Argyle reported to FA for racism?

It was interesting to see the "it was nothing to do with Forza Verde" line spouted out on more than one occasion.

Yet when the choir was formed it was "open to everyone" and wasn't a closed group. Now the shit has hit the fan a little it's now a closed group again.

Whether they like it or not this racism issue has only started up since the choir was formed. It may not be the choir "members" but it's people tagging along despite the denials otherwise.

wiki-leaker wrote:

I think I've given up now on the pasoti thread. There's only so many times you can state "it was racist as defined by law".

I do hope some good comes out of this. I know IJN gets a lot of abuse on here but he's been brave enough on that thread to state he disagreed with what happened.

It's a shame we have so many "fans" who feel it's acceptable and a laugh to abuse someone.

Yes, I thought IJN came out of it well. I think he started saying it was an over the top response (I may be wrong there). But later he said words to the effect that having read all the posts he realised he was wrong and needed to learn from what people have been saying. That's good in my opinion - admitting you were wrong having listened to other views.

knecht wrote:

wiki-leaker wrote:

I think I've given up now on the pasoti thread. There's only so many times you can state "it was racist as defined by law".

I do hope some good comes out of this. I know IJN gets a lot of abuse on here but he's been brave enough on that thread to state he disagreed with what happened.

It's a shame we have so many "fans" who feel it's acceptable and a laugh to abuse someone.

Yes, I thought IJN came out of it well. I think he started saying it was an over the top response (I may be wrong there). But later he said words to the effect that having read all the posts he realised he was wrong and needed to learn from what people have been saying. That's good in my opinion - admitting you were wrong having listened to other views.

That is unlike him. Be careful, he is not to be trusted. Without doubt the most odious person on the net. This is obviously my own opinion. I doubt others share that view!!

penzancepirate wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I quite agree. Kick it out. Kick all of it out. No half measures. Racism, sexism, homophobia and any other kind of prejudice too. Judge people by what they choose to do and not what they have no control over.

An interesting statement there Frank. Are you saying people who choose to have long hair are fair game for abuse ?..... and if so, fair game for what ?
What has choice got to do with anything ?

My baseline instinct is that nobody should abuse anybody anywhere. Treat others as you would have them treat you. In fact treat them better than that.

In a football context get behind your team positively and ignore the opposition completely. Slagging them off only makes them try harder most of the time anyway.

On Saturday the long-haired Tunisian did not start getting stick because he was a muslim or because he seemed to pray on the touchline when the rest of his team were in a huddle at the start or because he was Tunisian, French or long haired. He started getting grief because he went in two-footed on Luke Young. The ref let him off and from then on the crowd was on his back.

At that point he was just another nasty opponent getting grief. And rightly so because he was lucky not to have been sent off for a dangerous and reckless tackle. Then the gypsy stuff started. I firmly believe that the only reason the gypsy stuff started was due to the length of his hair because there is no other reason that I can think of. On that level it was not racist at all. It certainly had nothing to do with him being a gypsy because he is not and any link between Tunisia, Egypt and gypsy were purely coincidental. At least I don't think he is a gypsy. At the time I didn't even know his name let alone anything else about him. The grief he got quickly moved on from understandable and, in a match context, justifiable to sadly predictable and certainly racist. Even if it is a totally illogical an unproven concept that gypsies have longer hair than anybody else might that triggered it all off.

I have read all sorts of nonsense about this. "Can't I say a gypsy is a gypsy without being called racist?" etc. Of course you can say a gypsy is a gypsy. Where it becomes racist is when "gypsy" is used as a term of abuse. When that happens not only is, for example, a long haired French Tunisian the target but also anybody and everybody with gypsy heritage everywhere is targeted too. Whether they have done anything wrong or not is an irrelevance. They are all stigmatised as bad regardless.

As for the impact of choice on all of this. That same player chose to play for Southend, choose to hack Luke Young and chose to have long hair. I'd say any of those things are fair game for giving him grief. What he did not choose was to be French and of Tunisian descent (or a gypsy as far as I know). These things are not fair game for a bit of the old "banter" that the bigots seem so desperate to defend. Just as calling him a "muslim cnut" is obviously racist even if it is literally accurate. What has the M word got to do with it? The C word is enough if you just want to be abusive.

I would also suggest that somebody chooses their religious beliefs. That makes those beliefs fair game for comment but only up to a point. I think we ought to try to respect religious beliefs of others even if we don't share or agree with them and think that those beliefs are barmy. I wouldn't hesitate to ask someone why they were muslim, christian, scientologist or whatever but I wouldn't dream of asking them why they were ginger, homosexual or black.

Moving on from there it is often said "what about ginger or fat people?" Ginger hair is not a choice. It is just a personal trait. Using that as an insult is as daft as slagging off somebody who is blond or auburn or brunette or bald or curly. Why slag off somebody because they are ginger? Are ginger people bad people? Of course they are not. Not by definition anyway. How many times was Heaney described as a "short-arsed ginger tosser"? What has his height or his hair colour to do with anything? He was just a tosser. That's it. Fair comment even if it was more abusive than I would like. There was no shortage of factually accurate ammunition to fire at him. It was what he said and did that was the problem and not his hair colour or his stature.

On to fat footballers. Being an over-weight footballer is a lifestyle choice and is unprofessional. This is a choice that that player has made either consciously or by neglect. I'd say it's fair game for a bit if stick from the terraces. Away from the football pitch it is possible that a fat person may have a medical condition. I wouldn't be able to tell and so I'd not use fat as a tool in a banter exchange and I'd cringe a bit if somebody else did. Why be deliberately cruel?

Would I tease a homosexual? No. It is just another individual trait. It is not a choice any more than natural hair colour is. Is being homosexual a bad thing? Of course not. How about having a beard or a moustache? Choices. Fair game for teasing. I can't think of why I might want to but you never know. Bald? Probably not a choice so don't go there. Would I tease a disabled person? No. Of course not. There but for the grace of God and all that. I might tease somebody moaning about their manflu though.

Ultimately somebody could be a gypsy, bearded, gay, Scouse, disabled, ginger, long-haired and fat and none of those things would make them a bad person. That person could still be a complete shit. Or a saint. Or somewhere in between. Just like any other person from any other grouping that you care to name.

Back to this precious "banter". If it is well intentioned and equally accepted then fair enough. When it is one-sided and malicious it is not fair enough. It is bullying. Context is everything.

If it is necessary to judge somebody then judge them on how they behave and what they do and not on where they were born or the genes passed on to them by their parents.

Racism, homophobia etc are simply different versions of bullying, prejudice and bigotry. It is bullying, prejudice and bigotry, in all of their forms, that need to be addressed rather than just racism but essentially they are the same thing. Racism just tends to be the most obvious to spot.

Well, after all that Frank, I think we may see the world somewhat differently. I can't help wondering why someone in this day and age would pick out the long hair of a man any more than the long hair of a woman and then relate it to a caravan. Something doesn't add up .... and deep down I know what it is.

Let's both hope the growing racism is cut short at Argyle and the hair remains long for those that want it so, without fear of prejudice.

Stepping aside from the main issue appertaining to this thread, the behaviour of fans since has been quite fascinating & may well prove to be something of a benchmark moment for both Pasoti & ATD in particular.

The removal of all connected posts to one of the side forums has led to this issue being far less visible on Pasoti & personally, I overlooked it for quite some time.

Additionally, many of the posts have seen not much more than the trading of pretty base insults which to me is having something of an effect of compounding the problem at hand. It also turns me off completely.

The reaction on this site has been interesting - I wonder if the largely problem-solving & educational approach taken by many is emblematic of a possibly unconscious feeling that the virtual power base is shifting?

I have spoken warmly about the regard that I have for Pasoti in the past & I still very much hope that it 'rebalances' itself & moves forward, but I do wonder what it will look & feel like in the future. I still turn to Pasoti for breaking news & to read the views of several people whose opinion I value (aswell as posting my matchday observations) but for a more rounded perspective from the polar extremes I turn to here.

There's one thing that does irk me here though, it's the occasional references on here to 'freaks & wierdo's, etc. In my view (as ever for what it's worth) the world's moved on now & we - yes that's we - are participating in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy by continiung to raise it. Just stand up on your own two virtual feet & those that are interested will follow.

Returning tp the issue about fan's in-ground behaviour (no pun intended) I remember Arsenal publishing in their programme a number of routes in which you could report obnoxious neighbours. One of these was by text - all you had to do was text the seat number & then a coded descripion of the problem & the stewards swept in...... An idea for us perhaps?

Home Park's cctv is excellent - it can pinpoint any given seat almost instantly - let's use it a little more overtly & make sure that the thugs amongst us (& I am certain that not all of the racist chanters were singing in ignorance) feel vulnerable.

Hopefully, we can then put this issue to bed & refocus on our parlous league position!

Jon

Good post Sir Francis.

And good post, JonB.

Agree with Rickler, great post Jon B. And it's good to hear your comments about the difference between the two sites.

I think the racism issue has shown the main difference between the 2 forums, with Pasoti still frequented by a large number of members who are stuck in their ways and aren't able to take on board the fact that times have changed. This would suggest to me that any new initiatives , such as the GAS Board, and the offer of the Trust purchasing a stake in Argyle, is not going to be easy to sell to these people.

An example of this would be the thread on Pasoti entitled "Arrest made" which runs for 11 pages and STILL people are questioning their right to chant g*po and the last post has an attachment showing Muslims demonstrating with anti-west placards etc. So anyone who took the time to read through the whole post, who may have become more educated with regard to what is and what is not deemed racism by law, will end up with inflammatory images of Muslims, pretty much negating anything that has been discussed before. And the mere fact that the subject was moved off of the main discussion board to Opinions, smacks of the subject being too much for the site to handle, when a thread about Pasties is kept on the main board as more relevant to the Club!

There is also the Trust section on both sites. With the Trust section now only accesible to Pasoti members on there, whilst it is open for guests to use on ATD.

I do feel that the references to weirdo's, freaks and cowards is becoming less frequent on ATD, but I have to hold my hand up and say I am as guilty as anyone for constantly referring to it. This is because I was personally subjected to dirty tricks by a stalwart of Pasoti, who is revered on Pasoti despite the things he has done, and he himself likes to keep the animosity alive by using the phrase as often as possible on Pasoti and Twitter, and the Club President doing the same whilst refusing to engage with anyone on this site.

But in my opinion it is time for this site to move on and not worry about what has happened in the past. This site has grown considerably since the shenanigans carried out against the original site, and although it still has to contend with regular attempts to disrupt by new posters with dodgy e-mail addresses who are out to cause trouble, it is now able to stand alone and doesn't need to be portrayed as anti-Pasoti or the alternative to Pasoti. Although I choose to no longer post on there, there are several people who use both sites and don't have to choose between one or the other.

ATD has now got a decent mix of regular and infrequent posters who do have different views on subjects, and there is also a variety of subjects covered. Some serious like the racism issue, but also with I feel a good degree of humour thrown in for anyone who doesn't want heavy debate at the end of a long day.

A bit like Conservatives and Labour, both sites will have their core ideals and beliefs, but not everyone is a "loony leftie" or extremely "right wing" and there is always going to be a large number of middle of the roaders, and there is no reason why people with all views can't debate them openly without fear of censorship or being banned, and I feel that this is the site for people to have their say on Plymouth Argyle.

I'm going to make a conscious effort to refrain from Pasoti bashing from now on, and get on with posting on here without constant references to freaks and weirdo's. Doesn't mean I won't tune into Pasoti from time to time and make comment on what is going on, because there are lots of good posters on Pasoti and club news does find its way onto Pasoti more quickly than on ATD, due to the President not using this site, and there being a larger number of "people in the know" on there.

I take a different view to Jock. I've posted on pasoti since the late 90's, and it's never been worse than it is now.

The standard of debate is abysmal, with the levels of ignorance and abuse being quite stellar. There's a fundamental dishonesty on there now as well, which Ponty has inadvertantly let slip. I asked a question about a particularly juvenile thread in the 'Contact the Admins' section. I got a pretty swift response from Ponty. Unfortunately there's nothing about Ponty's account to suggest that he's a moderator - no name in bold, no 'Site Admin' jannerbanner. Why hide the fact that you're a Moderator?

I think the essential difference between the two sites is age. Most of the regular posters on here have *cough* a bit of life experience behind them. I get the impression that the average age of pasoti's posters is dropping by the day, and therein lies the problem, particularly with regard to subjects like racism. We've been around long enough to have a good grasp of what's right and wrong. The juvenile responses to some of the comments had me banging my head against a wall. Criticise John Petrie all you want, but he displayed a patience and tolerance I couldn't muster in dealing with the racist nonsense on there.

As for the 'freaks and wierdos' comments, I agree it's regrettable but it does seem that the individual who first used the term seems to delight in repeating the insult, regardless of context, whenever possible. Maybe a similar comment could be made in his direction, Jon?

Certainly my experience since opening an account on here is that the debates are fair, intelligent and well thought out. Humour underlies much of what is posted. Fundamentally, this is an honest site. You know where you stand; the levels of abuse on pasoti are not matched here, which makes this an altogether more pleasant site to post on.

knecht wrote:

wiki-leaker wrote:

I think I've given up now on the pasoti thread. There's only so many times you can state "it was racist as defined by law".

I do hope some good comes out of this. I know IJN gets a lot of abuse on here but he's been brave enough on that thread to state he disagreed with what happened.

It's a shame we have so many "fans" who feel it's acceptable and a laugh to abuse someone.

Yes, I thought IJN came out of it well. I think he started saying it was an over the top response (I may be wrong there). But later he said words to the effect that having read all the posts he realised he was wrong and needed to learn from what people have been saying. That's good in my opinion - admitting you were wrong having listened to other views.

If he'd gone down the listening and learning route long ago, we wouldn't have the unpleasantness that now is the seeming cause of great angst to him.

Andy_Symons wrote:

I take a different view to Jock. I've posted on pasoti since the late 90's, and it's never been worse than it is now.

The standard of debate is abysmal, with the levels of ignorance and abuse being quite stellar. There's a fundamental dishonesty on there now as well, which Ponty has inadvertantly let slip. I asked a question about a particularly juvenile thread in the 'Contact the Admins' section. I got a pretty swift response from Ponty. Unfortunately there's nothing about Ponty's account to suggest that he's a moderator - no name in bold, no 'Site Admin' jannerbanner. Why hide the fact that you're a Moderator?

I think the essential difference between the two sites is age. Most of the regular posters on here have *cough* a bit of life experience behind them. I get the impression that the average age of pasoti's posters is dropping by the day, and therein lies the problem, particularly with regard to subjects like racism. We've been around long enough to have a good grasp of what's right and wrong. The juvenile responses to some of the comments had me banging my head against a wall. Criticise John Petrie all you want, but he displayed a patience and tolerance I couldn't muster in dealing with the racist nonsense on there.

As for the 'freaks and wierdos' comments, I agree it's regrettable but it does seem that the individual who first used the term seems to delight in repeating the insult, regardless of context, whenever possible. Maybe a similar comment could be made in his direction, Jon?

Certainly my experience since opening an account on here is that the debates are fair, intelligent and well thought out. Humour underlies much of what is posted. Fundamentally, this is an honest site. You know where you stand; the levels of abuse on pasoti are not matched here, which makes this an altogether more pleasant site to post on.

Crikey I nearly spat my tea out all over my desk. The phone has just rang and it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you'll find that the debate is just as healthy over on Pasoti - except they debate such things as reserve games, matches, pasties, team news, rumours as well as the subjects as racism and presidents progress.

Over here, Chris Webb farting on the train gets more pages than a matchday does.

My views are similar to Andy's. Essentially, when you compare the pasoti of now to that of, say five years ago, many of the more, let's say, thoughtful posters have stopped posting, for a whole range of reasons, including being bullied off the site and/or becoming frustrated at the restriction of debate. Some of those posters have ended up here, while some have gone off the radar altogether.

Age is part of it, yes. But a culture has been growing since before the club's financial problems emerged, a culture of disdain for alternative viewpoints. Along with this has gone the reluctance or inability to argue, which in turn means personal abuse and insults are the norm. And along with that has gone the seige mentality, you're either with us or against us, my way or the highway. The re-emergence of racist chanting - which some of us raised with the club before Saturday's events - has just polarised it all.

For myself, I made a conscious decision to try to put all this behind me a couple of weeks ago, and posted over there a couple of times. But it's pointless.

As for the 'debate' on those racism threads, I can only echo what's been said before. A monster's been created, and it's going to be well nigh impossible to destroy it. The club's going to be dragged through the mud, the fans will be branded, and it could all have been avoided.

GreenTint wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

I take a different view to Jock. I've posted on pasoti since the late 90's, and it's never been worse than it is now.

The standard of debate is abysmal, with the levels of ignorance and abuse being quite stellar. There's a fundamental dishonesty on there now as well, which Ponty has inadvertantly let slip. I asked a question about a particularly juvenile thread in the 'Contact the Admins' section. I got a pretty swift response from Ponty. Unfortunately there's nothing about Ponty's account to suggest that he's a moderator - no name in bold, no 'Site Admin' jannerbanner. Why hide the fact that you're a Moderator?

I think the essential difference between the two sites is age. Most of the regular posters on here have *cough* a bit of life experience behind them. I get the impression that the average age of pasoti's posters is dropping by the day, and therein lies the problem, particularly with regard to subjects like racism. We've been around long enough to have a good grasp of what's right and wrong. The juvenile responses to some of the comments had me banging my head against a wall. Criticise John Petrie all you want, but he displayed a patience and tolerance I couldn't muster in dealing with the racist nonsense on there.

As for the 'freaks and wierdos' comments, I agree it's regrettable but it does seem that the individual who first used the term seems to delight in repeating the insult, regardless of context, whenever possible. Maybe a similar comment could be made in his direction, Jon?

Certainly my experience since opening an account on here is that the debates are fair, intelligent and well thought out. Humour underlies much of what is posted. Fundamentally, this is an honest site. You know where you stand; the levels of abuse on pasoti are not matched here, which makes this an altogether more pleasant site to post on.

Crikey I nearly spat my tea out all over my desk. The phone has just rang and it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you'll find that the debate is just as healthy over on Pasoti - except they debate such things as reserve games, matches, pasties, team news, rumours as well as the subjects as racism and presidents progress.

Over here, Chris Webb farting on the train gets more pages than a matchday does.

I think you're confusing the quality of the debate (which is what I'm talking about) with the number of subjects debated. This site is bound to have a narrower range, simply because of the lower number of site members. But the standards are far higher. And the fact that a thread about pasties is considered Argyle-related whilst a thread about racism inside Home Park is relegated to one of the least-read of all the pasoti boards tells you all you need to know about the priorities 'over there'.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

penzancepirate wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I quite agree. Kick it out. Kick all of it out. No half measures. Racism, sexism, homophobia and any other kind of prejudice too. Judge people by what they choose to do and not what they have no control over.

An interesting statement there Frank. Are you saying people who choose to have long hair are fair game for abuse ?..... and if so, fair game for what ?
What has choice got to do with anything ?

My baseline instinct is that nobody should abuse anybody anywhere. Treat others as you would have them treat you. In fact treat them better than that.

In a football context get behind your team positively and ignore the opposition completely. Slagging them off only makes them try harder most of the time anyway.

On Saturday the long-haired Tunisian did not start getting stick because he was a muslim or because he seemed to pray on the touchline when the rest of his team were in a huddle at the start or because he was Tunisian, French or long haired. He started getting grief because he went in two-footed on Luke Young. The ref let him off and from then on the crowd was on his back.

At that point he was just another nasty opponent getting grief. And rightly so because he was lucky not to have been sent off for a dangerous and reckless tackle. Then the gypsy stuff started. I firmly believe that the only reason the gypsy stuff started was due to the length of his hair because there is no other reason that I can think of. On that level it was not racist at all. It certainly had nothing to do with him being a gypsy because he is not and any link between Tunisia, Egypt and gypsy were purely coincidental. At least I don't think he is a gypsy. At the time I didn't even know his name let alone anything else about him. The grief he got quickly moved on from understandable and, in a match context, justifiable to sadly predictable and certainly racist. Even if it is a totally illogical an unproven concept that gypsies have longer hair than anybody else might that triggered it all off.

I have read all sorts of nonsense about this. "Can't I say a gypsy is a gypsy without being called racist?" etc. Of course you can say a gypsy is a gypsy. Where it becomes racist is when "gypsy" is used as a term of abuse. When that happens not only is, for example, a long haired French Tunisian the target but also anybody and everybody with gypsy heritage everywhere is targeted too. Whether they have done anything wrong or not is an irrelevance. They are all stigmatised as bad regardless.

As for the impact of choice on all of this. That same player chose to play for Southend, choose to hack Luke Young and chose to have long hair. I'd say any of those things are fair game for giving him grief. What he did not choose was to be French and of Tunisian descent (or a gypsy as far as I know). These things are not fair game for a bit of the old "banter" that the bigots seem so desperate to defend. Just as calling him a "muslim cnut" is obviously racist even if it is literally accurate. What has the M word got to do with it? The C word is enough if you just want to be abusive.

I would also suggest that somebody chooses their religious beliefs. That makes those beliefs fair game for comment but only up to a point. I think we ought to try to respect religious beliefs of others even if we don't share or agree with them and think that those beliefs are barmy. I wouldn't hesitate to ask someone why they were muslim, christian, scientologist or whatever but I wouldn't dream of asking them why they were ginger, homosexual or black.

Moving on from there it is often said "what about ginger or fat people?" Ginger hair is not a choice. It is just a personal trait. Using that as an insult is as daft as slagging off somebody who is blond or auburn or brunette or bald or curly. Why slag off somebody because they are ginger? Are ginger people bad people? Of course they are not. Not by definition anyway. How many times was Heaney described as a "short-arsed ginger tosser"? What has his height or his hair colour to do with anything? He was just a tosser. That's it. Fair comment even if it was more abusive than I would like. There was no shortage of factually accurate ammunition to fire at him. It was what he said and did that was the problem and not his hair colour or his stature.

On to fat footballers. Being an over-weight footballer is a lifestyle choice and is unprofessional. This is a choice that that player has made either consciously or by neglect. I'd say it's fair game for a bit if stick from the terraces. Away from the football pitch it is possible that a fat person may have a medical condition. I wouldn't be able to tell and so I'd not use fat as a tool in a banter exchange and I'd cringe a bit if somebody else did. Why be deliberately cruel?

Would I tease a homosexual? No. It is just another individual trait. It is not a choice any more than natural hair colour is. Is being homosexual a bad thing? Of course not. How about having a beard or a moustache? Choices. Fair game for teasing. I can't think of why I might want to but you never know. Bald? Probably not a choice so don't go there. Would I tease a disabled person? No. Of course not. There but for the grace of God and all that. I might tease somebody moaning about their manflu though.

Ultimately somebody could be a gypsy, bearded, gay, Scouse, disabled, ginger, long-haired and fat and none of those things would make them a bad person. That person could still be a complete shit. Or a saint. Or somewhere in between. Just like any other person from any other grouping that you care to name.

Back to this precious "banter". If it is well intentioned and equally accepted then fair enough. When it is one-sided and malicious it is not fair enough. It is bullying. Context is everything.

If it is necessary to judge somebody then judge them on how they behave and what they do and not on where they were born or the genes passed on to them by their parents.

Racism, homophobia etc are simply different versions of bullying, prejudice and bigotry. It is bullying, prejudice and bigotry, in all of their forms, that need to be addressed rather than just racism but essentially they are the same thing. Racism just tends to be the most obvious to spot.

I do agree with your well written post, I do however have to pick you up on this point, Gypsies are so called by Gajo's (non gypsies) because they come form or have the appearance of coming from Egypt. They prefer to be called Romani or Travellers (with the distinction that the Irish "Traveller" sees himself as different from the Romanis of Northern Europe) although they see themselves all as "the people", which is what I understand Romani to mean. If you called a Romani a Gypsy although probably not having it out with you, they would feel a little insulted.

Andy_Symons wrote:

GreenTint wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

I take a different view to Jock. I've posted on pasoti since the late 90's, and it's never been worse than it is now.

The standard of debate is abysmal, with the levels of ignorance and abuse being quite stellar. There's a fundamental dishonesty on there now as well, which Ponty has inadvertantly let slip. I asked a question about a particularly juvenile thread in the 'Contact the Admins' section. I got a pretty swift response from Ponty. Unfortunately there's nothing about Ponty's account to suggest that he's a moderator - no name in bold, no 'Site Admin' jannerbanner. Why hide the fact that you're a Moderator?

I think the essential difference between the two sites is age. Most of the regular posters on here have *cough* a bit of life experience behind them. I get the impression that the average age of pasoti's posters is dropping by the day, and therein lies the problem, particularly with regard to subjects like racism. We've been around long enough to have a good grasp of what's right and wrong. The juvenile responses to some of the comments had me banging my head against a wall. Criticise John Petrie all you want, but he displayed a patience and tolerance I couldn't muster in dealing with the racist nonsense on there.

As for the 'freaks and wierdos' comments, I agree it's regrettable but it does seem that the individual who first used the term seems to delight in repeating the insult, regardless of context, whenever possible. Maybe a similar comment could be made in his direction, Jon?

Certainly my experience since opening an account on here is that the debates are fair, intelligent and well thought out. Humour underlies much of what is posted. Fundamentally, this is an honest site. You know where you stand; the levels of abuse on pasoti are not matched here, which makes this an altogether more pleasant site to post on.

Crikey I nearly spat my tea out all over my desk. The phone has just rang and it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you'll find that the debate is just as healthy over on Pasoti - except they debate such things as reserve games, matches, pasties, team news, rumours as well as the subjects as racism and presidents progress.

Over here, Chris Webb farting on the train gets more pages than a matchday does.

I think you're confusing the quality of the debate (which is what I'm talking about) with the number of subjects debated. This site is bound to have a narrower range, simply because of the lower number of site members. But the standards are far higher. And the fact that a thread about pasties is considered Argyle-related whilst a thread about racism inside Home Park is relegated to one of the least-read of all the pasoti boards tells you all you need to know about the priorities 'over there'.

And Chris Webb farting on a train get's calls for a statue to be erected in his honour on Pasoti. 100 replies of "Well done Chris, thanks for sharing". The latest farce regarding El Presidente is his statement that Forza Verde is and never was anything to do with Ultras, and tweeting why do people have to make things up? Probably because he started a thread called "The birth of the Argyle Ultras" in relation to Forza Verde, where after 12 pages of back slpping, a few lonely voices starting asking whether it was a good thing for Ultras to be mentioned, given the reputation the Ultras groups have around the world. But of course these voices are soon silenced with dozens of cries of spoilsport or trying to sabotage a good thing.

You can't ask questions with any substance like how much has Brent actually paid for Argyle, because James Brent is a good man. James Brent saved Argyle, along with Chris Webb, Ian Newell and Peter Ridsdale, depending on which Pasoti member you listen to. Hardly a mention of the staff who were fecked over in my opinion, and who then had to put up with Tony Wrathall lording it over them just a week or two after Chris starts a thread about welcoming Wrathall back to Home Park, as none of the shit was his fault, and that he would buy TW a pint IF he turned up at a game.

The clean up of Home Park is another example. Woo hoo get the flags out! Instead of Brent re-hiring someone made redundant during administration, he gets Chris to suggest volunteers doing the dirty work. And instead of turning elsewhere for the volunteers, with perhaps the offer of a free ticket to anyone who participates, it's aimed at people like Zee Zan, who are going to be buying a ticket anyway so the clean up takes place at NO cost to Mr Brent.

And talking about reserve games? How can you when they are not now reported on and held behind closed doors? The only way anyone knows about them is when a player takes a break from tweeting about Nando's or Big Brother, and actually makes a comment worth reading, like Curtis Nelson yesterday who it's looks like is finally on his way back from injury.

Other than that Green Tint, I'm totally in agreement with you.

There seems to be an increase of racist abuse on Twitter also (not Argyle in this case, although I'm sure Andy Symons has mentioned Argyle 'fans' usiing racist language on Twitter)-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Chemical Ali wrote:

There seems to be an increase of racist abuse on Twitter also (not Argyle in this case, although I'm sure Andy Symons has mentioned Argyle 'fans' usiing racist language on Twitter)-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You should browse Bunneydane1981 then CA. He was tweeting was a bunch of c***ts people were who thought chanting g*po was racist, and for people to man up. He then repeated the "where's ya caravan" chants the following day having had time to sober up and think about it.

Bit rich really when he constantly tweets about Liverpool being racists, because of the Suarez/Evra incident, and even posts a squad picture of Liverpool with KKK hoods on.

I did deactivate my twitter account but have had a few exchanges with him recently, because he's so stupid it's actually quite funny. He also tweeted in reply to Henry Winter the football journalist, saying "Don't you ever go home? You're always either at a game or on your way to a game" Funny that for a football journalist!

Firstly, well done to the trust and others that have taken the lead on this issue.

In light of the some peoples' continuing inability to comprehend that derogatory chants about people from a specific ethnic background are in fact racist and not simply a bit of banter, could the trust or others with links to the club try and get the club to specifically identify the chants of "g*po" and "where's your caravan" as being unacceptable.

This might go someway to removing ignorance as an excuse in the future.

Although the club statement is to be applauded,it does give the slight impression that the one incident regarding the anti Muslim remarks has been dealt with and that is the end of the matter.

penzancepirate wrote:

Well, after all that Frank, I think we may see the world somewhat differently. I can't help wondering why someone in this day and age would pick out the long hair of a man any more than the long hair of a woman and then relate it to a caravan. Something doesn't add up .... and deep down I know what it is.

Let's both hope the growing racism is cut short at Argyle and the hair remains long for those that want it so, without fear of prejudice.

So what is it then?

I imagine that his long hair got chosen simply because it was the player's most obvious feature.

I couldn't care less about the length of someone's hair.

avignon green wrote:

Firstly, well done to the trust and others that have taken the lead on this issue.

In light of the some peoples' continuing inability to comprehend that derogatory chants about people from a specific ethnic background are in fact racist and not simply a bit of banter, could the trust or others with links to the club try and get the club to specifically identify the chants of "g*po" and "where's your caravan" as being unacceptable.

This might go someway to removing ignorance as an excuse in the future.

Although the club statement is to be applauded,it does give the slight impression that the one incident regarding the anti Muslim remarks has been dealt with and that is the end of the matter.

I don't think anyone has taken the lead other than the people on forums who've criticised and condemned the racism within sections of our support. It was almost instant from us. Many posters on the various forums have put these people to task and upheld decency - many of us have been publicly ridiculed and laughed at for doing so but we've remained firm.

We don't need them to speak for us when we can speak for ourselves and that's what we've done. There's two threads combined on pasoti that have reached 40 pages collectively.

As I said Frank, I have deeply held understandings about discrimination and prejudice. I'm not a foolish man and I've lived a bit... seen all sorts of shapes and behaviour, some overt, some covert.
Most discrimination is not illegal sadly, and so many people suffer from it, with some of it actively encouraged legally in wide sections of society. Fortunately we have recent laws about such matters when it involves race, ethnicity, etc etc.... which is what this debate is all about for me.......racism at Home Park and the need to stop it at it's root.

Andy_Symons wrote:

I take a different view to Jock. I've posted on pasoti since the late 90's, and it's never been worse than it is now.

The standard of debate is abysmal, with the levels of ignorance and abuse being quite stellar. There's a fundamental dishonesty on there now as well, which Ponty has inadvertantly let slip. I asked a question about a particularly juvenile thread in the 'Contact the Admins' section. I got a pretty swift response from Ponty. Unfortunately there's nothing about Ponty's account to suggest that he's a moderator - no name in bold, no 'Site Admin' jannerbanner. Why hide the fact that you're a Moderator?

I think the essential difference between the two sites is age. Most of the regular posters on here have *cough* a bit of life experience behind them. I get the impression that the average age of pasoti's posters is dropping by the day, and therein lies the problem, particularly with regard to subjects like racism. We've been around long enough to have a good grasp of what's right and wrong. The juvenile responses to some of the comments had me banging my head against a wall. Criticise John Petrie all you want, but he displayed a patience and tolerance I couldn't muster in dealing with the racist nonsense on there.

As for the 'freaks and wierdos' comments, I agree it's regrettable but it does seem that the individual who first used the term seems to delight in repeating the insult, regardless of context, whenever possible. Maybe a similar comment could be made in his direction, Jon?

Certainly my experience since opening an account on here is that the debates are fair, intelligent and well thought out. Humour underlies much of what is posted. Fundamentally, this is an honest site. You know where you stand; the levels of abuse on pasoti are not matched here, which makes this an altogether more pleasant site to post on.

I noticed that to. Makes you wonder what other "ex" mod's are infact very much still mod's but doing it on the sly.

Was the guy that was arrested, charged?

GOB wrote:

Was the guy that was arrested, charged?

He was, £8.50.