Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
This report was done by Human Rights Watch and Conn, rightly or wrongly, reported it. They specifically mentioned City, he didn't add it. I wonder if they've mentioned Chelsea or Arsenal in relation to human rights abuses in Russia & Uzbekistan. Yet they've done it to us twice now.mancunial said:At last this is about city not human rights, conn did not even have to mention the clubs name,moomba said:I'm struggling to work out why we are involved in this. If Conn wants to write about human rights abuses then so be it. But making it about us just stinks of sensationalism to me.
I wonder how much publicity they'd get if they hadn't mentioned us? Six lines in The Guardian at best. Yet they're talking about it as a news item on Talksport, not a station that has a distinguished record on highlighting human rights abuses. So they've been shamelessly hypocritical in using our name to promote themselves by issuing a press release accusing our owners of using us to promote themselves.
Someone mentioned Colin Shindler. Well I actually respect Shindler as his view is that he hates City being used as a marketing vehicle for Thailand or Abu Dhabi. He's drawn his line and he's stuck to it. You may well not agree with that but he's entirely consistent. I just wish David Conn would make his mind up. The modern Manchester City is a world which brings his liberal, libertarian views into conflict with the genuine support of the club that goes back to his boyhood. So either come out and say "I'm a hypocrite" and accept it or do what Shindler has done and draw a line in the sand and stand on what he sees as the right side.