Jay Jay Sea Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I was on the metro last night and some you punks got on at Haymarket. I was with my little one (she's 6) and these neanderthals break into some chant about bonfires/Ashley/Llambias/f***ing burning. For 15 minutes solid. There were about 6 of them, aged 20-23 i'd say. Complete pricks. You could see the fear/intimidation felt by some of the older folk on the train and their disregard for youngsters on the train. Putting the emphasis on the 'and burn the f***ing lot'. Sometimes it embarrasing being a fan of NUFC. Lads will be lads I guess but if I'd had a snooker ball in a sock I would have had no regret in using them. That's a bit over the top isn't it. Not really chap if it was just me, snooker ball, sock and those 6 neanderthals in a back lane somewhere. I would not carry out such action within the confines of public transport of course. So a few daft kids chanting some less than tasteful chants on the Metro is a heinous crime, but assaulting somebody in a back lane with a DIY cosh is OK? Unusual value system you’ve got there. Daft kids? No. Daft 'men' given their age(s). As for the DIY cosh - zero tolerance is what is required. The punishment fits the crime here 110%. Think about it. Would removing their tongues (on the metro or in a back lane) so that they could not use vulgar profanities be appropriate punishment? No, that would be too harsh a punishment. One swift 'thwack' across the side of the jaw will make these neanderthals think twice in future when it comes to communicating like a bunch of wild monkies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I was on the metro last night and some you punks got on at Haymarket. I was with my little one (she's 6) and these neanderthals break into some chant about bonfires/Ashley/Llambias/f***ing burning. For 15 minutes solid. There were about 6 of them, aged 20-23 i'd say. Complete pricks. You could see the fear/intimidation felt by some of the older folk on the train and their disregard for youngsters on the train. Putting the emphasis on the 'and burn the f***ing lot'. Sometimes it embarrasing being a fan of NUFC. Lads will be lads I guess but if I'd had a snooker ball in a sock I would have had no regret in using them. That's a bit over the top isn't it. Not really chap if it was just me, snooker ball, sock and those 6 neanderthals in a back lane somewhere. I would not carry out such action within the confines of public transport of course. So a few daft kids chanting some less than tasteful chants on the Metro is a heinous crime, but assaulting somebody in a back lane with a DIY cosh is OK? Unusual value system you’ve got there. Daft kids? No. Daft 'men' given their age(s). As for the DIY cosh - zero tolerance is what is required. The punishment fits the crime here 110%. Think about it. Would removing their tongues (on the metro or in a back lane) so that they could not use vulgar profanities be appropriate punishment? No, that would be too harsh a punishment. One swift 'thwack' across the side of the jaw will make these neanderthals think twice in future when it comes to communicating like a bunch of wild monkies. I'd just like to point out monkeys and neanderthals are very different. Sorry, just the inconsistency bugs me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Thought the ratio between Ashley out, and supporting the team songs were just. Some of the people moaning about the 'Curva Nord' lads are pathetic. Snobs talking about chavs and stuff. Not sure how they expect lads that age to act. Calling them chavs and acting like theyre opinion is worthless is pretty low in my opinion. Quite bitter probably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 'Just right' i should have said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Mentioned this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here. The "Yes We Can" banner was passed over the heads of supporters in the Gallowgate at half-time and was taken away by stewards as it approached the corner. Apparently, the stewards have been told to remove all banners and have been noting seat numbers of those people with them. Well done the lads with the Cockney rapist banner, I'd imagine this is a direct result of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pav Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Mentioned this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here. The "Yes We Can" banner was passed over the heads of supporters in the Gallowgate at half-time and was taken away by stewards as it approached the corner. Apparently, the stewards have been told to remove all banners and have been noting seat numbers of those people with them. Well done the lads with the Cockney rapist banner, I'd imagine this is a direct result of it. Bollocks, 2 banners were shown in the LC before KO and weren't took. You'd think if they were enforcing a rule based on something which happened in the LC that they'd, I dunno, be inforcing it there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 it went over me before the game not half time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Mentioned this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here. The "Yes We Can" banner was passed over the heads of supporters in the Gallowgate at half-time and was taken away by stewards as it approached the corner. Apparently, the stewards have been told to remove all banners and have been noting seat numbers of those people with them. Well done the lads with the Cockney rapist banner, I'd imagine this is a direct result of it. Bollocks, 2 banners were shown in the LC before KO and weren't took. You'd think if they were enforcing a rule based on something which happened in the LC that they'd, I dunno, be inforcing it there? Perhaps it's only once the match has started? And you're being incredibly naive (surprise) if you think confiscating banners has nothing to do with the one in your sig. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It probably doesn't effect you Liam O' and it probably doesn't effect about 90% of the ground. The only people who would be effected by such a clamp-down are those in the Leazes Corner and those from NUST. So let's just leave it at that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It probably doesn't effect you Liam O' and it probably doesn't effect about 90% of the ground. The only people who would be effected by such a clamp-down are those in the Leazes Corner and those from NUST. So let's just leave it at that... So because the only thing to come out of the "Cockney Rapist" banner has been something negative it's now not up for discussion any more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 the use of the term "rapist" just to call someone a nasty name is crap. also the repeated use of "cockney" is helping to make us look very insularly pathetic. To round it off, calling him 'fat' is a bit juvenile. It's not just the business of the people who made that banner, because all supporters can get smeared by association. Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can say to someone who thinks that it's clever or funny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 the use of the term "rapist" just to call someone a nasty name is crap. also the repeated use of "cockney" is helping to make us look very insularly pathetic. To round it off, calling him 'fat' is a bit juvenile. If anyone calls your hero fat it is juvenile yet you have called Viduka fat. You just know Boobyule has got his family a stash of Sports Direct vouchers for Crimbo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 the use of the term "rapist" just to call someone a nasty name is crap. also the repeated use of "cockney" is helping to make us look very insularly pathetic. To round it off, calling him 'fat' is a bit juvenile. If anyone calls your hero fat it is juvenile yet you have called Viduka fat. You just know Boobyule has got his family a stash of Sports Direct vouchers for Crimbo. Well seeing you think calling me 'Boobyule' is clever, the rest of your opinion doesn't surprise me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 the use of the term "rapist" just to call someone a nasty name is crap. also the repeated use of "cockney" is helping to make us look very insularly pathetic. To round it off, calling him 'fat' is a bit juvenile. If anyone calls your hero fat it is juvenile yet you have called Viduka fat. You just know Boobyule has got his family a stash of Sports Direct vouchers for Crimbo. Well seeing you think calling me 'Boobyule' is clever, the rest of your opinion doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't expect me typing you called Viduka fat to surprise you either, as you typed it. I didn't think it was clever but I guess at your level it may look like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Mentioned this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here. The "Yes We Can" banner was passed over the heads of supporters in the Gallowgate at half-time and was taken away by stewards as it approached the corner. Apparently, the stewards have been told to remove all banners and have been noting seat numbers of those people with them. Well done the lads with the Cockney rapist banner, I'd imagine this is a direct result of it. Bollocks, 2 banners were shown in the LC before KO and weren't took. You'd think if they were enforcing a rule based on something which happened in the LC that they'd, I dunno, be inforcing it there? Perhaps it's only once the match has started? And you're being incredibly naive (surprise) if you think confiscating banners has nothing to do with the one in your sig. Banners were being taken away in Gallowgate before that one even went up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pav Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Mentioned this in another thread, but it's more appropriate here. The "Yes We Can" banner was passed over the heads of supporters in the Gallowgate at half-time and was taken away by stewards as it approached the corner. Apparently, the stewards have been told to remove all banners and have been noting seat numbers of those people with them. Well done the lads with the Cockney rapist banner, I'd imagine this is a direct result of it. Bollocks, 2 banners were shown in the LC before KO and weren't took. You'd think if they were enforcing a rule based on something which happened in the LC that they'd, I dunno, be inforcing it there? Perhaps it's only once the match has started? And you're being incredibly naive (surprise) if you think confiscating banners has nothing to do with the one in your sig. Banners were being taken away in Gallowgate before that one even went up. never saw any of that. what was on them ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pav Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Wrong, it's clear as day I was talking about the Leazes Corner. The point made is banners were being took in the Gallowgate regardless of the FCR banner. If there is a new policy then no, I doubt it was due to the FCR banner as again, surely they'd inforce such a rule in the area which made them create it in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 There were definitely a couple of banners taken away before the Ultra's effort, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Wrong, it's clear as day I was talking about the Leazes Corner. The point made is banners were being took in the Gallowgate regardless of the FCR banner. If there is a new policy then no, I doubt it was due to the FCR banner as again, surely they'd inforce such a rule in the area which made them create it in the first place? So why do you think they have started taking them then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Banners were being taken outside the ground before the Peterborough game and during the Peterborough game. The Cockney Rapist banner was taken at full time after about three or four others had been twocked so it's certainly fuck all to do with that. It's simply the stewards being cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Always nice to see the worst of the clueless cunts being shown up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Banners were being taken outside the ground before the Peterborough game and during the Peterborough game. The Cockney Rapist banner was taken at full time after about three or four others had been twocked so it's certainly f*** all to do with that. It's simply the stewards being c***s. what messages were on the other banners ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 LLLO tucked So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Banners were being taken outside the ground before the Peterborough game and during the Peterborough game. The Cockney Rapist banner was taken at full time after about three or four others had been twocked so it's certainly f*** all to do with that. It's simply the stewards being c***s. what messages were on the other banners ? I think 'Not Welcome @ St James' Park' was one of them. Towards the Gallowgate/Milburn corner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now