Programme starts tonight on BBC Wales

I got to be fair in the years I've been watching football ball homophobic abuse is pretty low down on what I've heard.

Let me explain every game I hear officials abuse some of it is disgusting.

Every game I hear abuse to ginger players
Every game I hear abuse to overweight players
Every game I hear abuse to Away management players
Every game I hear abuse to away fans

Now homophobic abuse is wrong and disgusting but its not in my opinion a big problem in football

In fact when I'm out with the wife we drink with homosexuality people and they use homophobic language amongst themselves such as shut up you faggot

Yes we have heard does your boy friend know your here at Brighton but is that worse than calling a Ref a cheating chunt

By the way I had a grandmother who was born in the 1890s and she used the term Gay regularly it's a lovely gay day etc so to me the word has been stolen

Oooooooooooooohhhhhh, you go girlfriend. Miaow.

I'm not easily offended by bad language, and frankly I'd expect to hear the odd f-bomb or c-bomb on a football terrace (although perhaps not in the seats where children might be present). Everyone will have their own take on what is offensive or not.

For me, the line is crossed when you criticise someone for something they can't control - with skin colour and sexuality being two obvious examples. People choose to support Team X, to believe in God / Dogma Y, or even to be a Z-list referee(!) and I'd say it's fair game therefore to take the mickey out of them (preferably with a dose of humour rather than malice) based on those choices. But I don't think it's acceptable to use racist / homophobic language.

I would add that, many years ago, I took a good friend of mine (who happens to be gay) to a match at Spytty Park. Unusually, for some reason that day there was someone in the crowd near us who was doling out homophobic abuse to an opposition player who had long hair and must - this numpty decided - therefore be gay. My mate and I went to stand somewhere else in the second half, but the damage had been done. My mate (who watches other games with me throughout Europe when we go away with the lads) hasn't been back to watch Newport County since. Sure, that was the result of one idiot who might not be representative. Sure, perhaps my mate should give us a second chance. But can we really afford to be putting off potential punters?

That'll be my last word on this thread, as experience suggests these discussions bring out the worst in people. But hopefully there's some food for thought above.

What I don't understand is why calling someone gay for having long hair, something which is clearly nonsense and therefore obviously just a (poor) attempt at humour, offends someone so deeply? Presumably the person in question is aware that not all gay people have long hair?

I think some people attach a lot of stigma to themselves because it plays up to what they perceive as their identity. Always looking for something to be offended about.

Society has come a long way, nobody wants to go back to a time when gay people were treated like lepers. In the years I've been watching County I have heard little to none racist or homophobic abuse thankfully but alas there is always one idiot.

It's not so much verbal abuse that's the problem with football, it's the fact there are no openly gay players. It's not about agendas or forcing things in people's faces. Statistically there are players out there who right now can't be who they want to be for fear of abuse. Decades of drivel pushed by the Daily Mail, The Sun etc. hasn't helped

UPTHEPORT wrote:
In fact when I'm out with the wife we drink with homosexuality people and they use homophobic language amongst themselves such as shut up you faggot

It's the difference between a black person using the n-slur and a white person doing it. Marginalised/oppressed groups reclaim slurs used against them as a show of solidarity and resistance.

UPTHEPORT wrote: By the way I had a grandmother who was born in the 1890s and she used the term Gay regularly it's a lovely gay day etc so to me the word has been stolen

Presumably you also think that industrial cranes should be renamed because the bird was there first. The same word can have different meanings, which are made clear by context, and this argument is very weak.

rncfc wrote: What I don't understand is why calling someone gay for having long hair, something which is clearly nonsense and therefore obviously just a (poor) attempt at humour, offends someone so deeply? Presumably the person in question is aware that not all gay people have long hair?

I think some people attach a lot of stigma to themselves because it plays up to what they perceive as their identity. Always looking for something to be offended about.

It's about being called "gay" as though being gay is a bad or lesser thing - it's not about the superficial reason why it's being said (hair, clothes etc), but about the implication that being gay is something they should be singled out for, or something negative.

Also worth remembering that just because something happens outside of our sight, or doesn't directly affect us, doesn't mean it's not there or important. Even if you consider there to be more pressing issues at hand, I hope we can all agree that any effort to stop homophobic abuse and discrimination is a positive thing.

Kairdiff Exile wrote:I'm not easily offended by bad language, and frankly I'd expect to hear the odd f-bomb or c-bomb on a football terrace (although perhaps not in the seats where children might be present). Everyone will have their own take on what is offensive or not.

For me, the line is crossed when you criticise someone for something they can't control - with skin colour and sexuality being two obvious examples. People choose to support Team X, to believe in God / Dogma Y, or even to be a Z-list referee(!) and I'd say it's fair game therefore to take the mickey out of them (preferably with a dose of humour rather than malice) based on those choices. But I don't think it's acceptable to use racist / homophobic language.

I would add that, many years ago, I took a good friend of mine (who happens to be gay) to a match at Spytty Park. Unusually, for some reason that day there was someone in the crowd near us who was doling out homophobic abuse to an opposition player who had long hair and must - this numpty decided - therefore be gay. My mate and I went to stand somewhere else in the second half, but the damage had been done. My mate (who watches other games with me throughout Europe when we go away with the lads) hasn't been back to watch Newport County since. Sure, that was the result of one idiot who might not be representative. Sure, perhaps my mate should give us a second chance. But can we really afford to be putting off potential punters?

That'll be my last word on this thread, as experience suggests these discussions bring out the worst in people. But hopefully there's some food for thought above.

It's a crying shame that your mate felt excluded as a result of one moron in the stands. Any homophobic abuse is too much.

Agree with you that this sort of thread tends to draw out a... er... certain kind of person/opinion, but that's why it's important to at least say SOMETHING.

rncfc wrote:What I don't understand is why calling someone gay for having long hair, something which is clearly nonsense and therefore obviously just a (poor) attempt at humour, offends someone so deeply? Presumably the person in question is aware that not all gay people have long hair?

I think some people attach a lot of stigma to themselves because it plays up to what they perceive as their identity. Always looking for something to be offended about.

What you fail to understand is the issue of vulnerability. I don't mind people putting photographs up of my face being superimposed on a woman in a dress. I don't mind being called an attention seeking whore. But then again hoards of nameless cowards have never gone around beating up people just because of their name. Brennie bashing isn't a term you'll find in a dictionary, queer bashing, Paki bashing, you'll find them.

So when bullies join gangs and dish it out they are cowards, but the can be dangerous cowards. That they lead pathetic little lives and hide their identities is of no matter. That they boast that a good punch up never did any harm, or that there is nothing worse than a snitch, or that they'll continue to call people attention seeking whores, whilst hiding who they are doesn't really matter, does it?

Some people would argue that singling out and comparing a director to a mad hatter is bullying and abusive.

In all honesty, if I were a director I would propose not responding to Stan because of his long track record as the football-supporter equivalent of a vexatious litigant, and saying so publicly. I'd much rather they got on with running the club in preference to massaging his ego, which is what it's all about.

Forum users are a very small and shrinking proportion of overall support and being a big cheese here (or seeing yourself as that) with three or four people playing Young George McFly to Stan's Biff when Marty turns up in Hill Valley should cut no ice. And I'd be very surprised if it did.

Alan G Bryant wrote:Some people would argue that singling out and comparing a director to a mad hatter is bullying and abusive.

Some people would consider publishing lies about a contributor on this board and refusing to retract them as deserving of retribution.

To the best of my knowledge people don't go around beating up people called Kevin. Quite frankly if you believe that comparing someone to a comic character in a child's book as somehow the moral equivalent of beating people up in the street then you really are the Cheshire Cat.

George, did you mean to put your post on the 'catering-gate' thread?

George Street-Bridge wrote:In all honesty, if I were a director I would propose not responding to Stan because of his long track record as the football-supporter equivalent of a vexatious litigant, and saying so publicly. I'd much rather they got on with running the club in preference to massaging his ego, which is what it's all about.

Forum users are a very small and shrinking proportion of overall support and being a big cheese here (or seeing yourself as that) with three or four people playing Young George McFly to Stan's Biff when Marty turns up in Hill Valley should cut no ice. And I'd be very surprised if it did.

I wonder why a thread about homophobic abuse at football has been hijacked by GSB and AlanJBryant as another excuse to attack me.

It really is pathetic. This is a serious topic but that won't stop this pair will it?

excessbee wrote:George, did you mean to put your post on the 'catering-gate' thread?

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Re-posted there.

Alan G Bryant wrote:Some people would argue that singling out and comparing a director to a mad hatter is bullying and abusive.

Homophobic?
Every post you make requires