The Football Association (FA) can now charge clubs if their fans use a homophobic chant that has been aimed at Chelsea players and supporters.

In January 2022, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) classed the chant as a homophobic slur and said fans singing it during matches were committing a hate crime.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64360412

Now – whether or not the alleged chant is or is not 'homophobic' and what indeed constitutes 'homophobia' or indeed whether any gay people in the stadium or beyond would be mortally offended or 'harmed' by such a chant is another debate BUT surely arresting and criminalising someone for a silly chant (where if it was done in a pub or on a street corner after a night out it would probably be passed off as misguided high jinks).

For me this whole ‘hate crime’ thing is another way to target football fans in a way that no other group in no other setting or scenario would be judged. I wholeheartedly condemn genuine ‘hate’ but don’t see why football fans should be harshly treated for stupidity in a way others would not – I do however believe there should be, certainly for first time offences, a process of education – get these people [IF they are guilty] talking with LGBT fans groups as to why [if?] such alleged chants hurt and are damaging - ditto for other categories of alleged ‘hate’.

While, should these allegations be proved, I'd have limited sympathy for the offenders, I just feel once again the nuclear button has been hit simply because these alleged offences took place in a football setting, and is if nothing else a huge waste of police & CPS time and money.

I get what you’re saying CC, in that football fans do seem to be targeted for criminal action over any bad or inappropriate behaviour.

But on this occasion, I imagine it’s only football supporters who shout this sort of homophobic stuff isn’t it? It’s not as if we walk down the high street or into a pub and see someone chucking insults about someone’s apparent sexuality. For a minority of football fans, their brains seem to turn to strawberry jelly when they walk through the turnstiles and they think it’s cool to chant inappropriate stuff about gays, women, English/Welsh people etc.

DeePeeNCAFC wrote: January 25th, 2023, 4:26 pm I get what you’re saying CC, in that football fans do seem to be targeted for criminal action over any bad or inappropriate behaviour.

But on this occasion, I imagine it’s only football supporters who shout this sort of homophobic stuff isn’t it? It’s not as if we walk down the high street or into a pub and see someone chucking insults about someone’s apparent sexuality. For a minority of football fans, their brains seem to turn to strawberry jelly when they walk through the turnstiles and they think it’s cool to chant inappropriate stuff about gays, women, English/Welsh people etc.

You have a point in that football can sometimes bring out the worst in people, that said 3 out of 40,000 = 0.0075% even if 100 times that many people were involved it’d still only be 0.75% - lies dam lies and statistics and all that but if 'homophobia' is an issue (which by and large in the UK at least it simply is not) then it’s a societal and NOT a football issue. Again, I'm not sticking up for the blokes arrested, but football fans in general.

I don't deny sometimes football fans can get a bit over excited and If and when football fans behave badly - they/we should get treated with fairness and proportionality and not treated more harshly simply because their chosen pastime is watching football [football fans continue to be more harshly treated by legislation – where essentially a nuclear button is hit when alleged poor behavior occurs].

Looking at the bbc piece, this has been driven by the FA and embraced by the club and the manager. Its not as if these fans were unaware that the chants are at the very least socially unacceptable.
Smoking has changed from being socially acceptable to unacceptable indoors, because of the effects of passive smoking driving public opinion and legislation.
Likewise sport can and should be a leader. The current problems in the WRU come from not leading, ignoring the issues, and instead continuing with a rugby joke book culture of the seventies

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2023, 9:52 am Looking at the bbc piece, this has been driven by the FA and embraced by the club and the manager. Its not as if these fans were unaware that the chants are at the very least socially unacceptable.
Smoking has changed from being socially acceptable to unacceptable indoors, because of the effects of passive smoking driving public opinion and legislation.
Likewise sport can and should be a leader. The current problems in the WRU come from not leading, ignoring the issues, and instead continuing with a rugby joke book culture of the seventies

To use your smoking example the point I'm making is - if smoking indoors is a punishable offence and the fine for smoking anywhere indoors/public space is say £50 (I think there is a fine structure in place not sure what level of fine or how its applied) - then it’s unfair to fine someone £500 just because they happened to have smoked in a football stadium or be a football fan - that was more my point - why football and its fans are unfairly and more harshly targeted & punished for things that many others do in other settings with little or no comeback.

Indeed this has its roots in class (and football fandom, despite some gentrification, remains a mainly working or lower middle class and male pursuit) and approaches to crime and punishment – the old trope of the Ox-bridge students being labelled as ‘revelers’ indulging in ’high jinks’ by jumping off bridges and running around town naked or whatever whereas a bunch of lads & lasses from Coleg Gwent celebrating the end to their apprenticeships with a few pints and a kebab down town and a few of them chucking a few traffic cones around being labelled ‘yobs’ and arrested. It’s the ‘othering’ of football fans and denigration of the working classes which leaves a bitter taste here.

All that is distinct from football, as you say, 'taking the lead' - albeit I'd question whether its right or desirable for football to take too political a stance on issues that are sometimes/often controversial and do not sit well with the majority of fans - such as LGBT (especially the 'T') or BLM [the organisation not the concept] as we’ve discussed on here before – I think football fans are somewhat exhausted with being lectured to on moral/political matters not least because the football clubs/players and authorities are morally corrupt (see Arab state investment & Qatar world cup, etc).

This is football and could well fall into the 'amber' category as well - yes its a difficult subject yes but posted in good faith...its not 'everything else'.

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/liverpo ... l2k7rmcnil

Football is a form of religion in Liverpool, and thus when leadership comes from the manager, it can have an affect on opinion generally. Who better to lead than Klopp, in preference to just anyone nearby, like Brian of Nazareth, a Jew who really didn't want people to follow his every word.

Some good, honest and relevant debate folks. Liverpool FC fans do get a lot of attention and possibly a minority bring this upon the whole club - in days gone by they would taunt Man Utd over tragedies affecting their club, and they as well as other clubs have thrown insults at Chelsea for years, yet LFC are sometimes on the wrong end of cruel barracking over Hillsborough or sometimes humorous chants about Scousers whingeing or stealing car parts.

It does need someone largely respected in the game like Klopp to remind fans of where the line of humour versus inappropriate chanting stands.

If you consider that a premiership club has hundreds of young people to shape, they are in a fairly unique position to influence. If more young footballers can make it into the professional game, the clubs benefit. Young players need to be totally focused to succeed, not distracted and upset generally by utter bollocks that they don't need.

I've blurted out things like "get up ya fairy" a few times, and then looked around embarrassed when I've realised what I've said. It's going to take time for attitudes to change, and for ingrained habits to not become second nature. It doesn't necessarily make you homophobic, it sometimes means you're part of a generation which didn't know any different.

rncfc wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:55 pm I've blurted out things like "get up ya fairy" a few times, and then looked around embarrassed when I've realised what I've said. It's going to take time for attitudes to change, and for ingrained habits to not become second nature. It doesn't necessarily make you homophobic, it sometimes means you're part of a generation which didn't know any different.

You are the very person(s) I'd stick up for as much as anything 1) because ''get up ya fairy" (not a phrase I would use just because I wouldn’t not because of any connotations as such) is mild in the extreme and if it is 'homophobic' it’s on the being tickled with feather as opposed to a punch in the face level and I think it’s insulting to suggest an LGB person would be mortally wounded if they were to hear it and its certainly not 'hate' (and I also reject that it’s a 'gateway' to serious homophobia as I’m quite sure 99.999% of people including yourself who said such a thing are not about to tool up and go on a gay bashing trip down to Brighton at the weekend*) 2) if you said that to a mate or a teenage lad in the street who had gone A over T in the street (in a non-football context) nobody would bat an eyelid or care even if here were lots of people around.

*I’m not dismissing that there are still, thankfully extremely rare, cases of ‘gay bashing’ even in 2023 and there certainly was much worse as recently as a decade ago – but a silly phrase said in haste and jest is not equivalent to nor on a spectrum with such a thing.

Banter tends to be between friends, and as such stronger than with someone you don't know. Therfore why say something at a match if you don't know how it is going to be received? With a friend you know who will rib you back, and give as good as they get, it's not an issue. But with someone you know won't answer back, it is basically bullying.
It's common sense mostly, and while subjective I wouldn't say that calling someone a fairy at a game would have the effect today that it may have done in the past. Words change, calling someone gay would have been very different 50 years ago, and if you are not likely to get a funny response, why bother?

Is homophobic chanting offensive? Clearly yes. Are racist jokes offensive? Yes. rncfc though has a point. If he shouts at a football match a homophobic comment he feels a total idiot. But if everyone who had ever been guilty of such behaviour was dragged up in front of the beak, well the courts would quickly grind to a halt.

And whilst we should call such behaviour out, if it's not hate speech I fear that there will become a one group against another.
Further what about genuinely held beliefs? A devout Christian, Muslim or Jew might well believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Now whist that view is bollox, and whilst if any person holding that belief who uses that to instigate violence should be subject to prosecution, holding that view and expressing it is not in my view criminal.

Then we reach a totally ridiculous situation. I can shout 'Homosexuality is an abomination' but can't shout 'Does your boyfriend know you're here?'

And remember also that a black person can be found to be racist against another black person, a woman can be found to discriminate against a women. On that basis 'We know what we are, sheep shaggin' ********, we know what we are' is likewise potentially illegal.

To be clear, I am not defending the behaviour merely suggesting making it unlawful is not a very bright thing to do.

Is anyone other than Stan suggesting court action?
There is a world were people interact perfectly outside of court.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 30th, 2023, 6:30 pm Banter tends to be between friends, and as such stronger than with someone you don't know. Therfore why say something at a match if you don't know how it is going to be received? With a friend you know who will rib you back, and give as good as they get, it's not an issue. But with someone you know won't answer back, it is basically bullying.
It's common sense mostly, and while subjective I wouldn't say that calling someone a fairy at a game would have the effect today that it may have done in the past. Words change, calling someone gay would have been very different 50 years ago, and if you are not likely to get a funny response, why bother?

I tend to agree but then why are some things sacred and others not? You [legally] and rightly cannot abuse someone who has ichosen to be *say* Catholic but can abuse someone based on height or hair colour they were by dint of genetics, born with, neither of which are “protected characteristics”.