Yer know,
This is going to be one of these posts that mightn't go down well. But I'll get my excuses in early for those who find my posts a bit erratic - Ghost Town .
In March I was diagnosed as ASD with PTSD. I'm currently having EMDR and although I don't think Hillsborough has traumatised me - it's something we're going to explore - so we'll see.
Now my excuses are out the way (it's great having ASD I can say what I want ).
The Ev singing "Always the Victims" does my head in far more than either of the Manc teams singing "Sun is right". When Mancs sing Sun is right, they know exactly what they're doing. They know it's wrong, they look to upset us - and that's exactly why they do it.
But The Ev, and I've tried explaining this to my Ev mates- and they just don't get it. They don't realise that Always The Victims came about from the Bafoon's unproked attack on the City of Liverpool. The article (and it doesn't mater who wrote it) is something he's completely responsible for. And then there was the half arsd, forced, apology that the Ev seem completely unaware of.
It's so weird. Mancs are being Mancs. Everton make no sense.
You're right, of course, the Manc's know exactly what they're doing, what reaction they want, and why. It's a strategy, often cool-headed.
Some Ev, on the other hand, are like clueless wannabes who want to be seen as hard and cool and dangerous by acting that way and don't realise that they're often reprising calumny that was originally aimed at them themselves as well as us.
It often seems like they have no strategy, they just want to take out their anger, caused by their own feelings of inadequacy and shiteness, upon us. They seem astounded if it causes a reaction, as if they are 100% morally in the right to say and act like they do and how can anyone disagree? Unlike the Mancs who
want a reaction.
Regarding the point on banning, an interesting discussion above, and while I can understand all points of view expressed, generally I'm not in favour of blanket 'bans for life'.
I think each case should be assessed upon it's own merits and demerits. Generally I feel people are capable of change and there should always be the option of a way back where it's merited. Some people, of course, are time served c*nts and there's no hope for them. Others are often just easily led or perhaps not even truly cognizant of what they are doing.
I don't really think age comes into it as I don't buy into what is sometimes called the Myth of Maturity - the idea that merely existing for a certain number of years confers any particular qualities upon a person. Maturity (in the positive sense) comes via life experiences rather than time passing. But that's a whole different (but interesting) subject in itself.
As I said, I do understand and have some sympathy for all the views expressed above. Perhaps I sound a bit woolley but I have seen genuine change and contrition in people of all ages, especially after their actions catch up with them and they pay a price and have a geneuine chance for self-reflection. So I feel a door should always be left, even if it's a locked door that requires a high level of proof of change before it is unlocked.