BBC news about the gay chants.

[birthofanorange]

Back in the day we used to sing at Leicester fans "Town full of Pakis" - that was not aimed at an individual, and is now clearly unacceptable. Also at the time - it set the tone for the welcome that anyone of a darker skin might get in a football ground.

But at the heart of that was a deep -rooted hatred/fear of black people, however misguided that was. To equate this with what is going on now is, imo, quite ridiculous.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

As for individual comments outside the ground, well I don't see what you're ever going to do about that, it's a different matter entirely. If the more scummy opposition fans weren't abusing people for being gay they'd be abusing them for something else, you're always going to get abuse at away games sometimes.

That is true. I suppose it is the graphic nature of any abuse I find objectionable. And I appreciate we should not get upset on behalf of others, but I reserve the right to for those of more tender years.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I really do have no problem, and if I had a child, I would endeavour to bring them up with the same attitude. It's people's actions that matter, not their words, as they truly cannot hurt me. As for my mother, well, she was pretty much involved (as was my father) in shaping the way I am today, so it doesn't bother her either.

Blimey. Was your Father Mahatma Gandhi?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

But at the heart of that was a deep -rooted hatred/fear of black people, however misguided that was. To equate this with what is going on now is, imo, quite ridiculous.

Was it ? It was just a chant to wind up Leicester fans surely ?

Commander suggeted that racist chanting was aimed at individual players. I pointed out that was not always the case. And that type of chanting is now considered unacceptable.

 

[birthofanorange]

Blimey. Was your Father Mahatma Gandhi?

Hahaha!! Yes, I was adopted.

One thing though, whatever the outcome of this, I am quietly confident that the situation will have been fuelled by these (quite frankly) over the top reports and we can expect a lot more from opposing fans - at least until the end of the season - and rightly so. Should give the hand-wringers something to really get their dentures into.

 

[Triggaaar]

My point is, this "It's exactly the same as racism" argument is quiet clearly wrong, if people are happy to hear chants in the ground about holding hands etc.

But it isn't clearly wrong. Do you think it would be ok to sing "You're just a bunch of gollywogs"? Because if that was sung in the 60s/70s and you asked people if they thought it was ok they'd have said it was fine. So clearly the general consensus isn't the best guide for what's right and wrong.

People keep comparing it to the racism in the 70's and 80's, but it is not the same. That was aimed at individual players and is quite clearly wrong. One set of supporters singing to the other set of supporters about their city having a large gay population is clearly not the same thing.

No it's not the same thing as directing the comments at one person. But that doesn't mean it's right.

As for individual comments outside the ground, well I don't see what you're ever going to do about that, it's a different matter entirely. If the more scummy opposition fans weren't abusing people for being gay they'd be abusing them for something else, you're always going to get abuse at away games sometimes.

The more scummy fans would have been abusing people for being black in the past. That happens after games a lot less now thanks to education and the change in what people think is acceptable. No doubt 40 years ago you'd have said the same thing: "I don't see what you're ever going to do about that". you'd have been wrong then, and you're wrong now.

 

[Brovion]

Of course - but the lines are a bit blurred here. I think that some on here might say you just need to man up (or woman up) and it is just banter. Remember - there is no middle ground. Apparently.

If (and it's a really BIG if) if the chants are homophobic then no, there is no middle ground, how can there be? If however your objection is purely on grounds of decency then yes, there is a subjective middle ground as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but then it's no longer about homophobia. Commander and I are a bit perplexed at the apparent logic that a fair few are showing which is (and I accept I'm paraphrasing) "Homophobic chants are ok so long as they're polite."

 

[birthofanorange]

The point he's trying to make (I think), is that most of the people who have got the ball rolling in this, seem to have no problem with the "mild" chants. Therefore it should by rights be equally acceptable to make "mild" racist chants as quoted above.
Clearly, this is NOT acceptable, so the whole idea of trying to compare the two is preposterous.

That was in response to Trigaaar.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Hahaha!! Yes, I was adopted.

One thing though, whatever the outcome of this, I am quietly confident that the situation will have been fuelled by these (quite frankly) over the top reports and we can expect a lot more from opposing fans - at least until the end of the season - and rightly so. Should give the hand-wringers something to really get their dentures into.

You're prob's right about the verbals being turned up to 11 by the oppo following, but hopefully they'll come out with something we can all have a chuckle at. I can't say I'll be holding my breath, mind. I just hope I don't get really any nasty stuff aimed at me again - as my levels of composure & tolerance normally fall a long way short of your good self!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Commander and I are a bit perplexed at the apparent logic that a fair few are showing which is (and I accept I'm paraphrasing) "Homophobic chants are ok so long as they're polite."

Or mostly the chants are not actually homophobic - but the "banter" may stray into into homophobia - and are particularly objectionable when graphic and heard by more impressionable ears.

Where do you stand on the "Town full of Pakis" - was it racist as clearly the Leicester fans were mainly not pakistani in origin ?

 

[birthofanorange]

You're prob's right about the verbals being turned up to 11 by the oppo following, but hopefully they'll come out with something we can all have a chuckle at. I can't say I'll be holding my breath, mind. I just hope I don't get really any nasty stuff aimed at me again - as my levels of composure & tolerance normally fall a long way short of your good self!

I'm no saint, believe me! No, I can't really see them coming out with anything more inventive, just more of the same....and lots of it. Do your best to rise above it all, it only shows themselves up and has no bearing on who you are as a person.

That's why I love the idea of the Village People fancy dress theme - the poor buggers wouldn't be able to deal with it!

 

[Twinkle Toes]

If (and it's a really BIG if) if the chants are homophobic then no, there is no middle ground, how can there be? If however your objection is purely on grounds of decency then yes, there is a subjective middle ground as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but then it's no longer about homophobia. Commander and I are a bit perplexed at the apparent logic that a fair few are showing which is (and I accept I'm paraphrasing) "Homophobic chants are ok so long as they're polite."

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp? There IS a diference in the offensive nature of some chants & actions compared to others. It's all about intention, context & language: & the feelings of those who are on the receiving end. You might personally find it inoffensive & acceptable, but at least accept that others may beg to differ. Shirley it's right & propper that we can all have an opinion based upon our own outlook & experiences?

 

[Twinkle Toes]

If (and it's a really BIG if) if the chants are homophobic then no, there is no middle ground, how can there be? If however your objection is purely on grounds of decency then yes, there is a subjective middle ground as to what is acceptable and what isn't - but then it's no longer about homophobia. Commander and I are a bit perplexed at the apparent logic that a fair few are showing which is (and I accept I'm paraphrasing) "Homophobic chants are ok so long as they're polite."

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp? I personally think there is a difference in the offensive nature of some chants & actions compared to others. It's all about intention, context & language: & the feelings of those who are on the receiving end. You might personally find it inoffensive & acceptable, but at least accept that others may beg to differ. Shirley it's right & proper that we can all have an opinion based upon our own outlook & experiences?

 

[birthofanorange]

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp? There IS a diference in the offensive nature of some chants & actions compared to others. It's all about intention, context & language: & the feelings of those who are on the receiving end. You might personally find it inoffensive & acceptable, but at least accept that others may beg to differ. Shirley it's right & propper that we can all have an opinion based upon our own outlook & experiences?

I can agree somewhat with that, but then it must be accepted that some of the opposing fans may be equally offended by chants such as pikeys, slums, benefits, sheep shaggers, etc.
It would only be fair to ban all such chants too....but is that what we really want?

 

[Brovion]

Where do you stand on the "Town full of Pakis" - was it racist as clearly the Leicester fans were mainly not pakistani in origin ?

With the word 'Paki' - racist. That's not exactly considered to be a mild epithet

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp? There IS a diference in the offensive nature of some chants & actions compared to others. It's all about intention, context & language: & the feelings of those who are on the receiving end. You might personally find it inoffensive & acceptable, but at least accept that others may beg to differ. Shirley it's right & propper that we can all have an opinion based upon our own outlook & experiences?

*Sigh* I don't dispute that. What I'm TRYING to establish is are the chants homophobic, even the inoffensive ones? Yes or no. (Why is this such hard work?)

 

[Twinkle Toes]

With the word 'Paki' - racist. That's not exactly considered to be a mild epithet


*Sigh* I don't dispute that. What I'm TRYING to establish is are the chants homophobic, even the inoffensive ones? Yes or no. (Why is this such hard work?)

Well based on the fact that such chants are concerning a certain type of individual/group within society; & some individuals are offended by them & define it as Homophobic - then yes, there's a good case to suggest they are. Happy now?

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I can agree somewhat with that, but then it must be accepted that some of the opposing fans may be equally offended by chants such as pikeys, slums, benefits, sheep shaggers, etc.
It would only be fair to ban all such chants too....but is that what we really want?

Well I'm not aware of opposing fans finding such stuff offensive enough to publically condemn them, so I guess the chants will continue until said supporters/individuals decide differently.

 

[sydney]

Absolutely.

Or, we could all stop being such a bunch of nancy boys and go back to enjoying the edgy, exciting, piss-taking nature of how football is meant to be.

that's the one...

 

[Commander]

But it isn't clearly wrong. Do you think it would be ok to sing "You're just a bunch of gollywogs"? Because if that was sung in the 60s/70s and you asked people if they thought it was ok they'd have said it was fine. So clearly the general consensus isn't the best guide for what's right and wrong.

Times change, I agree. So where is the line drawn? How can we say that we can't be taken the piss out for being a bunch of benders, when we are more than happy to take the piss out of Palace for being a bunch of pikeys? Tell me what the difference is? Are the traveller community offended by that? It just completely smacks of hypocrisy. In 10-15 years time, will people look back and think "I can't believe we used to sing that" about Palace? Quite possibly. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. Do you?

With the exception of a few scumbags, I think most of the gay chants are meant in relatively good humour, just the same as any of our chants about Ipswich being inbreds or whatever. Football has always been a piss-taking sport, more so than any other, and that's part of what makes the atmosphere at games better than any other sport. Was throwing bananas or making monkey noises at black players in the 70's meant in good humour? I don't think it was.

And I personally feel that being abused as a stereotype in a large group of people (the vast majority of who don't actually fit the stereotype) is completely different to a black guy being called a black **** or whatever.

And also, anyone who thinks that if it was Croydon that had the large gay community rather than Brighton, we (as in a very high large percentage of Albion fans) wouldn't take the piss out of them for it, is completely deluded. We would.

The more scummy fans would have been abusing people for being black in the past. That happens after games a lot less now thanks to education and the change in what people think is acceptable. No doubt 40 years ago you'd have said the same thing: "I don't see what you're ever going to do about that". you'd have been wrong then, and you're wrong now.

I'm pretty sure they still do in various northern hell hole towns. Again, I agree that times change and attitudes change, and in twenty years time we probably won't get the same homophobic abuse that we occasionally get now outside away grounds and at stations etc. We'll sure as hell get it for something else though.

 

[birthofanorange]

Well I'm not aware of opposing fans finding such stuff offensive enough to publically condemn them, so I guess the chants will continue until said supporters/individuals decide differently.

Yet they may be in a small minority, with no Liz Costa type to speak up for them. Surely we have to consider their feelings too? It would be seen as pretty hypocritical to continue in the same vein when we are expecting preferential treatment?