Exile 1976 wrote:Good article here about him...

https://www.timbers.com/post/2015/09/17 ... al-history

Lovely read

Amberexile wrote:
Supporters have been successfully prosecuted for chants including the very words you condone.

I don't condone the use of the words, I merely accept the reality that some people use them.

Bush wants his child not to be subjected to industrial language. I believe to accommodate both we need to realize that a small section of the stadium be designated a swearing zone. Guess what I don't condone smoking but I do believe that there should be small areas set aside where people can smoke.

By the same token swearing is not per se unlawful. What is unlawful is causing alarm and distress. Offensive chanting would be construed the latter, especially if used as a threat. However I haven't suggested that threatening chanting be accepted. I regret that I have to continually point out that you are making up that which I have said and giving a misleading impression of my views. I have no doubt that you don't mean to do so but it is tiresome. Try reading what I say in the context of how I say it.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:
Supporters have been successfully prosecuted for chants including the very words you condone.

I don't condone the use of the words, I merely accept the reality that some people use them.

Bush wants his child not to be subjected to industrial language. I believe to accommodate both we need to realize that a small section of the stadium be designated a swearing zone. Guess what I don't condone smoking but I do believe that there should be small areas set aside where people can smoke.

By the same token swearing is not per se unlawful. What is unlawful is causing alarm and distress. Offensive chanting would be construed the latter, especially if used as a threat. However I haven't suggested that threatening chanting be accepted. I regret that I have to continually point out that you are making up that which I have said and giving a misleading impression of my views. I have no doubt that you don't mean to do so but it is tiresome. Try reading what I say in the context of how I say it.

The problem with your idea Stan is that at a quiet moment a shout can be heard anywhere in the ground. The effects are the same, whereas the effect of smoking is diminished greatly.
I've taken my boys to the County in pushchairs as my wife was doing a degree, and have taken them ever since. There was a time when I questioned whether I was right to do it but I persevered and my boys haven't resorted to swearing at matches, but I know they swear in school and with their mates. I doubt the County have contributed to this, it's quite normal.
It all comes down to the values of the individual. I'd never shout anything potentially offensive but others will wherever they are in the ground.

It comes back to a word used earlier in the thread - respect. I don't think many people would be offended by an odd swear word uttered in the heat of a moment - I do it, I'm sure others do too. What is offensive is when these words are used constantly and in an abusive manner directed towards individuals or groups by people who think they're funny or clever. Herding people who do this into a specific area would be to condone their behaviour which would definitely send the wrong message.

westsider wrote:It comes back to a word used earlier in the thread - respect. I don't think many people would be offended by an odd swear word uttered in the heat of a moment - I do it, I'm sure others do too. What is offensive is when these words are used constantly and in an abusive manner directed towards individuals or groups by people who think they're funny or clever. Herding people who do this into a specific area would be to condone their behaviour which would definitely send the wrong message.

I see your point. My view is that it is better for it to be contained rather than it taking place everywhere. At Wembley the enjoyment of many was impaired by the constant swearing. I am not sure what message was sent by the fact that most of us felt unable to confront it and those that did were ignored.
I don't agree that to recognize reality is to condone it. Another problem is what is and isn't acceptable. There may be some who would argue that you and me having the occasional swear is not acceptable. Others might take the view that you and me seem to be saying that we alone can decide on the level of swearing allowed. As in I can swear three times a game but your five times is too much.
I don't pretend that it is not a thorny issue. But one way or another Bush wants to go to football with his young child not being subjected to industrial language. Which is reasonable. Some people want to take the one opportunity they have to vent. Again not unreasonable. How to accommodate both is the problem.

Fu(k me this place is getting b@stard boring.

ref23 wrote:Fu(k me this place is getting b@stard boring.

Exactly.

Every one who comes on here has a choice. Those who are taking this discussion seriously are concerned about the rights of people to enjoy football in a comfortable atmosphere. If you're a single man of 25 you probably want to swear and vent at games, if you are a young mum with a football mad eight year old son you probably don't want to hear swearing.

Now do you want to contribute?

The stewards responsibilities in my view should be to assist,reassure and make fans feel safe at a match
Are they volunteers at Rodders or a private firm?
Either way is it possible that Stewards themselves feel intimidated or threatened when confronted by a group of baying foul mouthed fans?
To me stewards should be well trained professional and confident in their duties with immediate back up from Mr Heddlu if required
What say you?

The Cat wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:
Supporters have been successfully prosecuted for chants including the very words you condone.

I don't condone the use of the words, I merely accept the reality that some people use them.

Bush wants his child not to be subjected to industrial language. I believe to accommodate both we need to realize that a small section of the stadium be designated a swearing zone. Guess what I don't condone smoking but I do believe that there should be small areas set aside where people can smoke.

By the same token swearing is not per se unlawful. What is unlawful is causing alarm and distress. Offensive chanting would be construed the latter, especially if used as a threat. However I haven't suggested that threatening chanting be accepted. I regret that I have to continually point out that you are making up that which I have said and giving a misleading impression of my views. I have no doubt that you don't mean to do so but it is tiresome. Try reading what I say in the context of how I say it.

The problem with your idea Stan is that at a quiet moment a shout can be heard anywhere in the ground. The effects are the same, whereas the effect of smoking is diminished greatly.
I've taken my boys to the County in pushchairs as my wife was doing a degree, and have taken them ever since. There was a time when I questioned whether I was right to do it but I persevered and my boys haven't resorted to swearing at matches, but I know they swear in school and with their mates. I doubt the County have contributed to this, it's quite normal.
It all comes down to the values of the individual. I'd never shout anything potentially offensive but others will wherever they are in the ground.

The problem being that people take advantage. By condoning the use of such language within a given area of the ground, it presents an opportunity for the privilege to be taken advantage of and of course it does little or nothing to diminish the effect as those with the foulest mouths often also have the loudest.

Sheer quality.
365 days in a year.
Stan you must be getting on mate.
How many cooked dinners.
This Ref must have the all time record.
Oh yes I remember seeing him on Love Island a few years back.
Think he might be first into the paddock.

can we have a area set a side for people who want to throw missiles as well

xisle wrote:can we have a area set a side for people who want to throw missiles as well

Seriously, what are you hoping to achieve with that message? Do you really think it adds to the conversation? Do you really think it is a humorous aside?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

xisle wrote:can we have a area set a side for people who want to throw missiles as well

Seriously, what are you hoping to achieve with that message? Do you really think it adds to the conversation? Do you really think it is a humorous aside?

It is pretty funny; unless you have had a personality transplant from an amoeba.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Obviously. I mean how could I hope to have your charm and wit. Not to mention the delightful way you have with words. Nailed more birds. What a chat up line that is. And no swearing.

Charm and wit ooze from me like pus from a freshly squeezed zit.

As I walk around Waitrose, eggs hatch in front of my very own eyes, such is the magnitude of my sexual machismo.

You could never dream to live with me, Einstein; you are the toast to my fried breakfast, the milky-bar to my Toblerone, the billy bear to my sirloin steak.

My personality is insatiable. You, on the other hand, are about as interesting as a tough piece of bird shit stuck on a patio window, and I have little doubt that our bed-post notch counters reflect this reality.

ref23 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

xisle wrote:can we have a area set a side for people who want to throw missiles as well

Seriously, what are you hoping to achieve with that message? Do you really think it adds to the conversation? Do you really think it is a humorous aside?

It is pretty funny; unless you have had a personality transplant from an amoeba.

It recognises the reality that some people have thrown missiles in the past just as some people have used unacceptable language.
We are supposed to be a community club, in my view we should condone neither unacceptable language nor missile throwing but rather we should be making a stand against both.
To suggest we should have an area where unacceptable language becomes acceptable does beg the question of what else.
We can't ignore the missile throwing and we cant take the pusillanimous approach of making it acceptable.
We shouldn't ignore the issue of unacceptable language and shouldn't take that same approach to it either.