A Farewell to Freedom

Chaps

I think the very depressing thing is that the consensus is that if you did not respect the person for whom the silence is being held, it is excusable to make a racket.

The idea of a silence is for everyone to show respect and there is no person on this earth who commands 100% respect.

In the case of the Pope, it is showing respect to all Roman Catholics and showing respect leads to better relationships.

I have to agree that the policing of it is difficult and those who were arrested will probably be quietely let off.

A few years ago, the two minutes armistice silence was held for the first time in a long while in our warehouse. Most of us observed the silence but one individual made as much noise as he could and even whistled the German national anthem.

I would have dearly loved to have disciplined him but he had committed no offence and got away scot free. His personal popularity sank but he just thought it was a laugh.

How you deal with them, I do not know.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
How you deal with them, I do not know.

It's not difficult - just don't force people to public show respect for someone they had little or no respect for.

You don't hold the silence. Then there's nothing to abuse. My team worked through the Queen Mother's silence as normal. I told them they could have an hour off in the afternoon to pay their respects in any way they saw fit, if they wanted to. Two out of twelve took the time. They took an extended lunch break and did a bit of extra drinking. And if that's how they like to pay their respects it's perfectly fine by me.

Knuckleheads are easy to manage out. Ineffectuyal management is another discussion IMO.

So by not holding the silence, you allow yobbish behaviour to rule the day.

If that is what you want, then fine but it is not my idea of a civilised society.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If that is what you want, then fine but it is not my idea of a civilised society.

A civilized society allows for non-violent protests when members of that society don't agree with something that's been forced upon them.

There were something like 50,000 fans at that Celtic v Hearts game and not one arrest for anything relating to violence. There were only 16 arrests all told (and a significant number of those were likely to be Celtic fans).

Actually at the moment it seems to be the case that the media etc. are assuming those arrested for sectarian breach of the peace were Hearts fans during the silence but it's not yet clear if that actually was the case as the main sectarian chanting incidents arose outwith the 18 second silence.

What yobbish behaviour? I didn't get any.

This does sound like a particularly 'football' issue.

There was a recent television programme about the offensive chanting and singing at Rangers v Celtic matches. Many other club rivalries have moved way beyond the point of friendly rivalry and have become something altogether less healthy.

The segregation of fans that has occurred in recent years (both in and out of the stadia), while it might have been necessary for the prevention of violence, has also had the effect of isolating and tribalising each club's supporters and eliminating the friendly banter that existed before.

The state of denial that most of the club managements are in about this issue - as witnessed by the Rangers and Celtic chairmen who denied there was any sectarian chanting despite clear television evidence to the contrary - only goes to exasperate the situation.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
The state of denial that most of the club managements are in about this issue - as witnessed by the Rangers and Celtic chairmen who denied there was any sectarian chanting despite clear television evidence to the contrary - only goes to exasperate the situation.

The panorama program you're referring to was a clear example of gutter journalism. The Rangers chairman at no point denied there was sectarian singing from the Rangers fans. As it was the interview shown was a couple of minutes stitched together to show him in the worst possible light from over 40 minutes of inverview footage.

The Celtic chairman denied there was sectarian signing at Celtic Park. The programme then immediately cut to scenes from a Celtic away game to disprove his point (which was that Celtic were trying to do something about it but that they had no control over the policing of away games).

The programme chose to interview only two old firm fans, both of whom were currently serving time in a young offenders institution. No "normal" fans were shown. The only journalist interviewed was Graham Spiers who has a general hatred of Rangers from being snubbed by David Murray in the past and since has taken every opportunity to attack Rangers (e.g. Celtic singing IRA songs is ok because it's political but anything sung by Rangers is not because he regards it as sectarian).

Jack McConnel was interviewed and stated that perhaps many Scots disliked him because he's a Catholic when in fact most people dislike him because he's an arsehole and an example of the worst type of self-serving politician that "new" labour has provided us with.

The government was not tackled on why sectarian schools were allowed and even state funded when clearly that is a significant factor in the sectarian division in the west of Scotland. The government was also not tackled on why, at a time it was condemning sectarianism, it allows directly sectarian legislation to remain on the statute books.

So are we to take it that Mr Parry would like to see boorish disrespect made a criminal offence?

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
The panorama program you're referring to was a clear example of gutter journalism.

Just about what's expected from the BBC these days. Sorry Steve, I should have been paying more attention.

BTW, did anyone see this article on BBC bias in the Times Online?
He's right about the left

Regards
Steve M

Whils't watching a BBC HardTalk interview yesterday with the Italian Hostage/Journalist (freed, then shot up by US troops) in Iraq, I was quite shocked at how they protected the Americans and essentially put the blame on the driver of the car.

Fritz Von Boorish behaviour I expect innit


P.S. Murdoch's Times is hardly gonna be pro BBC now is it ?

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
BTW, did anyone see this article on BBC bias in the Times Online?

The worst bit of political bias I've ever seen from the BBC (other than those related to the relationship between Kirsty Wark and Jack McConnel) was when they held their NHS broadcast day just before Gordon Brown announced a 1p increase in the rate of national insurance.

Today in Scotland we've had a court conviction for a sectarian attack on a fire crew. BBC website report

The report has stopped short of stating that the offenders were celtic fans, however them calling the fireman the "Queens 11" and the singing of Irish Republican songs makes it very likely.

In my opinion that's a far more serious issue than some booing at a football match, however I'm pretty sure I know which will get the most coverage.

quote:

So are we to take it that Mr Parry would like to see boorish disrespect made a criminal offence?

If it offends a social or religious group, then yes.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If it offends a social or religious group, then yes.

Perhaps we should also have crimes for:

1. Taking offence too easily
2. Seeking to engineer situations that will allow you to take offence.

I still cannie work oot where t'poot the bloody filum in these comfounded digi camera's innit ?

http://www.seanf.de/fritz.jpg


Fritz Von For a closer Britain

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If it offends a social or religious group, then yes.


Perhaps we should also have crimes for:

1. Taking offence too easily
2. Seeking to engineer situations that will allow you to take offence.

...or better stil perhaps we should be adult enough to accept that occasionally in life we encounter views or opinions we don't like...

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
LTD


If you do not punish it, it will happen time and time again with all the lack of respect and decency it entails.

Mick

This is an astonishing statement even for Mick. Who decides what is a lack of 'decency' in Mick world? I find most of your statements on this group quite offensive, but I defend your right to state them absolutely.

If I want to give my opinion of pope, monarchy, or anything I will and I should be able to - no matter the circumstance. Even if that means booing.

What next? Arrest if someone decides that it's agains decency for me to critisise the queen or the government or the police or big buisiness?

We need a proper freedom of speech act. And a written constitution.

Regards

Stephen

Well said Stephen. Given the choice I'd take freedom of speech over political correctness any day! It wasn't so long ago that our Mick was congratulating the American people on re-electing Bush on behalf of the entire British population (my italics) and pissing of the majority of contributors on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite this astonishing arrogance, I would call for the state to bang him up.

Sorry that should have said I wouldn't call for the state to bang him up.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Brown:
I would call for the state to bang him up.

The 'Inner Mick' slipping out there?

Stephen

I was just amazed to see Michael Howard on the Tory trail, shouting that he wanted yobs to be afraid of the police. What a stupid bloody provocative thing to say, If it had been we want yobs to end up respecting the police and their uniform, all well and good, but that other comment is mindless² as well as dangerous in my little view, innit.

Fritz Von Harald have you blinkered that orse Son ?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
So if Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden dies and a middle east state were playing England afterwards you'd be happy to observe the minutes silence then?

Hmmm. That's a tricky one. Without wishing to sound Mickist I think that if you find yourself in a situation where a minute's silence is being observed, then regardless of your personal feelings towards the recipient, out of respect for your hosts, you should be quiet.

I think Mick's right on this one.

A football ground does seem inappropriate, I'll give you that..

Brian,

The weekends game was futher complicated in that, being a cup semi-final, it was held at a neutral venue and the team pressing for the minutes silence therefore weren't the hosts.

Personally I would have observed the minutes silence had I been there, but out of respect for my club and it's media image rather than out of respect for the individual.