Scousers could be in trouble over Shields demo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...ichael-shields

Sue Johnston was invited on to the pitch with Shields' parents to make a speech calling for the justice secretary, Jack Straw, to "do the right thing".

"£#%&! off Jim laaaaaaaaaa im not makin a brew yis £#%&!in @#%&!, im talkin to these £#%&!wits"

Justice for Heysel

Something is getting a good old fashioned boycotting over this. Mark their phlegmy words.

Are there any words to suitably describe just what a shower of utter, utter £#%&!ing @#%&!S scousers are?

Speaking to Sky News, he said: "I remember very clearly his face." Asked if this was Mr Shields, he replied: "Yes".

Mr Georgiev, who is married with two young children and shares a home with his parents and grandparents, said he doesn't want revenge.

"I am not revengeful but the man who has done it he must bear the consequences," he said. "I feel handicapped for my family...I can't take care of them."

He said he is unable to do a lot of things others take for granted such as go outside in the heat, carry heavy objects. He faces months of treatment and may never fully recover.

Originally Posted by elephantstone

Speaking to Sky News, he said: "I remember very clearly his face." Asked if this was Mr Shields, he replied: "Yes".

Mr Georgiev, who is married with two young children and shares a home with his parents and grandparents, said he doesn't want revenge.

"I am not revengeful but the man who has done it he must bear the consequences," he said. "I feel handicapped for my family...I can't take care of them."

He said he is unable to do a lot of things others take for granted such as go outside in the heat, carry heavy objects. He faces months of treatment and may never fully recover.

Shields is a thug and should be left where he is, justice for Mr Georgiev.

Did anything happen to Tim Cahill for dedicating his goal celebration to his jailed brother? Or that other guy dedicated a goal to a drink drive killer?

Originally Posted by armchair

Did anything happen to Tim Cahill for dedicating his goal celebration to his jailed brother? Or that other guy dedicated a goal to a drink drive killer?

yeah - he got punished a few days ago - think it was a fine: £5k which he has pledged to the charity the family have setup.

Q: How many scousers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 45,000. One to do it. And 44,999 to organise a justice march for the lightbulb that died.

The one good thing about all this is the scousers are boycotting Bulgaria. Another great reason to live here

Seriously - they should get some points deducted for that.

Unbelievable aren't they. Their entire reason for believing him to be innocent is that 'he's a scouser'. And they expect the entire world to be fine with that.

We should have a free Peter Sutcliffe protest on Saturday.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Unbelievable aren't they. Their entire reason for believing him to be innocent is that 'he's a scouser'. And they expect the entire world to be fine with that.

Hitler was innocent!

Originally Posted by Zorg

Unbelievable aren't they. Their entire reason for believing him to be innocent is that 'he's a scouser'. And they expect the entire world to be fine with that.

The crowd was fairly subdued while sue was doing her best delia impression. Some of the stuff she said was outrageous i.e. shields was held ransom by the bulgarian authorities, he was proven innocent etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...ichael-shields

Liverpool were right to do it apparently. £#%&!ing dope.

Latest update: the FA has announced that it will take no action against Liverpool

There was a time when you could hardly open a newspaper without being confronted with the details of yet another miscarriage of justice, but somewhere between the Birmingham Six and the ludicrous "Free Deirdre Barlow" campaign, this staple of our current affairs landscape all but disappeared.

Maybe our legal system magically cleansed itself of bent coppers, incompetent lawyers and befuddled judges, or maybe we all became a little less interested in the misfortune of others and a lot more complacent about the world we live in.

Wherever the truth lies, it serves only to intensify the admiration felt for the persistence of those seeking the release of Michael Shields, the Liverpool supporter serving 10 years for attempting to murder Martin Georgiev, a waiter in the Bulgarian resort of Golden Sands whose reward for attempting to quell fighting among English fans was to be attacked by a thug who fractured his skull.

This admiration is not endorsement of the Shields campaign or a declaration of his innocence, merely a recognition that in this day and age it is difficult to generate interest in such matters. (For what it is worth — not very much — my opinion is the conduct of Bulgarian police in the initial stages of the investigation was sufficiently cavalier to raise doubts about the conviction.) Those behind the campaign have done more than raise interest in the case, they have elevated it to the extent that it will go before the high court on Thursday, where judges will be asked to overrule the government's refusal to allow a full review of new evidence.

Should the court find in favour of Shields, then he and his supporters will owe an enormous debt to the fans, players and officials of Liverpool FC who have backed his claims of innocence and the demands for his release, never more publicly than before Monday night's Premier League match against West Ham, when the club handed over the public address system to Shields' parents and the players wore "Free Michael Now" T-shirts in the warm-up.

No doubt Liverpool officials take the club's reputation seriously and will have done due diligence on the Shields case before committing it so publicly. The players, too, have shown considerable support, having reportedly donated £50,000 to the campaign, not to mention their time and attention.

There are two ways of looking at this behaviour. The first is to welcome the fact that a Premier League club is sufficiently connected to its local community to make common cause on an issue that concerns many; and to welcome an instance of professional footballers — more often or not portrayed as brain-dead narcissists — showing an interest in something more consequential than the delivery date of the new-model Ferrari.

Then there is the approach of the Football Association, which has now written to Liverpool seeking an explanation for the club's and its players' behaviour before the West Ham game. Football, lest anyone forget, has rules forbidding those involved in the game using it as a platform to demonstrate in favour of political causes — a stipulation which has been used to penalise all kinds of behaviour, from Steven Pienaar stripping off to reveal his "God is Great" T-shirt after scoring at White Hart Lane on Sunday to Ipswich's David Norris, who has been charged with improper conduct after making a gesture in support of a convicted friend.

Clearly, the events at Anfield on Monday breached these rules, perhaps even more egregiously than the examples of Pienaar and Norris because they were club-sanctioned. After all, if Liverpool can demonstrate in support of Shields, what is to stop Newcastle campaigning for the release of Joey Barton (were he still in prison) or Brighton's players parading around in T-shirts calling for the introduction of a "Sarah's Law"? What is an injustice for one person might be justice for another — which means there can be no degrees of tolerance when it comes to "political" demonstrations in football, only blanket prohibition.

These, I would concede, are irrefutable arguments but they are also arguments for a debating club, not the real world, which is more nuanced than the barrack room lawyers of the radio phone-ins would have us believe.

What Liverpool did on Monday night was hardly the juvenile conduct for which the rules were designed, it was the last and logical step in what has been a sincere, responsible effort by the club to raise the profile of a subject which has generated significant public interest. By all means the FA should seek an explanation but, if it is seeking to enhance its reputation for maturity and common sense, when that explanation is delivered it should pronounce itself satisfied and declare the case closed.

Originally Posted by Teville

The one good thing about all this is the scousers are boycotting Bulgaria. Another great reason to live here

Seriously - they should get some points deducted for that.

I think we should have a Bulgarian flag for the next time we play the skaus @#%&!s, ''it's for Berbie of course''

One of my mates wrote a complaint to the FA

“Good of the FA to once again take a consistent stance and decline to punish Liverpool FC for their support of the convicted attempted murderer, Michael Shields.

I have no idea at all whether Shields is innocent or not and that is the point; neither do the 40,000 odd fans who were at Anfield on Monday night. Surely a court of law is the correct place for this matter to be discussed?

The "show of support" on Monday night was disgusting. What the Liverpool fans are basically saying is that although one of their fans did hit the Bulgarian waiter over the head, they believe that the wrong one was arrested! That's okay then.

At the end of the day, Shields has been convicted by a democratic country after, I believe, a fair trial. Surely LFC have no business putting pressure on a foreign jurisdictions to release a lawfully convicted criminal.

What's the difference between David Norris and LFC? Norris was rightfully punished imo. Why not LFC??

Regards,

What a @#%&!.

He mistakes the scousers need for complaint and grief for some sort of solidarity.

The same "great" people who took an age to out some little @#%&! who shot a little boy

Originally Posted by Part 36 Offer

One of my mates wrote a complaint to the FA

“Good of the FA to once again take a consistent stance and decline to punish Liverpool FC for their support of the convicted attempted murderer, Michael Shields.

I have no idea at all whether Shields is innocent or not and that is the point; neither do the 40,000 odd fans who were at Anfield on Monday night. Surely a court of law is the correct place for this matter to be discussed?

The "show of support" on Monday night was disgusting. What the Liverpool fans are basically saying is that although one of their fans did hit the Bulgarian waiter over the head, they believe that the wrong one was arrested! That's okay then.

At the end of the day, Shields has been convicted by a democratic country after, I believe, a fair trial. Surely LFC have no business putting pressure on a foreign jurisdictions to release a lawfully convicted criminal.

What's the difference between David Norris and LFC? Norris was rightfully punished imo. Why not LFC??

Regards,

That's a very good point. If a United as much as sneezed on a woman they'd be up for as strict as punishment and as big an outcry as possible, yet these £#%&!ing wretches get away with this shit!? Things like this are making me disillusioned with football lately. It's just £#%&!ing tiresome.