I have to admit, I find "So what if he's a racist who abuses the manager, he's volunteering" a very strange stance. Is there a moral line that @Vital would draw somewhere which Mr Clift hasn't yet managed to drunkenly overstep? Could we one day expect to see nicely written match reports from ISIS, which would be fine as there's no mention in the report of the beheadings?
Not to condone what was said, but there's a few holier than thou attitudes on display here.
If these people never did or said anything in their youth that they're not proud of then fair enough
But speaking personally, I definitely can't say that. I remember joining in with homophobic chants at Brighton, and I've sung the "then go home and beat the wife etc" song away at Northern grounds (quite interesting in the context of the recent Phil Neville story)
Would I do either now? Absolutely not. Indeed I cringe at the memories (I'm talking 20+ years ago). But let's not deny younger supporters the opportunity to learn from their mistakes that we've all had.
I'm aware that this might mark me out as a hypocrite since I was arguing that the club was right to ban a supporter for racist behaviour but I suppose that shows that this is a nuanced subject.
I think your post and @drcongo's illustrate the nuance quite nicely, @eric_plant.
Like you, I am much less likely to say something crass or downright wicked than I used to be. Is there a certain class of person from whom you could not properly accept a match report - Hitler, say - because factors other than their writing were sufficiently compelling as to override the quality of their writing or the expediency of their being willing to write it? I don't say that there is but tend to think so. If that's right then where is the dividing line that tells us what is beyond the pale? It's not an easy question and an interesting one to discuss and consider. In the meantime, I share your view that the default is to make allowances for the folly of youth, within reason.
@TheDancingYak said:
At nearly 6:30am, and being male, I struggled to find the right spelling.
But you found it; I had been labouring under a misapprehension until this morning. I feel a right sucker @Lloyd2084.
With apologies for lowering the tone of what, even by the lofty standards of G2, has been a thoughtful and subtly nuanced discussion.
Is there not a difference between accepting the mistakes people may have made in the past and accepting the mistakes people are making now?
I do find myself uncomfortable with some public figure being slated for a minor indiscretion or public utterance decades ago. So what, you are the person you are now not the person you used to be.
yes of course youth and immaturity should be shown some tolerance, but only within limits. Where those youth are causing real damage, they should not be tolerated just because they are young. I do wonder if the recent incident involving the drummer that I read about here was in part at least caused by WWFC supporters having a worse reputation amongst stewards than they once did and hence an increased expectation that they are likely to be causing trouble. But I don't get to enough games to fully judge the behaviour of the group nor do I know (or care) who Mr Clift is so wouldn't be able to judge his involvement in it.
Personally I am surprised Vital choose to use Mr Clift, especially in light of the aaron pierre incident. While he writes for them, he represents their brand and as of now I wouldn't be comfortable that he was mature enough to be trusted not to be an arse and damage my brand by association. I would be looking for Mr Clift to demonstrate an extended period of maturity that as yet he does not appear to have done. That though is a decision for Vital. Our decision solely is whether to read it. (We perhaps also need to remember that this is just an online football reporting website - hardly important to society in the grand scale of things.)
I do find it very odd behaviour indeed of anyone taking the time to trawl Mr Clift's twitter feed seeking opportunities to be offended.
Separating past and present seems a very legitimate consideration in making any necessary judgement, @DevC.
I don't think there's a worse than historically reputation among away stewards for Wycombe fans. They are generally well-disposed towards us on our travels, in my relatively limited experience.
In the instant case, there is surely a separation to be made between comments one might think were a little knee-jerk or unnecessarily negative/ critical, like the ones referred to this week, and ones that use base racial epithets. The former are the product both of youth and of the modern social media that allows for stream-of-consciousness utterances that are not always carefully considered but are not ultimately representative of anything worse than impetuosity and a slightly shallow character. The latter potentially represent something much more reprehensible and potentially damaging to society and merit more careful consideration and potentially a censorious response of some kind.
I agree HC, the black or white nature of social media and the culture of abuse and extremes that it engenders is a new world perhaps not fully understood by those of us a little older. As it happens I also hold the culture social media encourages responsible for the much harsher "angrier" society we now seem to endure.
Maybe Mr Clift wasn't involved in the Pierre incident at all, Mr Plant. In my recollection he was but I might well be wrong. It doesn't really matter - the fact that I (and I am sure others) have a vague association between Mr Clift and that incident is why if I was Vital I would keep well away from him, until he had proved that he now had the maturity to represent my brand. As I say their call though - in the grand scale of things it doesn't really matter.
@DevC - don't you think it would be advisable to be sure about the facts in your second paragraph? If you are wrong and I can't recall the details you've further maligned Mr Clift, beyond his ill judged Gipsy jibe at the manager.
No. My point was that if I was Vital, I would not want Mr Clift to represent my brand due to my (and I am sure others) perceptions of his immature behaviour and the immature behaviour of the group of people I associate him with. That may be unfair to mr Clift who may be a paragon of virtue. I still wouldn't damage my brand by the association. I don't think its that important though!
And completely agree with Eric, must be very boring up on the pedestals a fair few of you love on.
And suggesting that it has anything to do with a steward being OTT at Luton is ridiculous. Do you really think stewards get a proper pre match briefing of the opposition fans?
I understood your point, but I think your casual attitude towards the facts is wrong. By all means judge a person by their behaviour, but be clear what that behaviour is, that is leading you to condemn them.
If you don't know what the facts are, then why are you reaching any sort of judgement about the individual concerned or the merits of the Vital decision. Its pure hypothetical stuff isn't it. Please come back when you can find time to check the evidence before posting. There may be a valid view somewhere, but not the way you've presented it.
@DevC I suggest your association with Watford FC has had a negative reaction to a lot on this board. Please tell us why you gave up on Wycombe and went glory hunting at Vicarage road?
Not quite sure why anybody is interested, but no secrets here.
I was first taken to Wycombe as a young lad by my dad and then went with a few of my mates as a young teenager (12-15ish?). I suspect my parents thought it was a relatively safe environment. Gradually my mates dropped out (it was in the late 70s nadir) and found I was going on my own. that was a bit dull so I stopped going too.
Saturday work, then university and girls kept me away from football for several years.
Then living and working in London, a mate (and Watford season ticket holder) invited me to watch a Watford game with him. I enjoyed it and went for a few seasons.
Work took me abroad , I got married and had kids and gave up football again for a while.
Then Wycombe moved to Adams park and my dad suggested we went and had a look.
We went along and got hooked again (in part I suspect because my dad was dying from cancer and it was great to spend some precious time together). Although I have since moved away and he has died, I have retained the interest, in part I suspect a psychiatrist would say because it keeps me close to his memory.
I live 250 miles away so these days I don't get to many games (10 in a good season, less in a bad - including this one when I doubt if I will make 5.).
I'm sure those that are bothered can go back and check rather than rely on memory/folk-lore, but if I wanted to condemn somebody's conduct and judge them on it I'd personally want to be clear what happened or I'd look a bit silly. DevC has effectively admitted that the facts are unimportant to him.
@Baldric said:
I'm sure those that are bothered can go back and check rather than rely on memory/folk-lore, but if I wanted to condemn somebody's conduct and judge them on it I'd personally want to be clear what happened or I'd look a bit silly. DevC has effectively admitted that the facts are unimportant to him.
Having just reread some of the (huge!) thread following the Pierre incident my favourite part is when George Stokes claims he said to Pierre 'I think you had a pretty awful game'.
The second paragraph of your post at 2:14 accuses Mr Clift of something, then says it doesn't matter if he did it or not. My memory might recall you touching up a young girl on a train - be better if my attitude to you was founded in the facts don't you think. But anyway its a matter for somebody else what they think and do. Just keep spreading the rumours anyway hey!
Comments
Useful though. I always thought it ended ‘is’.
It is a bit of a tongue twister Micra...
At nearly 6:30am, and being male, I struggled to find the right spelling.
I have to admit, I find "So what if he's a racist who abuses the manager, he's volunteering" a very strange stance. Is there a moral line that @Vital would draw somewhere which Mr Clift hasn't yet managed to drunkenly overstep? Could we one day expect to see nicely written match reports from ISIS, which would be fine as there's no mention in the report of the beheadings?
Not to condone what was said, but there's a few holier than thou attitudes on display here.
If these people never did or said anything in their youth that they're not proud of then fair enough
But speaking personally, I definitely can't say that. I remember joining in with homophobic chants at Brighton, and I've sung the "then go home and beat the wife etc" song away at Northern grounds (quite interesting in the context of the recent Phil Neville story)
Would I do either now? Absolutely not. Indeed I cringe at the memories (I'm talking 20+ years ago). But let's not deny younger supporters the opportunity to learn from their mistakes that we've all had.
I'm aware that this might mark me out as a hypocrite since I was arguing that the club was right to ban a supporter for racist behaviour but I suppose that shows that this is a nuanced subject.
I think your post and @drcongo's illustrate the nuance quite nicely, @eric_plant.
Like you, I am much less likely to say something crass or downright wicked than I used to be. Is there a certain class of person from whom you could not properly accept a match report - Hitler, say - because factors other than their writing were sufficiently compelling as to override the quality of their writing or the expediency of their being willing to write it? I don't say that there is but tend to think so. If that's right then where is the dividing line that tells us what is beyond the pale? It's not an easy question and an interesting one to discuss and consider. In the meantime, I share your view that the default is to make allowances for the folly of youth, within reason.
But you found it; I had been labouring under a misapprehension until this morning. I feel a right sucker @Lloyd2084.
With apologies for lowering the tone of what, even by the lofty standards of G2, has been a thoughtful and subtly nuanced discussion.
Is there not a difference between accepting the mistakes people may have made in the past and accepting the mistakes people are making now?
I do find myself uncomfortable with some public figure being slated for a minor indiscretion or public utterance decades ago. So what, you are the person you are now not the person you used to be.
yes of course youth and immaturity should be shown some tolerance, but only within limits. Where those youth are causing real damage, they should not be tolerated just because they are young. I do wonder if the recent incident involving the drummer that I read about here was in part at least caused by WWFC supporters having a worse reputation amongst stewards than they once did and hence an increased expectation that they are likely to be causing trouble. But I don't get to enough games to fully judge the behaviour of the group nor do I know (or care) who Mr Clift is so wouldn't be able to judge his involvement in it.
Personally I am surprised Vital choose to use Mr Clift, especially in light of the aaron pierre incident. While he writes for them, he represents their brand and as of now I wouldn't be comfortable that he was mature enough to be trusted not to be an arse and damage my brand by association. I would be looking for Mr Clift to demonstrate an extended period of maturity that as yet he does not appear to have done. That though is a decision for Vital. Our decision solely is whether to read it. (We perhaps also need to remember that this is just an online football reporting website - hardly important to society in the grand scale of things.)
I do find it very odd behaviour indeed of anyone taking the time to trawl Mr Clift's twitter feed seeking opportunities to be offended.
It was someone else involved in the altercation with Aaron Pierre
Separating past and present seems a very legitimate consideration in making any necessary judgement, @DevC.
I don't think there's a worse than historically reputation among away stewards for Wycombe fans. They are generally well-disposed towards us on our travels, in my relatively limited experience.
In the instant case, there is surely a separation to be made between comments one might think were a little knee-jerk or unnecessarily negative/ critical, like the ones referred to this week, and ones that use base racial epithets. The former are the product both of youth and of the modern social media that allows for stream-of-consciousness utterances that are not always carefully considered but are not ultimately representative of anything worse than impetuosity and a slightly shallow character. The latter potentially represent something much more reprehensible and potentially damaging to society and merit more careful consideration and potentially a censorious response of some kind.
I agree HC, the black or white nature of social media and the culture of abuse and extremes that it engenders is a new world perhaps not fully understood by those of us a little older. As it happens I also hold the culture social media encourages responsible for the much harsher "angrier" society we now seem to endure.
Maybe Mr Clift wasn't involved in the Pierre incident at all, Mr Plant. In my recollection he was but I might well be wrong. It doesn't really matter - the fact that I (and I am sure others) have a vague association between Mr Clift and that incident is why if I was Vital I would keep well away from him, until he had proved that he now had the maturity to represent my brand. As I say their call though - in the grand scale of things it doesn't really matter.
@DevC - don't you think it would be advisable to be sure about the facts in your second paragraph? If you are wrong and I can't recall the details you've further maligned Mr Clift, beyond his ill judged Gipsy jibe at the manager.
No. My point was that if I was Vital, I would not want Mr Clift to represent my brand due to my (and I am sure others) perceptions of his immature behaviour and the immature behaviour of the group of people I associate him with. That may be unfair to mr Clift who may be a paragon of virtue. I still wouldn't damage my brand by the association. I don't think its that important though!
what an extraordinary thing to say
"he might not have been involved at all but I think he was so better not to have him involved"
This is from someone who has argued (quite rightly in my opinion) for the rehabilitation of offenders as well
But basically what you're saying is:
Drunk driver kills 2 children - allowed to play in goal for professional football team
supporter not involved in brief fracas with Wycombe centre half but you thought he was - not allowed to write match reports for a fans website
you must admit that that is preposterous?
He definitely wasn't the one involved with AP....
And completely agree with Eric, must be very boring up on the pedestals a fair few of you love on.
And suggesting that it has anything to do with a steward being OTT at Luton is ridiculous. Do you really think stewards get a proper pre match briefing of the opposition fans?
I understood your point, but I think your casual attitude towards the facts is wrong. By all means judge a person by their behaviour, but be clear what that behaviour is, that is leading you to condemn them.
As I say its a matter for Vital.
I wouldn't have him as a representative of my brand as I wouldn't trust him to behave with sufficient maturity not to damage that brand.
vital form a different judgement. That is their right.
I form a judgement whether to read Vital as a result - that is my right.
If you don't know what the facts are, then why are you reaching any sort of judgement about the individual concerned or the merits of the Vital decision. Its pure hypothetical stuff isn't it. Please come back when you can find time to check the evidence before posting. There may be a valid view somewhere, but not the way you've presented it.
@DevC I suggest your association with Watford FC has had a negative reaction to a lot on this board. Please tell us why you gave up on Wycombe and went glory hunting at Vicarage road?
Not quite sure why anybody is interested, but no secrets here.
I was first taken to Wycombe as a young lad by my dad and then went with a few of my mates as a young teenager (12-15ish?). I suspect my parents thought it was a relatively safe environment. Gradually my mates dropped out (it was in the late 70s nadir) and found I was going on my own. that was a bit dull so I stopped going too.
Saturday work, then university and girls kept me away from football for several years.
Then living and working in London, a mate (and Watford season ticket holder) invited me to watch a Watford game with him. I enjoyed it and went for a few seasons.
Work took me abroad , I got married and had kids and gave up football again for a while.
Then Wycombe moved to Adams park and my dad suggested we went and had a look.
We went along and got hooked again (in part I suspect because my dad was dying from cancer and it was great to spend some precious time together). Although I have since moved away and he has died, I have retained the interest, in part I suspect a psychiatrist would say because it keeps me close to his memory.
I live 250 miles away so these days I don't get to many games (10 in a good season, less in a bad - including this one when I doubt if I will make 5.).
@clifty04 was in the group that had the incident with Pierre, wasn’t he? He posted his account of the events on the Gasroom at the time.
From recollection he was a witness, no suggestion he was involved.
What a dire turn this thread has taken.
I'm sure those that are bothered can go back and check rather than rely on memory/folk-lore, but if I wanted to condemn somebody's conduct and judge them on it I'd personally want to be clear what happened or I'd look a bit silly. DevC has effectively admitted that the facts are unimportant to him.
most Gasroom threads, given time, will end with Dev annoying everyone and Chris looking to defend him
This.
I really didn't though, did I Baldric. But I am really not sure this subject is important enough to argue.
Having just reread some of the (huge!) thread following the Pierre incident my favourite part is when George Stokes claims he said to Pierre 'I think you had a pretty awful game'.
The second paragraph of your post at 2:14 accuses Mr Clift of something, then says it doesn't matter if he did it or not. My memory might recall you touching up a young girl on a train - be better if my attitude to you was founded in the facts don't you think. But anyway its a matter for somebody else what they think and do. Just keep spreading the rumours anyway hey!
On par with when the guy who Cantona kung-fu kicked. 'An early bath for you' indeed.