mammamic
You mentioned me earlier because of my previous post - I have changed my username to avoid causing further offence but you will recognise me.
After your lunchtime post I was tempted to respond but I figured I'd be damned if I do and damned if I don't. However your more recent posts have made me inclined to defend myself - not least from accusations of having negative intentions.
So - in your own words - you are allowed to misread things or get your words misconstrued but when some one else does (and apologises for it as soon as it's pointed out) you are still negative and condescending?
As I stated (perhaps badly) my intentions were never negative and I resent the implication. I am nether naive or goady - I live in Liverpool and I was in the city in 1989. I remember it very, very clearly thank you and have seen the impact on friends, relatives and colleagues.
I do not need a lecture from you or anyone else on what this means to everyone in Merseyside. An hour ago I walked past St George's Hall on my way home - I know the passion and pride that our city has. I have always been 100% supportive of the campaign for justice - I have never bought The Sun either.
Equally I am not ignorant about the power of the press, politicians and the ruling elite to subjugate people to ensure the status quo.
My initial query may have been badly worded - but whilst I accept and support the vitriol against The Sun and Maczenkie I genuinely wonder why is it not extended to Murdoch - who has ultimate responsibility. Why can LFC or EFC fans allow themselves to watch matches on Sky Sports but not buy The Sun?