People get involved in FV for the buzz, it's got nothing to do with being skint imo. In fact, when you look at the costs involved with being a respected "lad", not having any dough is probably a factor to NOT getting involved.
I think it goes much deeper and is nature of the beast, blokes ganging up and wanting to fight each other goes back centuries if you look through history.
I also think the drink and, to a certain extent, the drugs culture has added to FV in more recent years.
UKIP are popular because the media have portrayed immigration + the EU to only be filled with negatives, leading to the stigma that immigration + the EU are bad.
Instead of educating the population on the good side of immigration and inclusion in the EU, governments have tended to ignore the issues and hope that it goes away.
UKIP are taking advantage by steering their whole campaign on these two issues, almost making them a scapegoat for the problems that normal people are facing.
I was under the impression it was the other way round.
UKIP are popular because the media have portrayed immigration + the EU to only be filled with negatives, leading to the stigma that immigration + the EU are bad.
Instead of educating the population on the good side of immigration and inclusion in the EU, governments have tended to ignore the issues and hope that it goes away.
UKIP are taking advantage by steering their whole campaign on these two issues, almost making them a scapegoat for the problems that normal people are facing.
I was under the impression it was the other way round.
That immigration is seen as a good thing in the media? I must've missed all those praises in the Daily Mail, The Sun, and the like!
I did final year module related to hooliganism as part of my degree back in the mid 90's. I concentrated a bit more about the media portrayal of it. (Dig out some of the books by Garry Whannel on society, media and sport as he has done some great work in this area). I think blaming society rather than football is an oversimplification. I cant remember what conclusion i came do but if you want I can dig out my work from the loft. The content may not be all that useful but the references at the end may point you in the direction of work that may be relevant despite its age.
I doubt we'd have seen any significant change to the levels of football-related hooliganism if not for the huge increase in measures used to tackle the problem. Stewarding, Policing, CCTV, ticketing arrangements, banning orders, intelligence gathering, changes to the law on drinking in the grounds, all-seater stadia (dare I say that last one?) creative kick-off times and sometimes strict travel arrangements all have the effect of minimising the problem (while sometimes causing considerable inconvenience). I remember when a certain prime minister (yes, you know which one) was toying with the idea of the ill-conceived ID card scheme for football supporters, I read some statistics on arrests. On a per capita basis, soldiers, attendees at horse racing meetings and members of parliament were all very much more likely to get arrested than football fans! I suspect that those stats are still true, except that the single-handed efforts of Eric Joyce MP may have relegated the army grunts from first place. And the way the Met has been going recently the plod must be up there somewhere too!
I think it is a social problem as well as a football problem but not for the reasons you suggest.
People have stated that it is a tribal thing & I largely agree with this stance. It is certainly a male dominated thing. Football clubs just make it easy to be part of a "gang, group, tribe" call it what you like.
Don't think it has anything to do with immigration, employment etc. More a hormonal male need to be part of something in which they feel important/needed. If it wasn't football it would be something else.
Therefore education could form a big part in helping improve things, but having said this is it not built in our genes for males to be generally more aggressive?
The EU has allowed further uncontrolled immigration and that's the biggest problem. We're now way to overpopulated, not enough jobs, not enough houses and a massive strain on our health and education resources. Without uncontrolled immigration, there is no way we would be in this mess. UKIP are the only party that recognise this and promise to make changes hence their support while the others still try to brush everything under the carpet.
None of that has much effect on FV though, I mean people will still be involved if they're sitting on the dole or behind an office desk earning top money, everyone get's their buzz from somewhere.
fv in my opinion is triggered by the tribal instinct ,call it mob violence (that occurs in riots/demonstrations) we all get more confident/vocal/agressive when in a crowd of people withe same aim ..the latest example ,if you were kettled as an way supporter at crystal palace you would have felt provoked unnecessarily but also as part of a crowd (of like minded souls) you would be prone to taking on the the mob mentality .So in answer to your question hooliganism is not triggered by deprivation or political ills ,it isnt a football problem its a social problem that will be with us as long as there is such a thing as a mob
UKIP are popular because the media have portrayed immigration + the EU to only be filled with negatives, leading to the stigma that immigration + the EU are bad.
Instead of educating the population on the good side of immigration and inclusion in the EU, governments have tended to ignore the issues and hope that it goes away.
UKIP are taking advantage by steering their whole campaign on these two issues, almost making them a scapegoat for the problems that normal people are facing.
I was under the impression it was the other way round.
Comments
I think it goes much deeper and is nature of the beast, blokes ganging up and wanting to fight each other goes back centuries if you look through history.
I also think the drink and, to a certain extent, the drugs culture has added to FV in more recent years.
I remember when a certain prime minister (yes, you know which one) was toying with the idea of the ill-conceived ID card scheme for football supporters, I read some statistics on arrests. On a per capita basis, soldiers, attendees at horse racing meetings and members of parliament were all very much more likely to get arrested than football fans!
I suspect that those stats are still true, except that the single-handed efforts of Eric Joyce MP may have relegated the army grunts from first place. And the way the Met has been going recently the plod must be up there somewhere too!
People have stated that it is a tribal thing & I largely agree with this stance. It is certainly a male dominated thing. Football clubs just make it easy to be part of a "gang, group, tribe" call it what you like.
Don't think it has anything to do with immigration, employment etc. More a hormonal male need to be part of something in which they feel important/needed. If it wasn't football it would be something else.
Therefore education could form a big part in helping improve things, but having said this is it not built in our genes for males to be generally more aggressive?
None of that has much effect on FV though, I mean people will still be involved if they're sitting on the dole or behind an office desk earning top money, everyone get's their buzz from somewhere.