You are right, Ben, regarding Taylor rejectibg the ongoing proposal. That was going through before Hillsborough, which had nothing to do with the proposal to introduce ID cards.Which were only for visiting fans anyway. They tried an ID card scheme in Belgium but it was soon scrapped after problems.
I said I would not respond, but a personal attack on my integrity cannot be ignored. And I apologise in advance for continuing on this thread. At no point did I personally attack AlRawdah, I objected to the comparison as I read it, being made on the anniversary of the disaster. I said on two separate posts that I urge posters to rethink about making a comparison. “A somewhat chilling echo” is in my opinion a poor choice of words. As I see it, the introduction of ID on membership cards by the club is completely different to the outcomes of the Taylor report. The only common theme is the use of photo id. The Taylor report rejected ID cards for all football supporters as proposed by the Government of the time. This makes the comparison between the clubs proposal and gym membership more of a valid one. I have read the FSF articles and I am fully aware of the debate that was had regarding ID cards and crowd control. I have posted on the ballot thread, that I will not provide ID, will not carry additional ID and will not identify myself if asked to do so by a Steward or even a Police Officer, unless I believe they have the right to ask. I purposely did not introduce the Taylor report into the ballot debate, because I do not see the issue as being the same. The rule of law is the same and there is no requirement by law to provide ID and I will oppose any change to that, just as I will oppose any introduction by the club for photo ID membership cards and additional proof of ID. If I ever say anything along the lines of "After all that I do and have done for supporters" please feel free to slate me. The statement "I’m particularly perplexed why The Omega Man has launched into me this way, wilfully misinterpreting what I have said. He knows I do a fair bit for supporters of Hull City, and I’m genuinely puzzled why I am seen in his eyes as worthy of such poor treatment. A mark of the true man, I suppose" is shameful. The answer AlRawdah is simple, I attacked your words, not your integrity, I was not alone in the way I interpreted your post either. Your response is shallow and my reaction when I read it was one not of anger, but of dismay. It seems to me that unless you completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything posted by a few who "do a fair bit for the supporters of Hull City" you will be personally attacked and your opinion devalued. I have news for anyone who thinks that when you "do a fair bit for the supporters of Hull City".... it does not mean that you are right all of the time.
The way this thread is going is what happens when the season is effectively over , pages and pages of nonsense . Warming up nicely for 800 pages of City transfer news until a signing happens
Taylor Report... 1980s ID card scheme... the FSF... stewarding... I could go on. I’ve referred to none of those things, that’s you raising them and attributing them to me. Backing down obviously isn’t an option for you. Mark of the man.
Please explain how the disaster at Hillsborough is relative to the consultation and merits inclusion in your first post. What is the connection, because of it isn’t anything to do with what I have responded with, then I am at a loss to how you link the two events. OLM quite rightly aluded to the Taylor Report and I acknowledge that and replied. I have nothing to back down from. All you had to do was split your post into two parts and post the reminder of the anniversary on this thread and your view about the consultation on the ballot thread.
OLM didn't allude to the Taylor Report. He said that there were moves to implenent IDcards after Hillsborough which there weren't, they were in place before Hillsborough happened. The Taylor report said they shouldn't be brought in for reasons I stated in a previous post. Though the original ID scheme was only for away fines, it has taken tbe Allams to refine it and apply it to home fans. Of course inconveniencing their own fans is the Allams' modus operandi.
He didn't allude to the Taylor Report in his original post which was " Presumably, it was a reference to the attempt to introduce ID cards for football fans in the aftermath of Hillsborough". I pointed out it couldn't have been as the introduction of ID cards was in 1988, the year before Hillsborough. He then conceded that the Tsylor report came out against the idea. So neither Hillsborough or the Taylor report had anything to do with the move to introduce IDCards.
It was the Taylor report that pretty much killed off the idea of introducing ID cards for football fans.
True.But it had nothing to with the move to introduce them, neither had Hillsborough, which was what someone was alluding to originally. One dreads to think the chaos which would ensue at City if they were introduced. Scanning a ticket seems beyond the intellectual capacities of many of our fans.
The last couple of pages on this thread appear to demonstrate to me so much about what is wrong with written social media today. I'm talking about the dialogue between post # 182 (AlRawdah's) and the immediate post above (# 212). People jump to conclusions about individual's comments WITHOUT asking questions for clarification about the intended meaning of statements. They did finally come, yet the discussion could have been nipped in the bud in two posts. Opinions may well differ, but understanding of positions would be clear. It takes 2 pages of dialogue before the appropriate questions are finally posed. In the meantime, personal insults ( directly or obliquely) are exchanged. This medium creates so much misunderstanding and animosity. Nowt like eye-to-eye contact & face-to-face dialogue to clear the air & reach understanding.
Nowt like eye to eye .............. Queens car park, Friday 9.30. As another poster on another board would suggest
Of course, this is correct, social media is a minefield. What would have been helpful is a post that actually said what the poster meant and not something other - it was in plain English and did not require interpretation. The personal insults have (predominantly) come from one poster and it is not TOM, so I don’t understand how you are looking at this.
You are assuming the original poster meant something else. As did TOM. Would it not have been appropriate for TOM to have asked the poster what he meant for clarification before he suggested he rethink ? My assumption (interpretation of the words) of AlRawdah's original post was a reference/comparison to mismanagement and the wrongful diversion of blame onto supporters, which were present in both situations cited in Al's post. I did not/do not equate the tragic outcome of Hillsborough to the outcome of the Hull City saga. Neither did nor does AlRawdah - he said so in a subsequent post. It's called a hair-trigger reaction. Lack of consideration/digestion of what words may mean. That's where I'm coming from. It seems plain English, as you put it, is not so plain. hence further analysis/digging.
Unlike you, I'm not assuming anything. I read the post and it used the anniversary of the 96 as a means to villify the Allams; I did, and still do, believe it was inappropriate and unnecessary. I dislike the Allams, but I think that using such an emotive and high profile tragedy to put some context or emphasis on their membership options is neither wise or useful. The further explanation I have read doesn't change that.
Well, there I was thinking we were discussing the interpretation of words another poster used as opposed to the particular thread they were posted on. I get your point.