Tweet from BBC Have I got News for You 'Amid calls to ban racist fans from grounds indefinitely, clubs argue they'd struggle to survive with audiences of 12'
This is what BBC comedians think of us. Despite it being a very, very tiny minority of racist tweeters who started all of this. They think all football fans are thick racists.
Yes, they definitely 100% fully truly believe this to be absolutely factual and are in no way exaggerating for comedic effect.
God help me but there are some very thin skins around here.
Tweet from BBC Have I got News for You 'Amid calls to ban racist fans from grounds indefinitely, clubs argue they'd struggle to survive with audiences of 12'
This is what BBC comedians think of us. Despite it being a very, very tiny minority of racist tweeters who started all of this. They think all football fans are thick racists.
Yes, they definitely 100% fully truly believe this to be absolutely factual and are in no way exaggerating for comedic effect.
God help me but there are some very thin skins around here.
I would say that, if the reporting by the New Statement and Newsnight are correct and the overwhelming number of racist tweets received by the players came from overseas, then several things can be true at the same time:
1, Whether 5 or 25 people saying racist things in England then that is still 5 or 25 too many and those people are still morons who should be shunned.
2, I am sure that it makes it no less hurtful that the messages came from overseas, but I do hope it gives the players some comfort that, overwhelmingly, they are not actually living amongst those morons.
3, Some of the more extreme claims about the scale of just how racist Britain is, which we have seen since Sunday night, appear to be something of a moral panic.
4, The comments by Tyrone Mings and Phil Neville about Priti Patel, although no doubt well meant, seem increasingly inaccurate and ill-judged.
VPN? During the protests against Duchatelet, I posted several tweets that 'originated' from Brussels.
On point four, I would say that the comments by Tyrone Mings and Gary Neville have aged so well that the government has been put completely on the back foot by it. It's just a shame that the opposition have only called out the governments dog whistle politics since England's footballers spoke out, rather than 6 years ago, when it might have made a huge difference to how our lives look currently, and for the foreseeable future.
My football supporting experience in its raw emotional version, is all about colours ("wear your colours"), herd mentality, total group identification, ecstasy of love for your collective fueled by hate for the other. At times a dehumanized state of mind riddled with clichés and prejudices. Not the prettiest thing...
Painful to admit but the most dangerous thing for me would be to deny it.
So how do I keep it in check..?
Well, what works for me is for a brief moment before the start of every game, to be plucked out of this parallel universe and to be reminded of what unites my real vulnerabilities, fears, and pain with everyone else on the terraces and on the pitch. 'Taking the knee' provides us all a moment of circuit braking silence even a racist like me understands.
Of course many people who set out to post something controversial don't wish to be traced and everybody has access to a VPN. There are a lot to choose from, including free ones. As all of us know. If I was going to do this, which of course I wouldn't, but if I was, I would absolutely use a VPN.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
But he’s no more a proper football fan than my dog is. This determination to ban these people from ground has 1. No impact on them and 2. Implies the problem is inherent in people who attend football grounds, when clearly that is misleading and rather insulting.
But he’s no more a proper football fan than my dog is. This determination to ban these people from ground has 1. No impact on them and 2. Implies the problem is inherent in people who attend football grounds, when clearly that is misleading and rather insulting.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
Oh definitely - anonymity + the desensitisation caused by constantly seeing horrific language used on social media has emboldened some to not think twice about saying things they never would in person.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
You say this like you've been a saint on this site and not provoked significant aggro yourself...
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. Insinuating they would, if they only knew someone's name, is regrettable.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
You say this like you've been a saint on this site and not provoked significant aggro yourself.
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. You insinuating they would if they only knew someone's name is regrettable.
Oh get a grip, where does me saying "if people know who you were" suggest violence? Pathetic, and an inflammatory accusation.
People wouldn't say things like they do online to people at work (as an example), not out of fear of getting smacked, but out of fear of people thinking less of them and social isolation.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
You say this like you've been a saint on this site and not provoked significant aggro yourself.
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. You insinuating they would if they only knew someone's name is regrettable.
Oh get a grip, where does me saying "if people know who you were" suggest violence? Pathetic, and an inflammatory accusation.
People wouldn't say things like they do online to people at work (as an example), not out of fear of getting smacked, but out of fear of people thinking less of them and social isolation.
Use the full quote. You told @chizz: "I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)"
Feel free to clarify what you meant to him by that. What would happen if people knew who he was? Would they write him a strongly worded letter?
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
You say this like you've been a saint on this site and not provoked significant aggro yourself.
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. You insinuating they would if they only knew someone's name is regrettable.
Oh get a grip, where does me saying "if people know who you were" suggest violence? Pathetic, and an inflammatory accusation.
People wouldn't say things like they do online to people at work (as an example), not out of fear of getting smacked, but out of fear of people thinking less of them and social isolation.
Use the full quote. You told @chizz: "I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)"
Feel free to clarify what you meant to him by that. What would happen if people knew who he was? Would they write him a strongly worded letter?
I wrote a long response to this but I don't want to make this about me, or about Chizz. I will PM you my response instead.
I will say though, I don't wish violence on anyone.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
You're very active on CL.
And I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
You say this like you've been a saint on this site and not provoked significant aggro yourself.
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. You insinuating they would if they only knew someone's name is regrettable.
Oh get a grip, where does me saying "if people know who you were" suggest violence? Pathetic, and an inflammatory accusation.
People wouldn't say things like they do online to people at work (as an example), not out of fear of getting smacked, but out of fear of people thinking less of them and social isolation.
Use the full quote. You told @chizz: "I would love to see you say half the things you say if people knew who you were :-)"
Feel free to clarify what you meant to him by that. What would happen if people knew who he was? Would they write him a strongly worded letter?
I wrote a long response to this but I don't want to make this about me, or about Chizz. I will PM you my response instead.
I will say though, I don't wish violence on anyone.
I don't want to extend this trivial point beyond its useful contribution. I had just wanted, very gently and respectfully, to point out that describing people who use social media as having 'a screw loose' is disrespectful and a sweeping generalisation. In the midst of an interesting and informing debate about disrespectful, sweeping generalisations (in this case, euphemism for racism), it's uncharacteristic and unhelpful. But also that there's an irony in criticising social media users on social media.
That it descended into language of and about violence is regrettable.
I hope the point I gently and respectfully made wasn't missed: you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations about groups, because it's othering; and that it could be seen as exhibiting a level of hypocrisy, because it was a criticism of the use of social media, made on social media.
But I'll return to my main view which is the the use of social media by racists to espouse racist views is abhorrent; but the main focus of remedial action needs to be racists and racist views, not social media.
The reaction to Mein Kampf shouldn't be to turn against books; or readers of books; but Nazis.
I stand by what I said regarding people who are "very active" on social media.
And to be clear, I don't consider internet forums to be social media, I consider Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to be social media. Having said that, rather than arguing with a prize pedant about what social media is and further derailing things, I'll simply say that I am completely wrong in every single respect if you disagree in the slightest with what social media is, and will therefore specify Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
As for your views on social media (nice work bringing Nazis into it), you are uncharacteristically oversimplifying things.
We are battling against people who want to upset people as much as possible, for whom one of the tools in their belt is to use racist language. If you look at things that trolls say on the internet to aspirational, well off people (always the #1 target demographic of trolls), they are the most disgusting things you will ever read. Their race is just another way of trying to make them feel somehow "beneath" the person sending their messages.
Rape threats, wishing people die from cancer, hoping people's family die, death threats, racism, mocking people because they or a loved one are disabled, mocking the recently bereaved, all completely unprovoked things that these seriously disturbed people come out with.
You could end racism overnight, and these same people would just be saying other things to hurt people.
We need to find them and name them (which is currently close to being impossible, unless as in the case of most prosecutions, they are moronic enough to use their own name), and to be clear, as I know how words are twisted on here, so they can receive the shunning from their communities they deserve, not a beating.
More than anything, saying that we need people to verify their accounts isn't blaming social media, it is doing exactly what you are calling for, making racists and racist views the target of remedial action. Step one to remedial action, is finding out who they are
I stand by what I said regarding people who are "very active" on social media.
And to be clear, I don't consider internet forums to be social media, I consider Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to be social media. Having said that, rather than arguing with a prize pedant about what social media is and further derailing things, I'll simply say that I am completely wrong in every single respect if you disagree in the slightest with what social media is, and will therefore specify Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
As for your views on social media (nice work bringing Nazis into it), you are uncharacteristically oversimplifying things.
We are battling against people who want to upset people as much as possible, for whom one of the tools in their belt is to use racist language. If you look at things that trolls say on the internet to aspirational, well off people (always the #1 target demographic of trolls), they are the most disgusting things you will ever read. Their race is just another way of trying to make them feel somehow "beneath" the person sending their messages.
Rape threats, wishing people die from cancer, hoping people's family die, death threats, racism, mocking people because they or a loved one are disabled, mocking the recently bereaved, all completely unprovoked things that these seriously disturbed people come out with.
You could end racism overnight, and these same people would just be saying other things to hurt people.
We need to find them and name them (which is currently close to being impossible, unless as in the case of most prosecutions, they are moronic enough to use their own name), and to be clear, as I know how words are twisted on here, so they can receive the shunning from their communities they deserve, not a beating.
More than anything, saying that we need people to verify their accounts isn't blaming social media, it is doing exactly what you are calling for, making racists and racist views the target of remedial action. Step one to remedial action, is finding out who they are
I disagree with your view that 'Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose', even if you limit your definition to just three social media sites. I believe social media encompasses far more products that those two and that CL meets all the commonly-held criteria defining a social media site, for example, a Web 2.0 site, with user-generated content and a expansive network of users. But however wide or narrow the definition of social media, I don't think it's right to 'other' users of social media. It's like you're trying to make them feel somehow 'beneath' you.
If you're switching your argument from just expressing that social media is an absolute cesspit, to a more constructive argument that there should be requirement that every user has to verify their account, then there's some merit in the argument. A number of people have also wished for this to happen.
It would, of course, be a huge retrograde step. Because of the risks associated with trusting large, foreign companies with individuals' personal data on a trust basis (remember, it's of no use if it's only held by the social media companies, to be of use it would have to be shared; do we want a critical pinch point of our law enforcement to be at the whim of private companies in Silicon Valley or Beijing?). Because of the threats to whistleblowers. And because the removal of anonymity on social media would have prevented the Arab Spring in 2011, La Gringa wouldn't be able to blog about violence in Honduras, the Secret Barrister wouldn't be able to shine a light on the UK's judicial system. There are a lot of babies in that bathwater.
Banning anonymity on social media in the UK, would either fail because UK law can't extend beyond the UK; and the reaction of social media companies would be swift and uncompromising. It simply wouldn't work.
Finally, if you don't like the Mein Kampf/Nazi allusion, I will use one that's even simpler. If a man stands at a lectern and makes a homophobic pronouncement that all gay people should be imprisoned, should we criticise the man, argue against the homophobia, or change the rules about who gets to use lecterns?
I stand by what I said regarding people who are "very active" on social media.
And to be clear, I don't consider internet forums to be social media, I consider Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to be social media. Having said that, rather than arguing with a prize pedant about what social media is and further derailing things, I'll simply say that I am completely wrong in every single respect if you disagree in the slightest with what social media is, and will therefore specify Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
As for your views on social media (nice work bringing Nazis into it), you are uncharacteristically oversimplifying things.
We are battling against people who want to upset people as much as possible, for whom one of the tools in their belt is to use racist language. If you look at things that trolls say on the internet to aspirational, well off people (always the #1 target demographic of trolls), they are the most disgusting things you will ever read. Their race is just another way of trying to make them feel somehow "beneath" the person sending their messages.
Rape threats, wishing people die from cancer, hoping people's family die, death threats, racism, mocking people because they or a loved one are disabled, mocking the recently bereaved, all completely unprovoked things that these seriously disturbed people come out with.
You could end racism overnight, and these same people would just be saying other things to hurt people.
We need to find them and name them (which is currently close to being impossible, unless as in the case of most prosecutions, they are moronic enough to use their own name), and to be clear, as I know how words are twisted on here, so they can receive the shunning from their communities they deserve, not a beating.
More than anything, saying that we need people to verify their accounts isn't blaming social media, it is doing exactly what you are calling for, making racists and racist views the target of remedial action. Step one to remedial action, is finding out who they are
I disagree with your view that 'Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose', even if you limit your definition to just three social media sites. I believe social media encompasses far more products that those two and that CL meets all the commonly-held criteria defining a social media site, for example, a Web 2.0 site, with user-generated content and a expansive network of users. But however wide or narrow the definition of social media, I don't think it's right to 'other' users of social media. It's like you're trying to make them feel somehow 'beneath' you.
If you're switching your argument from just expressing that social media is an absolute cesspit, to a more constructive argument that there should be requirement that every user has to verify their account, then there's some merit in the argument. A number of people have also wished for this to happen.
It would, of course, be a huge retrograde step. Because of the risks associated with trusting large, foreign companies with individuals' personal data on a trust basis (remember, it's of no use if it's only held by the social media companies, to be of use it would have to be shared; do we want a critical pinch point of our law enforcement to be at the whim of private companies in Silicon Valley or Beijing?). Because of the threats to whistleblowers. And because the removal of anonymity on social media would have prevented the Arab Spring in 2011, La Gringa wouldn't be able to blog about violence in Honduras, the Secret Barrister wouldn't be able to shine a light on the UK's judicial system. There are a lot of babies in that bathwater.
Banning anonymity on social media in the UK, would either fail because UK law can't extend beyond the UK; and the reaction of social media companies would be swift and uncompromising. It simply wouldn't work.
Finally, if you don't like the Mein Kampf/Nazi allusion, I will use one that's even simpler. If a man stands at a lectern and makes a homophobic pronouncement that all gay people should be imprisoned, should we criticise the man, argue against the homophobia, or change the rules about who gets to use lecterns?
Not surprised you are against it, you wouldn't be able to use another bloke's picture as your profile photo
Doesn't include the most popular form of abuse: Direct Messages.
Without the statistics of that, it's useless information. Most UK people would abuse using a way that wouldn't make it a publically available message. Pretty simple.
The 70% figure comes from the Premier League which is a globally supported league. Far different than abuse towards the England national team.
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about to be honest. If you support the taking the knee then feel free to clap while it takes place. If you don't agree with it then simply ignore it. It only lasts for a few seconds so i don't understand why some are getting so wound up by it.
Or those that want to show solidarity with the players should take the knee with them. Those whom dont remain quietly standing! ☺.
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about to be honest. If you support the taking the knee then feel free to clap while it takes place. If you don't agree with it then simply ignore it. It only lasts for a few seconds so i don't understand why some are getting so wound up by it.
Or those that want to show solidarity with the players should take the knee with them. Those whom dont remain quietly standing! ☺.
Comments
Get over yourselves it’s not important.
It’s been a constant refrain for at least the last 60 years.
And doesn’t really matter.
On point four, I would say that the comments by Tyrone Mings and Gary Neville have aged so well that the government has been put completely on the back foot by it. It's just a shame that the opposition have only called out the governments dog whistle politics since England's footballers spoke out, rather than 6 years ago, when it might have made a huge difference to how our lives look currently, and for the foreseeable future.
Not the prettiest thing...
Painful to admit but the most dangerous thing for me would be to deny it.
So how do I keep it in check..?
Well, what works for me is for a brief moment before the start of every game, to be plucked out of this parallel universe and to be reminded of what unites my real vulnerabilities, fears, and pain with everyone else on the terraces and on the pitch.
'Taking the knee' provides us all a moment of circuit braking silence even a racist like me understands.
Social media really is an absolute cesspit. I am yet to meet someone who is "very active" on there who doesn't have a couple of screws loose.
And for those who are desperate to believe that every attack is from some right wing skinhead in England, this is not to detract from the problem, it just adds to it.
30% of the attacks coming from the UK, is still 30% of an unacceptable number.
All it does for me is add to the need for all accounts to be verified.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/07/15/man-who-filmed-racist-rant-against-england-players-banned-from-local-pub-14931855/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.whatsapp
But he’s no more a proper football fan than my dog is. This determination to ban these people from ground has 1. No impact on them and 2. Implies the problem is inherent in people who attend football grounds, when clearly that is misleading and rather insulting.
Hardly a surprise that he’s a Covid denier too.
I am a firm believer that all anonymity has done is given people the balls to say things they wouldn't dare say in person.
That goes for racists, scammers, and pompous twats who if they were half as smart as they think they are, would still be twice as smart as they actually are.
Anonymity creates a space in which people can let out their inadequacies on real people.
I think most posters on here are sensible enough to not be getting violent over things said on the internet. Or getting violent over anything. Insinuating they would, if they only knew someone's name, is regrettable.
People wouldn't say things like they do online to people at work (as an example), not out of fear of getting smacked, but out of fear of people thinking less of them and social isolation.
Feel free to clarify what you meant to him by that. What would happen if people knew who he was? Would they write him a strongly worded letter?
I will say though, I don't wish violence on anyone.
That it descended into language of and about violence is regrettable.
I hope the point I gently and respectfully made wasn't missed: you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations about groups, because it's othering; and that it could be seen as exhibiting a level of hypocrisy, because it was a criticism of the use of social media, made on social media.
But I'll return to my main view which is the the use of social media by racists to espouse racist views is abhorrent; but the main focus of remedial action needs to be racists and racist views, not social media.
The reaction to Mein Kampf shouldn't be to turn against books; or readers of books; but Nazis.
More than anything, saying that we need people to verify their accounts isn't blaming social media, it is doing exactly what you are calling for, making racists and racist views the target of remedial action. Step one to remedial action, is finding out who they are
If you're switching your argument from just expressing that social media is an absolute cesspit, to a more constructive argument that there should be requirement that every user has to verify their account, then there's some merit in the argument. A number of people have also wished for this to happen.
It would, of course, be a huge retrograde step. Because of the risks associated with trusting large, foreign companies with individuals' personal data on a trust basis (remember, it's of no use if it's only held by the social media companies, to be of use it would have to be shared; do we want a critical pinch point of our law enforcement to be at the whim of private companies in Silicon Valley or Beijing?). Because of the threats to whistleblowers. And because the removal of anonymity on social media would have prevented the Arab Spring in 2011, La Gringa wouldn't be able to blog about violence in Honduras, the Secret Barrister wouldn't be able to shine a light on the UK's judicial system. There are a lot of babies in that bathwater.
Banning anonymity on social media in the UK, would either fail because UK law can't extend beyond the UK; and the reaction of social media companies would be swift and uncompromising. It simply wouldn't work.
Finally, if you don't like the Mein Kampf/Nazi allusion, I will use one that's even simpler. If a man stands at a lectern and makes a homophobic pronouncement that all gay people should be imprisoned, should we criticise the man, argue against the homophobia, or change the rules about who gets to use lecterns?
Without the statistics of that, it's useless information. Most UK people would abuse using a way that wouldn't make it a publically available message. Pretty simple.
The 70% figure comes from the Premier League which is a globally supported league. Far different than abuse towards the England national team.