Originally Posted by AndreBaker
There was a disappointing lack of support from British club's fans today regarding the concept of safe standing, unfortunately that includes us:
Hopefully when the trials do happen it will lead to widespread acceptance and legalisation. I would love to be able to stand in the Barclay without some mini Hitler of a steward constantly telling me to sit down.
Off to the game now, enjoy whatever footy you're watching tonight everybody!
Here here. Sadly the entire staple of modern British society is to moan enough to voice our opinion, and then proceed to hope somebody else takes the time and effort to sorting it for us. An option to stand or sit at football is regularly popular when surveys/polls are undertaken and when the Tories won the election and gave people the chance online to petition possible legislation for them to consider, the standing measure was again one of the most popular (I'd say the most popular, but don't have access to stats to back that assertion, so I'll leave it at highly popular).
No surprise the Premier League don't back it. Standing equates freedom and would lead to cheaper tickets and a chance for more working class fans to attend games. The Premier League have worked hard to cater to 'a diverse audience' and are perfectly happy to see more and more families and affluent individuals paying the ridiculously inflated premier league prices. The fact these fans will sit down and not question stewards and their baffling approach to 'ensuring ground regulations are met' makes them even more appealing.
The Premier League is a rich man's game and the bosses have no understanding of the ordinary working man and are just basing their claims on a refusal to alter their current model.
Standing isn't unsafe and its mind-boggling people even try to argue otherwise. That's not a case of me trying to say if you don't want standing you're deluded, since people are entitled to their own opinion. They should however present a better argument that isn't founded on utter nonsense. There are no recorded injuries/deaths from people standing at football.
Man Utd and Aston Villa successfully challenged the Local Council's threats to close off sections of their grounds where there was persistant standing on the basis no court would rule against them. The local Council's don't even use 'safety' as an argument anymore, instead they focus more on beliefs that a return to standing will incite more hooliganism and prove harder for police in identifying offenders. Quite pathetic when you consider that high prices, stricter measures imposed on police in tackling trouble-makers combined with stricter sentences and more prominent CCTV have all but curbed hooliganism (at least inside and around football grounds). The rail-seat system still has an allocated seat per person, so once again the argument that offenders will slip through the grasp of stewards and officers is naive and foolish.
As for this woman:
Originally Posted by Margaret Aspinall
"There are 96 reasons why it should not be allowed," said Margaret Aspinall, whose son died at Hillsborough.
"Standing should never, ever come back. I do not think there is anything safe about standing.
"I feel insulted that people are trying to fight for justice for Hillsborough while this campaign is growing."
FUCK OFF. I have deep respect for why she is opposed to standing after losing her son to Hillsbrough. But for fuck's sake, she shouldn't be allowed to engage in such discussion when she proves time and time again to be clueless as to what model of standing the FSF are trying to implement.
This is a woman who said they'd have to bring fences back if standing ever returned, that foolish and utterly absurd statement demonstrates her level of intellect on this matter. She's clueless and inept and sadly (without trying to be offensive) relies solely on using the death of 96 fans as a way to stifle and eliminate discussion. She continually refuses to accept the German approach and its sterling success and just piddles a bunch of half-hearted statements about respecting the 96 and 'standing being an insult to their memory'.
Like I said, I would never expect her to be pro-standing (even if standing in no way cost her the life of her son) but she's too clueless on the matter to be allowed to speak so prominently. The campaign is founded on exemplary merit and can be debated rationally on numerous levels, only for people like her to always allow for other clueless folk to weigh into any debate and bring up Hillsbrough when it has no purpose to 'safe standing'.