Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 17, 2025, 07:24:13 AM
-
Hmm, both Starmer, but especially Badenoch, are playing a dangerous game here as if Starmer were to reverse the decision, and thete was trouble, perhaps a policeman was seriously injured, there could be a case for suing them. Even if it were to go well it would create a dangerous precedent in being involved directly in this sort of decision.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205gnz5p8xo
-
Presumably Starmer, and others, consider that this decision can be seen as antisemitic since it is the fans of the Israeli club who are being restricted when, possibly, if there was any trouble, these fans would be on the receiving end and not be the perpetrators - though they may be if provoked. Then there is the possibility of protests separate from those attending the match, and disturbance to the local residents.
Rocks and hard places come to mind.
-
Presumably Starmer, and others, consider that this decision can be seen as antisemitic since it is the fans of the Israeli club who are being restricted when, possibly, if there was any trouble, these fans would be on the receiving end and not be the perpetrators - though they may be if provoked. Then there is the possibility of protests separate from those attending the match, and disturbance to the local residents.
Rocks and hard places come to mind.
The safety committee and thd police were in the rick and hard place bit. The involvement from Starmer and Badenoch has made that worse, and placed them in the same position now for decisions like this, since it is involvement in an operational matter.
-
True - it sets a precedent that senior politicians may intervene on local matters but without either experience or local knowledge nor, in this case, an understanding of how large crowd events can/should be managed - plus they usurp those people who ordinarily would carry the responsibility, and have the expertise required.
If senior politicians get overly involved in the micro-management of routine events, contentious or otherwise, then who is dealing with the macro stuff?
-
When I saw this on TV this morning, I did wonder to myself, why on Earth are you touching this Starmer?
What thought processes led you to believe that this was the right thing to do?
It is a matter for the police to address operationally. Anyone with any sense can see that this could be a flashpoint for trouble, which is presumably why the police took the decision in the first place.
JFC!
-
Looking at the Guardian Live blog it seems this has grown arms and legs this morning - and that what they have succeeded in doing is attracting the attention of various protest groups to this event irrespective of the actual football match.
They've let a genie out of a bottle.
-
When I saw this on TV this morning, I did wonder to myself, why on Earth are you touching this Starmer?
What thought processes led you to believe that this was the right thing to do?
It is a matter for the police to address operationally. Anyone with any sense can see that this could be a flashpoint for trouble, which is presumably why the police took the decision in the first place.
JFC!
I don't understand why he didn't take the line that it is deplorable that the police and the safety committee had to take this decision but I support their competence in deciding this and will work with all authorities to see how we can avoid this in the future.
He's called it wrong because he sees it as a failure but then then contextually implies that the police and safety committe are anti semitic cowards. In addition it allows Badenich to call on him to act which then either makes him look weak when he doesn't act, or weak when he dies because the Tories told him to.
-
To be fair to Starmer this is the position taken by the Lib Dems and Reform so he's in the mainstream. The Greens have gone for football fans should be allowed to attend matches but that the match shouldn't happen because we should be boycotting Israel line.
-
From Facebook:
-
Hmmm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgr4n07509wo
-
Maccabi's far-right fans (including one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/21/standing-with-maccabis-football-hooligans-against-local-police-is-that-what-patriotism-looks-like-now
-
Maccabi's far-right fans (including one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/21/standing-with-maccabis-football-hooligans-against-local-police-is-that-what-patriotism-looks-like-now
Given that Lisa Nandy said in parliament that stopping away fans had never been happened, should she ve sacked or resign? And if either of those what should happen to the beige Farage, Starmer.
-
Sounds to me that some of those who were quick to cite antisemitism should perhaps have checked out the rationale for restricting these fans before they jumped to conclusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/police-intelligence-on-extreme-maccabi-fans-with-history-of-violence-led-to-villa-park-ban
-
Sounds to me that some of those who were quick to cite antisemitism should perhaps have checked out the rationale for restricting these fans before they jumped to conclusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/police-intelligence-on-extreme-maccabi-fans-with-history-of-violence-led-to-villa-park-ban
Like Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Farage.
-
Like Starmer, Badenoch, Davey, Farage.
Yep - they should have done some fact-finding before pontificating.
-
Yep - they should have done some fact-finding before pontificating.
That Starmer as PM did what he did has severely compromised the operational decision.
-
That Starmer as PM did what he did has severely compromised the operational decision.
The odd thing is, since he is clearly not a stupid man, and lawyers tend to pay attention to detail, that he seemingly reacted before asking for the justification behind a decision made by experts in the field on the basis of intelligence information.
-
The odd thing is, since he is clearly not a stupid man, and lawyers tend to pay attention to detail, that he seemingly reacted before asking for the justification behind a decision made by experts in the field on the basis of intelligence information.
I think he lacks an emotional/moral centre and it seemed like the most politic thing to do. It's a bit like having his wife's underwear paid for by a donor. He doesn't see the problems with either
-
The problem now is that the govt has taken a position that the decision itself is inherently anti semitic so is implicitly accusing those who made the decision of being anti semitic despite the basis of the decision. This then effectively means that no matter what trouble would be caused by fans of Israeli teams in the future you have created a precedent that any decision to ban them is inherently anti semitic
-
As I said, Starmer should have left it alone.
It is a clusterfuck of his own making.
-
The problem now is that the govt has taken a position that the decision itself is inherently anti semitic so is implicitly accusing those who made the decision of being anti semitic despite the basis of the decision. This then effectively means that no matter what trouble would be caused by fans of Israeli teams in the future you have created a precedent that any decision to ban them is inherently anti semitic
"Semitic" is a linguistic term and refers to a group of languages originating in north Africa and the Middle East. Both Arabic and Hebrew are semitic languages (as is Maltese). Arabic and its variants are spoken by a much greater number of people than is Hebrew and so the term "anti-semitic" must surely be more appropriate as indicating hostility towards people living in the Middle East rather than just Israel. To be "anti-semitic" implies that one is anti-Arab as well as anti-Israel.
-
"Semitic" is a linguistic term and refers to a group of languages originating in north Africa and the Middle East. Both Arabic and Hebrew are semitic languages (as is Maltese). Arabic and its variants are spoken by a much greater number of people than is Hebrew and so the term "anti-semitic" must surely be more appropriate as indicating hostility towards people living in the Middle East rather than just Israel. To be "anti-semitic" implies that one is anti-Arab as well as anti-Israel.
Except in common usage it refers to Jews.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic