This Kroenke hunting thing is repugnant, but there is some pretty empty moral

[Burney]

grandstanding going on around it.

People are acting as though they are in some way forced to fund Kroenke's activities by dint of being Arsenal fans. By all means have a moan about it and if you feel that strongly about it, withdraw your custom. But don't let's pretend you don't have a choice about whether to give Arsenal Football Club money, ffs!

As with so many issues, I really do feel there's a case for having the words 'REMEMBER YOU ARE JUST A CUSTOMER OF A BUSINESS WITH THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW YOUR CUSTOM WHENEVER YOU LIKE' tattooed inside the eyelids of most football fans.

[Sir C]

grandstanding going on around it.

People are acting as though they are in some way forced to fund Kroenke's activities by dint of being Arsenal fans. By all means have a moan about it and if you feel that strongly about it, withdraw your custom. But don't let's pretend you don't have a choice about whether to give Arsenal Football Club money, ffs!

As with so many issues, I really do feel there's a case for having the words 'REMEMBER YOU ARE JUST A CUSTOMER OF A BUSINESS WITH THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW YOUR CUSTOM WHENEVER YOU LIKE' tattooed inside the eyelids of most football fans.

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

[Just Trent]

grandstanding going on around it.

People are acting as though they are in some way forced to fund Kroenke's activities by dint of being Arsenal fans. By all means have a moan about it and if you feel that strongly about it, withdraw your custom. But don't let's pretend you don't have a choice about whether to give Arsenal Football Club money, ffs!

As with so many issues, I really do feel there's a case for having the words 'REMEMBER YOU ARE JUST A CUSTOMER OF A BUSINESS WITH THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW YOUR CUSTOM WHENEVER YOU LIKE' tattooed inside the eyelids of most football fans.

If they armed the animals, this sort of thing would never happen. :chief:

[Burney]

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

You realise, of course, that that means cancelling your Sky Sports subscription? :-(

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

I've just renewed my red membership :banghead: I won't next year. That'll learn the wiggy cùnt.

[SWv2]

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

Personally I don’t see any crossover between his business interests funding this TV channel and my continued support for a football team.

I don’t like the former and obviously won’t be a subscriber but will happily continue with the latter.

One is not so naïve to think that people like the Hill Woods, Dein or even Fizsman did not push some boundaries, moral or otherwise, in their accumulation of the millions of pounds they are/were worth.

For the record I have never condemned Chelsea supporters for any acts relevant to the ownership of the club.

[Sir C]

You realise, of course, that that means cancelling your Sky Sports subscription? :-(

Well, there are degrees. If you take it that far, it would also mean cancelling my TV licence, which would mean not being allowed to watch any TV, so that might be a little extreme.

[Burney]

Personally I don’t see any crossover between his business interests funding this TV channel and my continued support for a football team.

I don’t like the former and obviously won’t be a subscriber but will happily continue with the latter.

One is not so naïve to think that people like the Hill Woods, Dein or even Fizsman did not push some boundaries, moral or otherwise, in their accumulation of the millions of pounds they are/were worth.

For the record I have never condemned Chelsea supporters for any acts relevant to the ownership of the club.

That's absolutely fine. Not feeling strongly about it is a perfectly defensible position. What is less defensible is expressing your outrage whilst having the means available to make a meaningful protest and then not making that protest.

[Burney]

Well, there are degrees. If you take it that far, it would also mean cancelling my TV licence, which would mean not being allowed to watch any TV, so that might be a little extreme.

But it's a massive source of funding to all football clubs :shrug:

[SWv2]

That's absolutely fine. Not feeling strongly about it is a perfectly defensible position. What is less defensible is expressing your outrage whilst having the means available to make a meaningful protest and then not making that protest.

Well I do feel strongly in that I believe such killing of animals, whether ethical or not, when done as a sport (very important distinction this) is disgusting.

I myself can however distance the two, the football club I have supported for over 40 years and the fact that the owner of said club also owns a TV channel. I am not convinced that SK personally makes every decision at KSE and thus specifically at this TV channel.

The whole thing is rum but I struggle with the ultimate link between Danny Welbeck missing an absolute sitter from 7 yards and this other than being intelligent enough to understand global corporate structures

[Burney]

Well I do feel strongly in that I believe such killing of animals, whether ethical or not, when done as a sport (very important distinction this) is disgusting.

I myself can however distance the two, the football club I have supported for over 40 years and the fact that the owner of said club also owns a TV channel. I am not convinced that SK personally makes every decision at KSE and thus specifically at this TV channel.

The whole thing is rum but I struggle with the ultimate link between Danny Welbeck missing an absolute sitter from 7 yards and this other than being intelligent enough to understand global corporate structures

Hmmm. Now - if you'll forgive me - it does just sound like you're looking for reasons why you don't have to bother doing anything about it.

[Peter]

Well I do feel strongly in that I believe such killing of animals, whether ethical or not, when done as a sport (very important distinction this) is disgusting.

I myself can however distance the two, the football club I have supported for over 40 years and the fact that the owner of said club also owns a TV channel. I am not convinced that SK personally makes every decision at KSE and thus specifically at this TV channel.

The whole thing is rum but I struggle with the ultimate link between Danny Welbeck missing an absolute sitter from 7 yards and this other than being intelligent enough to understand global corporate structures

The link is pretty bloody obvious. The two entities (arsenal and this TV channel) are owned by the same bloke. Giving money to one entity gives money to the guy that also owns and funds the other. The thought process is that this is a bad man and you shouldn’t give him your money.

The guys watching this channel might hate the thought of funding Arsenal.

It isn’t a problem for me as I don’t give the club any money anyway.

[Peter]

That's absolutely fine. Not feeling strongly about it is a perfectly defensible position. What is less defensible is expressing your outrage whilst having the means available to make a meaningful protest and then not making that protest.

That is the world we live in. I bet the overwhelming majority of people would profess to be against cruelty to animals. I guarantee you most of those people have a significant number of products in their homes that were tested on animals.

People have their limits. They may be furious about something, just not quite furious enough to be willing to make any kind of personal sacrifice, such as buying a different moisturiser.

[Burney]

The link is pretty bloody obvious. The two entities (arsenal and this TV channel) are owned by the same bloke. Giving money to one entity gives money to the guy that also owns and funds the other. The thought process is that this is a bad man and you shouldn’t give him your money.

The guys watching this channel might hate the thought of funding Arsenal.

It isn’t a problem for me as I don’t give the club any money anyway.

Nor me. More by accident than design, my hands are fairly clean. I don't even have Sky or BT Sport, while the idea of actually going to a game these days fills me with horror.

[Peter]

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

All support?

Are we still allowed to be happen when Arsenal win?

[SWv2]

Hmmm. Now - if you'll forgive me - it does just sound like you're looking for reasons why you don't have to bother doing anything about it.

No, I don't need reasons to justify it to myself. I am perfectly fine with continued support of a football team. I am not going to stop simply because the current custodian of the club has a few dodgy business interests.

My couple of hundred every year is not funding anything relative to the animal slaughter.

[Peter]

Nor me. More by accident than design, my hands are fairly clean. I don't even have Sky or BT Sport, while the idea of actually going to a game these days fills me with horror.

Through online piracy I manage to watch without giving them any money. So I am actually stealing money from them.

A modern day Robin Hood. A hero, one might even say.

[Burney]

That is the world we live in. I bet the overwhelming majority of people would profess to be against cruelty to animals. I guarantee you most of those people have a significant number of products in their homes that were tested on animals.

People have their limits. They may be furious about something, just not quite furious enough to be willing to make any kind of personal sacrifice, such as buying a different moisturiser.

Exactly so. And that's fine. All I ask is that they therefore temper their fury with the realisation that it is fatally undermined and shut the fück up about how furious they are.

[Burney]

Through online piracy I manage to watch without giving them any money. So I am actually stealing money from them.

A modern day Robin Hood. A hero, one might even say.


Actually, I don't even pirate the games anymore - such is my apathy. :-(

[Peter]

Exactly so. And that's fine. All I ask is that they therefore temper their fury with the realisation that it is fatally undermined and shut the fück up about how furious they are.

There is an easy answer to this. Tell them that Tesco are against animal testing and none of their products are tested on animals.

Tesco. Even Tesco feel more strongly about this than you do. Now shut the **** up.

Withdrawing your custom is the only input you have as a customer. Its also the only one you deserve.

[Peter]

Actually, I don't even pirate the games anymore - such is my apathy. :-(

I have an account with permanent access to Sky Sports.

Cricket, b. I barely watch the football anymore.

[Peter]

No, I don't need reasons to justify it to myself. I am perfectly fine with continued support of a football team. I am not going to stop simply because the current custodian of the club has a few dodgy business interests.

My couple of hundred every year is not funding anything relative to the animal slaughter.

A couple of hundred from you, a couple of hundred from your mate. It adds up.

Even if it were a fiver, it tacitly condones the slaughter of animals, which you profess to be disgusted by.

Cocking a deaf 'un isn't going to cut it. You have blood on your hands.

[Burney]

There is an easy answer to this. Tell them that Tesco are against animal testing and none of their products are tested on animals.

Tesco. Even Tesco feel more strongly about this than you do. Now shut the **** up.

Withdrawing your custom is the only input you have as a customer. Its also the only one you deserve.

Yes. People are terribly happy to point the finger at big, bad corporations while never apparently grasping their personal role in sustaining, supporting and - tacitly - endorsing those corporations and their actions.

It's basically a consequence of a heightened awareness of and sensitivity to all the bad things in the world, but at the same time a refusal to accept one's personal responsibility for those bad things because it would be inconvenient to do so.

[Burney]

I have an account with permanent access to Sky Sports.

Cricket, b. I barely watch the football anymore.

Actually, I think my latest phone contract gives me access to Sky Sports mobile, so I may watch a few more things on the old iPad.

[Peter]

Yes. People are terribly happy to point the finger at big, bad corporations while never apparently grasping their personal role in sustaining, supporting and - tacitly - endorsing those corporations and their actions.

It's basically a consequence of a heightened awareness of and sensitivity to all the bad things in the world, but at the same time a refusal to accept one's personal responsibility for those bad things because it would be inconvenient to do so.

Well it is easier to play the victim.

It isn’t fair that the man that owns my club also endorses animal slaughter because now I have to make a choice between what I want to do and what I know I should do. Why should I be put in such a position?

Its alright for the animals, they are dead. What about me??? I shouldn’t have to alter my habits, spending, behaviours just because some evil corporation doesn’t share my views on everything. How dare they do this to ME!!!!!

[Peter]

Actually, I think my latest phone contract gives me access to Sky Sports mobile, so I may watch a few more things on the old iPad.

That is a corporate partnership with mutual benefits. So in a way……. :)

[SWv2]

A couple of hundred from you, a couple of hundred from your mate. It adds up.

Even if it were a fiver, it tacitly condones the slaughter of animals, which you profess to be disgusted by.

Cocking a deaf 'un isn't going to cut it. You have blood on your hands.

You big fúcking eejit :hehe:

[Monty92]

That is a corporate partnership with mutual benefits. So in a way……. :)

Jesus, I feel like I've just walked into a debate on ethics between a bunch of not particularly bright 16-year-olds.

[IUFG]

Jesus, I feel like I've just walked into a debate on ethics between a bunch of not particularly bright 16-year-olds.

well, feel free to join in then, m

[Monty92]

well, feel free to join in then, m

No thanks, you're all being well gay

[Burney]

That is a corporate partnership with mutual benefits. So in a way……. :)

I know. I have blood on my hands. :-(

[IUFG]

I know. I have blood on my hands. :-(

How many degrees of separation does there need to be to avoid having said blood on one's hands.

I mean if I bank with say, HSBC, and they have banking/loan/etc facilities with the Arsenal . . . have I just helped shoot a lion in the face?

[Burney]

Well it is easier to play the victim.

It isn’t fair that the man that owns my club also endorses animal slaughter because now I have to make a choice between what I want to do and what I know I should do. Why should I be put in such a position?

Its alright for the animals, they are dead. What about me??? I shouldn’t have to alter my habits, spending, behaviours just because some evil corporation doesn’t share my views on everything. How dare they do this to ME!!!!!

Well precisely. People are more desperate than ever to parade their principles, but less willing than ever to do anything inconvenient to remain consistent with those principles. It's a sort of solipsistic stalemate.

[Burney]

How many degrees of separation does there need to be to avoid having said blood on one's hands.

I mean if I bank with say, HSBC, and they have banking/loan/etc facilities with the Arsenal . . . have I just helped shoot a lion in the face?

Fraid so, yes. :-(

[Monty92]

Well precisely. People are more desperate than ever to parade their principles, but less willing than ever to do anything inconvenient to remain consistent with those principles. It's a sort of solipsistic stalemate.

Nah, it's just Game Theory in action.

[IUFG]

Fraid so, yes. :-(

Blimey.

I think I best go and live up a tree in the ever shrinking Amazonian rainforest...

[Peter]

Jesus, I feel like I've just walked into a debate on ethics between a bunch of not particularly bright 16-year-olds.

That is pretty much what you have done.

[Peter]

You big fúcking eejit :hehe:

You started it. Possibly....

[Peter]

Well precisely. People are more desperate than ever to parade their principles, but less willing than ever to do anything inconvenient to remain consistent with those principles. It's a sort of solipsistic stalemate.

THe good news is that the Body Shop is no longer owned by Loreal, so you can shop there again. ;)

[redgunamo]

grandstanding going on around it.

People are acting as though they are in some way forced to fund Kroenke's activities by dint of being Arsenal fans. By all means have a moan about it and if you feel that strongly about it, withdraw your custom. But don't let's pretend you don't have a choice about whether to give Arsenal Football Club money, ffs!

As with so many issues, I really do feel there's a case for having the words 'REMEMBER YOU ARE JUST A CUSTOMER OF A BUSINESS WITH THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW YOUR CUSTOM WHENEVER YOU LIKE' tattooed inside the eyelids of most football fans.

No, the outrage is really the last vestige of personal responsibility available. Merely being a punter is not nearly so morally problematic as actually working for The Man, which everyone does, of course. And all business is linked in some way or other.

[Sir C]

You started it. Possibly....

We all have blood on our hands. Leading an entirely ethical existence would be nigh on impossible. One may, however, do what one can and take a stand where one can. This is simply Realpolitik.

Doing nothing and then sneering at those who try is a self-delusional egomania at a Jack Monroe-esque level.

[redgunamo]

No thanks, you're all being well gay

Seen, M. Well said.

[redgunamo]

We all have blood on our hands. Leading an entirely ethical existence would be nigh on impossible. One may, however, do what one can and take a stand where one can. This is simply Realpolitik.

Doing nothing and then sneering at those who try is a self-delusional egomania at a Jack Monroe-esque level.

Again, well said.

By the way, the new Arsenal replica kits are very nice, aren't they ;-)

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Well everyone draws their own line in the sand and castigates anyone else crossing it.

My own lovely wife considers herself a custodian of the fragile planet and berates all who squander resources but will happily sit in the living room with five different lights on. The correct 'ambience' is apparently more important than averting the impending climate catastrophe.

[Rich]

Seen, M. Well said.

Rumour has it that the Arsenal board are furious about all of this. May persuade them to sell up to Usmanov.

[redgunamo]

Rumour has it that the Arsenal board are furious about all of this. May persuade them to sell up to Usmanov.

I don't understand; I thought ESK himself owned all the shares?

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Again, well said.

By the way, the new Arsenal replica kits are very nice, aren't they ;-)

Are you hinting Sir C has sent his man to the Armory to buy him one ?

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I have an open mind on hunting. Make the kill as swift as possible, do the animals the respect of eating them and using every bit of stuff they can be used for. I have no truck with fascist vegans who insist the world can survive on quinoa without quite explaining what would happen to a planet overpopulated with humans and animals.

But anything that weakens this saddo's stranglehold on the Arsenal is good. So I'm busy complaining everywhere on the net about this.

[SWv2]

Rumour has it that the Arsenal board are furious about all of this. May persuade them to sell up to Usmanov.

Good man R. Incredible never before seen levels of stupidity.

I can only applaud you.

[Luis Anaconda]

Rumour has it that the Arsenal board are furious about all of this. May persuade them to sell up to Usmanov.

:hehe: Classic retard Rich. The only members of the board who has significant share holdings in the club are Stan (67%) So is Stan pissed off with himself? Otherwise, who is going to sell up to Usmanov and what difference do you think it would make?

[IUFG]

:hehe: Classic retard Rich. The only members of the board who has significant share holdings in the club are Stan (67%) So is Stan pissed off with himself? Otherwise, who is going to sell up to Usmanov and what difference do you think it would make?

I'm not sure, but I don't think r knows how the whole Ownership / Board of Directors thing works, la

[Ash]

Well everyone draws their own line in the sand and castigates anyone else crossing it.

My own lovely wife considers herself a custodian of the fragile planet and berates all who squander resources but will happily sit in the living room with five different lights on. The correct 'ambience' is apparently more important than averting the impending climate catastrophe.

There's nothing like eco-politics to bring out the worst in middle-class hypocrisy and virtue signalling. An email came round at work about sustainability and there were a series of questions about one's attitude to climate issues but very little about one's actual energy consumption. The nearest it came was a question about whether one might take public transport, such as a 'bus' from time-to-time instead of driving one's car.

I discussed this with a colleague who defended it, saying it is more important to berate other people than to perhaps stop taking a dozen personal flights a year as we can do little as individuals, but we can potentially influence many other people to make savings. So don't save, preach!

[redgunamo]

Quite. It's a simple moral question. Consider the legions of lowlife Chelsea supporters who continued to buy seasont tickets at Stamford Bridge despite the club being owned by a gangster drenched in blood money; we quite rightly condemned them as morally bankrupt scum.

I can't see that there is a decision to be made. Clearly any decent human being is going to withdraw all support until such a time as Kroenke moves on. :shrug:

We need to wait for Arsene Wenger's verdict, I think. Not to mention the views of the minimum wage chaps who flip hamburgers at the ground on matchdays. Cesc Fabregas' too, maybe.

[redgunamo]

There's nothing like eco-politics to bring out the worst in middle-class hypocrisy and virtue signalling. An email came round at work about sustainability and there were a series of questions about one's attitude to climate issues but very little about one's actual energy consumption. The nearest it came was a question about whether one might take public transport, such as a 'bus' from time-to-time instead of driving one's car.

I discussed this with a colleague who defended it, saying it is more important to berate other people than to perhaps stop taking a dozen personal flights a year as we can do little as individuals, but we can potentially influence many other people to make savings. So don't save, preach!

:music: Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac! :music: