| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? 22:22 - Mar 29 with 4470 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
Reading through some of the reactions over the last few days, it feels like the issue isn’t really about a politician being around the club,it’s about which politician it is.
If the concern is that an MP is involved or being welcomed, then that should apply across the board, not just because it’s someone from Reform UK that people don’t like. You can’t say it’s unacceptable in one case but fine when it’s someone from Labour Party or any other party.
Every political party has had its issues over the years, whether that’s internal divisions, poor decisions, or controversies. You only have to look back at Tony Blair and the Iraq War to see that no side has a perfect record. That doesn’t mean everyone in that party is bad — and the same logic should apply across the board.
Some of the reactions on here have been a bit over the top, to be honest. Acting like people are personally affected or harmed just because a politician visited or had a meeting feels exaggerated.
Also worth saying: throwing around words like “fascist” at anyone you disagree with is way over the top. Most people using it don’t seem to understand what it actually means and it just cheapens the word and shuts down any proper discussion. Disagree with someone, fine, but labelling them with extreme terms isn’t helping anyone.
Talking about things like immigration policy doesn’t automatically make someone racist. It’s a legitimate topic that governments deal with, whether people agree on the approach or not. Labelling anyone who raises it as “far-right” just shuts down discussion completely.
And on the marches, fair enough, people can do what they want. But turning up in big numbers doesn’t automatically mean you’re right or that you’re creating real change. It’s more a show of feeling than a solution. Real change comes from debate, policy, and action,not just being part of a crowd for a day.
End of the day, if we want to be taken seriously, there needs to be some balance. Either we’re okay with politicians engaging around the club, or we’re not. But it shouldn’t depend on whether we personally agree with them. |  | | |  |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:56 - Mar 29 with 508 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:47 - Mar 29 by Camul123 |
Check out Moral Majority's posts over the last few days - all the answers you need are there.
If you're going to write an essay for the board then at least demonstrate you've read the room. |
A lot of these comments sound just like the person they claim to oppose ,telling others what they can and can’t say, while criticising the same behaviour. It’s a contradiction.
Some of the posts on here aren’t moral at all, they’re just angry and full of insults. There’s a big difference between having a view and just throwing abuse around.
It feels like people are talking about “principles” while acting in a way that doesn’t reflect them. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:57 - Mar 29 with 497 views | positivity |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:52 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
What MP has any sort of moral compos.???????????? |
maybe you meant moral compass?
in which case, almost all politicians had a more effective moral compass than farage, going as far back as oswald mosley | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:58 - Mar 29 with 488 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:55 - Mar 29 by reusersfreekicks |
Saddens me how many people can't see this |
Can say that for almost all MP's though, I don't vote and never have or will. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:00 - Mar 29 with 460 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:56 - Mar 29 by Swansea_Blue |
That will be addressed in the new policy.
To say "Acting like people are personally affected or harmed just because a politician visited or had a meeting feels exaggerated" shows you have no idea, nor care, how this may have affected people who feel threatened by Reform's rhetoric and the growing racism being shown in society however.
You should always try and understand people's feelings imo, rather than dismiss them. Maybe the feelings are exaggerated, although how do you prove that on a message board? I've learnt to trust this place, so I take them at face value. |
I’m not dismissing how people feel, but feelings don’t automatically make every reaction proportionate or beyond question.
Saying a politician visiting a football club has “caused harm” is still a big claim, and it’s reasonable to challenge that without being accused of not caring.
Understanding people’s feelings cuts both ways as well. Others are allowed to question, disagree, or see things differently without being told they lack empathy. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:00 - Mar 29 with 451 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:52 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
What MP has any sort of moral compos.???????????? |
lol  Tell me you've never met an MP without telling me you've never met an MP. |  |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:02 - Mar 29 with 430 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:58 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
Can say that for almost all MP's though, I don't vote and never have or will. |
First part of that is sheer ignorance.
Second part is negligence.
Also what are you doing rambling on about this if you never vote. |  | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 with 425 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:57 - Mar 29 by positivity |
maybe you meant moral compass?
in which case, almost all politicians had a more effective moral compass than farage, going as far back as oswald mosley |
“More effective moral compass”? That’s rewriting history.
You’ve got Tony Blair and the Iraq War, Boris Johnson and Partygate, and plenty of others across all parties with serious questions over judgment and integrity.
Then you throw in Arthur Scargill ,who led the 1984–85 miners’ strike without a national ballot, something widely criticised as undermining democratic process within his own union . That strike ended in defeat, split communities, and weakened the union movement long term . Not exactly a shining example of a flawless “moral compass”.
And going all the way back to Oswald Mosley just shows how overblown this argument has become. When you have to reach for extreme historical comparisons, it usually means the point isn’t as strong as you think.
You can disagree with Nigel Farage all you like, but pretending everyone else in political history was somehow morally superior just doesn’t stack up. It’s selective memory, not reality. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 with 426 views | TheMoralMajority |
Honestly, I've said enough this weekend, so I am about done but this:
Reading through some of the reactions over the last few days, it feels like the issue isn’t really about a politician being around the club,it’s about which politician it is.
demonstrates to me that exactly what you haven't done is read through some of the reactions this weekend.
Unhelpful, divisive thread is unhelpful. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 with 417 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:00 - Mar 29 by Swansea_Blue |
lol Tell me you've never met an MP without telling me you've never met an MP. |
“More effective moral compass”? That’s rewriting history.
You’ve got Tony Blair and the Iraq War, Boris Johnson and Partygate, and plenty of others across all parties with serious questions over judgment and integrity.
Then you throw in Arthur Scargill ,who led the 1984–85 miners’ strike without a national ballot, something widely criticised as undermining democratic process within his own union . That strike ended in defeat, split communities, and weakened the union movement long term . Not exactly a shining example of a flawless “moral compass”.
And going all the way back to Oswald Mosley just shows how overblown this argument has become. When you have to reach for extreme historical comparisons, it usually means the point isn’t as strong as you think.
You can disagree with Nigel Farage all you like ,but pretending everyone else in political history was somehow morally superior just doesn’t stack up. It’s selective memory, not reality. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 with 404 views | Camul123 |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:56 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
A lot of these comments sound just like the person they claim to oppose ,telling others what they can and can’t say, while criticising the same behaviour. It’s a contradiction.
Some of the posts on here aren’t moral at all, they’re just angry and full of insults. There’s a big difference between having a view and just throwing abuse around.
It feels like people are talking about “principles” while acting in a way that doesn’t reflect them. |
"Moral Majority" is a seemingly well-respected poster on this message board.
Farage is not going to make your life better and neither is Mark Ashton. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 with 404 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:02 - Mar 29 by reusersfreekicks |
First part of that is sheer ignorance.
Second part is negligence.
Also what are you doing rambling on about this if you never vote. |
Calling something “ignorance” or “negligence” doesn’t make it so ,it just avoids actually addressing the point.
And whether someone votes or not doesn’t mean they can’t have an opinion. That’s a weak way of trying to shut down a discussion rather than engage with it. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 with 404 views | TheMoralMajority |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:47 - Mar 29 by Camul123 |
Check out Moral Majority's posts over the last few days - all the answers you need are there.
If you're going to write an essay for the board then at least demonstrate you've read the room. |
OhmygodOhmygod. I've made it!
Back to hibernation for the next 10 years  | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:06 - Mar 29 with 392 views | KBsSocks |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
“More effective moral compass”? That’s rewriting history.
You’ve got Tony Blair and the Iraq War, Boris Johnson and Partygate, and plenty of others across all parties with serious questions over judgment and integrity.
Then you throw in Arthur Scargill ,who led the 1984–85 miners’ strike without a national ballot, something widely criticised as undermining democratic process within his own union . That strike ended in defeat, split communities, and weakened the union movement long term . Not exactly a shining example of a flawless “moral compass”.
And going all the way back to Oswald Mosley just shows how overblown this argument has become. When you have to reach for extreme historical comparisons, it usually means the point isn’t as strong as you think.
You can disagree with Nigel Farage all you like ,but pretending everyone else in political history was somehow morally superior just doesn’t stack up. It’s selective memory, not reality. |
I can copy-paste, too - that does not add strength to your arguments which are completely, totally, utterly missing the point.
Do your homework, read one or two other threads and responses, and then resubmit.
D- "Answered a different question on this essay" |  |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:06 - Mar 29 with 394 views | positivity |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:00 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
I’m not dismissing how people feel, but feelings don’t automatically make every reaction proportionate or beyond question.
Saying a politician visiting a football club has “caused harm” is still a big claim, and it’s reasonable to challenge that without being accused of not caring.
Understanding people’s feelings cuts both ways as well. Others are allowed to question, disagree, or see things differently without being told they lack empathy. |
My son asked me if the club wants people like him by BostonManorBlue 28 Mar 11:43I've supported this club for nearly 50 years. My son is 13 and he's just getting to the age where following Town means something to him — not just the football, but belonging to something bigger. He's mixed race.
I'm not here to tell anyone how to vote or what to think about any politician. That's your business.
What I will say is that when my boy saw those photos this week, he asked me whether the club wanted people like him there. I didn't have a good answer.
I don't think most of us — on either side of this argument — want a single kid to feel that way about our club. That's not what Ipswich Town is. That's not what Portman Road is.
I don't care about Ashton's job. I don't care about the politics. I care that my son feels welcome at the ground, and right now he doesn't.
If you think this has all been an overreaction, I'd just ask you to hold that thought for a moment and consider that for some families it wasn't abstract — it was personal.
We've got a promotion to fight for. Let's do that together. But "together" has to mean everyone, including my boy.
read this post and tell me that the visit, the negative national publicity, the lies and the botched cover-up causes no harm. you are really misunderstanding (on purpose?) why people are annoyed and belittling real-life examples.
it's childish and tedious, time to give it a rest please. | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:07 - Mar 29 with 385 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 by Camul123 |
"Moral Majority" is a seemingly well-respected poster on this message board.
Farage is not going to make your life better and neither is Mark Ashton. |
I don’t have much faith in any of them to be honest ,no government has really made people’s lives better in the long term over the last 50 years. Ultimately, it’s down to us to make our own way. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:07 - Mar 29 with 377 views | LeoMuff |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:58 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
Can say that for almost all MP's though, I don't vote and never have or will. |
Errr no
I don’t see any other MPs former classmates and teachers coming out and saying they are openly racist saying Hitler was right, gas em, being racist toward black and Asian backgrounds, Nazi salutes as they have alleged. It’s not 1 or 2 either.
Defended Reform candidates who compared Muslims to Nazis, the lists goes on, I wouldn’t be too fussed if any other political figure came to the club, even though ITFC should be apolitical imho but this guy is toxic to a large portion of society. |  |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:08 - Mar 29 with 370 views | urbanpenguin |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:58 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
Can say that for almost all MP's though, I don't vote and never have or will. |
Great news. |  | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:08 - Mar 29 with 363 views | TheMoralMajority |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 22:56 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
A lot of these comments sound just like the person they claim to oppose ,telling others what they can and can’t say, while criticising the same behaviour. It’s a contradiction.
Some of the posts on here aren’t moral at all, they’re just angry and full of insults. There’s a big difference between having a view and just throwing abuse around.
It feels like people are talking about “principles” while acting in a way that doesn’t reflect them. |
Lol. I understand the confusion. It's a username. Not the literal moral majority.
But, unfortunately you've come late to the party if you want engagement, which is a shame, as I've been looking for engagement all weekend and there has been precious little of it. | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:09 - Mar 29 with 357 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 by TheMoralMajority |
Honestly, I've said enough this weekend, so I am about done but this:
Reading through some of the reactions over the last few days, it feels like the issue isn’t really about a politician being around the club,it’s about which politician it is.
demonstrates to me that exactly what you haven't done is read through some of the reactions this weekend.
Unhelpful, divisive thread is unhelpful. |
Some of them our totally daft. I am not hear to play to the MOB. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:10 - Mar 29 with 344 views | Camul123 |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 by TheMoralMajority |
OhmygodOhmygod. I've made it!
Back to hibernation for the next 10 years |
Lol. *blushes*
You massively over-estimate my influence. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:10 - Mar 29 with 337 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:07 - Mar 29 by LeoMuff |
Errr no
I don’t see any other MPs former classmates and teachers coming out and saying they are openly racist saying Hitler was right, gas em, being racist toward black and Asian backgrounds, Nazi salutes as they have alleged. It’s not 1 or 2 either.
Defended Reform candidates who compared Muslims to Nazis, the lists goes on, I wouldn’t be too fussed if any other political figure came to the club, even though ITFC should be apolitical imho but this guy is toxic to a large portion of society. |
You’re taking allegations, media snippets and individual cases and presenting them as if they define everything, that’s not a balanced view, that’s selective.
If we’re going down that route, every party has had members accused of racism, misconduct or worse over the years. That doesn’t mean you tar everyone in that party with the same brush ,or suddenly decide only one side is “toxic”.
You say the club should be apolitical, but then make an exception depending on who you personally dislike. That’s the inconsistency.
You don’t have to like Nigel Farage or Reform UK ,but acting like they’re uniquely beyond the pale while ignoring issues elsewhere just weakens your argument. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:11 - Mar 29 with 336 views | TheMoralMajority |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:05 - Mar 29 by Camul123 |
"Moral Majority" is a seemingly well-respected poster on this message board.
Farage is not going to make your life better and neither is Mark Ashton. |
You speak too highly. Outside of a few posters from between 10-20 years ago, no one would have known who I was (anyone remember MJH? BelsteadBill?).
This whole episode over the last week has made me so incensed that it has consumed my entire weekend.
I am honestly amazed that I haven't been told to STFU | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:11 - Mar 29 with 333 views | positivity |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:03 - Mar 29 by BRIDGHAMBLUE |
“More effective moral compass”? That’s rewriting history.
You’ve got Tony Blair and the Iraq War, Boris Johnson and Partygate, and plenty of others across all parties with serious questions over judgment and integrity.
Then you throw in Arthur Scargill ,who led the 1984–85 miners’ strike without a national ballot, something widely criticised as undermining democratic process within his own union . That strike ended in defeat, split communities, and weakened the union movement long term . Not exactly a shining example of a flawless “moral compass”.
And going all the way back to Oswald Mosley just shows how overblown this argument has become. When you have to reach for extreme historical comparisons, it usually means the point isn’t as strong as you think.
You can disagree with Nigel Farage all you like ,but pretending everyone else in political history was somehow morally superior just doesn’t stack up. It’s selective memory, not reality. |
you can be morally superior, without being morally perfect.
no-one is morally perfect and no-one is pretending that they are.
good rules of thumb are, don't be racist, don't be anti-semitic, don't be sexist, don't be islamophobic, don't be homophobic, don't be xenophobic, etc etc | |
| |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:11 - Mar 29 with 328 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:06 - Mar 29 by KBsSocks |
I can copy-paste, too - that does not add strength to your arguments which are completely, totally, utterly missing the point.
Do your homework, read one or two other threads and responses, and then resubmit.
D- "Answered a different question on this essay" |
No hear to follow the mob, its about all views not the views of one or a few. | | | |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:13 - Mar 29 with 332 views | BRIDGHAMBLUE |
| Can we be consistent about MPs, not just who we like? on 23:11 - Mar 29 by positivity |
you can be morally superior, without being morally perfect.
no-one is morally perfect and no-one is pretending that they are.
good rules of thumb are, don't be racist, don't be anti-semitic, don't be sexist, don't be islamophobic, don't be homophobic, don't be xenophobic, etc etc |
That just sounds like university echo-chamber stuff to me. Get out and about a bit ,this is one of the most diverse countries in the world, not some kind of hellhole. You’re making it sound far worse than it actually is.. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
