christ

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

Have you thought about some ear defenders for her, or some noice cancelling headphones?

It seems to be an increasingly big issue now. My fiancée had some ear defenders, but now often uses noise cancelling headphones as pound noises get to her.

She’s not usually that bothered by loud noises, I just think she didn’t expect everyone around her to lose their minds

Taking the daughter tomorrow. Her only previous matchday experience she burst into tears when we scored because of the noise. Hoping that the lasses game is a bit more sedate.

1 minute ago, reefatoon said:

Furious…..  

 

you’re going on about back room staff man you walloper.

xG has had me teetering on the edge, but if we’re going to start treating the hiring and firing administrative staff like actual footballers I’m going to go full #AMF. 
 

“He’s best in the league at Excel formulas”

Fuck off. Take me back to crumbling terraces, football specials and racism.

11 hours ago, duo said:

I will be intrigued to see how Man U get on with Ashworth there because I feel people (me included) have given him way too much credit for the transfers at Brighton. I am not saying he's not good at creating a structure that creates good decision making but people have him as to the reason Brighton have been so successful in the transfer market.  He was not there long enough, I would also question what influence he has had at Newcastle. 

The odd thing is he’s always been at pains to point out his job is not player identification, it’s to sit in the centre of everything and ensure there’s a coherent structure and strategy across the club. 
 

He obviously has some influence in that space, but the fact he didn’t arrive here only for us to immediately start hoovering up £4m wunderkids from under Brighton’s nose is probably a good indication that he’s a pretty peripheral figure when it comes to transfers. Nickson leaving will be a bigger deal in that area.

We’d struggle to get £20m for most of the playing squad

7 minutes ago, STM said:

Villa look more open than us here.

They’ve been like this all season. They should’ve got battered by Spurs before Xmas and managed to cadge a win.

7 minutes ago, andycap said:

I'd go 5-2-3 until we get our strikers and centre mids fit. 

Karius

Trippier

Schar

Botman

Burn

Livramento

Guimaraes 

Longstaff

Gordon

Murphy

Almiron (false nine) 

 

It should alleviate fatigue in miley

Wilson isak etc. 

 

You shouldn’t be this shitfaced at 8pm.

A great shot stopper but his style of goalkeeping is the worst possible fit for the way we want to play. 

3 minutes ago, 80 said:

Haven't got the time to do a more full response right now, but some would argue the things I wrote are anti-Semitism. As in, no interpretation required - speaking those words equates to emotional violence and stochastic terrorism.

 

More importantly though, it's the 'actions meet consequences' angle I'm interested in. Is it the service provider's liberty to judge and discriminate among those who it deals with in all instances? Are there no downsides or risks attached to establishing a culture where that freedom is regularly exercised?

You would argue it’s anti-Semitic, many would argue it isn’t. The difference here is that there’s no argument about whether or not she’s transphobic - she admits as much in her tweets. It’s whether she should be banned for being transphobic.

12 minutes ago, 80 said:

From memory - and apologies if I'm wrong, but if it doesn't apply to you it does apply to probably a dozen supporters on our forum - you'd largely take the view that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state executing a genocide on the Palestinian people. That the Palestinians have a right of return to their former properties and Israel should not be allowed to characterise itself as an ethnostate. That the Israeli security services and powerful international Zionist sympathisers wage campaigns of misinformation and political power plays to disorient, isolate and destroy the reputations of those who sympathise with the Palestinians and seek to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions.

 

As you'll surely know, in the current environment, there are plenty of influential people ready and willing to portray someone with those views as being an anti-Semitic, conspiritorially-minded, terrorist enabling, genocide sympathiser. The kind of person a business, whether in football, telecommunications or banking, might think twice about accepting the business of.

 

So, if someone were banned from football grounds for expressing those views, what would you think? 

That’s false equivalence though, isn’t it? In this case we have someone wearing their transphobia on their sleeve. There’s no need to read between the lines here because she literally says what she means. It’s there in the tweets.

A reasonable comparison would be someone saying they’re anti-Semitic and proud of it. And in that case then I’d have no problem with them being banned either.

9 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

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.

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? 

3 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

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.

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.” 

15 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?

I don’t think I accused either the Israelis or Palestinians of diddling kids?

Just now, Pancrate1892 said:

Your spot on - it's absolutely reasonable to suggest people shouldn't post inflammatory bigoted nonsense comments all over social media

But it's the sanctimonious policing of what you/them/him/her define as hate speech is problematic

For example 

Are jokes hate speech? (No matter how crass)

Are concerns hate speech? (No matter how misguided) 

Can people just be allowed to be proved wrong or right as long as they aren't suggesting physical violence? 

 

There is irony in consequences, because there could be real consequences now she is unmasked she gets attacked (actual violence not words on the internet) or maybe someone tries to burn her house down with her in it? 

Would that be ok to fit the crime the police found her not guilty of? Would that be a hate crime or justice? 

 

 

 

Two things:

1) These aren’t jokes or concerns. She’s basically peddling far right conspiracies.

2) She unmasked herself by posting this shite publicly in her own name.

1 minute ago, HawK said:

 

Oh come on

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.

5 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

Directly defaming individuals with slander or threatening violence is against the law and should be treat as such, but holding and expressing opinions about groups of people isn't though. I'll say again, I might not like nor agree with what opinions people have or express, but being selective on allowing entry to a football game only if you hold compatible opinions and views doesn't align with the laws of a democratic society.

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

14 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

Isn't she a member of the LGBTQ fanbase? 

 

Did she actually say she was going to kick trans people? 

 

Do you think she's going to spend all game with anti trans banners and slagging them off all game? 

 

If they look at our whole history of texts, tweets and general conduct are they likely to find out that we are perfect human beings?

 

Nobody is perfect and if you think the seats should be reserved for perfect people then there would be about 200 people in the crowd 

Who is demanding perfection? I think it’s reasonable to suggest people maybe shouldn’t post inflammatory, bigoted nonsense all over social media. If they want to that’s fine, but you can’t moan about consequences.

13 minutes ago, HawK said:

So we don't believe in freedom of speech anymore, great. I might not agree with her views, but she shouldn't be punished for saying them. It's not as if she's made direct threats of violence against anyone. What a world this has become :/

If I repeatedly and vocally accuse you of wanting to fuck kids then you’re fine with that, aye? Because I’m just exercising my freedom of speech?

The club have a duty of care to fans in the stadium, including our sizeable LGBTQ fanbase. She’s demonstrated through her posting she’s an absolute lunatic. What happens if a trans supporter goes into the toilet when she’s in there? What happens if - as is often the case with this lot - someone that she thinks is trans goes into the toilet when she’s in there? What happens if she encounters a trans supporter in the concourse or one has to sit next to her?

The club might be being overly sensitive given the reputation of our owners, but she’s given them more than enough evidence to boot her out.

5 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

What did she say that what reprehensible?

She said trans people were nonces iirc 

1 hour ago, wfmk2 said:

What's the background to this that's doing the rounds on all the gammon outlets?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13047047/LITTLEJOHN-Newcastle-fan-banned-gender-critical-trans-views.html

 

 

Club banned a complete psychopath for sharing some pretty reprehensible stuff on Twitter about trans people. This has naturally been taken up as a free speech issue by the usual suspects, ignoring the fact her posts mark her as an absolute danger and the club have likely been left with little choice.

The BDB/Tino conundrum is literally the only thing I really question him on. Everything else that’s happened this season there are massive amounts of mitigation.

Absolutely no way his position should be up for debate. Utterly deranged conversation to be having.

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

I don't think it's necessarily the defence at fault, there's just too much space in behind us when we lose the ball. Which we do quite often because some of our players can't pass under pressure.

We haven’t coped at all well with going from a keeper who plays on the edge of his 18 yard box to one who is terrified of leaving his six yard box. That’s not a criticism of Dubravka btw. We’re just struggling to adapt.

It’s a bit of a concern that our head’s completely go when we go behind at home. Very lucky we managed to rescue it because it was looking very Boxing Day for a while.

Howe has a big decision to make when it comes to Burn and Tino. For my money he can’t justify sticking with BDB any longer. It’s twice in a week he’s been completely pantsed by a player with a bit of pace about him. He’s going to be targeted for the rest of the season.

6 minutes ago, STM said:

Banning people because of their opinion is ridiculous.

I’d gladly ban 90 per cent of posters on here for their shite football takes.

Tonali’s got some decent patter about him.

Bruno absolutely hates to lose