The forgotten Fan. A tonight Special ITV@9.45 tonight

Ardent

p.pete wrote:

I don't care if he's a proper nasty person, that shouldn't have a bearing on a murder case.

Attempted murder I think. The guy wasn't actually killed right?

I didn't see the show last night and I don't claim to know all the details of the case. I hope justice is served but, at the end of the day, if Shields was throwing punches at the locals and hanging out with psychos like Sankey then he has no one else to blame for the predicament he now finds himself in.

Big Nelly

Stekelly wrote:

Seeing as my post is being ignored ill say it again. The attack happened 5 days after the final , on teh 30th may. Not everyone stays up drinking till 8 o'clock in the morning every night of a holiday.

Not ignored, is it four or five days? seems to change with each post

Stekelly wrote:

If he was asleep at the tiem of the attack, where or how much he drank is irrelevant.

Well the coverage was shot during the day of the re-creation of the attack. When exactly did it happen?

PHB

Are you serious PHB, what experiences of the Bulgarian judicial system do you have that you can say that it is "very very fair" ?

Having studied european legal systems, specifically in relation to the accession countries, I have some idea what I am talking about.

They put live pictures out of the courtroom after which a number of other "eye-witnesses" came forward to identify shields. The people in the line-up were allowed to confer both before and after the line-up.

That is not unusual in a lot of countries. What you are doing is imposing your fair views of a legal procedure that you get from TV and our society onto their society.

Of the four people who were the original eye witnesses, one did not pick him out, and the other three changed their story between he was the one that originally hit him to the one that threw the rock, so now there are eye witnesses giving conflicting evidence however this was not allowed to be mentioned at the trial.

Have you ever read the evidence for Bloody Sunday? There is conflicting evidence left right and center for everything. That is because the nature of the offense. Ultimately, he was convicted on the evidence of the witnesses who said that he was the one who killed the man. This was done through the legal proceddings, determining whether or not that witness was credible, and working off that. Just like in our legal system.

Somebody else owned up to the crime aswell, if that happened in any other country in the EU there would at least have been a retrial due to new evidence at the very least.

FIrst off, that is not true. Secondly, who is this person who owned up to the crime? Where is he now? Why hasn't he been arrested?
Heres the big big question:
What is the point of the Bulgarian government arresting an innocent man, when they could arrest the apparently guilty man? What is their motive? They are very keen to appear to be a legal and fair government as they are joining the EU, why in the hell are they doing this?

If he is innocent, he will be proved innocent. Do you not think that perhaps the EU has been monitoring this case? PErhaps the high profile nature of it might have meant they might have sent some lawyers down to examine it, as a case study of whether or not the Bulgarian legal system is working properly.

Lastly, what if somebody in Cambodia admitted to this exact crime, knowing full well he would not be extradited. Does this mean that he is automatically innocent?

So here are my questions to you:

1. Why is the Bulgarian government doing this?
2. Why hasn't the EU stepped in?

Ultimately, if he is innocent, he will be found innocent. He can take it to the European court and gain freedom. At which point he can counter-sue for millions of pounds. But nobody anything has shown so far suggest this isn't just Liverpool fans or the English media sticking together with an English Liverpool fan.

eirebhoy

PORNAPSTER wrote:

If Shields was innocent, then I sympathise with him. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time etc. But I have to agree with alot of what Nelly said. Alot of it seemed like it was made up. I don't think many Liverpool fans were spending alot of time in their bedrooms joking about snoring after winning the Champions League.

This was 4 nights after the match. My body is still recovering from the long weekend ffs.

Big Nelly wrote:

Well they could have explained why he was in bed and didnt wake up with his mates in the room drinking with lights on etc. It would suggest he was drunk, so if he was drunk then where was he drinking? thats just one point.

I'm sure you heard Trevor McDonald say that they had a house party. The attack happened after 5am.

TheMonster

PHB wrote:

FIrst off, that is not true. Secondly, who is this person who owned up to the crime? Where is he now? Why hasn't he been arrested?

he confessed on the proviso he couldn't be tried - sure we could all do that

BaZmO*

Stekelly wrote:

If he was asleep at the tiem of the attack, where or how much he drank is irrelevant.

Significantly, Thompson, who had also been charged with hooliganism, had already made a confession, for which he had received a six-month suspended sentence, after confirming that he had attacked Mr Georgiev together with Wilson and Shields

county wrote:

didnt see the program so i can only comment on the posts in this thread

i seeing a lot of, if your a pool fan you support the bloke and if your not he is as guity as charged

I'd say you're not far wrong on that assessment. There certainly seems to be discrepencies on both sides.

In front of two judges and three jury members, Thompson said he did not know Shields, despite the fact that he had stayed in a room next to his at the hotel. Backtracking on his own confession, he said that he had only seen the fight from far away and ran off after a brick was thrown at someone's head by someone with "brownish hair" whom he did not know. In so testifying, he had effectively ruled out Mr Sankey as the culprit, since he was someone whom he knew well.

What nobody seemed to ask was why the court should accept a confession that ran counter to all the known facts of the case. In his statement, Mr Sankey claimed that: "I saw three men running at me with bottles and bricks in their hands. I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel."

Guy:Incognito

Unless you become friends or are frineds with someone, why would you know the people in the next room in a hotel. I certainly dont know any of the people who stayed in the ajoining rooms when I was on holidays. If it had been an old couple in the next room would they have been arrested as accomplises?

PHB, if you want to be anal about whether it was four or five days after the final, it could be argued each way, but I'm sure it was a mistake by tftf when he said 4. THe match started on the 25th and ended on the 26th, so dependign on who's ccounting it could be 4 or 5 days. Either way , your comment about coming back from the game and going straight to bed doesnt hold any weight.

The fact is, his 4 friends say he wasnt involved. Other english witnesses said he wasnt involved, yet 3 (or 4?) bulgarian witnesses with varying stories got him convicted.

Putting someone in a lineup who resembles the description of the assailant with 3 people of a different ethnic backround together in a line up is designed to do one thing, get a positve id.

If your neighbour was being investigated for a crime, do you think it would be acceptable for the police to just decide to come next door and arrest you because he wasnt in?

TheMonster

Stekelly wrote:

Unless you become friends or are frineds with someone, why would you know the people in the next room in a hotel. I certainly dont know any of the people who stayed in the ajoining rooms. If it had been an old couple in the next room would they have been arrested as accomplises?

PHB, if you want to be anal about whether it was four or five days after the final, it could be argued each way, but I'm sure it was a mistake by tftf when he said 4. THe match started on the 25th and ended on the 26th, so dependign on who's ccounting it could be 4 or 5 days. Either way , your comment about coming back from the game and going straight to bed doesnt hold any weight.

The fact is, his 4 friends say he wasnt involved. Other english witnesses said he wasnt involved, yet 3 (or 4?) bulgarian witnesses with varying stories got him convicted.

Putting someone in a lineup who resembles the description of the assailant with 3 people of a different ethnic backround together in a line up is designed to do one thing, get a positve id.

If your neighbour was being investigated for a crime, do you think it would be acceptable for the police to just decide to come next door and arrest you because he wasnt in?

so if he was asleep - why did one of his associates say he was involved in the fight.

BaZmO*

Stekelly wrote:

Unless you become friends or are frineds with someone, why would you know the people in the next room in a hotel.

Did Thompson not say that they were friends or at least aquaintances?

The two groups had become friendly and had spent previous mornings on their neighbouring balconies comparing notes from the night's revelries

Stekelly wrote:

PHB, if you want to be anal about whether it was four or five days after the final, it could be argued each way, but I'm sure it was a mistake by tftf when he said 4. THe match started on the 25th and ended on the 26th, so dependign on who's ccounting it could be 4 or 5 days.

Whether it was 4 or 5 days is irrelevant really. No real point in arguing about it tbh.

Stekelly wrote:

The fact is, his 4 friends say he wasnt involved. Other english witnesses said he wasnt involved, yet 3 (or 4?) bulgarian witnesses with varying stories got him convicted.

4 friends? You sure?

Stekelly wrote:

Putting someone in a lineup who resembles the description of the assailant with 3 people of a different ethnic backround together in a line up is designed to do one thing, get a positve id.

Is that true? I find that very hard to believe and very suspect.

Stekelly wrote:

If your neighbour was being investigated for a crime, do you think it would be acceptable for the police to just decide to come next door and arrest you because he wasnt in?

What?

Guy:Incognito

BaZmO* wrote:

Did Thompson not say that they were friends or at least aquaintances?

Did shields and his family and friends not deny this?

BaZmO* wrote:

Whether it was 4 or 5 days is irrelevant really. No real point in arguing about it tbh.

I wasnt. PHB was useing the arguement that no one would come home from a game and go to bed. I was merely saying that it was days after the game.

BaZmO* wrote:

4 friends? You sure?

Think so, might have been 3. Maybe the 3 that were in the room included him. Then one supposedly came in through the window.

BaZmO* wrote:

Is that true? I find that very hard to believe and very suspect.

It's what was said and reconstructed in the programme, and it's what shields said during the interview. He is white with tight fair hair and the 3 others in the line up were dark haired bulgarians.

BaZmO* wrote:

What?

According to the program, the police went looking for a friend of sankey , they got no answere, then went to the room next door (shields room)

PHB

I wasnt. PHB was useing the arguement that no one would come home from a game and go to bed. I was merely saying that it was days after the game.

I think you're confused about who you are arguing with. I never addressed the facts of the case.

So is anyone going to read the article from the Telegraph about it? Everybody just going to ignore it?

Here it is again in case you missed it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/07/nshield07.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/07/ixhome.html

The parts I particuarly think are interesting:

Then came the bombshell that catapulted the case into the headlines: from the safety of Britain, Mr Sankey issued a confession via his solicitor that he was indeed the man who had nearly killed Mr Georgiev. Mr Sankey was not, however, prepared to stand trial. His expectation seemed to be that Shields would now be set free and the matter forgotten about.

The defence, naturally, seized upon the admission. But the court's judges seemed less impressed, prompting intercontinental outcries of incredulity. What nobody seemed to ask was why the court should accept a confession that ran counter to all the known facts of the case. In his statement, Mr Sankey claimed that: "I saw three men running at me with bottles and bricks in their hands. I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel."

How Mr Sankey could be so certain that the man he had injured was Mr Georgiev was puzzling. Certainly the Bulgarian's injuries, which included having a three-inch section of his skull staved out with something far more substantial than a lofted brick, were inconsistent with Mr Sankey's account.

BaZmO*

Stekelly wrote:

Did shields and his family and friends not deny this

It's all very odd. Shields and his family are saying that they shouldn't believe them because they are liars but expect the court to believe Sankey's confession. Hmmmm.... can't have your cake and eat it I suppose.

cournioni

Stekelly wrote:

It was on the 30th may that the attack happened. Most of teh celebrating had died down by then and moved to Liverpool.

I don't know about that, if there was still a hotel full of Liverpool fans from the CL final then there would certainly still be celebrations going on.

redspider

I got to see most of this programme. One element that was very disturbing is that the thuggery, English lager-lout mentality, still goes on and is acceptable, in fact very acceptable by Liverpool fans. Is there nothing they have learned from the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro?!?

Why cant English fans ever get to a stage of being like Irish National Team fans, who are like ambassadors for the country and take it upon themselves to be friendly and quasi Board Failte reps.

It looks like Michel Shields is innocent of this crime, although judging from what the lads were up to over the weekend him and his mates were no mother teresa's. The Bulgarian Authorities are caught in a tight place, as bad as they were, they probably realise that they have the wrong person but are willing to live with the wrong conviction as getting the right one at this stage (and even after the event) would be impossible, and this will be a detterent. I have no doubt that the police were harrassed all those days and the Enbglish fans probably caused trouble.

What's ironic is that the Bulgarian was trying to stop a fight between two sets of English people, one reason becuase one of them was taking drink bottles from the shop and using them in the fight.

Drunken louts the lot of them. They should all be collectively ashamed of themselves, as should Liverpool FC for the loutish behaviour.

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Very little sympathy shown to the real victim and his family in this case, that is what I took from this show. Especially the "detective" re-inacting the dropping of the rock. I mean ffs! Imagine if the victims family had seen that.

That Sankey fellow seems like a right scumbag by the way.

Agreed, that was a wincing moment in the show. It wont be shown on Bulgarian TV, thats for sure. It might be shown on Romanian TV however.

Overall, not a fantastic documentary, although not to be expected from the Tonight programme anyway, a tabloid programme if ever there was one.

The British Police should try and get involved, interview fans who were there that night and try and find out who actually dropped that slab, talk about a cowardly act. If the real culrpit could be caught, whether it is Sankey or not although he may just have been in another row (and may know it), then the Bulgarian Authorities would have no option but to let Shields free.

Until then though, I think all Liverpool fans should drop their 'Free Michael Shields' banners and instead put up, "Would the Liverpool fan/thug that dropped that slab on that poor bugger in Bulgaria please give themselves up to the Police? Thank You".

Liverpool FC should ask the same at each home game over the Tannoy.

redspider

Thanx 4 The Fish

What have lager loutish or thuggish fans got to do with hillsborough ? If you know nothing of the event please do not lump it in with an event that was caused buy louts and thugs (not all english BTW). In fact just don't mention it at all in the same sentence. Believe it or not some people do read your (long) posts and when you say something like that people think you must know what you are on about (although on this occasion you clearly do not) and will themselves perpetuate the myth that the hillsborough disaster was caused by loutish fans and not the event organisers and the police who did not act on the information that was available to them and delay the game by 15 minutes or somesuch.

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

Is there nothing they have learned from the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro?!?

What a shocking comparison.

fade2black

Very interesting thread, although all pretty much just folly. I watched the programme the other night and really couldn't get emotionally involved either way. It was a completely biased account of what happened, anyone could see that. The flashy lines before each ad breack "But there was another witness...one who would blow the case wide open" Wow everyone thinks at home. Then we see another scouser say that it wasn't Shields. You have to appreciate how this would look if it was the other way around, say for instance an eastern european team playing in Liverpool. A local lad is killed by a mob of european fans. One of them is imprisoned and his home country is in uproar. Then we start to hear other eastern european fans say that it wasnt him at all, it was somone else. This, I'd imagine, would be hard for the victim's family to swallow and even harder for the courts to. Then another EE fan says that he threw a rock....ah so it wasn't the guy we have in custody....but wait, he just said he threw a rock and dunno if he hit anyone....nothing about standing over someone and dropping it on their face.....nope afraid not.....then we have nothing do we. That guy then gets in trouble and realises that he spoke out for nothing, so changes his story. Personally, i have no idea why he'd speak out in the first place.

Again, it's all just speculation, but I'm wondering...with the wonder of forensics in this modern world why didn't they examine the rock and Michael's DNA, try and connect him to the scene in some way. If they didn't do anything like this then in my opinon they don't have any right to hold him.

We should forget about the whole Liverpool connection and just see him as a soccer fan who may or may not be in prison for something he didnt do. And instead of trying to a free Michael Shields campaign, I think a find out the truth campaign is more apt.

(and i'm not quite sure why redspider mentioned Hillsboro up there)

BaZmO*

fade2black wrote:

Again, it's all just speculation, but I'm wondering...with the wonder of forensics in this modern world why didn't they examine the rock and Michael's DNA, try and connect him to the scene in some way. If they didn't do anything like this then in my opinon they don't have any right to hold him.

Because they had several witnesses that identified him as being there, one of which being a so-called friend.

cournioni

I don't think redspider meant anything by mentioning Hillsborough, I think he just meant that a club that had suffered from such a disaster should have fans that value life and not behave in this way. So settle down T4TF and BaZ. I think he makes quite a valid point for the majority of his post.

BaZmO*

I still stand by what I said, he shouldn't have linked the two, regardless of what ever ill-informed point he was making.

TheMonster

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I don't think redspider meant anything by mentioning Hillsborough, I think he just meant that a club that had suffered from such a disaster should have fans that value life and not behave in this way. So settle down T4TF and BaZ. I think he makes quite a valid point for the majority of his post.

That was my reading of his post also. Good to see a Liverpool fan taking a balnced look at it.

county

you cant compare hillsbrough to heysel wtf!

cournioni

BaZmO* wrote:

I still stand by what I said, he shouldn't have linked the two, regardless of what ever ill-informed point he was making.

Where has he "linked" the two? He is saying that the Liverpool fans should have learned something from Hillsborough and Heysel. They should have learned to value life, but obviously in this case certain Liverpool fans haven't.

Hobart

PHB wrote:

Having studied european legal systems, specifically in relation to the accession countries, I have some idea what I am talking about.

I'm sure, that even in your obvious and enormous capacity for knowledge, you will appreciate, that the complexities and minuta of different legal juristrictions would cause plato an issue. No 2 states (accession or not) have identical legal systems. You could not possibly have studied each and every one and come to a definitave conclusion on each.

PHB wrote:

That is not unusual in a lot of countries. What you are doing is imposing your fair views of a legal procedure that you get from TV and our society onto their society.

Yes, it's called a yard stick.

PHB wrote:

Have you ever read the evidence for Bloody Sunday? There is conflicting evidence left right and center for everything. That is because the nature of the offense.

How you can compare an event, currently he subject of what, it's third official judical review, to an incident such as this is beyond me tbh.

PHB wrote:

Ultimately, he was convicted on the evidence of the witnesses who said that he was the one who killed the man.

I presume you were not on the Jury? How do you come to such a conclusion?

PHB wrote:

This was done through the legal proceddings, determining whether or not that witness was credible, and working off that. Just like in our legal system.

Again, assumptions, and you know what they say about ass u me ?

PHB wrote:

FIrst off, that is not true.

First off, your responding to the plural with a singular. When you say "that is not true" which of the statements are you refeering too? If it is the "somebody else owing up bit" they did. Here's a link to it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4710221.stm . If it's the "if that happened in another country" remark, well again PHB you are wrong. The answer is that it is neither true nor untrue but too comlicated to be definitave on what is posted here or elsewhere.

PHB wrote:

Secondly, who is this person who owned up to the crime?

See my link above

PHB wrote:

Where is he now?

Why is that relevant?

PHB wrote:

Why hasn't he been arrested?

For what exactly? I'm sure in your emminent and wide ranging legal studies, that you have come acroos the ters, proof, duristiction, warrant and extradition? If not, google them, it may surprise you.

PHB wrote:

Heres the big big question:
What is the point of the Bulgarian government arresting an innocent man, when they could arrest the apparently guilty man?

Sigh, are you actually serious? How could they arrest him. He does not live in Bulgaria, is not resident in Bulgaria and is not on holiday in Bulgaria.

PHB wrote:

What is their motive? They are very keen to appear to be a legal and fair government as they are joining the EU, why in the hell are they doing this?

So, it is your contention, that in your studies of the various legal systems across thr EU, and I'm sure other juristictions, that you have yet to come acroos a Judicial system which has actually made a mistake?

PHB wrote:

If he is innocent, he will be proved innocent.

That statement is naive beyond belief.

PHB wrote:

Do you not think that perhaps the EU has been monitoring this case? PErhaps the high profile nature of it might have meant they might have sent some lawyers down to examine it, as a case study of whether or not the Bulgarian legal system is working properly.

So now it's the EU which are the measuring tape, by which would should guage whether a mistake has been made. :rolleyes:

PHB wrote:

1. Why is the Bulgarian government doing this?

Because they have made a mistake

=PHB]2. Why hasn't the EU stepped in?

Because the EU have no *right* to interfere with this issue, why would you think that they would "step in"? When have the EU ever "stepped in" in any manner, wrt domestic judical processes? It is not up to anybody to "step in" more for the plaintiffs laywers to step ou, but I'm sure you realise this, given your extensive research. Maybe it was just a typo on your part.

PHB wrote:

Ultimately, if he is innocent, he will be found innocent. He can take it to the European court and gain freedom.

Naive naive naive. You really seem to have no idea what your speaking about. By your contention, no innoncent man has *ever* finished out his sentence, and youo also assume that we, as EU citizens, have an automatic right to our day in court in the ECC. Here's some news for you, we do not. We can all apply for a review, but that application is not always successful, again you would have known this.

PHB wrote:

At which point he can counter-sue for millions of pounds. But nobody anything has shown so far suggest this isn't just Liverpool fans or the English media sticking together with an English Liverpool fan.

Lol, yea sure he can. Millions and probably gazillions. You assume to much.

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Where has he "linked" the two?

WTF? Read the first paragraph of his post.

Mitch Connor

The guy who made the confession, confessed to hitting someone with a brick, not a paving slab. Sheilds own legal team have looked at the confession and said in all probability he was confessing to a seperate incident, and the confession has been withdrawn.

also, trials abroad have looked at the case and the evidence used to convict Shields and say it is all fine and there was nothing wrong with the way the case was handled.

redspider

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I don't think redspider meant anything by mentioning Hillsborough, I think he just meant that a club that had suffered from such a disaster should have fans that value life and not behave in this way. So settle down T4TF and BaZ. I think he makes quite a valid point for the majority of his post.

You understood my point correctly Pornapster, and The Monster.

Hillsborough, as we all know (indeed I watched both Heysel and Hillsborough unfold before my eyes live on TV, is a completely different type of event than Heysel. What was common between both was carnage and death. Both events shocked and repulsed Liverpool fans, and rightly so.

And hence Liverpool fans, if any, SHOULD behold life and its joys. They should not be causing fights, act as lager louts and drop paving stones on people's heads. Other Liverpool fans should out those that do and not turn a blind eye. This type of behaviour should not be acceptable to any Liverpool fan, given what we have seen. Obviously some people know who acually did it and should go to the police if the culprit doesnt do it himself. Its that simple.

But time makes people forget. The lads involved in this are in their late teen's and early 20's, so were only about 5 when Hillsborough happened and were in nappies or not even a twinkle in an eye when Heysel happened.

redspider

Mitch Connor

"Obviously some people know who acually did it and should go to the police if the culprit doesnt do it himself. Its that simple."

Like one of Shields friends, who identified Shields as the person who dropped the paving stone of the fellas head.

Hobart

redspider wrote:

You understood my point correctly Pornapster, and The Monster.

Hillsborough, as we all know (indeed I watched both Heysel and Hillsborough unfold before my eyes live on TV, is a completely different type of event than Heysel. What was common between both was carnage and death. Both events shocked and repulsed Liverpool fans, and rightly so.

And hence Liverpool fans, if any, SHOULD behold life and its joys. They should not be causing fights, act as lager louts and drop paving stones on people's heads. Other Liverpool fans should out those that do and not turn a blind eye. This type of behaviour should not be acceptable to any Liverpool fan, given what we have seen. Obviously some people know who acually did it and should go to the police if the culprit doesnt do it himself. Its that simple.

But time makes people forget. The lads involved in this are in their late teen's and early 20's, so were only about 5 when Hillsborough happened and were in nappies or not even a twinkle in an eye when Heysel happened.

redspider

I understand your point, but it is flawed. It's not Liverpool fans that should be *more* aware of beholding life and it's joys, it's all fans.

Both Heysel and Hillsborough should have an affect on all fans of soccer. Yes, Liverpool fans where those who were most directly affected by this, but all tragedies should affect all of humanity, irrespective of their allegience to one team or another.

It's like saying that Manu fans should, in some way, be more respectful and understanding when a plane crash involving a team of players occurs. All fans should be, not just one set or another.

Anyhow, Munich, Heysel and Hillsborough probably have no place in this discussion, tragic as they all where.

redspider

Tauren wrote:

"Obviously some people know who acually did it and should go to the police if the culprit doesnt do it himself. Its that simple."
Like one of Shields friends, who identified Shields as the person who dropped the paving stone of the fellas head.

Is that the Wilson guy, who was given a suspended sentence for his role in the attack?

It didnt come across like that in the programme last night (ie: a friend of his identifying Sheilds as dropping the paving stone). However, we are all flying blind to a certain extent if we havent been in court, and read all of the material that was admitted and presented, and also all of the material that was not admissable as wel as the police case notes. The programme, like others, can be slanted in one way or another. The Bulgarian Police or their DPP equivalent were not interviewed.

I would also cast a shadow of doubt on what some of these louts are saying. Are they fully trustworthy or is everyone out trying to save his own skin? And they probably cant clearly remember what happened anyway's, given that they were drunk. CCTV is the only way to catch these people out which is what every town and city centre in England has had to do.

Bazmo wrote:

he shouldn't have linked the two, regardless of what ever ill-informed point he was making.

Looks like you are using ill-informed as a derogatory remark there, tch, tch.

Feel free to let us know your informed thoughts Bazmo. I'm open to hearing as much information and insight into this case as possible.

redspider

Guy:Incognito

redspider wrote:

Drunken louts the lot of them. They should all be collectively ashamed of themselves, as should Liverpool FC for the loutish behaviour.

This is a view I dont agree with. The club have no responsibility on who supports them. The same fans could just as easily have chosen Everton or even Tranmere. They have even less responsibility when an incident occurs away from a ground. From you point of view, the fans are representing Liverpool 24/7.

Big Nelly

Stekelly wrote:

This is a view I dont agree with. The club have no responsibility on who supports them. The same fans could just as easily have chosen Everton or even Tranmere. They have even less responsibility when an incident occurs away from a ground. From you point of view, the fans are representing Liverpool 24/7.

Of course a club should have a responsibility in regards to the actions of there fans. So you want every club in the PL to take no notice of thugs/hooligans etc so they can run riot? english clubs for years have worked with the police to stop this and this means banning fans etc. So I dont see how you can say the club has no responsibilty

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

Looks like you are using ill-informed as a derogatory remark there, tch, tch.

Again, I stand by my point, you shouldn't have linked the two. Read Hobart's response to your comments, it sums up perfectly what I was thinking.
And to say, "One element that was very disturbing is that the thuggery, English lager-lout mentality, still goes on and is acceptable, in fact very acceptable by Liverpool fans" is just silly generalisation.
Surely you mean "some" Liverpool fans?

redspider wrote:

Feel free to let us know your informed thoughts Bazmo. I'm open to hearing as much information and insight into this case as possible.

I've given my views already throught out the thread.

Guy:Incognito

BaZmO* wrote:

Because they had several witnesses that identified him as being there, one of which being a so-called friend.

The only person who said they were friends was the thmpson bloke. Michael Chields, his family and friends and th eprogramme specifically said they didnt know each other. The only link was that they had rooms next to each other. If thats all it takes to be friends with someone then I'm more popular than I thought.

As for teh other witnesses. One didnt pick him out and the others disagreed over what part, if any he [played in the fight. How can that be conclusive. Unless there were two people who looked a lot alike , how could you be a credible witness if you cant say who threw the punch and who dropped the rock?

Guy:Incognito

Big Nelly wrote:

Of course a club should have a responsibility in regards to the actions of there fans. So you want every club in the PL to take no notice of thugs/hooligans etc so they can run riot? english clubs for years have worked with the police to stop this and this means banning fans etc. So I dont see how you can say the club has no responsibilty

They can take a certain amount of responsiblity for actions in the ground bu tnone for what happens outside. If you steal a car tonight, how much arwe Sheffield Wednesday top blame for that?

redspider

Hobart wrote:

I understand your point, but it is flawed. It's not Liverpool fans that should be *more* aware of beholding life and it's joys, it's all fans. Both Heysel and Hillsborough should have an affect on all fans of soccer. Yes, Liverpool fans where those who were most directly affected by this, but all tragedies should affect all of humanity, irrespective of their allegience to one team or another.

So, we are agreeing. I didnt say that fans of other teams should not be affected by Heysel or Hillsborough. Of course they should, and they were. Thats why Liverpool fans should especially be aware and should act accordingly. Causing fights and turning a blind eye to those fights is not acting appropriately.

There is unanimous agreement that it was a Liverpool fan that dropped the paving stone on the Bulgarian's head. Liverpool FC, whilst not responsible dor individual's actions, are responsible for what is allowed in their stadium (ie: Free Michael Shields banners) and their players (ie: Jamie C dedicating a goal to Shields). Whilst both actions may have been done with good intent and were clearly popular amongst fans, it is only part of the story, and for the innocent Michael Shields there is an as yet unproven guilty Liverpool fan. Liverpool FC should put just as much effort into getting him apprehended as they have done for getting Shields free, if he is innocent.

I guess we can be thankful that the Bulgarian wasnt killed.

redspider

Thanx 4 The Fish

Are you serious. How can the sentences following one another, in the same paragraph as they are not link one to the other.

redspider wrote:

One element that was very disturbing is that the thuggery, English lager-lout mentality, still goes on and is acceptable, in fact very acceptable by Liverpool fans. Is there nothing they have learned from the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro?!?

Do you guys have some nature of problem with the english language and its's usage. By putting those two things together in two sentences, one following the other you are inexplicably linking the thuggery and loutishness with the events, regardless of whether you meant to or not.

As Hobart has said, tragic events effect everybody not just people from a particular area. If liverpool fans should appreciate more the joys of life post hillsborough and Heysel then surely Man U fans should be the same and every plane that goes down worldwide should bring a tear to the eye of a man u fan, and perhaps they should avoid air travel too.

Your point is quite strange TBH, the people who died at Hillsborough were english, does that mean that all english people should love life more because english people died? Many people died in WW2, alot of english and Irish people too and yet there are still more wars, same in WW1 many died too, I do not think that this fact stops people killing other people in either of these countries or any of the other countries involved, do you think that it makes very many people love life more now ? Lots of english people died in the New years Tsunami, do you think that when a guy gets drunk and a bit lary he thinks, hang on a sec, this will really upset people and I remember how bad I felt when somebody else died somewhere else and they were the same nationality as me so I should not drop this rock or throw this puch or swing this bottle. Most of these things are heat of the moment and while it does not excuse it I am sure that time to think hang on a sec what will the world think of me is very short indeed between squaring up to a guy and throwing a punch or whatever.

Anybody be they liverpool fans, man U fan, forest fan or Millwall fan should condemn this type of behaviour. When I lived in London, after most Fulham games when they were at Loftus road I would see a couple of people bleeding from some nature of running battle or argument gone awry that went on outside the ground. It 3was never reported and so not commented on, the club could take some action if they saw it or it was reported to them by the police but as it does not make the papers it is something that footy fans know goes on but try to ignore while hoping that next time it is not you. Regardless of all this though, at the moment somebdoy is in jail for a crime that they did not commit and the person who has owned up to doing it is wandering around free as a bird.

And as regards the guilty guy, and Nellys' (once again) rather silly point unfortunately there is nothing that LFC can do, they have already had him banned from the ground and have asked the police to have him banned him travelling for away games, the club have done as much as they can. Unless Bulgaria press for extradition though, he will not be going over there and there is damn all liverpool can do about that.

Aologies for rambling BTW.

Ardent

redspider wrote:

So, we are agreeing. I didnt say that fans of other teams should not be affected by Heysel or Hillsborough. Of course they should, and they were. Thats why Liverpool fans should especially be aware and should act accordingly. Causing fights and turning a blind eye to those fights is not acting appropriately.

That wasn't the post you were making and you know it. Go back and read your post again.

"One element that was very disturbing is that the thuggery, English lager-lout mentality, still goes on and is acceptable, in fact very acceptable by Liverpool fans. Is there nothing they have learned from the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro?!?"

You linked, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, louts and thuggish behaviour to both the Heysel and Hillsborough disasters. In which case you are grossly mistaken - read T4TF's immediate reply as to why - and this kind of blind statement can cause offense. As certain former editors of the Sun will testify to.

TheMonster

just to clarify are Liverpool fans who maintain he is innocents saying that he was
1) asleep
or
2) was involved but didn't drop the slab

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

just to clarify are Liverpool fans who maintain he is innocents saying that he was
1) asleep
or
2) was involved but didn't drop the slab

I think most fans (whether Liverpool or not) and who have an opinion on this, can clearly see that there are a number of facets to this story, all of which have not come out.

I also don't think that of all the fans here, who have expressed a doubt over the validity of this guys conviction, are Liverpool fans. Why are you only asking for Liverpool fans opinions?*

*I can guess the answer to this.

BaZmO*

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Are you serious. How can the sentences following one another, in the same paragraph as they are not link one to the other.



Do you guys have some nature of problem with the english language and its's usage. By putting those two things together in two sentences, one following the other you are inexplicably linking the thuggery and loutishness with the events, regardless of whether you meant to or not.

As Hobart has said, tragic events effect everybody not just people from a particular area. If liverpool fans should appreciate more the joys of life post hillsborough and Heysel then surely Man U fans should be the same and every plane that goes down worldwide should bring a tear to the eye of a man u fan, and perhaps they should avoid air travel too.

Your point is quite strange TBH, the people who died at Hillsborough were english, does that mean that all english people should love life more because english people died? Many people died in WW2, alot of english and Irish people too and yet there are still more wars, same in WW1 many died too, I do not think that this fact stops people killing other people in either of these countries or any of the other countries involved, do you think that it makes very many people love life more now ? Lots of english people died in the New years Tsunami, do you think that when a guy gets drunk and a bit lary he thinks, hang on a sec, this will really upset people and I remember how bad I felt when somebody else died somewhere else and they were the same nationality as me so I should not drop this rock or throw this puch or swing this bottle. Most of these things are heat of the moment and while it does not excuse it I am sure that time to think hang on a sec what will the world think of me is very short indeed between squaring up to a guy and throwing a punch or whatever.

Anybody be they liverpool fans, man U fan, forest fan or Millwall fan should condemn this type of behaviour. When I lived in London, after most Fulham games when they were at Loftus road I would see a couple of people bleeding from some nature of running battle or argument gone awry that went on outside the ground. It 3was never reported and so not commented on, the club could take some action if they saw it or it was reported to them by the police but as it does not make the papers it is something that footy fans know goes on but try to ignore while hoping that next time it is not you. Regardless of all this though, at the moment somebdoy is in jail for a crime that they did not commit and the person who has owned up to doing it is wandering around free as a bird.

Aologies for rambling BTW.

Ohh, you were doing so well up until the last bit.

Is this the same guy that said in his original statement,

"I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel"

I don't need to tell you how that is at odds with what actually happened to the victim in question.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

I think most fans (whether Liverpool or not) and who have an opinion on this, can clearly see that there are a number of facets to this story, all of which have not come out.

I also don't think that of all the fans here, who have expressed a doubt over the validity of this guys conviction, are Liverpool fans. Why are you only asking for Liverpool fans opinions?*

*I can guess the answer to this.

Show me one non Liverpools fans posts that show they think he is innocent. Some think there are questions to be answered on both sides, but none apart from Liverpool fans believe he is innocent. (prove me wrong and I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong as I haven't gone back through every post)
I myself think there is something fishy, but do think he was involved in something that night.
There seems to be 2 trains of thought of why people think he is innocent.

TheMonster

BaZmO* wrote:

Ohh, you were doing so well up until the last bit.

Is this the same guy that said in his original statement,

"I panicked and stupidly picked up a brick and threw it in the direction of the men running towards me. I saw the brick hit one of them. I panicked and I turned and ran away and returned to the hotel"

I don't need to tell you how that is at odds with what actually happened to the victim in question.

Exactly and he only confessed that on the proviso he wouldn't be tried. The defence council even admitted it was almost certainly a different incident he was referring to.

Thanx 4 The Fish

And yet the police have confirmed that no other incident was reported where bricks or bottle were used on that night. How can you say it was almost certainly a different incident ?

TheMonster

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

And yet the police have confirmed that no other incident was reported where bricks or bottle were used on that night. How can you say it was almost certainly a different incident ?

his defence did - not people here

BaZmO*

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

And yet the police have confirmed that no other incident was reported where bricks or bottle were used on that night. How can you say it was almost certainly a different incident ?

You kinda answered that one yourself.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

When I lived in London, after most Fulham games when they were at Loftus road I would see a couple of people bleeding from some nature of running battle or argument gone awry that went on outside the ground. It 3was never reported and so not commented on, the club could take some action if they saw it or it was reported to them by the police

redspider

redspider wrote:

One element that was very disturbing is that the thuggery, English lager-lout mentality, still goes on and is acceptable, in fact very acceptable by Liverpool fans. Is there nothing they have learned from the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro?!?

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Are you serious. How can the sentences following one another, in the same paragraph as they are not link one to the other.

Do you guys have some nature of problem with the english language and its's usage. By putting those two things together in two sentences, one following the other you are inexplicably linking the thuggery and loutishness with the events, regardless of whether you meant to or not.

What's the name of that book which shows how punctuation can make all the difference to understanding and meaning? This is not a lesson in grammar, but first off, my intention was not to link Heysel and Hillsborough in the sense that violence caused both or that both events were similar in that regard. However, I did intend to link them with death and tragedy.

So, how can one go about carefully linking things in such a way - by use of a comma. As you will note that I wrote: "the likes of Heysel, and Hillsboro". That comma was intended. I did not think that I need to write out an affidavit for all of my comments that qualify each statement so carefully that there can be zero room for interpretation in a court of law. This is not a court of law and these are not legal writings. My postings are long enough as it is.

I do understand that people could take umbrage to a link between Heysel and Hillsborough, if they misinterpreted the wording the wrong way.

The doubt of interpretation has been answered. Anybody who has been following my postings over the last few years will know my understanding of both of these events.

So, you can stop your jumping up-and-down .....

By the way, your sentences are far from perfect english so its ironic that you use the usage of english language in your point.

Ardent wrote:

You linked, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, louts and thuggish behaviour to both the Heysel and Hillsborough disasters.

you can stop too!

redspider

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

My postings are long enough as it is.

Damn straight.

MrJoeSoap

redspider wrote:

What's the name of that book which shows how punctuation can make all the difference to understanding and meaning?

"Eats, shoots and leaves" ?

Thanx 4 The Fish

BaZmO* wrote:

Damn straight.

The use of the comma in one sentence does not change the meaning of the previous sentence. I am fairly sure of that.

Now that you have cleared up your thoughts on the Heysel and Hillsborough tragedies it's all smiles again in the soccer forum. I think the fact that you had to defend your point and post to more than a couple of users does show that it was not only me who understood that you were linking Hillsborough, and Heysel with the thugs and louts that you mentioned in the previous sentence.

BTW BaZmO, when I said reported I meant in the media rather than to the police, I have absolutely no idea whether or not these events were reported to the police.