HawK

Heart in my mouth as Barnes is taken out

Dubs no parlez football

That's a sizable jump, hopefully we should be able to maintain that with the Adidas deal coming in to offset the lack of CL next year.

The growth won't be fast enough for some but with all the red tape being chucked at us I don't think we're doing too bad. 

We have very involved owners via Stavely et al, I wouldn't be surprised if the rumblings from Ashworth about not having as much control as he wanted were true.

He would have had much more control at a pre-Ineos Man* Utd where the owners were effectively absent.

Edit: the shame

1 hour ago, NG32 said:

im expecting him to hit the ground running next season and be in full beast mode with him having almost a year of training, understanding on Howe's style of play and tactics. 

Top-tier squad player imo, pleased with this.

But.. but.. think of the compensation fee, it's free FFP money!!

25 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

We're playing Forest who have conceded 41 goals so far this season (only Sheff Utd, Burnley and Luton have conceded more). They've also scored less than all bar the bottom 3 clubs.

 

That midfield / front 3 should be more than plenty to get the 3 points here

On the other hand, probably only one of those 6 players would make the team if we had a full squad to choose from.

17 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Almiron   Wilson   Murphy 

 

Miley    Bruno   Longstaff

 

 

Thats not great really. All of those players are capable of a good game if inconsistent. We'll need to be at our best  to get anything imo. Think we might struggle against their pacey attack and physical midfield. 

 

It's a shame that Howe seems married to this flat 4-3-3 approach becoming a 3-4-3 in possession. I'd like to see Longstaff in the hole further ahead of Bruno. As we seem to continuously struggle with the gap between midfield and defence and no single player seems suited to the role, stick two of them there. Personally I think Longstaff could show a lot just behind the striker, bit of a Kevin Nolan in terms of his ability to be always in the right place at the right time. As he offers little else in possession other than his goals as he rarely seems to know what he's going to do with the ball until after he gets it, it'll at least work to his strengths. Applying his pressing high up the pitch behind Isak/Wilson would also take the pressure off either striker to do so and keep their energy up for when we do have the ball. 

21 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

Feels like he has been the next big thing for us for so long he should be rights be 30 by now

He's nee Haris Vuckic yet, mind

4 hours ago, loki679 said:

 

Rush goalies was when the keeper could play outfield too.  There was another one for anyone in the box could be keeper, can't remember what it was called.  Spot goalies maybe?

Floaties where I grew up

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

I would say I’m happy not to have to share any part of the ground with someone that said trans people were nonces much like I’d be delighted to never have to sit next to someone that’s called someone a racial slur. 
 

I’m fairly confident in myself I won’t tweet such things. I understand your point of view and if there was any sort of doubt or grey area I’d agree but she tweeted some absolutely vile stuff. No place for that in football or society imo
 

the key point is someone complained to the club and the club didn’t like what they saw. 
 

Any sympathy I had was well gone when she lied and said all she said was sex was real and then went on a right wing tour defending herself 
 

anyway we’ll move on. 

Aye we're all grown ups here - we clearly hold different values and that's OK. Agreed on the complaint being the catalyst for the ban, the club was put in a position and it acted.

Not sure how much you read of my previous responses, but I do also think everything that's she written is abhorrent, just want to make that clear I'm not condoning her actions or views.

4 minutes ago, gdm said:

‘All men’ that are around rape victims, people in soldier uniforms and big skinhead thugs aren’t tweeting vile things against a specific set of people. If they were and a complaint was made they’d get banned too and rightly so 

 

it’s been reported many times of fans tweeting racist comments have been found and banned from football it’s no different. 
 

No, feeling safe isn’t an entitlement neither is entering st James park. Newcastle are a private company if a complaint is made they will look in to and punish as they see fit. Regardless of who made the complain or their motive for complaining the club has made the decision to do what they can to make lgbtq people feel safe at the game.

 

as its also been said her ‘content’ & bio are heavily Newcastle related and the club obviously don’t want that associated with them. 

Except, it is different in UK law.

Of course NUFC have a right of refusal as any private company does, but are you happy for NUFC to be the arbiter of what views their supporters are allowed to hold in order to attend games? Let's not forget who owns us and where this might lead.

4th sentence - yes I've been over this already.

2 minutes ago, Wullie said:

They've been doing this sin-bin thing in non-league for a year or two but just for dissent, a yellow for dissent means 10 mins out. As a measure to reduce dissent, I can see the merits of it even though I'd rather not but I think doing it for "cynical fouls" is dangerous territory because that's incredibly subjective.

Aye I don't like it, look how wrong 'clear and obvious' became in terms of VAR.

I think if dissent or abuse to the ref was a an automatic yellow, the cynical fouls would almost take care of themselves (if still yellow) to a degree as players are going to be on more yellows anyway, at least in the short term.

Popped this in a spoiler for those who really don't want to read about this shite

12 hours ago, cubaricho said:

Hawk clearly a wrongun and afraid he’s going to get done for his views too.  

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Freedom of speech is related to being persecuted by your government/authorities.

Because our government doesn’t carry out torture, and executions, this generally means freedom from prison.

This only applies for government and local authorities though, it doesn’t apply to private companies, there is also exceptions to hate specific hate speeches etc.

 

Now if you say that your boss is a wanker, then you’ll not go to prison for that. However the company you work for are free to dismiss you, and prohibit you from their premises.

 

In this case NUFC are free to ban her from the stadium.

 

For what it’s worth, she has said all this on a social media account which is basically her displaying a full on NUFC persona, describing them in her bio, pictures of her in NUFC merchandise, attending games etc. Everything about it, and including her name on there at one point was NUFC orientated.

 

I’m lead to believe that she is a similar age to me, if so then she should know better than to say the things she did.

On top of this, if she went to high school around here, and was open about her sexuality, then there is little doubt that she herself would have been on the receiving end of similar abuse.

Come to think of it, was she not the one that was upset when Wraith and his mates were having a pop at her for her sexuality?

Thanks,  your detail on her background makes NUFC's actions clearer on this. Being decked out in NUFC attire whilst spouting hateful speech is one thing, whereas without the NUFC association I believe it would be treat differently.

Although I disagree that your example is fair, the employee-employer relationship with direct abuse involved is not really the same thing as pontificating your beliefs on the Twitter soapbox. However if you were decked out in your company uniform and every other post is about your company and you mix your own disagreeable views, then rightly that company could be seen to be associated with those views. If the company then does not act once aware, it could be seen to be complicit or condoning those views.

2 minutes ago, christ said:

People get banned from football grounds for being deplorable human beings all the time.

 

The club will rightly feel they have a duty of care to fans. As you acknowledge she shouldn’t be around trans people based on her apparently deeply held beliefs that they’re all dodgepots. But we have trans fans. Why should they be left in a position where they could run into this person, who doesn’t seem backward in coming forward about their feelings towards trans people? 

In my personal view - unless she actually harasses or distresses people specifically, she should be allowed in. But if that line is not crossed - i.e., she attends a game, watches the match, has a pint, goes home, she's fine.

It's all a matter of opinion, you clearly feel that people who say things that we both find abhorrent and post about them on twitter should have their access to the world curtailed. I can understand your reasoning and respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise - it comes down to our own core value systems that are ingrained at a very young age.

11 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

 

But transphobic abuse is also a hate crime, isn't it? I'd imagine there have been cases where fans have been banned for racism where they have not been prosecuted for it.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/yorkshire-and-humberside/news/leeds-christian-preacher-sentenced-harassing-transgender-woman

 

“People have the right to hold opinions and express their views, but when words cross the line between a legitimate expression of religious views and become distressing and threatening, the CPS will prosecute offenders if our legal test is met.

“In this case, by repeatedly referring to the female victim as ‘this gentleman’ and ‘a man in woman’s clothing’, using a microphone in a public place, McConnell’s comments crossed the line between a legitimate expression of his religious views, to become a distressing and threatening personal attack.”

To answer you point directly (I'm no legal eagle), I think it's not specified (gender-based hate) under law, whereas offences can be specifically racially aggravated.

Just now, BlueStar said:

 

Don't fans get stadium bans every other week for racially abusing players on social media without anyone saying it's a free speech infringement? Should they be allowed in so the guy next to them can challenge their views? 

The difference there is that racial abuse is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. It's another conversation entirely to ruminate over what should be a law and what shouldn't though. 

Just now, christ said:

My brother in Christ this is not the same. She’s not just saying “I believe trans people can’t change gender”, she’s saying “I believe trans people are preying on children and are all sexual predators.” 

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. 

If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

Just now, Conjo said:

 

That's my understanding as well. I don't see how is that an infringement on her freedom of speech though. Afaik she can still express herself as she sees fit.

For me, it's the implication that the club are selectively allowing people to enter the ground based on views and opinions which I think sets a dangerous precedent.

2 minutes ago, christ said:

Mad how free speech absolutists love to hide behind defamation law when it involves them being painted in a bad light.

 

She doesn’t just have ‘opinions’ on gender identity, she’s literally saying trans people are the worst kind of sexual deviant. Not in an off hand way either. She’s directly accusing transgender people of being paedophiles and that sexually assaulting people one of the main motivators of their transitioning.

 

She’ll not have been banned because of her views, she’ll have been banned because she poses a potential risk to the club and fans.

I don't agree with those views if that's what she's expressed. I don't see how I've been painted in a bad light? And I think the only person in our conversation dealing in absolutes is yourself.

There are people in the world who think people who commit certain crimes should be executed, they are also calling for groups of people to be killed. Do we have a checklist on people coming into the ground if they support capital punishment, and to what degree? What about views on the current genocide in China or Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel? The list goes on and on. You just can't bar entry to people because you don't like their views or opinions, it's undemocratic.

It's a wider conversation to be had in a non-footballing thread, but on the specific point about a Newcastle Utd fan being barred entry based on held views on beliefs I disapprove of the banning. I'm sure there's literally 1000s of people in the crowd who hold unsavoury views that most would not agree with in the cold light of day.

6 minutes ago, 80 said:

What would your view be on the contents of our Gaza thread being used to bar you and others from SJP?

My view?

3 minutes ago, christ said:

It very much feels like you’re trampling over my freedom of speech. Funny that.

Oh come on