Binky Griptite

I've always been vehemently anti-pitch invasion - they're illegal and they serve no purpose other than to allow someone to say they stood on a piece of grass just because they wanted to - but yesterday's I'm prepared to change my stance on. Unfortunately, the abuse and potential imminent death of a football club isn't considered an emergency in law, so doesn't excuse an invasion, however those prepared to risk a potential criminal record for the greater good of everyone who cares about the club should be applauded.

We shouldn't assume anything; if the number in the "ignorance" camp is 50... The other 3,950 may attend again.

I think anyone who turned up in full knowledge of the boycott is of questionable morals / judgment, but as I've said on another thread not everyone knows about these things, regardless of how well they are communicated. It's beyond debate that some people there on Tuesday won't have known about the boycott, the amount could have been 1, 10, 100, 1000 but there will have been a number amidst the crowd in that camp. As others have said, the boycott was a raging success given total boycott wasn't ever really realistic. In terms of the atmosphere, Tuesday night was probably akin to what it would have been if there were 30,000 of me crammed into the home stands. I'm as introvert as they come. I turn up and I clap in all the right places and cheer goals, but that's all I do, because that's my personality type. I display the conduct of a snooker fan attending a football match but that doesn't make me any less of a supporter than someone who chants for 90+ minutes, I just internalise things that other people externalise. I think there's probably a decent overlap in terms of introverts and people who don't get to hear about things like boycotts, so it would stack up that the crowd was comprised of more introverts than extroverts which led to a quiet atmosphere. Obviously all just opinion and conjecture but that's my thoughts on it.

How do you not know neutral vloggers sometimes attend Wednesday matches? Do you live in a cave?

Not true, I just don't agree with the broad brush tarring of all, across any walk of life. For example, I would hope there were a few neutral vloggers amongst the attendees, reporting to their followers and maybe widening the knowledge and exposure of the shìtshow, whether to 5 followers or 5,000. Would their attendance be a good or a bad thing?

And there are people that know nothing about the supporters group. They get the same news as the general population and may attend a game without knowing of a boycott.

PS Steve is the WhatsApp chat guy, the colleague of 24 years has taken off tell of being chased by, and indeed chasing, opposing team fans around the streets of Hillsborough. He's not that guy anymore and it's hard to imagine he every was, maybe he wasn't, but he's 100% a Wednesday fan (or a very good actor)

Steve is an Arsenal fan, from Sheffield. Admittedly he's not without his faults but he has eyes and ears. Just because he isn't a Wednesday fan doesn't mean he doesn't have access to the same news outlets as Wednesday fans; so why shouldn't he know about the boycott? If theres been wall to wall coverage that means no Wednesday fan could possibly not know about the boycott, why should he not know about it? Because he has no skin in the game? Some people have empathy and can see someone else's side regardless of which team they support, or indeed whether they attended last night or not.

It's the same point as all of my posts attempt to make. One is a Wednesday fan, one isn't. What's your point?

My point is not everyone knew about the boycott. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that concept. I knew about the boycott and I didn't go, I didn't not go because of the boycott. My colleague at work didn't know about the boycott and didn't go, but had he gone that wouldn't have indicated that he was sticking two fingers up at the thing he knew nothing about. Further evidence below, two lads in a footy group I'm in, chatting about the game last night. Sky spoke at length about the boycott, yet there's someone watching the game on Sky who didn't know why so few people attended. He has a smart phone, he watches Sky, he doesn't live in a cave, yet he didn't know about the boycott.

Making excuses and giving reasons are not the same thing.

He's just broken his near quarter of a century fence sitting record to say "tell people on Owlstalk they can kiss my Chansiri tattooed arsē"

You're wrong with your assumption, which proves my point that assumptions shouldn't be made.

My point is plenty of people didn't know about the boycott. It's not unrealistic to think that someone in that position might have gone to the game and any assumptions made about those in attendance are assumptions, unless they've stated as a fact that they're going in spite of the boycott... There's no way 100% of those in attendance knew about the boycott, just the same as there is no way 100% of those in attendance didn't know about the boycott... But let's tar 100% of those in attendance as wrong uns rather than recognising that there is nuance involved.

Yeah, that's it. Nailed it in one. The guy at my work who is totally benign to the extent you'd forget he was even there, who wouldn't voice an opinion on anything and who hasn't said anything to me about the politics of Sheffield Wednesday in the 24 years I've worked with / near him is a militant Chansiri supporter.