Hallelujah! It had to happen eventually: the Guardian is enraged! by a show of support for someone they call a 'convicted criminal'.
Just to spell it out to the Guardian, Shields may indeed have been convicted, but a 'criminal'? Didn't the Guardian used to be in favour of actual trials? Still, let's check the scorecard here, guy captured by US troops on Afghan battlefield and sent to Gitmo: obviously innocent. Guy arrested in Fourth World hell hole and sentenced by kangaroo court: guilty!
It's actually an interesting question: is Guardian hack Daniel Taylor truly aware of how desperately he's having to scrabble round to try and make his case, or does this kind of bias just come naturally?
For the record, Norris was fined for supporting somehow who really had committed an offence, which is such a blindingly obvious difference it probably explains why the Guardian can't actually quote a single named person from the 'concerned' FA expressing actual concern. Hell, you know it's gotten bad when the house journal of the elitist left is forced to cite radio phone-ins as proof of public concern.
Just to spell it out to the Guardian, Shields may indeed have been convicted, but a 'criminal'? Didn't the Guardian used to be in favour of actual trials? Still, let's check the scorecard here, guy captured by US troops on Afghan battlefield and sent to Gitmo: obviously innocent. Guy arrested in Fourth World hell hole and sentenced by kangaroo court: guilty!
It's actually an interesting question: is Guardian hack Daniel Taylor truly aware of how desperately he's having to scrabble round to try and make his case, or does this kind of bias just come naturally?
The FA's disciplinary department fined Norris £5,000 and is alarmed that Liverpool should also publicly back someone convicted of a serious crime and, in the process, open themselves to allegations of playing judge and jury.Unlike the Guardian, which never questions the decisions of the courts.
For the record, Norris was fined for supporting somehow who really had committed an offence, which is such a blindingly obvious difference it probably explains why the Guardian can't actually quote a single named person from the 'concerned' FA expressing actual concern. Hell, you know it's gotten bad when the house journal of the elitist left is forced to cite radio phone-ins as proof of public concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment