No the first bit, a point I tried and failed to make the other day

Therefore i claim inspriation for the article, an acknowledgement would be nice Mick!

Second bit I do, he's missed the point badly. I had no problem with his 'factual' account of what went on really, was a bit toadying but i expect that.
What people didn't like is the pictures he painted of the crowd outside.
Now the guy is a succesful writer who MUST know the power of his words, and the imagery they contain.
So to use stuff like "angry" "baying" etc when discribing the city fans had to have been deliberate, and he must have know the mental picture these words would form for the readers.
Pictures that give a wholly over the top impression of what went on that night.
That's what i didnt like, painting those city fans to be thugs, which is simply untrue.
it is THAT he should have been adressing in the piece, and something i know want him to apologise for more than before.

Posted By: megson, Jan 22, 09:55:30