Bois Boycott

[Onthefringes]

41 minutes ago, pretzel said:

You talk some amount of drivel, every person that calls you out and you try and belittle them with your opening gambit. 

In previous debates you keep mentioning it's not hard to scrape the surface for info. Please feel free to share it with us it's not hard to imbed social comments or links, I think we would all really appreciate that. 

It was embarrassing seeing the likes of the carnage in Killie getting covered by the BBC and STV followed by the individual profiles on the Police social media pages. What's your thoughts on that event outwith the wrongly accused then? Not even just smashing up a pub but if I remember correctly they tore down barriers so that they could move to the bottom of the stand before launching on flares which scorched the pitch. 

Boxes of A4 paper were not admitted against Rangers with permission. I can just imagine the ex-cop approving materials targeting that of an ex employee. 

You don’t agree with posting style, don’t read. It’s not difficult.

If you’re not prepared to source the information which is readily available why should others share?

As I’ve said, far from positive. You find it embarrassing, I’m a little ambivalent given the variables. Whataboutery isn’t a great trait either.

Again, perhaps could’ve worded better, these A4 sheets were placed by a minority for use by a majority without challenge. Isn’t that right Bob?

[dennyc]

55 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Worded incorrectly then, ‘incidents’. Granted, far from positive, played down as I disagree on the mock outrage portrayed by some on here.

Secondly, stop attempting to twist my wording to suit your opinion. Nobody suggested whatever led to the incidents justified the outcomes. Some understanding of the precursor may alter ‘perceptions rather than the belief their version is the reality.

Circles.

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse.
Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated. 
 

[pretzel]

56 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

You don’t agree with posting style, don’t read. It’s not difficult.

If you’re not prepared to source the information which is readily available why should others share?

As I’ve said, far from positive. You find it embarrassing, I’m a little ambivalent given the variables. Whataboutery isn’t a great trait either.

Again, perhaps could’ve worded better, these A4 sheets were placed by a minority for use by a majority without challenge. Isn’t that right Bob?

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Oh and not to mention our discussion on Dean Cornelius moving to England where you convinced me you were his da with your apparent insider knowledge. 

I think a lot of people on here and over on P and B buy in to what you say due to your grandiloquent style of posting but I think it's clear as day you know heehaw and for whatever reason very defensive on this topic. 

[Onthefringes]

5 hours ago, dennyc said:

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse.
Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated. 
 

Placation. No denial incidents don’t take place. Answering yes, I justifiably play them down. It’s a world away from condoning behaviours.

Precursors have been stated over many threads and I fail to see the benefit of repeat. It certainly won’t change the viewpoint of those who refuse to look at the bigger picture..

[Onthefringes]

4 hours ago, pretzel said:

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Oh and not to mention our discussion on Dean Cornelius moving to England where you convinced me you were his da with your apparent insider knowledge. 

I think a lot of people on here and over on P and B buy in to what you say due to your grandiloquent style of posting but I think it's clear as day you know heehaw and for whatever reason very defensive on this topic. 

What purpose does it serve? Going over old ground, information sometimes comes from a position of trust. Doubt I’d be the only who wouldn’t just repeat to appease others who don’t wish to seek and find for themselves.

Then you set off on a tangent… the topic isn’t about me. I could discuss biology in one part, your mask just slips on the second. We see you.

[David]

15 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

Well said, great post some people don't want to know the reality as it does not fit their agendas that the block E  lads are all angels and never get into any trouble, at all.  I've no doubt most of them are blameless but the minority causing the issues are getting them all tarred with the same brush.

 

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

[0Neils40yarder]

On 9/5/2024 at 8:39 PM, dennyc said:

Accepting that incidents have taken place is a start at least. Different versions or not the fact is that lines have been crossed and Police/Club are being forced to intervene. How many Police do you imagine will be at Aberdeen? I do get that innocent folk have been unfairly caught up and that is wrong. The sooner that stops the better. 

As for ‘not many’ denying events. Playing them down as high jinx, or youthful exuberance, or an exaggeration, or justified is tantamount to condoning them.  A certain Society Board Member needs to think on that and achieve some perspective. 
And if you care to check back at previous discussions, I think you were one of a good few who forcefully said I was  misinterpreting events when I highlighted the fact that a woman sat a few rows in front of me was abused when she complained about liquid being thrown at SOD when he attempted to take a throw in. Apologies if you were not that poster. But the gist was ‘That did not happen’. 
And in this thread we have one poster attempting to downplay matters when a fan and his wife were abused, by distinguishing between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence. Really! I’m pretty sure whichever it was was pretty frightening. Or is one just high jinx and the other of concern? 
We also have another poster saying that football disorder is part of Society and we just have to accept it. It’s what folk do nowadays. And as we know that to be a fact, we can have no complaint if things kick off at matches we choose to attend. Any trouble I have witnessed has been at away matches, but that same poster confirmed he does not attend away matches that often. Perth was a huge step forward though so I’m hopeful that step forward continues. 
Look, I enjoy and respect what the Bois can bring to a game. Including the drum and the banners. Not so much the Ninja like face coverings we saw at the Clyde tie though. I certainly do not want to see them boycotting games or being banned. But I detest some of the behaviour (from a minority I am told) which I have personally witnessed inside and outside some grounds. I believe most fans think similarly and try to take a balanced view. But I don’t see much balance from those that appear to defend the Bois no matter what. 

 

I didn't downplay anything, I said keep it factual and that neither are acceptable...

[0Neils40yarder]

16 hours ago, David said:

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

He can't because it's not been said...

[maz]

On 9/6/2024 at 4:40 AM, pretzel said:

If you want to harp on about people not knowing the correct facts then surely a quick copy and paste from your sources would help matters, telling someone to source them suggests that you're talking nonsense and that they don't exist. 

However I love how you were able to personally access all the correct information on incidents regarding Killie, Kirkcaldy, Rangers and the most recent infractions while the rest of us are trying to work out what has been happening.

Yes, that poster seems to have form for going off on weird tangents. They seem to say a lot without really saying anything. Denied being privvy to inside information earlier only to say that they received some from a position of trust lol. Wrapped up with oneself methinks.

Hopefully, the Bois can iron out any issues that they have with the club or with certain employees, but I simply can't see that perfect relationship ever blossoming. On the opening day of the league season, it was nice to see that big banner display across the middle of the JH Stand, which obviously required both parties to arrange that, but then only a matter of weeks later we're getting a boycott for other reasons.

 

[David]

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case.

Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably.

They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings.

My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that.

Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions.

For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans?

Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole.

It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued.

Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand  section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about.

My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole.

Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me.

And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible?

Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted.

That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter.

Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct?

When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

[Pepper]

David and The Riddler talking nonsense again.

At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.

I've given the Bois as a group plenty of praise in the past and acknowledged all of the good things they do. In fact I've yet to see one person who has offered criticism that hasn't.

However, the narrative that the group is trying to push that they are some sort of hard done by  innocents is simply not true. 

 

 

 

 

[David]

1 hour ago, Pepper said:

At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.

How so? 

[Pepper]

7 minutes ago, David said:

How so? 

You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation.  Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own.

I can see this going the same way.

 

[David]

1 hour ago, Pepper said:

You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation.  Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own.

I can see this going the same way.

Really? Which threads?

If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach.

I suppose it all comes down to perspective.

[David]

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The legislation doesn't state a cut off period - just that a football related offence can include incidents before and after a game. 

Sounds incredibly vague to me. But then, I guess that may be the aim of it.

[Pepper]

1 hour ago, David said:

Really? Which threads?

If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach.

I suppose it all comes down to perspective.

The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly.

Back on topic - to be clear - I think it would be an absolute travesty if the Bois group were to be lost to the Club, wider fans, and the community. Far from sneering, I have lot of respect for what they have achieved, but, sometimes blunt criticism is deserved and is actually very necessary. They seem to have lost all sense of self policing that was evident in the past and have crossed the line on one too many occasions. The first thing is admitting when that happens. The lack of self awareness, and the "we are the victim" narrative gives me the boak. 

As much as us "outsiders" might be criticised for not being in the know, there are clearly some who are so close that they can't, or simply will not, see the wood for the trees. 

Support the team and don't act like wee dicks, it's not that difficult.

[David]

15 hours ago, Pepper said:

The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly.

The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window.

Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread.

It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads!

If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis.

The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere.

But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂

 

[Pepper]

1 hour ago, David said:

The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window.

Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread.

It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads!

If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis.

The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere.

But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂

 

I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't  the only one to comment. 

So it seems it's not only the Bois who have trouble admitting when they are wrong. 

[David]

8 hours ago, Pepper said:

I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't  the only one to comment. 

I genuinely don't know what to tell you. I actually went to check today after your post to see what had happened in the thread, as I'm unsure who "my pal" is that I was supposedly upset about being given a hard time.

As I mentioned, I reviewed the moderating I'd done back to around 2018, and couldn't find anything related.

Even if it did occur, you're talking about an average of closing a thread once a year, with most closures being due to transfer window threads that had run their course and so on.

You mentioned that I have a history of "closing threads," but only cited one instance over many years.

The reality is that a lot of leeway is given to posters on this forum. Much of the conversation that is permitted here would be deemed trolling elsewhere, which would have led to bans long ago.

I've received numerous private messages and complaints from various forum members regarding the tone, language, and subject matter on the forum, and I've had to explain that we're not particularly strict here.

This leniency towards certain individuals has likely contributed to driving people away, and while I believe the rules we have are adequate, I don't fault anyone who leaves due to the excessive negativity present.

[Cameron_Mcd]

50 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

All I will say on this post is that I agree that some people have closed down any criticism of the well bois and there has to be some kind of balance where people can criticise aspects of their behaviour - without being shot down. 

I don't think that's true, everyone I've seen post on here has acknowledged that there is an arsehole element within the Bois (and our support in general) but some of the posters here seem to be doing the opposite and portraying all of them as hardened criminals, there are one or two that I half expect to blame them for the JFK shooting and 9/11.

[Cameron_Mcd]

28 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There have been posters that have closed down any criticism and not only on here. On previous threads

I'm not the biggest fan of police Scotland and I have reasons for that but my point is surely people should be able to say what they've seen at away games without being told they are talking rubbish.

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused

When people are saying this stuff -they should not be dismissed out of hand. And some people are being. 

I also think it's really concerning that someone on this forum said him and his wife got verbally abused and verbally threatened by motherwell fans because they weren't wearing Motherwell colours.. At an away game - that's grim

I also completely get that we have horrible fans who aren't anything to do with the well bois - but no need. There is no need for any of it 

I had a look back a few pages and I'm not seeing anyone dispute either of these incidents, fair play if I'm just missing something.

[Onthefringes]

38 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused 

That’s the crux. Point in the direction ‘told that it didn’t happen’….

And ‘saw it with their own eyes’ doesn’t always give a full picture. That’s reason for little balance between some posts.

O’Donnell incident was done to death real time - the drink wasn’t thrown directly at him. Poor aim granted*, it was thrown at much maligned group who stood basically pitchside spoiling views of others. Player himself recognised that at a later date.

*Thats not to condone, nor play down.

[Onthefringes]

8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There was one poster on this thread who stated that an incident that had happened with the well bois at home that they witnessed - they were told that it didn't actually happen the way they described it. 

Rinse. Repeat 🙄

[steelman1991]

Reckon this thread has run it's course.

[grizzlyg]

2 hours ago, steelman1991 said:

Reckon this thread has run it's course.

Yep I agree