ejksjfc

Hearts v Saints at Tynie 26/1/19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, garydavidson said:

You sound like you will be at the front of the queue to burn books and turn in your family and neighbours!

Don't bring kids to a football match? That seems a bit backward, fits in well with the rest of your rant though.

Me burn books?  Nah, I'll leave that to left leaners who want to legislate for speech against people's sensitivities - sounds as if that's something you'd support.  Me?  I'll take freedom to do and say what  you like as long as it's not violent and doesn't hurt anyone physically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dublin saint said:

Edinburgh's sevco at their best.

Wished saints at got a cheeky winner on Saturday would have been on that pitch in a flash seems to be the big thing just now and you even  get helped back into the stands

 

 

Edited by crieffsaintandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HertsAgain said:

Me burn books?  Nah, I'll leave that to left leaners who want to legislate for speech against people's sensitivities - sounds as if that's something you'd support.  Me?  I'll take freedom to do and say what  you like as long as it's not violent and doesn't hurt anyone physically.

Free speech doesn't allow you to insult someone or shout obscenities at whomever you wish.

Shutting down political debate is a bit different than being verbally abused at a football match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, garydavidson said:

Free speech doesn't allow you to insult someone or shout obscenities at whomever you wish.

Shutting down political debate is a bit different than being verbally abused at a football match.

Free speech allows you to say whatever the hell you like.  Whenever you like. Wherever you like.  If the law doesn't do that, then you are being censored.  It's as simple and as one dimensional as that.  Doesn't matter a jot if it's political debate or shouting at a football match.

I may well think that people are out of order, lack manners or common decency if they're sounding off, in which case, I am free to tell them to shut up, or for me to go and sit somewhere else - as I have done many times at Saints games with my 8 year old.  But getting the law to make the decision as to what people can say or where they can say it is lunacy  Down that road are all sorts of doublespeak and doublethink dragons where you have a magistrate deciding for you what you "meant" because you said something somebody didn't like.  A man has already been convicted in Scotland over the past 12 months on that score.  Of course, you'll not hear about it in the media...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, HertsAgain said:

That's the point though isn't it?  Speech is either free in this country, or it's not.  If it's not, who gets to decide what's acceptable?  You?  The State?  If we think that freedom of speech and expression are valuable, like it or not, we have to allow for people who feel the need to shriek abuse.  Personally, I think the ability to argue against bad ideas or concepts with confidence that I'm not going to get dragged off to jail for it is something worth keeping, and to make the decision to move seats at an event where some t*** is shouting their mouth off for the sake of peace is a price worth paying.  Try arguing against some things in China and see how far you get, because that's where it ends.  I understand those of a more, shall we say, left leaning persuasion might be tempted, but IMO we go there at our collective peril.

What about everyone else's right to attend a football match, or any other event, and not be subjected to abuse? Why is that not important? If someone in a football crowd spends the full 90 minutes yelling racist abuse at a player, should we not do anything about it?

Personally I think that arguing against bad (or even good) ideas or concepts is fine; being abusive to others is not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HertsAgain said:

Free speech allows you to say whatever the hell you like.  Whenever you like. Wherever you like.  If the law doesn't do that, then you are being censored.  It's as simple and as one dimensional as that.  Doesn't matter a jot if it's political debate or shouting at a football match.

I may well think that people are out of order, lack manners or common decency if they're sounding off, in which case, I am free to tell them to shut up, or for me to go and sit somewhere else - as I have done many times at Saints games with my 8 year old.  But getting the law to make the decision as to what people can say or where they can say it is lunacy  Down that road are all sorts of doublespeak and doublethink dragons where you have a magistrate deciding for you what you "meant" because you said something somebody didn't like.  A man has already been convicted in Scotland over the past 12 months on that score.  Of course, you'll not hear about it in the media...

So if I was to call you an odious right-wing racist nutjob you’ll just go to another forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 

There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 

Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 

TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 

If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 

You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

Edited by Valentino Bolognese
incomplete sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 

There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 

Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 

TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 

If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 

You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

I completely agree what you have put here, very well said, here's hoping you don't get a "it's political correctness gone mad" comment from someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 

There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 

Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 

TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 

If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 

You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

cor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 

There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 

Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 

TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 

If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 

You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

Well said and put Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herts, I'd be interested to know what you make of Steve Clarke being subjected to sectarian abuse throughout the Sevco-Killie match: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47313458

Is this OK? Should something perhaps be done about this, or is it totally fine that a guy has to put up with this at his place of work? Or maybe he should just have gone and stood somewhere else? If someone comes into your work, stands next to you and yells abuse at you all day, is that completely fine because the person is just exercising their freedom of speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blueheaven said:

Herts, I'd be interested to know what you make of Steve Clarke being subjected to sectarian abuse throughout the Sevco-Killie match: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47313458

Is this OK? Should something perhaps be done about this, or is it totally fine that a guy has to put up with this at his place of work? Or maybe he should just have gone and stood somewhere else? If someone comes into your work, stands next to you and yells abuse at you all day, is that completely fine because the person is just exercising their freedom of speech?

Angling today 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 541ntees said:

Yeah across from us not behind us

The person shouting the abuse was behind the person who made the complaint - could have been the row behind or a few rows. They were in the same section of supporters - both in the Hearts end.

The individual was shouting abuse at Saints fans and a fellow Hearts fan asked the man "to be mindful of his language due to young children being nearby." The Hearts fan then made a xenophobic comment towards the Hearts fan who had asked him not to swear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, garydavidson said:

The person shouting the abuse was behind the person who made the complaint - could have been the row behind or a few rows. They were in the same section of supporters - both in the Hearts end.

The individual was shouting abuse at Saints fans and a fellow Hearts fan asked the man "to be mindful of his language due to young children being nearby." The Hearts fan then made a xenophobic comment towards the Hearts fan who had asked him not to swear.

 

Ah I misread it as the saints fan getting the abuse asked him to mind his language 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:59 PM, HertsAgain said:

This whole thing is b*******.  Reported to the police for being rude to someone?  If your kids are affected by swearing at a football match, sit somewhere else.  Or if there's nowhere else to sit because...and here's the thing...IT'S A FOOTBALL MATCH, the solution is simple -don't bring them to a football match.

People are getting fed up with this precious victim garbage, because what you end up with is freedom of speech and association stamped on by the State.  Once we start down that route, all bets are off and things get really ugly.  Thankfully the wheel is starting to turn.  History tells us very clearly that erosion of liberties like this (particularly when it's dressed up with the"for the common good" excuse) never ends well...

The times in which we live, eh?

Surely you're not serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now