|
|
Post by localboy86 on Jan 15, 2024 12:06:59 GMT
Flynn and Hatswell gone at Swindon.
Still remains to be seen if they’ll face a points deduction this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by localboy86 on Jan 20, 2024 9:10:40 GMT
I see Notts County have appointed Stuart Maynard and Matt Saunders after Luke Williams took up the Swansea job. Maynard and Saunders worked wonders at Wealdstone over the last couple of seasons.
I wonder if Wealdstone might think about Matt Gray being a possible successor.
|
|
banjo
1st team Player
Posts: 1,007
|
Post by banjo on Jan 25, 2024 13:20:53 GMT
Forest Green appoint Steve Cotterell as manager, he has had more clubs than Jack Nicholas.⚽️⚽️⚽️
|
|
kpinwp
1st team Player
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by kpinwp on Jan 25, 2024 15:35:25 GMT
In a division in which (unusually) there are no actual basket cases Forest Green are doing the best impersonation of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by andycapp on Feb 29, 2024 8:07:54 GMT
www.thebusinessdesk.com/eastmidlands/news/2082598-notts-county-reveal-plans-for-12000-sq-ft-fan-zoneThe Magpies want to turn a 12,000 sq ft former distribution warehouse on Iremonger Road next to the stadium into a venue for fans to meet before a match. According to a planning application submitted by Grace Machin, ‘The Nest’, as the fan zone will be called will see the club “invest further capital resources into the ‘fan offer’ and experience” at Meadow Lane. The Nest will also be used as a multi-purpose events space for other leisure, entertainment and community use.
|
|
|
|
Post by andycapp on Apr 2, 2024 11:24:57 GMT
SENTENCED
Adam Edwards, aged 29, of New Hall Road, Wrexham, was given a three-year football banning order after he pleaded guilty to one count each of possession of a firework or flare at a sporting event and throwing a missile onto a football playing area in a hearing at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court on 26 March.
The sentence relates to an incident at a match between MK Dons and Wrexham AFC at Stadium MK on 20 February.
|
|
|
|
Post by paz on Apr 4, 2024 11:51:09 GMT
SENTENCED Adam Edwards, aged 29, of New Hall Road, Wrexham, was given a three-year football banning order after he pleaded guilty to one count each of possession of a firework or flare at a sporting event and throwing a missile onto a football playing area in a hearing at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court on 26 March. The sentence relates to an incident at a match between MK Dons and Wrexham AFC at Stadium MK on 20 February. Apparently he shouted "English Bast***s"!.. Good job I was not there or I may have suffered be being deeply offended 😂. Personally I think a ticking off by security and the plonka given a warning or even asked to go home and cool down, would have suficed. But I imagin someone must have been deeply traumatized, which meant it become a criminal offence. Bet someone felt extra important that day. I do wonder where all this leads, the gate keepers for these "Offence" charges are going to end up very powerful individuals.. for as long as it lasts. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Apr 4, 2024 12:31:17 GMT
SENTENCED Adam Edwards, aged 29, of New Hall Road, Wrexham, was given a three-year football banning order after he pleaded guilty to one count each of possession of a firework or flare at a sporting event and throwing a missile onto a football playing area in a hearing at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court on 26 March. The sentence relates to an incident at a match between MK Dons and Wrexham AFC at Stadium MK on 20 February. Apparently he shouted "English Bast***s"!.. Good job I was not there or I may have suffered be being deeply offended 😂. Personally I think a ticking off by security and the plonka given a warning or even asked to go home and cool down, would have suficed. But I imagin someone must have been deeply traumatized, which meant it become a criminal offence. Bet someone felt extra important that day. I do wonder where all this leads, the gate keepers for these "Offence" charges are going to end up very powerful individuals.. for as long as it lasts. That wasn't what he got the ban for. |
|
|
|
Post by paz on Apr 4, 2024 12:39:28 GMT
Apparently he shouted "English Bast***s"!.. Good job I was not there or I may have suffered be being deeply offended 😂. Personally I think a ticking off by security and the plonka given a warning or even asked to go home and cool down, would have suficed. But I imagin someone must have been deeply traumatized, which meant it become a criminal offence. Bet someone felt extra important that day. I do wonder where all this leads, the gate keepers for these "Offence" charges are going to end up very powerful individuals.. for as long as it lasts. That wasn't what he got the ban for. Perhaps I am referring to another incident... www.goal.com/en/lists/wrexham-fan-dirty-english-bastards-tranmere-three-year-football-ban-racist-abuse/blt0d8a6814f53b389c |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Apr 4, 2024 20:01:16 GMT
What you have to understand here is that it can't be one rule for one ethnicity/nationality and a different rule for another. Calling someone a dirty English bastard isn't going to cause any real harm, because the English have never within living memory been an oppressed group. There's no systemic or societal disadvantage for that sort of abuse to feed into. If it happened to you, you'd be able to laugh it off. But that would be harder to do if someone called you a dirty monkey and you were a black guy who'd faced decades of racist abuse, had your windows smashed when you were a kid and missed out on a promotion given instead to a white dude who wasn't half as good as you. These things hit hard. They contribute to a pervasive but not always conscious belief that black people are somehow inferior. Sometimes it is conscious, and a small but loud minority, the sort that would shout monkey at football, are still trying to push that belief. Can you imagine the uproar that would be raised by those people if the guy who yelled xenophobic abuse at a white Englishman got off scot-free and then the next week someone got a ban for doing monkey chants? There would be an appeal and most likely it would succeed. That's why you have to treat them as equally serious even if in terms of their repercussions they are not in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by paz on Apr 5, 2024 0:27:29 GMT
What you have to understand here is that it can't be one rule for one ethnicity/nationality and a different rule for another. Calling someone a dirty English bastard isn't going to cause any real harm, because the English have never within living memory been an oppressed group. There's no systemic or societal disadvantage for that sort of abuse to feed into. If it happened to you, you'd be able to laugh it off. But that would be harder to do if someone called you a dirty monkey and you were a black guy who'd faced decades of racist abuse, had your windows smashed when you were a kid and missed out on a promotion given instead to a white dude who wasn't half as good as you. These things hit hard. They contribute to a pervasive but not always conscious belief that black people are somehow inferior. Sometimes it is conscious, and a small but loud minority, the sort that would shout monkey at football, are still trying to push that belief. Can you imagine the uproar that would be raised by those people if the guy who yelled xenophobic abuse at a white Englishman got off scot-free and then the next week someone got a ban for doing monkey chants? There would be an appeal and most likely it would succeed. That's why you have to treat them as equally serious even if in terms of their repercussions they are not in reality. Indeed. People are individuals and no one can say what does or does not offend them or what they have been through. It counts for all. Being discriminating is wrong because you should not judge a person based on their Identity, as this risks false judgment and potential injustice and discrimination. Also, today, many have a preference and prejudice which comes from their own political ideology, and its not about who deserves protection, but about what group can potentially be of benefit to their own political favor. All this is well and good and is kind of my point. You cant just object to one bad speech, it has to be equal. But where does it all end? When you regulate speech in extreme measures? Make all that offends illegal? who then decides and draws the line on that? And once that power is permitted, who is to say that system will remain fair and just to everyone? Will we end up banning someone for life for a repeat offence of calling another person, big nose? And if not why not? What about if you tell somone you dont like them? This is also offensive. What about if you oppose the political party in power? would that also end up "hate speech" and an arrestable offence? Its not even exactly hard for people to potentially set others up and lie about them saying something thats not tolerated, with what could now possibly lead to serious consequences. All this is why the Extreme punishments being implemented, and even taken to the courts, are worrying to me, and not the best way of dealing with the problem. Of course those who are abusive and break rules should obviously be dealt with and monitored. And I think any intelligent organisation can deal with it as a civil matter with smart and effective measures and on a case by case judgment, if left to do so. Making people petrified does not educate. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Apr 5, 2024 7:11:44 GMT
The offence is racism. I don't understand the "where will it end" viewpoint. It ends with a refusal to tolerate racism. Where is the logic in the suggestion that said refusal to tolerate racism will lead to a refusal to tolerate insults about someone's face or saying you don't like them? There is no systemic discrimination against people with big noses, nor is it a legally protected characteristic like ethnicity and nationality are (chosen as protected characteristics precisely because of systemic discrimination against those people), and that's where it ends.
And if you don't do this, then that systemic discrimination will never go away. People SHOULD be petrified of the repercussions of being racist. It's not about educating them. It's a deterrent to stop people committing a crime. The education is someone else's job, not the criminal justice system's, and it should be happening elsewhere.
As for political beliefs, I think THOSE are protected by law under the right to free speech, so no, you can't get into trouble for disagreeing with the party in power.
|
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496 
|
Post by tonyd on Apr 5, 2024 8:18:49 GMT
The offence is racism. I don't understand the "where will it end" viewpoint. It ends with a refusal to tolerate racism. Where is the logic in the suggestion that said refusal to tolerate racism will lead to a refusal to tolerate insults about someone's face or saying you don't like them? There is no systemic discrimination against people with big noses, nor is it a legally protected characteristic like ethnicity and nationality are (chosen as protected characteristics precisely because of systemic discrimination against those people), and that's where it ends. And if you don't do this, then that systemic discrimination will never go away. People SHOULD be petrified of the repercussions of being racist. It's not about educating them. It's a deterrent to stop people committing a crime. The education is someone else's job, not the criminal justice system's, and it should be happening elsewhere. As for political beliefs, I think THOSE are protected by law under the right to free speech, so no, you can't get into trouble for disagreeing with the party in power. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by paz on Apr 5, 2024 20:13:33 GMT
The offence is racism. I don't understand the "where will it end" viewpoint. It ends with a refusal to tolerate racism. Where is the logic in the suggestion that said refusal to tolerate racism will lead to a refusal to tolerate insults about someone's face or saying you don't like them? There is no systemic discrimination against people with big noses, nor is it a legally protected characteristic like ethnicity and nationality are (chosen as protected characteristics precisely because of systemic discrimination against those people), and that's where it ends. And if you don't do this, then that systemic discrimination will never go away. People SHOULD be petrified of the repercussions of being racist. It's not about educating them. It's a deterrent to stop people committing a crime. The education is someone else's job, not the criminal justice system's, and it should be happening elsewhere. As for political beliefs, I think THOSE are protected by law under the right to free speech, so no, you can't get into trouble for disagreeing with the party in power. At the risk of trying to get a bit too philosophical here, I will unpack it one more time then get back to Stockport. First of all, racism, or at least racism in its most basic form, is about discriminating ACTs towards other individuals. This is why it is evil and harmful. The real issue is those who act to affect another with prejudice simply based on their racial or ethnic background and History, but doing so with influence and power. This is despicable and should indeed be against the law IMO, not just against football match protocol. But what we are really talking about here is peoples language, and as you pointed out, racist language. I do not believe racism comes from common folk shouting at people they are likely jealous of, while using offensive language. What they are doing is being obnoxious, rude, and ill mannered, usually because they have had a few too many beers. IMO The issue of Racism is deeper rooted and more hierarchal than all that. Again, when fans use OTT language I fully expect a club to have protocol and ways to make the match day experience pleasant for all, with the stewards telling people off and if needs be, escorting them off the premises. But I do not share your view that targeting speech can eliminate racism. Making people petrified might give you an element of power and control in certain circumstances, but it will not change their thoughts, certainly if you are unable to target the powerful who have enough money to brush off such court cases. So, to address my point again. I am distinguishing the difference between encouraging organisations and society to deal with such poor behaviour as a civil matter, rather than the police and courts step in and essentially criminalise offensive language. If we choose to eliminate certain speech based on the nature of it being offensive, be it Racist, Homophobic, or what ever good reason their may be to regulate speech, it can also open up cases for other speech to be effected through the same empowered avenues or legislation. You yourself used an example that calling someone a "dirty English B" (not a racist comment IMO, seeing as English today are multi racial) might not have the same racist connotations as other racist language, but by your own admittance, it should be dealt with the same based on it being consistent with other rules (unless I have mistaken you) With regards to your confidence in the legal protection we have for free speech here? Well, gone are the days of speech only being restricted by the laws against enticing harm to others or illegal activity. Now speech can be an issue if it offends anyone, and not even just that, as they do not even need a victim in the crime, just words. Regulations are being altered all the time, most recently in Scotland. The goal posts have certainly been moving. |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Apr 6, 2024 12:36:49 GMT
I don't think we fundamentally disagree on much of this, but you have misunderstood a few of my points. You are right that racism and other forms of discrimination are about acts, not just language. But also, they are a cultural phenomenon that does not happen in a vacuum. Racism happens because of people's beliefs, which aren't necessarily conscious, and which develop as a result of multiple very subtle and somewhat less subtle messages that are fed to people all the time. So yes, language does play a large part in that even though as you say it doesn't just come from people shouting at each other and is a hierarchical thing. That language, however, helps fuel a culture of discrimination; people don't suddenly wake up one morning thinking "I hate gay people." They're drip-fed it over a lifetime. Contrary to what you said, I do not in fact hold a view that targeting hate speech can eliminate racism. Like you say, it's far too ingrained in institutional practices for that to happen. But it can help, over a LONG time, and it's one thing we can actually have control over. If enough of society gives out a strong enough message over a long enough time that discrimination won't be tolerated, people's attitudes may slowly change enough for bigger changes to happen. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen or that it will happen quickly but i do think it's a lot better than nothing and in fact it does have immediate benefits for those targeted groups who can straight away see they are welcomed and valued enough in this place to be protected from abuse. THOSE are the people who deserve to have that element of power and control you mention, which they never really had here before. You also make a very valid point about the inequalities within the criminal justice system. But those barriers to the rich and powerful being held to account occur everywhere (same applies to civil matters) and the rich and powerful always have used the less advantaged as their pawns to push against social groups other than their own gaining any sort of power. You only have to look at the gutter press to see that. So if the "pawns" of the powerful are deterred from this kind of behaviour then perhaps it does lessen their advantage somewhat (when you look at the thing as a whole, obviously. Racist abuse at football is a drop in the ocean. But you have to start somewhere). I do understand your argument that this should be a civil matter. But this leads to yet another "where do you draw the line" problem. Racism is racism. Some acts merit a more severe punishment than others. But I don't see how you can have two completely different legal processes to deal with crime contributing to the same problem without running into difficulties around what point is where you cross from criminal into civil. Generally I'd agree that things like that should be civil matters, actually, but when legally protected characteristics of people come into play it crosses a certain line because it's all feeding into the same culture of discrimination. I do see what you're saying, I do understand your argument, but I also think there are good reasons for doing it this way. Because it's about those protected characteristics, based on what social groups have experienced systemic discrimination, that's why I don't share your fear that it will extend to other speech and acts. Who's even got the resources for that? But having said that, your belief that I have any confidence in the legal protection we have for free speech in the UK is, sadly, mistaken  |
|
