Jason McAteer is not the sharpest tool in the box, and it definitely would take more than two people to provoke well over 1000 Manchester United fans. Were the same Manchester United fans provoked before kick-off when they are singing their sick chants?
And OzzieAssaidi.Go look in the mirror if you want to argue. I notice anytime 1 of your ex players disagree with you lot he's either a "boyhood UTD fan" or "not the sharpest tool in the box". THE MAN SAW IT WITH HIS OWN EYES..HOW SMART DOES HE HAVE TO BE TO SEE???
Its like Swarbs comment that it was a ''small few'' Manchester United fans that were chanting at the end of the game. It was clearly obvious and I've seen the footage that it was anything from 1000-1500 easily, if not more. However Swarbs has also failed to mention the Manchester United fans that kicked off prior to kick-off. My question all along is how can 2 people provoke 1000+ people?
Actually what I find sadly ironic is that there was an SKD thread a lot of these united boys couldn't leave alone because SKD kept stupidly trying to pre justify the possibility of LFC "fans" singing Munich songs in response to a United fan provocation. He was (quite rightly) told that nothing justifies that type of response/reaction, no matter what the provocation. Apparently as it turned out to be the other way around it is now acceptable to cry "provocation" & "justification" both by the some United fans, the media, and sadly one of our past players. So I'm not going to criticise McAteer because I disagree with him, I'm criticizing him for being wrong plain & simple just like I told SKD he was wrong for trying to use the provocation argument. But here we are eh? I'll give Spurlock his due however incompetently he made his point. The rule switching going on here by some is quite appalling.
Never said they did. What is the gesture, and where is the evidence? And if the events of the past two weeks have taught you nothing else, they should have taught you to ask for evidence of what the police and press pass off as 'fact'. But even by asking these questions, in 24 hours we've gone from a group of Liverpool fans mocking Munich, to two fans doing 'airplane' gestures, to one fan making 'gestures'. Still one fan too many, if proven, and the **** should be made an example of. But see what happens when you ask for ask for facts? And boy, henceforth that's we will continuously do.
And also, as we've now seen from the police, there was ONE fan ejected for making gestures (gestures not as yet defined). So the question I have to ask Mcateer is - did you see it jason, or are you reporting what has been stated as 'fact' in several newspapers and outlets this morning without the evidence of the Man U fans' chants. So come on Liverpool, come on Sky, come on those thousands of United fans who were so enraged that they immediately responded with Hillsborough chants and 'forgot' to use their camera phones (they've been ****ing quick enough in the past) - where is the evidence? we need to know so that the punk(s) that did can be identified and banned. And I'll keep asking the question until the evidence is shown, or the original alleger admits they have no evidence.
no doubt some people will again say leave it your obsessed etc but this way we either find the guilty and ban them or we see a lack of evidence. Keep up the fight DD!
Which Hillsborough one is that? I always thought murderers was a Heysel reference myself or do you mean the one that started up last year after the Suarez affair? Liverpool fans are the ones who started the disaster mocking apparently and LFC fans are the only ones facing police investigation for sickening abuse. We should come up with some kind of chant to highlight the fact LFC are utterly deluded into thinking everyone/thing is against them, like some kind of victim mentality and they never instigate anything.
Ah, so you're using the dead of Heysel to score singing points. Why didn't you say so from the start: much classier & makes it all ok. To make this post shorter please refer to my previous post. You're a prime example. And That laughable attempt to make "always the victim" a new thing. How is "always" a one time thing? So what other "things" did we feel we were "victims" over when in fact we were the perpetrators? I'll give you the "Suarez Affair" as one just for arguments sake, so what was 2 or 3 or 4? Yeah, this is ridiculously weak. Semantic sidestepping to defend this is truly appalling. It's also fairly unintelligent & shows no balls. If you're going to sing a song; don't run away from its meaning when it makes you look like the pond scum you are.
So you have news on the police "investigation"? Ps bollix to your ****e about it being invented about suarez
Typical Man Utd fans. Make ambiguous chants about disasters knowing full well what the song actually refers to yet when questioned or confronted on the chant deny all responsibility and pretend the chants are about something totally different.
The irony here is that when caught out by SkySports after the game (they probably thought the cameras were switched off) singing songs, and one in particular that their club and manager pleaded with them not to sing, their first reaction, as it always is when they've been caught singing "96 wasn't enough", "you killed your own fans" and other such gems over the years has been "They started it!", even if the "started it" in question was 30 years ago. Victim mentality/justification indeed. How does it go? "It's never your fault, it's never your fault, always the victims, it's never your fault". ****ing brass-necked, shameless hypocrites.
What the ****ing **** ****ers. Everyone is ****ing wrong! First of all, no one should have started any chants. Secondly, no one should responded to any chants.
You don't, perchance, mean the abuse of Falsey by two Liverpool fans? FFS, victimhood by proxy! Your fans were justified to sing a thinly disguised Hillsborough song that even your club and management saw through because Falsey was (viciously, to be sure) abused by Liverpool fans? Perhaps the links between that crook and your club DO go deeper than was first suspected.
That directed at me? Not how your response pertains to mine. All I stated was, whoever started the chants (doesn't matter who) was in the wrong. Who ever responded with more chants in retaliation was also wrong.
