|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jan 26, 2015 22:38:05 GMT 1
if you link the two, even if you come down on the side of it not being connected, it becomes..
couple of years ago, we might have seen 'traitor' banners or just rude banners calling him naughty names..
can you imagine hate banners at town for Jordan or others???
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Jan 26, 2015 22:46:56 GMT 1
It might have been a little unsavoury but it clearly worked a treat.
What a pillock the player was!
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jan 26, 2015 22:48:06 GMT 1
the Charlton posts are social media to a tee..
see a very bad idea, re use it, over and over again..
its in jest but you get what I mean..
|
|
hebdenblue
Darren Bullock Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 865
|
Post by hebdenblue on Jan 26, 2015 22:48:12 GMT 1
Forget the debate about the right or wrong of the image, how the chuff do you begin to make a banner or flag that bloody big?!! Seriously - genuine question id love to know the answer to - printing, material , carrying it to the ground etc
Whilst we're on it, is there a world record for the biggest football banner?
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Jan 26, 2015 22:48:36 GMT 1
It might have been a little unsavoury but it clearly worked a treat. What a pillock the player was! Exactly, crowd got him sent off, and they won 2-0
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jan 26, 2015 23:08:19 GMT 1
a man being decapitated is not relevant in any way to a footballer playing for another team.. the phrase used has no relevance to the situation.. hell and death etc and other emotive words are used in parts of the world in relation to football, Belgium would never have been thought of as one of those countries??? recent events have altered that view.. So what you're saying is the recent IS stuff in Belgium has influenced it ? I agree.... Hence my line about the loss of sancrosacty of human life..( if that's a word) . In order to beat this shit decency has to return to the agenda , it almost feels like it's apeing the IS shit.... I might be talking tosh but that's how it feels to me I think you're putting two and two together and getting somewhere in the region of about 274. I can't see how this is anything other than a football banner. No way has the arrest of a few Belgian 'would be' terrorists suddenly changed the whole landscape of Belgian football terraces. I think you are trying to link things for no reason. They wanted to express that they think he's a Judas and that they hate him for that. So they made a nasty banner. Absolutely Sod All to do with 'recent events in Belgium'. IMO I should say.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 26, 2015 23:18:59 GMT 1
So what you're saying is the recent IS stuff in Belgium has influenced it ? I agree.... Hence my line about the loss of sancrosacty of human life..( if that's a word) . In order to beat this shit decency has to return to the agenda , it almost feels like it's apeing the IS shit.... I might be talking tosh but that's how it feels to me I think you're putting two and two together and getting somewhere in the region of about 274. I can't see how this is anything other than a football banner. No way has the arrest of a few Belgian 'would be' terrorists suddenly changed the whole landscape of Belgian football terraces. I think you are trying to link things for no reason. They wanted to express that they think he's a Judas and that they hate him for that. So they made a nasty banner. Absolutely Sod All to do with 'recent events in Belgium'. IMO I should say. Haha opinions... And mine might be bollocks I accept that... But I feel that " beheadings" has entered the public consciousness as something that happens these days .. Whereas 10 years ago it would be almost unimaginable... It's permeated society... That's all I'm saying .. It's almost been made more legitimate to a flag with it on in a football stadium..... Child rape on the other hand is a total taboo.. A total no no ... I'm not saying there is a link between the player and IS or that they actually want to behead him ...
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,204
|
Post by Tinpot on Jan 26, 2015 23:48:33 GMT 1
I think it's worse than just poor taste. Looks for all the world like a death threat to me and I can't believe it was allowed in the stadium tbh. It's just a caricature. Freedom of expression. Je suis Liege. Not just a caricature. A caricature with an accompanying death threat. Mocking him, calling him Judas, whatever - fine. Threats to behead - not fine. What responsibilities are you expecting from a group of Football fans? They want to express in the strongest possible way that they hate/are angry at him. It's a very violent expression, I get that. But there is no suggestion that he would ever actually be the victim of any kind of violence. If he is of course everything changes.To me it's a football crowd doing what football fans do, albeit they are pushing the boundaries of taste. Sure they knew it would cause offence, but so did Charlie Hebdo. Both are well within their rights to create a caricature in my opinion. Causing mild offence is not the end of the world. No suggestion .... except a picture of him being beheaded. "If he is of course everything changes.". Death threats are ok as long as nobody actually makes an attempt on his life? Causing offence? To my mind this is worse than singing about the Bradford fire disaster. It's worse than singing that song about Turks carrying knives. Worse than singing about the Munich air disaster etc. - because although those are grossly offensive, they aren't any direct threat to anybody. And no, I'm not condoning songs that mock the dead - I'm trying to explain as clearly as I can just how wrong this is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 23:59:02 GMT 1
We love to read about the UK's obsessive political correctness down here. Gives us a laugh a day.
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jan 27, 2015 0:43:08 GMT 1
It's just a caricature. Freedom of expression. Je suis Liege. Not just a caricature. A caricature with an accompanying death threat. Mocking him, calling him Judas, whatever - fine. Threats to behead - not fine. What responsibilities are you expecting from a group of Football fans? They want to express in the strongest possible way that they hate/are angry at him. It's a very violent expression, I get that. But there is no suggestion that he would ever actually be the victim of any kind of violence. If he is of course everything changes.To me it's a football crowd doing what football fans do, albeit they are pushing the boundaries of taste. Sure they knew it would cause offence, but so did Charlie Hebdo. Both are well within their rights to create a caricature in my opinion. Causing mild offence is not the end of the world. No suggestion .... except a picture of him being beheaded. "If he is of course everything changes.". Death threats are ok as long as nobody actually makes an attempt on his life? Causing offence? To my mind this is worse than singing about the Bradford fire disaster. It's worse than singing that song about Turks carrying knives. Worse than singing about the Munich air disaster etc. - because although those are grossly offensive, they aren't any direct threat to anybody. And no, I'm not condoning songs that mock the dead - I'm trying to explain as clearly as I can just how wrong this is. I'm not going to spend ages repeating myself, except to say that I don't believe it's a death threat, and every objection you've made is based on your opinion that it is a death threat. That is to say there is no realistic threat to his life. It's a banner made to shock, but there must be hundreds of people underneath it in that photo and I don't believe a single one of them would be able to keep from laughing if you told them you thought this was a serious threat to his existence, like a similar image from a Jihadi group might be. Again I'll say, it's just a Football crowd pushing the boundaries of taste because they can't think of a better way to express their intense dislike of him. It's imagery that shouldn't be taken literally. They are absolutely not going to kill him. Not in a million years, but they've made their point and he's now well aware how much he's hurt them. I'm sure that's what the banner is all about. Here's an example of where I think we are at loggerheads. Going back ten years or more I remember watching the news when they were debating fox hunting. The image I remember is of those people burning an effigy of Tony Blair. My interpretation of what I saw was 'Those toffs really don't like Tony Blair', whereas yours presumably would have been... 'Jesus, if they get the chance these guys are going to burn the Prime Minister at the stake!' They were making as strong an image as they could think of to make sure everybody understood how much they hated Blair, but nobody thought for once second (IMO) that this represented any kind of threat to 'get Blair'. It's just imagery not to be taken literally, just like the Football banner. Tasteless? Over the top? A bit pathetic even? Yeah, absolutely, but don't let's make out the guys life is in danger. That's I think where we differ. You may be right and me a fool....
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 27, 2015 0:56:32 GMT 1
We love to read about the UK's obsessive political correctness down here. Gives us a laugh a day. So it's politically correct to object to a flag with depictions of a beheading in a climate where people are getting beheaded ? F*** you
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,204
|
Post by Tinpot on Jan 27, 2015 1:00:21 GMT 1
Not just a caricature. A caricature with an accompanying death threat. Mocking him, calling him Judas, whatever - fine. Threats to behead - not fine. No suggestion .... except a picture of him being beheaded. "If he is of course everything changes.". Death threats are ok as long as nobody actually makes an attempt on his life? Causing offence? To my mind this is worse than singing about the Bradford fire disaster. It's worse than singing that song about Turks carrying knives. Worse than singing about the Munich air disaster etc. - because although those are grossly offensive, they aren't any direct threat to anybody. And no, I'm not condoning songs that mock the dead - I'm trying to explain as clearly as I can just how wrong this is. I'm not going to spend ages repeating myself, except to say that I don't believe it's a death threat, and every objection you've made is based on your opinion that it is a death threat. That is to say there is no realistic threat to his life. It's a banner made to shock, but there must be hundreds of people underneath it in that photo and I don't believe a single one of them would be able to keep from laughing if you told them you thought this was a serious threat to his existence, like a similar image from a Jihadi group might be. Again I'll say, it's just a Football crowd pushing the boundaries of taste because they can't think of a better way to express their intense dislike of him. It's imagery that shouldn't be taken literally. They are absolutely not going to kill him. Not in a million years, but they've made their point and he's now well aware how much he's hurt them. I'm sure that's what the banner is all about. That's fair. Every objection I have to it stems from my belief that it's a death threat. Most (ok, probably all) of the people under that banner would never behead somebody - but it only takes one unhinged person. It looks like a realistic threat to me. How seriously should you take threats? How seriously were the death threats from Galatasaray fans 15 years ago? I wonder how many of those threats to kill were empty threats? Well, most of them were empty threats - because only 2 of those threats were acted upon.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,204
|
Post by Tinpot on Jan 27, 2015 1:08:25 GMT 1
Here's an example of where I think we are at loggerheads. Going back ten years or more I remember watching the news when they were debating fox hunting. The image I remember is of those people burning an effigy of Tony Blair. My interpretation of what I saw was 'Those toffs really don't like Tony Blair', whereas yours presumably would have been... 'Jesus, if they get the chance these guys are going to burn the Prime Minister at the stake!' They were making as strong an image as they could think of to make sure everybody understood how much they hated Blair, but nobody thought for once second (IMO) that this represented any kind of threat to 'get Blair'. It's just imagery not to be taken literally, just like the Football banner. Tasteless? Over the top? A bit pathetic even? Yeah, absolutely, but don't let's make out the guys life is in danger. That's I think where we differ. You may be right and me a fool.... Fair point - except that now I'll refer back to Ted's point, that people are actually being beheaded. Burning effigies of people is (and has a long tradition of being) nothing more than a gesture of protest &/or contempt. Whilst I can see the similarity, the two acts have totally different connotations. And besides - the effigy was of Tony Blair, who deserved it
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jan 27, 2015 1:11:04 GMT 1
I'm not going to spend ages repeating myself, except to say that I don't believe it's a death threat, and every objection you've made is based on your opinion that it is a death threat. That is to say there is no realistic threat to his life. It's a banner made to shock, but there must be hundreds of people underneath it in that photo and I don't believe a single one of them would be able to keep from laughing if you told them you thought this was a serious threat to his existence, like a similar image from a Jihadi group might be. Again I'll say, it's just a Football crowd pushing the boundaries of taste because they can't think of a better way to express their intense dislike of him. It's imagery that shouldn't be taken literally. They are absolutely not going to kill him. Not in a million years, but they've made their point and he's now well aware how much he's hurt them. I'm sure that's what the banner is all about. That's fair. Every objection I have to it stems from my belief that it's a death threat. Most (ok, probably all) of the people under that banner would never behead somebody - but it only takes one unhinged person. It looks like a realistic threat to me. How seriously should you take threats? How seriously were the death threats from Galatasaray fans 15 years ago? I wonder how many of those threats to kill were empty threats? Well, most of them were empty threats - because only 2 of those threats were acted upon. I'm not avoiding the question, but honestly I don't remember how those Galatasaray threats were made or expressed. Verbally, or in the form of a banner. I'd rather not get into that one except top say that the guy who committed those murders was most probably an out and out lunatic from the start, and not likely to have been turned into one by something he saw on a banner at the match.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,204
|
Post by Tinpot on Jan 27, 2015 1:15:08 GMT 1
As far as I'm aware it was all verbal - threats in the build up to the match. How much was he influenced by those threats? I suppose we can't ever know.
I just consider that all threats on somebody's life should be taken seriously, even if 99.99% of those threats are empty.
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jan 27, 2015 1:16:31 GMT 1
Here's an example of where I think we are at loggerheads. Going back ten years or more I remember watching the news when they were debating fox hunting. The image I remember is of those people burning an effigy of Tony Blair. My interpretation of what I saw was 'Those toffs really don't like Tony Blair', whereas yours presumably would have been... 'Jesus, if they get the chance these guys are going to burn the Prime Minister at the stake!' They were making as strong an image as they could think of to make sure everybody understood how much they hated Blair, but nobody thought for once second (IMO) that this represented any kind of threat to 'get Blair'. It's just imagery not to be taken literally, just like the Football banner. Tasteless? Over the top? A bit pathetic even? Yeah, absolutely, but don't let's make out the guys life is in danger. That's I think where we differ. You may be right and me a fool.... Fair point - except that now I'll refer back to Ted's point, that people are actually being beheaded. Burning effigies of people is (and has a long tradition of being) nothing more than a gesture of protest &/or contempt. Whilst I can see the similarity, the two acts have totally different connotations. And besides - the effigy was of Tony Blair, who deserved it Ha ha. I kinda knew that one was coming!! I think this banner is doing the same kind of thing though. Yeah they used beheading rather than burning, but it's no different really. It's just representation of hatred in the same way. And I think you're over estimating how many beheadings take place in your average working week.
|
|
|
Post by Stavros on Jan 27, 2015 1:19:16 GMT 1
As far as I'm aware it was all verbal - threats in the build up to the match. How much was he influenced by those threats? I suppose we can't ever know. I just consider that all threats on somebody's life should be taken seriously, even if 99.99% of those threats are empty. So do I, but I don't think this is a threat to someone's life..... (going round in a Cercle Brugge aren't we?) Take care mate. I've got to get to bed....
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,204
|
Post by Tinpot on Jan 27, 2015 1:23:44 GMT 1
To be fair mate, you've argued your case pretty well. I suppose I'm also looking at it from an English-centric position. Maybe in Belgium they draw pictures of beheaded individuals in the way people in other countries might burn an effigy. If I was in his position - if they chanted slurs about my wife I'd be offended. If they put up a tifo like that of me I wouldn't be offended, I'd be scared.
Might not even be intended as a death threat - but could easily be interpreted as one.
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jan 27, 2015 1:27:41 GMT 1
Imagine John Robinson's face if he saw that. Hope it had a fire safety certificate.
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Jan 27, 2015 7:30:04 GMT 1
Banners like this are common place all over Europe! They don't give a shit in a lot of countries!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 11:31:19 GMT 1
We love to read about the UK's obsessive political correctness down here. Gives us a laugh a day. So it's politically correct to object to a flag with depictions of a beheading in a climate where people are getting beheaded ? F*** you Lol: People getting worked up over a picture on a piece of cloth. It's a joke as is your overexcited reply.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 27, 2015 11:45:59 GMT 1
So it's politically correct to object to a flag with depictions of a beheading in a climate where people are getting beheaded ? F*** you Lol: People getting worked up over a picture on a piece of cloth. It's a joke as is your overexcited reply. It was late I was tired and you had used the nonsense term " political correctness " But I apologise for my use of the English language
|
|
Novakaine
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Our Carpets Are Filthy!
Posts: 1,490
|
Post by Novakaine on Jan 27, 2015 14:33:02 GMT 1
Imagine being in your place of work and suddenly there is a gang of strangers peering through the window, holding up a banner showing your severed head. It's okay, they're only having a laugh.... these people I know nothing about...
The world is full of f*cked up people.
I know a guy who hates Leeds United so much his mouth froths as he snarls upon their mention. I really believe he would chop heads off, given the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by ringdisco on Jan 27, 2015 14:41:32 GMT 1
Imagine being in your place of work and suddenly there is a gang of strangers peering through the window, holding up a banner showing your severed head. It's okay, they're only having a laugh.... these people I know nothing about... The world is full of f*cked up people. I know a guy who hates Leeds United so much his mouth froths as he snarls upon their mention. I really believe he would chop heads off, given the opportunity. Yes. Football is just another workplace. No emotions attached whatsoever. Defour signed for the rivals of the team he spent 5 years in early in his career. Off with is head.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Jan 27, 2015 14:44:12 GMT 1
They have been offensive because they were allowed to be.. its not a good reason to be offensive.. I can be offensive on here to other posters, I might get a ban eventually but I am anonymous. Exactly the reason not to be offensive without a very good reason. One fan carrying that banner(or something similar but smaller) up to the face of the player it was aimed at??? lets see how offensive they really want to be? safety in numbers...?
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Jan 27, 2015 14:56:07 GMT 1
Tbh it is just a job to these footballers! He probably couldn't care less now! He will be able to go home to his beautiful wife and big mansion to count his money!
|
|