To Boo or Not to Boo, That Was the Question.

by   |   21/09/2022  37 Comments  [Jump to last]

It’s fair to say the recent minute's silence at football grounds around the country had the football authorities in jumpy mood and the Tory press salivating in anticipation of football fans damaging the nation’s reputation, not to mention the game’s own ‘brand’. There was a clear sense that possible flashpoint fixtures were being shuffled about to avoid controversy. However – and although the enforced cancellation of fixtures (with all that entailed in lost travelling expenses and ruined schedules while sports like cricket and rugby were allowed to go ahead) generated a lot of irritation – for the most part there was no great issue with the request for silence for the Queen and the playing of the national anthem amongst English clubs. 

It was a particularly fraught situation here on Merseyside though.  Without going all Tony Evans, it matters here – the monarchy is a polarising institution. Surveys about the popularity of the monarchy place Liverpool at or near the bottom of the charts. The people in the city’s Riverside constituency rank as the most unwilling of all parliamentary constituents in the UK to identify with the Royal Family. Therefore, the chances of a remembrance celebration of the Queen in the city passing off without incident were remote, given that many were never going to distinguish between respect for a dead 96-year-old woman and the institution she represented for 70 years.

And so it proved to be. At both Everton’s home game against West Ham and Liverpool’s earlier Champions League game against Ajax at Anfield, the minute’s silence became ‘periods of silence’ as a certain amount of booing and cheering prompted anxious matchday referees to whistle a premature halt to proceedings. In Everton’s case, the national anthem (not played at Liverpool’s Champions League tie) was then all but drowned out by thousands cheering the team name. 

It has to be said that the majority in both stadiums showed a willingness to accept the situation – or the minute’s silence at least. However, a lot of the post-match reaction after the Everton game brought forth indiscriminate accusations of “classless fans” who had apparently “disgraced” their own club – an overreaction seen on many fan forums and, lamentably, that includes our own forums. We don’t even have the national media to blame as instigators for this reaction. Although newspapers like the Guardian and Express were quick out of the blocks to publish accounts of the disturbances, there wasn’t much in the way of a blanket condemnation of behaviour. 

Article continues below video content


I’ve no doubt that the fan forum over-reaction to the disruption was due in no small part to the 10-day pummelling we all received at the hands of the media, politicians and celebrities pushing a line that the late Queen was a unifying force and above the fray. Anything short of total obedience from our own fans in attendance last Sunday was therefore seized upon, amplified and exaggerated by a certain section of fans – many of them starting their critique off with “I’m not a royalist, but…” – as they set out to admonish others for “Kopite behaviour”.

The strength of feeling against the booers and chanters on ToffeeWeb in the immediate aftermath of the West Ham game was remarkable: “white trash garbage behaviour”, “half-witted specimens who’ve tainted the image of the club”, “attention-seeking scumbags”. Many others believed it had helped to reinforce negative Scouse stereotyping. (In fairness, a considerable number of TW posters attempted to add context to the debate.) 

Ironically, given the implied claim to represent a majority view of what is the right and proper way for Evertonians to react, these attacks can easily be viewed as an attempt to deny the strength of feeling in this part of the world for an institution without democratic legitimacy. If we can disentangle the particular monarch from the protest – which should be no problem to anyone of intelligence (surely no one believed the disruption was aimed at an individual called Elizabeth Windsor?) – then the situation was an (enforced) opportunity to demonstrate disgust at that lack of legitimacy. Many took it, and they shouldn’t be scolded for it.

The counter-argument that others have the right to a moment of silent contemplation seems an incredible one to me. Who would deem a 50,000 or 40,000 stadium full of people assembled to watch a football match as the appropriate time and venue for meditation over the life and death of a remote head of state?! My own view is that our football club should never be used as an instrument to push a locally unpopular political agenda for the sake of pacifying a national elite. There’s fat chance of that, of course, and soon enough we’ll be returning to debates about the right and wrongs of holding your tongue.   

back Return to Talking Points index  :  Add your Comments »


Reader Comments (37)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()


Christine Foster
1 Posted 21/09/2022 at 21:12:17
Not sure where to begin with this article. I disagree with its intent to justify the lack of respect shown to the person, which it was by the way, no matter how you attempt to imply it was just a response to ill feeling to the idea of monarchy itself.

You cannot divorce the two, she was the Queen.

My mam used to say, "If you can't say anything good about a person, don't say anything at all." Of course there may be multitudes of people who didn't boo because they rightly believed it would be crass to do so as it would be seen as a lack of respect.

But perhaps the biggest and most long-lasting damage to the people of Liverpool is the perception given by the booing, of total disrespect by a few, which has tarred everyone in the club and by default, the city.

You can't put the cork back into the bottle. Classless is the right word to use. That little episode was probably viewed in its exception by millions across the globe, was read and reported by media to many more. Pretty damaging perspective, I would say, to all of us as a result.

It's gone. Shake one's head in disappointment and move on.

Danny O’Neill
2 Posted 21/09/2022 at 22:46:12
I didn't really want to comment on this one as we've had this debate.

I like what you say, Christine. Very balanced and well put.

I won't comment any more, but would ask a question. Claiming Tory press and then citing The Guardian as being one of those quick out of blocks. Those 2 comments aren't linked, right?

Dale Self
3 Posted 21/09/2022 at 22:59:27
A decent response to what looked a bit overdone. Characterizing the Queen as a benevolent milquetoast monarch is a vast understatement of her influence. We are getting a lot of royal worship here in the States and while it isn't really my issue the demand for respect without a full and honest account of how the monarchy has served its subjects is appalling. To demand the respect you must deal with the reputation whether it is comfortable, the right time or whatever.

Again, this isn't my issue as I am not a subject so I'll take some criticism for jumping in but pearl clutching isn't a good look.

Bill Watson
4 Posted 21/09/2022 at 23:09:59
An excellent article David.

I paid to see a football match and not a monarchy tribute act. I would have been OK with just a minute's silence but to then play the national anthem was a step too far and, quite frankly, a bit absurd seeing as 50% of the population (probably more on Merseyside) don't support the monarchy.

If we were a republic and someone suggested replacing the elected Head of State with an unelected one which would then be supplied by the same family, in perpetuity, they'd probably be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

It's 2022; high time to do away with this nonsense and, while we're at it, the supporting act of the unelected House of Lords, too.

David Kennedy
5 Posted 21/09/2022 at 23:31:38
Thanks for your responses all.

Christine, I'm sorry that you felt this was an apology for disrespecting the former queen. In my opinion the disruption was never meant as an ad hominem attack. That's how I took it.

And I wouldn't accept that we have to look over our shoulder at those attacking the city either. Maybe those millions around the world you talk about saw something they could relate to rather than be repulsed by.

Danny O’Neill
6 Posted 21/09/2022 at 23:32:47
It was a very good article Bill. And obviously by David who wrote it. Extremely well written and articulated point of view.

The YouGov Poll from June this years gives some decent stats and they are often quite on the money with polls.

But the stats read 62% in favour of the Monarchy with 22% in favour of an elected Head of State. I guess the rest are undecided or not bothered.

It obviously differs depending on voting affiliation. Conservatives +80%, Labour just under 50%, which itself isn't a convincing condemnation.

No David. Living in London, and having friends around the country and around the globe. The few painted a bad picture. Their call. Each to their own.

Personally, I don't disrespect anyone's right to opinion. Just as I don't like ramming my opinion down anyone's throat because I don't agree with them and think I'm in the majority when I might not be.

Brent Stephens
7 Posted 21/09/2022 at 23:42:05
Bill #4 your second para matches something I posted earlier. If there were no God, we might invent one; if there were no Monarchy I'm sure we wouldn't invent one (with all the wealth and privileges, all the sycophancy) – why would we?
Danny O’Neill
8 Posted 21/09/2022 at 23:47:03
Last one as I'm off to bed!!

Just watching the news and Italy, a democratic Republic since Mussolini and the post-war years, is about to go hard right-wing and anti-EU. The life expectancy of their leaders and Governments on average since WW2 has been 13 months.

Despite us beating ourselves up a lot, we have generally in my lifetime been very moderate most of the time. Poor man / sick man of Europe in the late '70s. Rioting in the '80s, but generally a country Europe looks up to. Maybe I'm biased.

See you Saturday 1st, Brent. We can discuss before we go and get the 3 points!!

Christine Foster
9 Posted 22/09/2022 at 03:28:26
David @5 its all about perception, those viewing here and afar, will have rightly or wrongly, assumed the booing was for the Queen, not the Monarchy, as the minute's silence was out of respect to the death of the Queen, nothing else.

Given the huge impact, an estimated 4 billion people watched the funeral... like her or not, the influence around the world is still massive.

So it's safe to assume that when it's reported that she was booed at her minute's silence, a significant number of people of those 4 billion would have their own less-than-positive opinions on who is doing it! Reality suffers at the door of perception.

Bernie Quinn
10 Posted 22/09/2022 at 03:55:56
As you say, Christine, I, and many more, took that as booing against Her Majesty.

I am getting fed up with Bill Watson spouting his anti-Royalty diatribe to all and sundry – does it give you pleasure, Bill? Like Christine says, I was taught that if you can't speak good of people then say nowt.

It's hard to believe the number of negative posts that are on TW at present on various topics.

Jim Lloyd
11 Posted 22/09/2022 at 07:23:30
It seems to me that this article was a post to excuse booing of the queen as a) a democratic right and b) somehow most/some of those who booed were mainly from the Riverside constituency.

For information, Liverpool Riverside takes in from the Bootle border on the river, through Kirkdale, bits of Anfield, Vauxhall, bits of Islington, Wavertree, City Centre, most of Town, including the "Knowledge Quarter" (lots of students), Toxteth, Edge Hill, Garston, Mossley Hill, Aigburth, Cressington and maybe a tiny smidgeon of Grassendale... I think that's about it.

Where, whoever polled people from these areas to get the results David mentioned – I don't know. I don't know what what the questions where either.

It seems to me that those cretins who booed, and those who wrote on ToffeeWeb regarding their opposition to our Queen, have got it a bit wrong. One reckoned it wasn't right to boo at funerals but okay to boo at a minute's silence. Others reckoned it was fine to show their oppositon to the Monarchy by booing. Others have put forward that a poll to say over 50% oppose the monarchy. (Where they got that from, I don't know; was it a national poll that everyone could join in, cos I must have missed it.)

Whatever their reasons are, I hope they feel better for it. Because they may have felt they have made it known, that they (like those Celtic fans who clapped to a banner "If you all hate the Queen clap your hands". yet another wrote it was republicans who got us a Parliament. Wrong; it was Democrats and they voted to recall the Monarchy after Cromwell died. Constitutional Monarchy is part of the British Constitution, so those who are booing are booing that as well.

We all should know how the media hates Everton, and what glorifing drivel they spouted how the Red Shite kept the silence immaculately, as I see we all get tarred with that shit brush that condemns Liverpool. Not as a noble outpost of anti-establishment bulwark. It just shows they have no idea about respecting other points of view.

Well, they let off steam, I suppose, but those who booed, did so at a woman who gave her life in the service of our country, and worst of all for me, they showed no respect to their own fellow Blues.

Michael Kenrick
12 Posted 22/09/2022 at 09:25:42
But Brent @4,

"If there were no Monarchy, I'm sure we wouldn't invent one."

If ya know yer 'istory, as Jim @11 says, it is kind of what that there Parliament did back in the day. They ditched the Republic and restored the Monarchy.

The Constitutional Monarchy we have is unique and indivisible from the long and incredibly diverse history and system of government for what is undoubtedly one of the greatest nations on earth.

Unfortunately many a politician and others among the Great and the Good decry this on a daily basis as they are wheeled out on dreadful programmes like BBC Breakfast to tell us how awful everything is, and how so many of us suffer terrible incapacitating ailments or personal inadequacies that must be publicly dissected ad nauseam.


David Kennedy
13 Posted 22/09/2022 at 09:36:29
Christine and Bernie

The point I was making with this piece is the simple one that the people in the stadium who broke the silence and / or chanted over the anthem were being unfairly presented by some in the previous TW Talking Points article to this (and elsewhere on Everton forums) as unthinking morons whose actions put the club and city in a poor light.

I take the opposite view. It wasn't a mindless act, they just disagreed with the remembrance, and their views hold legitimacy across large swathes of the city.

Tony Abrahams
14 Posted 22/09/2022 at 09:59:54
Is there really any class left in the world? Has there really ever been much class?

Is there any class in an article that doesn't tell the full truth? Is there any class in shouting out, “shut-up” during a minute's silence?

Class usually comes with respect, and is an individual gift, but as a collective gift, it's nigh on impossible, IMO. (Although I've heard people say that the funeral was very classy?)

I didn't mind the Queen, but a lot of questioned the way she stood behind her son. “Andrew is a fucking nonce“ was the first shout-out I heard to the right of me in the Upper Gwladys Street stand. I would never shout out during a minute's silence myself, but nobody is whiter than white in this world.

There is a time and a place for everything, but expecting 40.000 people to stay quiet when the good lady's own family, have never been whiter than white, was never going to happen.

Only a person with a lack of intelligence, or a snide, would try and blame Evertonians, for a few isolated and therefore disrespectful shouts, without being aware that not everyone is able to differentiate in this world.

Brent Stephens
15 Posted 22/09/2022 at 11:04:32
Michael #12 "If ya know yer 'istory, as Jim @11 says, it is kind of what that there Parliament did back in the day. They ditched the Republic and restored the Monarchy."

Yes, Michael. That was back in the day. My point is about now. And my point wasn't whether we would go back to a monarchy we once had, but whether, if none had ever existed, we would invent one. I think not.

Michael Kenrick
16 Posted 22/09/2022 at 11:09:56
You are completey missing the point David, and I can't believe we published your ridiculous article.

While the vast majority of the Goodison crowd may indeed hold anti-monarchist, anti-royalist, anti-government, anti-establishment views (or any combination thereof) that might cause them to respond in such a way, the vast, vast majority of them did not do so.

Ask yourself why that is?

I'll tell you. It's because they understood and observed that the mark of respect transcended all of that. Your attempt at excusing the tiny, tiny minority who didn't is shameful and crass.

Jim Lloyd
17 Posted 22/09/2022 at 11:27:16
Tony.(14) And the press, that the gives the whole country the view of Evertonians. and the crap jokes, snidey comments and derogatory remarks we all have to put up with. from people outside of Liverpool.

Well said indeed, Michael.

David Kennedy
18 Posted 22/09/2022 at 12:40:11
Michael, I'm disappointed in your remarks (#16).

It's your judgement that the article was crass, I'm not sure there was anything it that was unconsidered and insensitive. And I wasn't excusing a minority because, as I explained, I don't think they need to be excused.

I accepted that the vast majority of people in the stadium did keep quiet, and it was not a commentary - and certainly not an attack - on them. Overall, I don't think I'm defending the indefensible. I explained that in my opinion it's crude to dismiss the disruption to the silence and the playing of the national anthem as a direct insult toward an individual. It was more complex than that.

I don't know why I should feel any shame in all of that.

Michael Kenrick
19 Posted 22/09/2022 at 12:43:06
Brent,

So completely hypothetical then, and totally ignoring the vast complexity that history has endowed us with, warts un all?

Nah, sorry, I just don't get hypotheticals. It's hard enough dealing with the Real World!

Tony Abrahams
20 Posted 22/09/2022 at 13:24:41
It was these people who I was referring to Jim@17, when I wrote about not telling the whole truth when they write their articles.

I don't know what journalists are paid, but I don't think they are paid for just concentrating on writing about the truth.

How many booed during the minute's silence? I'd say definitely less than 100 or 0.25% of the gate, whereas this probably went up to around 25% of the gate, when they decided to play that most uninspiring of national anthems (imo) just before the game started.

Michael Kenrick
21 Posted 22/09/2022 at 13:25:09
Okay, David, let's look at some the crap you wrote:

"the situation was an (enforced) opportunity to demonstrate disgust at that lack of legitimacy. Many took it, and they shouldn't be scolded for it."

There is no "lack of legitimacy". They are the legitimate Monarchy that is enshrined in the constitution of the country in which you are presumably resident.

A minute's silence is not, and never has been "an enforced opportunity to demonstrate disgust". It's a convention for showing respect to people who have died. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Many took it, and they shouldn't be scolded for it." No, perhaps 3 or 4 out of 39,298 did actually fit your characterization. That is hardly "many".

"the football authorities in jumpy mood" No, there is no evidence that that is in any way true. Unless you can provide some?

"the Tory press salivating in anticipation of football fans damaging the nation's reputation" Let's see a smidgen of proof for that one. Do us the honour of citing one such article published before the resumption of football.

"possible flashpoint fixtures were being shuffled about to avoid controversy" — a complete fabrication. Round 7 of the Premier League was suspended as a mark of respect. The case for postponement of 3 games in Round 8 related to provision of police for the State Funeral. There was no controversy to avoid – except perhaps inside your own head!

"many were never going to distinguish between respect for a dead 96-year-old woman and the institution she represented for 70 years." But many did exactly that. The vast, vast majority did exactly that, to totally disapprove your main contention.

The vast, vast, majority of the people inside Goodison Park showed that respect, and were able to distinguish it from their assumed dislike for the institution she represented, thus almost completely negating your false contention.

But that's humans. Full of unfortunate contradictions, not to mention civility and decorum in recognizing what a particular situation required of them, irrespective of their perhaps strongly held political beliefs.

Was that such an affront to your particular personal convictions that you felt compelled to write this pile of tosh?

Really, you should have written an article explaining how shocked and dismayed you were with the huge majority of people who, you might say, clearly went against their better judgement by observing the minute's silence instead of demonstrating their true feelings about the Monarchy.

Rob Dolby
22 Posted 22/09/2022 at 13:57:21
I thought we had already done this one to death on the other thread.

Can't we just move on otherwise I might just be referred to as a peasant again!

Politics, Religion etc will never unite and always throw up various opinions.

Everton is what unites us on this site. We should just stick to the football.

David Kennedy
23 Posted 22/09/2022 at 15:00:13
Michael,

Legitimacy: something given to a thing or person able to be defended with logic and justification. How many do you think would apply that to the monarchy? Not many I'd suggest. I did say democratic legitimacy too. Maybe I missed the elections for the position?

An enforced minutes silence as convention: it's not convention now though is it? That was thrown out for applause on such occasions and for a very good reason...as we saw on Sunday.

'Many took the opportunity to show disgust' - that line was in relation to both the silence and the disruption of the anthem. Yes, the majority observed or remained silent for that, but thousands of others didn't and they constitute a few, do they?

'The football authorities were in jumpy mood / flashpoint fixtures': First of all, the cancellation of all games when other sports went ahead was, for me, only understandable in terms of that. When PL fixtures were resumed the Chelsea v Liverpool game was pulled amongst others. They did everything in their powers to make sure Liverpool weren't playing in the last 2 rounds of matches would be my guess. Policing the funeral in London doesn't explain other fixtures in the capital going ahead. Liverpool away to Chelsea would have guaranteed a major response from the away fans. It's not proof, its my opinion in an opinion piece.

'The vast, vast, majority of the people inside Goodison Park showed that respect, and were able to distinguish it from their assumed dislike for the institution she represented, thus almost completely negating your false contention.' What precisely is that negating in my claims? I never contested that everyone acted or preferred to act on their inner feelings about the situation (should they have had them). My stated aim was to make a different assessment of the actions of the people who shouted out or chanted at that game in the ceremony prior to kick off. It was never about anything else but that.

You believe I'm 'dismayed' that a majority of the stadium weren't observing the ceremonies. That insistence on the presentation of facts you held me to above is applicable here.

I really do get by now that the article I wrote was 'crap', 'ridiculous' etc but I'm not really seeing anything much in your dismissal of it that addresses the point it made. I get that you feel strongly that the club has been let down and people have let themselves down, and you see this as a cheer-piece for that. I can't change that perception.

Kieran Kinsella
24 Posted 22/09/2022 at 16:25:11
David,

The thing is that football is bound to reflect the wider society which we are a part of. If we entirely exclude anything that isn't related to football, and Everton specifically, then presumably we shouldn't have honored Bradley Lowery, or had support for the search for Madeline McCann, or Black Lives Matter, or Hillsborough, as none had anything to do with Everton Football Club.

Personally, I think that would make us poorer as a club and society.

David Kennedy
25 Posted 22/09/2022 at 16:38:15
Kieran, I agree with you. Football can do that and be of service to the local community. No one could object to that. But I think that's a different thing from pacifying a political elite.

I don't want to sing the praises of UEFA because they have many many faults, but at least they try to steer clear of games being used to promote national politics although not always consistently applied.

Lyndon Lloyd
26 Posted 22/09/2022 at 16:46:49
I elected to post this "ridiculous" article for a few reasons. David is a local author who has written on the history of football in the city, one which is a good deal more political than most I'm sure we'd all agree. His credentials as such are why I initially published the piece as a "Fan Article" as submitted but, in hindsight and given the extent to which the topic had been addressed on other threads (I'm still buried in fixes related to the server migration so I hadn't realised how much it had already been discussed), I moved it to the Talking Points section.

I don't think there's much argument that it is a talking point given that a) it happened and b) the general assumption that the FA postponed games in the first place as they were fearful that "football's" name might get sullied if the paying of respects was disrespected. And the minute's silence was disrupted, albeit by a very small minority, at Goodison Park when they are usually impeccably observed. Given the level of anti-Monarchist – and general anti-Establishment – feeling among a significant portion of the local population, perhaps that was inevitable but it did not reflect well on the club, a fact that has been pointed out many times in comments on these pages and on this thread.

So the point in airing David's piece was to provide the rationale from his perspective (which, again, I don't think will be news to anyone) and to allow people to push back (some more politely than others, clearly) and to make the argument that moments of respect shouldn't be hijacked for political reasons and that there plainly is a difference between marking someone's passing, particularly a long-standing figurehead like the Queen, and supporting the notion of a hereditary monarchy. It is after all, how we prevent things like this happening again.

Stan Schofield
27 Posted 22/09/2022 at 18:56:50
It's very simple.

When you agree to turn up at an event, be it a wedding, concert, funeral, meeting, or football match, you should behave properly according to the situation.

If you don't wish to behave properly, you should not attend the event.

Will Mabon
28 Posted 22/09/2022 at 19:13:27
Stan, sadly your very correct view has been engineered out of existence over the last 25 or so years. We live in a continually stirred, bubbling cauldron of societal bullshit, as designed, and the effects are everywhere.
Danny O’Neill
29 Posted 22/09/2022 at 19:58:55
I think I said earlier, Lyndon, that the article was well written and puts across a perspective in an articulative way.

Do I agree with most of the sentiment? No.

Do I agree with the right to reply? Yes, absolutely. I still can't get my head around justifying the minority booing and the stats didn't add up in the argument presented (the 50%). I keep saying, in moments like that, if I don't agree, I'll just keep my mouth shut and respect the respect being shown by others.

I'll always listen to someone else's perspective. It's why we live in a free and democratic country. Yes, democratic. We vote for the institutions.

But it doesn't give people the right to be disrespectful in my humble opinion. Maybe that's just the way I was brought up.

Political elite? There are many examples of political dynasties all over the world on all sides of the political spectrum. The much adored and revered Kennedys in the US spring to mind. Generations of them. Elected, yes, but born into entitlement and equally shrouded in controversy and scandal. Don't kid ourselves we are unique in that sense. Elected at the ballot or not, there are similarities.

I don't agree with a lot of what David is trying to justify but I can see what he is trying to say. I just can't agree with a lot of it.

But I'm glad it was posted.

Tony Abrahams
30 Posted 22/09/2022 at 20:24:24
I liked that last paragraph, Danny, it was very well put that imo mate, with the only difference being, is that I probably agree with a lot more of what David has written, than you do.

Anyone who was at the game couldn't genuinely blame most Evertonians, and this is what I think David was trying to say, after reading what others have posted (including on this website) since Sunday afternoon. I might be wrong.

Danny O’Neill
31 Posted 22/09/2022 at 20:38:12
The absolute vast majority of Everton fans at the match observed, Tony. Some chose not too. Disappointing from my perspective, but I'm not judging.

I hope it didn't come across that way.

Like I say, I can see what David is trying to say.

I'll go out tonight and defend the City!!

David Kennedy
32 Posted 22/09/2022 at 21:15:32
Danny (#29),

On the 'justify' point – and I may be attributing too precise a definition to the word as 'proving something to be right' – but that's not what I set out to do. I've neither justified it nor sought to excuse it (the latter brought up earlier and dismissed for the reason I gave).

I set out to write a short piece that offered an understanding of the context the disruption took place in. If others interpreted that as me wilfully obscuring what they viewed as the desecration of a ceremony for a recently deceased reigning monarch then there's nothing much I can do about that.

Thanks to all for the responses made so far. It's appreciated.

Tony Abrahams
33 Posted 22/09/2022 at 21:38:31
It came across (to me) the way I think you intended it, Danny. Always respectful, and this is why I praised what you had written.

Defending our city is a lot easier now than it has probably ever been during our lifetime, and anyone offended by the stereotyping must have never traveled very far. 👍

Stan Schofield
34 Posted 23/09/2022 at 08:41:00
Will @28:

It would be naive of me to think that people always do what they should do. In this respect, it strikes me that football matches are not suitable venues for minute silences, only a few people shouting being needed to spoil the occasion, and such spoiling being highly likely.

It might be far better to have a minute's applause, which of course is such that a minority refusing to join in would not be noticeable and would not spoil the occasion. We certainly need something that works for the majority, and where the minority are unable to spoil things and tarnish the image of football even more.

Danny O’Neill
35 Posted 23/09/2022 at 12:05:56
Without labouring the thread, I felt I had to respond, David.

I probably shouldn't have used the word 'justify'. I appreciate that isn't what you were trying to say. Despite not agreeing with a lot, I understood what you were saying and just tried to counter the point.

Tony, I find it easy defending our city. Most I come across genuinely like Liverpool. The city. The football club is a different discussion down here. Most are intrigued by Everton and my Evertonianism (is that even a word?!). Although I always err on the side of caution as that conversation can stray into that they don't mind us, we're alright, etc. Because we're not a threat, which makes me sad. In that context, I don't want them to think we're alright!!!

I'm a self-declared ambassador of our city and playing down the stereotypes. Even on match days in the local or on the train up to Lime Street with travelling London supporters as they start their customary chants of "sign on", "we pay your benefits" and "self-pity city" as we cross the Runcorn-Widnes bridge.

The old ones are the best as they say. Nothing that a bit of knowledge and educational conversation can't sort out! We usually end up friends!!!

Jerome Shields
36 Posted 25/09/2022 at 08:56:27
For me, Tony Abrahams came up with the solution on another thread – a minute's applause. If the Club intents to show respect, it should adopt a method to achieve that objective.

You are always going get one loud voice, idiots or not, justified or not. Do not give them the obvious opportunity of a minute's silence of 30, 000 fans, to be a smart ass and defeat the purpose of the objective. They have no right to hijack a cub objective supported by the majority of the fans. You will probably find they will join in the applause, since opening their mouths will be fruitless.

Best to avoid a National Anthem though, unless you are on safe ground.

Jerome Shields
37 Posted 25/09/2022 at 09:09:05
Putting her regal picture up on the Video screen would be a good idea, with a distant pan view of the fans in the background. You will be glad to hear that this excellent advice (Post #36 & 37) I provide free of charge.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.



How to get rid of these ads and support TW



© ToffeeWeb