[Football] 3.01 pm kick-off. Time for some more preaching

[Badger]

10 pages in 4 hrs ?

Can't be arsed reading it but assume [MENTION=144]goldstone[/MENTION] is talking complete bollocks whilst being backed up by the other two wise monkeys [MENTION=7631]wellquickwoody[/MENTION] and [MENTION=28630]Hastings gull[/MENTION]. I'm guessing they are still struggling to come to terms with the fact we are in the 21st century, let alone a new decade.



Brand new year, same old shit

Dammit. Why didn't someone tell me about this post?

I've spent the last 5 minutes reading through this thread, but this is all I needed.

 

[rippleman]

Actually Albion in the Community has done a massive campaign on cancer, including talks with survivors at halftime, specifically aimed at blokes, because, guess what, they have an audience of males in their thousands who are at risk. I don't remember one of your tedious bellend rants about that though because railing against cancer treatment is a step too far even for a thick, elderly, self obsessed troll like yourself. Personally if literally one father, brother, granddad or son survives cancer because they found out what to look for at half time at the match that's a win all round.

Same here. It's worth it if one person with issues opens up, seeks treatment or just talks to a friend. I literally couldn't care less if you feel a bit put out by it if it saves a life, And it might.

Still, at least you've made a stand against it by making yourself look like a **** on the internet.

Problem with the HT interviews is that the comms / PA is so bad you can't hear anything that is said anyway so it just gets "tuned out". Sometimes you can pick up the guests' answers but there's no chance of hearing Reynolds' questions. He needs to stop mumbling, or learn to use a mic properly, or something.

Re the OP I don't care one way or the other tbh. Not sure that having the Duke of Cambridge doing the preaching is the best idea though.

 

[Shooting Star]

Firstly, I'll say that I am broadly in support of this video. My wife and mother have both struggled with poor mental health issues. A video targeted towards a male-dominated crowd could be a really good time to encourage men to start talking about any issues they face.

However, I think the OP was making a broader point about "virtue signalling" by the club, albeit it was put across quite strongly. A couple of weeks ago fans were invited, on mass, to hold up cards to create a rainbow effect in the crowd for the Rainbow Laces campaign. This "event" by the club had rather amorphous aims. Was it to make LGBT fans feel welcome at the club? Was it to encourage players who are gay to "come out" openly? Was it to kick out homophobic chants and comments? Or was it more for the club to look good in the media than to directly help any individual/group? Fans certainly were not directly forced to hold the cards up, but the club puts fans who wouldn't feel comfortable to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. religious) under unnecessary pressure as thousands of fans around them wonder why they're not, when all they had come to watch is a game of football. It almost risks a kind of reverse discrimination: a gay couple holding hands at a football game shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome by homophobic slurs as all they've come to see is a game of football, just as a devout Muslim, Jew or Christian who disagrees with the institution of same-sex marriage shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome as all they've come to see is a game of football too.

I supppose another point made by other posters on this thread is "box-ticking", where such tokenistic gestures are made so clubs can pat themselves on the back and say that they've fulfilled x,y and z obligations. Minute silences for me are an example of this. Most matches now seem to include a minute's silence for somebody and thus they become increasingly watered down and lose their significance.

Are football clubs becoming quasi-political organisations, becoming mouthpieces for certain viewpoints or causes? Should we promote national causes or only AITC campaigns that are relevant to the city/county? Where is the line to be drawn between what the club gets involved in and what they don't?

I don't have any of the answers to these questions, but I think this is what the OP was trying to encourage a perhaps worthwhile debate about.

 

[Badger]

Always the same detractors...

It doesn't affect you. Perhaps. But really, does it matter ?

Is it not a good thing ? Could it not be what some folk need ?

Trust me, my life can be hell as a result of increasingly severe anxiety issues. I talk about it now. And others have felt they can too because of it. And I felt I could because of others.

I hope it goes well tomorrow. Preachy ? You preach dogma, doctrine. You preach concepts of morality.

You don't preach when you encourage people and tell them it's okay to open up. You change and possibly save their lives.

Why is that a bad thing ?

I agree with this entirely. Talking about it and encouraging others to talk about it is such an important thing.

Like you, I've suffered from quite severe anxiety issues. I've only really done anything about it over the last couple of years. I've finally realised it's fine to talk to people about it, and I've realised how supportive friends and family can be. I had some real struggles with it last year but I got through it by actually telling the people close to me about it.

 

[Durlston]

There's a strong chance Prince William could become our new king in the next five years or so. It's hardly a posh person preaching to us. He's on our level - as too is his brother, Harry. They had to go through a horrific ordeal growing up by losing their mother so young.

Anybody that has been affected by mental health will genuinely think this is a great idea - 60 seconds before a football match to assess our state of mind. A new year but anxious about the future as some fans have a lot to deal with.

Had it not been for the overwhelming kindness shown towards me on NSC last February after a lung scare and coughing up blood, I would have felt desperately lonely and almost suicidal after being in hospital. There are around half a dozen incredible people on here that we PM each other regularly and ask how life is treating us.

I'm so saddened that this thread has been trolled right from the beginning. Shame on the OP. I hope he never has to deal with an awful trauma that leads to a nervous breakdown.

But NSC, as with life, is full of 99% caring people. Look after yourselves and if you ever want to chat then I would be honoured to try and help out with any difficulties if you're feeling down.

Best wishes to everyone.

 

[Weststander]

What an extraordinary thread, but sadly - all too predictable. The usual suspects unable to grasp that other people have a different life experience to them, and unwilling to understand why a one minute video may talk directly to many (statistically speaking, there will be dozens if not hundreds or more people who feel very personally affected by the video tomorrow) fans in the various stadiums is a powerful and positive attempt to let people who are struggling know that they're not alone and there's nothing wrong with them for feeling however negatively they're feeling.

I have rarely gone through a thread and dished out so many Likes, but this one justified it. For all the negativity, there are so many more people who are empathetic and do understand. Sadly, some more than most and arguably none more than [MENTION=21200]I remember the good times[/MENTION].

All the best to everyone who is struggling and a reminder that I'm always willing to talk to anyone who might need to.

What a lovely post, and person!

I must be one of those new-fangled Snowflakes, because I’ve got something in my eye.

 

[Pavilionaire]

A short film narrated by the Duke of Cambridge will be played at FA Cup matches to encourage football fans to look after their mental health.
The film will be played in stadiums just before kick-off at every FA Cup third round match this weekend.
Kick-off for all 32 fixtures will be delayed for 60 seconds to prompt fans to consider their well-being.

What a bunch of extreme bollocks. Is anyone REALLY going to consider their well-being for one minute before a football match because they're prompted to? We're football fans going to a football match. Stop assuming we all need help. And if we do, then a football match is not the time or place. Everyone's fecking virtue signalling. Oh, aren't we great, we're pretending to be interested in mental health … two weeks ago it was rainbow laces. Open a frigging church next door to the Amex so that folks who want to be preached at can go in there before the game. Rant over. Well, this one anyway … for the moment.

Just imagine if you can if this had been done before a game at the Goldstone. Everyone would have fallen about laughing … and this would be the correct reaction tomorrow.

I completely disagree with you, but I'm glad you made your point because the reaction from other posters has been positive.

Male suicide of men under 50 is worryingly high and on the increase, so given tomorrow's match will be attended by many young men it can only be a good thing.

 

[darkwolf666]

Firstly, I'll say that I am broadly in support of this video. My wife and mother have both struggled with poor mental health issues. A video targeted towards a male-dominated crowd could be a really good time to encourage men to start talking about any issues they face.

However, I think the OP was making a broader point about "virtue signalling" by the club, albeit it was put across quite strongly. A couple of weeks ago fans were invited, on mass, to hold up cards to create a rainbow effect in the crowd for the Rainbow Laces campaign. This "event" by the club had rather amorphous aims. Was it to make LGBT fans feel welcome at the club? Was it to encourage players who are gay to "come out" openly? Was it to kick out homophobic chants and comments? Or was it more for the club to look good in the media than to directly help any individual/group? Fans certainly were not directly forced to hold the cards up, but the club puts fans who wouldn't feel comfortable to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. religious) under unnecessary pressure as thousands of fans around them wonder why they're not, when all they had come to watch is a game of football. It almost risks a kind of reverse discrimination: a gay couple holding hands at a football game shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome by homophobic slurs as all they've come to see is a game of football, just as a devout Muslim, Jew or Christian who disagrees with the institution of same-sex marriage shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome as all they've come to see is a game of football too.

I supppose another point made by other posters on this thread is "box-ticking", where such tokenistic gestures are made so clubs can pat themselves on the back and say that they've fulfilled x,y and z obligations. Minute silences for me are an example of this. Most matches now seem to include a minute's silence for somebody and thus they become increasingly watered down and lose their significance.

Are football clubs becoming quasi-political organisations, becoming mouthpieces for certain viewpoints or causes? Should we promote national causes or only AITC campaigns that are relevant to the city/county? Where is the line to be drawn between what the club gets involved in and what they don't?

I don't have any of the answers to these questions, but I think this is what the OP was trying to encourage a perhaps worthwhile debate about.

Very well said. I am waiting for the testicular cancer awareness match whereby your neighbouring fan is encouraged to check your balls for you!

 

[MattBackHome]

Firstly, I'll say that I am broadly in support of this video. My wife and mother have both struggled with poor mental health issues. A video targeted towards a male-dominated crowd could be a really good time to encourage men to start talking about any issues they face.

However, I think the OP was making a broader point about "virtue signalling" by the club, albeit it was put across quite strongly. A couple of weeks ago fans were invited, on mass, to hold up cards to create a rainbow effect in the crowd for the Rainbow Laces campaign. This "event" by the club had rather amorphous aims. Was it to make LGBT fans feel welcome at the club? Was it to encourage players who are gay to "come out" openly? Was it to kick out homophobic chants and comments? Or was it more for the club to look good in the media than to directly help any individual/group? Fans certainly were not directly forced to hold the cards up, but the club puts fans who wouldn't feel comfortable to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. religious) under unnecessary pressure as thousands of fans around them wonder why they're not, when all they had come to watch is a game of football. It almost risks a kind of reverse discrimination: a gay couple holding hands at a football game shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome by homophobic slurs as all they've come to see is a game of football, just as a devout Muslim, Jew or Christian who disagrees with the institution of same-sex marriage shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome as all they've come to see is a game of football too.

I supppose another point made by other posters on this thread is "box-ticking", where such tokenistic gestures are made so clubs can pat themselves on the back and say that they've fulfilled x,y and z obligations. Minute silences for me are an example of this. Most matches now seem to include a minute's silence for somebody and thus they become increasingly watered down and lose their significance.

Are football clubs becoming quasi-political organisations, becoming mouthpieces for certain viewpoints or causes? Should we promote national causes or only AITC campaigns that are relevant to the city/county? Where is the line to be drawn between what the club gets involved in and what they don't?

I don't have any of the answers to these questions, but I think this is what the OP was trying to encourage a perhaps worthwhile debate about.

The event had very clear aims which were extremely well communicated and not at all amorphous. The rainbow laces campaign has nothing to do with same sex marriage. The intention was absolutely NOT to 'make them look good in the media'. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/rainbow-laces-–-come-out-active-lgbt-equality-sport

Football clubs have always been political.

I agree with you about minutes silences however.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Firstly, I'll say that I am broadly in support of this video. My wife and mother have both struggled with poor mental health issues. A video targeted towards a male-dominated crowd could be a really good time to encourage men to start talking about any issues they face.

However, I think the OP was making a broader point about "virtue signalling" by the club, albeit it was put across quite strongly. A couple of weeks ago fans were invited, on mass, to hold up cards to create a rainbow effect in the crowd for the Rainbow Laces campaign. This "event" by the club had rather amorphous aims. Was it to make LGBT fans feel welcome at the club? Was it to encourage players who are gay to "come out" openly? Was it to kick out homophobic chants and comments? Or was it more for the club to look good in the media than to directly help any individual/group? Fans certainly were not directly forced to hold the cards up, but the club puts fans who wouldn't feel comfortable to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. religious) under unnecessary pressure as thousands of fans around them wonder why they're not, when all they had come to watch is a game of football. It almost risks a kind of reverse discrimination: a gay couple holding hands at a football game shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome by homophobic slurs as all they've come to see is a game of football, just as a devout Muslim, Jew or Christian who disagrees with the institution of same-sex marriage shouldn't be made to feel unwelcome as all they've come to see is a game of football too.

I supppose another point made by other posters on this thread is "box-ticking", where such tokenistic gestures are made so clubs can pat themselves on the back and say that they've fulfilled x,y and z obligations. Minute silences for me are an example of this. Most matches now seem to include a minute's silence for somebody and thus they become increasingly watered down and lose their significance.

Are football clubs becoming quasi-political organisations, becoming mouthpieces for certain viewpoints or causes? Should we promote national causes or only AITC campaigns that are relevant to the city/county? Where is the line to be drawn between what the club gets involved in and what they don't?

I don't have any of the answers to these questions, but I think this is what the OP was trying to encourage a perhaps worthwhile debate about.

No, the OP posted the thread because he's a thick-as-mince troll who has these rants over and over again on NSC and is currently w**king off in to a sock at the number of replies he's generated. He's done it before and he'll probably do it again.

You must be new round here.

 

[dazzer6666]

Very well said. I am waiting for the testicular cancer awareness match whereby your neighbouring fan is encouraged to check your balls for you!

Hopefully they'll play some soft music and dim the lighting for a couple of minutes

 

[Gazwag]

Very well said. I am waiting for the testicular cancer awareness match whereby your neighbouring fan is encouraged to check your balls for you!

Why not link it to a prostate cancer match and check front and back at the same time

 

[schmunk]

No, the OP posted the thread because he's a thick-as-mince troll who has these rants over and over again on NSC and is currently w**king off in to a sock at the number of replies he's generated. He's done it before and he'll probably do it again.

You must be new round here.

Do we not have rules about repeated trolling?

 

[GT49er]

Very well said. I am waiting for the testicular cancer awareness match whereby your neighbouring fan is encouraged to check your balls for you!

Yike!

 

[darkwolf666]

why not link it to a prostate cancer match and check front and back at the same time

bogof

 

[dazzer6666]

Why not link it to a prostate cancer match and check front and back at the same time

Not until safe standing is introduced.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Dammit. Why didn't someone tell me about this post?

I've spent the last 5 minutes reading through this thread, but this is all I needed.

This thread is still better than discussing how the Leafs are the hottest team in NHL and still 8 points below Boston.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Baffling how some posters on here can spend many minutes writing bullshit and then spend even more minutes reading the replies, and aren't happy about setting aside sixty seconds at the start of the game to raise awareness about one of the most pressing issues in our society.

Sorry, I didn't mean that. It's not baffling at all.

 

[Weststander]

Firstly, I'll say that I am broadly in support of this video. My wife and mother have both struggled with poor mental health issues. A video targeted towards a male-dominated crowd could be a really good time to encourage men to start talking about any issues they face.

However, I think the OP was making a broader point about "virtue signalling" by the club, albeit it was put across quite strongly.

If the OP wanted to use this moment to slam Tony Bloom and Paul Barber as feigning righteousness, he picked a crass example.

I’m sure they both care deeply about helping, even just a little, to save lives.

The OP doesn’t come across as deep thinking as that. Instead, just someone irritated by a game of football starting a minute later, because some some saddo’s should cheer up, snap out of it.

 

[Badger]

This thread is still better than discussing how the Leafs are the hottest team in NHL and still 8 points below Boston.

You appear to have mistaken me for someone with more than a passing interest in hockey. (Although it's still a million times better than basketball)