Exactly. Back in the day crocodiles got a really bad rep. Their eggs would hatch and along came mummy crocodile. Tossed baby crocodile into its mouth. What kind of demonic creature would do that to its own babies? One that was carrying its babies across the river safely of course. Think of those seats like a mummy crocodile's mouth. Some people are predisposed to seeing only badness.
Your Spanish English teacher muct be so proud of his star English student ... a perfect grasp of the English spoken and written word.
So, jumpin/standing on them should not be excused... as it's liable to break them. Only cheap bits of plastic. Acceptable at Parkhead?
I'd rather ask the question and find out for sure than jump to a conclusion and be shown to be wrong. I can tell you what I think your intention is. I think you are trying to suggest that I see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil of Celtic fans. But then I think that can't be right. That would be a stupid assertion. I have just readily conceded the point regards flares. I don't believe you to be stupid, even if you can't spell argument. We all have our blind spots. Mine was the word definitely.... Spelt it wrong for years. Anyway. It can't be that, it must be something else.
Well done... pick up on a typo Funnily enough, I have a weak spot for a few words, definitely also being one. However, when I type on here I find it of little importance to ensure I have typed all words correctly. I spend long enough in work typing, writing PPs, reports, emails etc... The picture wasn't aimed at you in particular by the way...
Please read my argument again. At no Point did I suggest it was acceptable. I suggested that the intention was not to break these cheap bits of plastic. I can't believe I am referencing mens rea twice in one day.... But it is what it is.
Fair enough... I believe the intention was to break seats. Just my opinion though(is it?) And folk who jump/stand on seats in a public place are ****s. Like the arseholes who put their feet on the seats of the bus!
Then i apologise. I tend to try and present arguments in a way that doesn't rely too much on assumptions. I often fail. I often get away with those failures. Those pictures have led you and others to make assumptions and then fit the story around that. I don't think anyone claimed that standing on chairs is good practice. Just that the damage may not have been wilful. I would suggest it more likely that the seats broke due to standing on them than wanton destruction.
And you are entitled to your opinion. As is Phil. What he should not do is use words like wilful and criminal when he hasn't the first idea whether he is right or not. I have dealt with him before. I found him very sharp. Very quick to take on board an idea and understand it. I think he is a smart man. I think he is extremely good at knowing what the story is... I also think he is a two faced scheming ****. I do not believe this error is an oversight on his part. There is something else at play here.
Maybe. Although Hartson got away with it for his piece on the battle of Dens Park. Putting the boot in to fitba fans of whatever hue is easy sport. He sold good pieces to the papers because he was well ahead of the curve at being accurate and radical. He's now being conformist and full of opinion rather than fact. I don't know why he is doing this. It is not the behaviour of a man with principle anyway. And when I say that in no way do I intend to denigrate those that may share his opinion on flares. He presented that well imo.
