|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 20:53:36 GMT
Totally agree but as we have experts in finance, law etc., it is only natural that we have a load of kit experts on this forum as well. Since the look of a kit is nothing more than personal preference then no one can be wrong about it. That's rubbish and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 16:37:54 GMT
Also prefer a dark shade of blue. Design looks smart enough without seeing the front though. The front is solid red.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 13:17:54 GMT
As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. Not sure I entirely agree with the premise that we don't know how restrictive it is to us now - exhaustively maybe not, but in the context of what we are talking about here for example of the idea of showing confirmation of vaccine to go to a Rovers game - I think there are merits to accept the use of vaccine passports for a time that remain valid regardless of concerns/unknowns around wider use of any such passport. As I say, if this becomes a requirement at Rovers beyond when a majority would see it as reasonably proportionate to the risk level, then I could completely understand push back at that point. Same at the point that a similar scheme is proposed for access to 'essential' services. But I don't see that the immediate risk of those happening outweighs the benefit the passport is designed to give until such a point that the above examples are actually on the table? Again, you're really making my point for me. You don't know the proposed limits or expanse of it so to say that those expressing scepticism on it are anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists doesn't seem fair.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 13:16:12 GMT
As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. The rational is that current evidence suggests A) Full vaccination offers personal protection and growing evidence that transmission is lowered. B) Segregating people, either by lockdown or in this case by proof of health, substantially quells the pandemic. So I guess, from the opposing viewpoint, what is the evidence that this is not true? If true do we then accept an abnormal intrusion in order to achieve maximum health gain. They key is how long. Like I said, when the gain is no longer obvious, as obvious as it is now, then the cost of enforcing checks and the affect on revenues will kill this. Again, you're ignoring what I've said and repeating your point about vaccine efficacy which is not at issue. You don't know how long it's proposed to be in place so your opinion on it is worthless. To return to my original point it's wrong to call people who are sceptical of something you admit you don't even know the proposed limits of anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 12:20:30 GMT
I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair. I don't think I've seen anyone being opposed to 'concern', I think the part that isn't adding up is opposition to the introduction of vaccine passports now on the basis of '.... but what if things change at a later point?' To be strictly opposed to vaccine passports right now I would expect some sort of rationale for why the imminent drawbacks outweigh the benefits? As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 11:44:09 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 11:30:31 GMT
Like I said the driving licence analogy doesn't quite fit on account of it is easier to choose not to drive than it is to choose to effectively be outside normal society. What all of this ignores is borderline cases. One example (I'm sure there are others) - there are not firm answers around the vaccine and breastfeeding mothers. The risks of covid to mother and child are known and assessable. The risks of the vaccine to the breastfed child are largely unknown and unquantifiable - my wife and I have been asking and searching extensively but the answers just aren't there. On that basis the weight of the decision comes down on the side of known risks vs the unknown. With that being the case my wife will probably not have the vaccine for at least another six months. So, it seems like the upshot of that is that she must accept that she cannot partake in normal life for that time. She would like to attend the odd Rovers game, certainly would like to go to the pub, we don't know yet but she may be prevented from visiting certain shops or shopping centres. It is a massive removal of liberty and, as was my original point, people who have some scepticism of it aren't anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists just for that reason. Genuine question re: the shops/shopping centres - has there been talk one way or another about the idea of vaccine passport being used in those settings? I've only heard it mentioned in terms of sports/pubs/events so curious if I've missed something I think the two key factors to this idea of depriving people from 'normal' life come down to 1) how long the vaccine passport is in effect for, and 2) what services/occasions/aspects of life it is limited to I'd completely agree with any push back against a permenant vaccine passport, equally I'd agree if it was being introduced for essential services like supermarkets, pharmacies, etc., but to my knowledge neither of those are the case at the moment? So aside from the 'conspiracy theory' angle I'm struggling to see the justification for push back against this at this point in time - people can obtain vaccine passport and attend 'non essential' things like Rovers games for now, or not get one and not attend At a point where consensus is that the risk has reduced significantly enough to do away with them, if there's an attempt to keep them in place then push back against the decision at that point; if there is a later attempt to extend these into essential services like supermarkets then push back against the decision at that point; but is there really an immediate rationale to oppose this scheme so heavily? I don't get it Well, again, I'm not really the one making the arguments for or against it, I'm simply saying that having concerns about it doesn't make someone unhinged. We don't know the full extent of what those requirements will be. We were told recently that a vaccine passport was not even being considered. To turn your question on it's head I haven't seen that this will be considered a temporary measure- have you?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 11:27:05 GMT
Like I said the driving licence analogy doesn't quite fit on account of it is easier to choose not to drive than it is to choose to effectively be outside normal society. What all of this ignores is borderline cases. One example (I'm sure there are others) - there are not firm answers around the vaccine and breastfeeding mothers. The risks of covid to mother and child are known and assessable. The risks of the vaccine to the breastfed child are largely unknown and unquantifiable - my wife and I have been asking and searching extensively but the answers just aren't there. On that basis the weight of the decision comes down on the side of known risks vs the unknown. With that being the case my wife will probably not have the vaccine for at least another six months. So, it seems like the upshot of that is that she must accept that she cannot partake in normal life for that time. She would like to attend the odd Rovers game, certainly would like to go to the pub, we don't know yet but she may be prevented from visiting certain shops or shopping centres. It is a massive removal of liberty and, as was my original point, people who have some scepticism of it aren't anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists just for that reason. Hang on LJG So now you are questioning the vaccine? I can fully understand why your wife would want to challenge the safety of any vaccine if pregnant or indeed planning to be. But to put it simplistically vaccines promote an immune response and our natural biological processes produce the antibodies, and a "memory" in the form of T Cells. If your wife becomes infected with Covid the exact same thing happens. But, with a live virus which is replicating rapidly in your wife's body. Which of these processes is the most threatening to your wife and her unborn child? Lastly, its a rather bizarre logic to not have the vaccine for fear of side effects, but lament a block on her ability to expose herself, and the unborn child, to the live virus by going to the pub or a football game. You really surprise me. Sorry, no you're wrong. I'm not questioning the vaccine. You've ignored the point I've made. My wife and I have looked for comfort in relation to the side effects of the vaccine on breastfed children and have not been able to get that from extensive research and senior virologists - you'll excuse me for not taking a bloke off a football forum's word for it. You'll see I've addressed the point as to known assessable risks and unknowns. I'm not here for that debate and won't continue it further. What I've said is that there are borderline cases where it is conceivable that there is good reason not yet to be vaccinated. An unvaccinated minority are low risk to society and can manage the risks they are prepared to take themselves. To return to my point - it is perfectly valid then to be concerned that you are effectively excluded from public life if you cannot carry a health passport. That does not make someone an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy nut.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 10:55:28 GMT
I think we're talking slight at cross purposes. I don't doubt the efficacy of the vaccines nor the public benefits to having it. What I'm reading in this thread is more concern about the carrying of the passport as proof of vaccination which is a different issue. That would be de facto an ID card to allow access to public life. That is not an insignificant step in the history of this country. Its a compromise, on the journey of wresting back control from this virus. Personally I have no problem showing my vaccine status, or my test results. Just as I have no problem showing my driving licence when requested in a traffic stop. A degree of consent is required in any democracy that does not govern by force. The thing with showing your health status to a venue or travel facility is that the process is a pain in the ass to the provider. Costly and unproductive. In the end this will kill it, as soon as we agree the worse of this pandemic is behind us. I would never carry an ID Card as a point of principle, for the record. Equally I would break the law if the current bill going through Parliament is passed as it is currently worded. Like I said the driving licence analogy doesn't quite fit on account of it is easier to choose not to drive than it is to choose to effectively be outside normal society. What all of this ignores is borderline cases. One example (I'm sure there are others) - there are not firm answers around the vaccine and breastfeeding mothers. The risks of covid to mother and child are known and assessable. The risks of the vaccine to the breastfed child are largely unknown and unquantifiable - my wife and I have been asking and searching extensively but the answers just aren't there. On that basis the weight of the decision comes down on the side of known risks vs the unknown. With that being the case my wife will probably not have the vaccine for at least another six months. So, it seems like the upshot of that is that she must accept that she cannot partake in normal life for that time. She would like to attend the odd Rovers game, certainly would like to go to the pub, we don't know yet but she may be prevented from visiting certain shops or shopping centres. It is a massive removal of liberty and, as was my original point, people who have some scepticism of it aren't anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists just for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 10:16:42 GMT
Well we know that pollution from the aviation industry is a large factor in climate change and we know that some frog genus are sequential hermaphrodites because of environmental factors so ... who knows? What I will say is that in 2019 it seemed inconceivable that our government would shut down public life, effectively ban people from going to work and make people queue in the streets to visit a supermarket like it was East Germany in 1983. I expect people would have considered anyone saying that Derbyshire police force would be following innocent dog walkers with drones or women carrying take away coffee cups would face fines of potentially up to £10,000 were crackpots. My point is, it's naive to believe that there is no risk to a course of action simply because we aren't fully able to conceive of what that risk might be. I don't think that makes anyone an anti-vaxxer nutter. Lots of aquatic species are able to change sex. Clown fish for example. Nemos dad would have turned female and mated with his son in real life. The satanist lizards at Disney have kept that quiet havent they. I hated Finding Nemo. What an awful film. Way too much sadness and almost no pay off whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 10:05:45 GMT
It seems to me that much of the narrative isn't actually anti-vax it's rather anti-restriction of liberty. It would be a significant step outside of wartime to require private citizens to carry a "passport" to access services and public spaces - not just talking about attending Rovers here. The comparison with a passport and a driving licence is not a strong one since it is easy for an individual to choose not to travel overseas or drive. It is far less easy to choose to be excluded from everyday life as you have enjoyed it until now. Particularly if shopping centres for example might also have the same requirement. I have some trepidation about that myself and don't consider that I am an "anti-vaxxer" nor a conspiracy theorist. The mocking stuff about what "the man" might do with the information ignores that there are risks behind state control and surveillance. Firstly mistakes can be made resulting in sensitive information ending up where it shouldn't - data losses, hacks etc. And secondly while we are all, relatively, comfortable that we currently have a government without nefarious ends we cannot be sure that that will always be the case. The smartphone argument is a good one and we should all have some concern about the amount of information that large corporations have on us but large corporations do not have an armed forces nor a police force. There is a distinction to be made there. I'm not sure what the answer is but I do think dismissing legitimate concerns about vaccine passports as "anti-vax" crackpot conspiracy is a bit unfair. I wouldnt disagree to your point. But not on a health issue where the response has been developed by a respected academic institution in the UK and a couple of very clever German / Turkish scientists. The real challenge for us, to agree with you, is the bill going through Parliament which gives the Police extraordinary powers to restrict our right of assembly and protest. So aim accurately, kill the bill, not the elderly. I think we're talking slight at cross purposes. I don't doubt the efficacy of the vaccines nor the public benefits to having it. What I'm reading in this thread is more concern about the carrying of the passport as proof of vaccination which is a different issue. That would be de facto an ID card to allow access to public life. That is not an insignificant step in the history of this country.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 9:56:07 GMT
It seems to me that much of the narrative isn't actually anti-vax it's rather anti-restriction of liberty. It would be a significant step outside of wartime to require private citizens to carry a "passport" to access services and public spaces - not just talking about attending Rovers here. The comparison with a passport and a driving licence is not a strong one since it is easy for an individual to choose not to travel overseas or drive. It is far less easy to choose to be excluded from everyday life as you have enjoyed it until now. Particularly if shopping centres for example might also have the same requirement. I have some trepidation about that myself and don't consider that I am an "anti-vaxxer" nor a conspiracy theorist. The mocking stuff about what "the man" might do with the information ignores that there are risks behind state control and surveillance. Firstly mistakes can be made resulting in sensitive information ending up where it shouldn't - data losses, hacks etc. And secondly while we are all, relatively, comfortable that we currently have a government without nefarious ends we cannot be sure that that will always be the case. The smartphone argument is a good one and we should all have some concern about the amount of information that large corporations have on us but large corporations do not have an armed forces nor a police force. There is a distinction to be made there. I'm not sure what the answer is but I do think dismissing legitimate concerns about vaccine passports as "anti-vax" crackpot conspiracy is a bit unfair. Then maybe conspiracy corner needs to up its game. I actually love a good conspiracy and have no doubt there are elements of truth in some of them but its a very short leap in narrative from that to calling the Tories are a tyranny and claiming aeroplanes are making the frogs gay. Well we know that pollution from the aviation industry is a large factor in climate change and we know that some frog genus are sequential hermaphrodites because of environmental factors so ... who knows? What I will say is that in 2019 it seemed inconceivable that our government would shut down public life, effectively ban people from going to work and make people queue in the streets to visit a supermarket like it was East Germany in 1983. I expect people would have considered anyone saying that Derbyshire police force would be following innocent dog walkers with drones or women carrying take away coffee cups would face fines of potentially up to £10,000 were crackpots. My point is, it's naive to believe that there is no risk to a course of action simply because we aren't fully able to conceive of what that risk might be. I don't think that makes anyone an anti-vaxxer nutter.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 9:30:48 GMT
Some of the Anti Vax comments on here are pure comedy gold. I have a sneaking admiration for their bravery though. To make a public display of such ignorance and paranoia takes some backbone. In the other hand, it is most likely they dont even see that either. It seems to me that much of the narrative isn't actually anti-vax it's rather anti-restriction of liberty. It would be a significant step outside of wartime to require private citizens to carry a "passport" to access services and public spaces - not just talking about attending Rovers here. The comparison with a passport and a driving licence is not a strong one since it is easy for an individual to choose not to travel overseas or drive. It is far less easy to choose to be excluded from everyday life as you have enjoyed it until now. Particularly if shopping centres for example might also have the same requirement. I have some trepidation about that myself and don't consider that I am an "anti-vaxxer" nor a conspiracy theorist. The mocking stuff about what "the man" might do with the information ignores that there are risks behind state control and surveillance. Firstly mistakes can be made resulting in sensitive information ending up where it shouldn't - data losses, hacks etc. And secondly while we are all, relatively, comfortable that we currently have a government without nefarious ends we cannot be sure that that will always be the case. The smartphone argument is a good one and we should all have some concern about the amount of information that large corporations have on us but large corporations do not have an armed forces nor a police force. There is a distinction to be made there. I'm not sure what the answer is but I do think dismissing legitimate concerns about vaccine passports as "anti-vax" crackpot conspiracy is a bit unfair.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 14, 2021 19:54:44 GMT
In Boris and Javid we trust. Today's statement from the government trying to keep us all safe and back at work. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that it is "vital" that the country "proceeds with caution", warning that the "pandemic is not over". Read More: What is staying and what is going after Freedom Day in England on July 19? COMMON SENSE BY SOMEHealth Secretary Sajid Javid said that it is "expected and recommended" that people should wear face coverings, unless exempt, in "enclosed spaces", in crowded public places and on public transport. The question is will the Mem be a crowded space if the anti vaxers keep the common sensors away? The club loses, the fans lose ' we all lose. Keep the faith the Club will bring common sense to attendence so we all can attend without dogma, fear and rage dominating. UTG I can't for the life of me see what the big issue is. Have a couple of injections on NHS and carry a card/app device with you to get into public places. Hardly asking people to go to war are they? Haha how come you're obsessed with war? It's only a national anthem we aren't declaring war..
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 14, 2021 19:39:19 GMT
Ahhhh I see! Well the Americans won’t need this system as they have been tracking people that have passed through Denver airport for years. Good way of getting the people that haven’t travelled I suppose. I’m all seriousness Pirate the government already know everything about you. Financial position, health records, housing status and you already have this thing that lets you travel called a passport. Maybe I am missing something obvious but I just don’t buy into all this stuff. You might not give a sh** about rights or the creep into a totalitarian society, but some of us do. View AttachmentSlightly off topic, sorry but this bugged me and I couldn't help myself. Jonathan Sumption is indeed Lord Sumption and he was indeed a Justice of the Supreme Court but he is not and never has been Lord Chief Justice. There is also no such thing as Lord Chief of Justice. You might recognise Lord Sumption - he is the chap who used to be my avatar on here.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 14:43:54 GMT
In this world of cancel culture which evidently exists in this forum by my reading through the comments. I will not say anything. Please remember the effigy of David Beckham being strung up on a lamp post for being sent off against the cheating Argentina team at a previous world cup.People don't like losing and want someone to blame. So I guess they are blaming the Perhaps important to mention that Beckham wasn't subject to abuse relating to the colour of his skin? While that is true it's easy to dismiss the suffering and anguish caused by what was essentially a media promoted personal hate campaign against him. To say that Beckham had it easier because no reference was made to his skin colour doesn't mean that things were any easier or harder for him. The media tone towards Rashford/Sancho/Saka is nothing compared to what Beckham faced. Yes he didn't have social media to contend with which those lads do.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 10:20:58 GMT
Well the players can do whatever they like as a stand against racism I'm not suggesting they can't. What I am saying is if they choose to do that by making the same physical gestures as a prominent political group in order to achieve that then it's not unreasonable for people to comment on the behaviour and policies of the political group which they are imitating. I would ask what do you think would happen to a player who made a Nazi salute but claimed it was for other non-Nazi reasons? But I don't have to. We know. Anelka was banned for 5 games and fined £80k. Before you start I'm obviously not saying players taking the knee should be banned or fined. Again, what I am saying is - if you make gestures used by a prominent group don't be surprised if people think you are part of that group even if you say you're not. I’ll just take what they say at face value thanks . If others want to contort it into something they’ve repeatedly said isn’t political that’s up to them. Ps this should be in the general chat section and I’ll not be commenting again. Good signing today 😃 Utg Whether you take what they say at face value or not is sort of irrelevant to anything I've said really isn't it? If I start signing off my posts "BCFC TIl I DIE" but say it's because I'm showing unity with people in Bristol who lost their jobs during the pandemic and I won't stop until unemployment in Bristol is zero then I would fully expect people to question whether I do in fact have some connection to Bristol City FC. I couldn't then just claim that anyone who said that I might be creating the impression of being affiliated to a group with whom they disagree was a rich toff who hates the unemployed could I? I think we would both expect there to be some questions about that. Again - I don't doubt the players' motives but to say that anyone who might is a racist or a bigot is just a silly binary choice which ignores the reality and nuance of life.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 10:05:06 GMT
Its a funny situation really because taking the knee, whether anyone likes it or not, is a symbol of affiliation with the BLM movement. It's fine to say they are doing it without that affiliation but for the broader reasons of highlighting inclusivity and anti-racism (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that that is true) but I can't really think of another example where you could adopt the physical poses which indicate affiliation to a group then deny that you accept affiliation to that group. For example it would be weird if they gave Nazi salutes before the game then said they were doing it for other reasons not because they were Nazis - see Nicholas Anelka for details. The same could be said if they gave bloods or crips gang signs. My point is that it isn't unreasonable for people to see people making a pose affiliated with a particular group and then comment on the behaviour or tenets of the group to which that is affiliated. I can't see why that makes someone racist or bigoted? Ok then , if the players were to hop on one foot for 10 seconds before each game that would be ok . The players have specifically and repeatedly said why they were taking the knee…. A protest against racism. So if they all hop everyone will be happy ! Well the players can do whatever they like as a stand against racism I'm not suggesting they can't. What I am saying is if they choose to do that by making the same physical gestures as a prominent political group in order to achieve that then it's not unreasonable for people to comment on the behaviour and policies of the political group which they are imitating. I would ask what do you think would happen to a player who made a Nazi salute but claimed it was for other non-Nazi reasons? But I don't have to. We know. Anelka was banned for 5 games and fined £80k. Before you start I'm obviously not saying players taking the knee should be banned or fined. Again, what I am saying is - if you make gestures used by a prominent group don't be surprised if people think you are part of that group even if you say you're not.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 9:49:05 GMT
The whole BLM has been a joke.Its a Marxist organization and I do not support it what so ever.I support black people, and want to end attacks on them,as I do for all kinds of different sections of society. I'm a human and there is only on race and that's my fellow human being. As for taking the knee... Well I think many people including myself find it offensive now.It in fact it has become a joke to what it was intended.It wouldn't have lasted as long as it has if it wasn't for COVID and not having crowds in stadiums as it would have been booed at every game like it has been in the Euros. I find it offensive as it's now a case of if you don't support taking the knee,or if you as a player you don't take the knee you are classed as a white racist.You are pigeonholed as something you are not just because you don't support the BLM organization, rather than the cause itself. The whole taking the knee has done nothing,nor will it ever do anything to end racism.In fact it's only created deeper devide within society as now young black children are being conditioned to be fearful of white people and being treated as a victim even though as a young child they probably have never experienced any racist abuse. Can't tell if you're joking or not. Southgate came out and said they're not kneeling for any political reason, but as a stand against intolerance. We hear this argument a lot about Marxism and political leanings, but I don't think that angle is there unless you look for it.
As someone else says, to be offended by people wanting to end racism is a bit weird.
I wonder how many people booing the knee also cheered when Sterling scored. He should've celebrated by taking the knee in front of the fans, shut up all the bigots.
Its a funny situation really because taking the knee, whether anyone likes it or not, is a symbol of affiliation with the BLM movement. It's fine to say they are doing it without that affiliation but for the broader reasons of highlighting inclusivity and anti-racism (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that that is true) but I can't really think of another example where you could adopt the physical poses which indicate affiliation to a group then deny that you accept affiliation to that group. For example it would be weird if they gave Nazi salutes before the game then said they were doing it for other reasons not because they were Nazis - see Nicholas Anelka for details. The same could be said if they gave bloods or crips gang signs. My point is that it isn't unreasonable for people to see people making a pose affiliated with a particular group and then comment on the behaviour or tenets of the group to which that is affiliated. I can't see why that makes someone racist or bigoted?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 13, 2021 7:58:27 GMT
I'm all for ID verified social media accounts, but that wouldn't stop people booing the knee or national anthems, or singing about German bombers and the IRA. Embarrassed to be English after the scenes on Sunday. I can't imagine any other countries fans trying to storm the stadium, fighting amongst each other and throwing bottles, and goodness knows what else. Weird how if they'd have put the word Protest before the videos we've all seen, it'd be "The Great Unwashed" or "Woke Brigade", people calling for the water cannons. As soon as it's England though, patriotism and national pride... Well that seems deliberately disingenuous. I can't see that there has been any national pride about any of the scenes on Sunday or the comments on social media. As with everything it seems life must be very binary. So, on one hand we have people who think the three who missed penalties are immune from criticism because of the colour of their skin (my opinion is only Rashford deserves criticism) and any criticism of his pen strategy is essentially racist. On the other we have people who seem to have no sense of context or perspective and think that any and all outright rage at the players for anything they can think of is fair game. I would say the majority are sensible. What can be frustrating for that majority is that because of the actions of those few we must be hectored and told off for thinking and believing things we don't think or believe.
|
|