ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC"

[Walken]

was he the old man behind the curtain?

no mate, its a tv show i'm referencing as much as possible to try an make it popular and make me feel better about myself

 

[wandyr79]

Hahaha, yeah, physically assaulting someone resulting in being sent to prison is nowhere near as bad as biting someone on the arm, is it.

Mate.

There have been a 100+ more dangerous assaults on a football pitch since Dunc did what he did in Scotland and none of them went to court.

Dunc was far from an angel but is and never was as consistently disgusting as Suarez.

 

[Minimeister]

There have been a 100+ more dangerous assaults on a football pitch since Dunc did what he did in Scotland and none of them went to court.

Dunc was far from an angel but is and never was as consistently disgusting as Suarez.

and certainly none then had to serve a ban AFTER coming out of prison.

As I said, you can't compare the two. We accepted Dunc did stupid things and he missed games through suspension when we needed him, some of our own took even more exception to the way we built him up as an idol. What we never did was blindly follow him because he was bigger than the club.

 

[RED]

I was trying to have an intelligent exchange. I don't know if I can respond to the sheer wit of of a bunch of gifs, but here goes.

It was stated that the purpose of this thread was to address the monopoly that Liverpool enjoy in the media. So I ask, why is it that the most hysterical, vitriolic reporting of recent memory occurred during the Suarez/Evra affair? It was in literally every paper in the country for months. Let me make it clear that I am not defending Suarez. Let's assume that he is racist. He probably did say those things. But, it came down to one man's word vs another's. Compare this to the Terry/Anton Ferdinand case which occurred at about the same time, which caught Terry speaking on camera and after the first few showings, his mouth would be blurred out when the clip was shown, and eventually it wouldn't be shown at all. Or compare it to the recent Anelka case. In another thread, there were debates about whether or not it is an offensive gesture (seriously!). There are many examples. Bosnich doing a Hitler type salute at White Hart Lane etc. None of these incidents attracted the same media scrutiny as the Suarez affair.

I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm not an idiot. There are actual conspiracies, and overusing the term cheapens it. But, you state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Liverpool's monopolisation of the media. I say that is complete bullshit and the Suarez/Evra case is an example that renders such a position untenable.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Like lab rats mice they're learning through trial-n-error. Recently they learnt they could criticise the OTT attention some blues give to the red side, and that they could target the worst culprits on this board, and still be able to stay onside with at least some of us. But again a brick wall was met when not just comparing Duncan with Suarez, but claiming Duncan was even the worse character.

Soon we'll get new lab specimens who've clocked this. It'll get to the point where they will be so advanced in being a blue, that they'll forget they're red.

I for one welcome our newly-converted friends

Great post

 

[dholliday]

no mate, its a tv show i'm referencing as much as possible to try an make it popular and make me feel better about myself

aaaha.

you're probably not wrong, like...whoever he is.















































*hopes he's not a [Poor language removed]*

 

[Brennan]

I was trying to have an intelligent exchange. I don't know if I can respond to the sheer wit of of a bunch of gifs, but here goes.

It was stated that the purpose of this thread was to address the monopoly that Liverpool enjoy in the media. So I ask, why is it that the most hysterical, vitriolic reporting of recent memory occurred during the Suarez/Evra affair? It was in literally every paper in the country for months. Let me make it clear that I am not defending Suarez. Let's assume that he is racist. He probably did say those things. But, it came down to one man's word vs another's. Compare this to the Terry/Anton Ferdinand case which occurred at about the same time, which caught Terry speaking on camera and after the first few showings, his mouth would be blurred out when the clip was shown, and eventually it wouldn't be shown at all. Or compare it to the recent Anelka case. In another thread, there were debates about whether or not it is an offensive gesture (seriously!). There are many examples. Bosnich doing a Hitler type salute at White Hart Lane etc. None of these incidents attracted the same media scrutiny as the Suarez affair.

I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm not an idiot. There are actual conspiracies, and overusing the term cheapens it. But, you state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Liverpool's monopolisation of the media. I say that is complete bullshit and the Suarez/Evra case is an example that renders such a position untenable.

If they don't have a strong influence in the media then please explain why the majority of pundits on football coverage in this country have Liverpool connections. And no, it's not because their analysis is ace.

 

[toffeejack]

If Rush was playing these days most of his goals would be ruled offside for his nose interfering with play. Similar thing happens with Aston Villa, they are actually a really good side but Albrighton's conk has seen 70 goals ruled out.

my mate ended up at a party where all the cardiff players were after saturday, mentioned rush was there doing things upstairs that he shouldn't be doing.

i did point out he had the nose for it. i have no idea what he was actually doing btw, just jumped straight to cocaine conspiracy. but if it was something to do with any of those two dogs i saw him with earlier in the day - then fair play trooper.

 

[dholliday]

I was trying to have an intelligent exchange. I don't know if I can respond to the sheer wit of of a bunch of gifs, but here goes.

It was stated that the purpose of this thread was to address the monopoly that Liverpool enjoy in the media. So I ask, why is it that the most hysterical, vitriolic reporting of recent memory occurred during the Suarez/Evra affair? It was in literally every paper in the country for months. Let me make it clear that I am not defending Suarez. Let's assume that he is racist. He probably did say those things. But, it came down to one man's word vs another's. Compare this to the Terry/Anton Ferdinand case which occurred at about the same time, which caught Terry speaking on camera and after the first few showings, his mouth would be blurred out when the clip was shown, and eventually it wouldn't be shown at all. Or compare it to the recent Anelka case. In another thread, there were debates about whether or not it is an offensive gesture (seriously!). There are many examples. Bosnich doing a Hitler type salute at White Hart Lane etc. None of these incidents attracted the same media scrutiny as the Suarez affair.

I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm not an idiot. There are actual conspiracies, and overusing the term cheapens it. But, you state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Liverpool's monopolisation of the media. I say that is complete bullshit and the Suarez/Evra case is an example that renders such a position untenable.

frankly, can't be arsed with this bollocks. i'm off to celebrate Everton in the main forum.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

I was trying to have an intelligent exchange. I don't know if I can respond to the sheer wit of of a bunch of gifs, but here goes.

It was stated that the purpose of this thread was to address the monopoly that Liverpool enjoy in the media. So I ask, why is it that the most hysterical, vitriolic reporting of recent memory occurred during the Suarez/Evra affair? It was in literally every paper in the country for months. Let me make it clear that I am not defending Suarez. Let's assume that he is racist. He probably did say those things. But, it came down to one man's word vs another's. Compare this to the Terry/Anton Ferdinand case which occurred at about the same time, which caught Terry speaking on camera and after the first few showings, his mouth would be blurred out when the clip was shown, and eventually it wouldn't be shown at all. Or compare it to the recent Anelka case. In another thread, there were debates about whether or not it is an offensive gesture (seriously!). There are many examples. Bosnich doing a Hitler type salute at White Hart Lane etc. None of these incidents attracted the same media scrutiny as the Suarez affair.

I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm not an idiot. There are actual conspiracies, and overusing the term cheapens it. But, you state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Liverpool's monopolisation of the media. I say that is complete bullshit and the Suarez/Evra case is an example that renders such a position untenable.

He is a racist and he did say those things, your club and him both confirmed it.

So did the independent enquiry, and the FA.

 

[RED]

If they don't have a strong influence in the media then please explain why the majority of pundits on football coverage in this country have Liverpool connections. And no, it's not because their analysis is ace.

That is a different question. It's probably because Liverpool were successful for a long time. Now that the Premier League era players are retiring, those players are becoming pundits, eg. Lineker, Shearer, Merson, Schmeichel, Gary Neville. You could just as easily point to the number of ex ManU players going into management. It's high, but so what?

 

[davek]

RAWK: Libpoolfclad belt United and it's the beginning of the new world order...the changing of the guard. City belt United and it's a rubbish performance from dat der Moyes and his washed up team of no hopers.

ROFL.

 

[RED]

He is a racist and he did say those things, your club and him both confirmed it.

So did the independent enquiry, and the FA.

Let's say that that is true. Who cares? What makes that case special? More importantly, why would a Liverpool monopolised media drag the club's name through the mud for months and months?

 

[toffeejack]

davek what are you doing in this thread after our win?

 

[Del]

I was trying to have an intelligent exchange. I don't know if I can respond to the sheer wit of of a bunch of gifs, but here goes.

It was stated that the purpose of this thread was to address the monopoly that Liverpool enjoy in the media. So I ask, why is it that the most hysterical, vitriolic reporting of recent memory occurred during the Suarez/Evra affair? It was in literally every paper in the country for months. Let me make it clear that I am not defending Suarez. Let's assume that he is racist. He probably did say those things. But, it came down to one man's word vs another's. Compare this to the Terry/Anton Ferdinand case which occurred at about the same time, which caught Terry speaking on camera and after the first few showings, his mouth would be blurred out when the clip was shown, and eventually it wouldn't be shown at all. Or compare it to the recent Anelka case. In another thread, there were debates about whether or not it is an offensive gesture (seriously!). There are many examples. Bosnich doing a Hitler type salute at White Hart Lane etc. None of these incidents attracted the same media scrutiny as the Suarez affair.

I am not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm not an idiot. There are actual conspiracies, and overusing the term cheapens it. But, you state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss Liverpool's monopolisation of the media. I say that is complete bullshit and the Suarez/Evra case is an example that renders such a position untenable.