Maybe part of it’s a subconscious recognition that soccer isn’t quite as “manly” as rugby, so any suspicion of effeminacy needs to be avoided. The thought’s triggered by your mention of Olivier Giroud who’s probably aware of the fairly well-known homerotic rugby calendar produced by the french, er, national team – Dieux du Stade.

(Yes, I know queerness doesn’t equate to effeminacy. Most footballers don’t analyse that way, and to be fair that’s not what they’re paid for.)

Football is no different to wider society.

I play football, golf, cricket and other sports periodically. I drink in a wide variety of pubs. I have been to Conservative Clubs, working mens clubs and I’m reliably informed that in this regard, the comprehensive school playground hasn’t much changed since I was last in one.

In all these activities there is plenty of “homophobic banter”

So probably the first thing to recognise is that this is not a football issue. Football is, effectively, much the same as wider society. It is the political/media outlook that is the oddity.

There is a warped view of this country among the political and media class (born wealthy, went to university, live surrounded by a cosmopolitan urban elite every day of their lives). These people, for the sake of their careers and friends, keep their homophobic banter – and their rape jokes – under wraps or eliminate them from their lives.

No one else does. Because no one else sees much malice in it.

@Margin4error

I said “homosexual banter”. It’s a particular sort of male bonding that, Zizek argues, wouldn’t be possible if gay people were involved. I don’t want to go into detail as to what this entails, but you get the picture I’m sure.

@Margin4error

Also, the point I’m making – in case it wasn’t clear – is that it is this culture (homosexual banter) in itself that is a form of homophobia, as it serves the twin purpose of excluding homosexuals both explicitly (as they may not feel comfortable) and implicitly, as those who part-take in it don’t want homosexuals to be involved.

Sorry for the confusion.

We don’t really know how bad homophobia in football is since there aren’t any gay players who feel able to make their sexuality public. Until this happens then we won’t know how the fans, media, players and coaches will react. Comments like Cassano’s are rare but if one of his team mates was openly gay then I think it is less likely he would have expressed opinions like this in public.

I remember the recent BBC documentary presented by Justin Fashanu’s (last openly gay player in the UK) niece. In it she spoke to a Swedish player in a low league who, IIRC, was the only openly gay current player in the world. He hadn’t had any problems at his club but the attitudes in other countries at high profiles clubs maybe be very different.

Part of the issue is that the prospect of being ‘the gay player’ is enough of a disinhibit or to make no-one want to be the first to come out. The FA have developed a strategy to support players who come out, but it misses the issue that they’ll unlikely need to actually put it into practice.

Stonewall and the FA should instead be looking at getting a load of gay players to come out on the same day at the same time. That way, no-one has to be the Jackie Robinson or the Arthur Wharton who bears the brunt of prejudice for being the only known person about whom the prejudiced can abuse and single out.

If there could be a gay player for every team in the PL, that would be great, because the prejudiced fans of that club would split into two- those who might go along with homophobic ‘banter’ and the resolutely homophobic.

The latter won’t be swayed regardless, but the former will be co-optable into the anti-homophobia camp by dint of the fact that one of their own players is gay, and therefore the abuse is against their own team player.

If they could (say) find 20 players who all regularised it by coming out at the same time, alongside lots of their colleagues who were there to show solidarity with them, and do so at start of the football season (to normalise this info, rather than announce it at a time where it will run longer), then we’d move from football being a gay-free zone to being one where it was part of the landscape with some speed.

it’s really disappointing to see The Mirror suggest that new Arsenal signing Olivier Giroud could “insight trouble from the terraces” for doing a photo shoot for gay magazine Tetu.

For more reasons than one…

It is interesting though – 15 years ago you’d have said that professional cricket was a similarly unfriendly environment for gay players. And that really does seem to have changed, in this country at any rate, so that England’s second choice ‘keeper came out a couple of years ago, and has (apparently) received nothing but support. For that matter, James Anderson stripped off for Attitude years ago, and only gets teased for being grumpy, rather than gay.

Matt Zarb

Sorry for the mis-quote. Though homosexual banter is, as you say, somewhat homophobic in its consequence.

My point though was more that tackling this in football would be a waste of time as it would achieve nothing. It is the same phenomenon in wider society that leads it into football, not the other way around.

That said – football can often move ahead of wider society – as it did with racism. As Benoit Assou-Ekotto said – fans would sing Darth Vader’s name if he played well for their club. That partisanship killed off most vocal racism in English football, and the same would happen with homophobic sentiment if openly gay footballers were playing well for their clubs.

Society then might catch up after a while.

Good for Giraud – and fuck The Mirror. You don’t “insight trouble from the terraces” by doing a photo shoot for a gay magazine. You insight trouble from the terraces by whipping up expectations of violence.

The fact there are more openly gay Silurians in Doctor Who than there are openly gay footballers suggests the next generation might not be as fucked up as their parents.

Yes, the culture of homophobia needs tackling, just as long as no-one mentions the culture of rampant greed and general amorality that surrounds football and footballers. Who cares about the odd ‘spit roast’ and rape accusations, not to mention the drug use and the ostentatious flaunting of wealth, so long as ‘our team’ wins.

I am also very disturbed by the The Mirror suggesting that new Arsenal signing Olivier Giroud could “insight trouble from the terraces”. I am disturbed by the total illiteracy of confusing insight with incite.

@ 3 Matt

“I said “homosexual banter”. It’s a particular sort of male bonding that, Zizek argues, wouldn’t be possible if gay people were involved.”

I’ve seen bi and gay guys both engage in and instigate homosexual banter. And no, I’m not defining “homosexual banter” as banter by homosexuals. I assume you mean the thing where people pretend to fancy each other for a laugh.

I’ve worked inside a football club, and have at times been at fairly close quarters with the playing environment. I’m gay and probably a few people knew that although more by word of mouth than me choosing to shout it out within that environment.

I’ve heard enough homophobic language and attitudes used inside a football club to know why players do not come out to their team-mates and management. When you hear the first team manager telling one of his players “get up you ****ing poof” and plenty of casual derogatory comments about people they have a low opinion of “taking it up the a*se” that’s not an environment that any player would feel comfortable in. Yes, some of it is “banter” but “banter” in football is often just a poor excuse to dish out abuse and then if someone takes offence, you say “it’s only banter”. There have been a few occasions when I felt uncomfortable myself, and I didn’t set foot in the dressing room.

There was a recent league-wide campaign last season to tackle homophobia, and I’ve got to say the response from most clubs was fairly pitiful. There are a few good clubs out there- Wycombe, Brighton, Millwall, Norwich are notable exceptions that went out of their way. But my own club didn’t lift a finger. I did ask if we were and got a non-commital sort of answer.

So, no I’d say football clubs are not taking the issue seriously. Neither are the League/FA in making it mandatory for clubs to push such campaigns in the same way that the anti-racist Kick It Out is done.

And yes, there are gay players, and gay people within the game. I know that for a fact. But I fully respect why they would not want to “be the first” at the moment.

Why the FA loves gay footballers
A new campaign against homophobia is more about lecturing footie fans than tackling discrimination.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12179/

I have to say, I agree with that article. There isn’t much overt homophobia in football.
At least not more than you might expect. Of course if even singing ”We can see you holding hands” at Brighton fans is deemed deeply offensive and ”homophobic” then we might as well try to make English football like tennis at Wimbledon.

Football is singled out as a hotbed of bigotry because of its white working-class constituency. The homophobia in football campaign is essentially a flag of convenience for middle-class snobbery. While overt expressions of elitism are frowned upon, moral grandstanding over racism or homophobia allows liberals to express their contempt for the uncouth white working classes. The clampdowns on racist and homophobic abuse have very little to do with equality; these are more like modern inquisitions punishing football fans for expressing heretical sentiments.

@ 14 damon

It’s a dreadful article, and you’ve managed to quote the worst part of it. Has it occurred to you that Sp!ked writers are capable of seeing their pet peeve – elitism – in any group or argument they happen to disapprove of? Has it occurred to you that a paragraph consisting entirely of ad hom leaves no room for substantive argument? Perhaps Sp!ked would say that the working classes love ad hom attacks and that to complain about irrational arguments is thus proof of elitism. It wouldn’t surprise me.

Problems with the rest of the article:

*Says that gay footballers aren’t having their careers ruined by homophobic abuse because they’re all in the closet. Sounds like a straw man, and even if not it misses the point. What effect does this homophobia have on the *happiness* of gay footballers, and gay football fans? Does it prevent would-be footballers from pursuing a career where they feel they will have to hide in the closet to avoid abuse?

*Straw-mans Stonewall, unless someone can point to where Stonewall claimed that all footie stakeholders are bigots.

*Claims that the idea of openly gay footballers being abused by homophobes is untested. But it’s not, is it? There’s a lot of homophobia around football, apparently, so obviously they’d be abused. If you see that pushing a piano off a cliff will destroy it, you don’t need to jump off the cliff yourself to find out that it’s a bad idea.

*Double standards. The article claims that one player was singled out for liking the arts and reading the Guardian. So where are the cries of “snobbery!” and “elitism!” for the fans who allegedly acted like this? No, such attacks are to be reserved for Sp!ked’s enemies: a group that doesn’t include homophobic bullies, but does include campaigners for gay rights. Nice gang, that.

Seriously, damon, stop reading this tripe. It makes the same unsupported point every time; the writers have mutually given up on thought now they’ve realised that they can just bleat “elitist!” every time they hear something they don’t like. The site’s ongoing apologism for homophobia is especially cringe-worthy. And its modus operandi of trying to shame people away from rational debate is pathetic.

You seem a fairly intelligent bloke, but I think Sp!ked is rotting your thinking skills.

Sorry Chaise Guevara, the guy who wrote that article is a very sussed guy.
And he supports Crystal Palace like I do too.
I’m afraid that some gay jokes will always be with us. It doesn’t matter that it’s not funny, or that people get offended – ”taking it up the bum” is always going to be a joke or to be laughed at. It was probably even a joke anongst the soldiers of Rome.
Remember Biggus Dickus? Why’s that funny? That someones got a big dick?
Or is it just silly purile humour, that has mase us chortle from time immorial?
Football fans shout and sing stupid stuff.

These are more of that guy’s articles.
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/author/Duleep%20Allirajah/

He gets the sports fan. He gets the fans who travel all over the country and is a darn sight more clued in than the black footballer Sol Campbell who was saying that England fans shouldn’t go to Ukraine – particularly non white ones – becayse the racist Ukranians would get them. Send them home in coffins even.
It never happened, but was just more uninformed comment about the backwardness of footie fans. Sol Campbell was being racist about Slavic people.

If you say I shouldn’t read his Spiked pieces Chaise, I’ll just say you’re wrong.

@ 16 damon

“Sorry Chaise Guevara, the guy who wrote that article is a very sussed guy.”

How come he wrote such a moronic article, then? Seriously, reasonable and intelligent people don’t write articles based almost entirely on ad hom attacks that expose their own hypocrisy.

“I’m afraid that some gay jokes will always be with us. It doesn’t matter that it’s not funny, or that people get offended – ”taking it up the bum” is always going to be a joke or to be laughed at. It was probably even a joke anongst the soldiers of Rome.
Remember Biggus Dickus? Why’s that funny? That someones got a big dick?
Or is it just silly purile humour, that has mase us chortle from time immorial?
Football fans shout and sing stupid stuff.”

There’s a fine (and grey) line between humour and abuse. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to combat abuse.

“These are more of that guy’s articles.”

Oh, I can’t wait to read them. “Everyone who disagrees with me is an elitist, I like homophobic pricks though, look how edgy I am!”

“He gets the sports fan.”

…So? Does “getting the sports fan” mean you can ad hom with impunity?

” He gets the fans who travel all over the country and is a darn sight more clued in than the black footballer Sol Campbell who was saying that England fans shouldn’t go to Ukraine – particularly non white ones – becayse the racist Ukranians would get them. Send them home in coffins even.
It never happened, but was just more uninformed comment about the backwardness of footie fans. Sol Campbell was being racist about Slavic people.”

So he’s more aware than a single other human you can name. Give that man a medal.

“If you say I shouldn’t read his Spiked pieces Chaise, I’ll just say you’re wrong.”

Your reponse was almost content-free, basically a fan letter to an idiot who relies on bullying tactics because he can’t form a cogent argument. I notice you declined to respond to any of my specific criticisms of the piece. Let me guess: you didn’t have an answer so you decided to ignore the comments rather than update your views. Very rational.

Like I said, Sp!ked is rotting your brain.

”…So? Does “getting the sports fan” mean you can ad hom with impunity?”

Chaise, it’s like we are talking different languages.
I’m using a Greek computer so maybe that’s confusing things.

I have no idea what you are slagging the Spiked article for. The OP above finishes saying ”Heterosexual footballers such as Giroud have a responsibility to drag football into the 21st century, and the media ought to encourage moves such as his, rather than attempt to second-guess public opinion. Otherwise a sport first played in the dark ages will remain in the dark ages.

You can’t have it any plainer. Football is still in the dark ages. Why so … and more importantly, what is to done about it?
Force people to be ”gay friendly”? Before it becomes naturally to them like it has already done so to a large extent.
If one is to believe the stat that two thirds of footie fans wouldn’t have a problem with openly gay players in their team. So how’s that ”dark ages”?

If you support ever more control over what can and can’t be sung or said then fair enough. Many people welcome criminal convictions handed out for tweets and things said. As long as they are deemed racist or some other dreadful ”ist” at least. The Spiked guy is Asian and a regular football goer seems to think that fans of most clubs are pretty good at ”policing” their own behavior these days and don’t need ever-more official led campaigns where police and stewards are listening out for every wrong word and wading in to make arrests or throw people out of stadiums … and ban them from attending future matches etc.
Because that is the way that these authority led campaigns work.
And are too often heavy handed and open to whim and passing fashion.

Oh my god, I once heard some West Ham fans abusing a WPC. They sang at her as she walked past them on the pitch side ”get your tits out for the lads”.
A couple of hundred of them. It was brutal and cruel, and sexist. And I wouldn’t support it for a moment, but it was a game where there was a bit of needle (I think Chelsea were visiting) and there had been some trouble between those fans and the police, so this was anti-police abuse more than pure sexism. Even though it was both. But what are you going to do, try to arrest or identify all fans who sang that at the police woman? It’s football FFS. Normal rules don’t apply.
It’s even OK to swear in front of kids. Really.
Even the old hooligans would have had an idea about how much of that was OK. You went to football as a kid (like I did) and you heard grown men shout and swear. It was allowed. If you didn’t like that, or your parents didn’t want you to go there, you didn’t go there.

I would certainly be against any abuse of gay players, and I hope that a lot of football fans who were witness to such abuse would tell them to pack it in – the way that’s mostly done with racist abuse these days.

And Chaise, do your self a favour and read some of that guy’s columns.
Then we might at least be speaking the same language.

@ 18 damon

Reading one of his columns was enough.

As it happens, I don’t favour heavy-handed approaches to this sort of thing. Firstly, as you say, it can be deeply counter-productive. Secondly, I think it tends to lead to people getting serious punishments for very minor bad behaviour; the impression I get is, as we can’t punish everyone, we shift everyone’s punishment onto the unlucky sod who got arrested. I thought the same about some of the more startling sentences handed out after the riots.

That’s not what I’m arguing about, though. I simply can’t understand how you can say you have “no idea” what I’m attacking the Sp!ked article for. If you look back to my post @15, I listed five problems I have with the article, so I don’t see what room there is for confusion. Maybe we ARE talking different languages.

My biggest problem with that article (and Sp!ked in general, as it’s their standard M.O.) is its bullying tactics: using ad hom attacks to shame your opponents into silence. You quoted the worst-offending paragraph, holding it up as if it was a beacon of common sense instead of the childish, cowardly abuse that it is. As shown in so many threads before, you have a serious case of myopia when it comes to Sp!ked.

You’ve attacked people before for demonising people on the anti-gay-rights side as moronic bigots. Fair enough. But then you and Sp!ked do *exactly the same thing* to groups YOU dislike: apparently the other side guilty of “middle-class snobbery” and are using covert “expressions of elitism” and “moral grandstanding” to “express their contempt for the uncouth white working classes” because they are “like modern inquisitions punishing football fans for expressing heretical sentiments.”

And this gives the lie to you and Sp!ked’s claim to be against ad hom attacks: you LOVE ad hom, can’t get enough of it, it’s your first instinct when faced with a view you dislike. You just lack the self-awareness to realise how incredibly hypocritial it is to whinge about this behaviour when you constantly indulge in it yourselves.

Fair enough Chaise, but let’s get a few things straight.
It was the OP that says that football is still in the ”dark ages”.

That’s where I’m starting from. Why say such a thing when it clearly isn’t true …. if it’s to be believed that two thirds of football fans don’t have a problem with having gay players in their team. So where’s the problem? Is it that the ”majority” of football fans and players (as it must be to make such a sweeping generalisation about dark ages) aren’t just sufficiently PC enough to have ticked every box in some gay rights campaigners wish list?

I would guess it’s that last case. The football world, while not particularly homophobic … like the general public, isn’t still how those people wish it to be.
So it’s a political campaign to push an agenda. Which is fine to a point. I probably support it’s desired outcome, but I won’t just accept people throwing accusations around about how everyone who disagrees with them is living in the dark ages, or as Owen Jones said of LBC talk show host Ian Collins live on air that he was a ”knuckle dragging biggot” because he had his own opinion on gay marriage and it was a bit different to Jones’.

So who starts with the ad hom first? Fotball is in the ”dark ages” because it’s not fully complict with what some political campaigners want it to be.
Because there is still some ”homophobia” to be heard at football matches sometimes. Palace fans have said to our great rivals Brighton ”You lot are gay boys”… not because they hate gay people, but in the imagined world (mostly just nostalgia now for the days when Palace and Brighton fans most certainly did phisically fight each other … I know because I was there – Hove station in the late 70s and at Selhust Park in the early 80s) and the ”anti-gay jibe” is to say ”you’re more like the Brighton gay stereotype than the tough fighting hooligan stereotype”.

That’s a subtlety that’s probably lost on most people … and it is homophobic to a degree, but what it’s saying in the silly world of fan rivalries is that you’re not ”hard” like us. ”You run – you’re twats, soft, unmanly. We’re hard and we’ll do you today just like we did you (on the famous) boxing day in the 1970s”.
There’s even a song about it – about Brighton fans running away when they hear the Palace fans sing, and how ”we will fight for evermore, because of boxing day.”

The young lads who sing that now were’t even born when the famous boxing day fight took place, because it was their dads and uncles who were young then and had great rivalry with the Brighton fans and took part in the famous punch up.

So the ”homophobia” isn’t really about gay people at all, it’s saying that Brighton ”hard cases” – supposidly Sussex’s tough guys, are actually gay and soft.
It’s pathetic and juvenile …. and most people grow out of it when they stop being teenagers and young silly men. People grow up and become more worldly wise, and only sad cases can’t get over the anti-gay view they might have grown up with.

And as for the Spiked quote that you say is the worst and is all ad hom …. I think he’s right. Why is football being picked out then? Because it’s not up to speed in the way that it has become with racism? Well race and sexuality are different for a start. and I think it might be better to look at the glass more than half full rather than decry the ”bigotry” of the part still empty. People are not as bigoted as some might imagine …. even when they are still falling short of 100% perfection. People may still use words like ”poof”. Sorry, it’s part of the culture. Culture changes, but you can’t force it too hard either.

As for this charge of ”elitism”. I know people who wouldn’t be seen dead at a football match … or inside a high street bookmakers, or certain kinds of Whetherspoons type pubs, because they don’t like that Sun reading kind of blue collar working class you get in those places. People who still might use words like poof or ”bender” in their conversation without hardly noticing, because it’s part of their way of using language and talking to their peers.

And you seem quite a bright chap Chaise, so give this one by the same guy a go.
About racism in the professional game, which was really in the headlines a few months back with John Terry, Liverpool and the Fifa president all getting on the front page with the issue of racism on the pitch.
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12504/

As I’ve argued before on spiked, the erosion of the distinction between ‘on the record’ public speech and private banter is dangerous. It means that footballers have to be on their guard at all times. They have to mind their language on the pitch, when players often say things they don’t really mean in the heat of battle. In effect, footballers are under perpetual police caution; what’s said on the pitch may be used in evidence against them.

It’s a five minute read, but if you really insist that one was enough and he had his chance, then I see we are very different kinds of people.
I would always have a look.
Ulness it was ten pages long or totally irrelevant. It’s actually good and perceptive.

“Fair enough Chaise, but let’s get a few things straight.
It was the OP that says that football is still in the ”dark ages”.

That’s where I’m starting from. Why say such a thing when it clearly isn’t true …. if it’s to be believed that two thirds of football fans don’t have a problem with having gay players in their team.”

Well, saying it’s in the Dark Ages is obviously metaphorical (because you don’t step into a time machine to play football), hence not true and not meant to be interpreted as true.

Personally, I think its use in the OP is hyperbole even as a metaphor (people talking about so-and-so being in the Dark Ages tends to irritate me). But it’s obviously meant as rhetoric, not fact.

“So where’s the problem? Is it that the ”majority” of football fans and players (as it must be to make such a sweeping generalisation about dark ages) aren’t just sufficiently PC enough to have ticked every box in some gay rights campaigners wish list?”

Nah, it’s just that football stands out. That might not have anything to do with relative levels of homophobia in football; it’s just that a football match is somewhere that people shout and sing things, often insults, and said shouting and singing is captured on camera and broadcast to millions.

“I probably support it’s desired outcome, but I won’t just accept people throwing accusations around about how everyone who disagrees with them is living in the dark ages, or as Owen Jones said of LBC talk show host Ian Collins live on air that he was a ”knuckle dragging biggot” because he had his own opinion on gay marriage and it was a bit different to Jones’.”

Absolutely fair in itself, but it does put you in a beam-in-thine-eye situation vis-a-vis your abuse of gay rights campaigners, as I keep saying.

“So who starts with the ad hom first?”

If you were ad homming a specific individual who had been throwing ad homs around, I’d probably say fair enough. But you’re not, you’re making sweeping statements. The fact that SOME people ad hom your side does not justify you ad homming the ENTIRE other side.

“…and the ”anti-gay jibe” is to say ”you’re more like the Brighton gay stereotype than the tough fighting hooligan stereotype” [..] So the ”homophobia” isn’t really about gay people at all, it’s saying that Brighton ”hard cases” – supposidly Sussex’s tough guys, are actually gay and soft.”

Which is quite solidly homophobic. It rests entirely on the assumption that being gay is a bad thing. That said, if it’s a routine insult then perhaps the people chanting it aren’t homophobic themselves but just using the standard line – a bit like the playground use of “gay” to mean “wimpy”. So the origins are certainly homophobic but I wouldn’t assume that was true of each individual fan.

“It’s pathetic and juvenile …. and most people grow out of it when they stop being teenagers and young silly men. People grow up and become more worldly wise, and only sad cases can’t get over the anti-gay view they might have grown up with.”

Labelling homophobes as “sad cases” misses the point. These days, we’d say the same about racists. But back in the day racism was standard, a view held by very learned and intelligent people. And it’s partly down to anti-racism campaigns that this has shifted. So I think waving the issue away is complacency.

“And as for the Spiked quote that you say is the worst and is all ad hom …. I think he’s right. ”

Because you’re a hypocrite. Seriously, from an outside perspective your double-standards on ad hom attacks are utterly ridiculous.

“As for this charge of ”elitism”. I know people who wouldn’t be seen dead at a football match … or inside a high street bookmakers, or certain kinds of Whetherspoons type pubs, because they don’t like that Sun reading kind of blue collar working class you get in those places.”

So you know some people who don’t like working-class establishments and people. Fascinating. Now explain why you’re entitled to tar everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush.

“And you seem quite a bright chap Chaise, so give this one by the same guy a go […] It’s a five minute read, but if you really insist that one was enough and he had his chance, then I see we are very different kinds of people.
I would always have a look.”

I might later if my idiot-tolerance is high enough. I wouldn’t normally condemn somone based on one article, but this guy is obviously channeling the stupidity of Sp!ked: every single article you cite on here whinges about “elitism”, because Sp!ked is a bastion of irrationality and cowardice. So it’s more like I read the last article, thought “oh, another Sp!ked drone trying to bully people into silence so he doesn’t have to defend his position” and decided he wasn’t worth the effort. I only have so much time and Sp!ked long ago proved itself a total waste of words.

In effect, footballers are under perpetual police caution; what’s said on the pitch may be used in evidence against them.

As is anybody who communicates in public, or with the public, at work. Which is a very large proportion of the workforce. Not just footballers. And most of these millions understand that they have to watch their mouths in that situation. As should footballers.

It’s so easy to produce a contrarian argument, and there’s good money in it. But the arguments are always flimsy as cobwebs.