This chant that we are getting grief for

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

And I think that to stop this behaviour,the football ground chants,will mean a whole different set of supporters attending matches. 

Racist chants are as rare as rocking horse shit these days (in the Premier League). People can change their behaviour; you don't need to change the people.

[Jennings]

It's a fucking shit chant anyway. Don't defend it for any principle.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

It isn’t daft, you can’t pick and choose who you can offend. 

Yes you can.

 

If you sing "Fuck the Tories", you might offend some Tories. Good. If you sing anything to the effect of "You live in an unlovely place and you support a team that's inferior to ours" you might offend rival fans. Not a problem.

 

If you sing songs about, well, any of the Protected Characteristics listed in the 2010 Equalities Act (if you really, really need a written guide, because you don't have whatever it takes to figure out your own understanding of right and wrong) then you're being a cunt.

[Captain Howdy]

So there’s an actual guide to who you can and can’t offend. If you’re in the 2010 equalities act your barley, everybody else is fair game.  Outstanding stuff.

[El Dangerous]

I dread to think of the stick we’ll get from NAMBLA after the derby.

[Bob]

10 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

Alex suggesting that fellow Reds are liars, simply because he doesn't have any personal memories of something that wouldn't have been personally memorable to him is "post of the year" material? Nah.

 

As for what the song "leans on" do we really want to go there? Plenty of other fans will tell you what "Always the Victim" leans on and how they don't link it to events of 32 years ago; are we going to cut them the same slack (and award them Post Of The Year status)?

 

This isn't difficult.

1. Most people who sang this song (before the last couple of weeks) did so with no homophobic intent and without realising how it was hurting people.

2.  Nobody can now plead ignorance of the impact this song has.

3.  Anyone who sings this song - especially those Reds who were specifically asked not to by fellow Reds, the manager and the captain - are cunts and need to be called out as cunts.

Society has plenty of cunts, and our fan base has more than its share. They don’t actually ever get called out on anything they do, and you know it’s the same morons that continued singing this yesterday despite the discussion in recent weeks, as it was lobbing bottles at buses and jumping on police cars and generally acting tye biggun around the place.

 

they don’t give a fuck when the collective of our supporters are being criticised, the same way they don’t give a fuck about anything else they do and think they have. A right to act a prick. It’s not a LFC thing, and it’s not a scouse thing, it’s a cunt thing and it’s all over the place.

[Arniepie]

3 hours ago, Mook said:

3 Stacks said things like 'Sign On' have no place in Football. That's not racist, homophobic, anti-Jewish or taking the piss out of deaths.

 

He'll be wanting us to stop the 'Manchester is full of shit' song as well as that's much the same.

That is a shite song tbf

 

Whatever happened to Manchester, wank,wank wank?

[aws]

Do West Brom really deserve to be told to fuck off? And hasn't  the NHS got enough on its plate without unnecessarily filled ambulances? 

[Arniepie]

5 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Cancel culture at its best. Pretty soon, you'll only be allowed to chant things that actually help the atmosphere and the team you support rather than try hard ones like this one that simply exists to insult. Disgusting. 

So bang goes London bridge is  falling down,but liverpool we love you, bring on your Manchester utd etc.

 

Sound.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

45 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

So there’s an actual guide to who you can and can’t offend. If you’re in the 2010 equalities act your barley, everybody else is fair game.  Outstanding stuff.

The good news is, everyone is in the Equalities Act.

 

This isn't difficult.

 

[Captain Howdy]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The good news is, everyone is in the Equalities Act.

 

This isn't difficult.

 

Oh good, so nobody can be offended then.

[Arniepie]

I fully get why it's been highlighted, but without getting all too 'its pc gone mad' .are they gonna clamp down on any 'offensive song 'now?

Lots of the old ones talk about physical violence for example (we dont carry bottles, and we'll kick fuck out of you etc)

[Iceman]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

If you sing songs about, well, any of the Protected Characteristics listed in the 2010 Equalities Act (if you really, really need a written guide, because you don't have whatever it takes to figure out your own understanding of right and wrong) then you're being a cunt.

To play devil's advocate for one moment.

 

You spray this word around the forum rather liberally Mr AOT. Is that not then offensive towards the women posters and readers of the forum, or does it have to be in the form of a song? 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

Oh good, so nobody can be offended then.

Just read what I've already posted.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

I fully get why it's been highlighted, but without getting all too 'its pc gone mad' .are they gonna clamp down on any 'offensive song 'now?

Lots of the old ones talk about physical violence for example (we dont carry bottles, and we'll kick fuck out of you etc)

Most of those fight songs went the way of the regular fighting. The Bertie Mee/Anny Road aggro song sounds quaint now.

[an tha]

I bet if you started 'we don't carry bottles' on the kop now you'd be more or less totally on your own all the way through.

 

Not saying it is or isn't a good song - but i bet you 90% of the kop these days wouldn't know it or have heard it!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

35 minutes ago, Iceman said:

To play devil's advocate for one moment.

 

You spray this word around the forum rather liberally Mr AOT. Is that not then offensive towards the women posters and readers of the forum, or does it have to be in the form of a song? 

 

I like the word cunt precisely because it is offensive: it doesn't say "you're an unpleasant fellow"; it says "you're a cunt. (FWIW, I never use it to refer to lady-parts.) If anyone could make a convincing case that the way I use it is sexist, then I'd stop using it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, an tha said:

I bet if you started 'we don't carry bottles' on the kop now you'd be more or less totally on your own all the way through.

 

Not saying it is or isn't a good song - but i bet you 90% of the kop these days wouldn't know it or have heard it!

That's just time. Things come into popularity and then drop out of popularity.

[Captain Howdy]

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Just read what I've already posted.

I did , you said everybody is on the equalities act , an act which you inferred makes anybody on it exempt from offensive chants/criticism , therefore if everybody is on it then that means that you can’t offend anybody. That’s how I read you, please let me know if that’s not correct.

[s(k)aturation]

8 hours ago, Red_or_Dead said:

We're singled out because our own LGBT fans brought it up. The shitty media have picked up on this and hence we're getting grief all round. 

 

We shouldn't sing it if it's making our own fans uncomfortable. It's a shit chant anyway. 

 

 

 

Frankly, nor should we sing it if it's giving offence to LGBT Chelsea fans either.

 

Or do only Liverpool's LGBT fans' feelings count?

 

Be the bigger "man", set the example... or just be cunts like all the others, and then complain about getting singled out for it.

 

It's a no-brainer really.

 

Stay as pissed off and angry at other fans and the media as we like - have a potato not just a chip on our shoulder if that floats our boats - but just don't sing that fucking feeble, boring song.

 

Nor try and somehow claim mitigation because what we're singing is not as bad as what others are singing at us.

 

Two wrongs and all that... what mindless bollocks.

 

 

[an tha]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's just time. Things come into popularity and then drop out of popularity.

Yeah of course agreed.

 

Its from a different era anyway and would have always been more of an aways job anyway and as the demographic of the away support has changed over the decades as you say things drop away.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Captain Howdy said:

I did , you said everybody is on the equalities act , an act which you inferred makes anybody on it exempt from offensive chants/criticism  , therefore  if everybody is on it then that means that you can’t offend anybody. That’s how I read you, please let me know if that’s not correct.

I didn't infer (or imply) that at all.

 

The Equalities Act lists Protected Characteristics. This includes things like sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Everybody has these characteristics. If you give someone grief because they're an arsehole, or because they support a different team, or whatever, that's fair game. If you give someone grief because of their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc, that's not OK.

It's the difference between calling a black person a "bastard" and calling them a "black bastard": once you bring their race or ethnicity into the insult, you've crossed a line into racism. All of us can choose to be as rude and offensive as we like without crossing that line.

[Captain Howdy]

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I didn't infer (or imply) that at all.

 

The Equalities Act lists Protected Characteristics. This includes things like sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Everybody has these characteristics. If you give someone grief because they're an arsehole, or because they support a different team, or whatever, that's fair game. If you give someone grief because of their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc, that's not OK.

It's the difference between calling a black person a "bastard" and calling them a "black bastard": once you bring their race or ethnicity into the insult, you've crossed a line into racism. All of us can choose to be as rude and offensive as we like without crossing that line.

Righto, so what about calling someone a bald or fat cunt, is that Ok, or the John Terry example where you bring families into it, what about ginger cunt,  does that fit in, what about gammon? Like I say, it’s endless.

[Iceman]

26 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I like the word cunt precisely because it is offensive: it doesn't say "you're an unpleasant fellow"; it says "you're a cunt. (FWIW, I never use it to refer to lady-parts.) If anyone could make a convincing case that the way I use it is sexist, then I'd stop using it.

 

The mental gymnastics here is pretty impressive. 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Righto, so what about calling someone a bald or fat cunt, is that Ok, or the John Terry example where you bring families into it, what about ginger cunt,  does that fit in, what about gammon? Like I say, it’s endless.

They're all OK. Obviously, like any insult, the insulted person will be well within their rights to tell you to fuck off. The personal stuff - John Terry's ma or Stevie G's baby or whatever - is unpleasant, but it doesn't target any Protected Characteristics, it doesn't affect fans who are in the same situation and it doesn't touch on anything for which people are getting assaulted or discriminated against. The same is true of bald/fat/ginger cunts. (And gammons choose to be gammons, so they're obviously fair game.)

 

Like I say, it's really not endless. There's a clear line.