• Manchester United Message Board

  • Rooney's appeal against his ban has, unsurprisingly, failed.
    So, the FA's Kangaroo Court, headed by City fan Bernstein, has its pound of flesh.
    Let's see what happens in any future case.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Self-idendification in the light of media pressure is problematic. If you really think that somebody working on the checkout at Tesco's is middle-class simply because they say they are is a fair reflection of reality, then, fair enough. But it isn't, is it? David Cameron maintains that his blue-blooded wife is "just an ordinary girl from Scunthorpe". Goebbels always maintained that "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it". How people self-define is often irrelevant. Joe Strummer of The Clash promoted himself as 'working-class', yet he was a Westminster public schoolboy and his father was a diplomat. Amusingly Shane McGowan of The Pogues was also a Westminster boy, and his parents were from Tunbridge Wells.

      The working-class exists, Robert. They are priced-out of football (as a Chelsea fan you should know that). If kids grow up in a poor area of Manchester, they simply can't afford to go to United, and that is a fact.

    • But this is the 21st century. If you don't agree with my claim that the class system is simply a historical anachronism, would you recognise that 70% of the population now describe themselves as middle class? If so, isn't claiming football for the working class (whoever they may be) a bit out-of-date?


      Robert

    • I can, Stefan, deny that those in prominent positions in so-called 'far-right' groups are 'working-class' because they are not. Griffin, Barnbrook, and the English National Ballet dancer, Simone Clarke are working-class, eh? Pull the other one - it's got bells on it. As I have explained in another post, there are the lumpen elements of the working-class who vote BNP, Tory, support fox-hunting and love the Royals...go figure.

      ASBOs are a complete disgrace. A friend of mine's son was given an ASBO for sitting on a wall with his mates - he has never committed a crime in his life, yet he is criminalised. If those who were looking at housing in inner cities as 'investment opportunities' dislike kids kicking a ball around or hanging around with their mates on a park then they should have stayed in the suburbs. But their viewpoint is essentially colonial, albeit directed inwards. If somebody commits a crime, then fair enough, but if somebody just wants to play football in their street or sit in a park with their girlfriend, leave them alone.

    • Dave, the obvious point I was making was that the middle-classes are not quite the wonderful people they are portrayed to be. To a certain extent I am indulging in hyperbole in order to counter the excessive devotion to unwarranted demonisation that inevitably surfaces when working-class culture is put under the microscope and is susceptible to middle-class generalisations. The reason I brought up Fascism is simply because anybody who studies history has to be aware that it was undeniably a middle-class movement. There can be no argument about that as the psephological data is absolutely conclusive.

      Sure, there are *some* working-class 'foot soldiers' who go along with fascist politics (if you have read Marx you will be familiar with the notion of the lumpen reactionary elements within the working-class), just as *some* working-class people vote Tory (especially in the South), yet nobody in their right mind would say that the Tories are a working-class party.

      As for Robert and the Daily Mail-reading woolyback Devon, they miss my point about football being a predominantly working-class sport in the 20th Century. Manchester United MOST DEFINITELY had working-class origins (railway workers) and there wasn't an Old Etonian in sight.

      Actually I thought Oliver Holt talked some sense (for once) on the Sunday Supplement this morning when he called Patrick Barclay "dense"!

      If you don't like swearing at football then you will not be able to take your kids to Anfield!

    • Hi Harijan

      That's a fair point.

    • Pool, the counter "opinions" on here are very rarely unbiased. The vast majority of non-United posters who come here, do so for one reason only, to take their jealousy out on the supporters and the club. It's difficult not to be defensive when confronted with these arseholes, or to give "new" posters the benefit of the doubt.

      With the amount of abuse Ian gets on here it's little wonder he's like he is.

    • I think they did too Ian. Where our opinions differ is that I don't think they did it to shaft Utd. I believe they did it because the press made a lot of noise and the FA caved to the pressure.

      As I've said before, banning Rooney only makes sense if the FA do it to every player. If not it's just a sop to the latest headline.

      Can I make a suggestion to you which of course you can completely ignore? I happen to agree with you in much of what you say on this subject but get frustrated with your "its Utd v the world" approach. I'm a Liverpool fan but don't pretend for one minute that the club or its players have never done anything wrong. A more balanced approach from you would result in more respect for your opinions.

    • Hi Ian

      No, what you actually put was ...

      "One wonders what next for Mason ? What he's saying is that he will send anyone off for using bad language. It will be, at the least, very difficult for him in the future. Still, the sheikh will probably look after him, unless Sh**y lose next week."

      If you meant Mancini then I don't see how he will be sending anyone off for bad language!?

    • Seriously pool, I think I meant the FA leaned on Mr Mason.

    • "It's a matter of fact that the ex-man city chairman is now the hchairman of the FA, so of course I don't deny it " Hi pool, wow that's a relief, I thought you were becoming paranoid. As to the comment about the Sheikh was about Mancini . Didn't I put Mancini ?

    • View More Messages