| Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 19:42  |
|
Just so as you know... this was not "Scottish" people in general, just a bunch of maurading Rangers fans from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England etc....
A disgrace to the game of football.
And let's not go down the "minority of people" route, eh?
Shocking.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 20:00  |
|
I'm not condoning it, but it's sort of understandable as they were all beered up from early morning and the big screen packed up 15 mins before the match started, so one threw a bottle/can then mob hysteria took over.
I saw them buying booze in Asda at 7.30 am.
But why ?
They could have left Glasgow at 2pm and still been here for the match.
Still loads staggering around at 4pm today.
Discuss ?
BT
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 20:58 |
|
Hmmmm,
many other fans can buy beer and still not behave in the way they did. I am somewhat sympathetic insofar as the big screen didn't work with 10 mins to go before kick-off in their biggest game for a generation. I'd have been raging as well.
I watched my team in the UEFA Cup Final in Seville on one of the big screens and I guess I'd have been raging... but perspective would prevent me from rampaging around the city for hours afterwards. 80,000 of us made the journey to southern Spain and NOT ONE arrest.
This is not the first time Rangers fans have rioted.
Anyways, I could speak about them for hours, but my point is that the other side (Celtic) of this horrible "Old Firm" tag should not be tarred with the same brush as that lot of morons.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:58 |
Hmmmm,
many other fans can buy beer and still not behave in the way they did. I am somewhat sympathetic insofar as the big screen didn't work with 10 mins to go before kick-off in their biggest game for a generation. I'd have been raging as well.
|
Yeah, but throwing beer bottles etc at the guys trying to fix it probably didn't help them sort the problem out... in fact I know it didn't - they decided (rightly) to leave it broken.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 21:21 |
|
Yeah, yeah... I agree. To claim it was "wan guy throwin' a bottle" is just garbage. The mood suddenly turned very nasty.
Football is a tribal and passionate beast (although some fans are more beastly than others) and the pragmatic side of me sees some lattitude in being absolutely raging when something you've wanted... something you've obsessed about for weeks, is suddenly denied you.
A few bottles I can understand, the stabbing, the rioting, the pack of wolves descending on the fallen policeman etc. I cannot.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 21:31 |
|
It's not just football. I remember a Reading Rock festival, my first in fact, probably around 1998/9, when you could still take bottles into the festival compound. There were pitched 'bottling' battles across a stream in the campsite, between different sides of the the crowd in front of the main stage, and eventually at the bands.
The bands, naturally, asked the fans to stop bottling them. It became a kind of primitive democracy as the bands people wanted to see were respected, and the rest just got more bottles aimed at them. Meat Loaf and Deacon Blue were the main losers as I recall.
In yesterday's instance the bottling was rather self-defeating for the Rangers fans. As you say, the other violence was a complete disgrace as well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Thu, 15 May 2008 21:50 |
|
But then again, how many other people were taken to hospital in Manchester last night with stab wounds ?
"Only" 30 arrests they said on morning telly, how many on a "normal" Friday or Saturday night.
GMP is the 2nd largest force in GB ?
And £25 million into the local economy.
BT
PS
They still can't sort the B of the Bang
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Fri, 16 May 2008 13:09 |
|
Why did they not ban drinking? Wouldnt have been that difficult to set up entrance gates to check for booze! I think the money that the local buisnesses would make was far more important. A relaxing of the laws brought the nut cases out and now the fingers of blame are getting pointed.
I still cant get my head round the fact that "you had to be there" Why? Im sure the local pubs,hotels, off licenses would have prefered the money and we could have dealt with the problems if any up here!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Fri, 16 May 2008 17:11 |
|
Agree with your sentiments Tonka,it was a recipe for disaster.
The same scenario would probably arisen irrespective of what club was involved ie sunny weather,cheap booze,the screen not working.Anyone sitting on their high horse saying "well our fans would never be involved in the like of that"is in dream land.
The usual story,less than 5% ruin the occasion for everyone else.Maybe the reason these morons didn't have tickets is that they aren't true fans,just hangers on.
Let's hope lessons have been learned,but it's doubtful.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Fri, 16 May 2008 19:40 |
|
In response to Tonka's comments I understand this took place in the one of the "fans" zones and although those entering the zones were banned from taking their own beer in was available once inside the zone.
It's a profit making thing for the organiser, charge high amounts for beers and essentially stuff what happens when they have sold too much to people much like irresponsible large chains of bars/pubs in most city centres.
I also understand there were 3 fan zones in central Manchester and trouble only took place in the one where the screen failed to work 5 minutes before kick off.
It is generally a football thing but in all the pictures I have seen on BBC website it appears to be those in replica shirts who will have gone to watch the game on a screen with no intent on causing trouble - anyone that knows and goes regularly to football matches in the UK will know that people in replica shirts do not cause trouble but it's a small minority less than 1% of an average crowd of those not showing their club colours that arrange or go looking for trouble (actually I don't wear my club colours to a game but I'm not in that less than 1% group).
Manchester have said they will not hesitate bidding for a similar game in the future and if that game happens to be for clubs followed by such large numbers of supporters (English, Scotish, German, Dutch or Italian) then they would consider putting zones similar to the ones at this game.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06 |
|
All I have to say on the subject is if it was anything else it would be banned. However because its football, a game where 25 man chase each other round on a big green rectangle then all dive into the showers together, they can do anything they like.
And people call this sport.
Cheers
Rob
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 01:00 |
|
| SlideOn wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06 |
All I have to say on the subject is if it was anything else it would be banned. However because its football, a game where 25 man chase each other round on a big green rectangle then all dive into the showers together, they can do anything they like.
And people call this sport.
Cheers
Rob
|
Wins most stupid post of the year award.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 01:37 |
|
Buuuutttt.....
Hull City are off to Wembley!!!!!!!! Wooooo hoooo!
Sorry, had to slip that one in, first time in our history we've got to this stage and it's ruddy fantastic (even if we do end up losing).
Manchester riots werw absolutely pathetic, no true football fan would kick off in such a disrespectful manner as it puts their team in a bad light.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 01:38 |
|
| Ulster couple wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 17:11 |
Agree with your sentiments Tonka,it was a recipe for disaster.
The same scenario would probably arisen irrespective of what club was involved ie sunny weather,cheap booze,the screen not working.Anyone sitting on their high horse saying "well our fans would never be involved in the like of that"is in dream land.
The usual story,less than 5% ruin the occasion for everyone else.Maybe the reason these morons didn't have tickets is that they aren't true fans,just hangers on.
Let's hope lessons have been learned,but it's doubtful.
|
I disagree. Celtic can take 80,000 to Seville, in "sunny weather", lose the biggest game in over 30 years and be awarded a special mention by UEFA for not even 1 arrest.
Sure, the big screen didn't fail.
But when the game kicked off it was still bright outside.
Which part of the sickening footage of the nighttime rioting did people miss? The policeman being pounced upon by a baying mob of thugs?
This has nothing to do with football and everything to do with a tribal mentality that, in this sense, has manifested itself into an ugly mosnter reared upon a diet of sectarian singing and bigotry now flexing its flailing arms and boots upon the police of Manchester... who were only there to help in the first place!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 01:51 |
|
| Stocking Watcher wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 19:40 |
It is generally a football thing but in all the pictures I have seen on BBC website it appears to be those in replica shirts who will have gone to watch the game on a screen with no intent on causing trouble - anyone that knows and goes regularly to football matches in the UK will know that people in replica shirts do not cause trouble but it's a small minority less than 1% of an average crowd of those not showing their club colours that arrange or go looking for trouble (actually I don't wear my club colours to a game but I'm not in that less than 1% group).
Manchester have said they will not hesitate bidding for a similar game in the future and if that game happens to be for clubs followed by such large numbers of supporters (English, Scotish, German, Dutch or Italian) then they would consider putting zones similar to the ones at this game.
|
Manchester City Council has already stated it will not now have big screens for the Champions League final for the fans that cannot go to Moscow. This may also go against England's bid to hold World Cup games.
| Quote |
in all the pictures I have seen on BBC website it appears to be those in replica shirts who will have gone to watch the game on a screen with no intent on causing trouble
|
Granted, there were thousands of well behaved Rangers fans. But you can't have failed to miss the rioting "fans" in Rangers tops attacking the police vans, the ambulances and being bitten by dogs!
I don't know how it is with your club buddy, and I know well the notion of "casuals" but let's be clear, there is no point in excusing the brainless behaviour of what you term "a minority".
It's an oft used clichee. "Minority"?
How many of this "minority" were responsible for singing sectarian songs in the San Siro that brought about a UEFA fine and threats of stadium closure?
The same "minority" that made their way to Manchester? Surely, these well-traveled few would have been identified by now and denied access to the games, or named and shamed from travelling?
Rangers have a major problem with their mindset that runs right through their support. From tolerence of sectarian singing ("It's got nothing to do with me mate" is the best answer I can get out of the apologists) to downright veins in neck bulging bile and hatred.
It's far from a minority. To claim it is "1%" is to trot out a clichee without really understanding just how big a problem this football club have. From distasteful "campaigns" about Jock Stein to 50,000 singing sectarian songs, to mindless hooliganism, to stabbing not only Zenith St. Petersburg fans, but 16 year old opposition fans in Glasgow.
It's not a Scottish problem whatsoever - it's utterly and completely a Rangers' one. Show me where Aberdeen or Celtic or even Hearts fans (utterly repulsive repetoire of sectarian "songs") have rioted like this in a city and you have a point that it's a "Scottish" thing.
If the Tartan Army (Scottish national team supporters) can behave, then surely that proves the point.
Funny thing, you'll not find many Rangars fans who follow Scotland in anything more than a passing interest. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 08:11 |
|
| sheerclass wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:00 |
| SlideOn wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06 |
All I have to say on the subject is if it was anything else it would be banned. However because its football, a game where 25 man chase each other round on a big green rectangle then all dive into the showers together, they can do anything they like.
And people call this sport.
Cheers
Rob
|
Wins most stupid post of the year award.
|
Because?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 11:11 |
|
| SlideOn wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 08:11 |
| sheerclass wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:00 |
| SlideOn wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06 |
All I have to say on the subject is if it was anything else it would be banned. However because its football, a game where 25 man chase each other round on a big green rectangle then all dive into the showers together, they can do anything they like.
And people call this sport.
Cheers
Rob
|
Wins most stupid post of the year award.
|
Because?
|
No point to it other than
1) You don't like football
2) You now nothing about it (25 man chase each other!!!!!)
Completely irrelevant to the........... why am I bothering
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 12:53 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:51 |
I don't know how it is with your club buddy, and I know well the notion of "casuals" but let's be clear, there is no point in excusing the brainless behaviour of what you term "a minority".
It's an oft used clichee. "Minority"?
How many of this "minority" were responsible for singing sectarian songs in the San Siro that brought about a UEFA fine and threats of stadium closure?
|
If 1/4million were there (reported on the BBC) then a few 100 rioting were a minority - fact.
Singing distasteful songs and kicking the crap out of a man on the ground are not the same thing. I'm not excusing the former, but there's a difference in the proportion of the offense. However, I agree there is something ugly about the mob mentality - but that can be applied to all sorts of scenarios, not just football, and not just Rangers (who I am not a fan of by the way).
Finger pointing just ignores the underlying problem of something ugly in human nature that we should be trying to understand rather than just saying "it's those folks there, nothing to do with me". To me, this is symptomatic of why we can put a man on the moon but we cannot begin to understand our own nature - denial. It's always someone else's problem.
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:51 |
The same "minority" that made their way to Manchester? Surely, these well-traveled few would have been identified by now and denied access to the games, or named and shamed from travelling?
|
Maybe they were denied access to the games (the majority of the violence happened outside). How do you stop people traveling within the country? It's not like you need a passport to get to Manchester from Glasgow.
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:51 |
Funny thing, you'll not find many Rangars fans who follow Scotland in anything more than a passing interest.
|
And the relevance of that to the current debate is...?
I know plenty of people who are more interested in club footy than internationals. It's called a choice - something that is permitted in a free country.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 16:41 |
|
| sheerclass wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 11:11 |
| SlideOn wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 08:11 |
| sheerclass wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 01:00 |
| SlideOn wrote on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:06 |
All I have to say on the subject is if it was anything else it would be banned. However because its football, a game where 25 man chase each other round on a big green rectangle then all dive into the showers together, they can do anything they like.
And people call this sport.
Cheers
Rob
|
Wins most stupid post of the year award.
|
Because?
|
No point to it other than
1) You don't like football
2) You now nothing about it (25 man chase each other!!!!!)
Completely irrelevant to the........... why am I bothering
|
1) You are right I don't like football and I don't like violence.
2) 25 men chase a ball round a field is that better.
3) If you shouldn't have bothered why did you come on with a trite comment like "Wins most stupid post of the year award", instead of a logical statement to why I was wrong.
Its relevent because if the so called "Beautiful Game" was treated like everything else it would be either banned or more strictly controlled, and therefore this would not have happened.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 17:10 |
|
| SlideOn wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 16:41 |
2) 25 men chase a ball round a field is that better.
|
You must have seen Man U play a lot, as they're the only team to regularly field 14 players (including the ref and linesmen). Everyone else has to make do with 11 in the side... 
| SlideOn wrote on Sun, 18 May 2008 16:41 |
Its relevent because if the so called "Beautiful Game" was treated like everything else it would be either banned or more strictly controlled, and therefore this would not have happened.
|
Do you not remember the cages, the removal of stands, European bans etc etc? A lot has been done to try and punish/reduce thuggery in football - though the solutions have not always been very clever (cages).
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Sun, 18 May 2008 18:12 |
|
Never seen any football been played so all I know is that two teams have 11 people each plus three officals makes 25.
Well not enough has been done obviously as recent events have shown.
Maybe someone can tell me why its acceptable that when two local teams meet, I can't take my daughter shopping because the shops are too scared to open, I can't go for a drink in my local pub because the police have closed them due to the drunken thugs that will be rampaging round the city. How can this possibly be acceptable.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Mon, 19 May 2008 21:49 |
|
| Quote |
If 1/4million were there (reported on the BBC) then a few 100 rioting were a minority - fact.
|
That's a big "if". Equally, if, say, it was only 150,000 there and, say, there were 500 rioting then this is less of a minority you're perhaps making it out to be.
But the actual figures matetr not.
Never have I seen "100 rioting" people carry on for nigh on 5 hours and cause so much mayhem. 42 arrests. Hmmmm, that's almost half of the rioters/scallwags/thungs/innocents. One wonders with such a prolific arrest rate, how the other 68 caused so much mayhem.
Buddy, it was a lot more than 100.
| Quote |
Singing distasteful songs and kicking the crap out of a man on the ground are not the same thing. I'm not excusing the former, but there's a difference in the proportion of the offense. However, I agree there is something ugly about the mob mentality - but that can be applied to all sorts of scenarios, not just football, and not just Rangers (who I am not a fan of by the way).
|
I agree. Whereas a part of me enjoys the massive divide between Celtic and Rangers, sectarian "singing" is right up there with racist singing. Unless it is a part of your life, you'll not know how wretchd it is. See the Feynord fans treatment of Ajax and tell me this sectarian bile is any more acceptable than racism.
[quote]Finger pointing just ignores the underlying problem of something ugly in human nature that we should be trying to understand rather than just saying "it's those folks there, nothing to do with me". To me, this is symptomatic of why we can put a man on the moon but we cannot begin to understand our own nature - denial. It's always someone else's problem.[/qoute]
Er... no. These clowns have been warned time after time after time after time. When you have kids being brought up to point the finger themselves at Catholics and "Taigs" and "Fenians"... you need to be addressing this issue as the one that merits "understands". Frankly, I don't myself. Not for the life of me.
| Quote |
Maybe they were denied access to the games (the majority of the violence happened outside). How do you stop people traveling within the country? It's not like you need a passport to get to Manchester from Glasgow.
|
It's a problem. I have no idea what the solution might be when such huge numbers travel and there is a fuse waiting to be lit all the time. It's a human society thing that is fuelled by the ills in society of a lack of tolerance and a distancing from others. My opinion anyways. <shrugs>
| Quote |
And the relevance of that to the current debate is...?
I know plenty of people who are more interested in club footy than internationals. It's called a choice - something that is permitted in a free country.
|
Was addressing a point earlier in the thread probably. My point being, not all football fans riot. Many don't. Even when their team lose an important game. Rangers fans, are notorious for it. So what I need to point out here is that this is not a "Scottish problem", solely a Rangers one.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Mon, 19 May 2008 21:53 |
|
Jaysus. I hosses assed-up not only the spelling but the quotey thingy.
It was the badminton earlier. I can barely move after it.
Oh, any warm (...nail-varnished, mind <fending off hairy>) hands that might feel inclined to massage my aching bones... feel free to contact me tonight at tametheREALbeast@hotmail.com
<grin>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Mon, 19 May 2008 23:40 |
|
Don't really want to get into a "what-aboutery"slanging match on here(not a fan of Scottish football,follow the local scene over here).The sayings "people in glass houses" and "calling the kettle black" spring to mind.
Despite what has been said both Glasgow clubs have their share of sectarian morons,beleive me I have witnessed it first hand(have the wit not to tar everyone with the same brush).
The vast majority of fans of both clubs are exactly that-football fans-(I speak from experience having friends on both sides of the old firm,fairly unusual over here)but they both attract a certain element who use big games to create trouble.Just because it isn't widely reported doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It will be interesting to see whether those charged have any direct connection with Glasgow Rangers or an official supporters club.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Fri, 23 May 2008 19:55 |
|
[/quote]
1) You are right I don't like football and I don't like violence.
2) 25 men chase a ball round a field is that better.
3) If you shouldn't have bothered why did you come on with a trite comment like "Wins most stupid post of the year award", instead of a logical statement to why I was wrong.
Its relevent because if the so called "Beautiful Game" was treated like everything else it would be either banned or more strictly controlled, and therefore this would not have happened.
[/quote]
Fair comment. I replied without any argument as to why I wrote that comment.
Liking violence does not equate to liking football for a start.
Soccer is the beautiful game because of its global attraction.
If I am not mistaken, (somebody put me right) it was called that by Pele.
Pele played the beautiful game. Beautifully.
The global nature of the game makes it that.
Kids from Kampala, Bangkok, Limerick, Hull, Berlin and, increasingly of course, LA can pick up a football and start a game where they immediately become Ronaldo, Kaka and, yes even, Beckham.
That's the beauty of it. Violence is not seen in these places: In these kids hearts or hopes. Its roots are truly grass root levels where for 70-90 minutes everyone is equal.
Everyone.
The violence is not connected to 25 (22!!!) men chasing a ball (simplification at best, ignorant of the sport at worst) but to those societies that have no other outlets to be "the best" other than within the white lines.
Sport at its core is pure, and soccer is the best global example of that. Obviously this doesn't answer why those thugs were, well, thugs, in Manchester, but I say to anyone who equates soccer to violence that you are wrong.
So Rob, soccer is a sport.
For the very few reasons I typed above and, for the record, soccer is not my favourite sport.
I hope this is a better explanation to the admittedly terse first comment from me.
Be safe sir
Aidan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Fri, 23 May 2008 21:59 |
|
Hello Aidan
Thank you for your reasoned arguments.
I appriciate the time you've taken to express your point of view.
I think if football was played by local people in local teams I could just about see the point in it. But it seems to me most of the teams have players that don't live in the country nevermind locally.
From an outsiders point of view it seems violence goes hand in hand with the game so thats why it bothers me.
However i'm in an minority that doesn't like football so this been a democray and all, I'll let the majority rule, and agree to disagree on particular point of view, and hope our common intrest in Stockings allows us to remain friendly
Yours
Rob
|
|
|
|
| Re: Manchester riots |
Mon, 26 May 2008 18:42 |
|
Millions upon millions of people all over the world are playing this sport and other sports.
Without violence.
There are outside elements that fashion violence amongst "fans" in sport. These elements are fashioned not on the football pitch but in homes and pubs and on streets.
We need to look at the background of these people and there you will find your answer.
Let me put it this way: Rangers fans have hardly the most placid of outlooks on life. See the record sales of BNP literature outside Ibrox on home match days for further evidence that there is something inanely not right running through a core of thir support.
Much the same can be said of other traditional thug elements of some of the more notorious football fans up and down the country.
My main point being, it's not a Scottish or an English thing - it's a tribal culture that latches onto football and expresses itself in an unsavoury manner.
My opinion anyhows - but I think I've had my say.
<grins>
|
|
|
| | |
Current time: Sun Jul 6 07:27:59 BST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03025 seconds |
