Do you think the level of chants are acceptable in the EPL?

Mont

We all know the type of chants associated with EPL grounds. Just last weekend Spurs fans were called Yids, Wenger a paedophile and Adebayor should have been shot in Angola. All grounds have some sick chants. Is this acceptable? Why dont the authorities ban such fans as it is nothing but defamation and rascist. It is not funny and totally unacceptable as families and kids attend these game and such low-lifes should be banned imo.

SDTimeout

Football fans pay for their tickets and can shout what ever they want,

no matter how abhorrent or disgusting they may be.

SEPT 23 1989

I think football has been sanitised enough

Mont

SDTimeout wrote: »

Football fans pay for their tickets and can shout what ever they want,

no matter how abhorrent or disgusting they may be.

They are not allowed to shout this stuff on the street or they would be arrested. It is mob mentality and they shouldnt be allowed to say whatever they want just because they are at a match.

homerjay2005

this is just going to descend into another munich v hillsbourough/heysel farcical debate i think...

if we can keep them 2 out of it, it could be an interesting thread. personally, i dont have a problem with most chants, but some of them are sick. big deals are made out of other chants that are not really a big deal.

its a hard one to call.

Kess73

SDTimeout wrote: »

Football fans pay for their tickets and can shout what ever they want,

no matter how abhorrent or disgusting they may be.

Not true. They can shout whatever they like as long as what they are shouting does not break a law.

Once anyone starts chanting/shouting something that can be tried in a court of law, that is when they have crossed the line.


Personally the line in the sand should include anything that breaks the law, plus anything that goes against common decency.

The_Kew_Tour

SDTimeout wrote: »

Football fans pay for their tickets and can shout what ever they want,

no matter how abhorrent or disgusting they may be.

Jesus Christ you for real?

No it's not acceptable to shout racist abuse and mock somebody's identify just cause you buy a ticket.

Any fan caught abusing a player cause of his colour or sexuality should be banned, but of course its easier said then done

Mont

Btw i am not saying ban chanting. Talking the piss chants or whatever comes with the territory but rascist and vile chants just cross the line. To publicly chant someone is a paedo or chanting someone because of their ethnicity is not on. It is a bad example for kids. We all like to have a laugh but some stuff is pretty sick.

SDTimeout

I'm not saying it's acceptable, it's disgusting!

VW 1

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Jesus Christ you for real?

No it's not acceptable to shout racist abuse and mock somebody's identify just cause you buy a ticket.

Any fan caught abusing a player cause of his colour or sexuality should be banned, but of course its easier said then done

I do agree with you with regard to sexuality, colour of skin..

But just to play devil's advocate, where do we draw the line?

A chant about a player's religion?

Their family?

It is a very difficult one to judge imo.

For example, the Giggs chant "He'll shag who he wants.." that is sung by United fans themselves. I am sure Ryan doesnt want to hear it, nor do his family, and this is coming from his own supporters!

Do we draw the line at abuse? Abuse of the person themselves? Abuse of family? Abuse of former clubs/loyalty to a certain club?

It is also practically impossible to police.

homerjay2005

re the fuss over the adabayour chants the last day -
i didnt see the last day or hear the chants, but it says in all the reports that they wished he would have died in the bus.

what were the songs? see, what i am getting at here, is the fact that this is being labelled racist, yet unless there are words in it that would change that, how is it racist and different from example the chelsea fans singing "died in the tunnel, you should have died in the tunnel" a few days after ronaldo had his bad car crash. or is it a case, that if you sing any song at an african, that is racist?

i think the racism accusations get thrown about far too much, but i will repeat, i am open for correction here as i didnt hear the songs and their could be racial annotations in them...

Jelle1880

I think a lot of football fans need to lighten up and see banter for what it is.
Racism obviously can't be allowed, but these days chants which are merely unsavoury are punished too.

dfx-

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this is just going to descend into another munich v hillsbourough/heysel farcical debate i think...

I'd bet on it becoming a disguised EPL v LOI debate in terms of matchgoers and non-matchgoers..

Selective policing is not practically enforceable. I'd say there's very few matchgoers who haven't 'criticised' an opposition player at some point in a big game beit Ndo, Twigg, Jason Byrne, Rogers, Hutton, Zayed (next week). I'm sure the 'Hooperman is a paedophile' ditty is being rehearsed for tomorrow night.

All sorts of things get said.

The_Kew_Tour

VW 1 wrote: »

I do agree with you with regard to sexuality, colour of skin..

But just to play devil's advocate, where do we draw the line?

A chant about a player's religion?

Their family?

It is a very difficult one to judge imo.

For example, the Giggs chant "He'll shag who he wants.." that is sung by United fans themselves. I am sure Ryan doesnt want to hear it, nor do his family, and this is coming from his own supporters!

Do we draw the line at abuse? Abuse of the person themselves? Abuse of family? Abuse of former clubs/loyalty to a certain club?

It is also practically impossible to police.

No see your point and I tend to agree I mean it is near impossible to throw people out over things hurled at players..

If you look at the highlights of the Merseyside derby you could easily see players like Bellamy and Suarez getting abuse on from Everton fans with Police and stewards only a couple feet away from the culprits, but of course its hard to say what these people were shouting at, but goes to show that if they can get away with it then its easier if far up in stand with bunch of other supporters.

I dont know but for a start chants like that at WHL this weekend need be stamped out completely. Wont happen overnight though.

Leiva

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I think a lot of football fans need to lighten up and see banter for what it is.
Racism obviously can't be allowed, but these days chants which are merely unsavoury are punished too.

Ask that question to a family member who lost a loved one in any of the atrocities that are slagged off from the stands .

Kess73

VW 1 wrote: »

I do agree with you with regard to sexuality, colour of skin..

But just to play devil's advocate, where do we draw the line?
A chant about a player's religion?

Their family?

It is a very difficult one to judge imo.

For example, the Giggs chant "He'll shag who he wants.." that is sung by United fans themselves. I am sure Ryan doesnt want to hear it, nor do his family, and this is coming from his own supporters!

Do we draw the line at abuse? Abuse of the person themselves? Abuse of family? Abuse of former clubs/loyalty to a certain club?

It is also practically impossible to police.

Well anything that would land you in a court if you shouted it in a street/pub/shopping centre etc should be a pretty easy guideline as to what defo is wrong to shout/chant.


Plus anything that a person would be too cowardly to walk up on his own and say to to others in a public place should be another indicator as to what not to shout. Then again the types that like to shout racist/libelous etc comments and the like at games are generally the type of snivelling cowards who would **** a brick if told to walk up and say it one on one to someone with no gang of similar weak minded idiots to back them up.

Leiva

Kess73 wrote: »

Well anything that would land you in a court if you shouted it in a street/pub/shopping centre etc should be a pretty easy guideline as to what defo is wrong to shout/chant.


Plus anything that a person would be too cowardly to walk up on his own and say to to others in a public place should be another indicator as to what not to shout. Then again the types that like to shout racist/libelous etc comments and the like at games are generally the type of snivelling cowards who would **** a brick if told to walk up and say it one on one to someone with no gang of similar weak minded idiots to back them up.

^^^exactly ^^^

If you wouldnt walk down the street and shout it of a Wed afternoon then you shouldnt be a coward and chant it with a group in the stands of a weekend . .

starviewadams

Just press mute!

robby^5

homerjay2005 wrote: »

what were the songs? see, what i am getting at here, is the fact that this is being labelled racist, yet unless there are words in it that would change that, how is it racist and different from example the chelsea fans singing "died in the tunnel, you should have died in the tunnel" a few days after ronaldo had his bad car crash. or is it a case, that if you sing any song at an african, that is racist?

Afaik it was along the lines of "It should have been you, It should have been you, Shot dead in Togo, It should have been you."

Personally I think worse things have been chanted down the years and from what I've heard there were proper fans shouting "Arsenal, Arsenal, Arsenal" over that tasteless chant. But alas Arsenal are in the media's firing line these days.

On the subject of racist chants though, does anybody have an opinion on the "Yid" chants directed at tottenham or even the "Yid" chants sung by tottenham? Seems to be all very tongue in cheek, but apparently there's a big movement to try and stamp it out. I also assume that this was what the media meant by racist chants? I find it hard to imagine Arsenal fans as truly racist given we have the highest percentage (or did at one stage) of black fans in the EPL.

flahavaj

I always wonder how GAA fans can manage to generate a good atmosphere at games without resorting to vile mindless chanting.

People who say football would lose its unique "atmosphere" if such chanting was eradicated are sorely mistaken. Its just an easy statement to hide behind IMO.

Esse85

flahavaj wrote: »

I always wonder how GAA fans can manage to generate a good atmosphere at games without resorting to vile mindless chanting.

People who say football would lose its unique "atmosphere" if such chanting was eradicated are sorely mistaken. Its just an easy statement to hide behind IMO.

They dont have to watch such greedy, un grateful, horrible human beings such as Tevez and Barton for example.
The way alot of footballers carry on with their cocky swagger displeases a lot of the public who in turn vent their frustration/anger at them during a football game. e.g. John Terry is found out to be riding his team-mates partner, lets all go and let John Terry know what we think of him.
That is the mentality I feel.

dfx-

flahavaj wrote: »

People who say football would lose its unique "atmosphere" if such chanting was eradicated are sorely mistaken. Its just an easy statement to hide behind IMO.

If it's 'eradicated', it would be played in front of empty stadiums, so it would lose any atmosphere, never mind unique.

stovelid

You're supposed to
You're supposed to
You're supposed to be at home.



Depends on the chanting I suppose. I like abusing opposition players and won't stop.

homerjay2005

robby^5 wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine Arsenal fans as truly racist given we have the highest percentage (or did at one stage) of black fans in the EPL.

this part here just sums up my problem with the racism label, is it only "white" people that can be racist and is it only black people that suffer racism?

everybody is guilty of it, but i find that if anything is said or done about a black person, its racist, which is very very baffling. that togo song is not racist in any shape or form and is no difference to what was sung at ronaldo, but nobody made a fuss about it like this....

GLaDOS

stovelid wrote: »

Depends on the chanting I suppose. I like abusing opposition players and won't stop.

Seconded. And referees :pac:

vellocet

flahavaj wrote: »

I always wonder how GAA fans can manage to generate a good atmosphere at games without resorting to vile mindless chanting.

People who say football would lose its unique "atmosphere" if such chanting was eradicated are sorely mistaken. Its just an easy statement to hide behind IMO.

The GAA creates an entirely different atmosphere. Apples. Oranges. Football is tribal and about intimidating the opposition. The GAA is about hang sangwiches and a snooty air of superiority. Give me a raw derby roar anytime

The long and short of it is that football has always been an environment where you could cut loose a bit. Of course you can't behave the same on the street. Moody chants are as part and parcel of the game as dodgy offside calls and the pre match pint.

Some chants are clearly beyond the pale, such as racist or sectarian songs. The rest, like it or not, is in. If the songs at a game like the North London derby offend you, either hit mute or go and see a sport based on peace and love happy clappy lines like the GAA.

flahavaj

dfx- wrote: »

If it's 'eradicated', it would be played in front of empty stadiums, so it would lose any atmosphere, never mind unique.

Yes because roaring unacceptable abuse is the only reason people go to games and if an attempt to stanp it out were made people wouldn't bother. There was me thinking soccer fans went to games to see soccer played and cheer on their team.

VW 1

mixednuts wrote: »

^^^exactly ^^^

If you wouldnt walk down the street and shout it of a Wed afternoon then you shouldnt be a coward and chant it with a group in the stands of a weekend . .

At the Manchester-Chelsea game the other week the Chelsea lads were going with their usual Chelsea, chelsea, chelsea...chant.

The response from the home crowd was rent-boys, rent-boys, rent-boys... to the same tune.

Now I wouldnt walk up to Frank Lampard in the street and call him a rent boy on a wednesday afternoon. Does that make that chant wrong, or simply a rebuttal and part of football banter?

I tend to agree with the drawing the line on legal lines, but there also has to be a certain modicum of respect for other clubs and their history, eg Liverpool, Leeds, United themselves. I would never partake in Heysel/Hillsborough/Turkey chants, nor would I chant murderers at Liverpool players as is commonplace in OT when we play Liverpool. I really dont get that mentality.

stovelid

Yeah because opposition players or officials don't get abused in other codes.

Give me a break.

vellocet

flahavaj wrote: »

Yes because roaring unacceptable abuse is the only reason people go to games and if an attempt to stanp it out were made people wouldn't bother. There was me thinking soccer fans went to games to see soccer played and cheer on their team.

And part of cheering on the team is drowning out the noise made by the enemy. GAA is based on geography. Football based on being born into a club and KNOWING you are better than them across the ground and letting them know it.

If you need it explained you are on the wrong forum

adox

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this part here just sums up my problem with the racism label, is it only "white" people that can be racist and is it only black people that suffer racism?

everybody is guilty of it, but i find that if anything is said or done about a black person, its racist, which is very very baffling. that togo song is not racist in any shape or form and is no difference to what was sung at ronaldo, but nobody made a fuss about it like this....

While I agree entirely about your points on racism, I dont agree that the Togo song was at the same level as the Ronaldo song. While the Ronaldo song may have been distasteful, it was a minor accident he had and he was unharmed.
Adebayor witnessed an attack on his team bus and team mates being murdered.

vellocet

stovelid wrote: »

Yeah because opposition players or officials don't get abused in other codes.

Give me a break.

No. They get battered and locked in the boot of their car.

Which is much more civilised.

flahavaj

vellocet wrote: »

And part of cheering on the team is drowning out the noise made by the enemy. GAA is based on geography. Football based on being born into a club and KNOWING you are better than them across the ground and letting them know it.

If you need it explained you are on the wrong forum

Nothing wrong about any of that. But you can do the bolded part without resorting to singing songs about people dying in bus crashes, or referring to paedophilia etc etc. Or at least you can if you're not a brainless neanderthal.

ArmaniJeanss

They're professional athletes, they're used to this sort of thing, it rolls right off their back.

stovelid

Mont wrote: »

It is mob mentality.

No sh*t Sherlock?

vellocet

flahavaj wrote: »

Nothing wrong about any of that. But you can do the bolded part without resorting to singing songs about people dying in bus crashes, or referring to paedophilia etc etc. Or at least you can if you're not a brainless neanderthal.

Tell you what, you stop muldooligans running onto the pitch attacking referee's with hurleys and we will take a lecture in being neanderthals.

No-one is condoning the choice chants. We are simply saying that it is a part of the game and the 'tax' millionaire footballers who move from one rival to another have to pay

Leiva

VW 1 wrote: »

At the Manchester-Chelsea game the other week the Chelsea lads were going with their usual Chelsea, chelsea, chelsea...chant.

The response from the home crowd was rent-boys, rent-boys, rent-boys... to the same tune.

Now I wouldnt walk up to Frank Lampard in the street and call him a rent boy on a wednesday afternoon. Does that make that chant wrong, or simply a rebuttal and part of football banter?

I tend to agree with the drawing the line on legal lines, but there also has to be a certain modicum of respect for other clubs and their history, eg Liverpool, Leeds, United themselves. I would never partake in Heysel/Hillsborough/Turkey chants, nor would I chant murderers at Liverpool players as is commonplace in OT when we play Liverpool. I really dont get that mentality.

OK I take your point but i also will quote your own reply :

I tend to agree with the drawing the line

Where do you draw the line ...whats acceptable , whats not , whats legal , whats not ?... can you walk up to anyone in the street and accuse them of being a rent boy ? ?

HalloweenJack

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, no matter how stupid or offensive that speech may be. This argument would tie into my views on freedom of speech.

People should be allowed to say what they want, and then rightly criticised or argued with if its based on ignorance or whatever.

Silencing extremism is going to lead to its expression in other ways. Tbh, it's better is people are getting their views out in public, however abhorrent, ill-informed or misguided, and then have them publicly challenged. A well-constructed, open debate is much better than silencing one half of an argument, which, to me, is authoritarian and backwards.

I don't agree with everything people say; racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination disgust me. However, I feel people should be allowed to say what they want and then be publicly challenged on it. You're going to do more damage to those spouting nonsense by letting them say it and then highlighting their nonsense and tearing it apart with logic than by silencing them and forcing them underground so that when they spout their rubbish, there's no response.

This should happen with football. I watched the BBC's coverage of the England '95 riot a few weeks back. One thing that struck me was Jimmy Hill picking up on the fact that those hooligans were giving the Nazi salute when the likelihood is their parents or grandparents were involved in the war effort AGAINST the Nazis and kept their beloved country free from Nazi occupation. To me, dissecting these people's messages and highlighting the ignorance and stupidity of these people is far better than trying to silence them.

VW 1

mixednuts wrote: »

Where do you draw the line ...whats acceptable , whats not , whats legal , whats not ?... can you walk up to anyone in the street and accuse them of being a rent boy ? ?

I raised that in my first post, I am only replying in such a manner in order to drag out the debate and get responses to points that havent been answered. Im not sure of the legalities of calling someone a rent boy, but legal or not I know its not something I would do in the street as I said. However at a football match I would chant it, as part of the banter.

I tend to use a pinch of morals and a dose of common sense as to which chants I will and wont join in at football matches.

Luckily they are mostly supporting our team/players and there arent all that many degrading ones, bar ones about City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal/Wenger.

Kess73

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, no matter how stupid or offensive that speech may be. This argument would tie into my views on freedom of speech.

People should be allowed to say what they want, and then rightly criticised or argued with if its based on ignorance or whatever.

Silencing extremism is going to lead to its expression in other ways. Tbh, it's better is people are getting their views out in public, however abhorrent, ill-informed or misguided, and then have them publicly challenged. A well-constructed, open debate is much better than silencing one half of an argument, which, to me, is authoritarian and backwards.

I don't agree with everything people say; racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination disgust me. However, I feel people should be allowed to say what they want and then be publicly challenged on it. You're going to do more damage to those spouting nonsense by letting them say it and then highlighting their nonsense and tearing it apart with logic than by silencing them and forcing them underground so that when they spout their rubbish, there's no response.

This should happen with football. I watched the BBC's coverage of the England '95 riot a few weeks back. One thing that struck me was Jimmy Hill picking up on the fact that those hooligans were giving the Nazi salute when the likelihood is their parents or grandparents were involved in the war effort AGAINST the Nazis and kept their beloved country free from Nazi occupation. To me, dissecting these people's messages and highlighting the ignorance and stupidity of these people is far better than trying to silence them.

Freedom of speech is fine as long as there are consequences for extremes. Letting comments that break the law of the land be ignored under the banner of freedom of speech is the start of a slippery slope imho.

I agree on an intelligent public dissection of comments where possible, but I also think that if a person wants the privilege of freedom of speech then they have to be prepared to accept any consequences that comes from using or abusing that privilege and not simply use it as something to hide behind.

Fr Tod Umptious

flahavaj wrote: »

I always wonder how GAA fans can manage to generate a good atmosphere at games without resorting to vile mindless chanting.

People who say football would lose its unique "atmosphere" if such chanting was eradicated are sorely mistaken. Its just an easy statement to hide behind IMO.

The pace of a GAA game is totally different from that of a soccer game.

More 'ohhs' and 'ahhs 'in a GAA game as the game moves up and down the field, no time to sit (or stand) and sing songs while very little is happening on the filed like in soccer.

There is plenty of abuse thrown at opposition players and refs in GAA it's just that it is done on an individual basis and not in a chant format as in soccer.

The_Kew_Tour

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The pace of a GAA game is totally different from that of a soccer game.

More 'ohhs' and 'ahhs 'in a GAA game as the game moves up and down the field, no time to sit (or stand) and sing songs while very little is happening on the filed like in soccer.

There is plenty of abuse thrown at opposition players and refs in GAA it's just that it is done on an individual basis and not in a chant format as in soccer.

I am as equal a lover of GAA as I am Football, but I agree with this..

I only saw a GAA ref having to get 6 stitches for strike across the head last week and even heard threats from some "supporters" telling the ref they knew where he lived and they get him things ya not see at Junior Football match down park..

However back on topic I think it's not going be easy to get rid of this behavior for a large enough minority that just want cause headlines, but you cant let it walk under the bridge either.

invinciblePRSTV

Beyond racist chanting I don't really have an issue with any songs or chants, no matter how crass they can be perceivd to be, it's all part of the fun n' games.

_blank_

I wouldn't chant anything explicitly racist. "You black bastard"

But I would slag off a place. "Cork is a shíthole" for example

Although I've heard "I'd rather be a Paki than a Dub", which I wouldn't reciprocate in kind.

I wouldn't chant anything explicitly homophobic. "You fúcking ******"

But I do think the Ashley Cole/Mobile Phone/1,2,3...men chant is very funny.

Anything else is fair game, imo.

I've abused a man over his weight, but I'm hardly slimmer of the year myself. I've abused a person over perceived mental illness (in the "Two Andy Goram's" sense of it, I wouldn't actually slag off an actual mentally disabled person).

The PArk Ji sung song is funny. When I told the OH the words, she was scandalised

Necronomicon

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

They're professional athletes, they're used to this sort of thing, it rolls right off their back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjnJ8xs6ibs

HalloweenJack

Kess73 wrote: »

Freedom of speech is fine as long as there are consequences for extremes. Letting comments that break the law of the land be ignored under the banner of freedom of speech is the start of a slippery slope imho.

I agree on an intelligent public dissection of comments where possible, but I also think that if a person wants the privilege of freedom of speech then they have to be prepared to accept any consequences that comes from using or abusing that privilege and not simply use it as something to hide behind.

I believe freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege, and I think you should only be responsible to yourself when availing of that right, your own feelings. You shouldn't be held responsible if someone takes your words and uses them as justification for their own pursuits, etc.

We all have our own views on things and would like to have them heard. As I said previously, some aren't nice but it is better to have them in the open and debated rather than persecute them for it. I think persecuting people for their opinions is just going to create more problems. These opinions need to be debated and challenged openly, not silenced. Silencing people is just going to lead to more persecution complexes and we know too well that people can use that for building support.

I'm sure we've all had some incident where we had a debate with someone about something or other we'd known for so long. The other person offers an opinion on it which is one that never occurred to you before and it dawns on you that you were looking at things the wrong way or you were wrong all along. This can only happen if we engage in proper discussion with people whose opinions we disagree with, not by silencing them.

From a legal point of view, again, people should be told why their viewpoint is wrong, or whatever, not punished for thinking differently to others. If someone has some homophobic sentiments to let out, challenge them on it, don't throw them in prison for saying what's on their mind. I know there are cases of incitement to hatred, etc, but, again, these people should be debated with on why they are wrong, instead of being punished for their opinions.

theoneeyedman

Mont wrote: »

Btw i am not saying ban chanting. Talking the piss chants or whatever comes with the territory but rascist and vile chants just cross the line. To publicly chant someone is a paedo or chanting someone because of their ethnicity is not on. It is a bad example for kids. We all like to have a laugh but some stuff is pretty sick.

Will someone think of the children:eek:



Where is the line between taking the piss and a vile chant?? One mans piss take is another mans insult; some would say most humour has an element of cruelty inherent to it, be it to Paddy the Irishman, the Dumb Blonde, The Mean Cavan man etc......good luck policing that

Richard Hillman

What i object to in the case of Adebayor. Fans can sing and say what they want but as soon as he runs up and slides on his knees in front of them, then BOOM! its totally unacceptable :rolleyes:

robby^5

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this part here just sums up my problem with the racism label, is it only "white" people that can be racist and is it only black people that suffer racism?

everybody is guilty of it, but i find that if anything is said or done about a black person, its racist, which is very very baffling. that togo song is not racist in any shape or form and is no difference to what was sung at ronaldo, but nobody made a fuss about it like this....

That wasnt my point at all. Let me clarify.

The higher percentage could mean that Arsenal fans might be more accepting of other races, we've had more black fans (I'm not sure what they are defining black as here) for years and I would just assume that there would be a more tolerant mindset among the fans.

Also the togo song wasn't racist, it was just tasteless and little sad really that people could care less about loss of life.

BERBA

Richard Hillman wrote: »

What i object to in the case of Adebayor. Fans can sing and say what they want but as soon as he runs up and slides on his knees in front of them, then BOOM! its totally unacceptable :rolleyes:

Adebayor Adebayor
We used to hate him
But we don't anymore;)

stovelid

Turning down the tv willl mute the naughty chants anyway