THOSE FUCKING ENGLAND FLAGS!

Doglatin is my new favourite poster. More epic rants please!

I think you should move, dog latin.

I always overturn cars instead.

I don't find the England flag any more annoying than other signifiers of cultural pride.

the mood in Pinner after the final whistle didn't seem as bad as it could've been. much passion - even aggression - in the pub during the match (French players being hurled with abuse, tho more because of the Premiership clubs they played for rather than their nationality i think, in reality - after all the players are adored by their respective club fans at Arsenal, Chelsea and imminently Spurs). the loudest environment i've ever watched a match in. we left soon after but i'm assuming there was no real trouble (unlike in Croydon and several hertfordshire towns as reported on BBC Breakfast News).

Trouble is, everyone has a different idea of where "the other stuff" begins. Some ppl believe you should just watch the football and cheer if yr team wins and that's it. Others will say that it is about pride in yr nation's team and you are perfectly entitled to express that pride by emblazoning yr team's national identity on everything. On an aesthetic level, I don't mind the flags. I don't even mind that one of the local pubs has decided to whitewash all the tables and paint the St George Cross on them. The same pub has - thoughtfully and sensibly - decided to put up the flags of all the other competing nations in the tournament too.

One thing that MasterCard ad brings home is how utterly tasteless the majority of St George Cross decoarted stuff looks...the towel, the fingernails, speshly the cakes. Ugh.

Where does chanting during a match turn nasty? Someone in the pub last night shouted "You dirty Frenchman!" every time a French player went in for a hard tackle. I guess he was kind of on the line of what is acceptable IMHO. If he'd said "you dirty French ****" he would've crossed it.

If this is the case (and I don't) then I crossed the line severa;l times last night.

(which, btw, nobody seemed to post anything about. don't mention the war)

And it's true that it is bloody naff having all this merchandising. I'd rather not display my patriotism with a "Chocolate Jesus"-style commemorative England bog brush. And why does a football match have to tie in with national pride? It's JUST A GAME OF FOOTBALL not FUCKING WORLD WAR II!

I think it's more interesting that the football dovetailed nicely into the rise of the UKIP in the Euro elections.

I think I called several English players bad names too.

Spooky innit? I guess the same rules for right-wing politics work around the same rules for comedy and that is...

TIMING!

thinking last weekend was a 'celebration' = massive amnesiac idea of WW2.

One of those steroid milkfloat things used by collecting binmen had a French flag displayed INSIDE THE RUBBISH CAGE.

This after meeting my French friends Gilles and Florence for coffee, when they said that the French flag is also taken over by the far right after Ed explained the bit about Union Jackasses. Which just shows that most countries' flags are focal for the wingnuts within.

I had a big case of Sport Tourettes last night but mostly our party was wondering if Robson is now old and dribbly enough for incontinence pants. We also spent serious time slagging off Emile Heskey: 'Oohhh! See Emily play...NOT."

X-post, or maybe you do. But I've not noticed it on TV coverage of matches.

thinking last weekend was a 'celebration' = massive amnesiac idea of WW2

it had been turned into a grotesque, self-congratulatory circle-jerk by current ruling elites, at any rate.

which prolly won't be too long - cue single centenarian standing on beach.

well quite. Being an island in the Southern Hemisphere gives Australia every reason to shrug about Northern Hemisphere wars past and present.

i hate the england flags, i don't really know why, but combine them with the recent election results and you just want to throw up. thatcher's children are back!

Okaaaaayyyyy....

http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/calflag1.gif

As you can see by the red star and the logo, we are also an independent country and Communist.

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/Graphics/graphics.nsf/graphics/Warwickshire+Coat+of+arms/$file/coatofarms.jpg

The Coventry coat of arms *should* feature Lady Godiva.

They also make for great weapons

I love you dog latin, for summing up my general state of mind over the last few weeks in ways that I never could.

England's youth are the equivalent to other countries doddering old war veterans, especially when football is involved.

I wish the US flag had been this. Also cool:

http://home.att.net/~bzygo2/nh97.jpg

happiness, more or less, it's about cutting trees, something in my liberty.

oh my my!

I called a French player a name last night. It was Willy Spagbol.

does that include wooden legs?

i'm really happy when Germany lose. i don't like to see them succeed. nor Brazil. only because it feels predictable and i long for hierarchal change. nothing against the nation, it's people or it's customs - quite the opposite in fact.

but still a tasty one right?

Blaming sport for jingoism and nationalism is like blaming religion for war, there's the assumption that the jingoism would'nt find another outlet if football, cricket, rugby or whatever had never existed.

Kate, have you ever been to an international match? Did you see the English fans walking up and down the stands in the last World Cup carrying Japanese and Korean children on their shoulders? Have you watched the buildup to a big match and seen footage of both sets of fans mingling amicably in the streets and bars beforehand? Have you seen the hordes of fans getting colorfully dressed up and using the event as an excuse for a massive party? Chances are you haven't - you'd rather do pretty much anything else.

Of course there's been crowd trouble and hooliganism and riots in the past, unfortunately there will be in the future, but these events are in the minority, and its hardly the 1980s all over again. What you're doing is targeting this massive area and going "its ritualised warfare, its all divisive and evil and wrong" when sport can be as much a unifying factor as a divisive one. Look at the lineup in the average Premiership fixture and see how many people of how many nationalities are inspiriring such adoration from the fans.

What you're doing is like blaming the whole of 60s rock music for the violence at Altamont. I'm not saying you should have any interest in football, but you're letting your distaste for the subject colour your whole perception of something of which you are largely, if not entirely, ignorant.

The ice dancing hooligans are a fearsome bunch.

If you said "there's still far too much of this kind of behaviour in football and it should be stamped out - these attitudes, and the way in which the game deals with it, have to change" I would have agreed with you. Its still unfair to use it as a stick to beat the whole game with, especially as football has done as much, if not more, to counter racism than it has to foster it.

There's something wrong with the English - I'll happily concede we're a bunch of cunts who can't handle drink and every foreign despatch since the Romans has said so. That's a root cause - there's a bellicosity in our culture that feeds off a generalised exceptionalism. Drink briongs it out most, when in truth, there's far more un-exceptioanlism out there. If anything demonstrates the Europeanisation of England, it's football.

Is it wrong that I burst out laughing? Or that the Swiss fans did too?

I don't know what's wrong or right anymore, me.

Except I don't think these attitudes *can* be stamped out of football, because football *IS* symbolic conflict, it is absolutely irreprepreably tied together with us/them attitudes, tribal groupings, competition and all sorts of other things I am inherently suspicious of.

You can say "oh, let's work on making it *symbolic* hatred and *symbolic* violence" but you cannot take the inherent tribalism and competition and symbolism of violence out of football.

Hence I find it vile.

I find bands vile, so much competition ;o)

And surely the violence in Croydon was because in seeing England Play France someone must have come to the conclusion that there must be a this "other" place, France that he was previously unaware of - only knowing Croydon. This spiritual torment of not being aware of this France drove him and those infected with his mind-meme to self-destructive vilence (nice spelling - cheers).

I dislike competative sport, fullstop. It doesn't matter if it's football or tiddlewinks or anything. Maybe that's cause I was raised by hippies, I don't know. That's a part of human and my own nature that I do my best to downplay and avoid, rather than celebrate.

Talking of music, I'm off to see Roger McGuinn tonight. Byrds, eh?

I think *all* competative sport is vile, not just football. Football is just the one that happens to interfere directly in my life the most often, and the violence associated therewith gets the most coverage.

But the "finding out anyway" is U&K - if someone tries to stamp out competition, ppl always find a way to make things competitive anyway. Apparently it's...oh there's no such thing as human nature is there.....it's....instinctive?

there's too much effort put into competing. we'd accomplish / produce more if we put the same effort into collaborating.

if competition is *human* nature then why is the majority of competitive sport so male dominated?

(it's athletics that pisses me off more than team sports - so much effort for nothing.)

(just being devil's advocate Ronan, you understand. I'm on your side really as far as this thread goes at least)

more men play sport than women as purely statistical thing? but, to generalise hideously in the name of humour, have you seen women at a Primark sale? fierce competition.

Having said that, I think people are being a bit disingenuous about Kate's objections. There's a level of aggression and testosterone watching football in stadiums and pubs that I can perfectly well see is intimidating and would not be tolerated by most in other circumstances. Now I can't stop think of Chris shouting "You dirty French cunt" at the television.

yeah but did you see the tiny little Japanese and Korean parents jumping up and down trying to get their children back from the English bastards who snatched their kids to put on their shoulders?

I often think, that as someone who claims not to be at all patriotic, I am a hypocrite for supporting the Irish football/rugby teams so strongly. I do think though at best there's a shared emotional ritual involved, and given not all the players are even Irish it's as much a matter of symbolism as actual patriotism. We want Ireland to win because they're the Irish international football team.

-- N. (nickdastoo...), September 12th, 2003

From Patriot Day

but then i watch athletics and it seems that some people think that spending hours learning to throw a pointy stick is a good use of their time. and expect grants.

> and surely there are far more negative outlets for it than watching football.

like rampaging through croydon? like the overturning of german cars after the last tournament? that to me is football *provoking* aggresive behaviour not being an outlet for it.

'I like the numpties who stick a Saint George flag out of all four of their car windows. (Their mental process tickles me: "Well, if I only have one, people might think I don't like England enough. I'll try two ... but what if they think I'm leaving the back two windows free for French flags? No, no, I need four, goddamit!")'

Well to my mind it's funny. I mean it's not as if the Swiss were neutral out of moral principals for fuck's sake! (ie they took blood money from the Nazis.)

Props to doc Baran for one of the funniest posts I have ever seen on ilx.

The violence in Croydon caused hundreds of pounds worth of improvements.

Mickey G not bad either.

That is witty, I think, of you, I mean.

Excuse me, sports fans in ENGLAND

The latter would have been funnier, I think, but both of them were pre-fall pride, obv.

Funny thing is, I thought the exact same thing: sitting in with those two narrow banks of four, hoofing the ball aimlessly upfield, desperately protecting a narrow lead, backs to the wall, etc. I was looking for wee Craig Broon in the England dug-out.

EVERYBODY here wheels out the anti-commentator thing. I sort of agree, sometimes, at least in 2002 I was happy when England beat Argentina and then quite anxious that they lose to Brazil given that the hype had increased so dramatically after the Danish match.

Nonetheless I'm not sure it's right to do this, and also as ever, why would I want Brazil to win.

This is such utter nonsense yes, as if they're even halfway as bothered or as interested in archaic national divides as the twats who allege this.

No, not as well. We're not that far off the pace, though. But I don't really see why this is so relevant. The point is that at one time we have been right up there at the top, and for a nation of our size and footballing interest, we should expect to be fighting for that place again. Scotland is much smaller and it would be unrealistic to place the same expectations. Denmark (about the same population) won Euro 1992, but no one expected them to constantly be repeating that achievement.

The flip side of it is that in the South East, you watch the news at 6.00pm and then see almost exactly the same stories on the local news at 6.30pm. But it's not much consolation, eh?

This is nothing to do with sport, sorry.

Denmark won Euro 1992 and who on earth thought they'd do that, England have a chance in every tournament they enter and are certainly not on the tier of confidence that says "we'll go and win a few games and be happy", nor should they be.

They are under-achievers mostly. Like Spain. Who you could also accuse of being ridiculous if they got their hopes up before big tournaments, even moreso than England. But similarly I would expect and be amazed if the Spanish media didn't get excited and consider their side to have a very good chance of winning things.

When Celtic have been having their good runs in European competitions over the past few years, has 1967 been mentioned much?

(world rankings: http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,AllJun2004,00.html?select11=All&cmbMonth=Jun&cmbYear=2004 entirely nonsensical as far as i can tell)

I'm sure I read something saying Celtic and Rangers fans competed for bragging rights over their 9s and 10s in-a-row and that Celtic fans always had the trump card with that Euopean Cup victory. But separating truth from London media myth with regards to the Old Firm is very tough, it seems. Going to live in Scotland to find out the truth is not really on my agenda.

Well I can't speak for Celtic fans generally, but certainly the Scottish press went over it a few times...

Finally I doubt anyone would dispute that England are underachievers, the only reason Spain are considered greater underachivers? COS THEY'VE DONE EVEN WORSE THAN ENGLAND.

x-post Mikey it's borne out of hearing people moaning over and over again here about England, despite the fact we all follow English club teams. Also first hand experience of living in London during the last World Cup and having pretty much every English person I talked to sounding genuinely upset when we lost to Spain.

:-(

I am not terrified about the prospect of meeting Spain, Portugal OR Greece in the quarters. They are all beatable.

Oh, great - now Dadaismus is coming round to evict me.

Err- yes. I work there.

Bingo! As are all the other teams.

there was certainly mention of 1967 LAST NIGHT when larrson scored...

Yes, but I work for an insurance company and always forget to renew my car tax.

Not so much with Holland as they actually underachieved, especially in the 70s.

julio, that sentence makes no sense...

Steve, I live in London, I talk to English people every day! That last sentence does not necessarily follow of course...

Aye, Charlie N1cholas and Derek J0hnstone both get a page each to demonstrate why former footballers have no place in journalism.

Unless the FIFA ranking ignore friendlies (and they might) then this is a bit unfair. The USA play lots of European/South America teams and do OK against them too (a draw with Denmark and a win over Poland this year - is that right, Ben?). Besides, they did reach the last eight of the 2002 WC.

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html

friendlies count, but nowhere near as much as qualifying or continental champs matches (is there an oceania continental championship?)

I presume we're behind the USA because our record in friendlies (which have a multiplication factor of 1.0x, vs 1.5x for EC/WC qualifiers, 1.75x for EC finals and 2.0x for WC finals) is quite poor and perhaps something to do with the absurd privileging for the Confederation Cup (also 1.75x). Hey, it's FIFA's baby, they can do what they want.

eng 1990 was a good draw, '96 was home advantage. In either case nobody could be bothered with penalties. don't know abt '82 and '86 tho'.

Portugal are really overrated. Midfield was ok.

'82 we blew it
'86 that fat bloke chucked it in

90? Waddle's hair made him miss

82 - good team, there for the taking, Keegan fucks it. Who can say. We'd have played the French in the semi having already beaten them. Gnash gnash.

86 - Cheating Diego does for us.

All in all, during tournaments in my lifetime, the only time I've thought we didn't have a chance is 2000 - Keegan's team were just clueless. Even 92 was on the back of an unbeaten run in qualfiying - we were in the pot of favourites for that tournament with the French, and there were only 8 teams. in 2002, we went out and you can't complain really - we were outplayed. All others have an element of maybe and what if that makes for the optimism.

2000 is also galling though. The first ten minutes against Porugal showed the potential and I still think Figo's long range effort was a fluke (via Adam's inner thigh). But that doesn't excuse the Romania game.

Can I point out that I am a Celtic fan who supports Scotland? And isn't Irish at all, and don't want to be either? kthanxbye...(though I'm not a nutcase, which may have some bearing on this).

And while we're at it:

feel like a total prude saying this, but sports fans in Britain really do take soccer beyond a game. They'll turn anything into an excuse to get pissed and spout vitriol at other countries.

...Excuse me, sports fans in ENGLAND

Er, no, SCotland too (no experience of Welsh or Northern Irish fans with regard to this). Part of the fun of tournaments where Scotland aren't involved is the temporary re-allocation of affection for whoever England are playing. This isn't big or clever, but it's no worse than wanting Man U/Germany/Rangers to lose just because you don't like them.

And the "Celtic fans don't talk about 1967 much" is bollocks. They have been trotted out at least twice this season at Parkhead (on the oh-so-significant 37th anniversary of the Cup win), and won the vote for the name of the new stand over Fergus McCann, a man who actually deserved to have the stand named after him.

Which leads me to conclude Dadaismus hasn't got a clue since he left the country he seems to love so much.

Substitute 'every bit as bad as' for 'no worse than'

Fuck, why bother going into competition with other people if you want everyone to win?

Also, if you notice, I actually said "temporary re-allocation of affection for whoever England are playing" which is not the same as saying I hate England. Neither is "because you don't like them". But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll capitulate to the wishes of the rest of the world and wish you all the best for this, and every other, tournament.

Unless you're playing us.

I should have taken my laptop to the pub on Friday rather than attempt real conversations with people.

If they could do this all year round, please?

there's too much effort put into competing. we'd accomplish / produce more if we put the same effort into collaborating.

*shakes head*

Congratulations, Mark, you have just described everything wrong with socialism.

However, to reply to Matt DC, I'm sorry, but that "collaborative" of teams is just not something that I seem particularly stressed. Collaboration != us vs. them attitude and conflict.

There's also the vast international level of collaboration needed to stage the event in the first place.

I mean, I can't really see anything to your argument other than "why can't we all just get along?" Which is all well and good, but why can't we all just get along and play football as well? There is no intrinsic link between sport and violence, or sport and ugly nationalism (when was the last time there was a cricket thing) - you have to address the underlying cultural problems (ie why the English are such cunts when it comes to this sort of thing).

I'm now beginning to sense the frustrations that Atheists feel when they post on the discussions about religions.

There is no intrinsic link between sport and violence, or sport and ugly nationalism (when was the last time there was a cricket riot?) - you have to address the underlying cultural problems (ie why the English are such cunts when it comes to this sort of thing).

OK, I will address it. You're just wrong. Saying that there is no intrinsic link between sport and violence when SPORT AS WE KNOW IT is descended directly from violence - the Olympic Games were a result of inter-city-state rivalries in Ancient Greece which were primarily military and political conflicts deflected into sport. Football is descended from a violent medieval game involving rival gangs chasing around pigs' body parts. Organised sporting events are descended from tournaments and jousts which were RITUALISED BLOODY WARFARE designed to channel aggressive knights into beating the shit out of each other instead of either peasants or the King.

Saying that sport has no links to violence is like saying that religion has no links to culture. It's just not historically or anthropologically true.

The reason that the English are cunts about this sort of thing is because of ongoing political and social undercurrents stemming from its geographical isolation. The English are *more* violent and Nationalistic with regards to sport is a product of their "fog in channel, Europe cut off" attitude. It's not a perversion of sport, it is sport's fundamental nature and violent origins laid bare.

(x-post x3)

To a religious person, Fundamentalism (with all its issues of control and fanaticism and violence) is an aberration, an extreme which has nothing to do with their experience of something which is otherwise very positive to them. To an atheist, Fundamentalism is the ultimate logical conclusion of religion, and all its problems are the problems of religion stripped bare, evidence of why religion is fundamentally flawed.

To you sporting types, football violence is an aberration. To me, football violence seems like Fundamentalist Sport.

Last night I witnessed a car crash on the Lea Bridge Road. Two cars both with St George flags. One pulled out and the other couldn't miss him. No huge damage, a bumper fell off and a light smashed. I offered to be a witness but the guys said "don't worry mate, it's just one of those things" and started chatting about the France game. They took each other's details, shook hands and set off.

Not drawing conclusions, but I thought it worth telling.

No one has claimed there is no violence in football. No one has claimed there is no ugly racism, nationalism or gratuitous abuse. No one has claimed any of the above are necessary or desirable. What I take issue with is the Momusesque automatic and intrinsic link you draw between competition and all of the above. Take, chess, for example, which ACTUALLY IS symbolic warfare. Where are the hordes of rabidly nationalistic, violent Grand Masters?

Is, say, an ILX vs Sinister football match likely to attract as much violence and ugliness as, say, a team of NF thugs playing a team of Brixton hard nuts in a pub football championship? Its the people that are involved that are the problem, not the institution itself, which does as much good as bad, whatever you choose to think.

Hello! Look at Russia's attitudes towards international Chess during the cold war!

I am an atheist, and I don't follow that line of reasoning.

Your analogy is flawed. I know people who eventually moved from canabis to heroin. Was it because canabis was a "gateway drug" or whatever? No, that's frankly a stupid conclusion. However, their logic (or what passed for it at the time) was often something along the lines of "hey, Nancy Reagan and her anti-drug hysteria lied to me about pot, it didn't turn me into a slavering beast. Maybe they're lying about how horrible heroin is, too."

The behaviour was obvious (people who try pot sometimes move on to other drugs) but the conclusions drawn by "Daily Mail" types are incorrect. It is *their* false association of pot and heroin as being synonymous which did more damage than anything else.

I'm not saying that football is a "gateway drug" to violence. I am saying that football and football culture is SYMBOLIC of violence. Some people are unable to grasp the concept of symbolism, and read everything literally. Some people are able to look at a movie, and say "hey, that's a symbolic representation of reality" and some people look at a movie, and think that this is a depiction of reality to be emmulated and behave in all sorts of stupid copycat ways.

Who's to blame? The individual, for not having the understanding of symbolism? Or the artist and culture that produced the film with its questionable content? If it's *entirely* the former, why do we have rating systems on films?

Can we have a rating system for football: Caution. This sport contains symbolic violence and nationalism. It should not be viewed by anyone with a literal intellect, or by anyone unable to grasp the concept of symbolism? Would that be better? Ha ha ha.

Because it was THE COLD WAR! They were being rabidly nationalistic BECAUSE THEY WERE POINTING NUCLEAR MISSILES AT ONE ANOTHER! The actual chess was a minor thing here, they'd have been mentalist about flower arranging if they thought they could beat the Americans at it.

G is correct. I am enjoying the whole preposterous nature of this argument though.

Xpost - But the very problem with football is that too many people read it as symbolic warfare - see "two world wars and one World Cup" whenever we play the Germans. If people weren't so hung up on this symbolic warfare bollocks the game would be in a much healthier state.

You are supporting my very argument there. How can you say "the problem with football is that people treat it as symbolic warfare" when FOOTBALL *IS* SYMBOLIC WARFARE?!?!? The "problem" is something totally inherent to organised sport.

I think this is an appropriate place to mourn all those who perished in the Zvenigord state library riots of 1985.

::throws up hands and walks off in frustration::

How many English people watched the England vs France game? I reckon somewhere in the region of 10-15 million. A couple of hundred drunkards kick off in Croydon and one person (yes ONE) gets arrested at the stadium for punching a steward.
Some people are violent idiots. Some of those violent idiots follow the world's most popular sport. Some of them those people get involved in violent incidents at games. None of them fight BECAUSE of football - it's just a handy thing to latch onto.
These same people are kicking off every Friday night at a closing time near you. Maybe getting pissed on a Friday is SYMBOLIC WARFARE too?

Not quite following that religious fundamentalism analogy either, I'm guessing it's because I don't automatically make the red top association between fundamental and violent.

Hooligan is another word for Tory, innit?

Football is collaborative as they all sign up to the rules that say 11 players a side, 90 minutes and then the end etc. Bounded competition has been a major spur to 'progress' hasn't it?

I think symbolic warfare is amazingly brilliant, when compared to actual warfare. I think shagging is symbolic warfare too. All those spermies having fites in ladies bits trying to get to the egg. All uber k-rub the lot of it. I'm off to fall into a coma.

As. Are. You.

If you can't tell the differnce between "symbolic warfare actively descended from actual warfare" and "random things that we've decided symbolise warfare for a laff" then you're so ignorant of your own history that there is no point in further discussion.

you're so ignorant of your own history

White flag. Jumpers for goalposts. Turkey sandwiches. All a bit of fun.

x-post

Googling to help substantiate a poor memory is not the same as ignorance. It's at least a willingness to learn or back up one's opinions with evidence.

if you noticed I haven't actually argued with you anywhere, I just thought that your arguements were a load of hippy drivel. If you'd said simply, I don't like sport I'd have been more understanding to be honest.

Now, truce.

DVLA ENFORCEMENT NOTIFICATION

In order to assist other motorists in identifying potentially dangerous drivers, it's now compulsory for anyone with a lower than average IQ and driving ability to display a warning flag. The flag comprising of a red cross on a white background will be attached to the top of at least one door of their vehicle. For drivers of exceptionally low ability, additional flags are required.

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN LOCKED DUE TO HIGH LEVELS OF BOLLOCKS

Last night I witnessed a car crash on the Lea Bridge Road. Two cars both with St George flags. One pulled out and the other couldn't miss him. No huge damage, a bumper fell off and a light smashed. I offered to be a witness but the guys said "don't worry mate, it's just one of those things" and started chatting about the France game. They took each other's details, shook hands and set off..

I'd have liked to have known what would have happened if one of the guys had had tricolores streaming from the arse end of his motor. ;-)

Sport and competition are not inherently tied into violence - that's ridiculous! Sport is great because it's healthy, it stimulates parts of the brain you can't get from reading books, it also instills bonhomie, comaraderie, and ecstasy into those who watch or participate. But like all good things, some will get too great a buzz from it and take it to extremes. That's why every time I see an England flag, my first instinct is to shudder, and I guess I kind of label the driver as a particular kind of person too.

I'm quite surprised at my antipathy towards the flag-waving as I consider myself to be against the PC-brigade. After all a flag is there to be waved and displayed, football is there to be played, watched and enjoyed - they are not instruments of violence, yet those who want to will utilise them to help wreak their havoc. It's like the white extremists adopting the Clash's "White Riot" as their theme, thereby changing the message and tone of the song. I'd be mighty pissed off if somebody labelled me a Nazi every time I put on London Calling, especially since the Clash were all about representing multi-cultural styles of music and certainly weren't racists. The analogy works with the football too - as I think Matt DC said, a football tournament is as much a collaboration between nations as a competition and as long as it stays this way, there can't be any problems with it.

But as we see with the Clash, that tiny minority who go and spoil things can have a major influence over the majority. A football pub crowd who start as a bunch of merry spectators can well degenerate into a mob the moment someone shouts something witty about the nation of the other team. One thing leads to another, everyone gets drunk and joins in goading each other to new extremes of pop-jingoism.

It's like the Skinhead movements of the late sixties and seventies. The original skins cared only about three things: Reggae music, working class values and football. Once the BNP and other extremist movements had infiltrated the scene, the term "Skinhead" became synonymous with gang violence and racism. Incidentally, why the BNP chose to assimilate with groups who worshipped predominantly black styles of music is beyond me, but that's beside the point.

The image of the typical English football fan is not that of a genteel sportsman who shakes hands with his opponent after every game - he's a revved up lager lout with nothing to say but who says it the loudest anyway. Why football brings out the worst in people and not say, cricket or even rugby and boxing beats me. Maybe it's the popularity of the sport. Football is the most followed game in Britain and it's as big as any religion. I always feel like a blasphemous bastard when trying to think up witty replies to "So what team do you support?" Like religions, there are those who are inspired, those who follow, those who dedicate themselves and everything they do to it, those preach it, and those who persecute anyone else who does not hold the same view.

I know, I know, sorry.

Wonder what Strummer would have made of it all? Probably would have got his butler to reply.

...finally! It's not the flags, it's the bouze!

"Football doesn't cause violence, alcohol causes violence" is the analogy.

x-post, it wasn't the Clash comment that caused the violence, actually, it was the classist comment. Does classism cause violence, or does violence cause classism? Oh, the quandary! ;-)

I know we're all good anti-gun people, but -- is this really so stupid? Just sayin'.

those rampaging Saudi Arabia fans at USA '94. Tsk!

I know we're all good anti-gun people, but -- is this really so stupid? Just sayin'.

The problem isn't with the sentiment, which is probably pretty true. The problem is this statement is often used to oppose gun control. Which, in effect, isn't gun control at all, but laws to control which *people* get access to guns.

Those guys in Burberry turbans?

Sport makes lots of people happy, it provides entertainment to people all around the world. I can think of at least 3 or 4 elderly relatives of mine who are unlikely to get in a fight anytime soon and yet possibly literally live for watching sport in the summer.

So yes you're correct to draw a parallel between this argument and anti-religious ones, because stomping all over something on which people depend and which give people great pleasure in the name of liberalism is an utter load of bollocks in the case of football too.

Maybe that's what I get for expressing a negative viewpoint on an obviously pro-sport thread, but hey, ILX would be as boring as a football match with only one team if people refrained from expressing their opinions on the grounds that they might "stomp all over something on which people depend and which give people great pleasure".

x-post, Kate if you're not going to answer anyones suggestions as to why football is not pointless and provides pleasure then feel fully free to think you're being shouted down by a gang of permed scallies all day. As it stands the "I am not allowed to express my opinion am I" position is like #9583873 in the "Defences After Having Overstepped The Mark In An Argument" Handbook.

This argument is becoming even more pointless by the minute.

x-post so you've conclusively proved that nobody in fact enjoys football???

(that was in reference to I believe that sport is pointless at best.... )

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/images3/beards_tristanivanov.jpg

I have read every bit of this thread except the bits which just deteriorate into people talking the usual bollocks about stats and players. Unlike Ronan, who wants to pretend that his objecting to my points means that I haven't *raised* any points.

Kate: And every single one of them has been argued with (in some cases, rationally, in some cases, not) by people who love football.
DL: I'm taking a similar standpoint to you, and so are quite a lot of people, but for god's sake stop being such a baby!

Find me a point I made that has not been disagreed with. I'm not saying that I'm upset people have disagreed. I expect them to, cause after all, their fans. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous of Ronan to claim that I've not "answered anyone's suggestions".

This will x-post and it became tedious several dozen posts ago before Ronan arrived to ignore the truce and stir it all up again.

My gut feeling is that there would either be more, or there would be so little difference to to make this argument irrelevant.

Oh dear, I've let myself get suckered into this haven't I, nevermind it's lunch time - I'm off to play in the sun! Wheeeeeeeeee!

Which is what I eventually concluded about religion in the thread that I started on exactly that topic.

However, that doesn't make me want to participate in sport, OR HAVE IT FORCED UPON ME.

No, not in itself, but then all that should make us do is examine other aspects of the game besides ppl's enjoyment of it and make a decsision based on those too. With all this recent alk of "antisocial behaviour" and "gangs of youths". They could be hanging around causing trouble, the Devil makes work ect ect, or they could be OVER THE PARK PLAYING FOOTBALL! Which would you choose?

Also, football provides plenty of employment so it's good economically. You might question the salaries that top-flight footballers are paid, but this is no different from questioning the high pay of corporate Fat Cat directors. Apart from those players, you have all the people who work at the stadia, the people who make and sell the merchandise, the people who write about sport in the papers and present it on TV ect ect.

In fact there are prolly loads of things I've forgotten, which means all you are left with is the minority of ppl who cause trouble at football matches or elsewhere when the matches are being played, who, as someone has already pointed out upthread are the same ppl who cause trouble in town centres in a non-football related context on a Fri or Sat night.

And these things are all true REGARDLESS of whether you love football or hate it.

possible x-post

Yet another OTM response which also sums up another huge reason of why I hate football, and what has turned "well, I think this is wrong, but do what makes you happy" into "I FUCKING HATE IT AND IT SHOULD BE BANNED."

Which is, perhaps the asepct of this thread which made me click it in the first place, when otherwise I would just ignore it. Fucking England flags, everywhere. It's on down the pub. It's on the television. Everyone on the internet, in the office, EVERYWHERE is talking about it to the point where you literally CANNOT avoid it like you can refuse to eat meat or refuse to vote Tory or refuse to go to church or all those other everyday things you think are icky but know people do anyway.

1. Sheep
2. Goat
3. Horse
4. Cow
5. Sumptious Bulgarian Virgin Peasant Girl

kate, I think we've gathered enough to realise you hate football already, even I'm not that ignorant

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/26773.jpg

Hello ladies!

"My jacket is symbolic army chic"

Julian, glowing with purple apoplexy of rage induced by football!

http://www.soccerage.com/en/00/35400a.jpg

http://www-pp.hogia.net/sfdf/grafik/anders_frisk.gif

(Iraq is a nation w/ a deep love of football; in one news report, a portuguese reporter talked to an older man who had a picture of the portuguese national football team. Really, what are the odds that he would own a portrait of Fernando Pessoa or a Madredeus record? If one believes that multiculturalism, cultural exchanges, etc. are essential to the destruction of racism & nationalism, well, football comes as near to it as anything. Rezeptionsestetik and all that.)

Of course, if like Kate, you truly believe that "competition = vile", you're still justified in hating football. But really, arguments are competition, too (much as we'd all like to be on the "oh, we're just working towards mutual understanding!" high horse, one is still trying to convince the other guy that one's viewpoint is right)

Sit on my lap, young filly, and I'll bounce you like a contentious Euro2004 ball.

Slightly more pointless than Poison, but less so than Whitesnake.

A game of football is just like sex - I like to play, but I prefer to watch.

no it isn't.

more pointless.

the average game of football is, er, about kicking a round thing between two sticks.

But music as a whole? Not just one tiny genre, but all of music? Football is more pointless than music.

It's OK to love things that are pointless.

Football might be pointless, but it's certainly less pretentious. It doesn't offer anything to the human condition in and of itself. But it is an international language that can brings peoiple together too. Like travelling the world and depsite having no language, being able to establish a bond of communication with air guitars and random namechecking of albums.

One could argue it is more pointless because there is no end product. Nothing is being created by these players. However for something so unproductive, it is followed by more people than rock'n'roll. Rock'n'roll fans can get excited about a certain album coming out, but only if they're fans of the band. With the World Cup and Euro, almost every single soccer fan is involved. I guess this could be a good pro-footie argument. The fact that no matter what your race, religion, class, looks or music tastes, if you like football you'll have something to talk about. Maybe this is why we non-football fans get worried and het up - we don't understand and then we get jealous of all this, either referring to it as a hivemind of social backwardness or a hotspot for persecution and abuse.

Cause I can *just about* accept the argument that some sport is exercise, and exercise is good and positive. But watching sport just does not have that advantage.

(The funny thing is, I can recognise both participating in making music and listening to music as being non-pointless.)

x-post

Pardon me, but your bias is showing! What's necessarily wrong with being pretentious? Don't start with that whole argument.

watching football cannot be any more or less pointless than watching music or other art being performed. to suggest it is seems ridiculous in my mind. but that's MY opinion.

A survey revealed that the number of people in London who don't know anyone in their immediate locality was amazingly high. I submit that anything which allows someone to become part of a community of friendly people who care nothing for background or religion or any other traditional niche is a Good Thing.

As for excluding people who don't get it - that's the trouble with any community isn't it? Either sociality is possible, in which case the issue is how exclusionary it is and what the effects of exclusion are. IN this instance, the price of entry is 'like the sport' and the price of exclusion is 'irritation at one's fellow citizens'. What's not to like?

Facetious reply - because some people cannot speak English, we must stop speaking it.

x-post - David Beckham is not football. He's never said anything other than he's quite good at kicking a football and certainly never claimed to offer anything to the human condition other than putting a smile on people's faces.

Actually the parallels between football spectatorship and Techno are interesting. It's a bunch of people in a room getting all excited about something very very very trivial and having a jolly good time too. I don't think Techno generally attracts much violence (apart from the odd Gabba-Mosh), but there are always arseholes going to raves, scallywags who are there just to nick stuff, irritating candy-ravers in the US. Where the fuck am I going here and why do I always have to turn every thread into a raving thread? Just ignore me I'm digging into a corner - a corner that is high up in a tree.

no, coz ppl outside the English speaking world are bombarded with English whereas ppl outside the Swahili speaking world aren't bombarded with Swahili. And I'm sure you know a bit about football, Kate, even tho you hate the game and the baggage that goes with it, simply coz yr brain isn't like a computer where you can press the delete key at will.

I've never been to a rave, and feel utterly left out of all the cultural stuff associated with it. I wish I did though, and certainly don't view the entire activity of being full of depoliticised spit dribbling pill spastics and worthy of hate.

uh? what'chu talkin about stevem?

I've changed tack quite a lot since my original post. The flags still piss me off a lot though.

Musicians write and practice (and fuck about for months) and songs come out the end of it. Other people then go see these songs being performed.
Footballers train and practice and football matches come out the end of it. Other people go and see this game being played.

FOOTBALL is being created. That other people don't appreciate watching football is irrelevent.
Cruyff's turn or Van Basten's volley or Banks' save are all things of beauty.
Larsson's chipped goal in the 6-2 game against Rangers was a piece of art and I won't have anyone tell me differently.

Flags = a bit tacky

Footie = great (apart from to those who don't like it and have issues with it)

This thread has been locked by an ignoramus

That's exactly what I was getting at with the whole thing of "football is as pointless as rock'n'roll". Small genres whose followers like to think of their interest as representative of or speaking to all.

This may be a sweeping generalisation because I'm into music, but *some form* of music probably speaks to all humans. The genres will be incredibly different, and yes, some people are tone deaf or indifferent to music. But I think (and I could be wrong, this is my prejudice) that the human response to rhythm and to melody is something innate and universal - the genre will change with culture and time, but the urge to make and enjoy some kind of music transcends every culture.

I'm not sure what the universal equivalent to football would be. I just don't know. Something much more encompassing and basic than this notion of "organised, competative sport".

Now practice your penalties!

Sport too. Fitness, exercise, leisure, competition, challenge, enjoyment.

Some people consider this endless bombardment with the English language as a symbol of oppression and source of resentment, rather than a phenomenon which football-love should seek to emulate!

x-post:

Sport too. Fitness, exercise, leisure, competition, challenge, enjoyment.

No, I don't see all of those things which you list after sport as being subsets of sport. Maybe exercise or leisure is universal human nature, but sport? No, sport is the subset.

i like that actually. but then i like football and techno, ha.

This may be a sweeping generalisation because I'm into sport, but *some form* of sport probably speaks to all humans. The games will be incredibly different, and yes, some people are or indifferent to sport. But I think (and I could be wrong, this is my prejudice) that the human response to competition and to physical achievement is something innate and universal - the game will change with culture and time, but the urge to participate and enjoy some kind of sport transcends every culture.

Kate, with the changes above you are one of those people who are "tone deaf or indifferent"(from your original).

You might actually have a point there. The competative urge is something that I feel human beings have to try to rise above because it is ultimately self defeating. But that doesn't mean that it's not universal or innate.

Aldo, replace "sport" with "competition" or even "game" and I might see your point. Because "game" fits there (even animals play) but not all games are *sport*.

Organised Sport or Things even animals can do?

e.g. one definition is that sport is something played out of doors, so crown bowls is a sport and 10-pin bowling is a game. Tennis or badminton are definitely sports, so how come they are played indoors?

Is motor racing a sport? Etc.

x-post - both sport and games are subsets of a larger set. All dachsunds are dogs, but not all dogs are dachshunds. But remember, subsets may still intersect, hence why some games may be sport, but not all, and vice versa. I'm trying to get at the larger set - "Play"? - which sport and games are all subsets of. Being inclusive, you know? Something that I know your competative types find difficult. ;-)

That "and" is pulling double shifts there, Chris.

i am competetive in many things - attention, for example, but i keep it in check generally i think (i hope).

To answer Stevem, about what I'm competative about...

I wonder if debate is how I exercise my competative urges, because I'm better at manouvering verbally than I am physically. I'd just rather be competative about something I can participate in, instead of being competative by proxy. (Which is how I view people who *follow* rather than participate in sport.)

I do enjoy debate, and I can probably appear quite combatative about it. Though it bothers me when my opponent views it as an actual fight rather than a debate (which seems to have happened quite a bit on this thread - a result of too much competative sport)? A debate is about the exchange of views, it's not an attempt to change the other person's mind. I see it more like mental exercise than competition or point-scoring.

When debate turns into argument, when it becomes competative, about trying to score points or hurt the opponent, that's when I *try* to stop myself.

Damn, I've got to come back later cause we're having database issues, but this is interesting and I will reply.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that a lot of my "competition is shite" stance is because I have such overwhelming competative urges that I constantly have to fight. (Or else I'd be an even bigger asshole than most of ILX believes me to be.)

Maybe it's hypocrasy, then, but I don't think so, it's more like the Recovering Addict's fear of drugs - GET THAT SHIT AWAY FROM ME, THAT SHIT REALLY FUCKED ME UP, I WANT IT NOWHERE NEAR ME or something like that.

which areas do people feel they are most competetive in then? i guess i'm interested in kate's, doglatin's and maybe koogs (or any other sport-hataz) answers especially.

I dunno to be honest. Competing isn't really in my nature. Participating is though - I like to get involved, but generally if I'm challenged, I'd rather find some other way to deal with things. The attitude of my posts to this thread is testament to that. I guess the only times I am competitive is when it comes to music but I don't generally knock people with different music tastes as me, preferring to take at least some kind of interest in theirs, or if I see that I'll never get along with them on that subject, I won't bother mentioning it.
Competing seems like an empty goal to me. If I am in an endless argument with someone, I'll be the first to say "Y'know what, fuck it you're right, I lose". It's easier to do that than battle it out till the cows come home, even if I still feel as though I'm right. And if I did win the argument, I wouldn't feel my heart swell with pride like one would think. I'd normally feel bad or guilty about myself for trying so hard that I won someone over and possibly shattered their viewpoint. I would rather negotiate than fight.
At the same time I always play devil's advocate in such situations - normally just to see what people are made of and to stimulate other areas of conversation. Most people see this as highly annoying though.
I've never ever been good at competing - there are few sports I'm any good at; I don't understand card games; chess I enjoy but barely ever win; I don't gamble.
One sport I do enjoy playing is tennis. I'm no Boris Becker but I like to play every so often and it's good fun. If I lose, I don't beat myself up about it and I don't feel particularly vindicated if I win. I just see it as I hit a ball about for an hour or so and during that time it was fun to concentrate on getting that ball in the right bit of the court. Normally I forget the score when I'm playing, not just because I'm not conccentrating but because I couldn't care less. I saw far too many bad losers and winners when I used to go to kids' birthday parties when I was little - a lot of the stuff that goes with sport reminds me of that. It's showing off, it's a grotesque display of pride or an ugly display of hatred. You win some, you lose some - does it really matter?

Many people would describe me as a wuss, too scared to face up to a confrontational situation. Maybe that's true but I find I have more fun trying to stimulate others than trying to battle them down.

I was playing a cd of my dj-ing at a house party a few months back. Everyone was enjoying it, everyone was having fun when some bloke who I don't think had been invited switched off my cd and put his on. I got a bit pissed off with this as I'd made the mix especially for the party and besides, his music killed the dancefloor completely. So I went up to him and explained that I was a bit pissed off because he'd switched off my set and I'd done it especially. This is the most competitive I've been in recent months I think. He just said, "Yeh well it's my turn now - your set had been going on for half an hour and it's my go". I just repeated that I was pretty pissed off that he'd just killed it and he offered me a drink. My girlfriend turned to me and said "You're awfully good at negotiating with people" and I replied that I'd rather have a free drink than a potentially broken nose over what is essentially a trivial argument.

There's no way in hell I'm going to be competative about something I can't compete in (such as sport), so we're quite similar on that. I think, honestly, that many of the sports fans on this thread would probably feel the same if asked to participate in sport, but they are able to be competative by proxy.

But I think the main difference is that I have this weird almost obsessive-compulsive *need* to just keep arguing. Like it's a competition to get in the last word or something.

Growing up, I had an older brother who had to be better than me at everything, so there kind of wasn't a point in competing at anything, because he would *always* beat me. The only way to compete was to *not* compete - to find something that I could do that he couldn't do, so there could be no competition. I found music.

is this not, by definition gaining a competetive advantage?

And YMOF, everything in life isn't a competition, even an ignorant sod like me can recognise that

Also, to be nitpicking, I think "sport" could be considered the equivalent of "popular music", not "techno", because it's pretty clear that the category encompasses a lot more and a lot more ppl than Techno does. "Football" could conceivably be "techno".

I wonder if debate is how I exercise my competative urges, because I'm better at manouvering verbally than I am physically. I'd just rather be competative about something I can participate in, instead of being competative by proxy. (Which is how I view people who *follow* rather than participate in sport.)

But ppl who follow sports *do* participate, by discussing the subject. Experts will have amazing amounts of knowedlege to back their claims up, and in football discussion too there is ideology, meaning that beyond the cold hard facts of the results, there are also various philosophies on what makes for a good game, a good strategy, etc., which can be very complex and philosophical. It's only "by proxy" if you think discussing Marx or Nietzsche is being competitive "by proxy".

A debate is about the exchange of views, it's not an attempt to change the other person's mind.

Well, that's the utopian way of looking at it, but both parties need to have at least *some* interest in defending their ideas for the debate to turn interesting, no? I can relate to your dislike of intense arguing (I feel the same way, even tho I often engage in it), but I think that in every worthwhile debate I've ever engaged in "winning" was at least a part (tho hopefully not the biggest) of my motivation, and I don't think that's very unusual.

Maybe it's hypocrasy, then, but I don't think so, it's more like the Recovering Addict's fear of drugs - GET THAT SHIT AWAY FROM ME, THAT SHIT REALLY FUCKED ME UP, I WANT IT NOWHERE NEAR ME or something like that.

There's drugs and drugs, tho. I don't think football should be compared to heroin - marijuana might be appropriate, or perhaps alcohol...in that, if you have an addictive personality, you should stay the fuck away, but if you don't, a joint or a beer every once in a while won't hurt you.

This sort of confuses me: if you sought out something based on *him not knowing anything about it*, you were clearly competing in some way; you were drawing out your own territory, saying "yeah, he might know about this and this and this, but I know about THAT!" This feels like a sort of competition to me, tho clearly a healthy and worthwhile one.

1966 and all that may become famous, and that's it. No-one is going to watch today's football in 100 years time.

xpost w/ Andre F and chris

So, all ye of conflicting thought, hippies and others, who's going to triumph in the battle of old school ideology that is Russia vs Portugal?

Detracting from the football side of things for a moment, have you ever been in one of those "Past Times" shops that sell notebooks and diaries that look like ration books, calendars featuring black and white images of wartime darlings going away to fight/coming back? I see this as kind of sick. I mean what kind of sicko buys this stuff? I asked my grandma whether she was going to watch a documentary on the war. "Not on your Nelly," she said "it was bad enough the first time round".

But of course one can argue that during the war there was a sense of camaraderie amongst people that had never been felt before. Everyone from soldiers to civilians pulling together to protect themselves and fight a common enemy. Rich and poor hiding in the subways, using ration booklets to feed their families, a levelling of the nation in some ways. This is the argument for this kind of nostalgia.

But I ask you - what was better, huddling from the cold in the underground with the fear of being bombed? Or living in peace?

Russia

That's a good analogy. Football : Techno as Sport : Popular Music, because it leaves room for idea that there is another world outside which is still part of the same universe.

But ppl who follow sports *do* participate, by discussing the subject.

Hrmmmm. Do they? I see your point, but it's the participation of critics. Also, I suspect that men like football or even follow it more than they care about, precisely *because* it gives them something guaranteed to talk about down the pub.

both parties need to have at least *some* interest in defending their ideas for the debate to turn interesting, no?

Yes, I agree. Both parties need to have an emotional or intellectual investment in a subject in order for it to be interesting, otherwise it's a purely academic interest. But that doesn't mean... shit, fire alarm. Need to leave....

OK, sorry for the delay, we all had to go and be evacuated coz of a bomb scare.

Chris, you're talking utter shite and you know it.

I think you mean a kind of channelling of competitive spirit into sports / games / leisure activities(!) etc

x-post with Michael

I suppose you're going to call me an ignorant fool now aren't you?

Or croquet. Nothing is as competitive and hurtfull and yet no-one get's injured unless the gin overwhelms them and they fall on a wicket or they play barefoot like a fool.

in fact, don't tell me I don't really care.

Funnily enough, I am not a very competitive soul by nature, but I love watching the football.

::jumps up and down::

(j/k) (I swear)

C'mon Chris, keep up

I've got bigger boobs than you, Tim.

Dave B OTM. No more needed saying after this.

I like what Stevem says about historic events.

yes, very good, and no you didn't explain it very well at all, hence the fact that I called you on it, this, added to the fact that you were incredibly rude to me, made me carry on biting when I should have walked away. Happy now?

Him: Take it you won't be watching the football tonight, Charlie?

Me: No, I've got better things to do.

Him: You should!

Me: Why?

Him: It's patriotic. It's taking pride in your country!

Me: resists urge to jump over the desk and shove staples down his throat What has football got to do with patriotism?

Him: It's the clubbing together of nations, plus it's a good laugh.

Me: I dunno, it causes as much trouble as it does good.

Him: Yeh, there's a bit of hooliganism but I'm not one of them.

Me: I'd still rather take pride in my country by going out for a walk in it.

Him: You've got all your life to do that! Stay indoors and watch the box!

Me: Hah! Who are we playing against then?

Him: Switzerland.

Me: Switzerland? But I thought they were neutral?!

Him: Oh shoosh. I'm going to nip home tonight, open a can of beer or three. Finish off with a bottle of wine, if we win! See, this is what you're missing out on Charlie!

Me: I can get pissed when I want, I don't need an excuse.

Heheh, I love being a righteous pain in the arse.

shit, actually could a moderator please delete that last post?

MWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH! Oh dear.

Chris complaining about me being "rude" to *him*. How rich. I shall savour this moment a long time.

¹ Shergar.

Perhaps if I think about it that way, I can perhaps see the appeal of football.

I just wish football didn't have all the other tedious shit like violence and nationalism and loutism associated with it which Dog Latin brought up in the first place.

(To which I am sure that someone is going to say that they could see the appeal of horse racing if it didn't have all that tedious posh shit associated with it, so fair play.)

x-post, Chris, you've hurled far worse at me in the past. I am not going to argue about this.

1. horse and greyhound racing exist soley for gambling, if there wasn't any betting, there wouldn't be any racing.

2. anders frisk is a SHEX GAWD

3. going back to the original question (ha!) i wonder if the right are slightly upset about all these bandwagon-jumpers suddenly waving the flag (their flag?) about, or is that just me being indie?

Case in point, the Ascot yesterday. The Chestnut that won was held back in the pack by its jockey, conserving its energy for the final stretch. The Bay with the blaze went flat out from the start. If you'd stuck those two horses in a paddock, who knows which one would have won. But knowing the horse's strengths (sprinter vs. distance runner, etc.) is part of the skill of horse-racing as much as having a fast horse is.

I don't mean actual race strategy I mean "Do not win this race, we need a better price to throw money on for the next one, or a better weight for the next one".

I mean if the cynical view of football is that it's a front for violence and nationalism and tribalism etc etc etc then well, even a LAYMAN'S view of horse-racing can deduce that it's built on money, on betting.

Flags themselves remain unoffensive to me but the increase of exposed beerguts, tuneless singing and tourists being threatened is a most unfortunate side-effect.

But somehow it is subliminally linked together as if to say "football fans who carry flags are a bunch of BNP/racists", I don't think it is right. It's not that much different than saying "French people are all wankers"?

The problem surely isn't football fans with flags, but the racists innit.

lols

We need to get Kate back on this thread for more fun!

i anticipate a few world cup parties.

But, but, French people r all wankers, n'est-ce pas?

Lolz I'm stuck at work til 3-fucking-AM and I'm a little drunk, so excuse my casual "tribal" racism

I was let out for 2 hours 6pm-8pm, I made the most of it!

quoted for lols

xpost - Fantastic!

Makes a nice change from the england ones, plus good to see we don't have a monopoly on boneheaded patriotism.

Also I like guns and jesus.

No one else's patriotism is anything like as boneheaded as England's.

I am quite nervous about Our Little Trip to Manchester, in case I snap, like that Michael Douglas film, "Bug Day".

Note to self: Make film about Manc loony called "Bug Day".

Though obviously anyone with an Iranian flag on their car is actually a violent anti-semite who want to nuke Israel.

"No one else's patriotism is anything like as boneheaded as England's."

It's the Dutch who have sold millions of orange plastic nazi helmets in the past few weeks, you know. The lovely, laid-back Dutch...

Hey, yeah! What do you do instead?!

no, it's one of my bugbears. the *union* flag is slightly asymmetric and people don't seem to know which way is up (thicker white stripe uppermost on the left)(plus they insist on calling it a jack which only applies to boats). the england flag is as symmetrical as they come though.

oh, and a union flag flown the wrong way up signifies 'distress'. we don't do disrepect, We Are British! 8)

http://www.answers.com/topic/union-jack

(actually i have a question. have seen soldiers with a stars and stripes on their uniforms but with the stars on the right. whas that all about?)

Old Trafford, for the England Jamaica game, innit.

actual 'football hooligans' in England never actually wore face paint did they?

face paint is just something kids do, and a few adults who want to regress to child-like fervour. it seems relatively harmless. not that i'd ever dream of slapping some on myself (or even wave a flag).

We are not allowed in if we wear Jamaica colours, by the way, according to the FA website. That's put the kybosh on the Algernon P Razzamatazz wolly hat I was planning to wear.

The ICF used to venture into battle with painted faces, curly wigs, and giant claret-and-blue jester's hats.

http://www.cocosplayground.com/Clown%20Juggler.gif

I sort of assumed this was the other way around: "We want to support our country, but the Union Jack is tainted by association with the BNP. Let's use a more restrictive, purer version, we'll handily sidestep the whole nationalism business, it can't fail!"

(this is unlikely to catch on, I realise)

the reason why you're seeing more cars with two flags on them this year is that whsmiths are selling them in double packs (i noticed this lunchtime)

(OK, I was wrong, I admit it, sorry, will learn for future use)

end of tether has been reached.

(unless flag is russian, or iranian, or german)

why are Russian, Iranian or German flags ok?

yes, double the 'ha ha england beat you in most recent meeting' fun :)

if the flag is on the bonnet i would not see it if i was drunk.

i don't know why the iranian flag made me happy! maybe because i imagined it belonged to mark s.

it's like cheering on Pete Sampras or Venus Williams.

(xpost - how could you forget Poland, largest representation of Celtic players, innit?)

but germany don't seem to be as invincible to me (invincibility being why cheering on sampras and venus was never fun) (well i cheer venus now she's so far from invincible) (also sampras was just boring)