Update from Vicky Kloss on The Sunday Supplement Attack

[Damocles]

Ahem.

Believe me I do care about getting my facts right.

That's why I am concerned about your earlier e-mail in which you say Sky retracted their story of Mancini being at the match the day Hughesy got the bullet.

I saw the original story before the game and was gobsmacked. I'd never heard anything like it.

I did NOT see the retraction later.

I was not at the City game either, and I was not working on the Hughes out/Mancini in story so never found out the full detail - until now.

But I promise you since that day I have genuinely believed that Mancini was there and I just couldn't believe City or Roberto would stoop so low.

Why else would I speak out so vociferously about it?

This was the major incident that has coloured my opinion about City ever since, wrongly as it seems.

I too have looked into the matter today and fear you may well be right which obviously means I am in the wrong.

That's ok. I was "honestly" wrong if you can understand what I mean. I wasn't dishonestly, deviously and deliberately peddling something I knew to be untrue.

I just believed a bulletin from a widely respected, reputable organisation and missed their subsequent apology.

So thanks for putting me properly in the picture.

I delighted Mancini and City aren't that bad after all. Hurrah!

And I'm very sorry for saying they were.

All the best

Rob

PS: Chelsea top of two leagues tonight!!! C'mon the Blues!

 

[Blue Mist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjQLBuwOZk


Here is the segment!

Cheers Bazza for posting that. Every Blue should watch that clip. I hate $ky and (the Sunday Supplement just used to wind me up) so I sacked my subscription years ago. Mind you look at the quality of the reporters on the programme and who they work for. The Sun, Mirror and Star.
Beasley thinks we are morally bankrupt and Woolnough thinks the club has no structure but the worst offender was that slimey sh*te Fullbrook from the Daily Star. What a nasty piece of work he is.

Well done VK for telling them like it is.

One final thing, morally bankrupt is when you spout lies just to sound controversial in the hope of getting re booked by $ky, Beasley you are a whore.

 

[nijinskybell]

Ahem.

Believe me I do care about getting my facts right.

That's why I am concerned about your earlier e-mail in which you say Sky retracted their story of Mancini being at the match the day Hughesy got the bullet.

I saw the original story before the game and was gobsmacked. I'd never heard anything like it.

I did NOT see the retraction later.

I was not at the City game either, and I was not working on the Hughes out/Mancini in story so never found out the full detail - until now.

But I promise you since that day I have genuinely believed that Mancini was there and I just couldn't believe City or Roberto would stoop so low.

Why else would I speak out so vociferously about it?

This was the major incident that has coloured my opinion about City ever since, wrongly as it seems.

I too have looked into the matter today and fear you may well be right which obviously means I am in the wrong.

That's ok. I was "honestly" wrong if you can understand what I mean. I wasn't dishonestly, deviously and deliberately peddling something I knew to be untrue.

I just believed a bulletin from a widely respected, reputable organisation and missed their subsequent apology.

So thanks for putting me properly in the picture.

I delighted Mancini and City aren't that bad after all. Hurrah!

And I'm very sorry for saying they were.

All the best

Rob

PS: Chelsea top of two leagues tonight!!! C'mon the Blues!

And nobody at Sky, The Sunday Supplement or his journo 'mates' knew any different or ever thought to correct this 'belief'?

Ahem.

Yeah, right!

What's the phrase? Ignorance is no defence? Maybe check your facts before you spout drivel should be his mantra in future.

 

[Duvet Rosler]

The letter from VK said something very revealing:

"From a legal point of view, (and I consulted with our London based media lawyers on Sunday and again on Monday), technically a breach has taken place. Pragmatic legal advice however is that pursuit of this would be risky and potentially counter productive."

I don't see anything in the letter that explicitly confirms it, but it sounds like we've obtained a High Court injunction, which has been breached.

Breach of an injunction is contempt of Court. If the aggrieved party draws it to the Court's attention, it can ask the Court to take action - an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment until the contempt is purged. A bit counterproductive to imprison a journo. Hence no further (heavy handed) action.

At least, not for the moment......
The letter from VK said something very revealing:

"From a legal point of view, (and I consulted with our London based media lawyers on Sunday and again on Monday), technically a breach has taken place. Pragmatic legal advice however is that pursuit of this would be risky and potentially counter productive."

I don't see anything in the letter that explicitly confirms it, but it sounds like we've obtained a High Court injunction, which has been breached.

Breach of an injunction is contempt of Court. If the aggrieved party draws it to the Court's attention, it can ask the Court to take action - an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment until the contempt is purged. A bit counterproductive to imprison a journo. Hence no further (heavy handed) action.

At least, not for the moment......

An injunction for what exactly? They have to be mighty specific.

I would imagine that any breach would instead be in relation to the PCC Code of Conduct and the pragmatism she talks about is due to the fact that the sanctions involved are utterly pointless.

Any legal claims (unless serious) appear facetious and the papers can manipulate these very cleverly.

Still though, good to know they're keeping an eye out.

 

[hgblue]

If ignorance is a defence then he's got the best defence in the country. Well done Vicky, I support your stance on this 100%. There may come a time however when the softly softly approach needs to be followed up with a banning or two to show that we're not willing to be taken for mugs. They'll all be kissing your arse next year anyway when we're Premier League champions, and gunning for the Champions League (I wish).

 

[adrianr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjQLBuwOZk


Here is the segment!

Not keen on my first post here (Hi! :)) being about something as negative as that attack, but the title sums it up perfectly. As a (still young!) fan who's seen our club dive to the second division and come fighting back, to hear someone call it morally bankrupt, from a Chelsea fan no less, is absurd. It stills irks me to listen to other fans new line to every blue be "You only came since the money", when we've had one of the largest consistently loyal fan bases of any club. If you wan't an easy life the very last club you turn out to support is City.

Do they have the same pundits on every week? If so I await next weeks with baited breath. Not in anticipation of an apology, but just for any mention of the Fulham game, no matter how slight, and to see the subsequent wincing on their faces knowing their main point of attack was based on a fallacy.

 

[Pigeonho]

'Attack'!! Love the drrrrrrama!

 

[SWP's back]

Ahem.

Believe me I do care about getting my facts right.

That's why I am concerned about your earlier e-mail in which you say Sky retracted their story of Mancini being at the match the day Hughesy got the bullet.

I saw the original story before the game and was gobsmacked. I'd never heard anything like it.

I did NOT see the retraction later.

I was not at the City game either, and I was not working on the Hughes out/Mancini in story so never found out the full detail - until now.

But I promise you since that day I have genuinely believed that Mancini was there and I just couldn't believe City or Roberto would stoop so low.

Why else would I speak out so vociferously about it?

This was the major incident that has coloured my opinion about City ever since, wrongly as it seems.

I too have looked into the matter today and fear you may well be right which obviously means I am in the wrong.

That's ok. I was "honestly" wrong if you can understand what I mean. I wasn't dishonestly, deviously and deliberately peddling something I knew to be untrue.

I just believed a bulletin from a widely respected, reputable organisation and missed their subsequent apology.

So thanks for putting me properly in the picture.

I delighted Mancini and City aren't that bad after all. Hurrah!

And I'm very sorry for saying they were.

All the best

Rob

PS: Chelsea top of two leagues tonight!!! C'mon the Blues!

Don't belive him for a second that he did not know but the back-peddling suggests that Ms Kloss got her claws into him something chronic.

 

[simon23]

that reply from VK shows real class and I like what she says about confronting the problem but not making the situation worse (until we have some sort of on the field success....by the sound of that when we eventually do then the club will start to show its true force in matters like this!!!)

 

[phil333]

how can you contact vicky via email? Does it have to be through the general city email address?