Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

People read what they want to read I think.

 

People died at Hillsborough because of perimeter fencing, and the fencing was there because of the hooliganism endemic in the English game. So the link between poor fan behaviour and the disaster is clear, even if the one was not the immediate direct cause of the other.

 

I've no real interest in defending what he said, since he's not attempted to defend it himself and has apologised, I just don't believe that he was saying Hillsborough was caused by hooliganism in the first place. But I accept it's open to creative interpretation.

 

Apparently it's open to even more creative excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Strontium Dog, I can appreciate that you have an on-line persona which likes to try and be all edgy and court controversy, but come on, you've picked the wrong topic to do it with here. Stop being a dick and trying to defend the indefensible by putting an utterly absurd interpretation on what Hunt said.

 

He was quite clearly discussing football hooliganism, which is clear by the initial question which he was responding too. He laid down his general point and then went on to give historical examples of what he believed to be hooliganism by English fans. In doing this, he erroneously included Hillsborough in his example. So, basically, he was extremely ignorant and shot himself in the foot.

 

There is absolutely no other plausible explanation to what he said and, Strontium Dog, if you try to suggest that there is you will lose the remainder of the extremely small amount of credibility which you still have on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you twisted his words, clearly the twisting comes from Laura Kuenssberg, whoever she is.

 

I imagine he's apologising because his comments were open to misinterpretation, and because failure to do so would probably see him lynched from a lamp-post on Scotland Road.

 

I can see what youre saying. Its like 2 different situations in one sentence. But as it is mentioned on the same breath where hes praising England fans for not causing trouble, then i think he believed that hooliganism played a part in Hillsbrough. I dont know him but i can guess hes a Tory twit with no clue of the real world. Pure ignorance on the subject. Sad that this guy is our culture secretary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strontinium Dog, I sort of can see why you'd say it's open to interpretation as Hunt could well have meant the problems with Organisation and the policing at both Hillsborough and Heysel.

 

However you know full well that he did not mean anything but hooliganism hence his comments about how well behaved the England support had been. an apology to the families is the least that he should do for a grave grave mistake of inexcuseable ignorance. He would have been better off keeping his gob shut with reference to Hillsborough. he is however very much ill-informed and clearly in the wrong. so why defend his actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that fan unrest played no part in the terrible events of April 1989 and I apologise to Liverpool fans and the families of those killed and injured in the Hillsborough disaster if my comments caused any offence.

 

No you don't know you massive shitbag, someone told you after you showed your ignorance. Fuck off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth remembering that the original s*n source was Tory MP Irvine Patrick, and Bernard Ingram (Tory press secretary) said that the disaster was caused by a "tanked up mob" - basically ignorance and conservatism have long gone hand in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about it on the radio today and then saw the stories on the news.

 

Looks like we're heading back to the 80s when everything was Liverpool's fault.

 

We all remember Thatcher damning us all to hell for Heysel, when in truth if she'd actually bothered to look at the facts behind Heysel she would've seen that we were under attack and as you would, we fought back. It's tragic that 39 Juve fans died as a result.

 

Hillsborough happens and you just know somewhere in the background, some little Tory bastard is putting the boot in. Hence the lying cunt prints "The Truth".

 

The same old prejudice still remains in the Tory party towards Liverpool and we saw it today with Jeremy Hunt dragging up our darkest day and our most tragic days to represent hooliganism.

 

Our fight for justice I dear took a huge step backwards when Cameron/Thatcher and his band of Hooray Henrys sneaked into power.

 

HJC have a long 4 years ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cracking piece covering it on the BBC 10o'clock news then. Showed the tory prick's comments, aswell as footage from Hillsborough and reference to where the blame lay. Also interviewed the parents of one of the poor souls who passed away (apologies, name missed) and discussed the ongoing fight for full disclosure and justice. Ended with the journalist standing alongside the Memorial at Anfield. Well done BBC, good platform and air time given to further power the fight for justice. Just keep that cunt McKenzie off your screens now please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SD missing when proven to be talking bollocks again.

 

What a shocker.

 

 

The fuck?

 

I never "go missing" from anything, it's just that I do have a life outside the Internet and, regrettably, being a virtual punchbag for over-sensitive keyboard warriors wasn't high on my to-do-list tonight.

 

I think SD has picked the wrong topic on which to play party politics. But that won't stop him.

 

One wonders whether he'd have bothered were his buddies not in bed with the Thieves. Actually, one doesn't...

 

 

I defend anyone who I think is getting a rough deal, whoever they are. The last thing I'd do is play party politics with this, unlike the various Twittering Labour MPs who just can't stop themselves getting a dig in.

 

I still believe it's fair to interpret the sentence "Not a single arrest for a football-related offence, and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us" as referring to two distinct things.

 

It's like if I said about my house: "No more mice in the cellar, and the terrible problems I had with dry rot are just a distant memory". Wouldn't it require a somewhat creative mind to interpret that as me implying that the mice were responsible for the dry rot? But that sentence is structured exactly the same way as what Hunt said.

 

Admittedly this does require people to have a working grasp of the English language, something sadly lacking in people who can't even spell strontium correctly in their shithouse tags even when it's written right there on the screen for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought this was a quiz so i went to wilkipedia and found the following :

 

 

Cunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Cunt (disambiguation).

Look up cunt in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

 

 

 

 

Cunt (pronounced /ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, generally referring to the female genitalia,[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus. The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock."[2]

 

"Cunt" can also be used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to a person of either sex, but this usage is relatively recent, dating back only as far as the late nineteenth century.[3] Reflecting different national usages, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "cunt" as "an unpleasant or stupid person", whereas Merriam-Webster defines the term as "a disparaging term for a woman" and "a woman regarded as a sexual object"; the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man". When used as a slang term with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in countries such as Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person to which it refers.[4]

 

The word appears to have been in common usage from the Middle Ages until the eighteenth century. After a period of disuse, usage became more frequent in the twentieth century, in parallel with the rise of popular literature and pervasive media. The term also has various other derived uses and, like "fuck" and its derivatives, has been used mutatis mutandis as noun, pronoun, adjective, participle and other parts of speech.

 

 

interestingly one of our ex players gets a mention further down the page

 

Several celebrities have had their names used as euphemisms, including footballer Roger Hunt,[90] actor Gareth Hunt,[91][92][93] singer James Blunt,[83] and 1970s motor-racing driver James Hunt

 

 

 

do i win a prize ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I defend anyone who I think is getting a rough deal, whoever they are. The last thing I'd do is play party politics with this, unlike the various Twittering Labour MPs who just can't stop themselves getting a dig in.

 

I still believe it's fair to interpret the sentence "Not a single arrest for a football-related offence, and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us" as referring to two distinct things.

 

It's like if I said about my house: "No more mice in the cellar, and the terrible problems I had with dry rot are just a distant memory". Wouldn't it require a somewhat creative mind to interpret that as me implying that the mice were responsible for the dry rot? But that sentence is structured exactly the same way as what Hunt said.

 

Admittedly this does require people to have a working grasp of the English language, something sadly lacking in people who can't even spell strontium correctly in their shithouse tags even when it's written right there on the screen for them.

 

You're doing it with that comment.

And secondly if a Labour MP had made Hunt's comment you'd have been on it quicker than a fly on shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe it's fair to interpret the sentence "Not a single arrest for a football-related offence, and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us" as referring to two distinct things.

 

It's like if I said about my house: "No more mice in the cellar, and the terrible problems I had with dry rot are just a distant memory". Wouldn't it require a somewhat creative mind to interpret that as me implying that the mice were responsible for the dry rot? But that sentence is structured exactly the same way as what Hunt said.

 

If he didn't mean it in that way why did he bring it up then? Unless he linked Hillsborough to hooliganism then he had no reason to bring it up, he's a cunt, stop defending him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SD, you are being beyond generous with your interpretation.

 

Clauses in a sentence will support each other regardless, affecting the meaning.

 

"No more mice in the cellar." means just that. "No more mice in the cellar, and the terrible problems I had with dry rot are just a distant memory" makes it a statement hinting at a general improvement in the building. In this case by providing two different examples it suggests that the rising standards are mutli-faceted.

 

"Not a single arrest for a football-related offence" is a positive statement. Adding: "and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us" is not. By using it as a comparitive he is tacitly suggesting that such football-related offences played a part in Hillsborough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...