Safe-standing areas - TIME FOR ACTION

[West Stand Man]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas. I suspect that the vast majority of people in this country are either ambivalent to or anti this proposal.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.

Hence the need for a campaign to raise awareness and to properly educate decision makers on the facts. For instance, my MP replied with a reference to accident statistics provided by the FLA which have been proven to be non-existent and fabricated - he also referred to when this was last discussed in Parliament, which was in 2001. A suitable reply is being written to educate him about the facts.

I suspect that the vast majority of people in this country are either ambivalent to or anti this proposal.

I agree, because the vast majority of people in this country don't know or understand the facts, and have the ill-informed knee-jerk "Hillsborough was caused by standing" view. However, the vast majority of match-going football supporters (i.e. those who this is relevant to) do support this proposal, irrespective of whether they prefer to sit of stand themselves.

I'm also disappointed at the "Smug grin called for" - is your attitude to life the same as Homer Simpson's : "Son, if something is difficult to do then it's not worth doing." No-one said this will be easy, but there are tireless and dedicated people all over the country who don't give up because it is a bit difficult and because there are obstacles to achieving what they believe in. But these pe[list=]ple believe that they are right and that the facts are on their side, and that it can be achieved despite the difficulties, even if the only contribution of some fellow-supporters is to sneer and disparage.

[Platypuss]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.

'm also disappointed at the "Smug grin called for" - is your attitude to life the same as Homer Simpson's.

Based on his posting history I suspect it's his default setting.

[Big Foot]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.

Hence the need for a campaign to raise awareness and to properly educate decision makers on the facts. For instance, my MP replied with a reference to accident statistics provided by the FLA which have been proven to be non-existent and fabricated - he also referred to when this was last discussed in Parliament, which was in 2001. A suitable reply is being written to educate him about the facts.

Remarkably similar to my response from Alok Sharma. I'd welcome the opportunity to send him your reply too if you could share with me?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.

Hence the need for a campaign to raise awareness and to properly educate decision makers on the facts. For instance, my MP replied with a reference to accident statistics provided by the FLA which have been proven to be non-existent and fabricated - he also referred to when this was last discussed in Parliament, which was in 2001. A suitable reply is being written to educate him about the facts.

Remarkably similar to my response from Alok Sharma. I'd welcome the opportunity to send him your reply too if you could share with me?

Will do - I suspect the MPs with no knowledge of this are sending their researchers off and they're coming back with an outdated response.

[handbags_harris]

Hence the need for a campaign to raise awareness and to properly educate decision makers on the facts. For instance, my MP replied with a reference to accident statistics provided by the FLA which have been proven to be non-existent and fabricated - he also referred to when this was last discussed in Parliament, which was in 2001. A suitable reply is being written to educate him about the facts.

Remarkably similar to my response from Alok Sharma. I'd welcome the opportunity to send him your reply too if you could share with me?

Will do - I suspect the MPs with no knowledge of this are sending their researchers off and they're coming back with an outdated response.

Wasn't even granted the time of day by John Redwood to enable him to even quote any statistics and their sources. Would be helpful if you could forward me your letter so I can edit to suit?

[jonboy29red]

if this went to the eu as a breach of human rights would we have a case or not?

[West Stand Man]

Smug grin called for. As I keep saying, the politicians are as likely to vote for a reversal of safety standards (their perception thereof) as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.

'm also disappointed at the "Smug grin called for" - is your attitude to life the same as Homer Simpson's.

Based on his posting history I suspect it's his default setting.

Well, the smug grin is quite simply and accurately because I said earlier on that this is an issue which is driven by perception. The evidence is tending to support my claim. Simple as that really. What's your excuse?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Well, the smug grin is quite simply and accurately because I said earlier on that this is an issue which is driven by perception. The evidence is tending to support my claim. Simple as that really. What's your excuse?

No-one ever doubted that the perception is there, but that perception is wrong. The key difference is that while you taking delight in smugly disparaging other people's efforts, those other people are putting the time and effort in to change those perceptions.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Well, the smug grin is quite simply and accurately because I said earlier on that this is an issue which is driven by perception. The evidence is tending to support my claim. Simple as that really. What's your excuse?

No-one ever doubted that the perception is there, but that perception is wrong. The key difference is that while you taking delight in smugly disparaging other people's efforts, those other people are putting the time and effort in to change those perceptions.

And the stance is akin to saying "you can't change people's minds because they have a different belief" which rather misses the whole point of the "changing people's minds" part.

The number of MPs who'll ever have their minds changed by letters from constituent's letters is more or less zero, however well written and factual they are. They don't ever read them, after all. They might take notice of volume of opinion on the subject though.

What it needs is people with actual influence to get involved. People an MP might actually respect and listen to if they spoke. Without high-profile figures able to present the facts, the idea has no legs, as no MP will give a shit. At the moment the most likely candidates for such a role are other MPs, those who are supportive. Letters may, if nothing else, point out who those people are, and they can be pressed into presenting their views to a wider audience.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

E-petion to be set up???

[West Stand Man]

E-petion to be set up???

At the risk of upsetting the brain dead -- that is not the answer, however good it makes you all feel. Petitions signed by the emotionally involved will swing no-one's opinion.

To change perception you need some hard evidence that counters it. And I am afraid that this is where you have a real problem; you can show what I'd call negative evidence (ie there haven't been any Hillsborough/ Heysel type problems in the newer standing areas on the continent) but there is no hard evidence that this shows that standing is safe. It could (would) be argued that that type of incident hasn't happened but if it did then the risk is still higher than in all seated stadiums. Until there is a 'safe' riot in a modern standing area then you won't get the critical evidence you crave.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

was on BBC today, well supported e-petitions may be broguht forward and spoken about in the HoP

[Svlad Cjelli]

E-petitions are all part of the campaign, but in the real world they actually achieve nothing, and they're no substitute for real activism.

[Hugo Boss]

I reckon to really grab the attention of politicians we should all riot in Central London every week and smash stuff up. Ideally, we should do this every once a week or every couple of weeks cos it'll mean we can get out of doing actual work. Obviously once the holidays and time off come round we won't bother cos we won't want to use up our own free time to fight the cause.

[66DD]

If this campaign was actually about safe standing and not about a sentimental rose tinted glass view of what standing was like I would be more inclined to support it. I fail to understand the fascination for a return to the delapidated stadia, yobbism, violence, crowd surges, crush injuries and being herded like cattle of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. I cannot conceive that people who were part of it would welcome it back. We saw at Torquay this season what could happen as the result of crowd surges. It was little more than good fortune that there was no photographer or ball boy sitting in front of that wall when it collapsed.
Standing at football matches will return; of that I have no doubt as parliamentary opinion will be swayed eventually through the futility of permitting non-compliance with current regulations. But the only way that I can see standing being permitted is that you are allocated a place to stand in the same way that you are allocated a seat currently; that it is impossible for crowd surges to happen and the allocation of standing places is limited to small areas at the back of stands.

[Red]

I love people using the Torquay "incident" as examples of how unsafe terracing is.

Maybe I've got it wrong but I thought 3 bricks gave way and one hapless supporter was left with bruising on his arm.

[Svlad Cjelli]

If this campaign was actually about safe standing and not about a sentimental rose tinted glass view of what standing was like I would be more inclined to support it. I fail to understand the fascination for a return to the delapidated stadia, yobbism, violence, crowd surges, crush injuries and being herded like cattle of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. I cannot conceive that people who were part of it would welcome it back. We saw at Torquay this season what could happen as the result of crowd surges. It was little more than good fortune that there was no photographer or ball boy sitting in front of that wall when it collapsed.
Standing at football matches will return; of that I have no doubt as parliamentary opinion will be swayed eventually through the futility of permitting non-compliance with current regulations. But the only way that I can see standing being permitted is that you are allocated a place to stand in the same way that you are allocated a seat currently; that it is impossible for crowd surges to happen and the allocation of standing places is limited to small areas at the back of stands.

Ermmm, I'd suggest you read this thread and take note of the number of times it states that this is categorically not about a return to the large-scale terraces of the past.

Also I'd suggest you look at the numerous pictures posted on this thread whcih show safe-standing areas, all of them quite different from the large-scale terraces of the past.

[66DD]

Ermmm, I'd suggest you read this thread and take note of the number of times it states that this is categorically not about a return to the large-scale terraces of the past.

Also I'd suggest you look at the numerous pictures posted on this thread whcih show safe-standing areas, all of them quite different from the large-scale terraces of the past.

I have read this thread and I have looked at the pictures and I am familiar with the FSF's campaign. I fully aware that safe standing is possible; but that doesn't matter how many times that you write it or how many times that you show the pictures you will not convince people that this is not about a return to the bad old days.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Ermmm, I'd suggest you read this thread and take note of the number of times it states that this is categorically not about a return to the large-scale terraces of the past.

Also I'd suggest you look at the numerous pictures posted on this thread whcih show safe-standing areas, all of them quite different from the large-scale terraces of the past.

I have read this thread and I have looked at the pictures and I am familiar with the FSF's campaign. I fully aware that safe standing is possible; but that doesn't matter how many times that you write it or how many times that you show the pictures you will not convince people that this is not about a return to the bad old days.

How can you be so certain? Do you speak for all the people? I know it is possible to convince people and change their opinion if you invest the time and give them facts and reasoned arguments.