Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

sunderland

JH

by JH
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wilson

Wilson

Posted
Posted

Takes me to a login page. What was it?

something like 'mags flying to 9th most dangerous airport in the world.......just saying'

 

followed by 'pardews babes' and 'if all them deluded bastards die in the sleep i'd wake up a happy man' .... and other such classy comments

 

although a few did actually call them out on it

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Benwell Lad

Benwell Lad

Posted
Posted

 

Takes me to a login page. What was it?

 

An OP stating Funchal airport is one of the world's most dangerous and implying that the Newcastle plane crashing would be amusing.

Thereafter several pages of "witty banter" supporting it, including quotes about "Pardew's Babes" (Busby Babes) and how someone felt sorry for those who would have to clear the "stinking" mess up.

A couple of decent fans criticised the OP realising just how sick it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogmatix

Dogmatix

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine sent me this story. An interesting read for those unfamiliar with the historical significance of the rivalry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/23/newsstory.sport

 

 

Sorry mate that article is so full of holes it is like a journalistic sieve. How many people refuse to eat bacon ?? It was a stupid throw away line on an equally stupid program.

 

Newcastle did hold the Royal Charter as far as coal was concerned, and it did cause a great deal of pain and animosity. That much is true.

 

Newcastle was Royalist, only in so much that the castle was invested with troops under the Marquess of Newcastle, who were there to protect the coal supplies The ordinary people were not allowed into the castle, and offered no protection from it. The ordinary man was more than likely a Roundhead sympathiser, but you don't publicise that view to loudly with the enemy army on your front lawn.  Durham, the Bishop and County Durham was also Royalist, and had troops,  there was also a garrison at South Shields. If Sunderland had been a Roundhead base it would have been crushed in short order and wiped from the map.

A Scottish Army came down to capture Newcastle, and to effectively cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country. The Scots were repulsed . They then attacked small towns, villages and communication lines. The Royalists from Newcastle and Durham and Shield went out to meet them, to stop them destroying and killing the unprotected. This includes Sunderland, which was being raped by the 'old enemy'

The only connection with Sunderland was that the Scottish army , under Earl of Leven retired there during the Battle of Boldon Hill, while the Royalists retired to Durham. The Scots used Sunderland as a supply base, in reality they marched in and took what they wanted. To imagine that a secret Roundhead alliance welcomed them in is laughable, Sunderland was occupied by a foreign army who ransacked the place. The Scots were highly unlikely to allow Englishman to join in with them. The Scots were not just fighting the Royalist but moreover killing Englishmen and hoping to retain any land that they held. That is not to say one or two looters did not tag on to the Scots coattails, while the Scots took what they needed from Sunderland. 

There were no Roundhead troops based in Sunderland because it was of no strategic importance what so ever. To say that there was a Scottish / Sunderland alliance is ridiculous in the extreme. More like history been airbrushed out of shame.

The Royalist Army was not raised from Newcastle. They were Royalist supporters from further afield, only stationed there to thwart the Scots

The Royalists and Scots fought over 4 days and retreated back to Durham and Sunderland respectively. There was no outright victory to either side as the Battle of Selby ( a Royalist defeat) forced both sides south. Newcastle was NOT taken at that time by a Scottish army and a handful of Mackems. Although a Scottish army did occupy Newcastle AFTER the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor.

Only the Mackems could try and turn this imagined traitorous act of siding with an invading army as so kind of virtue, especially when you think of what the Scots did in Sunderland over those four days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JS

Guest JS

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine sent me this story. An interesting read for those unfamiliar with the historical significance of the rivalry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/23/newsstory.sport

 

 

Sorry mate that article is so full of holes it is like a journalistic sieve. How many people refuse to eat bacon ?? It was a stupid throw away line on an equally stupid program.

 

Newcastle did hold the Royal Charter as far as coal was concerned, and it did cause a great deal of pain and animosity. That much is true.

 

Newcastle was Royalist, only in so much that the castle was invested with troops under the Marquess of Newcastle, who were there to protect the coal supplies The ordinary people were not allowed into the castle, and offered no protection from it. The ordinary man was more than likely a Roundhead sympathiser, but you don't publicise that view to loudly with the enemy army on your front lawn.  Durham, the Bishop and County Durham was also Royalist, and had troops,  there was also a garrison at South Shields. If Sunderland had been a Roundhead base it would have been crushed in short order and wiped from the map.

A Scottish Army came down to capture Newcastle, and to effectively cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country. The Scots were repulsed . They then attacked small towns, villages and communication lines. The Royalists from Newcastle and Durham and Shield went out to meet them, to stop them destroying and killing the unprotected. This includes Sunderland, which was being raped by the 'old enemy'

The only connection with Sunderland was that the Scottish army , under Earl of Leven retired there during the Battle of Boldon Hill, while the Royalists retired to Durham. The Scots used Sunderland as a supply base, in reality they marched in and took what they wanted. To imagine that a secret Roundhead alliance welcomed them in is laughable, Sunderland was occupied by a foreign army who ransacked the place. The Scots were highly unlikely to allow Englishman to join in with them. The Scots were not just fighting the Royalist but moreover killing Englishmen and hoping to retain any land that they held. That is not to say one or two looters did not tag on to the Scots coattails, while the Scots took what they needed from Sunderland. 

There were no Roundhead troops based in Sunderland because it was of no strategic importance what so ever. To say that there was a Scottish / Sunderland alliance is ridiculous in the extreme. More like history been airbrushed out of shame.

The Royalist Army was not raised from Newcastle. They were Royalist supporters from further afield, only stationed there to thwart the Scots

The Royalists and Scots fought over 4 days and retreated back to Durham and Sunderland respectively. There was no outright victory to either side as the Battle of Selby ( a Royalist defeat) forced both sides south. Newcastle was NOT taken at that time by a Scottish army and a handful of Mackems. Although a Scottish army did occupy Newcastle AFTER the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor.

Only the Mackems could try and turn this imagined traitorous act of siding with an invading army as so kind of virtue, especially when you think of what the Scots did in Sunderland over those four days.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Link to post
Share on other sites
DubblyDubblyDubbly

DubblyDubblyDubbly

Posted
Posted

As fun as it is ripping the pi** out of the inbred 'tards I'd like to propose a newcastle-online.org blackout for a week starting now.

If nothing else, it will give us yet more bragging rights... they post about us, we don't post about them.

First reply gets  :knuppel2: .. and I fully expect one, but shall nevertheless be dissapointed. Be strong !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incognito

Incognito

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine sent me this story. An interesting read for those unfamiliar with the historical significance of the rivalry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/23/newsstory.sport

 

 

Sorry mate that article is so full of holes it is like a journalistic sieve. How many people refuse to eat bacon ?? It was a stupid throw away line on an equally stupid program.

 

Newcastle did hold the Royal Charter as far as coal was concerned, and it did cause a great deal of pain and animosity. That much is true.

 

Newcastle was Royalist, only in so much that the castle was invested with troops under the Marquess of Newcastle, who were there to protect the coal supplies The ordinary people were not allowed into the castle, and offered no protection from it. The ordinary man was more than likely a Roundhead sympathiser, but you don't publicise that view to loudly with the enemy army on your front lawn.  Durham, the Bishop and County Durham was also Royalist, and had troops,  there was also a garrison at South Shields. If Sunderland had been a Roundhead base it would have been crushed in short order and wiped from the map.

A Scottish Army came down to capture Newcastle, and to effectively cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country. The Scots were repulsed . They then attacked small towns, villages and communication lines. The Royalists from Newcastle and Durham and Shield went out to meet them, to stop them destroying and killing the unprotected. This includes Sunderland, which was being raped by the 'old enemy'

The only connection with Sunderland was that the Scottish army , under Earl of Leven retired there during the Battle of Boldon Hill, while the Royalists retired to Durham. The Scots used Sunderland as a supply base, in reality they marched in and took what they wanted. To imagine that a secret Roundhead alliance welcomed them in is laughable, Sunderland was occupied by a foreign army who ransacked the place. The Scots were highly unlikely to allow Englishman to join in with them. The Scots were not just fighting the Royalist but moreover killing Englishmen and hoping to retain any land that they held. That is not to say one or two looters did not tag on to the Scots coattails, while the Scots took what they needed from Sunderland. 

There were no Roundhead troops based in Sunderland because it was of no strategic importance what so ever. To say that there was a Scottish / Sunderland alliance is ridiculous in the extreme. More like history been airbrushed out of shame.

The Royalist Army was not raised from Newcastle. They were Royalist supporters from further afield, only stationed there to thwart the Scots

The Royalists and Scots fought over 4 days and retreated back to Durham and Sunderland respectively. There was no outright victory to either side as the Battle of Selby ( a Royalist defeat) forced both sides south. Newcastle was NOT taken at that time by a Scottish army and a handful of Mackems. Although a Scottish army did occupy Newcastle AFTER the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor.

Only the Mackems could try and turn this imagined traitorous act of siding with an invading army as so kind of virtue, especially when you think of what the Scots did in Sunderland over those four days.

 

Aaah wuz theyur when us and the Jocks took the mag kernts.,

Link to post
Share on other sites
bigfella

bigfella

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine sent me this story. An interesting read for those unfamiliar with the historical significance of the rivalry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/23/newsstory.sport

 

 

Sorry mate that article is so full of holes it is like a journalistic sieve. How many people refuse to eat bacon ?? It was a stupid throw away line on an equally stupid program.

 

Newcastle did hold the Royal Charter as far as coal was concerned, and it did cause a great deal of pain and animosity. That much is true.

 

Newcastle was Royalist, only in so much that the castle was invested with troops under the Marquess of Newcastle, who were there to protect the coal supplies The ordinary people were not allowed into the castle, and offered no protection from it. The ordinary man was more than likely a Roundhead sympathiser, but you don't publicise that view to loudly with the enemy army on your front lawn.  Durham, the Bishop and County Durham was also Royalist, and had troops,  there was also a garrison at South Shields. If Sunderland had been a Roundhead base it would have been crushed in short order and wiped from the map.

A Scottish Army came down to capture Newcastle, and to effectively cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country. The Scots were repulsed . They then attacked small towns, villages and communication lines. The Royalists from Newcastle and Durham and Shield went out to meet them, to stop them destroying and killing the unprotected. This includes Sunderland, which was being raped by the 'old enemy'

The only connection with Sunderland was that the Scottish army , under Earl of Leven retired there during the Battle of Boldon Hill, while the Royalists retired to Durham. The Scots used Sunderland as a supply base, in reality they marched in and took what they wanted. To imagine that a secret Roundhead alliance welcomed them in is laughable, Sunderland was occupied by a foreign army who ransacked the place. The Scots were highly unlikely to allow Englishman to join in with them. The Scots were not just fighting the Royalist but moreover killing Englishmen and hoping to retain any land that they held. That is not to say one or two looters did not tag on to the Scots coattails, while the Scots took what they needed from Sunderland. 

There were no Roundhead troops based in Sunderland because it was of no strategic importance what so ever. To say that there was a Scottish / Sunderland alliance is ridiculous in the extreme. More like history been airbrushed out of shame.

The Royalist Army was not raised from Newcastle. They were Royalist supporters from further afield, only stationed there to thwart the Scots

The Royalists and Scots fought over 4 days and retreated back to Durham and Sunderland respectively. There was no outright victory to either side as the Battle of Selby ( a Royalist defeat) forced both sides south. Newcastle was NOT taken at that time by a Scottish army and a handful of Mackems. Although a Scottish army did occupy Newcastle AFTER the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor.

Only the Mackems could try and turn this imagined traitorous act of siding with an invading army as so kind of virtue, especially when you think of what the Scots did in Sunderland over those four days.

 

:clap: :clap:  :clap:

 

This is the real course of events that I was taught at school.

 

As a Boldoner born and bred, I'm sick of seeing the quoted "truth" that Sunderland forces, backed by the Scots won the Battle of Boldon Hill. I suppose it's like everything else with the mackems, if enough people believe it then it MUST be true.

 

I blame Wikipedia and the like for this recent distortion of history.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Benwell Lad

Benwell Lad

Posted
Posted

:facepalm: Be honest, was that really worth posting ? Not even worthy of a dirty Mackem.

 

TWAT

 

 

 

 

Aah wuz theyur when irrelevant poster tried to take moral high ground over fuck all but banal triviality.,

 

While 95% of this thread is just the ritual ripping the piss out of macums that is a favourite pastime of Geordies, it also on occasions serves to "out" them for despicable behaviour which goes unchallenged by their club itself. Regularly terrorising and vandalising trains, invading the pitch and attacking opponents and some of the worst open racism are ritual events that their management chooses to ignore.

Today, one week after the Hillsborough verdict and leading figures in the game asking for an end to vile behaviour between fans, they ran a thread in which the vast majority of posters made sick comments about how pleased they'd be if the Newcastle flight into Madeira crashed on the runway. Rival fan banter? No way!

 

I say continue using this thread to amuse ourselves about their jealousy and obsession with all things Newcastle United, and also use it to show them up for the low lives they are on regular occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson

Wilson

Posted
Posted

A friend of mine sent me this story. An interesting read for those unfamiliar with the historical significance of the rivalry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/23/newsstory.sport

 

 

Sorry mate that article is so full of holes it is like a journalistic sieve. How many people refuse to eat bacon ?? It was a stupid throw away line on an equally stupid program.

 

Newcastle did hold the Royal Charter as far as coal was concerned, and it did cause a great deal of pain and animosity. That much is true.

 

Newcastle was Royalist, only in so much that the castle was invested with troops under the Marquess of Newcastle, who were there to protect the coal supplies The ordinary people were not allowed into the castle, and offered no protection from it. The ordinary man was more than likely a Roundhead sympathiser, but you don't publicise that view to loudly with the enemy army on your front lawn.  Durham, the Bishop and County Durham was also Royalist, and had troops,  there was also a garrison at South Shields. If Sunderland had been a Roundhead base it would have been crushed in short order and wiped from the map.

A Scottish Army came down to capture Newcastle, and to effectively cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country. The Scots were repulsed . They then attacked small towns, villages and communication lines. The Royalists from Newcastle and Durham and Shield went out to meet them, to stop them destroying and killing the unprotected. This includes Sunderland, which was being raped by the 'old enemy'

The only connection with Sunderland was that the Scottish army , under Earl of Leven retired there during the Battle of Boldon Hill, while the Royalists retired to Durham. The Scots used Sunderland as a supply base, in reality they marched in and took what they wanted. To imagine that a secret Roundhead alliance welcomed them in is laughable, Sunderland was occupied by a foreign army who ransacked the place. The Scots were highly unlikely to allow Englishman to join in with them. The Scots were not just fighting the Royalist but moreover killing Englishmen and hoping to retain any land that they held. That is not to say one or two looters did not tag on to the Scots coattails, while the Scots took what they needed from Sunderland. 

There were no Roundhead troops based in Sunderland because it was of no strategic importance what so ever. To say that there was a Scottish / Sunderland alliance is ridiculous in the extreme. More like history been airbrushed out of shame.

The Royalist Army was not raised from Newcastle. They were Royalist supporters from further afield, only stationed there to thwart the Scots

The Royalists and Scots fought over 4 days and retreated back to Durham and Sunderland respectively. There was no outright victory to either side as the Battle of Selby ( a Royalist defeat) forced both sides south. Newcastle was NOT taken at that time by a Scottish army and a handful of Mackems. Although a Scottish army did occupy Newcastle AFTER the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor.

Only the Mackems could try and turn this imagined traitorous act of siding with an invading army as so kind of virtue, especially when you think of what the Scots did in Sunderland over those four days.

 

Aaah wuz theyur when us and the Jocks took the mag kernts.,

 

marched on boldon hill tbh

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...