https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...pearing-to-link-hillsborough-with-hooliganism You can't say that about the Massives stadium
I don't think he's said anything wrong. All he did was put what he said in the same sentence. It's clear to me what he has said has been twisted due to people baying for blood. If it was someone less high profile than Martin Tyler who couldn't be "disgraced" nothing would be being said. Everything these days turns into a witch hunt and it's far worse than what actually said or "not said" in this case. He's apologised and shouldn't lose his job over it or be pressured to stand down.
No great loss if he goes, when he does actually focus on what’s happening on the pitch instead of throwing boring and meaningless stats and stories around, it’s poor. Should’ve been put out to pasture a long while ago.
It does imply that Hillsborough was a hooligan event. I think an apology is warranted, but that should be the end of it.
He did make a mistake, clearly linking it to "other hooligan related issues", but if he's apologised that should be the end of it. No need for a witch hunt.
I don't think it helped the reporter not asking him to clarify his point at the time. He's since clarified what he meant in his apology. I just think it was a slip rather than anything grievous.
Read in print that statement can equally be perfectly well interpreted as meaning that Hillsborough was a hooligan related event or as a disaster that happened at the same time as other events of a different nature that were hooligan related. You'd have to here his intonation to figure out which he meant.
No hooligans no fences no fences no crush ( probably) . It’s a very simplistic view, but then Tyler always seemed like a simpleton.
I am getting more annoyed by the minute at folk jumping down someone's throat ,looking for problems in the context of the sentence. They were two separate incidents in the same sentence. You should not have to apologise to anyone . But maybe on reflection think F#@k this I'm finished .
He said "Hillsborough and other hooligan related issues" Would you be happy if someone referred to "Stephen Dawson and other sex offenders?" In both cases it implies the former is an example of the latter, when it isn't.
As I said earlier MR that sentence can just as correctly be interpreted as separating Hillsborough as a non hooligan situation from others which were. It totally depends on the way you choose to interpret it. The on ly clue would be to hear the way he spoke the sentence and listen for the stress and intonation and even then that wouldn't be foolproof. If he says he didn't mean it to suggest Hillsborough was down to hooliganism then that's as far as he should have to go. Absolutely no apology is required unless of course someone can prove he was lying in his explanation.
What a world we live in. People pulling apart one sentence that in all likelihood was just someone stumbling over their words a little.
Doesn't really does it ST? It could still be taken in either context. This, for me, is a simple case of accept his explanation and move on.
