|
|
Post by warehamgas on May 23, 2023 20:09:06 GMT
Getting back to the start of the thread, the first page, well done to the GasGirls for another successful season. Sounds as if they are making good progress well supported by the CT and other volunteers. Sounds as if they are slowly building a sustainable club. Well done to all. đđđ
UTG!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 23, 2023 20:23:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on May 23, 2023 20:33:17 GMT
Yes, I was listening to this on Five Live this evening travelling with grandson to a football match in Axbridge. I didnât hear all of it but they sounded positive about raising the money. Good luck to them. Itâs a shame that some parts of society seem to have to do so much just to play football to the level of their ability. UTG! |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 23, 2023 21:14:22 GMT
Think of young children. Think of the health benefits, think of the social benefits and the developmental benefits of young, female in this example, participating in organised team sport. It's not just about middle aged men choosing to like or dislike, in fact it is nothing to do with them. The fact that your wife (your example you chose to post up) is "infatuated" with social media covering "foodie" and skin care products rather makes my point. I mean no disrespect to your wife, obviously but I have twin female grand children, 5 years old. I know which path their parents are taking them down and it won't be that, but participative sport is definitely on the table. One of the barriers they will have to overcome is the image of males fighting at football games, male fans exalting the violence and their favoured team's manager advocating reward. Youâve mixed up a few threads in my comment purely to insult here. The example I gave for my daughter were: Ballet, animals, piano. I said my WIFE likes foodie stuff and skincare. I didnât say that was the place I path either of us were taking our daughter down. That wasnât suggested but youâve mixed 2 things up to A/ insult my wife and B/ criticise how we raise our children. Iâm not going to rise to it as I canât be bothered, but just be aware, all the things I said on the other thread about how you chaps gang up and get personal, voila. PS There is no moral or intellectual superiority in football over and above good food and looking good. People have different interests and pulling faces and looking down your nose at others who donât share your own is ignorant and spiteful. Of course I never said any of that, but I did make a mistake in using the word infatuated when in fact you said obsessed. I never mentioned your children, I don't know you and had no idea whether you had any or not. I was responding only to what you posted in the post I quoted, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 23, 2023 21:50:59 GMT
Yes, I was listening to this on Five Live this evening travelling with grandson to a football match in Axbridge. I didnât hear all of it but they sounded positive about raising the money. Good luck to them. Itâs a shame that some parts of society seem to have to do so much just to play football to the level of their ability. UTG! Didn't the England team in the early 70s have to pay their own way? Hope it won't take half a century before they get some coverage. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 23, 2023 21:55:26 GMT
For those who aren't overly happy with coverage, don't forget what happened historically when womenâs football was banned for being too popular. Think of it as making up for lost time. "But this isnât a new discovery. We knew it a century ago â at which point menâs football effectively banned its competitors. The bans lasted decades and hamper womenâs football to this day. In the coming new edition of our book Soccernomics, the economist Stefan Szymanski and I argue for reparations: a large-scale programme of investment in the womenâs game, paid from menâs footballâs revenues, to start redressing the damage. Female football took off in Britain during the first world war, when men left for the front. Women replaced men in factories, and soon formed their own factory teams, the most famous of which was Dick, Kerr Ladies in Preston. They reached their apogee on Boxing Day 1920, beating St Helens 4-0 in front of 53,000 paying spectators at Evertonâs sold-out Goodison Park. That terrified the male-run English Football Association. With the war over, and women being returned to the kitchen, in 1921 the FA forbade its affiliated clubs from letting women use their fields. The associationâs ruling stated: âThe game of football is quite unsuitable for females.â " www.ft.com/content/782659ef-81dd-4238-9b20-968c9c318b37 |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 24, 2023 0:35:28 GMT
For someone who doesn't care either way you don't half bang on about it. Some might think that you actually do care, and not in a positive way, but I wouldn't know. I donât think there was any need for that to be honest , why did you feel it necessary to post such a lippy remark , when everyone else is being civilised , my question to you is , would you be so brave without hiding behind your phone ? Because he's being disingenuous. He's playing a game with his words, which he often does. Setting out a controversial view, wondering why those who disagree with it are wanting to manipulate society, and then saying it's not something he is personally invested in. It's his style and it's rather sly. A style which gets some likes because it's sugar coated and seemingly acceptable, but some of us can see through it. And why oh why do we have to resort to this 'would you say it to him in person' stuff? It's a bloody internet forum. If every heated discussion on the internet were to be resolved with a showdown at dawn in the car park, the participants would be queuing for weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 24, 2023 1:26:56 GMT
Thereâs clear health benefits in encouraging female participation in sport, just as thereâs clear health benefits in encouraging male participation in sport as well. I hope everyone getâs a helping hand in being more healthy and active, because not only does that confront heart disease and obesity, thereâs clear benefits to mental health in doing so as well.
The stats donât lie though, less women are actively taking part in sport than men do, which creates an uneven playing field in terms of health and wellbeing between men and women. Iâm not going to get dragged into some philosophical debate about how Women are naturally more inclined enjoy other activities, thatâs beside the point. Fact is as a female, if you search sports in a search engine and you see men plastered over the front pages, youâre less likely to see yourself in the shoes of that person and be inspired to take up that sport. Of course itâs a numbers game, some women are naturally going to want to be involved in sport no matter what, others are going to avoid it like the plague. Thereâs that target audience in between those groups that increased coverage of Womenâs sport tries to reach out to.
If youâre a bloke, is your access to Menâs sport going to decrease because of this? Absolutely not, every male sporting event is televised, every male sports team analysed in detailed coverage.
So what exactly is the problem in allowing women to have that too? Just ignore it, change channels, go do something else if it bothers you. If womenâs football isnât enjoyable to watch, or âup to the standardâ donât watch it. I just donât get why so many blokes feel intimidated by it, baffles me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quarters on May 24, 2023 7:00:40 GMT
I wish that the BBC would have different pages for Mens/Scottish/Ladies football fixtures. Get fed up of scrolling past the Premiership, Scottish Premiership, and the Ladies Premiership before reaching the Championship and EFL fixtures. Similarly, I'm sure that people who want to see the Ladies fixtures aren't interested in the Premiership or Scottish Premiership, which they have to scroll past. Have to agree with this, and other pages there like Cricket. Headline on cricket page to day about Australia coming and then realised was about the women's ashes. Nothing against woman's sport but my main interest is the men's version. And, as said above, getting harder to find the EFL headlines. Almost as bad as navigating Bristol Live. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 7:23:58 GMT
I donât think there was any need for that to be honest , why did you feel it necessary to post such a lippy remark , when everyone else is being civilised , my question to you is , would you be so brave without hiding behind your phone ? Because he's being disingenuous. He's playing a game with his words, which he often does. Setting out a controversial view, wondering why those who disagree with it are wanting to manipulate society, and then saying it's not something he is personally invested in. It's his style and it's rather sly. A style which gets some likes because it's sugar coated and seemingly acceptable, but some of us can see through it. And why oh why do we have to resort to this 'would you say it to him in person' stuff? It's a bloody internet forum. If every heated discussion on the internet were to be resolved with a showdown at dawn in the car park, the participants would be queuing for weeks. So the answers no then ? You wouldnât say this in person ? Thought so đđđ |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on May 24, 2023 9:34:19 GMT
For those who aren't overly happy with coverage, don't forget what happened historically when womenâs football was banned for being too popular. Think of it as making up for lost time. "But this isnât a new discovery. We knew it a century ago â at which point menâs football effectively banned its competitors. The bans lasted decades and hamper womenâs football to this day. In the coming new edition of our book Soccernomics, the economist Stefan Szymanski and I argue for reparations: a large-scale programme of investment in the womenâs game, paid from menâs footballâs revenues, to start redressing the damage. Female football took off in Britain during the first world war, when men left for the front. Women replaced men in factories, and soon formed their own factory teams, the most famous of which was Dick, Kerr Ladies in Preston. They reached their apogee on Boxing Day 1920, beating St Helens 4-0 in front of 53,000 paying spectators at Evertonâs sold-out Goodison Park. That terrified the male-run English Football Association. With the war over, and women being returned to the kitchen, in 1921 the FA forbade its affiliated clubs from letting women use their fields. The associationâs ruling stated: âThe game of football is quite unsuitable for females.â " www.ft.com/content/782659ef-81dd-4238-9b20-968c9c318b37I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. The FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: âComplaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.â
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it. As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. |
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on May 24, 2023 9:43:08 GMT
Thereâs clear health benefits in encouraging female participation in sport, just as thereâs clear health benefits in encouraging male participation in sport as well. I hope everyone getâs a helping hand in being more healthy and active, because not only does that confront heart disease and obesity, thereâs clear benefits to mental health in doing so as well. The stats donât lie though, less women are actively taking part in sport than men do, which creates an uneven playing field in terms of health and wellbeing between men and women. Iâm not going to get dragged into some philosophical debate about how Women are naturally more inclined enjoy other activities, thatâs beside the point. Fact is as a female, if you search sports in a search engine and you see men plastered over the front pages, youâre less likely to see yourself in the shoes of that person and be inspired to take up that sport. Of course itâs a numbers game, some women are naturally going to want to be involved in sport no matter what, others are going to avoid it like the plague. Thereâs that target audience in between those groups that increased coverage of Womenâs sport tries to reach out to. If youâre a bloke, is your access to Menâs sport going to decrease because of this? Absolutely not, every male sporting event is televised, every male sports team analysed in detailed coverage. So what exactly is the problem in allowing women to have that too? Just ignore it, change channels, go do something else if it bothers you. If womenâs football isnât enjoyable to watch, or âup to the standardâ donât watch it. I just donât get why so many blokes feel intimidated by it, baffles me.Well said axe, great post. No one is forced to watch, read or participate in anything to do with womenâs football or sport. Just need to accept there are many out who do want to do that. Donât understand why people make such an issue of it. As you say do what youâve suggested. đ UTG! |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 24, 2023 9:56:24 GMT
For those who aren't overly happy with coverage, don't forget what happened historically when womenâs football was banned for being too popular. Think of it as making up for lost time. "But this isnât a new discovery. We knew it a century ago â at which point menâs football effectively banned its competitors. The bans lasted decades and hamper womenâs football to this day. In the coming new edition of our book Soccernomics, the economist Stefan Szymanski and I argue for reparations: a large-scale programme of investment in the womenâs game, paid from menâs footballâs revenues, to start redressing the damage. Female football took off in Britain during the first world war, when men left for the front. Women replaced men in factories, and soon formed their own factory teams, the most famous of which was Dick, Kerr Ladies in Preston. They reached their apogee on Boxing Day 1920, beating St Helens 4-0 in front of 53,000 paying spectators at Evertonâs sold-out Goodison Park. That terrified the male-run English Football Association. With the war over, and women being returned to the kitchen, in 1921 the FA forbade its affiliated clubs from letting women use their fields. The associationâs ruling stated: âThe game of football is quite unsuitable for females.â " www.ft.com/content/782659ef-81dd-4238-9b20-968c9c318b37I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. The FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: âComplaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.â
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it.  As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. Â Â Okay, although the division on this thread wasn't started by digging back into history. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 24, 2023 9:56:55 GMT
For those who aren't overly happy with coverage, don't forget what happened historically when womenâs football was banned for being too popular. Think of it as making up for lost time. "But this isnât a new discovery. We knew it a century ago â at which point menâs football effectively banned its competitors. The bans lasted decades and hamper womenâs football to this day. In the coming new edition of our book Soccernomics, the economist Stefan Szymanski and I argue for reparations: a large-scale programme of investment in the womenâs game, paid from menâs footballâs revenues, to start redressing the damage. Female football took off in Britain during the first world war, when men left for the front. Women replaced men in factories, and soon formed their own factory teams, the most famous of which was Dick, Kerr Ladies in Preston. They reached their apogee on Boxing Day 1920, beating St Helens 4-0 in front of 53,000 paying spectators at Evertonâs sold-out Goodison Park. That terrified the male-run English Football Association. With the war over, and women being returned to the kitchen, in 1921 the FA forbade its affiliated clubs from letting women use their fields. The associationâs ruling stated: âThe game of football is quite unsuitable for females.â " www.ft.com/content/782659ef-81dd-4238-9b20-968c9c318b37I wasn't going to bite but I will at this comment. I think this FT article demonstrates the agenda of the modern Media to perpetuate this concept of a patriarchy/men bad when they are just perpetuating an agenda that isn't helpful to anyone. The whole tone of the article is us against them but it fails to actually give the facts. 'Men's' football didn't ban women's football. The FA introduced a ban on Women's teams being allowed to play football at league grounds. This didn't stop women's teams playing matches and in actual fact women formed the English ladies FA and carried on playing. Dick Kerr carried on as a team until 1965. So to say 'Men' banned the game is deceitful and just not true. As to the reason they FA banned it at league grounds. There were two stated reasons. The first reason. The women's games mentioned were actually one off charity games, there wasn't a league system. They were games played to raise monies for families and war veterans who needed the money to live. This is why so many attended. It was nothing to do with women's football being popular but the fact that they were raising money for people who fought in the war. The FA were concerned that these charity games were not all above board and the monies being mis used (or it could have been they weren't happy at getting a slice of the pie). The ban was to stop the use of FA league grounds for these charity matches The second point is football was deemed not suitable for women by the FA and hence stopped matches at football league grounds on this basis too. The full quote of the FA article was: âComplaints have been made as to football being played by women, the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged. Complaints have also been made as to the conditions under which some of these matches have been arranged and played, and the appropriation of the receipts to other than charitable objects. The Council are further of opinion that an excessive proportion of the receipts are absorbed in expenses and an inadequate percentage devoted to charitable objects. For these reasons the Council request clubs belonging to the Association to refuse the use of their grounds for such matches.â
It's funny how people like the author of the FT article only quote the not suitable for women bit and fail to mention these were charity games. It's easy to see life through our 2023 lens but life was so different back then. People were living in slums with no quality of life, Life expectancy was 50 if you were lucky, No medicines, no antibiotics, high child birth mortality, No NHS, no contraception, no sanitary products, no abortions, no benefits system etc etc. There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war. Through the developments on the 20th century we are now able to live in a world where everyone can look to be equal, follow their dreams and there are very few barriers to do what you want to do in life. What winds me up is articles like the FT one which is done with deceitful rhetoric. Quotes like "redressing the damage", "Female football took off ", "That terrified the male-run English Football Association", "women being returned to the kitchen" show the prejudice mind of the person writing it.  As for reparations, oh please.
I think it is fantastic the women's game has come on so much. My daughter plays it and it's great she has that opportunity. This has only been made possible by the interest that has come into the sport in recent years. It's great there is the finance that's going into it. Digging back into history to create more divide serves little purpose to me. Â Â I shouldn't bite, but I will. To quote "the Council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and out not be encouraged" Classic Victoriana. Best consigned to the dustbin of history. Then "There was a clear divide between a man's and a woman's role in life (as there had been for the whole of history up to that point). With the woman being the homemaker and mother and the man being the breadwinner and the one who went out to war." Really? "Until the 16th century, when hops first came into use in England and brewing developed into a substantial industry, most ale and beer was still produced by women, known as brewsters. Records from our home town of Faversham in 1327 show all 87 brewers operating in the town were women." www.shepherdneame.co.uk/did-women-create-beer#:~:text=Until%20the%2016th%20century%2C%20when,by%20women%2C%20known%20as%20brewsters. If you deny history you are likely to repeat it. Did anyone mention Bletchley Park? |
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 24, 2023 11:07:17 GMT
Wow a lot of myths there. This may interest you. www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2023/jan-2023/deloitte-womens-football-sees-average-club-revenue-soar#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20report%20by,revenue%20at%20%E2%82%AC7.7m. As Deloitte say, money is being invested in top level women's football because it is being treated as a startup industry with a great deal of potential growth. You say 'prop up', the clubs themselves would say 'invest'. And how about men's football stands on it's own two feet, if that's the criteria to judge by? How many men's teams are consistently profitable? The only place where equal pay has been implemented is in the USA, and that just reflects the revenue split there, where the women's national team earns a similar revenue to the men's. All the top flight menâs sides should be profitable with the huge tv and gate revenues. Sheer stupidity in wages prevents profit - they could make a profit quite comfortably and still pay players wages beyond us mere mortals wildest dreams. Wages in menâs and womenâs football should be driven by the revenues they respectively create. Wages in both the men's and women's games are greater than the revenue they create. In both the men's and women's games in the UK, this is the reason why the clubs aren't profitable. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on May 24, 2023 11:26:22 GMT
The principle I have a hard job understanding: Say 10 years ago football was (and still is) incredibly popular with boys and men. It wasnât hugely popular with girls. If I think of all the women I know, I didnât know a single one who was remotely interested in it. My mother and sister might come to the odd game but thatâs where it ended. None of my partners wanted to come. One can either infer from this that A/ women generally dont like football or b/. football is an exclusionary misogynist sport which actively discourages female participation. thinking again of the women in my life, i think they just genuinely had other interests and werent closet fans, cruelly cut out by bullying abd cliquey males. So if this is the case, WHY? why is it a good thing to encourage female participation in a sport which didn't have a great deal of interest before the money poured in? My wife is obsessed with skincare and foodie youtube vids. i see no campaign to encourage male participation in skincare. its happened now and i really dont care either way. it makes no differnce to me and each to their own. Its just a curiousity to see these social phenomenons. As a live and let live kind of guy, its interesting to see the thought processes of what i call busybodies - always campaigning and trying to shape society in their image of a better one! Think of young children. Think of the health benefits, think of the social benefits and the developmental benefits of young, female in this example, participating in organised team sport. It's not just about middle aged men choosing to like or dislike, in fact it is nothing to do with them. The fact that your wife (your example you chose to post up) is "infatuated" with social media covering "foodie" and skin care products rather makes my point. I mean no disrespect to your wife, obviously but I have twin female grand children, 5 years old. I know which path their parents are taking them down and it won't be that, but participative sport is definitely on the table. One of the barriers they will have to overcome is the image of males fighting at football games, male fans exalting the violence and their favoured team's manager advocating reward. In my lifetime, various sports have always been accessible for young children, either in an organised environment, or ad hoc in the parks, fields, streets. My niece has been playing organised football in her primary school for 3 years, she also plays for a team at weekends, this pre-dates the popularity of the Lionesses - the opportunities to play were available, and she got involved. She has attended a few of the local women's games - usually via free tickets being given out. For her generation it is the norm for girls to play football, so the money poured into this has been successful. At the other end of the spectrum, I caught some of the Everton v Brighton ladies game on television at the weekend, I'd be surprised if there were 1,000 people there. This was a Super League match, with Everton in the top half of the table. Not great, considering that Merseyside is supposed to be a hotbed for football. With regard to your final sentence, I can't speak for other clubs, but I haven't witnessed any noteable incidents of males fighting at The Mem in recent years, and there are lots of women and young children attending our games. I don't know which teams have managers who advocate reward for fighting - maybe it's in the Premiership, which isn't particularly on my radar. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on May 24, 2023 11:34:22 GMT
Unfortunately, people with disabilities have been pushed down the pecking order in recent years, I guess it's not "right on" enough for today's society.  |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on May 24, 2023 11:51:20 GMT
Unfortunately, people with disabilities have been pushed down the pecking order in recent years, I guess it's not "right on" enough for today's society. Correct Tilly in all aspects of our so called caring Society,here's a sobering fact,only 4.6% of adults with an intellectual disability are in full time employment even though a significant number are capable of work with the right support,it's a disgrace but we're hooked on cheap labour from abroad and not willing to invest in our own people. |
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 24, 2023 11:58:42 GMT
Unfortunately, people with disabilities have been pushed down the pecking order in recent years, I guess it's not "right on" enough for today's society. Correct Tilly in all aspects of our so called caring Society,here's a sobering fact,only 4.6% of adults with an intellectual disability are in full time employment even though a significant number are capable of work with the right support,it's a disgrace but we're hooked on cheap labour from abroad and not willing to invest in our own people. That cheap labour from abroad prevents our health and social care from collapsing so that those with disabilities can live better, more independent lives. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on May 24, 2023 12:09:57 GMT
Correct Tilly in all aspects of our so called caring Society,here's a sobering fact,only 4.6% of adults with an intellectual disability are in full time employment even though a significant number are capable of work with the right support,it's a disgrace but we're hooked on cheap labour from abroad and not willing to invest in our own people. That cheap labour from abroad prevents our health and social care from collapsing so that those with disabilities can live better, more independent lives. Debatable,from over 20 years personal experience I have never seen any benefit to the disabled community,it's a full on battle to get any support whatsoever and as for Employers completely disregarding Disability legislation ,well!! |
|
