Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Binface manifesto announced, his proposal regarding cosy crime novels might well gain traction
https://countbinface.com/“And then, after him, the recommencement of Project Ukraine.”
My view is we are at the cusp of the end of the American Empire, to be eclipsed by either Chinese or possibly India hegemony. Can’t see any current US president getting too involved with the Ukraine, they have their own pot to piss in.
The Gulf of Hormuz situation has a smell of Suez to me. France, Britain and Israel took on an imperial venture and were humiliated because the US didn’t follow suit.
Don’t see Trump as playing the role of the debonair Anthony Eden maybe he’s more Guy Mollet.
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.“
From the wiki page
FC St. Pauli is considered one of the most left-wing football clubs in the world, with a long-standing commitment to anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, and LGBTQ+ rights. The club’s culture is closely linked to the St. Pauli district of Hamburg, an area historically associated with alternative lifestyles and the red-light district, the Reeperbahn. Its distinct political identity began to develop in the mid-1980s, when local residents, squatters, and left-wing activists rallied behind the team in response to a growing far-right presence among rival Hamburger SV supporters, establishing St. Pauli as a refuge for fans opposed to right-wing extremism in German football. The club operates under a democratic, member-driven structure, and its fans actively engage in political and social causes, including support for refugees, marginalised groups, and local community initiatives.
The skull and crossbones, or Jolly Roger, was adopted in the late 1980s after a local punk singer, Doc Mabuse, displayed the flag at a match. Originally a symbol of the club’s underdog status, it became associated with St. Pauli’s anti-establishment values. By the end of the 1980s, attendances at Millerntor Stadium increased significantly, aided by the club’s promotion from the third division to the Bundesliga in 1988.
St. Pauli emphasises inclusivity and social responsibility, and these principles are central to both its operations and its fan culture. Fans frequently display banners opposing fascism, racism, homophobia, and sexism, while the club operates under a democratic, membership-driven structure that allows supporters to vote on major decisions. In 1989, St. Pauli fans staged a boycott that successfully blocked plans to integrate the stadium into a sports dome featuring a hotel and shopping centre, reinforcing the club’s commitment to prioritising social and political values over financial gain. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, St. Pauli formalised its political commitments; on 28 October 1991, at the football club’s annual general meeting, the decision was made to ban neo-Nazis from the stadium and to make anti-fascism club policy. The club also promotes multicultural engagement and grassroots activism, supporting refugees, marginalised youth, and local squatter communities. It has hosted initiatives such as the FIFI Wild Cup, an alternative to the 2006 World Cup for nations not recognised by FIFA, and during the European refugee crisis of the mid-2010s, the club allowed refugees to stay overnight at the Millerntor Stadium and supported fundraising efforts for organisations assisting migrants in the Mediterranean. St. Pauli has also acted in response to fan protests over sexism. In 2002, advertisements for the men’s magazine Maxim were removed from the Millerntor-Stadion due to their depictions of women. In 2011, the club banned lap dancers from performing for guests in a corporate suite belonging to a local lap dance club, following complaints from supporters. These actions, along with the club’s broader social and political initiatives, have contributed to the establishment of over 400 official supporter clubs worldwide.
” Bijou Drains, football is more than ‘a bit of distraction for many people.”.
Howard, I would say that it is more than a distraction for some people, rather than many people.
There are lots of people who have “obsessional” involvement with certain things, but manage to have other things in their lives, including politics. My brother is absolutely obsessed with the rock band “The Who”, he has recordings and books galore, he has posters and books everywhere. He is also a talented musician has a collection of guitars, is a guitar geek and plays in a band and has a season ticket at St James’ Park. Despite these “more than distractions” he manages to be the secretary of his local Labour Party, heavily involved with the retired members branch of his union and be an active trustee for a credit union.
As well as being an active Socialist, I am also a keen bridge player, attend ballroom dancing sessions regularly, make my own sausages, black puddings, white puddings and cure bacon (sorry to upset the vegans, but I do have a fantastic recipe for vegan haggis if any one wants it), am a keen cook and am starting to brew my own beer. This is along side being a keen follow of both the soccer variety of football and Gaelic football (please, please, please can Mayo finally win the All Ireland on Sunday)
You see it is possible to watch and play football and do other things and I am not alone in this. At one time I played football in an 11 a side team that contained 4 party members and 2 sympathisers. This involved training once a week a playing one at the weekend. This was all undertaken whilst all being at that time very active socialists.
I know fellow socialists who have lots of other hobbies and distractions. In my time in the party I have come across many members who are keen and very talented musicians, members who love crosswords, members who are keen card players, a collector of antique books, at least one who was an extremely talented table tennis player, a member who dances Argentinian Tango properly (which is bloody hard), a model railway fan and TM said his father had a passion for Rugby.
There is an element of tribalism attached to some parts of football support, that is undeniable, but even at last week’s World Cup final you could see lots of areas of the stadium where Spanish and Argentinian fans were mixed together. If you go to most football grounds in England on before and after matches, you will likely see fans from both sides mingling together and drinking in the same pubs. There are notable exceptions, such as Derby matches, etc. But as a general rule this is now the case across England.
Thank you, Paula, no need to apologise. As Wez made his final points, I will make, hopefully, post my final thoughts and leave the posting to other areas of discussion.
A few points:Wez – “Mussolini made football the totem of Fascism and invested and centralized the game which, as a result, won two world cups in the ’30s.”
Whilst I know that Mussolini put investment into Italian football, to say that as a result of this Italy won the World Cup is a massive simplification and as usual Wez has used a sophism to prove a point. That Mussolini put in investment is true, that Italy won two world cups is also true, however to say that one was as a result of the other, that there was a direct cause and effect between the two is far from the full story. Other very much more important factors in the Italian victories, in my opinion, were:
All of the 4 of “Home Nations” refused to take part, because they felt that “The Home Internationals” series were far more prestigious and important. Whilst this might seem a bit jingoistic, the attendances at the home internationals were far higher than the The World Cup by a significant margin. For example the Scotland/England match of 1931 drew an attendance of 136,259 whilst the World cup final of 1934 attracted 50,000 and the 1938 Final attracted a mere 45,000. Taking into account that the Home Internationals were annual events and the World cup took place every 4 years, the Home Nations maybe had a point. The absence of what were at that time four of the best teams in the world at that time, may well have been more important than Mussolini’s patronage. (for Perspective, and I’m sure Paula may actually like that I made this point, Scotland were unbeaten against none British Island teams from May 1931, until May 1947).
Another factor that, in my opinion, which was far more important than Mussolini’s patronage was the long standing tradition of the Italian football International teams to include non Italian players in their teams 7 South Americans were included in the 1934 WC squads and 4 South American or other Europeans in 1938
Probably even more importantly than the points made so far and the impact of Mussolini’s patronage for the Italian victories were the withdrawals of practically all South American nations for both of the tournaments. Only Argentina and Brazil attended the 1934 tournament (the holders Uruguay, Peru and Chile all refused to be part of that tournament) and only Brazil attended the 1938 tournament, this was due to a huge fall out between European football and S American football, the S Americans thought that the tournament should alternate between Europe and S America.
Therefore to say there was a simple cause and effect is, as so often with Wez’s comments, a massive simplification.
If it is possible to condemn Football as the “sickest, most racist, most atavistic and most violent, culture” on the basis of strong support from Mussolini, then surely the same should be said about Rugby. Mussolini rebranded rugby union as palla ovale (“oval ball”), deciding it was an evolution of the Roman game harpastum. The game was used as a vehicle for Fascist unity, and by 1927 rugby union had its own propaganda committee. However, Mussolini also turned to volata, a kind of handball. Volata never caught on and in 1933 the effort was officially abandoned. After the decline of the volata project, his supporters turned back to rugby in the years leading up to the Second World War as an alternative to soccer, which they saw as an effete English influence.
Rugby Union was also heavily supported by the Semi fascistic Petain regime, which allowed the French RU to confiscate all of the assets of the French Rugby League, as Rugby League was seen as a Left Wing sport. To date no compensation has been paid to the French RL which is a cause of a bitter dispute between the two codes which continues to this day. Another authoritarian regime, the one under Ceaușescu in Romania, also did a lot to support and promote Rugby Union as part of his regime’s attempt to use sport as a political tool
Also if football has no place in our culture because of the fact that some fascists groups have attempted to use and manipulate the sport, then Theatre and film must also have no place. Under Benito Mussolini, theatre was co-opted as a crucial tool for state propaganda. The regime aggressively promoted nationalist values, militarism, and historical parallels between Fascist Italy and the Roman Empire. Mussolini even co-authored several historical dramas himself to popularise his ideology and elevate the “new fascist man”, whilst Hitler and Goebbels use of film and drama needs no further illustration.
Moving on to the old chestnut of bread and circuses. Juvenal originally used the term to describe the process by which emperors handed out grain and paid for or subsidised expensive circuses as an attempt to bribe the populous into acquiescence and to gain political power. Apart from pointing out that professional football is not in any meaningful way subsided and that I have yet to attend any football match where I have been given grain, or indeed any kind of food for free, a more apt comparison to 1st Century Rome is the subsidies given to “high art” Opera, Ballet, Theatre, etc. All of those cultural activities are heavily subsidised by the state often as a result of lobbying by more affluent sections of society as a means to buy support for the influence those sections bring. These are the real bread and circuses. Does Wez think Socialists should shun these areas of the art, refuse to accept the enjoyment those subsidies provide?
In conclusion, yes, football does provide a distraction from the grim reality of capitalism. So does a walk in the park, a trip to the pub, a cup of tea with an old friend, pampering a pet, watching subsidised theatre, a quick “roll in the hay” with a consenting adult, etc. Should we abstain from these activities as well? Wez says of football that “football as giving us ‘hope and enjoyment’ is testament to its role as distraction, What’s wrong with the occasional distraction, the odd bit of hope and enjoyment? Feck knows we need it.
Paula, After reading through the Forum’s guidance and rules, I cannot see how any of either Mine or Wez’s posting breach the guidelines in any way. I know the rules say that PMs should be used to raise issues about moderation, but the PM function was taken away during the rebuild of the forum. In my view as long as posters stay within the guidance, that is fine I think the message you sent over steps the parameters of the Moderator role.
I would also argue that:
a) The discussion itself has brought people back to make contributions to the forum. Which is a good thing.
b) A little bit of lively discussion goes along way from livening up the recent endless beige postings that have been on the forum recently.
c) if you or other posters are not enjoying the debate, they have an option of ignoring the topic and not end up reading the posts.I have never denied that the hooligan firms were fertile recruitment grounds for the Fascists, where did I ever say that????
What I am saying that for you to say that what you describe as “football culture” and “football hooliganism” are co-terminus and that one is the same as the other is a nonsense. All haddocks are fish, that does not mean that all fish are haddocks. All football gangs were football fans, but not all football fans were in football gangs. It’s really not that hard to understand?
Stereotyping ALL of what you call “football culture” and saying, using superlative adjectives, that this football culture is the sickest, most racist, etc. culture in the country, is also a nonsense. I have pointed out that there are other cultures in the country are sicker, more racist, more atavistic and more violent than football as a whole. This does not in any way excuse football violence but is an attempt to balance the negatives of “football culture” with the neutral and positive aspects of football. For example, over 2,000 people attended the St Johnstone v Greenock Morton match today at the start of the Scottish Football season. They went to the match, many drank beer, no doubt a few of them drank bovril and had cups of team. Some had crisps, some ate pies. It might be safely inferred that they enjoyed themselves (otherwise they wouldn’t keep coming back). There were no arrests, no fighting, no racism, etc. Some of them had a laugh and a joke with their friends. Is that the sickest, most racist, most atavistic and most violent thing that happened in the UK, or could it be that you have indulged yourself in embarrassing hyperbole?
In terms of why people became part of football gangs I think the reasons are often different for different people. Funnily enough I did a bit of work with one of the Premier League’s Charitable foundations and observed a lot of the anti gang work they were involved with. The football gangs and related violence has reduced massively to what it was in the peak year in the late 70s through to the 80s, but it still exists to a lesser extent and gang culture outside of football is still a big, big issue.
A lot of the kids I observed were looking for support and security, some sense of belonging, some sense of safety in numbers, some sense of shared identity. Some kids get involved with gangs because friends are involved and they want to be like them, some find status in being a gang member or even more status.
The “psychology” presented by the clip you have linked is actually not very psychological at all. It offers more description that analysis. It does not really provide any psychological underpinnings for the process of gang membership. Stating that it is part of “identity fusion” provides a little insight, but generally speaking all groups of people who come together in shared ways often go through the same process. The researcher stated that this was “explaining the pro group behaviour”. To me, that doesn’t really provide a need for such pro group behaviour in the first place.
As such it is quite simplistic. A more reasoned way of looking at this would be to examine why it was that groups of generally youngsters want to feel part of something, part of something important, share that sense of belonging and camaraderie. My own take on that is that any study of this phenomenon needs to take into account, alienation, attachment and resilience.
We live in a society that creates high levels of alienation, the worker is alienated from the product of his labour, but more than that social alienation occurs across all sections of our lives and the atomisation of our social existence, people are spending less in social activities due to work stresses, long hours, etc. The internet produces a kind of social interaction, which although it isn’t full and real contact provides a small degree of contact and which also can be carried out by people who are time poor.
Social Resilience is a term used to describe the ways in which we use social relationships to allow us to feel secure and be able to get through the stresses and strains of life. Sometimes described as bouncebackability. Studies on resilience identify factors that support resilience, that feeling of being safe.
Three broad factors have been associated with resilience:
Individual characteristics (including temperament, competence, self-efficacy and self-esteem)
Family support and
A supportive person or agency outside the family
(Brown & Rhodes, 1991; Compas, 1987; Garmezy, 1994; Matson, 2001; Werner & Smith, 1982).This relates easily to the model of attachment developed by people such as John Bowlby. Bowlby’s concept of inner working models explains the long-term impact of early attachment experiences (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). These models are constructed from the infant’s experience of interaction, and Sroufe (1988) argues that “Such models concerning the availability of others and, in turn, the self as worthy or unworthy of care, provide a basic context for subsequent transactions with the environment, most particularly social relationships”
What that means is that whilst many of us grow up in a protective and loving environment where we develop strong feelings of being protected, nurtured and cared for, subsequently developing what has become known as Secure Attachments, others also developed variations of attachment, which have become known as Insecure Attachments.
Gangs, in many ways, replicate, in an often malign way, what Bowlby described as “The Secure Base”, that is to say, the warm loving and caring environment of the family provide the growing child with a model of being protected and safe. The gang provides a version of that secure base.
A common finding in research on young gang members is the attraction of the gang through promises of protection, care, identity, and belonging—attachment functions typically fulfilled by the family unit (Chalas & Grekul, 2017). Insecure or absent attachments with primary caregivers may lead to difficulty with affect and emotional regulation leading to problem behaviours. Weak attachment leads to lack of trust in members of the community and increases the likelihood of involvement in criminal activities and connection to those with similar insecure attachment (Bowlby, 1988; Parrigon et al., 2015). Additionally, gang members can become attachment figures though peer attachments are unable to provide the unconditional love necessary to be healthy attachment figures which then perpetuates attachment trauma (Neufeld & Maté, 2013). In short, gangs fulfil attachment needs and offer a space of belonging for those who otherwise feel excluded (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1988; De Vito, 2020).
Wez – “I doubt that it was as intense and lasted so long as football violence did in this country”
Genuine question, are you being serious?
The British union of Fascists were active across all cities across the UK from the mid 1920’s to the outbreak of the 2nd World War.
My Dad and his uncles were involved in the anti Fascist movement in the 30’s.
If you think this is comparable with a few hundred or even thousands of football hooligans running around Cambridge, closing a few pubs, you need to give your head a wobble.
If you are unaware of what went on in the late 1920’s and 1930’s you seriously need to do some reading.
This is an account of what was going on in the North East. This was a very small part of the fascist campaign.
My old fella (my dad) wasn’t a member of the SPGB but I am proud when he explained to me why he was there at many of the anti fascist protests in the 1930’s, especially at the famous Newcastle Town Moor event.
I knew a few of his old friends who ended up fighting in the Spanish Civil War. He and his marras chased the BUF off Newcastle’s Town Moor
This as an account of what happened in my part of the world. It was much worse in other parts of the UK
I’m honestly surprised that you are unaware of this.
If you think this is even slightly comparable to what you described as “football culture”, which we have established includes junior football, local leagues football, the hundreds of thousands who attend non-league football games, and the 16 million people who play, watch and volunteer as part of “football culture” I would really appreciate an explanation of why think this way.
“The fascist campaign reached a watershed in the early summer of 1934. An unsuccessful Blackshirt attack on an ILP May Day rally in Gateshead effectively decided their fate. The fascists were planning a major rally with Mosley at Newcastle’s Town Moor during Race Week and a series of meetings were arranged to promote the rally. In response to the May Day attack, on 13 May several thousand anti-fascists, led by the AFL in “plainclothes”, stopped a fascist meeting in Newcastle, followed them back to their Headquarters and laid siege to it – with broken glass and blood everywhere.
The next night the BUF meeting was in Gateshead. Thousands turned out to oppose it and it was forced to close down early, and only a large police presence prevented the thousands who followed them back over the Tyne from getting hold of the fascists. Once again the BUF HQ was put under heavy siege. On 1st June the Gateshead BUF office was wrecked (probably by the AFL), Beckett and Moran were moved out of Newcastle in disgrace, and with fierce opposition promised, Mosley’s Race Week Rally was cancelled.
Attempts were made by the BUF to move their operations to North Shields, but this failed after two rallies got turned over in the summer of 1934. The fascists were in disarray, unable to do what they wanted, and Newcastle BUF duly split in August ’34. They did reorganise in 1935, and Mosley spoke at Newcastle City Hall in May, but the opposition was so loud that he stormed out after only 15 minutes.
Other smaller meetings were tried but the tide had turned, in July 400 miners smashed a BUF meeting in Sunderland. In November Mosley had one more try with a rally in South Shields, next to the Arab “quarter”, hoping to start a race riot. Fascist stewards were bussed in from all over the country, but the anti-fascists mobilised thousands, and with fighting inside and outside the hall, and fascist buses bricked on their way out, the meeting wasn’t a success.
After 1935, BUF activity petered out in the North East, the fascists being mainly confined to London from then on. Undoubtedly, without the level of opposition they faced, the outcome would have been different.”
Was Fascist violence was a big thing in the 1930s? Are you genuinely asking that question? Surely you have a know about the amount of very serious right wing violence occurred in the 1930s.
And not just in the 1930s. The NF violence in the UK in the 1970s was incredible and in the 1980s our branch was regularly the scene of attempts to intimidate us by far right nutters.
If you don’t think that nazi inspired violence has any part of the modern UK, who the hell do you think has been attempting to burn down asylum seeker accommodation and trashing towns and cities across the country, the bloody Women’s Institute
Rodshaw, Funnily enough, I had the same experience of not being asked about my view of football during my application to join the party in 1982. Perhaps this crucial question about socialist consciousness was inadvertently overlooked in that period of time.
I also enjoyed the article.
I do think that there is an awful lot of emphasis on the 92 league clubs and especially on the Premier League, when discussions take place about football and its impact on the general public. Although the Premier League has a big impact with an average of around 800,000 people attending Premier League matches per week, there are still over 300,000 people attend the non league teams that operate within the top 5 levels of the non league pyramid, with even more attending games below that level.
Attendances in non league football are growing year on year and it seems to be that a significant number of spectators are choosing to leave the glitz and glamour of the elite game and enjoy football in a way which has probably more connections to their own lived experience.
Rodshaw “I still enjoy watching it though.” Careful mate, enjoying football and seeing some positive aspects in any part of the sport (including grass roots and local league football) will hinder your ability to form socialist consciousness. Wez reckons perhaps you’d possibly be less socially destructive if you became a Nazi.
Wez, saying that the violent fools who were involved in football violence have over exaggerated their exploits to make them look like heroes for financial gain is not a denial that they were and still are violent, nasty arseholes. In saying that the plethora of “cowboys and Indians” films we all watched as kids exaggerated the exploits of the violent vicious gangsters to make them out to be heroes is not excusing the gangsters. Denial according to the Cambridge Dictionary means “an unwillingness to accept that something unpleasant is true”. I stated that “That is not to say that there weren’t some very bad things that happened and that disruption to normal life took place, people got hurt and some seriously,”. Does that sound like denial to you?
So football violence might “perhaps” be comparable (not worse) than Nazism, makes you look like an even bigger fool than you the posts you have made so far. Congratulations, I didn’t think was possible.
So I infer from that that you think that the whole of football culture (you stated football culture not football hooliganism) is sicker than Paedophilia, People Trafficking, etc. Your words not mine. If you agree that the culture of paedophilia is less worse than football culture, can you for the sake of clarity, acknowledge this?
You also by omission, have put forward the view that boxing, as sport that involves people punching each other in the face with the aim of knocking the opponent into a state of unconsciousness, whilst being cheered on by sometimes, hundreds, sometimes thousands and often tens of thousands others are cheering them on as they do it, is less violent than football. There were something like 6,200 boxing bouts held in England and Wales last year, last year there were 2,037 arrests in total across organised football matches across England and Wales of which 36% were for violence or threats of violence. You work out which sport was the more violent.
As I have said before, the entirety of football culture is a far great thing than football violence. You have tried consistently to conflate the two as being exactly the same thing, you have failed completely in this attempt.
As to trawling through “your endless apologies for the violence and criminality”, please trawl through them all again and clearly point out where I have apologised for violence and criminality. I think you will find there have been no apologies for any of it. What I have done is point out that whilst there has been a small sub culture of violence, which has grown smaller and smaller, there is a larger whole of football which if you wish to designate as being a “culture” has as many varieties as their are football fans and participants.
You have tried again and again to state that football violence and football culture are one and the same thing, I have clearly pointed out with explicit examples backed by facts and figures that this is not the case. As to snide comments, I read your comments and learned from the master.
Wez, as I have said several times, you have accused me of whitewashing. The Cambridge Dictionary defines whitewashing as “an attempt to stop people finding out the true facts about a situation“. I have never in any of my postings attempted to stop people finding out the true facts of a situation. What I did was responded to the ridiculous hyperbole of your posting which stated that football is the “sickest, racist, atavistic and most violent” culture in the country. Rather than whitewashing football, I responded to you by pointing out some of the undoubtedly positive aspects of the sport (if you think that children enjoying football is a bad thing please explain why). I was in fact responding to your hugely overstated comment that the whole of football (you described it as football culture) is unremittingly bad. Introducing balance to an argument is not whitewashing
I challenged that by saying that this was a silly and unsupportable statement. As you used superlative adjectives in your denunciation of football, I have asked you to explain clearly
- why football is sicker, more racist more atavistic and violent than any other culture in England?
So if, as you say, football culture is the worst, please clearly explain why the following cultures are better than football? So:
Why is football culture worse than Nazism?
Why is football culture worse than Paedophilia?
Why is football culture worse than dog fighting?
Why is football culture worse than badger baiting?
Why is football culture worse than People trafficking?
Why is football culture worse than bare knuckle fighting?These by your definition are cultures. They are by your definition not as sick, racist, atavistic and violent as football.
If you don’t give precise reasons why these cultures are not as bad as football, I can safely assume it’s because you can’t.
Moving on, in terms of football you stated that football is the most violent sport in the country. Do you seriously think that the sport of boxing which revolves around people training, preparing and promoting people to continually punch each other in the face is less violent than football. A simple yes or no that one would suffice.
As to the real football factories and the similar stories of great bravado that ex football hooligans write about, I actually have watched bits of them and looked at odd articles that are of a similar vein. I have to say, as someone who went to club football matches all over England, home and away, in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s and encountered some of the knuckle dragging clowns who write these tall tales about their exploits, they are generally massive exaggerations to make money out of their experiences.
That is not to say that there weren’t some very bad things that happened and that disruption to normal life took place, people got hurt and some seriously, but all of the “our crew went down to their end and sorted them out and we did this and we did that” “we took the such and such crew and we hammered them etc.” is a huge load of baloney which attempt to make these nutters some kind of war hero. In the same way that war heroes try to claim that they were fighting for us, these morons weren’t fighting for anyone but themselves and were generally despised by the vast majority of football fans. The majority of those who attended matches in those days had nothing to do with the hooligans.
In reality most of the time these so called hooligan heroes ran around threatening each other and most of it ended up like a giant version of British Bulldog or as it was usually described by the majority who attended as “handbags at 10 paces”. As I have said most genuine football fans of that era despised the football gangs. Many of the hooligans often didn’t even bother to go to the match and would be found afterwards asking what the bloody result was. The majority of non hooligans fans were described mockingly by the hooligans as being “Shirts” (those who wore football tops), Scarfs (those who wore team coloured scarfs) or beer monsters (those who wanted to go to the pub, have a bit of crack with the opposition fans, have a laugh and a joke and drink beer). I was very much of the beer monster persuasion.
Even taking into account the stupidity and violence that football hooliganism used to bring, this was a minority within those who attended professional football, they account for 92 teams. England alone has over 40,000 teams organised through the FA and many thousands outside of the UK. Are you saying that all of those teams, all of those players, all of those volunteers, all of those supporters are sick, racist, atavistic and the most violent? Slandering the many because of the actions of a few is the cornerstone of prejudice and discrimination, are you happy to be party to that?
Apologies, then, if you think that this is long and rambling, I had always assumed that as a socialist you had a greater concentration span than the average goldfish.
