Glenn Hoddle

[Leonard Venkhater]

48 minutes ago, 47er said:

Bloody hell! I can't believe what I'm reading! What's happening? 

Hahahaha..

A million candles burning for the help that never came...

[Stuart]

This thread should be moved to ICBINF. No good can come from it and it’s not about football and barely about Glenn Hoddle, let alone his poorly condition.

Hoddle has his views and his detractors have theirs. I was a lot older than 7 (sadly) when this kicked off and I remember it well.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7

Sadly, in wider society, intellectual, and especially spiritual, debate is dead and has been for some time. People have to be extremely careful about every word used, every intonation, every gesture. Emotional responses, egged-on by the press, now dictate what can and cannot be discussed in public, and to ignore this is to put one’s livelihood at risk and worse, more insidious problems.

The amount of anger that is expressed from those who wish to suppress freedom of speech because it “offends” them (or usually them on behalf of someone else or if a minority group) is palpable.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row

It wasn’t enough for Hoddle’s comments to be challenged - probably because it’s difficult to challenge someone’s faith/beliefs - he had to be forced out of his job to appease the media. Most likely in order to stop the agenda moving from Hoddle to the FA, to the government, and the Prime Minister himself. Self-preservation kicked in under questions from the media.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/07/tonyblair

Does anyone think that Hoddle changed his beliefs as a result of his sacking? Or does anyone’s when they are told that they are offending people? No, they just stop talking about it, and they and others become less and less likely to discuss things openly. More right wing views thrive in this environment as they can claim to be the only ones championing free speech and offer a haven for those whose “freedoms” are being “oppressed”. Ironic, huh? While society - as presented by the media and social media - is becoming ever more left wing (to the point that even tradition left-wingers don’t recognise the rhetoric any more), political society is moving more right wing and nationalistic (e.g. Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, is it politically correct to include the SNP? - the rules are so contradictory based on who shouts loudest. Is there really much difference between Sturgeon and Farage in terms of their ideals?)

It is always better to discuss and encourage debate of these things rather than shout down others because you don’t like what they are saying. Otherwise the insidious bit...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

Anyway, hope Glenn gets better soon.

[Mike E]

15 minutes ago, Stuart said:

This thread should be moved to ICBINF. No good can come from it and it’s not about football and barely about Glenn Hoddle, let alone his poorly condition.

Hoddle has his views and his detractors have theirs. I was a lot older than 7 (sadly) when this kicked off and I remember it well.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7

Sadly, in wider society, intellectual, and especially spiritual, debate is dead and has been for some time. People have to be extremely careful about every word used, every intonation, every gesture. Emotional responses, egged-on by the press, now dictate what can and cannot be discussed in public, and to ignore this is to put one’s livelihood at risk and worse, more insidious problems.

The amount of anger that is expressed from those who wish to suppress freedom of speech because it “offends” them (or usually them on behalf of someone else or if a minority group) is palpable.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row

It wasn’t enough for Hoddle’s comments to be challenged - probably because it’s difficult to challenge someone’s faith/beliefs - he had to be forced out of his job to appease the media. Most likely in order to stop the agenda moving from Hoddle to the FA, to the government, and the Prime Minister himself. Self-preservation kicked in under questions from the media.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/07/tonyblair

Does anyone think that Hoddle changed his beliefs as a result of his sacking? Or does anyone’s when they are told that they are offending people? No, they just stop talking about it, and they and others become less and less likely to discuss things openly. More right wing views thrive in this environment as they can claim to be the only ones championing free speech and offer a haven for those whose “freedoms” are being “oppressed”. Ironic, huh? While society - as presented by the media and social media - is becoming ever more left wing (to the point that even tradition left-wingers don’t recognise the rhetoric any more), political society is moving more right wing and nationalistic (e.g. Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, is it politically correct to include the SNP? - the rules are so contradictory based on who shouts loudest. Is there really much difference between Sturgeon and Farage in terms of their ideals?)

It is always better to discuss and encourage debate of these things rather than shout down others because you don’t like what they are saying. Otherwise the insidious bit...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

Anyway, hope Glenn gets better soon.

I don't think there's been any supression of freedom of speech on this thread, rather there has been quite a good, lively discussion.

Glenn is perfectly entitled to express his views as strongly as he likes, just as I am to contradict them as strongly as I like, and all areas inbetween.

However, there are certain jobs where one's relationship with the public DO dictate just what you can publicly say bevause of the nature of the job.

Imagine if there had been an aspiring English disabled footballer breaking through at the time. If one were to change what he said so that it concerned black people, how do you think the Ferdinands, Cole, Ince, Palmer, Collymore, James, Dublin (any others?) would have felt about playing under such a manager?

The freedom to offend is extremely important, but surely one must take with that the freedom to criticise and be condemned.

[Stuart]

Just now, Mike E said:

I don't think there's been any supression of freedom of speech on this thread, rather there has been quite a good, lively discussion.

Glenn is perfectly entitled to express his views as strongly as he likes, just as I am to contradict them as strongly as I like, and all areas inbetween.

However, there are certain jobs where one's relationship with the public DO dictate just what you can publicly say bevause of the nature of the job.

Imagine if there had been an aspiring English disabled footballer breaking through at the time. If one were to change what he said so that it concerned black people, how do you think the Ferdinands, Cole, Ince, Palmer, Collymore, James, Dublin (any others?) would have felt about playing under such a manager?

The freedom to offend is extremely important, but surely one must take with that the freedom to criticise and be condemned.

The thread is off topic for the Football section.

The debate here is reasonable, in society less so.

Criticism and condemnation, yes, but lose your job? Why should that be the automatic outcome? That with halt any debates.

[Oldgregg86]

14 minutes ago, Stuart said:

The thread is off topic for the Football section.

The debate here is reasonable, in society less so.

Criticism and condemnation, yes, but lose your job? Why should that be the automatic outcome? That with halt any debates.

I agree to an extent with what your saying and in normal walks of life I completely agree but like it or not if your the manager of England you just can't come out and say that, especially with a disabled supporters group and not expect the backlash he got. Time and a place etc 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Oldgregg86

[Leonard Venkhater]

10 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

I agree to an extent with what your saying and in normal walks of life I completely agree but like it or not if your the manager of England you just can't come out and say that, especially with a disabled supporters group and not expect the backlash he got. Time and a place etc 

Quite. You can't have someone maintaining a prestigious national post, if he is going to come out with offensive crap like that...unless, of course, he was managing the German soccer team in 1936....

[Stuart]

1 minute ago, Oldgregg86 said:

I agree to an extent with what your saying and in normal walks of life I completely agree but like it or not if your the manager of England you just can't come out and say that, especially with a disabled supporters group and not expect the backlash he got. Time and a place etc 

My point is that, yes, he should expect to be taken to task and challenged and even alternate views put forward. Celebrities can be a good springboard for debate that would otherwise be off the radar.

He was interviewed and asked about his views. He gave his honest opinion on a topic which nobody knows the actual truth about. Can anyone prove him wrong? No, so he was immediately called for the sack under a “media storm” of “public outrage”.

Like I said though, he was really sacked because it became political when it should have simply been treated with the same contempt that his Eileen Drewery “nonsense” was [just my opinion - it might not be!] by becoming tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapping.

The current society worries me greatly though. The other day somebody was forced to apologise for quoting Winston Churchill because of accusations that they were indirectly supporting an evil racist! His achievements and leadership will be rewritten and destroyed within the next 10 years the way we are going. It makes you wonder who is promoting these views though...

[Mike E]

36 minutes ago, Stuart said:

The thread is off topic for the Football section.

The debate here is reasonable, in society less so.

Criticism and condemnation, yes, but lose your job? Why should that be the automatic outcome? That with halt any debates.

In any average job, I'd agree. But in a job where a significant chunk of your fandom/custom is negatively targeted by what is said, there was little alternative imo.

For context his comments were about 20% of the English population. Imagine the uproar if he'd negatively addressed Muslims (less than 5% of the English population). That's also bearing in mind that religion is a choice, while disability isn't.

I do have to admit it's an area I'm biased about, mind.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Mike E

[Stuart]

Just now, Mike E said:

In any average job, I'd agree. But in a job where a significant chunk of your fandom/custom is negatively targeted by what is said, there was little alternative imo.

For context his comments were about 20% of the English population. Imagine the uproar if he'd negatively addressed Muslims (less than 5% of the English population). That's also bearing in mind the religion is a choice, while disability isn't.

Don’t agree.

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 minutes ago, Stuart said:

My point is that, yes, he should expect to be taken to task and challenged and even alternate views put forward. Celebrities can be a good springboard for debate that would otherwise be off the radar.

He was interviewed and asked about his views. He gave his honest opinion on a topic which nobody knows the actual truth about. Can anyone prove him wrong? No, so he was immediately called for the sack under a “media storm” of “public outrage”.

Like I said though, he was really sacked because it became political when it should have simply been treated with the same contempt that his Eileen Drewery “nonsense” was [just my opinion - it might not be!] by becoming tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapping.

The current society worries me greatly though. The other day somebody was forced to apologise for quoting Winston Churchill because of accusations that they were indirectly supporting an evil racist! His achievements and leadership will be rewritten and destroyed within the next 10 years the way we are going. It makes you wonder who is promoting these views though...

No, you can't disprove his comments, just like we can't disprove that suicide bombers arrive in heaven to 100 virgins. I agree that political correctness is gone crazy. I would say that stuff like man sized tissues needing to be renamed is stupid. Likewise not being allowed quote Churchill is stupid. However I think Hoddles comments were nasty and targeted at a very vulnerable group.  I wouldn't want to work for someone who had those views. I can totally understand why he was sacked. Back then there wasn't such over reaction to comments made which nowadays would be jumped on, I think that just shows that his comments really did hit a nerve, not just with "snowflakes" 

[JBiz]

12 minutes ago, Stuart said:

He gave his honest opinion on a topic which nobody knows the actual truth about. Can anyone prove him wrong? No, so he was immediately called for the sack under a “media storm” of “public outrage”.

I don’t think he was sacked because nobody can prove him wrong. I think he was sacked because he represents (through his employment and reputation) the interests of millions of people. We aren’t talking about a bloke who dices beef at Holland’s pies. We are talking about someone who had been given a public platform to talk because of responsibility and success in football. What’s that got to do with spiritual beliefs?

In that position - you should be a role model for society, and thus expected not to ostracise 20% of the population because of something you believe. At no point has anyone said he “shouldn’t have those views”, it’s about the way it’s shared.

I might have specific opinions on immigration, homosexuality, feminism and religion that you find extremely insensitive or insulting. If I had responsiblilities that gave me a media platform, I’d be just as ignorant and arrogant if I started using it to promote my beliefs. The “he was asked” about it argument doesn’t wash, nobody with his rep should be that naive to not anticipate the media are intent on shocking/sensational stories.

Plus - I’m quite sure science and common sense can say quite easily that disability is nothing to do with reincarnation. It’s immensly arrogant to even consider that others should simply accept the possibility they’re less-able than others for “karma” or spiritual reasons.

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Biz said:

I don’t think he was sacked because nobody can prove him wrong. I think he was sacked because he represents (through his employment and reputation) the interests of millions of people. We aren’t talking about a bloke who dices beef at Holland’s pies. We are talking about someone who had been given a public platform to talk because of responsibility and success in football. What’s that got to do with spiritual beliefs?

In that position - you should be a role model for society, and thus expected not to ostracise 20% of the population because of something you believe. At no point has anyone said he “shouldn’t have those views”, it’s about the way it’s shared.

I might have specific opinions on immigration, homosexuality, feminism and religion that you find extremely insensitive or insulting. If I had responsiblilities that gave me a media platform, I’d be just as ignorant and arrogant if I started using it to promote my beliefs. The “he was asked” about it argument doesn’t wash, nobody with his rep should be that naive to not anticipate the media are intent on shocking/sensational stories.

Plus - I’m quite sure science and common sense can say quite easily that disability is nothing to do with reincarnation. It’s immensly arrogant to even consider that others should simply accept the possibility they’re less-able than others for “karma” or spiritual reasons.

 

I agree with the rest, but can't agree with this line. I don't believe it, so maybe common sense would say it's not the case, but it definitely cannot be scientifically proven. Just like we can't prove that we weren't all created by a giant spaghetti monster!  People can claim anything when it comes to this stuff. Better off keeping it to yourself though. 

[JBiz]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

I agree with the rest, but can't agree with this line. I don't believe it, so maybe common sense would say it's not the case, but it definitely cannot be scientifically proven. Just like we can't prove that we weren't all created by a giant spaghetti monster!  People can claim anything when it comes to this stuff. Better off keeping it to yourself though. 

You’re probably right - wasn’t intentially worded to be as dismissive. 

However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that can (depending on your definition of the word) prove how life on earth works, however what people personally want to think is up to them. 

I mean - for me the onus of proof should be on those who wish to believe in alternatives. From my perspective and experience, religious and spiritual types often put the onus on “disproving” suggestions as opposed to the opposite. 

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

5 minutes ago, Biz said:

You’re probably right - wasn’t intentially worded to be as dismissive. 

However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that can (depending on your definition of the word) prove how life on earth works, however what people personally want to think is up to them. 

I mean - for me the onus of proof should be on those who wish to believe in alternatives. From my perspective and experience, religious and spiritual types often put the onus on “disproving” suggestions as opposed to the opposite. 

 

I don't think there is any definitive scientific evidence when it comes to a creation theory.  Evolution is the best we have, but as in many fields, the scientists in that area are very resistant to new evidence. There are also a lot of holes in it. 

To bring it back to the topic, if Hoddle said he believed that God created the earth is his toilet, people would have said "that's a bit mad". I don't know if he would have lost his job though. He did cos what he said was nasty and attacked a vulnerable group. 

They surely aren't discussing such deep topics on the Burnley forum. Anyways, I will be back on this thread Friday after a doobie  

Edited October 31, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Stuart]

51 minutes ago, Biz said:

I don’t think he was sacked because nobody can prove him wrong. I think he was sacked because he represents (through his employment and reputation) the interests of millions of people. We aren’t talking about a bloke who dices beef at Holland’s pies. We are talking about someone who had been given a public platform to talk because of responsibility and success in football. What’s that got to do with spiritual beliefs?

In that position - you should be a role model for society, and thus expected not to ostracise 20% of the population because of something you believe. At no point has anyone said he “shouldn’t have those views”, it’s about the way it’s shared.

I might have specific opinions on immigration, homosexuality, feminism and religion that you find extremely insensitive or insulting. If I had responsiblilities that gave me a media platform, I’d be just as ignorant and arrogant if I started using it to promote my beliefs. The “he was asked” about it argument doesn’t wash, nobody with his rep should be that naive to not anticipate the media are intent on shocking/sensational stories.

Plus - I’m quite sure science and common sense can say quite easily that disability is nothing to do with reincarnation. It’s immensly arrogant to even consider that others should simply accept the possibility they’re less-able than others for “karma” or spiritual reasons.

So you are saying hold any views you like but never share them with people.

I’m not convinced that is the way forward as it will only create ignorant, bigoted people who will continue to perpetuate biases and prejudices.

Discussion and education should be encouraged, not suppressed. Get it all out in the open and have proper civilised debate. Sacking people because we think they should be held up to higher scrutiny than others creates a tiered morality.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Stuart

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, Stuart said:

So you are saying hold any views you like but never share them with people.

I’m not convinced that is the way forward as it will only create ignorant, bigoted people who will continue to perpetuate biases and prejudices.

Discussion and education should be encouraged, not suppressed. Get it all out in the open and have proper civilised debate. Sacking people because we think they should be held up to higher scrutiny than others creates a tiered morality.

He never had a platform for experience or knowledge of spirituality though - he was interviewed as England Football manager. 

Much of its timing. I’m sure that it would’ve been glossed over and ignored if he has said it after being manager. Tiered morality is one way of putting it, but maybe a better way is saying he had more responsibility than you or I. Hence his words have more resonance or impact.

 

[Stuart]

Not Hoddle-related but another joke / “unacceptable opinion” censored...

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/10/instagram-deletes-milo-post-said-sad-magabombers-bombs-didnt-work/

[Stuart]

Just now, Biz said:

He never had a platform for experience or knowledge of spirituality though - he was interviewed as England Football manager. 

Much of its timing. I’m sure that it would’ve been glossed over and ignored if he has said it after being manager. Tiered morality is one way of putting it, but maybe a better way is saying he had more responsibility than you or I. Hence his words have more resonance or impact.

 

He was asked about the subject and to provide his view on the issue under coercion and questioning from the interviewer.

Because of his previous comments on the issue, the Observer journalist knew exactly what he was going to get. It was to all intents entrapment by putting the question to him under the pretence of “interviewing the England manager” when it was about getting comments from Glenn Hoddle as an individual. I expect he was hopping about the room as he emailed his copy in to the editor.

[Bigdoggsteel]

18 minutes ago, Stuart said:

So you are saying hold any views you like but never share them with people.

I’m not convinced that is the way forward as it will only create ignorant, bigoted people who will continue to perpetuate biases and prejudices.

Discussion and education should be encouraged, not suppressed. Get it all out in the open and have proper civilised debate. Sacking people because we think they should be held up to higher scrutiny than others creates a tiered morality.

What about your strong views on laughter emojis Stuart?  Do people not have the right to laugh at others posts? 

[K-Hod]

5 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Not Hoddle-related but another joke / “unacceptable opinion” censored...

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/10/instagram-deletes-milo-post-said-sad-magabombers-bombs-didnt-work/

Easy for him to say it's a joke after the event, though to be honest, it probably was. That guy is another Katie Hopkins anyhow, he just takes a polarising view for publicity. 

[JBiz]

Just now, Stuart said:

He was asked about the subject and to provide his view on the issue under coercion and questioning from the interviewer.

Because of his previous comments on the issue, the Observer journalist knew exactly what he was going to get. It was to all intents entrapment by putting the question to him under the pretence of “interviewing the England manager” when it was about getting comments from Glenn Hoddle as an individual. I expect he was hopping about the room as he emailed his copy in to the editor.

That’s something we can fully agree on.

 A more savvy and less ignorant individual would’ve been quite aware of the intentions of the press. It’s hardly “news” that sensationalism sells papers - nowadays it’s “clicks”.

Which links directly to the Milo quote - just another Instagram account for making money from hits, blogs, youtube videos and sponsorships. The more people they piss off, the more replies, the more money they make.

Should they be allowed too? In my opinion, it should be censored. The problem then lies in where the line is drawn. Wishing death on people is a long way past the line though! 

 

[Stuart]

19 minutes ago, Biz said:

That’s something we can fully agree on.

 A more savvy and less ignorant individual would’ve been quite aware of the intentions of the press. It’s hardly “news” that sensationalism sells papers - nowadays it’s “clicks”.

Which links directly to the Milo quote - just another Instagram account for making money from hits, blogs, youtube videos and sponsorships. The more people they piss off, the more replies, the more money they make.

Should they be allowed too? In my opinion, it should be censored. The problem then lies in where the line is drawn. Wishing death on people is a long way past the line though! 

 

He didn’t wish anyone dead though. That’s your inference.

My concern, as much as where the line is drawn, is who is drawing the line...?

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, Stuart said:

He didn’t wish anyone dead though. That’s your inference.

My concern, as much as where the line is drawn, is who is drawing the line...?

Didn’t he wish (milo) that the bombs hadn’t been duds, I.e. exploded and killed the targets, including another at a different office? Apologies if you thought I meant Glen Hoddle. If Milo was on the cabinet, an apology and comment deletion wouldn’t be enough of a punishment... saying that, what Boris Johnson has gotten away with over the years is astounding... “tongue in cheek” is often the defence.

Hoddle’s comments arent as nasty or flippant, however he was in a different position of responsibility so talking about his beliefs like such is effectively promoting them. Again goes back to expecting more of people in certain limelight, I’m sure if it was a tv star or musician saying what he did, nobody would bat an eyelid.

You're also probably correct about this being an ICBINF thread too, since Hoddle is only really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to free speech discussion.

[jim mk2]

3 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

I agree to an extent with what your saying and in normal walks of life I completely agree but like it or not if your the manager of England you just can't come out and say that, especially with a disabled supporters group and not expect the backlash he got. Time and a place etc 

 

Agreed. Hoddle's remarks were offensive and inappropriate for his position. It shows the sort of bubble footballers exist in if he thought he could make those comments and there not be repercussions. Hoddle knew he was talking to a journalist from a leading newspaper and his "thoughts" would be transmitted around the world - why did he not just stick to his brief as England manager ?  

[Pedro]

Although extremely low in percentage, I'm sure there are also people with disabilities who share Hoddle's opinions and believe they did something wrong in a past life.  

Personally, I think it's a shame he was hounded out of his job by the holier than thou hypocrites in the media.