Some people have nothing better to do

[pintsofguinness]

One example - was it not you who thought it was good enough for Trevor Brennan to gub an Ulster Rugby fan, just because he was an Ulster Rugby Fan?

No.  I probably said it was good enough for the fan if he was giving Brennan abuse which he was widely reported to have been at the time.
I also think Cantona was right when he karate kicked yon p***k that was giving him abuse too so by dislike isnt for Ulster Rugby fans, it's for silly c***ts that go to any sporting event to shout abuse at players and who think they are hard men.


red

"As bad as Tyronies are". What does that mean?

ffs red it was tongue in cheek! I know there are a unreal amount of posters on this board who can't tell when someone is joking but I didn't think you were one of them.
What's wrong with you, is it nerves? 

[Solomon Kane]

One example - was it not you who thought it was good enough for Trevor Brennan to gub an Ulster Rugby fan, just because he was an Ulster Rugby Fan?

No.  I probably said it was good enough for the fan if he was giving Brennan abuse which he was widely reported to have been at the time.
I also think Cantona was right when he karate kicked yon p***k that was giving him abuse too so by dislike isnt for Ulster Rugby fans, it's for silly c***ts that go to any sporting event to shout abuse at players and who think they are hard men.


red

"As bad as Tyronies are". What does that mean?

ffs red it was tongue in cheek! I know there are a unreal amount of posters on this board who can't tell when someone is joking but I didn't think you were one of them.
What's wrong with you, is it nerves? 

Was it f**k. It was alleged by a few but never widely reported.

[reddgnhand]

One example - was it not you who thought it was good enough for Trevor Brennan to gub an Ulster Rugby fan, just because he was an Ulster Rugby Fan?

No.  I probably said it was good enough for the fan if he was giving Brennan abuse which he was widely reported to have been at the time.
I also think Cantona was right when he karate kicked yon p***k that was giving him abuse too so by dislike isnt for Ulster Rugby fans, it's for silly c***ts that go to any sporting event to shout abuse at players and who think they are hard men.


red

"As bad as Tyronies are". What does that mean?

ffs red it was tongue in cheek! I know there are a unreal amount of posters on this board who can't tell when someone is joking but I didn't think you were one of them.
What's wrong with you, is it nerves? 

Fair enough pints and no nerves here. I'd say your own are more nrevous than we are  

[Solomon Kane]

POG and SK you two are worse than the 5yr old children i teach-WISE UP.
The pair of you are annoying my happiness FFS 
Surely the bigger issue here is how do we stop car flags from flying off? 

Dont park your car in a DHSS car park?

[pintsofguinness]

One example - was it not you who thought it was good enough for Trevor Brennan to gub an Ulster Rugby fan, just because he was an Ulster Rugby Fan?

No.  I probably said it was good enough for the fan if he was giving Brennan abuse which he was widely reported to have been at the time.
I also think Cantona was right when he karate kicked yon p***k that was giving him abuse too so by dislike isnt for Ulster Rugby fans, it's for silly c***ts that go to any sporting event to shout abuse at players and who think they are hard men.


red

"As bad as Tyronies are". What does that mean?

ffs red it was tongue in cheek! I know there are a unreal amount of posters on this board who can't tell when someone is joking but I didn't think you were one of them.
What's wrong with you, is it nerves? 

Fair enough pints and no nerves here. I'd say your own are more nrevous than we are  

Couldn't care less, I'm more worried about an intermediate quarter final tomorrow. 


sk

Was it f**k. It was alleged by a few but never widely reported.

Whatever.  Fact is I said he was right if the fan abused him, if he didn't then it's brennan that needs the slapping.
Now that I have explained my position are you going to withdraw your allegation?

[magickingdom]

its the same old pc argument isnt it? the fact is you'll have grumpy bitter fcukwitts on either side always moaning so the only solution is to ban all symbols sad as that is...

[Evil Genius]

You've defended him throughout this thread SK, so has evil genius which speak volumes about you both.

Where have I defended the person who made the complaint? 

[pintsofguinness]

You've defended him throughout this thread SK, so has evil genius which speak volumes about you both.

Where have I defended the person who made the complaint? 

So answer the same question I asked Sk.

Do you think the person who made the complaint was just bieng a bitter ****?

[Evil Genius]

One example - was it not you who thought it was good enough for Trevor Brennan to gub an Ulster Rugby fan, just because he was an Ulster Rugby Fan?

No.  I probably said it was good enough for the fan if he was giving Brennan abuse which he was widely reported to have been at the time.
I also think Cantona was right when he karate kicked yon p***k that was giving him abuse too so by dislike isnt for Ulster Rugby fans, it's for silly c***ts that go to any sporting event to shout abuse at players and who think they are hard men.

Disingenuous, if not downright deceitful. The simple fact is that Brennan, a 16 stone, gym-pumped athlete, jumped into the crowd and punched a man sitting down, inflicting severe injuries.

The victim's friends/neighbours insisted he had done nothing to provoke Brennan. Whereas Brennan and/or his friends & family insisted he had been verbally provoked, firstly in a sectarian manner (later withdrawn, since there was no evidence whatever), then in a personal manner.

Until the facts were established, either might have been the case, yet you automatically took Brennan's side over that of an Ulster rugby fan, despite the fact that (former bouncer) Brennan has one of the worst records in  professional rugby for unprovoked violence, including punching an Ireland team-mate on tour in SA and leaving the field to punch a middle-aged Edinburgh Physio who was treating a player on the side of the pitch. And his record of causing fights with opponents was so bad as effectively to have ended his Ireland career before the Ulster incident.

Consequently, the IRB enquiry totally vindicated the Ulster fan (who successfully sued newspapers for defamation for repeating the sort of crap you spewed) and banned Brennan from rugby for life.

Of course, since then, we haven't heard a peep from you to acknowledge that you were completely wrong in your presumption of guilt when choosing between an Ulsterman and a known thug. That suggests to me - if further proof were needed - that you are nothing more than a bigot, who views events from a position of naked prejudice (literally).

P.S. Even if Bamford had shouted obscenities etc at Brennan, that would still not justifiy responding to verbal assault with extreme physical assault, which says a lot about your lack of ethics when it comes to violence, too.

[Evil Genius]

You've defended him throughout this thread SK, so has evil genius which speak volumes about you both.

Where have I defended the person who made the complaint? 

So answer the same question I asked Sk.

Do you think the person who made the complaint was just bieng a bitter c**t?

My reaction to this incident should be clear to any reasonable, intelligent person who has read my posts, but seeing as you seem to be deficient in at least one of those two respects, I shall make my position clear.

Namely, I don't know enough about the complainant to say he/she was definitely a "****", but certainly petty and antagonistic, probably bitter, and clearly to be condemned forthrightly for abusing an otherwise well-intentioned piece of legislation, which has a very serious principle behind it.

P.S. No-one seems to have considered that the complainant might just have had a personal gripe with the car owner, and chose this action as a means of getting one over them. (Doesn't excuse it, mind, but possibly removes the "political" element?)

[pintsofguinness]

Of course, since then, we haven't heard a peep from you to acknowledge that you were completely wrong in your presumption of guilt when choosing between an Ulsterman and a known thug. That suggests to me - if further proof were needed - that you are nothing more than a bigot, who views events from a position of naked prejudice (literally).

Course it does. 
As I've said above, if any fan, a coward, verbally abuses a sports person in that manner when they know/think the sports person can't react they deserve a hiding when they get one. 
If the Ulster Rugby fan (btw, isnt he/wasn't he taking legal action against papers who said he provoked Brennan? - are they bigots too?) did nothing to provoke Brennan then it's him who needs a hiding and people like him usually get it at some stage. 

It's not unusual or is it evidence of my bigotry to assume something was said to provoke a reaction like Brennan's as it's a lot more likely than Brennan having a screw loose ((which now appears to be the case - I know nothing of his past).

Now that that's cleared up could you withdraw your allegation.

My reaction to this incident should be clear to any reasonable, intelligent person who has read my posts, but seeing as you seem to be deficient in at least one of those two respects, I shall make my position clear.

Why do you always need to get personal?

[Evil Genius]

As for Derek Hussey wearing an NI coat, he wasn't exactly in the workplace (apart from his own) so that argument is nothing short pathetic.

In fairness, say someone working in a public office in Omagh complained about a co-worker having a Glasgow Rangers car sticker on the inside rear window in the car park and the owner of the car was asked to remove it. That evening when the story broke, Barry McElduff is interviewed by the BBC wearing a Carrickmore or Tyrone GAA waterproof jacket defending the decision to remove it - that would surely raise eyebrows would it not?

I see what you mean, but the whole point about the legislation which caused the flag to be removed is that it seeks to prevent contentious or divisive emblems from being displayed in the workplace. It does not proscribe what may or may not be worn away from a (shared) workplace. As such, Hussey is entitled to wear whatever jacket he likes when being interviewed. However, it might be a different matter if he had made his statement on the affair in e.g. the Council Chamber, whilst wearing the jacket.

P.S. Another poster claimed Hussey himself had "complained" about the Tyrone flag itself. That was not my recollection; rather, he didn't seem to have any problem with the flag per se, but just defended the equal enforcement of the legislation in this case.

[Gnevin]

As for Derek Hussey wearing an NI coat, he wasn't exactly in the workplace (apart from his own) so that argument is nothing short pathetic.

In fairness, say someone working in a public office in Omagh complained about a co-worker having a Glasgow Rangers car sticker on the inside rear window in the car park and the owner of the car was asked to remove it. That evening when the story broke, Barry McElduff is interviewed by the BBC wearing a Carrickmore or Tyrone GAA waterproof jacket defending the decision to remove it - that would surely raise eyebrows would it not?

I see what you mean, but the whole point about the legislation which caused the flag to be removed is that it seeks to prevent contentious or divisive emblems from being displayed in the workplace. It does not proscribe what may or may not be worn away from a (shared) workplace. As such, Hussey is entitled to wear whatever jacket he likes when being interviewed. However, it might be a different matter if he had made his statement on the affair in e.g. the Council Chamber, whilst wearing the jacket.

P.S. Another poster claimed Hussey himself had "complained" about the Tyrone flag itself. That was not my recollection; rather, he didn't seem to have any problem with the flag per se, but just defended the equal enforcement of the legislation in this case.

Great idea EG lets ban the NI soccer team for wearing NI jerseys. As the pitch is their work place i suggest they wear a full tux ! 

[Evil Genius]

Of course, since then, we haven't heard a peep from you to acknowledge that you were completely wrong in your presumption of guilt when choosing between an Ulsterman and a known thug. That suggests to me - if further proof were needed - that you are nothing more than a bigot, who views events from a position of naked prejudice (literally).

Course it does. 
As I've said above, if any fan, a coward, verbally abuses a sports person in that manner when they know/think the sports person can't react they deserve a hiding when they get one. 

Bullshit! The enquiry and subsequent Court case clearly established that Bamford said nothing exceptional towards Brennan, just as his Ireland teammate, the Edinburgh Physio and countless opponents had done nothing down the years to excuse Brennan behaving like a thug. Yet you automatically assumed at the time that he must have done, including an entirely false and malicious sectarian motive, for no other apparent reason than that if the guy is an Ulster Prod, who becamne involved with a southern Catholic, then the Ulster Prod must be in the wrong.

And that's before we get to the idea of yours that verbal abuse justifies an extreme physical response. Or that the "coward" in this is the guy who (allegedly) shouted something, rather than the 16 stone, shaven headed thug who marched up to him and punched him repeatedly in a position where he could not defend himself.

You asked me earlier my opinion of the complainant in the Strabane case. What is your opinion of Brennan, now that he has been severely fined and banned from the game for life, by his rugby-playing peers? Do you still defend him, or have you changed your stance, in the light of overwhelming evidence?

It's not unusual or is it evidence of my bigotry to assume something was said to provoke a reaction like Brennan's as it's a lot more likely than Brennan having a screw loose ((which now appears to be the case - I know nothing of his past).

Exactly. When faced with a choice between bigoted provocation by an Ulster Prod and unprovoked violence by a Southern Catholic, you did not wait to see which was correct, you automatically jumped in to castigate the Ulster Prod - the very essence of prejudice. Moreover, as the true facts began to emerge (including Brennan's past record of violent thuggery), you clung to your case, even when it went far beyond being supportable by any reasonable person.

Now that that's cleared up could you withdraw your allegation.

Not a f**king chance.

Why do you always need to get personal?

I don't "always" need to get personal. It's only one or two of the hundreds of posters on this Board who move me to respond thus...

P.S. On the subject of defamatory reporting of the case by certain newspapers, I don't know whether they did so out of bigoted motives, or following incompetent investigation, or as a result of being misinformed initially by friends and family of Brennan, or some other cause. But I do know they were made to pay handsomely for their gross libelling of an entirely innocent victim of an unprovoked assault:
http://www.uafc.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6851

[pintsofguinness]

EG

Bullshit! The enquiry and subsequent Court case clearly established that Bamford said nothing exceptional towards Brennan, just as his Ireland teammate, the Edinburgh Physio and countless opponents had done nothing down the years to excuse Brennan behaving like a thug. Yet you automatically assumed at the time that he must have done, including an entirely false and malicious sectarian motive, for no other apparent reason than that if the guy is an Ulster Prod, who becamne involved with a southern Catholic, then the Ulster Prod must be in the wrong.

And that's fair enough.
Please be mnidful that before the incident I had never heard of Brennan so I had no idea about his history.  (still don't)
I was not the one who had started the claims there was a sectarian motive - wasn't the the media who started that? Are they sectarian?  You're right I would have assumed that Bamford done something (not necessarily something sectarian) to get the head thumped of him because sports people don't normally go in to the crowd and thump the head of random strangers.  This is quite a consistent approach of mine - if I hear of someone getting the head beat of them my first thought is normally "what did they do to get that".  This is probably a wrong approach to take but it's hardly sectarian. 

And that's before we get to the idea of yours that verbal abuse justifies an extreme physical response. Or that the "coward" in this is the guy who (allegedly) shouted something, rather than the 16 stone, shaven headed thug who marched up to him and punched him repeatedly in a position where he could not defend himself.

And how is that sectarian - if Bamford had to have shouted something I would have shed no tears - this is a consistent approach of mine and one that's not just reserved for prods.
On this occasion Brennan was the coward.
If Bamford had to have said somethign I would have viewed him as the coward as he would have been saying something thinking the man in question couldn't/wouldn't react and that Brennan's behaviour was understandable. 
Again, these are not views reserved for incidents with prods.
As I said earlier in the thread I think Cantona did a great job kicking yon **** that time and should have been given a medal, not a ban.

You asked me earlier my opinion of the complainant in the Strabane case. What is your opinion of Brennan, now that he has been severely fined and banned from the game for life, by his rugby-playing peers? Do you still defend him, or have you changed your stance, in the light of overwhelming evidence?

I think he's a ****.

Exactly. When faced with a choice between bigoted provocation by an Ulster Prod and unprovoked violence by a Southern Catholic, you did not wait to see which was correct, you automatically jumped in to castigate the Ulster Prod - the very essence of prejudice. Moreover, as the true facts began to emerge (including Brennan's past record of violent thuggery), you clung to your case, even when it went far beyond being supportable by any reasonable person.

You don't seem to understand that I would have made the same assumption had it been the other way around.

Now that I've explained myself please withdraw your allegation.
You owc boys have called me bigotted/sectarian a few times now (even NIfan has done it which I was quite shocked about at the time) is this the only reason why? 

I don't really mind being called intolerant - I am quite intolerant towards people who do certain things  but I don't give a f**k what religion someone is/what political views someone holds/what colour they are/who they like to shag etc