And in wanders John Cross.
The Mirror’s John Cross as he insists upon being known. Don’t laugh, if you had the intellectual gravitas of a polystyrene cup, you’d probably build your part, too.
Today, John has made a video to share his wisdom on the Theo Walnutt fracas. Presumably, the Mirror supremos believe that he’s the perfect vehicle for a fried chicken advert.
Listening to his flat and gormless tones that emanate from a face that looks like it it has survived at least one stroke, makes one think he would be more at home serving fried chicken, opposed to analysing something as complicated as a football match.
John thinks that Theo wasn’t being offensive with his gesturing. So far, so good. Then nobody suggested he was. He is accused of inciting disorder, not offending anyone.
Cross views Theo grinning like a dolt, in front of Spurs fans, and making a 2-0 sign …as banter*.
*A 17th century word that should have stayed there. I’d have it removed from the English language in a heartbeat. Have you ever met anyone who uses it that you don’t want to punch?
The suggestion from Cross (a sentiment supported it must be said, by the FA in their “findings”tooup) is that Walnutt’s actions were irrelevant.
To ignore the fact that the player was the catalyst for the unacceptable conduct, the throwing of coins, is to airbrush events.
Cross earnestly tells us:
He was smiling as he did it, so it wasn’t sort of inflaming the situation… if you can’t do that, there’s something wrong in the game really.
I don’t think it’s right to say it was inflaming the situation… there was only one set of people inflaming the situation and that was the away section of fans sat behind the goal throwing their coins.”
Acknowledging provocation does not safeguard one from the consequences of criminal action. But it does frequently shines a helpful light on motives. It’s something that assists making a reasoned judgement.
Can I get some more salt, and a couple of ketchups please, John?
[divider]
