Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Club Statement on Discriminatory Abuse
Comments
-
I agree. It’s complete double standards and his argument is dismissed immediately. There are numerous areas in England where English people will be in the minority. By his theory, being called an English xxxx in these areas is ok and doesn’t have any impact. Absolute nonsense.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?5 -
Somebody can be born in England but not characterise themselves as English.
An accident of birth is an accident of birth, it is not a rule that anyone should feel pride or shame about their place of birth or skin colour.
It is ok to push back against actual physical or verbal attacks on you based on skin colour or place you happened to be born, or are perceived by others to be born.
The same goes for any oppression based on disability, gender, sexuality or choice of religion, provided your religious choice does not include the notion that you verbally or physically abuse others for their religious choice.
I am of course assuming one’s adoption of a religion is a choice.1 -
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.0 -
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.0 -
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?6 -
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?7 -
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?0 -
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.1 -
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?7 -
Sponsored links:
-
Exactly.Croydon said:
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
But some people don't see it like that. Uncle Seth being a prime example.5 -
Oh OK.Croydon said:
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.0 -
That wasn't the question though.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?1 -
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.Off_it said:
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?1 -
So, do you think it's ok to call someone an "English XXXX" then Seth? In England or anywhere else?seth plum said:
Oh OK.Croydon said:
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.1 -
See my response in the post above yours.cafc999 said:
That wasn't the question though.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?1 -
Why is this discussion being derailed in this way?7
-
Your post wasn't visible when I typed mine out - your post clarifies your original pointseth plum said:
See my response in the post above yours.cafc999 said:
That wasn't the question though.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
Racism is wrong on every level so why answer the question with that?0 -
I thought I'd already said that I've no idea why anyone would want to defend those types of comments, so I think that's pretty clear.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.Off_it said:
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
I think the times we are in now mean that anyone found guilty of this type of abuse should face the consequences - be that stadium bans, legal action or something else in between.
But if we are setting that as the standard then surely it has to apply to all, no?1 -
Absolutely! I haven't seen any posts in this thread that I interpret as suggesting otherwise.Off_it said:
I thought I'd already said that I've no idea why anyone would want to defend those types of comments, so I think that's pretty clear.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
Your interpretation is not how I read it. Only the poster would be able to clarify, I guess.Off_it said:
No sure if that last question was aimed at me but I have no idea why people would want to defend those types of comments.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
I didn't read it as Cloudworm saying it was in any way OK- in any situation.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
The point seemed to be that while an English person in England may feel like it's no big deal to be called an English **** in England and so feel there is no big deal re: this issue, the feeling is different when you are in a minority.
When I've lived abroad, I would have felt it if somebody had involved my nationality as part of an insult against me. As such, I can empathise with minorities living here who then have their nationalities used against them. It's prejudice and discrimination and its not OK.
What's curious to me is why there are people here - and elsewhere - who wish to defend such comments. Why is that?
But I've also no idea why people would try and make up their own rules to say that using one person's nationality is OK but using another's is not.
It may have been clumsy wording, but by saying "If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact." certainly seems to be suggesting that it doesn't really matter. There's no impact, so no consequence. I just don't know why someone would say that either.
Is this the central issue here?
Do you condemn abuse that includes nationality? In a football context, would you think it reasonable that any such act leads to a stadium ban/legal action?
Those seem the more pertinent questions to the thread as a whole, no?
I think the times we are in now mean that anyone found guilty of this type of abuse should face the consequences - be that stadium bans, legal action or something else in between.
But if we are setting that as the standard then surely it has to apply to all, no?
To go down that angle is a distraction and akin to "but, All Lives Matter"
3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Aren't you actually backing up what Cloudworm is saying IE it cuts deeper when you in the minority. He's not saying, as I read it, that that makes it OK as he goes on the say.stop_shouting said:
I agree. It’s complete double standards and his argument is dismissed immediately. There are numerous areas in England where English people will be in the minority. By his theory, being called an English xxxx in these areas is ok and doesn’t have any impact. Absolute nonsense.Off_it said:
You see that's where, in my view, this type of argument falls down.Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
You cant say theres one rule for one and another rule for another. It's not equitable. It's either wrong to mention someones nationality or it's not.
Saying it's alright to be called an "English xxxx" in England, presumably by someone who's not English, is absolute bullshit. You either shouldn't bring nationality into it or else surely every nationality is fair game?
"For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with."
I'm not sure what we do choose should be a stick either but that's another debate.
1 -
How would I know if they were English or not just by looking?Off_it said:
So, do you think it's ok to call someone an "English XXXX" then Seth? In England or anywhere else?seth plum said:
Oh OK.Croydon said:
Of course they could, that's literally the point of his post.seth plum said:
Do you think the five blokes in your example could be white, and the one white bloke could be ‘Asian’?Gribbo said:
Surely it's subjective to every scenario. If there's 5 Asian blokes racially abusing 1 white bloke, the white bloke is the minority in that situation and its wrong on the same level as any other?McBobbin said:
I don't think anyone's saying it's not wrong, maybe just a question of degree.Gribbo said:
What about people of one minority using racial slurs against a other minority? Does one cancel the other out?Cloudworm said:When you live as a minority, it’s different. If you’re called an English xxxx in England, it doesn’t really impact. When you’re the only one, or one of a few, it cuts a bit deeper. For me, prejudice based on nationality is as bad as any other form. Anything we don’t choose, shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat us with.
If we're all agreed that racism is wrong, which we seem to, surely it's best to erase all doubt, rather than coming up with these scenarios where one isn't quite as bad as another?
I was intrigued by the description that the five blokes were described as ‘Asian’ but the one bloke was described as ‘white’ as opposed to ‘European’ for example.
If after engaging with somebody I then had occasion to call them a xxxx, it would be because my experience with them as an individual had led me to think of them as a xxxx.0 -
We use terms like ‘Asian’ but do we pause to think how vast Asia is?Or Europe, or Africa and so on?
There is diversity everywhere, and umbrella terms tend to cloud that diversity.0 -
It’s a can of worms I reckon. 🤔Stu_of_Kunming said:
Would calling a Bangladeshi a smelly Indian be ok?SoundAsa£ said:
In which case (as I see it), the person who shouted the comment with a Russian **** insult, cannot possibly be accused of making a racist comment as Marosi is Slavik, NOT Russian.ValleyGary said:The guys Slovakian for a start….
However, if he had call him a Slovenian **** that would, I assume, have been a racial slur.
Am I right…..all he’s done is used foul language as far as I can see? 🧐0 -
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.oohaahmortimer said:Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads …
In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon ruined by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
Edited to add: And the club should apologise to said individuals (there was no such apology in the secondary statement) as well as reimburse the cost of their ticket as well as any travel expenses. It is not good enough.3 -
Time for her to talk to the clubRonnieMoore said:
I know a female supporter who sits here by and says it’s a father and son who basically are vile individuals and basically been getting away with comments all season .. …soapboxsam said:Marko Marosi is a Slovak; why do I believe that some/one of the moronic fans who follow Cafc believe that is in Russia ?
Some of the shit that comes from the mouths of our critics/fans is amazing and that's aimed at Charlton players let alone the away team.
I don't believe anyone who goes to work should be abused; including Footballers. Boo if you must but for a keeper to inform a ref of being sworn at by a fan who I would imagined kept doing it and mentioned his country as well ( or what the moron thought was his Country) then pleased that it was dealt with. "Only a bit of banter" said potty mouth fan when up before the break.
Can anyone who was in earshot confirm what was said ?
Put the words in speech marks !
We won't shoot the messenger.9 -
I thought it was reported on here a few years ago that every seat was covered by some all seeing security system ?cafcfan said:
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.oohaahmortimer said:Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads …
In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon runed by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.2 -
Mine tasted of metal polish, that's polish not PolishIdleHans said:
Heineken IS atrocious.se9addick said:
Only if he improves the bloody beer. The Heineken in Crossbars yesterday was atrocious.ElfsborgAddick said:
I reckon Sandgaard should replace free tickets with allowing a booze whilst watching the game.Crusty54 said:The standard of stewarding games went through the floor when agency staff replaced employees.
Yesterday near my seat in the upper west guys were carrying alcohol to their seats throughout the game.
One guy was standing next to top of the stairs throughout the second half drinking his lager or balancing it on the safety rails.
No action from any steward.
25,000 every game, no problem.0 -
I think that is right. For example, I assume that the array of cameras at the very top of the south end of the Alan C Stand is part of such a system. But perhaps it is not maybe it is the part of the player performance system.MrOneLung said:
I thought it was reported on here a few years ago that every seat was covered by some all seeing security system ?cafcfan said:
And therein lies the problem with eye-witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable. If you ask half a dozen people what they saw/heard you will get six different answers.oohaahmortimer said:Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads …
In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
One would assume that during a football match, a goalkeeper would mainly be facing to the front, you know, in case a football should come his way.
How can a game be stopped and people accused of anything based upon what one person claims to have seen/heard? How could he possibly point out the perpetrators with any degree of accuracy when he would be reliant on a vague direction the alleged abuse came from with a choice of what, 20/30 people in that vicinity? Subsequent events provide the answers to these questions - he got it completely wrong! And should apologise to the individuals who had their whole afternoon runed by being erroneously hooked out of a football ground.
The only evidence worth more than a hill of beans in this matter would the the club's cctv, if any exists.
In any event, the prospect that a security system could cover every seat all the time seems implausible to me.0 -
Yes, you couldn't see any faces, but thought it best to delete it as no-one seems to have a clue about what actually happened, or what was actually said. Hopefully it'll all be resolved one way or another.oohaahmortimer said:Is the deleted picture the one where you can only see the backs of Charlton fans heads …
In all honesty I don’t reckon I’d recognise any of them in a line up 🙄
Bit of humorous banter with opposition keepers has gone on for years, and nothing wrong with it, but don't see any need for abuse, IF that's what occurred.
Personally, I've always clapped the opposition keeper when he takes up his position before the game if I'm sitting behind the goal, as I'm sure many others do too.2
