comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can think of one reason.
Police are short staffed as it is.
Who will be policing games when the streets are going to be filled more than usual?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty dismissive to suggest that people who are grieving aren’t actually grieving at all but are just being carried away by a wave of hysteria
Surely they know more than you about how they’re feeling, no ?
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 22 seconds ago
Yes but those truly grieving for the Queen, why does it bother them that others might not be on the same boat? It's a flawed argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says that it does?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it doesn't then there shouldn't really be any issue with those asking things not be cancelled..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are they asking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up..
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 22 seconds ago
Yes but those truly grieving for the Queen, why does it bother them that others might not be on the same boat? It's a flawed argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says that it does?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it doesn't then there shouldn't really be any issue with those asking things not be cancelled..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are they asking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No answer to that eh? Have you written a letter to your MP, plonker!
Police are short staffed as it is.
Who will be policing games when the streets are going to be filled more than usual?
--------------------------------------------------------------
As I say, if there are logistical factors that make it impractical to hold football matches, that's fair enough. I don't think anyone is saying football should be allowed to disrupt plans for the Queen's funeral and other public events, or that it would be acceptable if public acts of respect were unsafe because resources were stretched by football matches.
However, as far as I can tell, this isn't the reason PL matches have been called off.
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, maybe damaged was too strong. Emotionally stunted is what I should have said. Are you emotionally stunted? I mean, I don't know you but you appear confused by this entire discussion. I'm not going to make apologies for being a little bit smarter than you. I'm sure that's going to anger you but don't worry, that's just emotion coming out. It's not grief though, just anger. You'll be fine.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, maybe damaged was too strong. Emotionally stunted is what I should have said. Are you emotionally stunted? I mean, I don't know you but you appear confused by this entire discussion. I'm not going to make apologies for being a little bit smarter than you. I'm sure that's going to anger you but don't worry, that's just emotion coming out. It's not grief though, just anger. You'll be fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, you're smarter than me, and an authority on grief, and gosh you even know my emotions.
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are you getting this rationale from?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100%
So firstly Russian, the cancellation isn't for the benefit of Mourners it's intended as a mark of respect.
So if you want to compare like for like, do you disagree with one minute silences at football matches?
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fans have a right to be annoyed and the cancellations, just as everyone else gets annoyed when football fans start fighting in the streets.
The question I asked was
"The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners "
Since when?
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fans have a right to be annoyed and the cancellations, just as everyone else gets annoyed when football fans start fighting in the streets.
The question I asked was
"The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners "
Since when?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, although every copper on the force will no doubt be involved in all things relating to the queen's death, to not be available to police anything else, could be part of it.
Personally I agree cancelling everything and anything ( including something silly like last night's matches hys ) is simply an overreaction. Entirely unsurprising, and par for the course with anything to do with the Royals.
The basic problem here is the establishment need to understand how to get a reasonable balance between respectful mourning and recognising a large % of the public really don't care to "join in" simply because they have never met her, and only have limited views / feeling on losing the queen. As we all know, the next in line will take over, and the sun will come up tomorrow as usual.
Whilst on that term mourning, obviously you will always get people who always have an over the top reaction, blabbering like she was their mum, but most of us do not see this as proper mourning, and just a sad occasion that really has no effect on our day to day lives.
Sorry to sound blunt, but keeping this weekend's fixture would not offend me in the slightest, given football and the death of the monarch are really not remotely connected.
That said, and something nobody has mentioned so far is, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise for Spurs, who can now worry about the toughest fixture on the calendar another time, and Conte now has nearly a week to work with the squad for next week's CL game, as apposed to dragging a knackered squad off to Lisbon on Monday morning. Think I prefer the first option to be honest.
I still don't know where you guys get the idea from that this is for the mourners benefit and one big funeral. The Royals bring around 20 billion into the Country each year, they are a significant part of our existence in this Country. The death and changing of a Monarch hasn't happened in most people's lifetimes, so an open top bus parade isn't going to cut it.
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
I still don't know where you guys get the idea from that this is for the mourners benefit and one big funeral. The Royals bring around 20 billion into the Country each year,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that old chestnut.
No, they absolutely do not.
Sign in if you want to comment
UK Sports Gets Go Ahead,
Page 4 of 4
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can think of one reason.
Police are short staffed as it is.
Who will be policing games when the streets are going to be filled more than usual?
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty dismissive to suggest that people who are grieving aren’t actually grieving at all but are just being carried away by a wave of hysteria
Surely they know more than you about how they’re feeling, no ?
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 22 seconds ago
Yes but those truly grieving for the Queen, why does it bother them that others might not be on the same boat? It's a flawed argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says that it does?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it doesn't then there shouldn't really be any issue with those asking things not be cancelled..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are they asking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up..
posted on 9/9/22
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 22 seconds ago
Yes but those truly grieving for the Queen, why does it bother them that others might not be on the same boat? It's a flawed argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says that it does?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it doesn't then there shouldn't really be any issue with those asking things not be cancelled..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are they asking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No answer to that eh? Have you written a letter to your MP, plonker!
posted on 9/9/22
Police are short staffed as it is.
Who will be policing games when the streets are going to be filled more than usual?
--------------------------------------------------------------
As I say, if there are logistical factors that make it impractical to hold football matches, that's fair enough. I don't think anyone is saying football should be allowed to disrupt plans for the Queen's funeral and other public events, or that it would be acceptable if public acts of respect were unsafe because resources were stretched by football matches.
However, as far as I can tell, this isn't the reason PL matches have been called off.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, maybe damaged was too strong. Emotionally stunted is what I should have said. Are you emotionally stunted? I mean, I don't know you but you appear confused by this entire discussion. I'm not going to make apologies for being a little bit smarter than you. I'm sure that's going to anger you but don't worry, that's just emotion coming out. It's not grief though, just anger. You'll be fine.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 13 minutes ago
It's frankly ridiculous. Most people are measured enough to not really feel a sense of grief for someone they've never actually met. To cancel all sport or entertainment events is just moronic. Not all of us are blue-rinsed royalists drowning in a sea of tears.
That's it now. Terrestrial telly is out of bounds for a couple of weeks because an old lady of 96 has died. Sad for her family but if anyone out there that has never met her claims they're grieving? Sorry, they're not. It's just mass hysteria. Saw the same thing with Diana but that was far more tragic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the idea that you have to know someone personally to grieve for them?
People grieve loss of all sorts of things. It's a natural, healthy, human reaction. It's not about knowing the queen personally, it's about what she represented for many people. Many people will be confronting their own mortality and the changing face of the Country they live in.
It's anything but measured to not be able to understand this. In fact it's pretty freakin sociopathic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what grief is. I've felt it. Real grief. On a sliding scale, the death of the queen sits on the mildest of mourning levels for most on account of the fact that she's not someone any of us mere mortals ever knew. That's what limits how far grief can real travel under those circumstances.
Back in 97 the millions that travelled to central london to lay flowers and sob uncontrollably over Diana's death weren't suffering from grief in my opinion. They were swept up in the national hysteria that followed her, albeit tragic, death.
It's actually the antithesis of sociopathic to understand the difference between the two nuanced slants of emotional behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you've felt real grief. Well done, like nearly everybody else on this planet. You're really not that special you know.
Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things.
Only someone with sociopathic tendencies would think their own nuanced distinctions between meanings are correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people will grieve for the Queen more than a family member. Why is that? Because people assign different meanings to different things."
I'm not denying that there are people out there emotionally damaged enough to think that what they're feeling right now is grief but I'm sorry, it's just not. Some people are just more susceptible to getting dragged along by the media current than others. They THINK what they're feeling is grief but it's largely a media driven sense of unity that cultivates. They're two very different things. Emotional yes, grief no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotionally damaged?
Wow you really are a prize aren't you, now you're the authority on what is and isn't real grief.
You're also somebody who is part of a group that gets hysterical about a ball being kicked about matey, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, maybe damaged was too strong. Emotionally stunted is what I should have said. Are you emotionally stunted? I mean, I don't know you but you appear confused by this entire discussion. I'm not going to make apologies for being a little bit smarter than you. I'm sure that's going to anger you but don't worry, that's just emotion coming out. It's not grief though, just anger. You'll be fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, you're smarter than me, and an authority on grief, and gosh you even know my emotions.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are you getting this rationale from?
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 3 minutes ago
You couldn't make this up really. Football fans taking exception to national events inconveniencing them with all the hysteria that goes on around football, especially World cups which many have to put up with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the same. Football gets a lot of attention due to high demand. The football community isn't demanding other activities are curtailed or cancelled in order to make more space for football.
If there were a logistical reason that football couldn't go ahead because it prevented people from expressing their mourning in some way, that would be a valid reason to cancel football matches in the same way that trophy parades might close streets for a few hours, and I don't think many fans would begrudge that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but people have to put up with trains full of rowdy football fans every weekend, not to mention all the incidents that occur and have occurred. All because a lot of people want to watch a few people kick a ball about, which, lets face it, isn't actually that important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're still not comparing like with like. No one is proposing curbing the freedoms of self-expression or movement of those who wish to mourn the passing of the queen. The crowds involved may inconvenience me or they may offend me (they don't) but they are of course totally within their rights. Like a crowd of football supporters, thousands of people are together in one place because they want to be there, the activity is meaningful to them: they are exercising their freedom.
What you are proposing is denying one group the freedom to congregate in one place because another group of people are congregating in another place. I'm not that bothered about missing out on football. The reason I'm defending this point is more philosophical. The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners that another group wants to engage in some other activity, rather than joining in the self-expression. It imposes a kind of conformism on society, which I find a little unhealthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100%
posted on 9/9/22
So firstly Russian, the cancellation isn't for the benefit of Mourners it's intended as a mark of respect.
So if you want to compare like for like, do you disagree with one minute silences at football matches?
posted on 9/9/22
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fans have a right to be annoyed and the cancellations, just as everyone else gets annoyed when football fans start fighting in the streets.
The question I asked was
"The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners "
Since when?
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Where are you getting this rationale from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hoped it was clear in my reasoning. I'll try to say it in a more succinct way.
Your argument is that fans don't have a right to be annoyed when their matches are cancelled due to people wanting to assemble for royal mourning, because thousands of fans create annoyance for other people all the time.
This doesn't follow, because football fans are not calling for mourners to be prevented from mourning. They are merely asking for permission to do something else while others are mourning, without disrupting the said mourning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fans have a right to be annoyed and the cancellations, just as everyone else gets annoyed when football fans start fighting in the streets.
The question I asked was
"The rationale for calling off matches is the perception that it could be somehow offensive to the mourners "
Since when?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, although every copper on the force will no doubt be involved in all things relating to the queen's death, to not be available to police anything else, could be part of it.
Personally I agree cancelling everything and anything ( including something silly like last night's matches hys ) is simply an overreaction. Entirely unsurprising, and par for the course with anything to do with the Royals.
The basic problem here is the establishment need to understand how to get a reasonable balance between respectful mourning and recognising a large % of the public really don't care to "join in" simply because they have never met her, and only have limited views / feeling on losing the queen. As we all know, the next in line will take over, and the sun will come up tomorrow as usual.
Whilst on that term mourning, obviously you will always get people who always have an over the top reaction, blabbering like she was their mum, but most of us do not see this as proper mourning, and just a sad occasion that really has no effect on our day to day lives.
Sorry to sound blunt, but keeping this weekend's fixture would not offend me in the slightest, given football and the death of the monarch are really not remotely connected.
That said, and something nobody has mentioned so far is, perhaps it is a blessing in disguise for Spurs, who can now worry about the toughest fixture on the calendar another time, and Conte now has nearly a week to work with the squad for next week's CL game, as apposed to dragging a knackered squad off to Lisbon on Monday morning. Think I prefer the first option to be honest.
posted on 9/9/22
I still don't know where you guys get the idea from that this is for the mourners benefit and one big funeral. The Royals bring around 20 billion into the Country each year, they are a significant part of our existence in this Country. The death and changing of a Monarch hasn't happened in most people's lifetimes, so an open top bus parade isn't going to cut it.
posted on 9/9/22
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
I still don't know where you guys get the idea from that this is for the mourners benefit and one big funeral. The Royals bring around 20 billion into the Country each year,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that old chestnut.
No, they absolutely do not.
Page 4 of 4