Thetownend.com

Does it make me a bad person that I refused to participate in the 1 minutes applause for Wankleman's dad yesterday? Wankleman is a club stealing cunt and the whole thing about his dad being a 'true football supporter' made me cringe.

I didn't boo or anything there was just no way I was gonna participate in a one minutes applause for that family.

I didn't realise who the applause was for at first, so started clapping. When herthab told me it was for Winkleman's dad I stopped. I have no morals.

glad I'm not the only one then

You shouldve stormed the pitch

His Dad! Fuck me is that done for every member of that twats family that kicks it?

It was the 'in memory of a true football fan' line that really got to me.

Pity it wasnt Wanleman himself - that would have raised a good few cheers around the country.

i dont hate the bloke.he saw an opportunity and took it.
i hate the fact that he got to do what he did, without the football league stopping it.

I can't believe there was a minutes applause for the father of the chairman, what a total egowank

It could have gone oh so wrong if they'd expected a minutes silence.

They may as well call the club mk wankleman.

At half time did they have a bunch of 9 year olds dancing to Rhianna's 'come on boy is you big enough' again? Bunch of fucking paedo's.

Leave it out lads, his dad had followed Franchise all his life....

Oh.

:)

I wonder if he was a nice thieving fellow too?

Why slag off someone you dont even know....the poor bloke has died.
Dont understand all this shit aimed at MK........who gives a fuck...it was donkeys years ago.

eh ????????

Because his son is a club stealing cunt and I've told his lovely son that to his face.... I'm sure Wimbledon fans give a shit and I for one can't wait for that time in the near future where AFC Wimbledon will play the MK Mongs as it will be the best day in football in fucking years.

The AFC Wimbledon scarf you had yesterday was a nice touch, glos

if you feel that strongly why put money in their coffers yesterday?
not having a go.honest question

Amen

It was indeed yes

Took advantage of that Sun deal as always copies lying around at work so was cheap, that said am injured at the moment otherwise I probably would of played a match yesterday instead.

i saw a bloke with a Franchise shirt on and a wimb ledon scarf? work that one out, i was relieved it was a minutes applause, silence could have been very awkward.

And im pretty sure it wouldn't have been observed by everybody, too.

You might be a cunt Glos(sure your not)....that wouldn't want to give me the impedus to slag your old man off..i dont know him,he may have faught in the war.....not nice to slag people of who are dead to be honest.

What we do know, however, is that he spawned the cunt that is Wankleman.

I chose not to applaud !!

wankleman's dad had no right to have any recognition from a football crowd.

I would have just sang AFC Wimbledon throughout it myself.

Well Spence i always look at it from another view....if Fittons father had died and there was a mins silence for him i would be suprised yet would honour that request from the club.
Now say it was versus Oxford and there fans started booing we would all be on here talking about how scummy they were for doing it.
Now i agree that it was a strange decision but for fuks sake if you cannot give up a mins silence for a dead person its a bit sad in my view...........and thats all i have to say on it.

It wasn't a minutes silence anyway. It doesn't matter who he was related to, he didn't deserve a minutes applause from a few thousand people who had no clue whatsoever who the bloke was.

Probably not Sonic.

OK, what if we had a minutes silence for every death in the UK before every football match?

Although it was tragic, we should never have had 1 for the 2 Soham girls. It was nothing to do with us.

I agree that minute silences and noises should be for a certain type of person within football.

You either clapped for his old man or you didn't.... move on.

what about slagging off Adolf Hitler?

If there's one thing I will not stand for it's anyone slagging off Hitler. Let's all wear black armbands for the man.

Winklemen authorised it FFS

Just yet another Egowank (as Sonic so eloquently put it)

99.99 % 0f the so called MK "fans" would not have known him even if he had come san shagged them up the arse.

Lee, you are a good bloke, but this time you are so wide of the mark

I hope Winklemen catches Clamydia

Pete not Claudia. If she caught chlamydia it would be a huge shame.

agreed

These minutes silence and minutes applause things are becoming more and more common. I wonder if in a few years all football matches just start with a minutes applause over which the MC reads out all the deaths local or otherwise.

Taking the morals thread off on one a bit. I often feel like I should keep my head down over my feelings for Help for Heros. I won't go off on one about it here, but am I the only one who doesn't support them and finds it sends a ripple of anger through me?

Sorry for causing offence in advance as I know most would rather support this than Cancer Research or something.

no i agree, i dont believe in help for heroes, have been shouted at many times for voicing this too.

Each to their own I guess... I have and will donate to HFH, but never to homeless charities/animal charities.

Is this an ethical objection or one of higher priorities?

I never understand why HFH even needs to exsist? surely the goverment etc should help the troops if they are injured etc?

I think that's the whole point

ahhhhhhh I see

I often felt mean for thinking this - Im glad other people think it to

I believe that soldiers do deserve to have such a charity especially if the Government that sends these people off to war are falling short when it comes to helping the injured.

I have given to HFH before and enjoyed the days they have had at the CG - I just never really "got" it

my objections to HFH is that soldiers volunteered to join up, its as if being injured in war is a shock? dont get it.

Volunteers aren't entitled to charity? Donations are also voluntary. People choose to go to war and others choose to show their appreciation when they need it.

hmm volunteer maybe wasnt the right choice of word, every soldier chose to join the forces, they werent pressganged into it, surely one of the risks is being blown to bits?

one of the risks in my business is going bust and not being able to pay my staff, my business spreads joy and fun and laughter and has to my knowledge been the meeting place for many still married couples now with children, if i go bust will there be a help for nightclub promoters charity?

How would you feel about the RNLI Mex ?  (Lifeboats, for the uninitiated)

i give mney to lifeboats as people volunteer to do that and do not get paid for it (as far as i know)

Exactly. They're also not fighting for our country (in my opinion), so I find an uncomfortable paradox in supporting troops fighting a war for Blair/USA. I respect what they do, but unless they signed on expecting to play tummy-sticks until retirement, I would expect they wanted to go to a war zone, which entails risk. I also think it's our government's responsibility, as their employers, to help them, not ours, as a silent and unwilling partner, in some ego's war game.

you said that far more eloquently than me barry, but thats exactly how i feel. My old man has been given shit loads of grief for not contributing at the HFH day at county ground, nearly came to blows.

Well put.

hfh is a tough one really.i dont agree with the senseless wars we are in,but i dont think it is fair the measly pay outs the soldiers get after their lives are wrecked by injuries.this grates me especially as i'm always reading about 6 figure pay outs for stress etc,etc for office workers.

Yes, but that's paid by the employers arriba, not charities. OK, our government likely can't afford to pay £xxx,xxx for injuries in war and if that's the case there's a simple answer: bring them home.

I think it's unfair, even if you sign up for something, that if you get injured in the line of duty you don't get the support and rehabilitation with it. As others have said that's what the government should be doing.

If I got injured at work my employers would have insurance to cover it. You can't really do that with the forces.

For me it's not about what a brave job our troops do, it's giving them the support they deserve if wounded etc.

That said, people are entitled to refuse to donate to something they don't believe in and shouldn't be hounded for it. Loads of people slag off Comic Relief (as an example). I really don't give much to charities which don't strike a personal chord with me.

Since when has a soldier ever decided foreign policy? You'd have to be a complete retard to think us being at war in Iraq or Afganistan is a good idea, that doesn't mean the ordinary people over there risking thier lives don't deserve our support.

Most normal soldiers (not officers) come from the north of England, Scotland and Wales. There are very few that come from a "previleged" background and in most cases joining up to learn a trade is the only option they have.

Very interesting debate.  I am not a supporter of HfH.  I believe that soldiers should be properly recompensed by their employer (the Government) if they are injured in the course of their work, just as I would expect every employer to do the same for their workers.  I can quite understand that there is huge sympathy for some soldiers who sustain horrific injuries which they have to live with for the rest of their lives.  That will prompt some people quite legitimately to give to charities which support them - of which there are actually a large number for the armed forces, not least the Royal British Legion, that has done amazing work for nearly 100 years.
However, I find it more an more difficult to deal with the extra events that are being laid on - 2 mins silence both on Remembrance Sunday and on Armistice Day, Armed Forces day, Help the Heroes parades and more.... This seems to have a different agenda.  It seems to be saying that somehow the armed forces (all of whom are volunteers, and most of whom want to go into active service, even if they don't really realise what that might mean) are different from everyone else.  Death and injury at work is tragic wherever it happens - and like Mex Red, I think lifeboatmen, deep sea fishermen and others like them, have as much if not more call on our respect and our generosity.  When was the last minute's clap or silence for a lost trawler?

Ditto.

I don't agree with the war and for me it logically follows that I'm not going to give money to people injured in a war when I don't think they should have been there in the first place.

There's something that doesn't quite make sense to my reasoning in saying you can support the troops even if you don't support the war because at the end of the day they're the ones actually at the sharp end fighting that war.

so are you saying that we need no defence for this country ?

Or are you saying that you just dont want us to go and defend other peoples countries ?

I am sorry for quoting your post Spy, as the question is not just directed at you and bears no malice at your original post

Christ I've opened up a right can of worms here.

Its cool mate


I hate war, but understand the need for a defence, plus I also see the bigger picture with regards to NATO etc

All the houses round me have been bought by members of NATO now that there based here in Gloucester

its going to get worse as well mate

The Second World War was easily justifiable.

The Iraq war was based on lie and opposed by a massive proportion of the public. Saddam was not threatening our country. That's all been covered loads of times in the media, enquiries etc.

The Afghanistan war is just not winnable imo.

Both of these wars can actually fuel islamic extremism.

These are the reasons that spring to mind first of all.

If another country was actually going to invade us then that would clearly be a very different matter to going halfway around the world to change a regime/drop bombs etc.

e.g.You can't seriously say the Iraq war is a war of defense imo.

Probs, maybe they can shoot at the flood water if it ever comes back again

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Good ole boys

Which one ?

  *Devils Advocate*  If China got pissed off with us and wanted a tear up (for what ever reason), would you like us to take our chances standing alone, or would you want the help of NATO ? *Devils Advocate*

The main lie that springs to mind is the claim Iraq had WMDs.

I really don't think Saddam/Iraq did want a "tear up" with either the USA or the UK. Not in terms of launching a strike against us. Even if they had wanted to do that I don't think they had the means.

The U.S administration wanted to attack Iraq and a lot of the U.S people, having been whipped into a state of paranoia were keen on this idea. In peoples minds the invasion of Iraq was linked to 9/11. Some sort of extended 9/11 revenge as the next stage in the "war on terror". This was absolute bollocks and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

Not sure why you keep going on about NATO. NATO wasn't central to my argument. Are you talking about the illegal/legal war issue there?

Here's a question for you: do you think the invasion of Iraq and the continuing war there was justifiable or a defensive war?

Completely unjustifiable, the US hid behind 9/11 as a vehicle, totally agree with you there.

Pisses me off that Bush's cock was so far down Blairs throat, he was incapable of saying no.

Both Iraq wars were "convenient" for the US to go all Buffalo Bill on people, for economic or other reasons.

Moved to general discussion as it's not really got anything to do with football anymore.

Military is a necessary evil so long as the instability of other nations threatens the rest of the world but equally have no right to invade other nations to rectify that instability - when has it ever worked? And that's disregarding the real reasons for the recent conflicts.

Sorry Sonic.

and how come you are always better at putting things

Thats kinda what a was trying to get to

I take a different view of the relationship between Blair and Bush. In this instance, i believe blair actually had Bush on a leash. In my mind Bush would have gone in a lot quicker if it wasn't for Blair who tried to push Bush down the Un route. When it was obvious the UN were toothless then Blair couldn't hold him back any more.

I don't think the UN were toothless, more a case of what Bush wanted to do was fucking illegal.

I think Bush and the U.S administration wanted to go to war so much there was nothing Saddam or the U.N could do to stop them. He could have given the weapons inspectors all the access in the world and Iraq would still have been invaded.

First & foremost Iraq DID have WMD's. Sadaam used them on his own people, How do you think chemical Ali got his name . Sadaam was playing a game with the UN, & had probably got rid of the WMD's by the time the war started. I love it that all those against the war keep calling it an illegal war under the assumption that if you use the label enough times it becomes true.
Based on the evidence at the time available to us the war was justifiable. Probably not justified on the evidence available to Blair & Bush. I agree it certainly has nouight to do witrh 9/11.
The first Gulf War was certainly justified, & the problem was that Bush Senior stopped it too soon.

Afganistan is a totally different scenario & has everything to do with 9/11.  There is no doubt what so ever that many of the terrorists are funded & trainied from bases that were in afganistan. The idea that if we leave afganistan they will stop is deluded. They started it all when we had no presence their what so ever.
Again the problem is/was that Nato stopped before they should have done, when we had the Taliban on the run.
For me the guys taking the hits on the ground are absolute heroes & deserve more from the government. My son was / is thinking of joining the forces, & I am of the opinion that he would be best off in the Navy as I (selfishly) want him out of harms way. It's not that any thing really avoids risk, One of the options he had was underwater mine clearance which I thought was a good one, my comment to him being that it would be safer than him driving around the roads of wiltshire in his car !

What iv'e always wondered about people who slammed the Iraq war is this:

If it turned out that Saddam DID have WMD's, and they used them because the allies did nothing, would they be so quick to slam the government then?

Yes that is why it is an unwinnable war. If you agree things will go back to pretty much the same as it was in Afghanistan if the allies leave then what is the alternative? Stay there forever???

It's not as if the war in Afghanistan has gotten rid of Al Quaeda (who apparently are mostly in Pakistan now anyway) and the Taliban. You can't change an ideology by invading a country. You can't really change the way people think with tanks and bombs.

Tbh the war in Afghanistan is more justifiable than Iraq and has probably cut terrorist activities a bit. On the other hand it has also probably stirred up some hatred against the West and helped inspire some new terrorists too. The key issue for me is that it isn't winnable.

So you're saying if we hadn't gone to war and Saddam had launched WMDs then would I see things differently? Well of course because that would be a totally different situation. But I don't believe that would have happened because I don't believe he had WMDs and even if he did I don't think he would have used them given the intense international scrutiny he was under.

If Saddam had WMDs then why wouldn't he have used them against the allies?

Pointless question. The US knew they didn't, The UN knew they didn't and our government knew they didn't.

As I've said before, if US foreign policy wasn't so completely fucked up over the last 50 years 9/11 wouldn't have happened anyway (And Iraq wouldn't have been in the hands of Sadaam in the first fucking place!)

Dress it up however you want, but The US hve caused, or had a significant hand in, most of the problems in The Middle East.

Well...since the last crusade in the 13th century anyway!

Good point though John, the West have been sticking their noses in that region for hundreds of years. No wonder they don't like us much!

Can't believe Bush actually used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches!

Bush really was a useless prick.  The IQ of most Americans must be really low, they voted the fucker in twice.

bush has the brains of a primary school child.how that cunt was in charge of the biggest super power in the world beggars belief.

They are pretty thick yeah. With a lot of them their knowledge of the rest of the world is so low and after 9/11 they were in this paranoid uber-patriotic hysteria.

You had people in the middle of nowhere in Texas or wherever scared that they personally were going to get attacked by arabs.  :doh:

I have this theory about islam & christianity.

Christianity went through a phase where war was justified against the infidel. This manifested itself initially in the crusades & carried on as the spanish inqusition, the genocide of the aztecs etc. Even upto & including the infighting between catholics & protestants

Islam is a younger religion & is now in the same phase, with extremists promoting jihad & carrying out atocoties in the name of religion. they too have their infighting between Sunni & Shia

Both go against the actual teachings of the religions themselves, but if religion didn't exist would another excuse exist

If you would excuse me, what's the theory?

I don't think the theory (if that is what it is) holds water.  The truth is that humans utilise violence against one another in order to achieve their aims.  At various times through history, philosophies have appeared which challenge that as unworthy of human potential.  The original teachings of christianity (so far as we can access them) are one of those moments.  The Renaissance was another.  the Enlightenment, possibly, another.  But the battle of ideas has never been won in the dirty reality of human existence.  (Read John Gray's books - Straw Dogs, Al Quaida and What It Means to be Human and others for a devastating description of the human condition.)  Sadly, religious institutions have been as human as any other, and individual adherents of virtually all faiths have not been persuaded by the teachings of their faith.
I am a person of faith, and I feel humiliated by the attitudes and actions of the religious institution to which I belong, very often for their inhumanity and their compromise.  But I cannot pin the ills of the world on them or their forbears, rather than on anyone else.   It is I fear part of what it is to be human.  We can hope, we can hold on to ideals, but at the end of the day, humanity has not moved on a lot since Day 1.

I basically agree with what you've said.