Quite a patronising article, perpetuating the myth re why Curbs went. The comments re black managers are very strange too. Lawro comment is funny.
Yeah but it was qualified: "...some fans..." and that was true, some fans were calling for Curbs to leave. Usually the broadcasters like to pretend it was the majority, but let's not pretend no-one was saying it either.
I think it makes wonderful reading personally.
Netaddicks had its fair share of "Curbs out" merchants at the time.
A minority yes but a loud vociferous one nevertheless.
Quite a patronising article, perpetuating the myth re why Curbs went. The comments re black managers are very strange too. Lawro comment is funny.
Yeah but it was qualified: "...some fans..." and that was true, some fans were calling for Curbs to leave. Usually the broadcasters like to pretend it was the majority, but let's not pretend no-one was saying it either.
Some fans are murderers. Not sure it would be representative to mention the fact in a newspaper article though.
Just enjoy being in the papers for once miserable twonks.
This...
Well the Indy article is better on why the current team have been so successful but this one is much more about the club and the fans. It is generous and warm hearted. What's not to like?
What a nice article from a young bloke from the north. Talk about nit picking... Blah blah, Labour, blah blah Black, blah blah Myth... FFS what do you people want????
Rather strange trying to make political points out of it; especially when you are spectacularly wrong about the central point of your piece as well
What? That Charlton were good, then ignored when they went bad and now are of their way up again, and that the writer is happy about it. Where is that wrong?
For the record the local Tories were verbally supportive of The Valley Party but little else, mainly because the few voters they had in he borough were miles away and would not be affected by the club returning home.
Why should the Mirror be any different from all the rest of the tabloids? They all put their Tory slant on things, the Mirror is the only one on the other side. Dan Davis is about right.
How can he be 'about right'? At the time, being a Labour supporter, I was very disappointed by the arrogance and self interest of the ruling Labour group of Greenwich council - obviously I was not alone. Whatever the Tories view on this issue was is irrelevant; it was a controlling Labour group on the council preventing our club returning to its rightful place. Trying to pretend otherwise is lying, simple as that.
So what you say - he lies, other papers lie etc. etc. Well, I happen to have a problem with liars - right, left whatever. Like I said, good journalists (i.e non-liars) are like hen's teeth, and when people justify lying by petty tribal politics it is pretty pathetic really. Tory rags lying is wrong, but left wing ones can do it because they are left wing? I thought we were all grown ups - how about treating what people say based on its merits, regardless of politics?
Well, it is a poor mistake he made there, but I think, given his age, that it was laziness rather than lying. And there is some justification for his mistake because at the time the Conservative party nationally did hate football fans. One reason why BMP (the ad agency where I worked and which did the campaign) was so ready to have a go, was that just a year earlier we had tried to persuade the FA to run an ad campaign against Thatcher's ID card scheme (remember that?). Which is not to disagree with your view Bigstemarra, on principle I agree with you 100%.
It just amuses me when I see those of left and right interpreting facts in whatever way supports their pre-existing prejudices.
Maybe it's because I have a scientific background, but my approach is always - look at evidence, defend whatever position appears to be supported by the evidence.
Some people, when they are affiliated to a particular political viewpoint, will decide whether an argument is correct based on whether it supports or detracts from their existing beliefs. They will then look at the evidence and wilfully misinterpret it in order to fit in with this... a good example of this is the comments section on the Daily Mail (grim, but hilarious) and the Guardian (not so grim, but just as predictable and arguably even more hilarious) where it's all about which 'side' you support and the facts appear to be irrelevant! Basically, I think tribal politics are a complete hindrance to debate.
But anyway, bollocks to all that, we have a match to win (and I have a hunch we may win it well) - COYR!
Apologies for rant, but us science types are a bit hung up on evidence and the like....but I'll give the journo the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a simple mistake as you say, Prague.
Comments
A minority yes but a loud vociferous one nevertheless.
And this...
So what you say - he lies, other papers lie etc. etc. Well, I happen to have a problem with liars - right, left whatever. Like I said, good journalists (i.e non-liars) are like hen's teeth, and when people justify lying by petty tribal politics it is pretty pathetic really. Tory rags lying is wrong, but left wing ones can do it because they are left wing? I thought we were all grown ups - how about treating what people say based on its merits, regardless of politics?
He's right, we were forgotten from the football world without much mention. Not many journalists have picked up on that.
Same old moaners having a go I see. Get a life.
Which is not to disagree with your view Bigstemarra, on principle I agree with you 100%.
Maybe it's because I have a scientific background, but my approach is always - look at evidence, defend whatever position appears to be supported by the evidence.
Some people, when they are affiliated to a particular political viewpoint, will decide whether an argument is correct based on whether it supports or detracts from their existing beliefs. They will then look at the evidence and wilfully misinterpret it in order to fit in with this... a good example of this is the comments section on the Daily Mail (grim, but hilarious) and the Guardian (not so grim, but just as predictable and arguably even more hilarious) where it's all about which 'side' you support and the facts appear to be irrelevant! Basically, I think tribal politics are a complete hindrance to debate.
But anyway, bollocks to all that, we have a match to win (and I have a hunch we may win it well) - COYR!
Apologies for rant, but us science types are a bit hung up on evidence and the like....but I'll give the journo the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a simple mistake as you say, Prague.