Comments on: Unrighteous Indignation

By: Shed

Shed — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:48:33 +0000

Leo, No I wasn’t taking it as an attack on Chelsea fans, but I took the opportunity to try and paint a different picture to that portrayed in many parts of the media. I suppose my point was i think we tend to be far more aware of or sensitive to comments about our own club… I thought the disruption of the minute’s silence at our semi got a huge amount of coverage for example

There seemed to me to be (once it was widely known) a lot of publicity and dismay about the specific transport problems for LFC fans on Saturday. But the rocket scientists that run (ruin?) our game were never going to actually change a decision to help the mugs sorry fans like us were they?

Thanks for your good wishes

By: leoroberts

leoroberts — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:32:58 +0000

I appreciate your point, Ramzi, but I don’t remember the behavious of (some) Chelsea fans being the subject of a) a BBC football phone-in and b) a BBC news programme phone-in, unlike the behaviour of (some) Liverpool fans. Nor was there a national media outcry about the Cup Final itself kicking off at a time that meant LFC fans couldn’t go home, nor was there a media outcry about ticket prices being hiked by 70% … I hope you understand that my post wasn’t about Chelsea FC, nor their fans, it was about media bias and balance. Congratulations on your FA Cup win and good luck in Germany

By: Shed

Shed — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:06:52 +0000

“When the Chelsea fans booed and interrupted the minute’s silence in memory of the 96 who died at Hillsborough… was there a national radio phone in? No.” Well, if you mean was it referred to on all the news and match reports, and in phone ins afterwards then the answer is Yes.
And FYI, a small number chanted during the silence, despicable in my eyes, but what could we do that wouldn’t make it worse? Waited until the ref’s whistle and then booed and hurled abuse at the perpetrators as did many Spurs fans. Unfortunately the whole minutes silence/appreciation thing has become almost epidemic those days and given the animosity between our respective clubs these days, the impact on Chelsea of having to play on Sunday prior to a huge CL game and the impact of a late kick off on all day drinking, it was entirely predictable.

It seems that many people view freedom of expression to mean freedom to say what I like when I like without obligation to respect or attempt to understand other people or their POV.

By: leoroberts

leoroberts — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:30:33 +0000

I can’t let this pass, however…. Hundreds of times? It was all OUR fault?

What has become obvious ti me over many years is that there is no point trying to educate people who have already made up their minds about the Hillsborough issue; they prefer to remain ignorant because ignorance is bliss – and they don’t have to address the real issues…

By: MarkE

MarkE — Sun, 06 May 2012 11:38:02 +0000

I’m a red and personally I think they’re both deplorable acts of disrespect, and I think the whole anti-royalist argument is an ignorant one considering how much money the Royal Family bring in to the economy through tourism and the like. A moral condition of going to sports games is that you observe minutes silences and at least respect the national athems that are sung by others if you do not wish to join in yourself.

By: James

James — Sun, 06 May 2012 11:34:00 +0000

OK, I’m sorry for apparently missing your point, even though I think many would agree you have made it slightly difficult to get your point by going to some length to mock the queen and the national anthem, of whom and of which many of us are very proud.

Moving on to your original point, the media tends to highlight the topic they feel most people will feel strongly about. Judging by my Twitter timeline yesterday, the debate around the booing of the national anthem at our national stadium on the occasion of the oldest football tournament in the world was a much discussed topic.

By: rachelmrick

rachelmrick — Sun, 06 May 2012 11:33:54 +0000

Get really angry when people bring soldiers into these arguments:
a) how does he know he is speaking for soldiers? Perhaps he was a soldier himself, but sure he’d have mentioned it if he was!
b) of all groups least well served by Queen and Country, wounded soldiers and the widows and families of those killed in action are way up the list!

By: leoroberts

leoroberts — Sun, 06 May 2012 11:17:58 +0000

James, I think you’ve missed my point – this wasn’t about the rights (or wrongs) of the act itself; rather that the media chose THIS issue to be the subject of 2 national radio phone-ins when there are many other (including football related) issues more deserving of air time.

And I wouldn’t want this to degenerate to a ‘booing the anthem is worse than interrupting a minute’s silence/no it isn’t/yes it is” thing so I hope nobody jumps on your comments!

By: James

James — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:33:25 +0000

By the way, PERSONALLY I would never shout “murderers” during the minute’s silence, even though I don’t agree with forcing everyone to observe this. My point was, it was as much of a democratic right as booing during the national anthem. So, just because something is a democratic right doesn’t mean it is acceptable behaviour.

By: James

James — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:23:46 +0000

OK, to go by your logic, don’t you think it’s OUR democratic right NOT to remain silent during one of those hundreds of occasions every year when the Victimpool fans observe a minute’s silence to show respect to the “victims” of the Hillsborough “disaster”? Because WE feel it was their OWN fault, and there’s nothing to feel sorry about them who we have no relation with? Because there are far worse tragedies taking place all over the world which are worthy of silence?

By “we”, I mean those conservative, religious, royalist, patriotic, educated and civilized Chelsea fans living in the great posh southern city of London.