Guardian On Sir Jack

[Parkins left foot]

Moronic drivel from a second (or even much lower than that) journalist (though sure that's not the right word).

The article Lycan posted isn't much better. Not worth giving the time of day to, though the question is can you slander someone once they are gone?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It takes a lot to make me blush and there is a character limit. Use every letter wisely.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

No, you can't.

 

[jd1981]

What's this $#@!'s Twitter username? Time for a barrage that would make Paddy blush. Utter $#@!ing $#@!sack.

Just type in Barry Glendening in the search box and it'll come up his avatar is a cartoon picture.

 

[Lycan]

The article by Sathnam Sanghera made me angrier than this simpering prick Glendenning.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It was also ten years old, so bringing it up within a week of his death was truly classy.

 

[arklowolf]

What's this $#@!'s Twitter username? Time for a barrage that would make Paddy blush. Utter $#@!ing $#@!sack.

@bglendenning

Usual anti-British crap. Low life.

 

[Kenny]

It was also ten years old, so bringing it up within a week of his death was truly classy.

Like I said, Dave Whelanlite.

The Hitler comment is unbelievable though. Time for Tim Nash to grow a pair and challenge this fuckwit and do some proper journalism.

 

[Tony Towner]

None of this is new though. His opinions were well known, as was most of the stuff stated in the article. I remember in the early 90's he openly came out and said he didn't want us to sign foreign players (although we did). One mans endearing idiosyncrasies are another mans racist. Someone was banned on here not long ago for doing a similar play on words on a players name as the one Sir Jack is alleged to have done in that article.

I think their satire is uncalled for less that a week after his death, especially the Hitler comment, but let's not pretend that at best he had his foibles.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

fuck foibles. they equated him with adolf fucking hitler.

 

[jd1981]

I can understand some people from outside looking in not having the respect for Sir Jack like we do, but the two things wrong with this are comparing him to Hitler and slating him before he has had his funeral and his family still grieving.
He probably thinks no one will care because it's little wolves from the championship.

 

[playtheace]

Barry Glendenning ‏@bglendenning 51 secs52 seconds ago @Johnnyshuffle ... happily apologise on Thurs. But (i think) u are being very selective in your efforts to take offence where none intended

 

[Lycan]

If you don't intend to offend a recently deceased man don't compare him to Adolf Hitler.

 

[jd1981]

Wolverhampton should boycott the Guardian.

And talksport

 

[1987wolf]

Ive got very little else to do tonight so having listened and read on this issue i thought id just ot down a few thoughts.

Firstly i believe that the timing of such a comment is extremely poor, and i understand that the Guardian will say that they were only responding to listener questions, but you do not have to take every listeners opinion seriously, especially less than 7 days after the man has died, they could have ignored the queestion and just not mentioned it. For example if i had emailled to say i thought that the satarists at Charlie Hedbo were racists (i dont but you can make a case for it, albeit a flimsy one) would they have aired that view? I doubt it.

Secondly, even if Sir Jack confessed to being xenophobic (which im not entirely sure he did in that article, he says "I have a disease" implying its been "diagnosed" to him by someone else) there is a whole world of difference between xenophobia, patriotism and racism. It is also worth pointing out that a classic sign of unintelligence and misinformed reasoning is refering any arguement to Hitler or what Hitler would have done, for example Hitler controlled the states media and could say whatever he wanted without fear of reprisal

It is worth remembering that Sir Jack was born in the 1920s, and as both a historian and a vehement left wing supporter (politically, not football wise) you have to contextualise some of the mans beliefs by looking at the era he was from. Obviously with Sir Jack he grew up in the era of the Empire, and fought in the second world war so this would have massively shaped his views of the world in my opinion, and also before we start throwing out "R" bombs perhaps we should look at the views on race of the man voted the greatest Briton, Sir Winston Churchill, especially around the Boer War, an again i doubt podcasts would have villified him in the same way.....

Finally from what i have heard, seen and read of people that knew Sir Jack it is clear that he doesnt have a bad bone in his body, and even if he did believe in putting money back into his home economy, in my opinion that does not make you a racist, and if one person no one has ever heard of wants to be famous by casting slurs upon the dead, thats his business, but its himself hes showing up. We all have our own memories of Sir Jack and one loudmouth with a microphone is never going to erase or change those.

(Anyone who read that and put up with my lack of full stops and poor structure you deserve a medal)

 

[thehistorymakers]

Well said 1987wolf.

 

[playtheace]

For me its the whole tone of that piece that irks.
It comes across as smug,right down to the guffawing when James Richardson says how he had previously described him as "one of the good guys"
The "if you havent got anything good to say" line is confusing when he previously did have something good to say.
For me it was a pointless part of the podcast,so ill thought out that he doesnt even really add substance to his claims he just repeats them.
Should have been edited out especially when it would have given them more time to talk about Arsenal,Chelsea,Man city etc etc.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Glendenning is a dick, anyone who reads the Guardian website would know that he's someone who wrote something vaguely funny 10 years ago and has tried (and failed) on that angle ever since. Best ignored, I never read his stuff.

The comments on this thread do not paint this site in a favourable light.

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

Ive got very little else to do tonight so having listened and read on this issue i thought id just ot down a few thoughts.

Firstly i believe that the timing of such a comment is extremely poor, and i understand that the Guardian will say that they were only responding to listener questions, but you do not have to take every listeners opinion seriously, especially less than 7 days after the man has died, they could have ignored the queestion and just not mentioned it. For example if i had emailled to say i thought that the satarists at Charlie Hedbo were racists (i dont but you can make a case for it, albeit a flimsy one) would they have aired that view? I doubt it.

Secondly, even if Sir Jack confessed to being xenophobic (which im not entirely sure he did in that article, he says "I have a disease" implying its been "diagnosed" to him by someone else) there is a whole world of difference between xenophobia, patriotism and racism. It is also worth pointing out that a classic sign of unintelligence and misinformed reasoning is refering any arguement to Hitler or what Hitler would have done, for example Hitler controlled the states media and could say whatever he wanted without fear of reprisal

It is worth remembering that Sir Jack was born in the 1920s, and as both a historian and a vehement left wing supporter (politically, not football wise) you have to contextualise some of the mans beliefs by looking at the era he was from. Obviously with Sir Jack he grew up in the era of the Empire, and fought in the second world war so this would have massively shaped his views of the world in my opinion, and also before we start throwing out "R" bombs perhaps we should look at the views on race of the man voted the greatest Briton, Sir Winston Churchill, especially around the Boer War, an again i doubt podcasts would have villified him in the same way.....

Finally from what i have heard, seen and read of people that knew Sir Jack it is clear that he doesnt have a bad bone in his body, and even if he did believe in putting money back into his home economy, in my opinion that does not make you a racist, and if one person no one has ever heard of wants to be famous by casting slurs upon the dead, thats his business, but its himself hes showing up. We all have our own memories of Sir Jack and one loudmouth with a microphone is never going to erase or change those.

(Anyone who read that and put up with my lack of full stops and poor structure you deserve a medal)

Well put mate

 

[Del Woppio]

He's a cock. Occasionally funny, often just a try hard. Some of the comments I've read about revenge are appalling. Have we learned nothing over the last few weeks regarding freedom of speech? He's given an opinion, made exaggerated comparisons for humorous effect. It's in poor taste, but much of comedy is.

Tbh, a few people need to get over themselves. Disagree with him, debate with him, fair enough. But to abuse and threaten somebody because of their views or timing is a shitty thing to do for me. He has a right to be offensive. You have a right to be offended. You have a right to reply, to educate, to debate - not to threaten and abuse.