The Labour Government

[mosssideblue]

I explained it in my post.

They are thugs. That’s all he had to say.

In your naive opinion

 

[metalblue]

In your naive opinion

Hahaha. Ok fella let’s leave it there.

 

[Brewster's millions]

I wouldn’t call it nothing of the sort when you have gone on about them being discriminated against.
By the way, the government doesn’t hand out punishments. That would be the courts, and as for being the entity that decides on restrictions at football matches, I would say the owner of the private property where they might want to go should make that decision. Ever heard of the “Kick it out” campaign? Why would any club want to invite back convicted racist thugs when they’ve spent the last 30 years running a campaign to get rid of them.

I haven’t defended the rights of these people to attend city games; my issue is how such bans could be enforced and implemented when clubs would effectively be banning people based on them having certain convictions, whilst at the same time not treating people with those same convictions equally. I think you’re very wrong to insinuate that I’m a racist for raising such doubts, which is what you and other posters did yesterday.

Whilst we’re on the matter I would think there are also practical questions about how the club could identify these people and ban them, if an actual banning order is not imposed by the courts. We don’t want these people in the ground, but short of conducting a criminal records check on people applying for tickets, how would the club identify them?

Would it not be better for the government to just change the law so that the courts would automatically apply football banning orders once people are convicted of certain offences, such as racially-motivated violence or assaulting police officers? Seems like a much more effective and straightforward approach to me.

 

[BobKowalski]

I explained it in my post.

They are thugs. That’s all he had to say.

The media and political promotors of the white race riots had several objectives. To intimidate, terrorise and destabilise. The new Govt being a priority target.

Immigration is the vehicle for mobilising a radicalised and racist section of the community hence the targeting of minorities, mosques etc. Where it went wrong from the far right perspective is that it sucked in the opportunistic who are happy for a spot of mayhem and thieving. You could see the narrative start to shift in the Tory press when it became more about civil disorder and the harming of communities that the radicalised right were ‘trying to protect’. Even now they are still reluctant to let go of their favoured narrative of ‘legitimate concern’ as if the burning of libraries or looting of shops is the consequence of not mentioning immigration. It’s nonsense because we never stop talking about immigration - we even deliberately hobbled our economy because of our obsession with immigration.

This isn’t about ‘thugs’. This is a coordinated attack on the country, its people and the elected Government and it is stoked by fascists who own social media platforms, our media and members of Parliament. Starmer has to address and combat these issues. The Govt will also have to rebuild the police force because this will not be the last of the disorder.

So, no. Simply saying these people are thugs will not suffice.

 

[metalblue]

The media and political promotors of the white race riots had several objectives. To intimidate, terrorise and destabilise. The new Govt being a priority target.

Immigration is the vehicle for mobilising a radicalised and racist section of the community hence the targeting of minorities, mosques etc. Where it went wrong from the far right perspective is that it sucked in the opportunistic who are happy for a spot of mayhem and thieving. You could see the narrative start to shift in the Tory press when it became more about civil disorder and the harming of communities that the radicalised right were ‘trying to protect’. Even now they are still reluctant to let go of their favoured narrative of ‘legitimate concern’ as if the burning of libraries or looting of shops is the consequence of not mentioning immigration. It’s nonsense because we never stop talking about immigration - we even deliberately hobbled our economy because of our obsession with immigration.

This isn’t about ‘thugs’. This is a coordinated attack on the country, its people and the elected Government and it is stoked by fascists who own social media platforms, our media and members of Parliament. Starmer has to address and combat these issues. The Govt will also have to rebuild the police force because this will not be the last of the disorder.

So, no. Simply saying these people are thugs will not suffice.

Appreciate the considered response. We won’t agree on the specifics of the language used by Starmer but I don’t disagree with the general points you make.

Hopefully today will be calmer.

 

[BrianW]

I haven’t defended the rights of these people to attend city games; my issue is how such bans could be enforced and implemented when clubs would effectively be banning people based on them having certain convictions, whilst at the same time not treating people with those same convictions equally.

How is any court order enforced?

If you are banned from driving, for example, there is nothing physical to stop you from driving. You can still get behind the wheel and drive, but if you're caught there are consequences.

As for discrimination, not everyone found guilty of a motoring offence is banned from driving. I see no essential difference.

If it were my decision, the very least these people would be worrying about would be the possibility of being banned from football. I regard that as a slap on the wrist.

In these days, when you can't just walk up and pay on the gate, it's relatively easy to exclude individuals. At least for big clubs, I suppose they might still get in at Prestwich Heys or FCUM.

 

[west didsblue]

He must stand above all of these grievance, take no side, but instead he has thrown himself in as being against the rioters, effectively saying your concerns have no justification.

Can you clarify what concerns the bloke who nicked a tray of pasties from Greggs has? Or the one who set Shoe Zone on fire? If you can answer that what is wrong with saying those concerns have no justification?

 

[metalblue]

Can you clarify what concerns the bloke who nicked a tray of pasties from Greggs has? Or the one who set Shoe Zone on fire? If you can answer that what is wrong with saying those concerns have no justification?

You’ve highlighted that not everyone out being a **** was there for far right wing reasons.

 

[Brewster's millions]

How is any court order enforced?

If you are banned from driving, for example, there is nothing physical to stop you from driving. You can still get behind the wheel and drive, but if you're caught there are consequences.

As for discrimination, not everyone found guilty of a motoring offence is banned from driving. I see no essential difference.

If it were my decision, the very least these people would be worrying about would be the possibility of being banned from football. I regard that as a slap on the wrist.

In these days, when you can't just walk up and pay on the gate, it's relatively easy to exclude individuals. At least for big clubs, I suppose they might still get in at Prestwich Heys or FCUM.

I appreciate that any banning order is difficult to enforce, but in terms of the actual mechanics of this, I would imagine it is much easier for the club to deal with this if a banning order has actually been imposed by the courts. The people in question will be identified for a kick off, something which I don’t think is a given in the absence of a court order, as the government can’t simply go around disclosing details of criminal convictions to anybody who wants them.

Not sure I agree with your driving licence analogy to be honest, as there is at least a legal framework around driving offences, even if it’s not especially rigid.

I do agree however with your sentiments with regard to all of this being a slap on the wrist. If the threat of clubs banning people involved in the riots is meant to be a a deterrent then I don’t see it working to be frank, not least because the issue of a ban only becomes relevant if people are out on the streets rather than being in jail.

 

[west didsblue]

You’ve highlighted that not everyone out being a **** was there for far right wing reasons.

Fine, we’ll stick to people trying to set fire to hotels where anyone could be staying but that they think might be housing asylum seekers and people randomly attacking black British people. I’m not quite sure why calling these people out for their criminal actions is equivalent to denying any legitimate concerns they may have. The reality is that their legitimate concerns (which probably don’t exist) are nothing to do with their criminal actions.