bmck

i'll have a read through m8, but like i said in the last post, i wont be replying.

this is offensive.

The discussion then probably breaks down to the philosophical question, "Why be moral?"

well, yes. but perhaps the question is more "is it sometimes moral to do what the weighty majority think immoral?". the idea that rules should be commited to Because They Are Rules / Because The Majority Thinks So is in and of itself more disruptive to society in the long term than rule-breaking. generally.

You can't make people moral by punishing them (although it often seems to help for some reason),

the threat of punishment has never, ever, helped pre-empt a crime. and it makes very few moral - sometimes scared, very rarely more moral.

but you also can't just let everyone do what they like without anarchy.

the conundrum of secularism. and might isn't right. its just might. subjects should only be as loyal as the rules are fair. anything less is a dictatorship. your argument seems to be that because the sfa want it, and the sfa decide these things, then its fine for the sfa to do it. its flowered with all sorts of references to "the majority" and "pushing the majority too far", but the truth is that there is no majority - there's media attention. i'm willing to wager if you ask your average person, or average football supporter who funds the sfa, whether its alright to call a referee a pie munching barsteward, or the aberdeen fans sheep shaggers and they'll say there's no harm. its a mixture of irrational press reporting and jobsworth administrators at the sfa making political points with their power. so its not right irregardless of who they are.

PS If you think I'm paranoid or right wing Tory, then you're either fishing or in my opinion, have poor judgement of character...

i dont think so, to be honest. your posts are littered with new labour speak, and they are the middle-right. fallacy after fallacy about how "the rights of the moral majority" superseed "the rights of the trouble-making minority". there is no-one harmed by football banter, the faulty rhetoric doesn't apply here. being a member of society is about more than blindly submitting to stupid rules, and calling everyone else who doesn't 'immoral'. with that kind of attitude there wouldn't have been anti-slave activists, or sufragettes. i've not seen one iota of compassion from you for the trouble-makers: whether this is the correct attitude or not, it is the conservative attitude. people do bad things Because They Are Bad. Badness Must Be Suitably Punished. right or wrong - these are burgeous right wing ideals.

when rules are stupid, and deny legitmate freedoms they should be argued against.

as for the metasemantic side of the argument. the reason why we shouldn't have to change the word ****** to 'terrorist supporter' is because thats what it means. the worst sort of oppression is the irrational stifling of language.

just because certain sections of the media think the 'bouncy' represents the jumping on some catholic's head - should be just submit that this is indeed what it means and stop doing it, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary? its ridiculous. ridiculous things should be called ridiculous and treated as such.

if you want to reply further i'll gladly read but its probably taking the topic too far off topic.

Kids are out of control and if you can't see that, then maybe you're the one in an ivory tower.

kids have always been out of control - its just we cant beat them into submission nowadays. you've seen oliver twist? you mix deprived backgrounds with a liberal approach to parenting, and its what you get. the evils created by moralistic/conservative parenting are often equally as disturbing.

the truth is that parents have no moral authority now. capitalism and secularism has killed that. thats why people like Tony want to replace the role previously played by shared morality in communities etc with the government (ASBOs etc). this is infinitely more disturbing, because communal morality came from agreed upon standards that arose freely in a community, now we have his royal highness replacing this role with his personal vision of good and bad. thats more dangerous than the kids.

But it's not just the bad kids, it's the lack of good kids. When I was a kid I was reasonably respectful of adult even if nothing more than that they were bigger than me. Now the amount of times where I've had abuse from kids or stones thrown at me driving my car or on my bike is unbelievable. I can't even walk past a kid without him trying to out-stare me for some reason.

you're paranoid. i work in a university chock full of polite middle class kids. you must just have moved into an area with too many pesky commoners.

I've had two cars vandalised on three occasions and some kids ran over the top of another, I don't remember that happening to my parents.

did your parents have two cars? sounds like you've got some crappy kids round your way. i think kids nowadays are just living the moral vacuum history has created by exhorising all its old modes of control. they ask the very good question "why the fuck shouldn't i just do what i want?". even the greatest philosophers of the modern age haven't been able to work that out without reverting to a religious language they hate.

Their attitude stinks, I was picking up some rubbish - most probably dropped by kids on a roadside path and a teenage driver beeped me and flipped me off... That's the attitude of kids these days.

that just doesn't seem like a very big deal to me, to be honest. you seem to suggested that they disliked you because you were picking up rubbish. seems a tad extreme - they would more likely laugh at a do-gooder than be angry with them. that said, people like this just have a bigger voice now. they have cars, and nice gear - but the same tendency exists in them as existed in those kids mentioned in the quotes above. its human nature.

Kids are so bad these days that I've decided completely against having any.

ROFL. are you serious? do you think that this 'evil' gene that so permeates society is somehow going to affect your child? 9/10 if you bring your child up with love and respect, they turn out fine.

Parents on here will be thinking their kids are fine and fair enough, but it doesn't stop all those other kids who get away Scot free with crimes every day then some adult hits them for it and it's them that gets done.

you want to return to corporeal punishment? you think giving a kid a kicking is less of an evil than your car getting vandelised? you think its any kind of solution at all?

what about the kids that will take your kicking and then come round with their mates and kick your door in? how does your solution work with them?

Kids know this and that's one of the reasons they think they can do what they like.

yes, the lack of fear of getting a kicking really is the best way to ensure kids behave. morality by fear - your like the worst sort of conservative fundamentalists in some wys man.

My whole point is that if people don't know how to behave in a civilised manner then they shouldn't be surprised when new rules come into force for the comfort, safety and enjoyment of others who do not want exposed to their behaviour. The reason the rules are coming in, is a reflection to me that it's a minority that misbehave. That's a relief.

it is a minority to misbehave. i cant help but wonder though if all these laws coming in for your comfort wont ultimately be the cause of your child, should you ever decide to have one's, subjecation.

What the minority need to do is start their own FA and league where abusing the opposition is compulsory. That will give people a choice.

here's the argument you are setting up that people against this law are making:

1. i should be able to sing what i want

2. what the sfa wants is that we can sing what they want

therefore

3. i have no moral reason to object to the sfa, since they are doing what they want to curtail my doing what i want

this is horrible, horrible reasoning. just because i believe everyone has a right to their own opinion (the sfa included) doesn't mean that i necessarily think that their particular employment of that right is the correct one.

that is, i can think both a) they can try and implement this if they want, and b) they shouldn't implement this, without any contradiction.

There is a point there but I doubt you would want people in a party at your house, slagging off the other guests, mothers OR religions. You'd probably kick them out, and that's what football is doing.

no i wouldnt. sack having a party where everyone agrees. most people i know can stick up for themselves with my censorship.

My question is why are people so desperate to do this at a football match, why do they think it is so big and so clever? Why do they even try to justify it? You can question the PC'ness etc but how about questioning the strange mentality of the people that simply HAVE to do it? It's almost like a collective Tourette's syndrome.

why do you think its so small and idiotic? there's no harm in it, as far as i can tell. and when there's no harm in something i tend not to condescend it. your morality may be infinitely above this scum that winds up other fans with sweary words, but i'm not. i dont have a problem with it.

Maybe I'm on a high horse but it comes from the frustration of wondering why people can't just try to get on a bit better and be a bit nicer to each other...

maybe because they are overly quick to demonise anyone else that doesn't share their values.

There's so much anger, hatred and maliciousness in the world that causes most of our day to day problems. Why do people want to embrace it?

what, maliciousness like describing banter at a football game as collective tourettes syndrome?

In the end your argument seems to be that we should all do what we like, and I can see no argument form there in allowing the SFA to make their own rules, in which case, there is nothing for the anti PC brigade to complain about.

 

Therein lies the irony.

there's no irony in that. like i said, you can believe "we should able be able to do what we like" / "the sfa are wrong to do this" without any contradiction. not denying someone else's right to their opinion doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

sorry its took so long.

In my opinion the moral traditions of this country have collapsed and I wouldn't quite blame a liberal mindset, more a mindset where kids are defended for their bad behaviour instead of admonished and educated, the I'm all right jack attitude and a complete lack of empathy for other and a dearth of any community spirit.

interesting mix of beliefs in here. "collapsed" suggests that it was previously better. society was certainly a whole lot more structured and civilised back in the day, but, then, the structure was one that was based upon the idea of female servitude, christian religiosity and the prosperity for all this nice moral structure was driven by child labour, opium and human trade. bad behaviour was thoroughly admonished with beatings and hangings. to quote the libertines "there were no good old days", and this idea of harking back to the good-old-days smacks of right-wing, upper-middle-class toryism.

but then you move a little less right wing (the new labour position), that we both beat you with a big stick if you dont toe the line and give you loads of education too.

if there is a lack of empathy for others, and a dearth of community spirit, its because the old institutions that fostered these things began dying with industrialisation, and with the increasing liberty of women. you want an increase in empathy yet you ignore the socio-historical reasons that gives rise to your complaints - complaints that are essentially the end results of a society entirely immersed in a game-theory driven economy and the freedom from previous oppression.

in other words, you want strong morality, but you want it in an era where the old avenues of ensuring this - patriarchal society, agrarian co-operative communities, the centrality of religion - have been replaced with a fairly free society, with individualistic survival of the fittest capitalistic economic, and complete secularism. secularism and the weighty enforcement of morality doesn't go hand in hand.

I would agree it has played it's part. Although sometimes I wonder - with all these films and games portraying heroes who are the good guys and the good guys usually win, how come kids now, ALWAYS want to be the bad guy?

i thought you would have been vastly above the 'computer games and bad films' cause bad behaviour argument. the baddies side is explored because its artistically more interesting. and we've come to learn that in real life there are few goodies, and even less in positions of authority. so why should we sympathise with the police/government/religious leaders or other stereotypical images of good etc?

god's dead for most m8. and, for good or ill, the fear in religion made people toe the line. in a world where god's dead no-one really has the moral authority for judgement of others actions - all you have is the opinion of the majority.

I may be on a high horse and I do remember bad kids at school but I have no doubt that kids are the worst they have been in living memory.

yeah, but back in the good old days teachers could beat their kids if they didn't do what they were supposed to. so could parents. i dont know any working class person of my parent's generation that weren't royally fucked up because of their poverty and parenting. nothings changed - kids have the liberty to vent it more now, but the underlying evils are just the same.

Worst ever violence in school.

worst ever recorded violence. its not so long ago that glasgow was a deprived town of hoodlums. there are just more kids from scummy backgrounds actually in schools to behave badly now.

"Look at this group at a street corner. Hulking, idle, slouching young men ... foul-spoken, repulsive wretches. The young Ruffians of London molest quiet people to an extent that's hardly credible. The throwing of stones in the streets has become a dangerous and destructive offence. The throwing of stones at the windows of railway carriages is an act of wanton wickedness. And the blaring use of the very worst language possible, in our public thoroughfares is a disgrace.

it was happening in the moralistic Victorian age, so its no suprise its happening now. that quotes from 1860.

Highest levels of vandalism.

highest recorded records, perhaps. this is this other tory/new labour fetish. the subjecation of man to numbers. we have to reduce this by 2%, this by 10%. what is vandelism? painting walls? breaking windows? it happens, certainly, but its always happened.

Highest levels of STD's

thats what happens when you lose the idea that sex culturally MUST (Or You Will Go To Hell / Not Have a Job) happen within marriage. so, you can go back to that, back to those "good old days" of middle class religious moralism if you want. and isnt it really people's own choice? if they get an STD they are screwed. its their problem, not yours.

dont go shagging around and you should be fine.

Highest levels of drunkenness.

On Saturday nights, a half-million workers flood the city like a sea, flocking into certain sections to celebrate the Sabbath all night until five in the morning. They stuff themselves and drink like animals ... They all race against time to drink themselves insensate. The wives do not lag behind their husbands but get drunk with them; the children run and crawl among them.

the incomparible dostoevsky said this about london - in 1862.

here's another:

We drink the very strongest liquors that can be brewed or distilled! The classes among us who are not decent are in the habit of getting mad-drunk, and of fighting after the manner of wild beasts, when we have a chance of using their fists, feet or teeth on each other, and on the Guardians of the law. Our places of licensed victualling are ugly dens, where the largest number of sots can get tipsy in the shortest space of time�They are the most horrible terrestrial inferno that the eye ever beheld, that the ear ever hears, or the heart ever sickened at.

its not new. "there were no good old days".

Highest levels of violence outside pubs.

see violence in schools.

Highest levels of teenage pregnancies.

see consequence of capitalism/liberty for women.

Highest levels of car theft for joy riding.

well, there's more cars nowadays.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1446738.0.0.php

Going nowhere fast ââ?¬â?? why political slow play has to stopMARTIN GREIG June 05 2007

Jimmy Sinclair, the Rangers head of youth development, has launched a scathing critique of the Scottish Football Association's Youth Action Plan and blamed political short-termism for its lack of progress.

His comments, which focus on the role of the Executive and consultancy firm PMP, have particular resonance in the wake of new SFA chief executive Gordon Smith's assertion that he will hold a meeting with First Minister Alex Salmond to seek assurances on the government's commitment to new facilities for Scottish football.

Three years ago, the SFA, in conjunction with the Executive, launched a �£31.1m investment in youth football throughout Scotland.

advertisementThe basis for the 10-year action plan came from a damning report by the independent consultancy, PMP, which recommended 55 changes to improve the structure and development of youth football.

However, Sinclair, head of youth development at the SFA until last summer, dismissed PMP's findings as "a lot of rubbish" and claimed that former Scotland manager Walter Smith was on the cusp of "going to the highest possible level" to try to shake things up politically.

The much-vaunted 10-year programme of investment was branded the "inaction plan" in this newspaper recently, prompting a stout defence from Jim Fleeting, the SFA's head of youth development.

However, Sinclair claims that Fleeting's hands are tied by the paltry political funding and misguided recommendations of PMP. "In some cases PMP's findings are not even debatable, but fanciful. And yet, we were bound by the figures," said Sinclair.

"PMP would say things like: increase participation by 15%'. So you would say: are there enough children out there who are able and willing to do that?' "Or they would say: improve results by 10% - qualify for more major tournaments'. There was no strategy which says: we need to do X, Y and Z to achieve that.' It was the most frustrating period of my time at the SFA, it was dreadful.

"Along the way they were always, to our absolute disgust, trying to pin us down to actions and targets and achievements. We were saying: Well give us the money to do it.' In my view, it was a cop-out."

The initial figure of �£31.1m does not look as impressive when broken down. The SFA are dedicated to �£1m a year and the Executive's commitment is to �£12m over 10 years, with the rest made up from grants.

The Herald also understands that government cash was not forthcoming for the first couple of years. "A lot of that money isn't new money, continued Sinclair. "The money at the top is going to be spread over 10 years.

"In the greater scheme of things, it's a nonsense and nothing which is going to impact to any sufficient degree to make a change.

The irony is, by putting that money on the table, they shut down the route to all the grants you were able to access previously. There was a wee bit of smoke and mirrors there."

So does Sinclair think that a root-and-branch review of youth football in Scotland is still required?

"There's absolutely no doubt about that. I just don't know, over time, how much the Executive will be able to stand by the targets. I think they're a lot of rubbish.

"The SFA will now need to manage the expectation of the Executive to say: We've tried all this, but this is what we have ended up with.' Walter Smith was right on the cusp of going to the highest possible level and really shaking things up when he was international team manager but things didn't get that far because he left. He was ready to point out to politicians first hand just how paltry the funding was."

Twelve years at the SFA, including spells as children's programme director, head of youth and head of football development, prior to joining Rangers last summer, has left Sinclair well qualified to comment on the most efficient way of developing young footballers.

Club academies, such as the one Sinclair is now in charge of at Murray Park, have the greatest responsibility for hot-housing promising talents. With development contribution payments now due for youngsters aged 11 upwards who move between elite clubs, the recruitment age for bringing children into academies is becoming ever younger.

Sinclair believes that, in an ideal world, it would be the governing body, rather than the clubs, who take responsibility for the development of youngsters.

"The perfect scenario, and we're 100 miles away from it in this country because of lack of investment, is that the governing body have the resources to put a programme in place which allows all young kids to participate," said Sinclair.

"And programmes then exist to fast-track the better ones. Sadly, that doesn't exist. As a consequence, through necessity, clubs have to select, but selection at that age is roulette. Clubs are forced into choosing young kids.

The consequence of that is, if these kids don't perform, then the club has to let them go. That, in itself, is a sad state of affairs."

John Collins, the Hibernian manager and former Monaco player, recently expressed strong views on the deficiencies in the Scottish and English academy systems, compared with the set-up in France.

There, elite youngsters are brought into academies at 13, where their football development is intrinsically linked with academic achievement courtesy of on-site education facilities. "They need to get their marks in the classroom to be allowed to train, so if they don't make it in football, they still have their education," said Collins.

"Scottish players only come in here to club academies at 16, so already the French have three years head start. That's two or three years of touching a ball every day - that's millions and millions of touches. So by the time they hit 16 they are better technically and physically because they are stretching and eating a proper diet."

Sinclair believes that the first step towards the continental model would be a re-configuration of the school day in Scotland to allow for the development of elite young sportsmen and women. "The school curriculum should allow for elite performers to practise and develop within their sport," he said.

"A lot of it is to do with access to the kids. In Holland, France and Germany, the school day accommodates the kids working physically. They do something in the morning, something in the afternoon and again in the evening. That alone is a massive bonus.

"We in this country are nowhere near that. We are trying to cram in four nights a week here at Murray Park, one-and-a half to two-hour sessions. All of that energy and time and effort is getting taken into kids' bones as much as anything.

"We have kids bused here from Dundee after having been in school all day. So they leave school, sit for an hour or more on the minibus, do their training, an hour or more back up the road. The system is actually fighting against them. They are prevailing despite it.

"When we see the content of what is delivered on the continent, it is not rocket science. it is not as if we would go to France, Germany or Spain and see coaching methods that were completely and utterly out of this world.

"There are very few factors, other than the school one, which you could readily point to. Access to the sport is such a key thing."

--

the emboldened bit above is a sentiment expressed quite regularly on here. good to know we've got someone who knows the score.

a nonce is a paedophile, is it not? i'll get to the rest later.

aye click the link, then the link on the link.

Trouble is, that it's the complete nonces who think it's big an clever to bore people with their expression of their "political" and "religious" beliefs, who are 100% to blame.

1. interesting use of the word 'nonce' there man. 2. utter tosh. even if people do cover malign interests with 'political' and 'religious' labels it doesn't mean that anything some people are bored with can just be banned.

I'm also a bit sick and tired of those who go on about PC gone mad when it's the liberal attitude of letting people do whatever they like that has dramatically lowered the moral and civil traditions of this country.

this is probably the most confused thing i've ever seen you write. when people use the term "PC Gone mad" they are advocating a specifically conservative ideal. the "liberal" attitude is the one that legislates away offense. your slagging of liberal attitudes whilst mocking the most anti-liberal phrase the media has in "PC gone mad".

too much health and safety legislation? PC gone mad.

too much religious tolerance? PC gone mad.

too many immigrants in the country? PC gone mad.

not offending muslims during christmas? PC gone mad.

stopping ordinary working people singing anything that may be considered offensive? PC gone mad.

the liberal attitude that your berating is the same attitude that gave birth to the piece of legislation you're defending.

further than that, it is absolute, unmitigated nonsense, that suggest a) the moral and civil traditions of this country are drastically lower, and b) that this is due to an increasingly liberal mindset.

or maybe you hark back to the good old conservative moral days when those nasty blacks/queers/women never had so much of a say? the old = good, modern = bad dichotomy is far too simple, especially when reduced to one issue.

if anything its modern capitalism and technology that has killed traditional morality/community etc. not that its all a bad thing.

The younger generation have such a lack of empathy and decent values that I really fear for the future for the nation.

get off that high-horse granda. kids are no worse now than they've ever been. there were plenty of young hoodlums when you were a kid just like there has been through the ages other than in the middle and upper classes - they just get more attention now.

It shows what a cretinous lot we have in our midst when we have to bring in more rules for decent behaviour at a football match.

the idea that we need more rules for decent behaviour at a football match has yet to be demonstrated. taking away people's right to be offensive is more offensive than any "your maw ate all the pies chant". moral crusaders are always more dangerous in the long run than the immorality they seek to eradicate. especially on something as trivial as offense caused at a football match.

Why are we down on the prosecutor rather than the criminal?

because the idea of prosecution for causing offense is, by and large, unjust.

looks like we're signing a young keeper from motherwell.

http://www.football.co.uk/motherwell/malpas_issues_martin_warning_247164.shtml

I see that today's Mirror has said the tic have offered

Robbie Fowler 1-5 million pounds for a three year contract

are they going to beat us to the punch again

they're welcome to him. i wonder if we put out news that we were trying to sign brewster if they'd go for him.

hard to argue with S_A. i dont think it can be called blue-tinted when everything's argued for. you can disagree with the reasoning but blue-tinted's got hee-haw to do with it.

agreed.

i think its a shame we cant just trust a man to act responsibly and fairly even in instances of those they represent, but the law doesn't do much to promote honesty and trust, and its probably right that it doesn't.

anyway, back to the subject at hand: wonder what the celtic fans will think of this? surely only hte most close minded could see it as a bad appointment.

they most probably have mechanisms in place to ensure that conflicts of interest are managed.

its just specifically the idea of agency that troubles me slightly, given what the job entails. i dont doubt for the smallest measurement of time (whatever it is) gordon's honesty, and am actually suprised that he is an agent given that the job really just involves lying for a living.

ach, better men than me'll deal with it.

i'd argue neither is tbh.

Don't know mate. I don't see he should given that every member of the SFA commitee have similar external jobs within the game.

hmmm. but an agent? conflict of interest surely.

take it he's giving up being an agent then?

beattie scores the odd goal but is generally pish. no better than what we have.

brilliant appointment, brilliant man. never thought the sfa could have had so much foresight.

its not a bad XI:

its hardly inspiring though.

hate reverse racism/snobbery.

i have to say though i can understand to a considerable extent how the consciousness of large numbers of people are affected by trauma/oppression. its easy to say now that because racisms been pretty much eradicated in the more cosmipolitan areas of the world that the black people should just get over it.

but when you look at how much hiroshima has affected the psyche of the japanese (see the theory of the superflat) you begin to understand just how big events, sustained oppression etc, can cause backlash even generations later.

good work man.

dont know anything about him.

Do you mean all pi55 and wind Barry?

yes.

for example, they tell us we're going to have a "link" with this flourishing club. everyone agrees that this is a good thing. we get vague references to swapping players. all sounds nice. but there's no substance. what does this link actually entail? how is it going to benefit the first team? what steps are in place to ensure this happens? basic business stuff.