The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
A few facts that seem to have eluded Theresa May, every single newspaper (as well as The Sun...) and countless people frothing at the mouth over FIFA's shocking decision to...follow some quite simple rules
i.) FIFA did not set the rule stating that international teams cannot display symbols of political, religious or commercial messages on their shirts, the International Football Association Board did - which means that the anti-FIFA rhetoric is wide of the mark
ii.) The IFAB is made up of four FIFA members and one from each of the Home Nations
iii.) As any law requires a 75% vote to be passed, this means that at least two of the home nations voted for this law to be passed - which means that the rhetoric against The EU and anything else non-English (sorry, non-British...) is also wide of the mark
iv.) The real story is the obvious double standard of Theresa May: she may harrumph about England not being allowed to display a political and commercial message (and at the rate things are going, they're getting towards religious symbolism) during the match, yet a couple of hours earlier she waved off justified criticisms about ex-servicemen dying on the streets due to Tory benefits cuts
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spur of the Moment
I think FIFA's decision is correct anyway. There have been wars fought around the world on a constant basis since time immemorial. The rights/wrongs of these wars and the importance /relevance etc of the outcomes depends on a person's political viewpoint. If allowances are made for the stance of the English or the Scots, why shouldn't there be similar concessions for others? How many might want to adorn their shirts with symbols of their fight against oppression only to offend others who believe it represents terrorism? They are an almost infinite number of conflicts from around the world which could fit this scenario.

Even the wearing of a poppy, as uncontroversial as we are led to believe it is, causes upset to pacifists and to those who see it as a form of fascism used to justify involvement in more dubious wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan or the use of military force generally. More specifically relevant to football is James McClean's objection to wearing the poppy given his stance on the use of deadly force by British troops in Northern Ireland. Football cannot avoid politics - it's part of life in so many different ways - but it should steer clear of being overtly political. Football (and sport generally) has the power to be unifying when it doesn't wear political colours. Football is clearly corrupt and driven by money and greed, but to those who watch and follow teams from all parts for the love of the game, it should be as unsullied as possible so far as political baggage is concerned.

In any event, there are countless ways to mark Remembrance Day without footballers wearing symbols on shirts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
I wonder if you could call Skargill a Conservative Communist.He wanted the best of both worlds in his day.I'm not sure if there are many mines working in Britain today..coal has had it's day.

It seems,in America,that Republicans are talking about Hillary's "war on coal".
Her or Obama's "war on coal" was against the coal mine owners who didn't care about miners safety or the fact that they were strip mining and contaminating the land and peoples water supplies. When there's a pound to be made.......
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
I think FIFA's decision is correct anyway. There have been wars fought around the world on a constant basis since time immemorial. The rights/wrongs of these wars and the importance /relevance etc of the outcomes depends on a person's political viewpoint. If allowances are made for the stance of the English or the Scots, why shouldn't there be similar concessions for others? How many might want to adorn their shirts with symbols of their fight against oppression only to offend others who believe it represents terrorism? They are an almost infinite number of conflicts from around the world which could fit this scenario.

Even the wearing of a poppy, as uncontroversial as we are led to believe it is, causes upset to pacifists and to those who see it as a form of fascism used to justify involvement in more dubious wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan or the use of military force generally. More specifically relevant to football is James McClean's objection to wearing the poppy given his stance on the use of deadly force by British troops in Northern Ireland. Football cannot avoid politics - it's part of life in so many different ways - but it should steer clear of being overtly political. Football (and sport generally) has the power to be unifying when it doesn't wear political colours. Football is clearly corrupt and driven by money and greed, but to those who watch and follow teams from all parts for the love of the game, it should be as unsullied as possible so far as political baggage is concerned.

In any event, there are countless ways to mark Remembrance Day without footballers wearing symbols on shirts.
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely, Luke. It's a symbol of remembrance for those who gave their lives.

I think we have to remember also, that if we're talking about the 1st World War, which the rememberance date is redolent of, these guys weren't exactly given a lot of choice.

Choices were, go over the top and get shot to **** by The Germans, or refuse and get stuck up against a wall and shot to **** by your own side!...
 
Last edited:
NowsufferinginSpain said:
I disagree entirely, Luke. It's a symbol of remembrance for those who gave their lives.

I think we have to remember also, that if we're talking about the 1st World War, which the rememberance date is redolent of, these guys weren't exactly given a lot of choice.

Choices were, go over the top and get shot to **** by The Germans, or refuse and get stuck against a wall and shot to **** by your own side!...
Click to expand...

I agree, but FIFA administers the world game. There are many countries who might wish to remember war dead and feel they have an indisputable case for doing so. Unfortunately, permitting them to do so in many cases will cause offence. Serbia v Croatia anyone?

So the policy has merit and it's understandable why exceptions shouldn't be made.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
I agree, but FIFA administers the world game. There are many countries who might wish to remember war dead and feel they have an indisputable case for doing so. Unfortunately, permitting them to do so in many cases will cause offence. Serbia v Croatia anyone?

So the policy has merit and it's understandable why exceptions shouldn't be made.
Click to expand...

Again, i disagree.

Rememberance doesn't apportion blame. It merely remembers those who fought and died, very often with little or no choice.

Serbia and Croatia was less of a war and more of an ethnic cleansing exercise. Most of those who died were non combatants who were simply massacred.
 
How you wish to honour people who died in wars is a personal choice. For teams to have the poppy sewn into their shirts removes this choice and devalues the choice of those who choose to wear it in my opinion.
It isn't just football, it seems more or less compulsory for BBC presenters too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
PowerSpurs said:
How you wish to honour people who died in wars is a personal choice. For teams to have the poppy sewn into their shirts removes this choice and devalues the choice of those who choose to wear it in my opinion.
It isn't just football, it seems more or less compulsory for BBC presenters too.
Click to expand...

And if it's the personal choice of our national football team to wear a poppy of remembrance, why should anybody stop them?
 
PowerSpurs said:
Providing each player gets a choice I agree.
Click to expand...

To be honest, how many would refuse? The Fail, and The Sun would be all over it and they'd be made national pariahs in less than 24 hrs!...

I remember the abuse Piquet got here for allegedly refusing to Sport the national flag on his team shirt.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
To be honest, how many would refuse? The Fail, and The Sun would be all over it and they'd be made national pariahs in less than 24 hrs!...

I remember the abuse Piquet got here for allegedly refusing to Sport the national flag on his team shirt.
Click to expand...
But that is the irony - we fought a war against fascism and now we are shaming people to remember it in the approved way
 
PowerSpurs said:
But this can't be the case because the squad hasn't been selected yet but it seems to have been 'decided' to have poppies.
Click to expand...

If that's the decision of the the FA, and they're playing for the national side, then that's the decision.

I'm sure that if any individual player had strong objections he could have it removed from his shirt.

I don't think that would be advisable, however, for reasons given!
 
PowerSpurs said:
But that is the irony - we fought a war against fascism and now we are shaming people to remember it in the approved way
Click to expand...

In my view, we are remembering those who died. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's my view. I'm not honouring or remembering a war, I'm remembering those who died in that war
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
Well that's a balanced response...
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

It's complete ****wits, like that, that are everything that's wrong with the UK.

The halfwit doesn't even understand what yesterday's court ruling was about.

Oh wait, he does. The Fail and The Sun, and The Excess have explained it to him! <doh>

And to think the future of an entire country was decided with the help of numbskulls, like that!..
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
I'm all for the personal wearing of a poppy if that is what you wish to do. The much forgotten line of "Lest we forget..." should feature prominently somewhere upon them. After all, we are remembering the sacrifices that have resulted from intolerance, aggression, hatred and war and the losses that will be repeated if we don't heed those warnings.

I don't think we lose a great deal by not wearing a poppy on international football shirts. The important act is remembering, not the trappings of doing so. I am sure that plenty of people wear them without the slightest real knowledge of why and that act is meaningless as is standing silent for 1 minute and then booing someone else's national anthem. I hope that we can accept that the rule is rightly there to prevent inflamatory gestures and let it go at that. Sometimes sacrificing your own wishes for the good of all is better than getting what you want for yourself.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
It's complete ****wits, like that, that are everything that's wrong with the UK.

The halfwit doesn't even understand what yesterday's court ruling was about.

Oh wait, he does. The Fail and The Sun, and The Excess have explained it to him! <doh>

And to think the future of an entire country was decided with the help of numbskulls, like that!..
Click to expand...
There's plenty of other nuggets of utter ignorance on Neale's easy to find FB page, not least how he keeps throwing around the word "treason" (or as he puts it every single time, "TREASON") yet the only act of treason that anyone with the most basic understanding of UK law will see is some jumped-up malcontent from the Home Counties trying to organise a military coup to overthrow the government - an offence which carries a whole-life tariff if convicted.

So if he hates judges now, he'll really hate them when he hears his sentence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back