I have an alternative suggestion. Rather than neither attending/ playing tomorrow, let both be there. A quick, handshake behind the goal and get on with both giving their all for the club. You know, like grown-ups.
Can I just say I've never been anywhere near anyone throwing a flare, but they've got every right as true fans to throw a flare. The club cannot afford to ban them as they are the only ones who make any noise or throw flares. Can I just say I've never been anywhere near any of those people shouting abuse at Wood, Blackman or WillD, but as real fans they have every right to shout abuse and not be looked at in a funny way by old people. I have never been anywhere near them, by the way. Can I just say I was nowhere near this headbutt, nor know any of the people involved but from what I don't know about this sorry incident it is obvious Aaron Pierre is a big thug who needs sacking. Anyone who does not think so is an idiot. Can I just say if he's not sacked immediately and never kicks a ball again for this club I love, there will be trouble at Barnet that I will be nowhere near as I'm not going. If anyone thinks I am going they should come and talk to me about it face to face like a man.
@Username You are completely missing the point. If there is no unprovoked abuse in the street, this doesn't happen. Not remotely an even 0.1% chance of any kind of unpleasantness. This casual, entitled, unconsidered antisocial behaviour is a cancer at the heart of society and the worst sort of football support. Responses to it vary, and violence is not remotely my preferred option - I'm a lover, not a fighter. But, honestly, if someone I didn't know, without prompting or cause, gestured insultingly at me and then told me I was shit at the job I'd just worked my guts out for and about which I obviously cared greatly, I'd be very tempted to act the way Pierre may have done.
George, who to his credit is making a lot less noise about this than others now, is entirely, 100%, responsible for this event happening. He should have taken the response he got on the chin (metaphorically - not a criticism of his footwork) and learnt a lesson about manners, rather than jumping onto Twitter. Any bozo who feels inclined to carry this on tomorrow, or anytime, with the kind of chanting you describe instead of allowing both parties time and space to kiss and make up and move on is just a twat, frankly.
@HCblue said:
Username You are completely missing the point. If there is no unprovoked abuse in the street, this doesn't happen. Not remotely an even 0.1% chance of any kind of unpleasantness. This casual, entitled, unconsidered antisocial behaviour is a cancer at the heart of society and the worst sort of football support. Responses to it vary, and violence is not remotely my preferred option - I'm a lover, not a fighter. But, honestly, if someone I didn't know, without prompting or cause, gestured insultingly at me and then told me I was shit at the job I'd just worked my guts out for and about which I obviously cared greatly, I'd be very tempted to act the way Pierre may have done.
George, who to his credit is making a lot less noise about this than others now, is entirely, 100%, responsible for this event happening. He should have taken the response he got on the chin (metaphorically - not a criticism of his footwork) and learnt a lesson about manners, rather than jumping onto Twitter. Any bozo who feels inclined to carry this on tomorrow, or anytime, with the kind of chanting you describe instead of allowing both parties time and space to kiss and make up and move on is just a twat, frankly.
Yes George is undoubtedly the cause, but that doesn't excuse Pierre at all. Violence is another level completely, you can't just overlook the fact he's headbutted someone in the street because it suits.
And I'm not condoning anti-AP chants, but I'd be willing to put money on it happening, especially if AP is on the pitch.
@Username If he'd knocked George down and then kicked him into unconsciousness, I'd have a different view , but I disagree that violence is another level, as you put it. In this case, it's one of a number of natural corollaries to the anti-social behaviour that began the episode. I would be stunned if Pierre was happy about what he did and if he said anything other than that he would deal with it differently another time. But aggression is aggression, whether it be physical or verbal. To my mind, the mindless unpleasantness of the instigator here is by far the greater issue for society.
@HCblue said:
Username If he'd knocked George down and then kicked him into unconsciousness, I'd have a different view , but I disagree that violence is another level, as you put it. In this case, it's one of a number of natural corollaries to the anti-social behaviour that began the episode. I would be stunned if Pierre was happy about what he did and if he said anything other than that he would deal with it differently another time. But aggression is aggression, whether it be physical or verbal. To my mind, the mindless unpleasantness of the instigator here is by far the greater issue for society.
That's where we differ then, physical assault is a far greater problem than verbals imo, and the law's
@wycombelad If you've got people you don't know making insulting gestures at you as you walk past and telling you you're shit at what you are doing while you go about your business, you seriously need to get a new job with a workplace that's not full of complete tossers.
@Username I have a bigger problem with nutters who get their kicks from starting fights than I do with mouthy gits, agreed - sticks and stones and all that. But this wasn't a random psycho "starting" on a helpless and innocent victim. I respectfully take issue with the term "verbals" to describe insulting gestures directed at strangers in the street, followed up with abusive words when challenged on them. A different type than mine might describe that as fighting talk.
Vile verbal abuse from drunks is harmless and almost never leads to violence and anyone who says it does needs to come and tell me that to my ****ing face.
@HCblue said:
Username If he'd knocked George down and then kicked him into unconsciousness, I'd have a different view , but I disagree that violence is another level, as you put it. In this case, it's one of a number of natural corollaries to the anti-social behaviour that began the episode. I would be stunned if Pierre was happy about what he did and if he said anything other than that he would deal with it differently another time. But aggression is aggression, whether it be physical or verbal. To my mind, the mindless unpleasantness of the instigator here is by far the greater issue for society.
Sorry, just to confirm - verbally abusing someone is a bigger worry for society than someone head butting someone?
@Vincey A disingenuous and inaccurate interpretation of what, on rereading, I find to be a fairly clearly-expressed argument.
But, to be clear, yes: the person who thinks it acceptable to stand in the street and abuse passers-by and strangers is by far the more concerning societal indicator than the person who reacts to such abuse with the sort of action indicated in this case. As I wrote (very clearly), it's not a good reaction. But it's the behaviour of the instigator that I find to be much worse for society.
@Wendoverman Nicely expressed, as ever. To my mind, the problem lies with the idea some people have that footballers, or public figures generally, are some kind of public property rather than fellow human beings. There is a bizarre sense of entitlement, that seems to have operated here and to be present in some people's construction of events that leads them to believe that these people are in some way fair game for their whims at all times and subject to different standards.
@wycombelad I take your point, and it is a fairer comparison than some others. To spell it out again, I don't see Pierre's reaction as being a correct one. But I'm not going to hang him for it.
@Username - sorry it does seem to be you I keep replying to. Being pedantic your earlier point about the law viewing a violent act more seriously than a non-violent act is actually wrong.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines the action of AP if found guilty of a headbutt as described would likely be a Section 47, Category 3 likely to result in a fine and community service.
If the actions of GS had involved a racially motivated element (I'm not for one moment saying there was) and he was considered a part of a gang this would likely be a Section 29, Category 2, which in law is given the same guidelines of a fine and community service.
But as we don't actually know what happened (and we genuinely only know one version at the moment) we are in no position to assess the respective seriousness of each of their actions
Comments
I have an alternative suggestion. Rather than neither attending/ playing tomorrow, let both be there. A quick, handshake behind the goal and get on with both giving their all for the club. You know, like grown-ups.
Can I just say I've never been anywhere near anyone throwing a flare, but they've got every right as true fans to throw a flare. The club cannot afford to ban them as they are the only ones who make any noise or throw flares. Can I just say I've never been anywhere near any of those people shouting abuse at Wood, Blackman or WillD, but as real fans they have every right to shout abuse and not be looked at in a funny way by old people. I have never been anywhere near them, by the way. Can I just say I was nowhere near this headbutt, nor know any of the people involved but from what I don't know about this sorry incident it is obvious Aaron Pierre is a big thug who needs sacking. Anyone who does not think so is an idiot. Can I just say if he's not sacked immediately and never kicks a ball again for this club I love, there will be trouble at Barnet that I will be nowhere near as I'm not going. If anyone thinks I am going they should come and talk to me about it face to face like a man.
You missed out the "inevitable anti-Pierre chants" that it's inevitable will inevitably happen on Monday.
@drcongo you just can't let it go can you? That's why I never come on here...
The condoning of a headbutt because it suits the anti-terrace "mob" narrative is astonishing.
The George lad was a complete idiot, but Pierre way overstepped the mark in retaliation.
If proven.
If you're gonna do it do it fucking properly !
Pierre needs to take lessons from 2 of Buckinghamshires finest...
@Username You are completely missing the point. If there is no unprovoked abuse in the street, this doesn't happen. Not remotely an even 0.1% chance of any kind of unpleasantness. This casual, entitled, unconsidered antisocial behaviour is a cancer at the heart of society and the worst sort of football support. Responses to it vary, and violence is not remotely my preferred option - I'm a lover, not a fighter. But, honestly, if someone I didn't know, without prompting or cause, gestured insultingly at me and then told me I was shit at the job I'd just worked my guts out for and about which I obviously cared greatly, I'd be very tempted to act the way Pierre may have done.
George, who to his credit is making a lot less noise about this than others now, is entirely, 100%, responsible for this event happening. He should have taken the response he got on the chin (metaphorically - not a criticism of his footwork) and learnt a lesson about manners, rather than jumping onto Twitter. Any bozo who feels inclined to carry this on tomorrow, or anytime, with the kind of chanting you describe instead of allowing both parties time and space to kiss and make up and move on is just a twat, frankly.
Get stokes to Barnet. ..get pirregular to Barnet and let this be the end
Yes George is undoubtedly the cause, but that doesn't excuse Pierre at all. Violence is another level completely, you can't just overlook the fact he's headbutted someone in the street because it suits.
And I'm not condoning anti-AP chants, but I'd be willing to put money on it happening, especially if AP is on the pitch.
@Username If he'd knocked George down and then kicked him into unconsciousness, I'd have a different view , but I disagree that violence is another level, as you put it. In this case, it's one of a number of natural corollaries to the anti-social behaviour that began the episode. I would be stunned if Pierre was happy about what he did and if he said anything other than that he would deal with it differently another time. But aggression is aggression, whether it be physical or verbal. To my mind, the mindless unpleasantness of the instigator here is by far the greater issue for society.
That's where we differ then, physical assault is a far greater problem than verbals imo, and the law's
Many of us receive vereals at work...but do not respond with violence or risk the sack and police action
@wycombelad If you've got people you don't know making insulting gestures at you as you walk past and telling you you're shit at what you are doing while you go about your business, you seriously need to get a new job with a workplace that's not full of complete tossers.
Public facing jobs create exactly those issues
@wycombelad Pierre wasn't at work, he was in his car.
@Username I have a bigger problem with nutters who get their kicks from starting fights than I do with mouthy gits, agreed - sticks and stones and all that. But this wasn't a random psycho "starting" on a helpless and innocent victim. I respectfully take issue with the term "verbals" to describe insulting gestures directed at strangers in the street, followed up with abusive words when challenged on them. A different type than mine might describe that as fighting talk.
Vile verbal abuse from drunks is harmless and almost never leads to violence and anyone who says it does needs to come and tell me that to my ****ing face.
@wycombelad Could you describe the verbals you say you receive at work?
Sorry, just to confirm - verbally abusing someone is a bigger worry for society than someone head butting someone?
Wow
Working with housing issues, createspecially issues where people often become aggressive and abusive
@Vincey A disingenuous and inaccurate interpretation of what, on rereading, I find to be a fairly clearly-expressed argument.
But, to be clear, yes: the person who thinks it acceptable to stand in the street and abuse passers-by and strangers is by far the more concerning societal indicator than the person who reacts to such abuse with the sort of action indicated in this case. As I wrote (very clearly), it's not a good reaction. But it's the behaviour of the instigator that I find to be much worse for society.
@wycombelad having shouted at you in our workplace do they then drink heavily wait for you and follow you along the road shouting abuse?
Actually yes...and also threatened with syringes and knives....but still cannot react by headbutting people
@Wendoverman Nicely expressed, as ever. To my mind, the problem lies with the idea some people have that footballers, or public figures generally, are some kind of public property rather than fellow human beings. There is a bizarre sense of entitlement, that seems to have operated here and to be present in some people's construction of events that leads them to believe that these people are in some way fair game for their whims at all times and subject to different standards.
@Wendoverman To put it more succinctly: I walk up to you, a stranger, in the street and call you a c*&t. You punch me. We move on.
@wycombelad I take your point, and it is a fairer comparison than some others. To spell it out again, I don't see Pierre's reaction as being a correct one. But I'm not going to hang him for it.
I don't think he should have his career ruined at all, but I also don't think he should play again for WWFC.
I agree completely that shouting abuse at a player in the street isn't on as well btw, still doesn't excuse the response.
If a stranger walks up to me in the street and calls me a calls me a c**t I walk the other way.
@Username - sorry it does seem to be you I keep replying to. Being pedantic your earlier point about the law viewing a violent act more seriously than a non-violent act is actually wrong.
If you look at the sentencing guidelines the action of AP if found guilty of a headbutt as described would likely be a Section 47, Category 3 likely to result in a fine and community service.
If the actions of GS had involved a racially motivated element (I'm not for one moment saying there was) and he was considered a part of a gang this would likely be a Section 29, Category 2, which in law is given the same guidelines of a fine and community service.
But as we don't actually know what happened (and we genuinely only know one version at the moment) we are in no position to assess the respective seriousness of each of their actions