Premier League 2021/22 Thread

[westernpark]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

People shouldn't invade the public space and inconvenience thousands of others to make their point. Whatever their point.

 

If someone's ideas require expression, our free society allows people to stand for office, to protest in the public square or to advertise.

 

To applaud such protests because they are somehow noble invites a decision on what is noble enough to protest about.  Whose call is that?

 

And what kind of crass unthinking selfishness assumes that football fans want to stop and watch a protest?

 

 

 

From your viewpoint it’s a good answer. But I believe people have every right to invade the public space for causes, if done peacefully . Which I’d  argue it was. 

[Jack1993]

Not really sure where to put this because it’s not any competition that we are in however what’s the fan split in London, commentators keep mentioning West Ham having 60k tonight which is decent, so… what’s the split? 
 

Say there’s 1,000,000 home fans in London, how many are at each game? 
 

(As in if every London club are playing at home) 

Edited 17 March 2022 by Jack1993

[Vacamion]

12 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You're talking about 2 different things. The arbitrator is both the individual and public opinion on it and the legality of which they're protesting (i.e. if they aren't comitting health crimes or protesting against public safety measures). You were the one who responded to a post calling him a patriot saying he wasn't because he protested, not the reasoning - you were making a moral judgement on him simply because he protests and therefore were also making an equivalence for moral judgement against those who protested for women's suffrage at Epsom.

 

So again - it's not false equivalence then, you've said it doesn't matter the cause if you disrupt public event it's crass unthinking and selfish. You've just called the women's suffragettes disrupting Epsom crass unthinking and selfish. Pretty straightforward for everyone to see.

 

 Blimey.

 

I've not called the Suffragettes disrupting Epsom crass unthinking and selfish.

 

If you have no other option and are oppressed, maybe your actions in protesting in public might be justified... 

 

What is crass, unthinking and selfish is protesting at a football match about your pet cause, when there are a multitude of other ways of giving expression to your ideas, and selfishly p1ssing off 30,000 people, and then having the temerity to think you are a martyr on the level of the Suffragettes.

 

That seems pretty crass to me.

 

Edited 17 March 2022 by Vacamion

[Vacamion]

10 minutes ago, westernpark said:

From your viewpoint it’s a good answer. But I believe people have every right to invade the public space for causes, if done peacefully . Which I’d  argue it was. 

 

I disagree, but respectfully so, and I wish you a pleasant evening.

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

 Blimey.

 

I've not called the Suffragettes disrupting Epsom crass unthinking and selfish.

 

If you have no other option and are oppressed, maybe your actions in protesting in public might be justified... 

 

What is crass, unthinking and selfish is protesting at a football match about your pet cause, when there are a multitude of other ways of giving expression to your ideas, and selfishly passing off 30,000 people, and then having the temerity to think you are a martyr on the level of the Suffragettes.

 

That seems pretty crass to me.

 

You are!

Because one of the most famous and important suffrogette protests was at Epsom racecourse in front of thousands of fans taking out the king's horses and disrupting the race.

It's not blimey! It's literally what you're saying. I was the one saying the reason for your protest obviously matters, you said it doesn't and it's a slippery slope.

You're saying protesting public events is crass selfish and unthinking - that includes the protests of the Suffrogettes at Epsom - again, you're the one who are saying the reason for the protest makes no difference and that protesting against murderous warmongering states who have killed tens of thousands of Yemeni children and excecute people for being gay owning football clubs, nation states ignoring the avoidable deaths and sufferings of hundreds of millions through climate change and the suffrogettes protesting women's vote with flat earthers. 

And anyone who is gay or a woman for example absolutely is part of a group being oppressed by people who are directly or indirectly funding the Saudi state like the Newcastle owners. And if you're from a warm, poor country you absolutely are being oppressed by the richer countries failing to do things about climate change.

You can't have it both ways - either the suffragettes were crass selfish and self-centered thinking they were martyrs or the reason for your protest obviously does matter. 

Edited 17 March 2022 by Sampson

[Vacamion]

11 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You are!

Because one of the most famous and important suffrogette protests was at Epsom racecourse in front of thousands of fans taking out the king's horses and disrupting the race.

It's not blimey! It's literally what you're saying. I was the one saying the reason for your protest obviously matters, you said it doesn't and it's a slippery slope.

You're saying protesting public events is crass selfish and unthinking - that includes the protests of the Suffrogettes at Epsom - again, you're the one who are saying the reason for the protest makes no difference and that protesting against murderous warmongering states who have killed tens of thousands of Yemeni children and excecute people for being gay owning football clubs, nation states ignoring the avoidable deaths and sufferings of hundreds of millions through climate change and the suffrogettes protesting women's vote with flat earthers. 

And anyone who is gay or a woman for example absolutely is part of a group being oppressed by people who are directly or indirectly funding the Saudi state like the Newcastle owners. And if you're from a warm, poor country you absolutely are being oppressed by the richer countries failing to do things about climate change.

You can't have it both ways - either the suffragettes were crass selfish and self-centered thinking they were martyrs or the reason for your protest obviously does matter. 

 

You insisting that I meant something that you think it meant does not make it so. 

 

I didn't bring the Suffragettes up.  But when they were chucked into the discussion, I think it's quite disingenuous to compare that utter Herbert at Goodison tonight to Emmeline Pankhurst.  

 

That's the incorrect equivalence that I referred to.

 

Your suggestions indicate that if the cause is just, anything goes, despite all the means of protest and free expression available to people in the UK in 2022.

 

I disagree. I have set out why I disagree.

 

I disagree that the people (whatever that might mean) should decide what are acceptable or just causes about which you can chain yourself to stuff, no matter how much it inconveniences others.

 

I suggest that there is no fair arbiter.

 

Indeed, if you had asked the people in that ground tonight, many of them would have been fairly critical of that guy's actions and consequently less sympathetic to his arguments.

 

I actually sympathise with a protest (in the right place) against the oil wealth and its purchase of Newcastle and I have no axe to grind there, but I can't agree that all and any protests in any situation are fair game.

 

Again, from what you've posted so far, I suspect that we won't agree.

 

 

 

[Deeg67]

Dyche may finally have had it this time.  He’s in trouble.

[Tuna]

Huge win for Everton.

[dsr-burnley]

25 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You are!

Because one of the most famous and important suffrogette protests was at Epsom racecourse in front of thousands of fans taking out the king's horses and disrupting the race.

It's not blimey! It's literally what you're saying. I was the one saying the reason for your protest obviously matters, you said it doesn't and it's a slippery slope.

You're saying protesting public events is crass selfish and unthinking - that includes the protests of the Suffrogettes at Epsom - again, you're the one who are saying the reason for the protest makes no difference and that protesting against murderous warmongering states who have killed tens of thousands of Yemeni children and excecute people for being gay owning football clubs, nation states ignoring the avoidable deaths and sufferings of hundreds of millions through climate change and the suffrogettes protesting women's vote with flat earthers. 

And anyone who is gay or a woman for example absolutely is part of a group being oppressed by people who are directly or indirectly funding the Saudi state like the Newcastle owners. And if you're from a warm, poor country you absolutely are being oppressed by the richer countries failing to do things about climate change.

You can't have it both ways - either the suffragettes were crass selfish and self-centered thinking they were martyrs or the reason for your protest obviously does matter. 

Is there a degree after which protest becomes unreasonable?  Suppose, for example, someone decided to protest about the Thai government by invading the pitch at a Leicester home game and chaining themself to the post.  8 minute delay.  Or four of them do it, say 20 minutes.  And then 4 more come out a bit later - another 20 minutes.  Or they stand in the centre circle with a sword and threaten to stab themself if anyone approaches, and the stand-off takes so long that the game is abandoned.  And then another one does it next week.  Or they pour petrol all over the pitch and make it unplayable, or they hack the computers so the turnstiles won't work and delete all the season ticket records.  Is there a point at which they step over the line?

 

If there is a point, then the discussion is no longer a discussion about the principle of peaceful protest, but about the point where the line is drawn.

 

And from the film, the most likely reason Emily Davidson stepped in front of the King's horse was to put a ribbon round its neck.  She had a return rail ticket, she had a busy appointments diary.  She didn't look like she was trying to get herself killed, though obviously if she though she could throw a ribbon over a galloping horse, she was pretty stupid.  And she was far from peaceful.  she was twice sent to jail for criminal assaults aimed at Lloyd George, once throwing stones at a cabinet minister, once horsewhipping a baptist minister.  (She thought they were both Lloyd George, which rather supports the "stupid" theory.  She also threw stones through the windows of public meetings, explaining in a letter to the press that this "was meant as a warning to the general public of the personal risk they run in future if they go to Cabinet Ministers' meetings anywhere".  

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is there a degree after which protest becomes unreasonable?  Suppose, for example, someone decided to protest about the Thai government by invading the pitch at a Leicester home game and chaining themself to the post.  8 minute delay.  Or four of them do it, say 20 minutes.  And then 4 more come out a bit later - another 20 minutes.  Or they stand in the centre circle with a sword and threaten to stab themself if anyone approaches, and the stand-off takes so long that the game is abandoned.  And then another one does it next week.  Or they pour petrol all over the pitch and make it unplayable, or they hack the computers so the turnstiles won't work and delete all the season ticket records.  Is there a point at which they step over the line?

 

If there is a point, then the discussion is no longer a discussion about the principle of peaceful protest, but about the point where the line is drawn.

 

And from the film, the most likely reason Emily Davidson stepped in front of the King's horse was to put a ribbon round its neck.  She had a return rail ticket, she had a busy appointments diary.  She didn't look like she was trying to get herself killed, though obviously if she though she could throw a ribbon over a galloping horse, she was pretty stupid.  And she was far from peaceful.  she was twice sent to jail for criminal assaults aimed at Lloyd George, once throwing stones at a cabinet minister, once horsewhipping a baptist minister.  (She thought they were both Lloyd George, which rather supports the "stupid" theory.  She also threw stones through the windows of public meetings, explaining in a letter to the press that this "was meant as a warning to the general public of the personal risk they run in future if they go to Cabinet Ministers' meetings anywhere".  

Again. It absolutely depends what you're protesting.

In the case of Newcastle's owners, I don't think it's unreasonable for a stream of people to constantly disrupt all their entire games until the only thing the government or Premier League can do about it is realise that it's ridiculous that owners who are funding a war machine in Yemen and the life improsonment of gay people and public exucations are owners of a football club and they should be sanctioned the same way Abramovich has been. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

In the case of climate change, given we are sleep walking and burying our heads into the avoidable deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the displacement and lowering the quality of lives of billions, I think it's more than reasonable to disrupt entire seasons of leisure pursuits like football by constantly streaming into stadiums.

In fact I'm pretty certain that in 50 or 100 years time, our great grandchildren will actually think it's utterly crass, selfish and self-centred that we weren't disrupting sports and public events to protest against the lack of government action towards climate change and the massive human rights abuses committed by states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Just like we find it baffling how straightforward and how little backlash there was against the 1936 Berlin olympics at the time.~

Saying "no one should be the arbitrator of what is right or wrong" is exactly the kind of thing that is just making us sleepwalk into climate change catastrophe or turning your backs on the unjust deaths of thousands of people every year by the Saudi state while people pump money into Newcastle's owners pockets, just so they can watch a leisure pursuit, it's just ludicrous we don't see more protests like this the longer you think about it. It's inaction by sitting on the fence.

If anything it's an incredibly sad indictment on our society and our priorities as human beings that ManCity games haven't been swamped by protests like this for years or that the qualification games for the Qatar World Cup haven't been either.

Edited 17 March 2022 by Sampson

[jammie82uk]

 

[Shane]

I thought usually pitch invaders don’t get shown/filmed during live broadcast because it might incentivise future pitch invasions? But in the Everton game they had multiple angles and a running commentary? 
 

I mean, what if that pitch invader was wearing a t shirt displaying a violent or terrorist message? Felt very unnecessary for Amazon to just start filming the pitch invader like that. 

[dsr-burnley]

22 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Again. It absolutely depends what you're protesting.

In the case of Newcastle's owners, I don't think it's unreasonable for a stream of people to constantly disrupt all their entire games until the only thing the government or Premier League can do about it is realise that it's ridiculous that owners who are funding a war machine in Yemen and the life improsonment of gay people and public exucations are owners of a football club and they should be sanctioned the same way Abramovich has been. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

In the case of climate change, given we are sleep walking and burying our heads into the avoidable deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the displacement and lowering the quality of lives of billions, I think it's more than reasonable to disrupt entire seasons of leisure pursuits like football by constantly streaming into stadiums.

In fact I'm pretty certain that in 50 or 100 years time, our great grandchildren will actually think it's utterly crass, selfish and self-centred that we weren't disrupting sports and public events to protest against the lack of government action towards climate change and the massive human rights abuses committed by states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Just like we find it baffling how straightforward and how little backlash there was against the 1936 Berlin olympics at the time.~

Saying "no one should be the arbitrator of what is right or wrong" is exactly the kind of thing that is just making us sleepwalk into climate change catastrophe or turning your backs on the unjust deaths of thousands of people every year by the Saudi state while people pump money into Newcastle's owners pockets, just so they can watch a leisure pursuit, it's just ludicrous we don't see more protests like this the longer you think about it. It's inaction by sitting on the fence.

If anything it's an incredibly sad indictment on our society and our priorities as human beings that ManCity games haven't been swamped by protests like this for years or that the qualification games for the Qatar World Cup haven't been either.

Let me be clear, I'm not having a go at Leicester by any means.  I'm not advocating protest against Leicester.  I'm just using them as an example - how do you decide where the line is to be drawn in respect of national human rights abuses, and where do you draw the line in terms of to what degree the fans' enjoyment can be fairly disrupted?  You're happy for anti-Saudi protestors and anti-Qatar protestors to seriously disrupt Newcastle and Man City - to what extent, right up to the point of closing down the club, do you think anti-Thai protestors should be able to disrupt Leicester City?

 

PS - don't hold your breath about future generations complaining about non-protest of human rights abuses by foreigners.  The British empire is getting all sorts of stick precisely because they went into non-Western countries and imposed their own version of human rights on them.  Any sort of attempt of the British Government to impose human rights for homosexuals in Qatar would get the same sort of oppobrium as the attempts (successful) of the empire builders to abolish slavery, suttee, and foot-binding in India.  Or would it?

[The Horse's Mouth]

2 minutes ago, Shane said:

I thought usually pitch invaders don’t get shown/filmed during live broadcast because it might incentivise future pitch invasions? But in the Everton game they had multiple angles and a running commentary? 
 

I mean, what if that pitch invader was wearing a t shirt displaying a violent or terrorist message? Felt very unnecessary for Amazon to just start filming the pitch invader like that. 

It's a bit different when he's caused that much of a disruption that it's caused over 10 minutes of stoppage time though to just some lad running on pitch with his tackle out

[Shane]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It's a bit different when he's caused that much of a disruption that it's caused over 10 minutes of stoppage time though to just some lad running on pitch with his tackle out

True.
 

Maybe something for the broadcasters to think about if such a lengthly stoppage happens again in the future. Maybe a cut to the pundits studio, who knows.

 

I’m guessing pitch invasions will be a tactic of future protests now & i’m all for protests, but broadcasting it in live HD like Amazon did does feel a bit unnecessary.

[Innovindil]

20 minutes ago, Shane said:

I thought usually pitch invaders don’t get shown/filmed during live broadcast because it might incentivise future pitch invasions? But in the Everton game they had multiple angles and a running commentary? 
 

I mean, what if that pitch invader was wearing a t shirt displaying a violent or terrorist message? Felt very unnecessary for Amazon to just start filming the pitch invader like that. 

Tbf they didn't show him immediately so obviously checked the message out and decided it was alright. Which it was. One of the most bizarre things I've ever seen at a football match and more entertaining than listening to randoms in a studio.

[Sampson]

33 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Let me be clear, I'm not having a go at Leicester by any means.  I'm not advocating protest against Leicester.  I'm just using them as an example - how do you decide where the line is to be drawn in respect of national human rights abuses, and where do you draw the line in terms of to what degree the fans' enjoyment can be fairly disrupted?  You're happy for anti-Saudi protestors and anti-Qatar protestors to seriously disrupt Newcastle and Man City - to what extent, right up to the point of closing down the club, do you think anti-Thai protestors should be able to disrupt Leicester City?

 

PS - don't hold your breath about future generations complaining about non-protest of human rights abuses by foreigners.  The British empire is getting all sorts of stick precisely because they went into non-Western countries and imposed their own version of human rights on them.  Any sort of attempt of the British Government to impose human rights for homosexuals in Qatar would get the same sort of oppobrium as the attempts (successful) of the empire builders to abolish slavery, suttee, and foot-binding in India.  Or would it?

I think it would absolutely be fair for Thai protesters to stop Leicester games if King Power were funding directly or indirectly (and given how close KP are to the monarchy I think it’s fair to say they would be) state sanctioned killings, human rights abuses or arbitrary imprisonment, don’t you?
 

People’s lives are worth far more than a football match and I think ultimately we don’t know that much about the Thai regimes or how close our owners are to them and if it turns out they were doing these things, wouldn’t you want it being brought to your attention so that we can stop putting money into their coffers?

 

I don’t think ManCity or Newcastle should be shut down as football clubs, they’re incredibly important to their local communities and many peoples identities. I think that what should happen to them should be the same as Chelsea where the state make sure no money goes into their owners pockets until the club is sold. But the pressing question is more why did we get to this point where people close to despots can own football clubs? Everyone knew exactly who Chelsea’s, Man City’s and Newcastle’s owners were when they signed up but people did nothing because they wanted success for their team. That’s the sad part. I think the fact we look down on anyone protesting that is much sadder and more selfish than any protester themselves.

 

The lack of acknowledgment  of the atrocities of British Empire is a conscious choice by our governments over the years though. The German government for example has actively tried to educate its people on it’s historic atrocities and it’s often said the German cultural psyche is one of guilt. Whereas I’d say the British cultural psyche is one of denial and even today people aren’t taught in school about the atrocities of the British Empire. I do think this will change at some point though, I do think the narrative around history is changing as the world becomes more globalised and national identity becomes less and less important.
 

And I also think climate change won’t be as easy to bury our heads in the sand about as the British Empire as people will be able to feel the effects of it in their everyday lives and will be taught about it in school. It’s not about  the bad things we did to some country on the other side of the world, which sad as it is to say people rarely give any thought to. It’s about the bad things we did that they will be able to experience the consequences of first hand.

Edited 18 March 2022 by Sampson

[trabuch]

52 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

 

I ****ing despise VAR

[Arriba Los Zorros]

1 hour ago, Deeg67 said:

Dyche may finally have had it this time.  He’s in trouble.

I hope they go down but expect them to stay up and actually quite comfortably. 

 

They have Everton at home, Norwich away, Southampton home, Watford away, Villa home to come. That's 5 games and you'd make them favourites vs Ev, Norwich and probably Soton too with a good chance of taking all 3 vs Watford and Villa. I think they'll finish in 16th with Leeds, Watford and Norwich dropping. 

[gurru991]

2 hours ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

I hope they go down but expect them to stay up and actually quite comfortably. 

 

They have Everton at home, Norwich away, Southampton home, Watford away, Villa home to come. That's 5 games and you'd make them favourites vs Ev, Norwich and probably Soton too with a good chance of taking all 3 vs Watford and Villa. I think they'll finish in 16th with Leeds, Watford and Norwich dropping. 

I'm not so sure that Burnley will survive, Everton & Watford will be playing with desperation & Southampton & Villa are never easy to beat. Personally I would be happy if they went down.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

I think it would absolutely be fair for Thai protesters to stop Leicester games if King Power were funding directly or indirectly (and given how close KP are to the monarchy I think it’s fair to say they would be) state sanctioned killings, human rights abuses or arbitrary imprisonment, don’t you?
 

People’s lives are worth far more than a football match and I think ultimately we don’t know that much about the Thai regimes or how close our owners are to them and if it turns out they were doing these things, wouldn’t you want it being brought to your attention so that we can stop putting money into their coffers?

 

I don’t think ManCity or Newcastle should be shut down as football clubs, they’re incredibly important to their local communities and many peoples identities. I think that what should happen to them should be the same as Chelsea where the state make sure no money goes into their owners pockets until the club is sold. But the pressing question is more why did we get to this point where people close to despots can own football clubs? Everyone knew exactly who Chelsea’s, Man City’s and Newcastle’s owners were when they signed up but people did nothing because they wanted success for their team. That’s the sad part. I think the fact we look down on anyone protesting that is much sadder and more selfish than any protester themselves.

 

The lack of acknowledgment  of the atrocities of British Empire is a conscious choice by our governments over the years though. The German government for example has actively tried to educate its people on it’s historic atrocities and it’s often said the German cultural psyche is one of guilt. Whereas I’d say the British cultural psyche is one of denial and even today people aren’t taught in school about the atrocities of the British Empire. I do think this will change at some point though, I do think the narrative around history is changing as the world becomes more globalised and national identity becomes less and less important.
 

And I also think climate change won’t be as easy to bury our heads in the sand about as the British Empire as people will be able to feel the effects of it in their everyday lives and will be taught about it in school. It’s not about  the bad things we did to some country on the other side of the world, which sad as it is to say people rarely give any thought to. It’s about the bad things we did that they will be able to experience the consequences of first hand.

Quite. Assuming that in a few decades there will still actually be regular schooling and a society in which it operates.

 

@Vacamion I can understand where you're coming from here but the fact is that pretty much every legit awareness avenue regarding climate change has been taken and there still isn't enough action being taken to deal with it. The rising global average temperature and the consequences already being felt is testament to that. Perhaps taking measures like this isn't the solution either, for the reasons you state - but I'm unsure as to what other good options exist.

 

The future of human civilisation really shouldn't be a matter of political debate or protest at football matches in the first place and I'm truly baffled at some of humanity for treating it in such a way that it is perhaps so.

[HighPeakFox]

I'd like to thank the mods for not shutting this debate down. I see a lot of good points made by all the participants so I wish to remain impartial. 

 

What I would say is that we have a society that does not like to listen to the truth, and then finds ways to bollock us when we raise our voices loud enough they cannot fail to hear. 

 

 

[Vacamion]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'd like to thank the mods for not shutting this debate down. I see a lot of good points made by all the participants so I wish to remain impartial. 

 

What I would say is that we have a society that does not like to listen to the truth, and then finds ways to bollock us when we raise our voices loud enough they cannot fail to hear. 

 

 

 

Hear hear. 

 

I am pleased that we can disagree with each other in here whilst keeping it reasonable and that the posts don't get deleted.

 

I visit other forums where there are flame wars, sockpuppet accounts, trolling and bullying, and where discussions just decend into both sides calling each other nazis and taking personal shots at each other.

 

Yay, us.  

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, Shane said:

True.
 

Maybe something for the broadcasters to think about if such a lengthly stoppage happens again in the future. Maybe a cut to the pundits studio, who knows.

 

I’m guessing pitch invasions will be a tactic of future protests now & i’m all for protests, but broadcasting it in live HD like Amazon did does feel a bit unnecessary.

Amazon showed their ‘inexperience’ in this area - other broadcasters would not have done that.  It encourages copycats ……

[Jaspa]

To begin with they did keep it off him for a few moments, but I think as soon as they establish an invader isn't a threat to anyone, armed or naked they'll pan over to justify the break in play to everyone.

 

For that lad it was probably a huge success. Millions of people read his message, googled it and looked into it ... imagine the amount of similarly politically stanced poonani he'll be getting now(if he is so inclined), a hero in that sphere. It's quite unlikely he's even interested in football anyway, a lifetime ban would mean nothing. It's not bad going for a spotty John Lennon wannabe really.

Edited 18 March 2022 by Jaspa