Bois Boycott

[Mootherwell86]

Nice to see some folk are still cabbages.

[Onthefringes]

3 hours ago, dennyc said:

Accepting that incidents have taken place is a start at least. Different versions or not the fact is that lines have been crossed and Police/Club are being forced to intervene. How many Police do you imagine will be at Aberdeen? I do get that innocent folk have been unfairly caught up and that is wrong. The sooner that stops the better. 

As for ‘not many’ denying events. Playing them down as high jinx, or youthful exuberance, or an exaggeration, or justified is tantamount to condoning them.  A certain Society Board Member needs to think on that and achieve some perspective. 
And if you care to check back at previous discussions, I think you were one of a good few who forcefully said I was  misinterpreting events when I highlighted the fact that a woman sat a few rows in front of me was abused when she complained about liquid being thrown at SOD when he attempted to take a throw in. Apologies if you were not that poster. But the gist was ‘That did not happen’. 
And in this thread we have one poster attempting to downplay matters when a fan and his wife were abused, by distinguishing between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence. Really! I’m pretty sure whichever it was was pretty frightening. Or is one just high jinx and the other of concern? 
We also have another poster saying that football disorder is part of Society and we just have to accept it. It’s what folk do nowadays. And as we know that to be a fact, we can have no complaint if things kick off at matches we choose to attend. Any trouble I have witnessed has been at away matches, but that same poster confirmed he does not attend away matches that often. Perth was a huge step forward though so I’m hopeful that step forward continues. 
Look, I enjoy and respect what the Bois can bring to a game. Including the drum and the banners. Not so much the Ninja like face coverings we saw at the Clyde tie though. I certainly do not want to see them boycotting games or being banned. But I detest some of the behaviour (from a minority I am told) which I have personally witnessed inside and outside some grounds. I believe most fans think similarly and try to take a balanced view. But I don’t see much balance from those that appear to defend the Bois no matter what. 

Again, point proven.

Definitely merit in most of your posts. Perception(s) skew the balance you claim not to see on this subject.

[dennyc]

35 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Again, point proven.

Definitely merit in most of your posts. Perception(s) skew the balance you claim not to see on this subject.

Disappointing that you did not address any of the instances and  comments I highlighted. Did they actually happen? If they did, do you support the justifications for playing them down? Yes or no, I’ll respect your view and call it quits but it would be good to know. 

Another poster to this forum warned me that some folk were not interested in debate, if an opposing view was expressed. Deflection and avoidance would result. Perhaps they were pretty accurate.

So as you say, point proven. 

 

 

 

 

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, pretzel said:

Of course you do. 

Every post about the young team you appear to defend them no matter what has happened before vanishing like a fart in the wind again until the next issue arises. 

Previously you pointed out when they tore up a Killie pub that it was all innocent fans who were charged that weren't in the country (that old chestnut) and repeated a similar stance lately about the recent protests. For someone not in the know you must have some set of contacts. 

You were even spreading misinformation about Bob Park allowing Rangers to do a fan display in the past while at the same time denying ours which was proven untrue unsurprisingly. 

Where to even start on the dribbling above?

It was one and one only who wasn’t in the country… As for innocent, charges have been dropped and football banning orders were rescinded yesterday as it happens. Repeated similar stance? Someone in the know? What are you on about if you’re not venting? No contacts needed, the information is there and you don’t have to scrape the surface by much to corroborate, to be factual and find informed opinion.

As for your closing gambit, above point stands. Where was any claim proven to be untrue? Using the simple theories that are de rigueur of some on here the ex-copper allowed box loads of A4 paper to be admitted into the away stand and would have seen these being placed by individuals across seating without challenge. All the while denying those in our own support of doing similar..

See you when next issue arises.

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

Well said, great post some people don't want to know the reality as it does not fit their agendas that the block E  lads are all angels and never get into any trouble, at all.  I've no doubt most of them are blameless but the minority causing the issues are getting them all tarred with the same brush.

Walking, talking contradiction. Apt

[Onthefringes]

9 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Disappointing that you did not address any of the instances and  comments I highlighted. Did they actually happen? If they did, do you support the justifications for playing them down? Yes or no, I’ll respect your view and call it quits but it would be good to know. 

Another poster to this forum warned me that some folk were not interested in debate, if an opposing view was expressed. Deflection and avoidance would result. Perhaps they were pretty accurate.

So as you say, point proven. 

Was summarising.

i’ve addressed the instances previously. My musings align with perception stance I know many others take so justifiably playing them down. 

Find those with little understanding of what may have instigated some of these events offering opinion and mentioning ‘reality’ repeatedly gives rise to the many instances of lack of debate you speak of.

Prevalent on a wide range of subjects and deflection and avoidance isn’t exactly a new phenomenon…

[dennyc]

32 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Where to even start on the dribbling above?

It was one and one only who wasn’t in the country… As for innocent, charges have been dropped and football banning orders were rescinded yesterday as it happens. Repeated similar stance? 

 

Clearly it is only justice that any innocent parties were eventually exonerated and questions deserve to be asked about why they ended up being in that position. There are faults and actions to be exposed that put innocent parties through hell. Surely nobody is disagreeing with that. 
 

But the incident did take place. So what about those that did cause the damage. Any thoughts on them? Should the focus not be on them as well? And are you prepared to condemn any Motherwell fan that was involved and ask for them to be identified, if they have not been already. 

[dennyc]

3 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Was summarising.

i’ve addressed the instances previously. My musings align with perception stance I know many others take so justifiably playing them down. 

Find those with little understanding of what may have instigated some of these events offering opinion and mentioning ‘reality’ repeatedly gives rise to the many instances of lack of debate you speak of.

Prevalent on a wide range of subjects and deflection and avoidance isn’t exactly a new phenomenon…

‘What may have instigated some of these events’. 
 

Firstly, ‘ events’ suggest something positive. Like a Wedding or a Concert.  What folk are highlighting are incidents that were far from positive. But play them down as you will. Par for the course. 
 

Secondly, Are you seriously suggesting that whatever led to these ‘events’ justified the outcomes? That is some stance. 
 

And still no Yes or No I notice. Events condemned  or not? Comments justified or not? In your opinion. 

 

 

[pretzel]

25 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Where to even start on the dribbling above?

It was one and one only who wasn’t in the country… As for innocent, charges have been dropped and football banning orders were rescinded yesterday as it happens. Repeated similar stance? Someone in the know? What are you on about if you’re not venting? No contacts needed, the information is there and you don’t have to scrape the surface by much to corroborate, to be factual and find informed opinion.

As for your closing gambit, above point stands. Where was any claim proven to be untrue? Using the simple theories that are de rigueur of some on here the ex-copper allowed box loads of A4 paper to be admitted into the away stand and would have seen these being placed by individuals across seating without challenge. All the while denying those in our own support of doing similar..

See you when next issue arises.

You talk some amount of drivel, every person that calls you out and you try and belittle them with your opening gambit. 

In previous debates you keep mentioning it's not hard to scrape the surface for info. Please feel free to share it with us it's not hard to imbed social comments or links, I think we would all really appreciate that. 

It was embarrassing seeing the likes of the carnage in Killie getting covered by the BBC and STV followed by the individual profiles on the Police social media pages. What's your thoughts on that event outwith the wrongly accused then? Not even just smashing up a pub but if I remember correctly they tore down barriers so that they could move to the bottom of the stand before launching on flares which scorched the pitch. 

Boxes of A4 paper were not admitted against Rangers with permission. I can just imagine the ex-cop approving materials targeting that of an ex employee. 

 

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

Clearly it is only justice that any innocent parties were eventually exonerated and questions deserve to be asked about why they ended up being in that position. There are faults and actions to be exposed that put innocent parties through hell. Surely nobody is disagreeing with that. 
 

But the incident did take place. So what about those that did cause the damage. Any thoughts on them? Should the focus not be on them as well? And are you prepared to condemn any Motherwell fan that was involved and ask for them to be identified, if they have not been already. 

I’d condemn them if they didn’t reply in kind to a fellow supporter (not attached to any grouping) being attacked by patrons of a public house where no one had entered that day. Unfortunate bi-product, damage witnessed by plenty from inside the pub compounding the problem.

More poor application of the law and ineffective policing.

 

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

‘What may have instigated some of these events’. 
 

Firstly, ‘ events’ suggest something positive. Like a Wedding or a Concert.  What folk are highlighting are incidents that were far from positive. But play them down as you will. Par for the course. 
 

Secondly, Are you seriously suggesting that whatever led to these ‘events’ justified the outcomes? That is some stance. 
 

And still no Yes or No I notice. Events condemned  or not? Comments justified or not? In your opinion. 

Worded incorrectly then, ‘incidents’. Granted, far from positive, played down as I disagree on the mock outrage portrayed by some on here.

Secondly, stop attempting to twist my wording to suit your opinion. Nobody suggested whatever led to the incidents justified the outcomes. Some understanding of the precursor may alter ‘perceptions rather than the belief their version is the reality.

Circles.

[Onthefringes]

41 minutes ago, pretzel said:

You talk some amount of drivel, every person that calls you out and you try and belittle them with your opening gambit. 

In previous debates you keep mentioning it's not hard to scrape the surface for info. Please feel free to share it with us it's not hard to imbed social comments or links, I think we would all really appreciate that. 

It was embarrassing seeing the likes of the carnage in Killie getting covered by the BBC and STV followed by the individual profiles on the Police social media pages. What's your thoughts on that event outwith the wrongly accused then? Not even just smashing up a pub but if I remember correctly they tore down barriers so that they could move to the bottom of the stand before launching on flares which scorched the pitch. 

Boxes of A4 paper were not admitted against Rangers with permission. I can just imagine the ex-cop approving materials targeting that of an ex employee. 

You don’t agree with posting style, don’t read. It’s not difficult.

If you’re not prepared to source the information which is readily available why should others share?

As I’ve said, far from positive. You find it embarrassing, I’m a little ambivalent given the variables. Whataboutery isn’t a great trait either.

Again, perhaps could’ve worded better, these A4 sheets were placed by a minority for use by a majority without challenge. Isn’t that right Bob?

[dennyc]

55 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Worded incorrectly then, ‘incidents’. Granted, far from positive, played down as I disagree on the mock outrage portrayed by some on here.

Secondly, stop attempting to twist my wording to suit your opinion. Nobody suggested whatever led to the incidents justified the outcomes. Some understanding of the precursor may alter ‘perceptions rather than the belief their version is the reality.

Circles.

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse.
Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated. 
 

[pretzel]

56 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

You don’t agree with posting style, don’t read. It’s not difficult.

If you’re not prepared to source the information which is readily available why should others share?

As I’ve said, far from positive. You find it embarrassing, I’m a little ambivalent given the variables. Whataboutery isn’t a great trait either.

Again, perhaps could’ve worded better, these A4 sheets were placed by a minority for use by a majority without challenge. Isn’t that right Bob?

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Oh and not to mention our discussion on Dean Cornelius moving to England where you convinced me you were his da with your apparent insider knowledge. 

I think a lot of people on here and over on P and B buy in to what you say due to your grandiloquent style of posting but I think it's clear as day you know heehaw and for whatever reason very defensive on this topic. 

[Onthefringes]

5 hours ago, dennyc said:

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse.
Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated. 
 

Placation. No denial incidents don’t take place. Answering yes, I justifiably play them down. It’s a world away from condoning behaviours.

Precursors have been stated over many threads and I fail to see the benefit of repeat. It certainly won’t change the viewpoint of those who refuse to look at the bigger picture..

[Onthefringes]

4 hours ago, pretzel said:

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Oh and not to mention our discussion on Dean Cornelius moving to England where you convinced me you were his da with your apparent insider knowledge. 

I think a lot of people on here and over on P and B buy in to what you say due to your grandiloquent style of posting but I think it's clear as day you know heehaw and for whatever reason very defensive on this topic. 

What purpose does it serve? Going over old ground, information sometimes comes from a position of trust. Doubt I’d be the only who wouldn’t just repeat to appease others who don’t wish to seek and find for themselves.

Then you set off on a tangent… the topic isn’t about me. I could discuss biology in one part, your mask just slips on the second. We see you.

[David]

15 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

Well said, great post some people don't want to know the reality as it does not fit their agendas that the block E  lads are all angels and never get into any trouble, at all.  I've no doubt most of them are blameless but the minority causing the issues are getting them all tarred with the same brush.

 

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

[0Neils40yarder]

On 9/5/2024 at 8:39 PM, dennyc said:

Accepting that incidents have taken place is a start at least. Different versions or not the fact is that lines have been crossed and Police/Club are being forced to intervene. How many Police do you imagine will be at Aberdeen? I do get that innocent folk have been unfairly caught up and that is wrong. The sooner that stops the better. 

As for ‘not many’ denying events. Playing them down as high jinx, or youthful exuberance, or an exaggeration, or justified is tantamount to condoning them.  A certain Society Board Member needs to think on that and achieve some perspective. 
And if you care to check back at previous discussions, I think you were one of a good few who forcefully said I was  misinterpreting events when I highlighted the fact that a woman sat a few rows in front of me was abused when she complained about liquid being thrown at SOD when he attempted to take a throw in. Apologies if you were not that poster. But the gist was ‘That did not happen’. 
And in this thread we have one poster attempting to downplay matters when a fan and his wife were abused, by distinguishing between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence. Really! I’m pretty sure whichever it was was pretty frightening. Or is one just high jinx and the other of concern? 
We also have another poster saying that football disorder is part of Society and we just have to accept it. It’s what folk do nowadays. And as we know that to be a fact, we can have no complaint if things kick off at matches we choose to attend. Any trouble I have witnessed has been at away matches, but that same poster confirmed he does not attend away matches that often. Perth was a huge step forward though so I’m hopeful that step forward continues. 
Look, I enjoy and respect what the Bois can bring to a game. Including the drum and the banners. Not so much the Ninja like face coverings we saw at the Clyde tie though. I certainly do not want to see them boycotting games or being banned. But I detest some of the behaviour (from a minority I am told) which I have personally witnessed inside and outside some grounds. I believe most fans think similarly and try to take a balanced view. But I don’t see much balance from those that appear to defend the Bois no matter what. 

 

I didn't downplay anything, I said keep it factual and that neither are acceptable...

[0Neils40yarder]

16 hours ago, David said:

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

He can't because it's not been said...

[maz]

On 9/6/2024 at 4:40 AM, pretzel said:

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Yes, that poster seems to have form for going off on weird tangents. They seem to say a lot without really saying anything. Denied being privvy to inside information earlier only to say that they received some from a position of trust lol. Wrapped up with oneself methinks.

Hopefully, the Bois can iron out any issues that they have with the club or with certain employees, but I simply can't see that perfect relationship ever blossoming. On the opening day of the league season, it was nice to see that big banner display across the middle of the JH Stand, which obviously required both parties to arrange that, but then only a matter of weeks later we're getting a boycott for other reasons.

 

[David]

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case.

Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably.

They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings.

My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that.

Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans?

Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole.

It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued.

Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand  section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about.

My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole.

Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me.

And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible?

Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted.

That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter.

Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct?

When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

[Pepper]

David and The Riddler talking nonsense again.

At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.

I've given the Bois as a group plenty of praise in the past and acknowledged all of the good things they do. In fact I've yet to see one person who has offered criticism that hasn't.

However, the narrative that the group is trying to push that they are some sort of hard done by  innocents is simply not true. 

 

 

 

 

[David]

1 hour ago, Pepper said:

At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.

How so? 

[Pepper]

7 minutes ago, David said:

How so? 

You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation.  Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own.

I can see this going the same way.

 

[wellgirl]

On 9/7/2024 at 11:10 AM, David said:

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case.

Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably.

They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings.

My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that.

Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans?

Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole.

It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued.

Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand  section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about.

My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole.

Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me.

And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible?

Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted.

That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter.

Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct?

When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

The legislation doesn't state a cut off period - just that a football related offence can include incidents before and after a game.