People got upset when Clarkson said everyone involved in the strikes should be taken out and shot. That was about context, and the manner it was said, again most people seemed to ignore that, and got upset for the sake of it.
Alan Davies comments
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
People got upset when Clarkson said everyone involved in the strikes should be taken out and shot. That was about context, and the manner it was said, again most people seemed to ignore that, and got upset for the sake of it.
I just don't think it's offensive, he wasn't talking about the people who had lost family members, he was talking about Liverpool FC and football games, I thought that was obvious. For the record I don't even really agree with him, doesn't bother me that Liverpool don't want to play, I do find it a bit odd, but that's because I grieve very differently. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I find what he said in the slightest bit offensive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
He's admitted his guilt though
Because he'd be absolutely the first man to admit guilt and offer a present when in an argument with someone completely illogical and irrational
Same way Tevez decided to months later admit guilt over "the incident", it was absolutely because he was in the wrong, it had nothing to do with being in a fight with an irrational manager(after his club found him not guilty of said managers claims) nor the 250k a week he would get if he were back in the team.... nope.
The reaction to what he said is far more offensive than what he said, which is at best mildly irksome... if you insist on taking it the wrong way.
The fact is so many clubs have lost people, while few have lost so many in one incident, there have been teams lost, fans lost, groups of fans lost and some truly massive tragedys outside of football that completely dwarf the losses at Hillsborough. No one is saying forget or ignore it, just that, the rest of the world gets on with life, its always come across as somewhat odd that HIllsborough gets treated as a worse tragedy and more important than anything else.
Someone mentioned for instance Gerrard would have a hard time playing on the anniversary as he lost his cousin, but how many players play games every year on an anniversary they lost someone incredibly close to them? Everyone has lost people close to them, and don't get days off.
There is being sensitive and, somehow giving preferential treatment over an incident that, no other club, no other tragedy receives.
I think the problem is the anniversary seems to have become some sort of religious event to Liverpool fans, why the need for an official ceremony at Anfield every year? can those affected not just mourn the death of loved ones at their graves like most other people do? if they want to meet up with other families I'm sure it can be organised any other time.
Your post sums up my view of the whole situation perfectly.
iirc Sagna played a few days after his brother died and played through depression/being very, very down for a few months after that
Arsenal played the same day David Rocastle died, and if you think several of those players who played in the game grew up with him (Keown/Adams) and several more would have been team mates (Dixon/Seaman).
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 9,258
- Location
- United Kingdom
Alan Davies last tweet, Awesome
Brilliant.
He's admitted his guilt though
Has he? I thought he'd apologised for any offence caused (which is fair, as he'd not intended to cause offence).
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Posts
- 435
- Location
- Kilwinning, Scotland
I really don't understand how you can apologise for offence caused. As Jimmy Carr rightly says, offence is taken, not given. They 'choose' to be offended, how can he apologise for their state of mind or how they perceive his comments.
If you are going to apologise then you can only apologise if you truly believe what you said (on reflection) was unacceptable (by your own standards), and presumably retract your comments. If not it is just a sop to appease those complaining about being offended. It would appear he stands by the comments, so I presume they are still offensive to the same people, what has changed?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,045
- Location
- Surrey
Just a thought here, but he probably wants to stop the death threats and abuse by these complete idiots. Who knows it may get more serious than that.
Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC fans and the families of those involved want to show respect for those that were affected by what happened at Hillsborough.
Just because other clubs and other fans don't want to show respect for the loss or their losses doesn't mean LFC can't, won't or shouldn't.
Just because other clubs and other fans don't want to show respect for the loss or their losses doesn't mean LFC can't, won't or shouldn't.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Posts
- 435
- Location
- Kilwinning, Scotland
I'm sure he does, and if a 'false' apology does that then great. It would be no suprise if the people taking the greatest offence, those issuing death threats and those that are appeased by someone not retracting their comments but saying in effect 'I feel sorry for you that you take offence at these comments but I still stand by them' are all one and the same.
The real sad part is that he can't exercise free speech without getting death threats, then feels it necessary to appease those threatening him with violence, when are they going to apologise to him?
I'm sorry you've misconstrued my post.
Well, I'm not, but I can say I am without it costing me anything.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone would want to change that.
Refusing to play on a certain day isn't an inherent part of that.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Posts
- 435
- Location
- Kilwinning, Scotland
LOL, exactly. I wasn't getting at you. I agree with the point you make, it's a false apology that means nothing. But the PC brigade demand some form of appeasement for any slight, real or imagained.