Celtic v Hearts

[theoriginalhedge]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

Sorry, but all of that just comes across as someone who is biased, not bigoted.

Surely to be bigoted he would need to display prejudice against a group of people?

Look up the meaning in the dictionary

 

[bennett]

 

 

 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, theoriginalhedge said:

Look up the meaning in the dictionary

 

"bigoted
/ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

 

I did not see him last night, but everything you mentioned seems to lack any prejudice or antagonistic behaviour towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Lads, I was taking the piss. 

It's amazing that it's always Rangers fans who are worried about other teams fans infiltrating their support.

 

[theoriginalhedge]

26 minutes ago, AJF said:

"bigoted
/ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

 

I did not see him last night, but everything you mentioned seems to lack any prejudice or antagonistic behaviour towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

I disagree . He was obstinately opinionated. 

He was antagonistic in his approach to Petrov at certain times . 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, theoriginalhedge said:

I disagree . He was obstinately opinionated. 

He was antagonistic in his approach to Petrov at certain times . 

I'll take your word that he was antagonistic in his approach to Petrov, but could you say that was due to his membership of a particular group?

If someone that is biased to the extreme and heavily opinionated is considered bigoted then I think I will need to change my own behaviour.

[Forever_blueco]

8 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said:

I disagree . He was obstinately opinionated. 

He was antagonistic in his approach to Petrov at certain times . 

Boyd is the Rangers equivalent of Chris Sutton . Celtic’s pantomime villain of a pundit. Unprofessional , childish , annoying if you are not of a Rangers persuasion I can imagine  . Label it as you wish but to accuse it of being bigotry is real desperate stuff.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Forever_blueco

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Squonk said:

If the stark choice is between doing nothing and suffering another hundred years or so of mass sectarian singing along with other assorted offensive behaviour, or closing stands/grounds and deducting points, I know which option I'd choose if I was an impartial football administrator.

Strict liability would have little or no impact on 40 of our 42 senior clubs. It is only because the two clubs with the largest support are against strict liability that its implementation is constantly stymied. It would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

I'd suggest it is only because you are a supporter of one of those two clubs that you demonstrate the same self-interest as your club.

Ligue 1 in France recently deducted points from Marseille and Nice for events similar to last night's bottle throwing incidents. Where there's a will, there's a way. 

 

I'd rather the title was decided by events on the pitch, rather than fans' behaviour. 

Plus there's an argument that Celtic have 60,000 fans, so surely it should be done by a ratio of incidents. After we went 1-0 up against Rangers we had a lad run on the pitch, Dundee Utd just had a lad push an Aberdeen player, so it does happen outside the Old Firm. 

19 home games with an average crowd of 55,000 = 1,045,000 fans at games.

19 home games with an average crowd of 5,000 = 95,000 fans at games.

How do you define it? The idea's nonsense. 

[theoriginalhedge]

39 minutes ago, AJF said:

"bigoted
/ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

 

I did not see him last night, but everything you mentioned seems to lack any prejudice or antagonistic behaviour towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

bigot

/ˈbɪɡət/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

1. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

    

    

    

    

    

    Note the commas and the word or.  

[Dons_1988]

He’s not bigoted ffs. 

He is a tedious, thick, fat, uninformed, knows he can only make a living as a pundit by winding up idiot Celtic fans, c**t. 

[theoriginalhedge]

11 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

Boyd is the Rangers equivalent of Chris Sutton . Celtic’s pantomime villain of a pundit. Unprofessional , childish , annoying if you are not of a Rangers persuasion I can imagine  . Label it as you wish but to accuse it of being bigotry is real desperate stuff.

You are probably right  but to the outsider trying to watch a decent game of football and the summary without the constant semi- hidden referrals to the OF rivalry , it all becomes a bit tedious and  annoying. 

Most of us don't want it rammed down our throats any time we watch either of the 2 cheeks on the telly . 

[Squonk]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

But it's not a stark choice between doing nothing or strict liability. Clubs need to improve how they deal with these situations, none more so than my own. They have the power to take action against fans themselves (in conjunction with the police), they just need to get better at doing it.

Your claim that strict liability would have little or no impact on 40 of our senior clubs I find a bit of an empty claim given some of the incidents we've seen over the years (one as recently as a fortnight ago):

• Dundee United fan, 35, charged with ‘assault’ after incident with Aberdeen’s Funso Ojo
• Hearts ban 'racist' fans after abuse of Motherwell star Christian Mbulu
• Motherwell announce ban for fan who threw missile at Rangers star James Tavernier
• Hibs fan who confronted Rangers captain James Tavernier on Easter Road pitch jailed
• Aberdeen fan banned from matches for striking Hearts player with microphone

All of those incidents would likely be punishable under strict liability measures, regardless if the club take action or not. Would you seriously feel it is reasonable that you are punished for the actions of an idiot who is either short of a few braincells, steaming drunk or both?

I'm sorry, but that's just abject nonsense from start to finish. It is a stark choice. Do something that will produce a positive outcome, or do nothing except pontificate and prevaricate as usual.

The clubs have had over a century to sort out fan behaviour, but your solution is to do nothing - because the clubs just need more time "to get better at doing it!" Did you read that back to yourself before pressing the send button?

As for your pathetic attempt to offer a few examples of other fan behaviour as some kind of comparison to your own clubs' (both of them) well-documented historical fan behaviour, that really takes the (orange club) biscuit. Manchester anyone? Glasgow city centre riots? Ring any bells? I would compile a list of Rangers-related offences with which to compare your quoted examples but I've only got a spare fortnight. 

And yes, I would want my club to be held responsible for the actions of its fans, nutcases and drunks, for the long-term good of the game as a whole.

You don't want it because you risk facing well-warranted stadium closures and point deductions.  

Edited December 3, 2021 by Squonk

[AJF]

15 minutes ago, Squonk said:

I'm sorry, but that's just abject nonsense from start to finish. It is a stark choice. Do something that will produce a positive outcome, or do nothing except pontificate and prevaricate as usual.

The clubs have had over a century to sort out fan behaviour, but your solution is to do nothing - because the clubs just need more time "to get better at doing it!" Did you read that back to yourself before pressing the send button?

As for your pathetic attempt to offer a few examples of other fan behaviour as some kind of comparison to your own clubs' (both of them) well-documented historical fan behaviour, that really takes the (orange club) biscuit. Manchester anyone? Glasgow city centre riots? Ring any bells? I would compile a list of Rangers-related offences with which to compare your quoted examples but I've only got a spare fortnight. 

And yes, I would want my club to be held responsible for the actions of its fans, nutcases and drunks, for the long-term good of the game as a whole.

You don't want it because you risk facing well-warranted stadium closures and point deductions.  

I already explained why it shouldn't be a stark choice between strict liability or nothing at all. There are already avenues available to clubs to punish fans, it just need to be enforced better.

You also completely misconstrued why I offered those examples. It was not to offer them as a comparison to my own clubs' fan behaviour at all. I've always maintained that there is an issue with fan behaviour at rangers. Those examples were used simply to contest your assertion that 40 of the 42 senior clubs would be unaffected if strict liability came into force. It's simply not true at all.

If you are happy to be punished for the actions of strangers then that is where you and I differ. I believe action should be taken against the individuals rather than the collective.

I'm happy to debate the merits of it, but not if you are going to paint this as some kind of deflection from my own club, which it isn't.

[Squonk]

32 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

I'd rather the title was decided by events on the pitch, rather than fans' behaviour. 

Plus there's an argument that Celtic have 60,000 fans, so surely it should be done by a ratio of incidents. After we went 1-0 up against Rangers we had a lad run on the pitch, Dundee Utd just had a lad push an Aberdeen player, so it does happen outside the Old Firm. 

19 home games with an average crowd of 55,000 = 1,045,000 fans at games.

19 home games with an average crowd of 5,000 = 95,000 fans at games.

How do you define it? The idea's nonsense. 

The point you seem to be missing is that nobody would be likely to offend if they knew that their stadium could be closed down or their club could be docked points, so the numbers and scale are immaterial.

The idea is less "nonsense" than doing nothing and putting up with the status quo. Even in the highly unlikely event that there proved no positive gain, we'd be no worse off.

[Squonk]

Just now, AJF said:

I already explained why it shouldn't be a stark choice between strict liability or nothing at all. There are already avenues available to clubs to punish fans, it just need to be enforced better.

You also completely misconstrued why I offered those examples. It was not to offer them as a comparison to my own clubs' fan behaviour at all. I've always maintained that there is an issue with fan behaviour at rangers. Those examples were used simply to contest your assertion that 40 of the 42 senior clubs would be unaffected if strict liability came into force. It's simply not true at all.

If you are happy to be punished for the actions of strangers then that is where you and I differ. I believe action should be taken against the individuals rather than the collective.

I'm happy to debate the merits of it, but not if you are going to paint this as some kind of deflection from my own club, which it isn't.

Again though, you're trotting out the tired old excuse that the solutions are there, we just need time to enforce them better. How much longer do you reckon? Five years? Ten? How about twenty more years to discuss it while being subjected to the same level of behaviour?

Also, I didn't say there'd be 40 of the 42 clubs unaffected - read it again - I said it would have "little or no effect," and that's undoubtedly true when compared to the impact on the big two.

 

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, Squonk said:

Again though, you're trotting out the tired old excuse that the solutions are there, we just need time to enforce them better. How much longer do you reckon? Five years? Ten? How about twenty more years to discuss it while being subjected to the same level of behaviour?

Also, I didn't say there'd be 40 of the 42 clubs unaffected - read it again - I said it would have "little or no effect," and that's undoubtedly true when compared to the impact on the big two.

 

Who am I meant to be excusing here? I've already said that fan behaviour needs tackled, I just don't believe strict liability is the way to do it and I've outlined my reasons why.

If I were a fan of one of the other 40 clubs you keep mentioning raising the same points, would you have an issue with what I am saying? Because you seem very keen on painting me out as a Rangers apologist in this debate when I've reiterated, multiple times now, that I think fan behaviour needs addressed and that Rangers as a club are at the top of the list in needing to do so.

And sorry, you are right - "little or no effect" is vastly different from "unaffected".

Edited December 3, 2021 by AJF

[Dons_1988]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

you seem very keen on painting me out as a Rangers apologist

No one would accuse you of that…

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Squonk said:

The point you seem to be missing is that nobody would be likely to offend if they knew that their stadium could be closed down or their club could be docked points, so the numbers and scale are immaterial.

The idea is less "nonsense" than doing nothing and putting up with the status quo. Even in the highly unlikely event that there proved no positive gain, we'd be no worse off.

I don't think we have a big problem in Scottish football, really. I don't know anybody who's frightened to attend the football, and whilst chucking bottles is a nuisance, it's a passionate game and the only real damage is to the club's reputation.

Plus I'd rather a league was settled on the pitch, whilst what you propose is that a  close league title could be settled by an off-the-field incident.

Edited December 3, 2021 by AlbionSaint

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

No one would accuse you of that…

I'm certainly guilty of it at times, although I thought I was doing a decent job here of objectively arguing my point of view 

[woolf]

It’s a tight decision but the lad is offside,I’m certainly not screaming about conspiracies because it happens but the Jota incident where Madden gave Celtic the ball back is baffling incompetence.

Wont be demanding clarification just yet though,we’ll leave that to the great unwashed.