The Return of Fans to Stadiums

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Would you attend matches at 10-25% capacity

  • Yes - COYS!

    Votes: 116 74.8%
  • No

    Votes: 26 16.8%
  • I'd rather go to another Take That reunion

    Votes: 13 8.4%

  • Total voters
    155
Kneeling is as harmless as sitting on a bench watching the wind in the trees.
Anybody booing that is more racist than they realise.

But I agree, it's not achieving anything.
I get irked by Spurs tbh. Go on their Facebook pages and there is absolutely nothing to moderate the comments

They bleat on about social media allowing racism to exist but Spurs have the power to delete nasty comments and ban posters from the page. But they don't.
One thing I have noticed from all this is that no one understands social media. Nearly every single person in the world can make a post and in lots of cases (because the celebrity chooses to) can speak to high-profile people directly. Now I feel like these companies have an easy ride because of the libel exemption in America. Can you imagine putting up a community whiteboard outside your house that contained some of the stuff on social media?
Besides all that, the comments are obviously wrong but when anyone, in whatever state, can make a post to the whole world and to the person themselves, I am not sure what can be done apart from limited who can post. I don't know why footballers aren't calling for that. I am not sure what is being called for in the practical sense.
 
Who determines what a "nasty comment" is? ... Daniel Levy or Cybil the tea lady? If you decide to limit free speech (and there has to be some level of oversight) it can't be a football club chairman or a minimum wage keyboard operator who makes those decisions ... that's a very dangerous road to go down.

The government (ideally a world standard) needs to create a totally autonomous body that regulates on-line activity and sets guidelines for all website administrators ... huge task and one they all keep avoiding.
Calling a player shit is free speech.
Calling him names because of his skin colour is not free speech.

No one should have to ask this. It is not free speech to be racist, sexist or homophobic or any of the other "ists"
 
One thing I have noticed from all this is that no one understands social media. Nearly every single person in the world can make a post and in lots of cases (because the celebrity chooses to) can speak to high-profile people directly. Now I feel like these companies have an easy ride because of the libel exemption in America. Can you imagine putting up a community whiteboard outside your house that contained some of the stuff on social media?
Besides all that, the comments are obviously wrong but when anyone, in whatever state, can make a post to the whole world and to the person themselves, I am not sure what can be done apart from limited who can post. I don't know why footballers aren't calling for that. I am not sure what is being called for in the practical sense.
The football world is asking that all users of social media are responsible for their comments. To do this Facebook etc would have to verify every users actual identity.
I actually support this. Not just to help fight racist wankers but also to fight back against the ever increasing number of fraudsters etc ridling the platforms.
Simply put - you cannot have an account unless you divilge who you actually are and it's verified.
If people don't like it then leave.

The reason I suspect the platforms won't do it is because they're scared their user base will dramatically reduce if people do have to make that decision. That's wrong and shows their interest is purely the volume of users and not the content.

But anyone having a Facebook page can delete comments and ban accounts. Instead of constantly blaming everyone else they should do something.
 
The football world is asking that all users of social media are responsible for their comments. To do this Facebook etc would have to verify every users actual identity.
I actually support this. Not just to help fight racist wankers but also to fight back against the ever increasing number of fraudsters etc ridling the platforms.
Simply put - you cannot have an account unless you divilge who you actually are and it's verified.
If people don't like it then leave.

The reason I suspect the platforms won't do it is because they're scared their user base will dramatically reduce if people do have to make that decision. That's wrong and shows their interest is purely the volume of users and not the content.

But anyone having a Facebook page can delete comments and ban accounts. Instead of constantly blaming everyone else they should do something.
Yes, of course, I support that as well. I work in a sector where KYC is at the forefront constantly. I need to know and verify every customer's identity. Verification is a bit tricky but per JMSGL guidance, when applying simplified due diligence, I can use info from bank accounts as verification (obviously if the details are the same as provided by the customer). Furthermore, I can be committing a serious criminal offence if I don't make a suspicious activity report when required.

But I haven't heard any players call for this.
 
Wonder if the filthy Hamas supporting fools who drove around NW London yday showing their support for a terrorist org will make an appearance
 
Calling a player shit is free speech.
Calling him names because of his skin colour is not free speech.

No one should have to ask this. It is not free speech to be racist, sexist or homophobic or any of the other "ists"

100% agree so why is this still allowed on the internet? That still doesn't answer the question of who makes that call ...

Should a book written 500/100/50 years ago with 'ists' in it now be burnt? How about a media post from twenty years ago, or ten years ago? or last week?

Or is the 'ist' rule only a rule going forward? Is there an age limit or should a 12 year old get the same punishment as a 20/40/60 year old?

and which 'ist's' are banned and which are still OK?

and who makes all those decisions?

With more and more users hiding behind VPN's and fake accounts who do you punish anyway?
 
100% agree so why is this still allowed on the internet? That still doesn't answer the question of who makes that call ...

Should a book written 500/100/50 years ago with 'ists' in it now be burnt? How about a media post from twenty years ago, or ten years ago? or last week?

Or is the 'ist' rule only a rule going forward? Is there an age limit or should a 12 year old get the same punishment as a 20/40/60 year old?

and which 'ist's' are banned and which are still OK?

and who makes all those decisions?

With more and more users hiding behind VPN's and fake accounts who do you punish anyway?
Lots of books, films and tv shows fall out of circulation when it becomes apparent they're not fit for purpose.
You won't see Alf Garnet on UK gold calling everyone the N word.
If there is a work that is factually and historically correct it may survive.
 
100% agree so why is this still allowed on the internet? That still doesn't answer the question of who makes that call ...

Should a book written 500/100/50 years ago with 'ists' in it now be burnt? How about a media post from twenty years ago, or ten years ago? or last week?

Or is the 'ist' rule only a rule going forward? Is there an age limit or should a 12 year old get the same punishment as a 20/40/60 year old?

and which 'ist's' are banned and which are still OK?

and who makes all those decisions?

With more and more users hiding behind VPN's and fake accounts who do you punish anyway?
Make users submit documentation similar to registering a bank account, crypto etc. Simple to authorise
 
Lots of books, films and tv shows fall out of circulation when it becomes apparent they're not fit for purpose.
You won't see Alf Garnet on UK gold calling everyone the N word.
If there is a work that is factually and historically correct it may survive.
and who makes that decision?

Is Huckleberry Finn no longer an acceptable American classic? Peter Pan? Doctor Dolittle? To Kill a Mockingbird? all now to be burnt ......
 
and who makes that decision?

Is Huckleberry Finn no longer an acceptable American classic? Peter Pan? Doctor Dolittle? To Kill a Mockingbird? all now to be burnt ......

What decision?
If some anonymous twat posts a racially offensive post, delete it and ban them.
It doesn't need a 12 man jury, it's not hard. Only those that run the page can do it, it would be you or me.
 
I do put the odd match day bet on with them, but I also find it criminal they report "news" and take bets on the "news" they report.
Surely that's a serious conflict of interest?
Pretty sure I read that Sky don’t own Sky Bet. I’m guessing they may sponsor it.
 
What decision?
If some anonymous twat posts a racially offensive post, delete it and ban them.
It doesn't need a 12 man jury, it's not hard. Only those that run the page can do it, it would be you or me.
Of course it's hard - if you can't grasp the complexity of the problem you can't fix it - take this statement

"Do you assume that when you meet a Black person in an athletic competition that he or she will be stronger or faster than you?"

If you do are you a racist? If you post that sentiment should you be banned from the internet?

Sure some racism is obvious and easy to ban ... but a lot of racism is barely discernible, like the statement above, if indeed that statement is actually racist.
 
Of course it's hard - if you can't grasp the complexity of the problem you can't fix it - take this statement

"Do you assume that when you meet a Black person in an athletic competition that he or she will be stronger or faster than you?"

If you do are you a racist? If you post that sentiment should you be banned from the internet?

Sure some racism is obvious and easy to ban ... but a lot of racism is barely discernible, like the statement above, if indeed that statement is actually racist.
I've got no idea what that statement has to with racists seeking out players of colour and calling them names.
I only assume people that are bigger and stronger than me are better athletes.
Sadly that's quite a few of all colours.

I joke about wanting to give the squad a peice of my mind but even Dele is a solid 5inch taller than me and good at rib shots.
 
I've got no idea what that statement has to with racists seeking out players of colour and calling them names.
I only assume people that are bigger and stronger than me are better athletes.
Sadly that's quite a few of all colours.

I joke about wanting to give the squad a peice of my mind but even Dele is a solid 5inch taller than me and good at rib shots.

OK - that's an honest admission ....

"I assume that when I meet a Black person in an athletic competition that he or she will be stronger or faster than me?"

If you make that assumption you are doing so based on race, ergo it's racist, however should that statement lead to you being banned from all social media? Whilst it is self evidently racist is it in any way harmful?

That's the point, who decides what racism gets you banned and what doesn't?

Calling someone names based on race - that's an easy decision - calling someone a superior athlete based on race - what would you do about that?
 
I do put the odd match day bet on with them, but I also find it criminal they report "news" and take bets on the "news" they report.
Surely that's a serious conflict of interest?
I think that the brand is essentially franchised these days. Skybet / Sky Vegas is not owned by Comcast like the TV platform, it’s owned by the Star Group, who pay for the use of the “trusted” brand.
 
Last edited:
Sky Bet shortest odds on Harry Kane going nowhere this summer.

Sky Sports. Where will Harry Kane go this summer??

Go figure!!!
That’s the way the market works. They will balance the books with a rush of betting from arrogant pricks from United / Chelsea / shity etc.
 
Last edited:
OK - that's an honest admission ....

"I assume that when I meet a Black person in an athletic competition that he or she will be stronger or faster than me?"

If you make that assumption you are doing so based on race, ergo it's racist, however should that statement lead to you being banned from all social media? Whilst it is self evidently racist is it in any way harmful?

That's the point, who decides what racism gets you banned and what doesn't?

Calling someone names based on race - that's an easy decision - calling someone a superior athlete based on race - what would you do about that?
A certain Austrian corporal was rather keen on that theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom