2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

This fan was racist and far right. He was part of a racist and far right Chelsea supporters group. 

We have historically had a small but prominent far right fan base. 

The train incident I genuinely think was overblown. From the 1980s we've had full blown nazis as some of our supporters. 

I did by the way see a Liverpool fan post somewhere that all Chelsea fans were scum and the evidence was the "train incident". He clearly had not factored heysel into his decision to blame all chelsea fans for one incident. That amused me. Somehow they've managed to get away with an incident that was many scales worse than any fan base has ever done. 

John Smith the Liverpool Chairman tried to lay the blame on us for Heysel.

Things that are relevant to the case :

He was a violent thug 

He had neo nazi sympathies

His far-right wing views led him to believe abhorrent racist ideologies 

He was homophobic

He loathed left wingers and LGBT supporters 

He hated Owen Jones enough to recognise him in person 

He had convictions for hooliganism

The Judge ruled that it was Owen's political views and sexuality that triggered the attack.

So why is Chelsea the third word in the headline? 

6 hours ago, fitz said:

Things that are relevant to the case :

He was a violent thug 

He had neo nazi sympathies

His far-right wing views led him to believe abhorrent racist ideologies 

He was homophobic

He loathed left wingers and LGBT supporters 

He hated Owen Jones enough to recognise him in person 

He had convictions for hooliganism

The Judge ruled that it was Owen's political views and sexuality that triggered the attack.

So why is Chelsea the third word in the headline? 

The police identified him because he was a Chelsea hooligan. 

If he wasn't a Chelsea hooligan he wouldn't have been caught. 

Did you read the story?

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

 

Did you read the story?

Did me itemising the key points from the article not make that obvious enough for you? See we can all be sarky.

How about just discussing the point about media portrayal of Chelsea fans? 

If it was his football hooliganism that led to his identification then put 'football hooligan'.

11 minutes ago, fitz said:

Did me itemising the key points from the article not make that obvious enough for you? See we can all be sarky.

You missed out the key point that him being a known Chelsea hooligan is the only reason he was identified and caught. 

1 minute ago, bluedave said:

You missed out the key point that him being a known Chelsea hooligan is the only reason he was identified and caught. 

No I mentioned he was a footballhooligan. It was his football hooliganism that led to him being identified by police. 

Just to be clear I have no problem with Chelsea being mentioned in the context of the article.

What I don't like is the way the Club is highlighted so clearly in the headline without that context. It's literally the third word you read.

So before you know his crime, his violent behaviour, his homophobia, etc you know what Club he supports. 

 

43 minutes ago, fitz said:

Just to be clear I have no problem with Chelsea being mentioned in the context of the article.

What I don't like is the way the Club is highlighted so clearly in the headline without that context. It's literally the third word you read.

So before you know his crime, his violent behaviour, his homophobia, etc you know what Club he supports. 

 

Because he was a Chelsea hooligan and associated with far right Chelsea groups like combat 18. Because he was arrested for being a Chelsea hooligan, the police knew him. 

I am absolutely certain If he was a millwall, West Ham, Leeds, Cardiff, Birmingham, etc. Hooligan (one of the other major hooligan teams), it would have been written exactly the same. 

Not only because it is actually relevant. But because it is interesting. There is no need to exclude information to make not racist Chelsea fans feel better about their club. Take off the blinkers, we have racist fans. We have fans who have flags with racist symbols on. It's sh*t. Hopefully they slowly go away. But they do exist. 

Edited July 26, 20205 yr by bisright1

56 minutes ago, fitz said:

Just to be clear I have no problem with Chelsea being mentioned in the context of the article.

What I don't like is the way the Club is highlighted so clearly in the headline without that context. It's literally the third word you read.

So before you know his crime, his violent behaviour, his homophobia, etc you know what Club he supports. 

 

So your problem is a grammatical one. It's normal to start sentences in English with the subject (i.e. the person/thing the sentence is about), in this case "Far-Right Chelsea Fan". It would read very weirdly if the sentence was arranged in any other way.

29 minutes ago, bluedave said:

So your problem is a grammatical one. It's normal to start sentences in English with the subject (i.e. the person/thing the sentence is about), in this case "Far-Right Chelsea Fan". It would read very weirdly if the sentence was arranged in any other way.

Clearly my issue is not grammar or syntax, it's lazy sensationalist journalism. Using the name of Chelsea as 'shorthand' for everything that's wrong in football.

Clearly all these other journalists struggle with their grammar?

 

It's not a sports section news so the target audience might not know what Chelsea is, to be succint with the headline they should have said 'Football Hooligan' like all the other publications.

The fact that it was a Guardian journo that got attacked and they were the only ones deviating from the norm and putting Chelsea in the headline means you can question if there is an agenda there.

 

10 minutes ago, sonic90 said:

It's not a sports section news so the target audience might not know what Chelsea is, to be succint with the headline they should have said 'Football Hooligan' like all the other publications.

The fact that it was a Guardian journo that got attacked and they were the only ones deviating from the norm and putting Chelsea in the headline means you can question if there is an agenda there.

 

I've been a Guardian reader for over 50 years, and when it comes to football, it is crystal clear that the paper has an agenda against Chelsea, and the collection of headlines posted above illustrates that very well

There was a time when Chelsea did have a significant number of very racist fans.  I remember being at an away match at West Brom where almost the entire section of Chelsea fans (a good few thousand) were standing up giving Nazi salutes and chanting "there's only one Princess Michael" who's family had just been revealed to having links to the Nazis.  There are no comparisons between the levels of racism between those days and today!

Edited July 26, 20205 yr by Dixon

And here I thought most of the football hooligans had gone away.

It's weird because as violent and racist as the US can be in so many ways we don't have anything that really compares.  

The closest thing is Philadelphia eagles fans have a bad reputation. 

I have to say the term hooligan makes me laugh.  It's sounds to me like something an old man would shout at the neighborhood kids because they rode their bikes on lis lawn or something.

4 minutes ago, Valpo said:

And here I thought most of the football hooligans had gone away.

Even dinosaurs from millions of years ago have left a presence on the planet.