BBC news about the gay chants.

[Official Old Man]

Can I have my say please?
I personally am more offended by the chant when a goalkeeper takes a kick. Building up and then shouting "you're s**t, ahhhhhhh"
To me this is blatant swearing for no reason and would be the first chant I would get removed. But it's a football stadium where we expect this sort of chanting and so I put up with it. I am thankful that the many people sat around me in the upper east are all well behaved, non swearing, fans.

 

[birthofanorange]

Rubbish. I can tell what's right and what's wrong.

In your opinion

The media reports are crap, so what. The point is, homophobia in matches isn't needed, it doesn't add to the atmosphere, and it would be better to leave it in the past.

Yes, genuine homophobia is not needed...we just disagree about what is and what is not.


It will be a mix. Most will just be taking the piss, but some will mean it more than that. So do you think fans should be allowed to take the piss by signing 'you're just a town full of pakis' or is that somehow different?

Yes, it is different, for the many reasons that have already been given on this thread.


We're just going to have to agree to disagree as this is going nowhere...for a change. Peace.

 

[abujablue]

Too right! I mean, the fact that they proudly refer to themselves as such is neither here nor there.

Ipswich do call themselves Tractor Boys, but do they call themselves 6-finger in-breds? The same could be said of Norwich (where there would be more of a case). There is a certain degree of double standards involved...

 

[TheMajor]

Ridiculous. Chanting "We can see you holding hands is clearly a joke". We aren't really holding hands.

Speak for yourself ! In times of high tension during the match I quite often hold the hand of anyone nearby.:safeway:

 

[Twinkle Toes]

You couldn't be more wrong. I've just been trying to establish some facts and if it's come over as 'looking for an argument' it's only because it's been like trying to get blood out of a stone (I don't just mean you). Most people have been quite evasive as most people haven't really thought it through and it's taken a lot of prompting for people to look deeper than their initial knee-jerk reaction - and maybe taken themselves to places they weren't expecting. If some people have thought a bit deeper about the whole thing then it's been worth it, but I guess most will keep their prejudices and like you I've grown weary of the fray. Toodles.

Fair play to ya Mr B, an excellent riposte to my rather nawtee Python dig. You're dead right about the wearisome nature of the whole goddam issue(s). Bleedin' humans, who'd want to be one eh?

 

[hart's shirt]

One question would be exactly how many members of the BHASC would be fully in agreement with the report. If NSC is anything to go by (and I appreciate that there are wide differences here), one would still hesitate to say it was unanimous support from 'over 380 members'. Their roles within the SC permit Liz Costa and Sarah Watts to make statements on behalf of the SC as a whole, but I'd be surprised if all 380+ were in agreement.

Were I a current member of the SC (I was a member several years ago), I'd have publically criticised the report whilst supporting the overall stance taken. Quite simply, the statistics are facile and the report is amateurish. For example, Brighton fans being subjected to homophobic abuse in "at least 57% all of their matches so far this season" would suggest that 43% of the matches there was none. So nothing in almost half the games then. Hardly a convincing argument. Of course, statistics can be used to argue either way - there was no homophobic abuse in 7 of the 9 matches in the 2 months between 21st August 2012 and 20th October 2012. Or at least, "nothing audible". The terminology used gives the impression of assuming guilt even when there is none found, i.e. 'if we'd have had better hearing, we'd have caught them. And they might still have been thinking it.' It's impossible to overlook the obvious bias in words chosen.

The opening line of the report declares the following:
"For many years now the fans of Brighton & Hove Albion have been subjected to a barrage of homophobic abuse from visiting fans..."
That's quite a statement, full of hyperbole with the use of "barrage". One would expect the report to support this deluge of vitriol coming from the AMEX away end.

And yet, that's not backed up by what's in the report. Considering Albion's Championship games, for the first 6 home matches at the AMEX there was no abuse. Or "nothing audible" - perhaps as much of an admission of a failure to prove as the reader will get.

So travelling supporters of Cardiff City, Barnsley, Sheffield Wednesday, Birmingham City, Ipswich Town and Middlesborough should be applauded. As should fans of Peterborough United, Bristol City, Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Burnley and Huddersfield Town. So that's away supporters of 12 of the 23 other Championship clubs whose behaviour should not be brought into question. With games against Leicester City, Blackpool and Wolverhampton Wanderers still to come and the appraisal of Charlton supporters still to be announced, the report suggests that only 7 Championship clubs' supporters of the 23 could be in any way criticised.

However, it's not even 7 clubs when it comes to supporter behaviour. One of the Blackburn Rovers players is alleged to have made homophobic gestures which are not described in the report, but there is no mention of any homophobic abuse by visiting Rovers supporters. Of the 6 clubs remaining, no direct quotes of abuse were given to the following clubs, but rather generic terms like "several different chants" (Leeds United) and "sporadic chanting reported" (Watford).

Of the 4 clubs remaining, Bolton Wanderers, Crystal Palace, Millwall, and Hull City, travelling supporters appear to be directly culpable with chants quoted from the first two sets of supporters. Putting aside the matter of whether the quotes ascribed to supporters are homophobic, simply offensive (because the quotes may contain words offensive to some) or a combination of the two, what cannot be denied is that they were obviously overheard and subsequently reported as such. Millwall and Hull City supporters are alleged to have been engaged in making abusive comments after the games themselves leading to 3 arrests in the case of the latter supporters.

When taken into the context over the season as a whole, the report suggests that these incidents are far outweighed by travelling supporters exhibiting good behaviour. This is a far cry from the "barrage of homophobic abuse" as claimed at the outset of the report.

In conclusion, if the aim of the report is "to provide demonstrative experiences from members of BHASC over the season to date", one might reasonably conclude from the evidence shown that it has summarily failed to do so.

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

One question would be exactly how many members of the BHASC would be fully in agreement with the report. If NSC is anything to go by (and I appreciate that there are wide differences here), one would still hesitate to say it was unanimous support from 'over 380 members'. Their roles within the SC permit Liz Costa and Sarah Watts to make statements on behalf of the SC as a whole, but I'd be surprised if all 380+ were in agreement.

Were I a current member of the SC (I was a member several years ago), I'd have publically criticised the report whilst supporting the overall stance taken. Quite simply, the statistics are facile and the report is amateurish. For example, Brighton fans being subjected to homophobic abuse in "at least 57% all of their matches so far this season" would suggest that 43% of the matches there was none. So nothing in almost half the games then. Hardly a convincing argument. Of course, statistics can be used to argue either way - there was no homophobic abuse in 7 of the 9 matches in the 2 months between 21st August 2012 and 20th October 2012. Or at least, "nothing audible". The terminology used gives the impression of assuming guilt even when there is none found, i.e. 'if we'd have had better hearing, we'd have caught them. And they might still have been thinking it.' It's impossible to overlook the obvious bias in words chosen.

The opening line of the report declares the following:
"For many years now the fans of Brighton & Hove Albion have been subjected to a barrage of homophobic abuse from visiting fans..."
That's quite a statement, full of hyperbole with the use of "barrage". One would expect the report to support this deluge of vitriol coming from the AMEX away end.

And yet, that's not backed up by what's in the report. Considering Albion's Championship games, for the first 6 home matches at the AMEX there was no abuse. Or "nothing audible" - perhaps as much of an admission of a failure to prove as the reader will get.

So travelling supporters of Cardiff City, Barnsley, Sheffield Wednesday, Birmingham City, Ipswich Town and Middlesborough should be applauded. As should fans of Peterborough United, Bristol City, Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Burnley and Huddersfield Town. So that's away supporters of 12 of the 23 other Championship clubs whose behaviour should not be brought into question. With games against Leicester City, Blackpool and Wolverhampton Wanderers still to come and the appraisal of Charlton supporters still to be announced, the report suggests that only 7 Championship clubs' supporters of the 23 could be in any way criticised.

However, it's not even 7 clubs when it comes to supporter behaviour. One of the Blackburn Rovers players is alleged to have made homophobic gestures which are not described in the report, but there is no mention of any homophobic abuse by visiting Rovers supporters. Of the 6 clubs remaining, no direct quotes of abuse were given to the following clubs, but rather generic terms like "several different chants" (Leeds United) and "sporadic chanting reported" (Watford).

Of the 4 clubs remaining, Bolton Wanderers, Crystal Palace, Millwall, and Hull City, travelling supporters appear to be directly culpable with chants quoted from the first two sets of supporters. Putting aside the matter of whether the quotes ascribed to supporters are homophobic, simply offensive (because the quotes may contain words offensive to some) or a combination of the two, what cannot be denied is that they were obviously overheard and subsequently reported as such. Millwall and Hull City supporters are alleged to have been engaged in making abusive comments after the games themselves leading to 3 arrests in the case of the latter supporters.

When taken into the context over the season as a whole, the report suggests that these incidents are far outweighed by travelling supporters exhibiting good behaviour. This is a far cry from the "barrage of homophobic abuse" as claimed at the outset of the report.

In conclusion, if the aim of the report is "to provide demonstrative experiences from members of BHASC over the season to date", one might reasonably conclude from the evidence shown that it has summarily failed to do so.

Excellent post. Couldn't agree more with your 1st & 3rd paragraph. If Liz Costa wishes to take a stand against homophobic abuse then that's commendable. What's not so commendable is the platform used to take the stance. Her view was not representative of my own.

 

[hart's shirt]

Excellent post. Couldn't agree more with your 1st & 3rd paragraph. If Liz Costa wishes to take a stand against homophobic abuse then that's commendable. What's not so commendable is the platform used to take the stance. Her view was not representative of my own.

Thanks, Dan. If one's going to effectively castigate supporters of other clubs, one's got to have some strong, conclusive evidence to back it up.

Frankly, it didn't have any of that. Even with the log of matches, the report looked like it had been thrown together in an afternoon. 8 pages is wholly insufficient for a matter of such magnitude. One would imagine it would be ripped apart as evidence if it ever appeared in a court of law - too much hearsay, not sufficient detail, no attributable quotes, statements that are not supported with the evidence found, etc.

Even the editing was poor - no capitalisation of the (H) next to Peterborough, lack of punctuation in "father and son pair of Brighton fans were walking away from the ground...", etc. This all adds to the amateurish feel when reading it. It's difficult to take something seriously when there's obviously been little care taken in the presentation.

Sadly, the shoddy report may well make it harder for homophobic abuse within football to be taken as seriously by players, supporters, clubs and authorities as it needs to be.

Despite their best intentions, I believe BHASC have scored an own goal here.

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

Thanks, Dan. If one's going to effectively castigate supporters of other clubs, one's got to have some strong, conclusive evidence to back it up.

Frankly, it didn't have any of that. Even with the log of matches, the report looked like it had been thrown together in an afternoon. 8 pages is wholly insufficient for a matter of such magnitude. One would imagine it would be ripped apart as evidence if it ever appeared in a court of law - too much hearsay, not sufficient detail, no attributable quotes, statements that are not supported with the evidence found, etc.

Even the editing was poor - no capitalisation of the (H) next to Peterborough, lack of punctuation in "father and son pair of Brighton fans were walking away from the ground...", etc. This all adds to the amateurish feel when reading it. It's difficult to take something seriously when there's obviously been little care taken in the presentation.

Sadly, the shoddy report may well make it harder for homophobic abuse within football to be taken as seriously by players, supporters, clubs and authorities as it needs to be.

Despite their best intentions, I believe BHASC have scored an own goal here.

Again I have to agree. I only wish you had posted a little earlier in the thread.

 

[hart's shirt]

Again I have to agree. I only wish you had posted a little earlier in the thread.

Appreciate it. I wanted to wait and see if anyone else was going to take the angle about the report itself rather than whether something is or isn't homophobic abuse.

Hopefully the thread's been added to in a constructive way, albeit one that's critical of fellow Albion supporters.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's a complex quite different issue from racism. Not any "better" or worse but different.

Not directed at people for being gay (like racism) but directed at anybody in the belief that being gay is crap. I suppose the exception is the "you're just a town full of ####" which rather than personal is attacking a home town because Asian people also live there.

I do not consider "we can see you holding hands" homophobic and I doubt a judge would. Other things I've heard, yes very much so.

Most the gay people I talk to find it all quite funny, especially the you're too ugly thing. I've recounted the stronger chants and again they have usually struggled not to laugh. However I think that's mostly about the ridiculous of it and quite importantly they are not hearing it within a hostile environment.

The reaction to it is also complex. Are you offended because you support gay rights or are you offended because you find homosexuality distasteful and hate being accused of being gay ?

I agree this campaign looks a little amateurish, but the best way to counter it is to simply make it public especially on TV. Sorry to stereotype women but I'd imagine most don't find pissed up lads chanting homophobic nonsense in a football stadium particularly attractive.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

And I think that says a lot about a certain section of Brighton fans. I just cannot fathom why people can't see the hypocrisy in it all. It is black and white!

According to (a Forest fan on) the Leicester forum, our fans sang something pretty disgusting at Derby. Can anyone corroborate it? I simply refuse to believe that it is true.

Pre Match Thread Brighton Hove Albion Vs Leicester City - Page 6

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

According to (a Forest fan on) the Leicester forum, our fans sang something pretty disgusting at Derby. Can anyone corroborate it? I simply refuse to believe that it is true.

Why ? I find it completely believable. A song was at least started at Wednesday about David Jones.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Why ? I find it completely believable. A song was at least started at Wednesday about David Jones.

Okay, I'll re-phrase that. I refuse to believe it on the third-hand say so of Forest fan on a Leicester board. That's why I'm asking if anyone can confirm it. I'm pretty confident its untrue.


A few people tried to start the Jones stuff and were told to shut up by those around them. This is in a whole different league. Nobody would be sick enough to base a chant on that, SURELY?

 

[abujablue]

I am interested about the 4 "good" teams from the report:

Cardiff City
Barnsley
Ipswich Town
Derby County

Was no abuse recorded because they are family-orientated, friendly clubs or because there was no atmosphere or banter?

 

[Nibble]

Nothing against a bit of casual homophobic chanting myself.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

According to (a Forest fan on) the Leicester forum, our fans sang something pretty disgusting at Derby. Can anyone corroborate it? I simply refuse to believe that it is true.

Pre Match Thread Brighton Hove Albion Vs Leicester City - Page 6

I went to Derby and don't remember hearing anything like that. The majority of chants there were to a random Palace fan sitting with the home fans giving it the big 'un. There were threads about it on Nsc as the fans to the left couldn't see it due to a high wall in the way.

 

[London Irish]

My two-penny'worth.
1) Congratulations to the B&HA SC and the Gay Football Supporters Network for putting the work in compiling the reports. Long overdue and it's really moved the issue up the agenda, bravo.
2) The central issue for me in this entire debate (surprisingly not discussed enough in this thread, and sadly completely dodged by those opposing what the SC is doing) is why no gay professional footballer feels able to come out in this country and, alongside that, why there are so few out gay voices on football supporters forums like this one and those of other clubs - the obvious answer to me, is that there remains a very strong climate of discrimination even in these so-called enlightened times, and while the chanting identified by the SC might not be responsible for creating that (obviously it's a wider problem throughout society), it certainly reinforces it - and that's wrong and something must be done about it.
3) Is the example of how football has fought racism a realistic parallel? Yes - the parallel is strong with homophobia as both are anti-discrimination/civil rights issues.
4) But isn't it the same as anti-welsh, anti-scottish, anti-northern, anti-west country etc etc chants? Not at all - there is no widespread virulent discrimination in this country against people being from Wales or from Yorkshire or from Devon, etc etc so the comparison doesn't work - it's facile.
5) But doesn't it sterilise traditional football culture. No, modern all-seater stadia and high prices do that, not stopping racist and homophobic chanting. The proof is going to somewhere like the Millentor at St Pauli, where you'll see a far more vibrant terrace-based, singing-based atmosphere than you'll ever see at the Amex with its traditional gobby homophobic set of away fans - but these St Pauli fans have also led anti-racist/anti-homophobia campaigning.
6) How do you practically draw the line between milder comments ("holding hands") and more aggressive chanting ("queers" "aids" etc). I don't think you can, it's all got to go, just like all chanting references to a player's colour had to go in the past. Did we lose much by getting rid of mild racially-charged banter? No. My football experience won't be scarred by not hearing the holding hands chant again, will yours?
7) Think of the children! I have a lot of sympathy with those who don't want their kids to listen to homophobic chanting, my kids aged 6 and 10 have season tickets after all. But that's not my primary worry, I think parents can explain to kids right and wrong. I don't think we see kids being put off going to the Amex by homophobic chanting, judging by the large numbers that do go. But can we say the same about Brighton's large gay community? I think the chanting reinforces a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere for gay fans attending the Amex, as racist chanting did for black fans at grounds up and down the country in the past, and that's the main reason why something must be done about it.
8) What about our gay chants that try to answer the homophobic gay chanting? Does it really have to be stated that chants aimed at belittling or confusing the homophobes are not themselves homophobic, as some seem to rather oddly believe on this thread? It's the intent behind the language that's crucial, not the language itself. I've chanted the "too ugly to be gay" many times, as I'm sure many have on here in an attempt to do SOMETHING. For me, as long as the authorities take so little action on this issue, it's perfectly legitimate for our fans to take direct action themselves and attempt to satirise and belittle the haters. In the circumstances when the authorities really start cracking down on homophobia in stadiums, then will our riposte chants confuse the issue and act as a defence cover for the haters? That's quite possible, but this then becomes an issue of tactical judgment at a certain time rather than of principle - it might be more sensible to put them on backburner in those circumstances if anti-homophobic laws start being properly enforced. But the authorities are NOT showing that willingness at the moment, so for me it remains open season on the homophobes and perfectly legitimate to fight fire with fire. And I'm pretty enough to be gay, which is an added bonus.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

My two-penny'worth.
1) Congratulations to the B&HA SC and the Gay Football Supporters Network for putting the work in compiling the reports. Long overdue and it's really moved the issue up the agenda, bravo.
2) The central issue for me in this entire debate (surprisingly not discussed enough in this thread, and sadly completely dodged by those opposing what the SC is doing) is why no gay professional footballer feels able to come out in this country and, alongside that, why there are so few out gay voices on football supporters forums like this one and those of other clubs - the obvious answer to me, is that there remains a very strong climate of discrimination even in these so-called enlightened times, and while the chanting identified by the SC might not be responsible for creating that (obviously it's a wider problem throughout society), it certainly reinforces it - and that's wrong and something must be done about it.
3) Is the example of how football has fought racism a realistic parallel? Yes - the parallel is strong with homophobia as both are anti-discrimination/civil rights issues.
4) But isn't it the same as anti-welsh, anti-scottish, anti-northern, anti-west country etc etc chants? Not at all - there is no widespread virulent discrimination in this country against people being from Wales or from Yorkshire or from Devon, etc etc so the comparison doesn't work - it's facile.
5) But doesn't it sterilise traditional football culture. No, modern all-seater stadia and high prices do that, not stopping racist and homophobic chanting. The proof is going to somewhere like the Millentor at St Pauli, where you'll see a far more vibrant terrace-based, singing-based atmosphere than you'll ever see at the Amex with its traditional gobby homophobic set of away fans - but these St Pauli fans have also led anti-racist/anti-homophobia campaigning.
6) How do you practically draw the line between milder comments ("holding hands") and more aggressive chanting ("queers" "aids" etc). I don't think you can, it's all got to go, just like all chanting references to a player's colour had to go in the past. Did we lose much by getting rid of mild racially-charged banter? No. My football experience won't be scarred by not hearing the holding hands chant again, will yours?
7) Think of the children! I have a lot of sympathy with those who don't want their kids to listen to homophobic chanting, my kids aged 6 and 10 have season tickets after all. But that's not my primary worry, I think parents can explain to kids right and wrong. I don't think we see kids being put off going to the Amex by homophobic chanting, judging by the large numbers that do go. But can we say the same about Brighton's large gay community? I think the chanting reinforces a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere for gay fans attending the Amex, as racist chanting did for black fans at grounds up and down the country in the past, and that's the main reason why something must be done about it.
8) What about our gay chants that try to answer the homophobic gay chanting? Does it really have to be stated that chants aimed at belittling or confusing the homophobes are not themselves homophobic, as some seem to rather oddly believe on this thread? It's the intent behind the language that's crucial, not the language itself. I've chanted the "too ugly to be gay" many times, as I'm sure many have on here in an attempt to do SOMETHING. For me, as long as the authorities take so little action on this issue, it's perfectly legitimate for our fans to take direct action themselves and attempt to satirise and belittle the haters. In the circumstances when the authorities really start cracking down on homophobia in stadiums, then will our riposte chants confuse the issue and act as a defence cover for the haters? That's quite possible, but this then becomes an issue of tactical judgment at a certain time rather than of principle - it might be more sensible to put them on backburner in those circumstances if anti-homophobic laws start being properly enforced. But the authorities are NOT showing that willingness at the moment, so for me it remains open season on the homophobes and perfectly legitimate to fight fire with fire. And I'm pretty enough to be gay, which is an added bonus.

So much this.Thanks, I'm very glad you could articulate this so well. I wish you'd posted this on page one rather than ten. I don't quite know how to say it but it's grown up and thoughtful compared to so much that is neither.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

My two-penny'worth.
1) Congratulations to the B&HA SC and the Gay Football Supporters Network for putting the work in compiling the reports. Long overdue and it's really moved the issue up the agenda, bravo.
2) The central issue for me in this entire debate (surprisingly not discussed enough in this thread, and sadly completely dodged by those opposing what the SC is doing) is why no gay professional footballer feels able to come out in this country and, alongside that, why there are so few out gay voices on football supporters forums like this one and those of other clubs - the obvious answer to me, is that there remains a very strong climate of discrimination even in these so-called enlightened times, and while the chanting identified by the SC might not be responsible for creating that (obviously it's a wider problem throughout society), it certainly reinforces it - and that's wrong and something must be done about it.
3) Is the example of how football has fought racism a realistic parallel? Yes - the parallel is strong with homophobia as both are anti-discrimination/civil rights issues.
4) But isn't it the same as anti-welsh, anti-scottish, anti-northern, anti-west country etc etc chants? Not at all - there is no widespread virulent discrimination in this country against people being from Wales or from Yorkshire or from Devon, etc etc so the comparison doesn't work - it's facile.
5) But doesn't it sterilise traditional football culture. No, modern all-seater stadia and high prices do that, not stopping racist and homophobic chanting. The proof is going to somewhere like the Millentor at St Pauli, where you'll see a far more vibrant terrace-based, singing-based atmosphere than you'll ever see at the Amex with its traditional gobby homophobic set of away fans - but these St Pauli fans have also led anti-racist/anti-homophobia campaigning.
6) How do you practically draw the line between milder comments ("holding hands") and more aggressive chanting ("queers" "aids" etc). I don't think you can, it's all got to go, just like all chanting references to a player's colour had to go in the past. Did we lose much by getting rid of mild racially-charged banter? No. My football experience won't be scarred by not hearing the holding hands chant again, will yours?
7) Think of the children! I have a lot of sympathy with those who don't want their kids to listen to homophobic chanting, my kids aged 6 and 10 have season tickets after all. But that's not my primary worry, I think parents can explain to kids right and wrong. I don't think we see kids being put off going to the Amex by homophobic chanting, judging by the large numbers that do go. But can we say the same about Brighton's large gay community? I think the chanting reinforces a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere for gay fans attending the Amex, as racist chanting did for black fans at grounds up and down the country in the past, and that's the main reason why something must be done about it.
8) What about our gay chants that try to answer the homophobic gay chanting? Does it really have to be stated that chants aimed at belittling or confusing the homophobes are not themselves homophobic, as some seem to rather oddly believe on this thread? It's the intent behind the language that's crucial, not the language itself. I've chanted the "too ugly to be gay" many times, as I'm sure many have on here in an attempt to do SOMETHING. For me, as long as the authorities take so little action on this issue, it's perfectly legitimate for our fans to take direct action themselves and attempt to satirise and belittle the haters. In the circumstances when the authorities really start cracking down on homophobia in stadiums, then will our riposte chants confuse the issue and act as a defence cover for the haters? That's quite possible, but this then becomes an issue of tactical judgment at a certain time rather than of principle - it might be more sensible to put them on backburner in those circumstances if anti-homophobic laws start being properly enforced. But the authorities are NOT showing that willingness at the moment, so for me it remains open season on the homophobes and perfectly legitimate to fight fire with fire. And I'm pretty enough to be gay, which is an added bonus.

And this is why you have been so missed on this board. Superb and 100% true. There is not a single word I disagree with.