
This “left” bogeyman must have taken up permanent residence in your brain. He is dominating you.
Using any logo means nothing, other than some wet behind the ears work experience graduate, tasked with producing the graphics, messed up. Your “left” bogeyman is cohabiting with your “anti-white” one. In your mind they are already producing “transgender” offspring.
I no more defend BLM, the organisation, than I do your politics. Which is not at all. I can understand where both spring from, but regard the answers as self defeating.