The forgotten Fan. A tonight Special ITV@9.45 tonight

PHB

t4tf, are you disputing the facts put forth in the article in the telegraph?

redspider

All smiles again - the way it should be in here, at least some of the time! ;-)

Different people, different strokes, Thanks4, as several others did catch my drift from the off without an explanation. It wasn't meant to be a conundrum and I fully realise that you weren't the only person to get "upset".

What was my new year's resolution again? - oh yeah, keep posts short and simple ;-)

Now, wouldn't it be good if all posters on the soccer forum could tone down their 'offending' and 'being offended'? Did the forum have a collective new year's resolution? maybe not.

redspider

BaZmO*

Group Hug

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

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.

What? What are you talking about? Did you even read my reply? As for your "Show me one Liverpool fans post" thing, have alook at page 1 of this thread. I understand that, for example, BillyBoy is a pompey fan. Here's a quote from him (about 2 posts from where you posted btw)

BillyBoy wrote:

Its hard to believe that the young lad was convicted in the first place. Nothing really suggested that he did it. I know Bulgaria may be backward but jesus that conviction was ridiculous.

. I haven't bothered looking elsewhere in this thread, but there are more non-liverpool fans asking questions about this guy's case, and about the possibility of a miscarraige of justice.

As an addendum, I was trying to get across to you that it is hard to make a judgement call one way or the other on this case, as there seems to be many sides to this tragic story. So how anybody, Liverpool or non-Liverpool fan can say that he is innocent or guilty, is beyong me (unless you are PHB of course, who believe's that only the guilty get convicted, and the innoncent are aquitted).

Now, you might do me the same courtesy and answer my question, why did you address your question only to Liverpool fans?

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

What? What are you talking about? Did you even read my reply? As for your "Show me one Liverpool fans post" thing, have alook at page 1 of this thread. I understand that, for example, BillyBoy is a pompey fan. Here's a quote from him (about 2 posts from where you posted btw)

. I haven't bothered looking elsewhere in this thread, but there are more non-liverpool fans asking questions about this guy's case, and about the possibility of a miscarraige of justice.

As an addendum, I was trying to get across to you that it is hard to make a judgement call one way or the other on this case, as there seems to be many sides to this tragic story. So how anybody, Liverpool or non-Liverpool fan can say that he is innocent or guilty, is beyong me (unless you are PHB of course, who believe's that only the guilty get convicted, and the innoncent are aquitted).

Now, you might do me the same courtesy and answer my question, why did you address your question only to Liverpool fans?

I hold up my hands and admit I was worng I wasn't aware that he wasn't a pool fan. I pointed out I hadn't checked every post but I think I would be correct in assuming the majority that claim he is innocent are pool fans.

As a matter of interest instead of attacking other people posts of topic, do you think he is innocent? If so on what basis?

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

I hold up my hands and admit I was worng I wasn't aware that he wasn't a pool fan. I pointed out I hadn't checked every post but I think I would be correct in assuming the majority that claim he is innocent are pool fans.

As a matter of interest instead of attacking other people posts of topic, do you think he is innocent? If so on what basis?

My honest answer is that I don't know. But, having a relative interest in the proceedings, I can honestly say that I do not believe that his trial was conducted in a manner in which I am comfortable. I don't know if he is innoncent or guilty. But I believe that he at least deserves a trial wherby the mechanics of justice cannot be called into question, which is not the case at the moment.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

My honest answer is that I don't know. But, having a relative interest in the proceedings, I can honestly say that I do not believe that his trial was conducted in a manner in which I am comfortable. I don't know if he is innoncent or guilty. But I believe that he at least deserves a trial wherby the mechanics of justice cannot be called into question, which is not the case at the moment.

I think there are questions regarding the trial but do not think it is cut and dry as the program suggests. I would imagine he was involved in the incident but whether he was the actual culprit is probably in doubt.

~Rebel~

The one thing i have to ask is: Was he proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Innocent until Proven guilty and all that. Under the circumstances i dont really think he was. It hasn't been clear cut on either side.

Ardent

No offence taken here, we're all buddies at the end of the day, right? Just felt obliged to highlight a perceived inaccuracy and, to be honest, was a bit surprised that it was from a post by redspider. As we all know, Hillsborough is a touchy subject for lots of Liverpool fans.

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

I think there are questions regarding the trial but do not think it is cut and dry as the program suggests. I would imagine he was involved in the incident but whether he was the actual culprit is probably in doubt.

I would agree, and if there is any doubt, he must be:

a) Released immediately and told he is free to go
or
b) released immediately and re-tried.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

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.

How can you possibly make that statement. Thats a massive shift from your stated view earlier in the thread when replying to Big Nellys post.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Have you some kind of new evidence that suggests that this was all made up then ? I assume since you were there you know that him and his mates made all of this up and that in fact when he was asleep with four witnesses, he was actually off smashing in some guys head with a rock. You should seriously have a think about what you type before you type it or at least prefix it with IMO to get across the point that really you have no idea what you are talking about but you want to have a go

link

Big Nelly

~Rebel~ wrote:

The one thing i have to ask is: Was he proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Innocent until Proven guilty and all that. Under the circumstances i dont really think he was. It hasn't been clear cut on either side.

In some countries, France been one from what I can remember from law, it is Guilty until proven innocent so the onus is on the person to prove they are innocent than the legal system to prove they are guilty. Pretty sure this is how it was put in law, was asleep most of the time, so it could be the same in Bulgaria but we would know more if the programs had actually explained the legal system instead of making out how great the UK system is and about this "poor" liverpool fan and there great "secret witnesses"

How can you possibly make that statement. Thats a massive shift from your stated view earlier in the thread when replying to Big Nellys post.

:eek:

Hobart

Bulgarian law, is based on Roman law, and the defendant has a presumption of innocence.

Emmo

It would seem that this entire thing is based around evidence that at times less than reliable.

Both sides seemed to have changed their story.

Liverpool as a club should not get involved with one fan's plight. Its not their business, their bussiness is football.

I am a Liverpool fan and in my opinion, after reading the facts in the case, lots of opinions and accounts from both sides I would say that I am unconvinced by the conviction. Not because I support the same football team but because I dont belive that beyond all resonable doubt Micheal Shields was the man who assualted the poor Bulgarian.

That said I wasnt on the jury, some people here are satisfied with the conviction so that would suggest that it is something that some people are convinced about.

I wonder if we where in a jury how we would find the evidence as it would be presented to us?

There also is of course the anti-English mentality in a lot of this. I travel to away games quite a bit in Europe with Liverpool and I have seen fighting amongst the Liverpool fans, fighting amongst the away fans and even fighting due to non-football related matters.

I have also seen some of these things being twisted around to look like hooligans. There is deffo an anti-Liverpool bias in the English media, tabloid and broadsheet and an anti-English bias in the European media because of historical reasons.

Perhaps we should all agree to disagree on this matter because whatever happens some dickhead has injured a man.

Let the family of Micheal Shields and his legal team argue the toss on weather he did it or not cause as much as us hurling abuse and correcting each other might while the day away it doesnt help him.

Emmo

Big Nelly

Emmo wrote:

There is deffo an anti-Liverpool bias in the English media, tabloid and broadsheet and an anti-English bias in the European media because of historical reasons.

Where do you base this "knowledge" on? maybe in Turin(Juventus) there is an anti-Liverpool more than any other clubs but this is for obvious reasons. I wouldn't think the rest of Europe would have any problems?

Also there is an anti-Liverpool bias in the media? lol.....thats the best one yet. Why do you think this?

Emmo

Well whilst at the away game in Anderlecht, Belgium earlier in the season, we where interviewed several times. As I can speak French I was interviewed by French and Belgian TV stations and we spoke to German and Italian reporters in English. I also heard the same report from a Spanish tv station.

They all pretty much told us the same thing. They where sent to try and get video footage of English hooligans in Belgium 20 years after Heysel.

Their camera men where waiting till a few lads got drunk and started having a pushing match and which point they would pile in with their camera's and try to capture footage that could be used.

This wasnt 1 or 2 crews, this was 4 differenct countries that I know 100% about and one other that I cannot verify.

I also saw the same crews follow the fans around, waiting for something to happen. They proceeded to the ground and waited.

They got the shots they wanted when fans walked within 200 yards of the ground without tickets for the game (they where looking for spares) the cops arrested them and put them in jail overnight as is the law for those games in Belgium.

Thats quite cleary a bias against English fans, and in particular Liverpool fans.

The English fans that travel to international games recieve the same treatment. I have seen this too.

This is down to the whole generilsation that they are all out for causing trouble.

As for the anti-Liverpool bias in the English media, I will not be able to ever convince you about that no matter how much I try to do so. I could speak for years and years and show you instances and it wouldnt be enough. If you cannot see it then you just cannot.

Would you like me to certainly waste my time and maybe yours if you try to look at what I provide.

Emmo

Big Nelly

Emmo wrote:

Well whilst at the away game in Anderlecht, Belgium earlier in the season, we where interviewed several times. As I can speak French I was interviewed by French and Belgian TV stations and we spoke to German and Italian reporters in English. I also heard the same report from a Spanish tv station.

They all pretty much told us the same thing. They where sent to try and get video footage of English hooligans in Belgium 20 years after Heysel.

Their camera men where waiting till a few lads got drunk and started having a pushing match and which point they would pile in with their camera's and try to capture footage that could be used.

This wasnt 1 or 2 crews, this was 4 differenct countries that I know 100% about and one other that I cannot verify.

I also saw the same crews follow the fans around, waiting for something to happen. They proceeded to the ground and waited.

They got the shots they wanted when fans walked within 200 yards of the ground without tickets for the game (they where looking for spares) the cops arrested them and put them in jail overnight as is the law for those games in Belgium.

Thats quite cleary a bias against English fans, and in particular Liverpool fans.

The English fans that travel to international games recieve the same treatment. I have seen this too.

This is down to the whole generilsation that they are all out for causing trouble.

As for the anti-Liverpool bias in the English media, I will not be able to ever convince you about that no matter how much I try to do so. I could speak for years and years and show you instances and it wouldnt be enough. If you cannot see it then you just cannot.

Would you like me to certainly waste my time and maybe yours if you try to look at what I provide.

Emmo

of course the press where going to be at the game in Belgium, this was a major thing and this was in reference to a disaster. Same happened last season when Juve went to Liverpool. You cant base your knowledge of how Liverpool fans are treated on occasions like this.

Also why would the TV camera men walk around telling Liverpool supporters they wanted video coverage of them fighting? wouldnt this mean the Liverpool supporters would try there best not to start anything because they know the press are watching. It doesnt make sense. If anything the camera crew etc that are looking for fights etc would make sure to find a pub off the main which fans are in and there would be more of a chance of a fight there, not when they are walking around telling people they are there to cover the impending riot.

You seem to think the whole of the World's press is against poor old Liverpool. Think that isnt the truth, next thing you will be mentioning the Sun and Hillsborough as examples that the press are biased when talking about Liverpool. To be honest I think it is all in your head.

Are you trying to argue that this person in Bulgaria got his head smashed in because the locals where picking on the Liverpool fans? your not making much sense, your arguement started that Liverpool fans and the club where being picked on, then you mention english fans.

So are you know argueing that all english fans in europe are picked on? if so then why do you think Liverpool fans are singled out? are you trying to make an excuse for someone nearly killing a person by smashing there head in? do you think this is an ok action because someone is "biased" against them? if so I think all fans Worldwide should and will never accept any sort of excuse that could be made

LostinBlanch

So Emmo when asked for examples of English media bias suddenly comes up with a tale of French, Belgian, German, Italian and Spanish tv and reporters covering Liverpool's first game in Belgium after Heysel.

So Nothing about the fact that noted Liverpool supporter Brian Barwick current head of the FA was since last year the head of BBC sport. Match Of The Day is like a retirement home for ex Liverpool players. Alan Green that oh so "controversial" 5 live commentator is a Liverpool season ticket holder (though whenever this is brought up on radio interviews he immediately cuts the caller off).

Hmmm I see what you mean about anti Liverpool bias :rolleyes:

Like Big Nelly said you probably will bring up the Sun and Hillsborough. Well the simple fact of it is that the Sun have been crawling to try and get accepted by Liverpool fans (cf their official apology last year). So if they wanted to do this being "biased" against them isn't the best way to go. Yep looks like a conspiracy to me.

PS do they do tinfoil hats in the Kop?

BaZmO*

Big Nelly wrote:

your arguement started that Liverpool fans and the club where being picked on, then you mention english fans.

You should really read what he said, and indeed what you quoted him saying.

Emmo wrote:

There is deffo an anti-Liverpool bias in the English media, tabloid and broadsheet and an anti-English bias in the European media because of historical reasons.

LostinBlanch

So Emmo when asked for examples of English media bias suddenly comes up with a tale of French, Belgian, German, Italian and Spanish tv and reporters covering Liverpool's first game in Belgium after Heysel.

So Nothing about the fact that noted Liverpool supporter Brian Barwick current head of the FA was since last year the head of BBC sport. Match Of The Day is like a retirement home for ex Liverpool players. Alan Green that oh so "controversial" 5 live commentator is a Liverpool season ticket holder (though whenever this is brought up on radio interviews he immediately cuts the caller off).

Hmmm I see what you mean about anti Liverpool bias :rolleyes:

Like Big Nelly said you probably will bring up the Sun and Hillsborough. Well the simple fact of it is that the Sun have been crawling to try and get accepted by Liverpool fans (cf their official apology last year). So if they wanted to do this being "biased" against them isn't the best way to go. Yep looks like a conspiracy to me.

PS do they do tinfoil hats in the Kop?

Emmo

Thanks Bazmo for reading what I typed.

The Belgian press first spoke to me because I was Irish, not English.

As I was typing but you where ignoring it there is an anti-scouse sentiment in the British media.

Its always existed, not just in the tabloids as with the sun / NOTW etc etc but look at the guardian etc.

Its not just Liverpool football club either, Everton gets its but you wont agree with me because you wont read what I type.

Im not going to get drawn on this because to be honest its not worth it. I wont convince you about anything no matter how many times I try to explain something or say it in a different way.

The man in Bulgaria got hurt because scumbags attacked him as he went about his work.

Fair enough they where Scousers and one of them was convicted for the crime.

Im not saying that he got convicted cause of any anti-scouse / anti-English bias but there is one in existence and it flavours a lot of people views on what happens. IE people bringing up Heysel, Hillborogh, Birmingham 6 etc etc when these things have very little if anything to do with the topic.

I dont think that the conviction could be described as safe and I dont think that just because they where English it happened.

I have seen enough of Playa de Linges etc etc to see Irish scumbags getting into fights and beating the **** out of each other to know that its not just English, or Liverpool football fans beating the crap out of each other or worse still innocents.

I hope that in the end justice is served for all those effected.

Emmo

ianomccabe

Big Nelly wrote:

The only way to resolve this atitude from Liverpool fans would be to kick them out of the FA cup final

Do those grapes taste sour?

Big Nelly

ianomccabe wrote:

Do those grapes taste sour?

No Charlton knocked us out very early in the rounds, was a great game with 2 attacking sides

ianomccabe

Oh i remember it well, was a great game (one of the all time classics).

Just find it hard to believe that you think a team should be thrown out of the FA cup final because some idiot threw a bottle on the pitch

The fact that it was also written in a thread about Michael Shields adds weight to the argument that you don't like Liverpool too much!

Guy:Incognito

Just been on the news that the sentence has been reduced to 10years. A step in the right direction, but, assuming he's innocent, isn't good enough.


@Big Nelly. If your using Wednesday as a gauge (or chalton for that matter) as where your brand of "attacking" football gets you, I'll glady stick with our "defensive" style that wins things thanks. I'm certainly not going to swap it for a relegation battle in the championship.

Big Nelly

Stekelly wrote:

Just been on the news that the sentence has been reduced to 10years. A step in the right direction, but, assuming he's innocent, isn't good enough.

If he isnt thats a joke

Stekelly wrote:

@Big Nelly. If your using Wednesday as a gauge (or chalton for that matter) as where your brand of "attacking" football gets you, I'll glady stick with our "defensive" style that wins things thanks. I'm certainly not going to swap it for a relegation battle in the championship.

Just saying it was a good game, Wednesday said before the game they didnt care about FA Cup, the big thing was to stay in the Championship so they played reserve player and from the off both clubs just went for it, great game!!!

p.pete

FFS - he's either innocent or guilty. If guilty why the hell would they reduce the sentence, that's a bit like saying they're not too sure.

MBC

They reduce his sentence but yet they increase his fine to £71k from £40k????
seems a bit strange.

Emmo

To the lads who where defending the Bulgarian legal system and saying that he was convicted,

Does this not represent another reason on how its working. Why is it a joke now?

On Appeal the sentence was found to be too harsh and not punitave enough finacially (this may be going towards fuding care for the injured man!)

I welcome this, it means that justice is not only being done but also seen to be done.

They are acting upon requests and where mistakes have been made in the legal process they are correcting them.

Emmo

Big Nelly

Emmo wrote:

To the lads who where defending the Bulgarian legal system and saying that he was convicted,

Does this not represent another reason on how its working. Why is it a joke now?

Doesnt sentances get reduced in every country in the world due to good behaviour etc?

Emmo wrote:

On Appeal the sentence was found to be too harsh and not punitave enough finacially (this may be going towards fuding care for the injured man!)

If it was an appeal(doesnt say it was) this shows that he has been tried again and found guilty again, this would suggest that he is guilty but I would think it isnt an appeal and just a reduction in the sentance

Emmo wrote:

I welcome this, it means that justice is not only being done but also seen to be done.

They are acting upon requests and where mistakes have been made in the legal process they are correcting them.

Emmo

The only thing I think he would welcome is an appeal so he can try and produce enought evidence to clear his name. If he is innocent I dont think he will see spending 10 years in jail as any sort of sucess

Emmo

you can appeal sentences, convictions, decisions.

They dont all have to be in the form of a retrial.

Emmo