Quote: tugglesf78 "Using what happened at Bradford to some how make a point about your little group is loving disgusting.
Edit - just seen that Andy has already mentioned it.'"
And my point proven entirely. You see, the magic word here is CONTEXT. When you take the Bradford Fire out of the context in which it was used, then yes, its use to defend a group would be rather unsavoury.
HOWEVER, when IN CONTEXT the point that is being proven is not anything to do with the Brigantes, Ultras, but is rather about how images and words are percieved then it is perfectly acceptable.
You take the first image of the bradford fire out of context and show it to someone who hadn't seen it before (and in my case, up until 3 years ago i hadn't ever seen actual images of the fire) and say only "This is a football match", their first impressions are "football hooligans doing what hooligans do", but when you see what the outcome of that image is, then it's very easy to see that your initial impression was incorrect.
That is no different to what is occuring with the name Brigantes and Ultras, taken out of context from Rugby League then you may be right to gather the first impression that the Ultras group is a group of hooligans who are out to cause trouble, but when you slide the Ultras name in to the Rugby League sport, and see that it's a new concept and a concept that The Brigantes are trying to develop and protect, then it goes a very long way to prove that much of the critisms purely because of a preconceived impression of a word are unjustified and playing purely on stereotype.
