Older supporters

[Guest Col city fan]

9 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

As you say, we're in broad agreement on the overall situation.
 
But the point I slightly disagree with you is this ... both main political parties tried to tackle football hooliganism when it was in full swing from the early 70's (Labour 1974-79, Conservatives 1974-85), but neither really had any solutions.  Not least because it was a very difficult problem to "solve", based on mixture of over exuberance, passion, alcohol, gang peer pressure, social problems, rebellious behaviour, and other factors.
 
And amidst all the other problems of the 70's and 80's, football hooliganism was never absolute top of the list.   But after Heysel in 1985, it was.   All English clubs were thrown out of European competitions indefinitely, and our name was absolute muck around Europe.   Well it had been for years previously anyway, with followers of English club sides and the England national side causing mayhem wherever they went.
 
But with 39 deaths, it was now something that couldn't be tolerated, and stronger action had to follow.   As I say, any Government in power would have treated "The English disease" (as they called it in Europe) the same way.  It wasn't a political attack on the English working class young male population ... it was an attack on crimimal acts of violence that had killed scores of people, that had brought the English game almost to its knees.
 
(don't forget that even before Heysel, lots of people had been killed in the previous decade, so it was a serious problem.   Off the top of my head I remember a fan stabbed to death at a Blackpool v Bolton match, Leeds fans killed in fights at Tottenham and Forest, Chelsea fans killed in incidents at Swansea and Birmingham, Millwall fan killed on a station after a fight with West Ham fans, 2 Middlesbrough fans killed when a wall was pushed over v Man Utd, a fan killed after the Birmignham v Leeds riot in 1985.  There were probably others I've forgotten.)
 
The point being, you can't overestimate just how much a problem it was ... but when we "exported" the death and destruction to Europe, that's when it seriously had to change and more draconian action was the only realistic response.
 
In fact bearing in mind there were serious calls to shut down professional football altogether until the problem was sorted, we actually got off fairly lightly.   Even ID cards never made if off the drawing board.   English football slowly got its act together, and clubs were allowed back into Europe after 5 years (Liverpool were banned for another year).   
 
Hillsborough in 1989 was a separate issue, which accelerated the move towards all-seater stadia.   It's worth pointing out, however, that even by 1989 the trend towards all-seater stadia was accelerating.  UEFA were starting the push for all-seater grounds, English clubs were happy to go down the route of a more sanitised/safer/controlled environment, the Premier League with its sexy hype was just around the corner, so everything was moving in that direction (Government action or not).

 

Another great post and that’s exactly what happened and why.

I studied sociology at Uni and chose football violence as one of my key subjects to study.

It’s fascinating how certain anti-social behaviours can demonstrate some sort of social purpose. Almost an anthropological one.

The overwhelming evidence is that young men need to be able to ‘vent’. It’s bound up in lots of different factors. Being in/out of work, loss of social identity, difficulties with relationships, lack of social outlet, insufficient money… all manner of factors.

If we take football nowadays. Even in the grounds it’s become so sanitised that young men can’t use this a source of offloading their angst. Eg. Venting their spleens at the ref, opposition fans, the manager, the ‘linesman’ etc. Of course, this still goes on these days, but only to an extent and nowhere near to the level that it used to be done.

One way that blokes used to offload their angst was to fight at football. This was typically planned and organised, venues were organised where rival factions would meet up, often away from grounds. Very often, the fights wouldn’t involve ‘the normal fans’ as they wouldn’t be happening anywhere near them.

So, sociologically, fighting at football served a purpose. A maladaptive one, you might say, but a purpose nonetheless.

Then, of course, it was stopped, football became cleaner, families started attending… and all that.

Here’s the rub… pent up angst must come out somehow. Nowadays it does in different ways. The incidence and prevalence of domestic violence increases year on year. Alcohol consumption is ever-rising. Mental illness and particularly suicide rates in this country are higher than they ever were. And of course, violent crime is massively increasing, fuelled mainly by the drugs and gang land culture.

Sometimes problems of this nature aren’t resolved. They are ‘moved’ and reflect themselves in other areas of society. In the same way that adding drainage to a flooded field will mean that field is no longer flooded, but the fields further down the river will be. The water has to go somewhere…

The sanitisation of football has been good for families. But has it been ‘good’ for younger blokes in general? 
Food for thought.

Edited 27 March 2023 by Col city fan

[davieG]

47 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Another great post and that’s exactly what happened and why.

I studied sociology at Uni and chose football violence as one of my key subjects to study.

It’s fascinating how certain anti-social behaviours can demonstrate some sort of social purpose. Almost an anthropological one.

The overwhelming evidence is that young men need to be able to ‘vent’. It’s bound up in lots of different factors. Being in/out of work, loss of social identity, difficulties with relationships, lack of social outlet, insufficient money… all manner of factors.

If we take football nowadays. Even in the grounds it’s become so sanitised that young men can’t use this a source of offloading their angst. Eg. Venting their spleens at the ref, opposition fans, the manager, the ‘linesman’ etc. Of course, this still goes on these days, but only to an extent and nowhere near to the level that it used to be done.

One way that blokes used to offload their angst was to fight at football. This was typically planned and organised, venues were organised where rival factions would meet up, often away from grounds. Very often, the fights wouldn’t involve ‘the normal fans’ as they wouldn’t be happening anywhere near them.

So, sociologically, fighting at football served a purpose. A maladaptive one, you might say, but a purpose nonetheless.

Then, of course, it was stopped, football became cleaner, families started attending… and all that.

Here’s the rub… pent up angst must come out somehow. Nowadays it does in different ways. The incidence and prevalence of domestic violence increases year on year. Alcohol consumption is ever-rising. Mental illness and particularly suicide rates in this country are higher than they ever were. And of course, violent crime is massively increasing, fuelled mainly by the drugs and gang land culture.

Sometimes problems of this nature aren’t resolved. They are ‘moved’ and reflect themselves in other areas of society. In the same way that adding drainage to a flooded field will mean that field is no longer flooded, but the fields further down the river will be. The water has to go somewhere…

The sanitisation of football has been good for families. But has it been ‘good’ for younger blokes in general? 
Food for thought.

Perhaps we need WW3 or Conscription for all those without Uni / College or Apprenticeship Work.

[Guest Col city fan]

51 minutes ago, davieG said:

Perhaps we need WW3 or Conscription for all those without Uni / College or Apprenticeship Work.

Fortunately, quite a lot still exists which enables this release of inner angst.

Local football, other sports clubs, the internet (just take FT as an example), my son does it with boxing, the gym etc..

BUT despite this, look at the evidence. This seemingly unrelentless onslaught of trying to sanitise is actually having the opposite effect to the desired one, if the variables (some of which are given above) are anything to go by.

The incidence and prevalence of mental illness in Britain has absolutely rocketed in recent years. And it was upturning well prior to covid.

And if you break that down still further, the amount of mental illness and particularly self harming behaviour is the biggest increase in younger people 

Edited 27 March 2023 by Col city fan

[Tommy Fresh]

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Another great post and that’s exactly what happened and why.

I studied sociology at Uni and chose football violence as one of my key subjects to study.

 

For all our disagreements I think I might actually be you Col, degree in Sociology and dissertation on football violence.

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy Fresh said:

For all our disagreements I think I might actually be you Col, degree in Sociology and dissertation on football violence.

Calling it now - split personality disorder. One of your alias on the phone, then you type against yourself on the laptop 

[justfoxes]

On 27/03/2023 at 18:49, davieG said:

Perhaps we need WW3 or Conscription for all those without Uni / College or Apprenticeship Work.

Bit harsh Davie with WW3 Mind you with all the Billy Big Bollox seeing who’s got the bigger Willy in the World makes you feel a bit unsafe but really agree with you certain kinds of Conscription or Something to get the kids & jobless off the streets.

[Voll Blau]

I reckon they should bring back National Service for everyone who's never actually had to do National Service before.

 

That'd see support for the idea drop off a cliff...

[fuchsntf]

On 26/03/2023 at 23:33, worth_the_wait said:

Not what sure it had to do with the Tories.
 
Football hooliganism was well-established by the late 1960's.   It got worse during the 1970's ... probably peaking in the mid/late 70's when most weekends resembled battlefields up and down the country.  Pitch invasions, mass punch-ups, pubs wrecked, trains and buses smashed to pieces, you name it.
 
Both Labour and Conservative governments tried everything to sort out the problem, but most of the time the lid was only kept on the violence through massive policing eg 500 police were on duty when we played Forest at Filbert Street in Sep 1977.
 
Increased policing, segregation, escorts back to the coach park and station, heavier fines and prison sentences, etc slowly improved the situation ... although there were still some major disturbances into the mid 80's eg Chelsea v Middlesbrough, Luton v Millwall, Birmingham v Leeds. (and many more).
 
The 39 deaths caused (mostly) by Liverpool fans at the European Cup Final in 1985 was the final straw.   The Government of the day had to act, and it wouldn't have mattered who was in power.   In the end, luckily, the proposed ID card scheme never came to fruition ... and hooliganism was largely defeated through vastly increased use of video film evidence, undercover police work, heavy custodial sentences (for the newly created offence of Violent Disorder), and various other initiatives from clubs.
 
The sad irony, is that 35 years after they were proposed and rejected, it looks like we're effectively getting "ID cards" via the back door ie via Mobile Ticketing, and ID checks at away matches.

 

The British hooliganism,and quite a few people ignore this was born,on or from,

the 60s-70s European randal-groups,like the Germans & Italians,who first beat down on Ipswich,W.Ham,Chelsea fans..Italy was rife with massive fan clashes,yes as bad as Heysel,which L'pool fans really didn't begin, but exploded into...

Italy had many death and stadium incidents,but in those day the British media and fans had ,very little experience or onsite.The British media started to become active in European lives,exactly in the late 60s into 70s,they reported then on rolling incidents issues and facts...The Italian paparazzi hadn't yet hit British journalism...coincidentally British..

Scottish English fans got fed up of being Targets,then wham Club wise their club hooligans became organised, like than both groups of Milan then Roma& Napoli fans..BvB Shalka fan hooligan groups were not so big,but bad enough..The English hooligans expanded with the international team.

The British hooligans of big teams now,wouldn't be brow beaten,but became nothing to be proud of...

But now the European media,and enlarged British press had a great vehicle for their new world projection of all events.

 

At first the British Press was too honest,where European paparazzi had a vehicle to hide their own hooligan woes,and blame only the British neanderthals,backed as said a none denying (rightly,but too honest) the British press..The lies & Soap-opera scripts came in from later generations.

 

This is no excuse,we had to banned from Europe,Heysel was a stadium waiting for a catastrophy to happen,the wall and fans throwing bricks,and a surge like a wave..but the politicians typically got it wrong and let the mis-directed press hype drive them...

 

Hooliganism was not at first an English disease or virus...like many things bad,the British Hooligan scene organised themselves specially across the  European Rhein army & ex-pats,who loved a rumble...It became massive,Italians hooligans couldn't compete,because they stayed local or intern,but today still just as nasty.Germans lost their industrial North,the Rohrpot & Hamburg hooligans were never going to expand,and stayed local.Though Frankfurt a large great fan group,like W.Ham or Chelsea have their idiots who can have various neighbours police & authorities showing total inappropiat dis-organisation...

 

Through our own spreading of the virus,our own Police-force & also undercover work is now the best in the world.They prefer pre-planning & prevention, and not the batton-hooligan tactics of French,Spanish & other Police forces.

Italians like the British Police are a bit wiser..but also turn OTT nasty..

[PAPA LAZAROU]

On 27/03/2023 at 18:00, Col city fan said:

Another great post and that’s exactly what happened and why.

I studied sociology at Uni and chose football violence as one of my key subjects to study.

It’s fascinating how certain anti-social behaviours can demonstrate some sort of social purpose. Almost an anthropological one.

The overwhelming evidence is that young men need to be able to ‘vent’. It’s bound up in lots of different factors. Being in/out of work, loss of social identity, difficulties with relationships, lack of social outlet, insufficient money… all manner of factors.

If we take football nowadays. Even in the grounds it’s become so sanitised that young men can’t use this a source of offloading their angst. Eg. Venting their spleens at the ref, opposition fans, the manager, the ‘linesman’ etc. Of course, this still goes on these days, but only to an extent and nowhere near to the level that it used to be done.

One way that blokes used to offload their angst was to fight at football. This was typically planned and organised, venues were organised where rival factions would meet up, often away from grounds. Very often, the fights wouldn’t involve ‘the normal fans’ as they wouldn’t be happening anywhere near them.

So, sociologically, fighting at football served a purpose. A maladaptive one, you might say, but a purpose nonetheless.

Then, of course, it was stopped, football became cleaner, families started attending… and all that.

Here’s the rub… pent up angst must come out somehow. Nowadays it does in different ways. The incidence and prevalence of domestic violence increases year on year. Alcohol consumption is ever-rising. Mental illness and particularly suicide rates in this country are higher than they ever were. And of course, violent crime is massively increasing, fuelled mainly by the drugs and gang land culture.

Sometimes problems of this nature aren’t resolved. They are ‘moved’ and reflect themselves in other areas of society. In the same way that adding drainage to a flooded field will mean that field is no longer flooded, but the fields further down the river will be. The water has to go somewhere…

The sanitisation of football has been good for families. But has it been ‘good’ for younger blokes in general? 
Food for thought.

If we had had the " sanitisation" of football a little earlier there would never have been a reason to fence fans in around the pitch and Hillsborough would never have happened. Personally, I'm grateful the establishment got to grips with the hooligan problem And I don't a toss about their psychological needs as youths either.

[Guest Col city fan]

45 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

If we had had the " sanitisation" of football a little earlier there would never have been a reason to fence fans in around the pitch and Hillsborough would never have happened. Personally, I'm grateful the establishment got to grips with the hooligan problem And I don't a toss about their psychological needs as youths either.

Hillsborough wasn’t about football violence. The fact that Liverpool fans turned up in their thousands, many without tickets, may have been a contributory factor, but if you read the report of the Enquiry, football ‘hooliganism’ played no part in the disaster.

As I pointed out, (not my evidence by the way, but from a sociological perspective), the problem of ‘violence’ wasn’t stopped by tackling football hooliganism, it was just moved. And in a number of ways (if you study it) there has been an increasing amount of ‘violence’ over recent years, not by groups of lads scrapping on a waste site, but in many other different forms. As explained above.

It all depends if you a. want to look past the ‘thuggish’ argument of a group of Neanderthals kicking shit out of each other and b. have an open enough mind to understand that violence in its many forms has increased. It’s just not happening in terms of football hooliganism.

 

Edited 29 March 2023 by Col city fan

[PAPA LAZAROU]

4 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Hillsborough wasn’t about football violence. The fact that Liverpool fans turned up in their thousands, many without tickets, may have been a contributory factor, but if you read the report of the Enquiry, football ‘hooliganism’ played no part in the disaster.

As I pointed out, (not my evidence by the way, but from a sociological perspective), the problem of ‘violence’ wasn’t stopped by tackling football hooliganism, it was just moved. And in a number of ways (if you study it) there has been an increasing amount of ‘violence’ over recent years, not by groups of lads scrapping on a waste site, but in many other different forms. As explained above.

It all depends if you a. want to look past the ‘thuggish’ argument of a group of Neanderthals kicking shit out of each other and b. have an open enough mind to understand that violence in its many forms has increased. It’s just not happening in terms of football hooliganism.

 

My point Col was the fencing around the pitch which was erected to stop hooliganism and pitch invasions. this proved fatal on the day. So yes it was a direct result of hooliganism.  

[funkyrobot]

On 27/03/2023 at 18:00, Col city fan said:

Another great post and that’s exactly what happened and why.

I studied sociology at Uni and chose football violence as one of my key subjects to study.

It’s fascinating how certain anti-social behaviours can demonstrate some sort of social purpose. Almost an anthropological one.

The overwhelming evidence is that young men need to be able to ‘vent’. It’s bound up in lots of different factors. Being in/out of work, loss of social identity, difficulties with relationships, lack of social outlet, insufficient money… all manner of factors.

If we take football nowadays. Even in the grounds it’s become so sanitised that young men can’t use this a source of offloading their angst. Eg. Venting their spleens at the ref, opposition fans, the manager, the ‘linesman’ etc. Of course, this still goes on these days, but only to an extent and nowhere near to the level that it used to be done.

One way that blokes used to offload their angst was to fight at football. This was typically planned and organised, venues were organised where rival factions would meet up, often away from grounds. Very often, the fights wouldn’t involve ‘the normal fans’ as they wouldn’t be happening anywhere near them.

So, sociologically, fighting at football served a purpose. A maladaptive one, you might say, but a purpose nonetheless.

Then, of course, it was stopped, football became cleaner, families started attending… and all that.

Here’s the rub… pent up angst must come out somehow. Nowadays it does in different ways. The incidence and prevalence of domestic violence increases year on year. Alcohol consumption is ever-rising. Mental illness and particularly suicide rates in this country are higher than they ever were. And of course, violent crime is massively increasing, fuelled mainly by the drugs and gang land culture.

Sometimes problems of this nature aren’t resolved. They are ‘moved’ and reflect themselves in other areas of society. In the same way that adding drainage to a flooded field will mean that field is no longer flooded, but the fields further down the river will be. The water has to go somewhere…

The sanitisation of football has been good for families. But has it been ‘good’ for younger blokes in general? 
Food for thought.

I’d suggest the vast majority of younger male fans have absolutely no interest in having a brawl at the footy. It’s the minority, it always has been a minority and it’s not football’s responsibility to pander to the lads who feel they have to ‘offload their angst’ by kicking lumps out of each other in the name of football. I’d also suggest normal fans were and are often inadvertently caught up in the violence seen on match days. 

[purpleronnie]

12 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

I’d suggest the vast majority of younger male fans have absolutely no interest in having a brawl at the footy. It’s the minority, it always has been a minority and it’s not football’s responsibility to pander to the lads who feel they have to ‘offload their angst’ by kicking lumps out of each other in the name of football. I’d also suggest normal fans were and are often inadvertently caught up in the violence seen on match days. 

A lot seemed to be interested in fighting as along as its behind a line of stewards.

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

A lot seemed to be interested in fighting bravado as along as its behind a line of stewards.

 

[purpleronnie]

23 minutes ago, davieG said:

A lot seemed to be interested in fighting bravado as along as its behind a line of stewards.

That's what I was eluding to.

Edited 30 March 2023 by purpleronnie