Exposing the hypocrisy of journalists

Funny how none of the press linked us with this human rights shite when Mark hughesless was making a dog's dinner of things or when mancini got the chop, these ****s was too busy having a laugh at our expense and saying you can't just throw money at it.
Fast forward a few years, lots of trophies in the bag, great manager and great set up behind the scenes, fantastic squad assembled and these same journalists have not got a story on us anymore.
Wankers the lot of them, you only have to see how they all backtracked and started blowing smoke up raheems arse after he called them out.
I'm so glad I'm not on social media and so glad I never read or buy a paper.
 
Metalartin said:
I don't normally visit Ragcafe but this came up in my search results, it's a response to the trollerball article from a supposed City fan. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but this has to be a parody account. Otherwise I find their level of sycophancy utterly cringe worthy for most of that post.
Click to expand...
There is a bluemoon guy with that twitter name if it is him, he generally sticks up for City on Utd forums but that post wtf.
 
It's the sheer hypocrisy that gets me. You might think that outside the UAE the entire world was a sort of Camelot, where everyone was treated with justice and respect. It's more the case that you struggle to think of a country that is "clean". Norway or Denmark, maybe, but I bet they've got some marks against them. The UK has more marks against it than my old Maths school book, and the USA and Russia are a whole lot worse again.

Nowadays, to own a Premier League club you need to be a billionaire, and you don't get to be a billionaire by working down the salvation army hostel. You have to shit on people from a great height, and, more often or not, break the law and fiddle taxes. Unless you've inherited it from your Dad and then put it all straight in the Post Office.

As for the people who run countries - fuck me, they're the biggest selection of cnuts known to man. Again, you don't generally get to run a country by being a nice guy.

So to pick on the UAE specifically, or Sheikh Mansour in particular, is hypocrisy, with (probably) a nice side helping of racism.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
There is a bluemoon guy with that twitter name if it is him, he generally sticks up for City on Utd forums but that post wtf.
Click to expand...

With such an odd username it seems a bit of a stretch that it could be 2 different people. I suppose it's possible though. Anyway, check the first post on the linky here from a thread dated over 7 years ago.....https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/an-unusual-fellow.263382/page-2#post-5830698

Interestingly, MCFCBOB hasn't posted on BM since August 15th 2013. Robinamicrowave joined Red Cafe just 17 days earlier. Hmmmm....
 
BrianW said:
It's the sheer hypocrisy that gets me. You might think that outside the UAE the entire world was a sort of Camelot, where everyone was treated with justice and respect. It's more the case that you struggle to think of a country that is "clean". Norway or Denmark, maybe, but I bet they've got some marks against them. The UK has more marks against it than my old Maths school book, and the USA and Russia are a whole lot worse again.

Nowadays, to own a Premier League club you need to be a billionaire, and you don't get to be a billionaire by working down the salvation army hostel. You have to shit on people from a great height, and, more often or not, break the law and fiddle taxes. Unless you've inherited it from your Dad and then put it all straight in the Post Office.

As for the people who run countries - fuck me, they're the biggest selection of cnuts known to man. Again, you don't generally get to run a country by being a nice guy.

So to pick on the UAE specifically, or Sheikh Mansour in particular, is hypocrisy, with (probably) a nice side helping of racism.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not claiming for one minute that our owner is squeaky clean but this is clearly a targeted campaign by the biggest bunch of ****s in the journalistic world ever assembled, along with that laughable excuse of a human rights activist McGeehan. It's hilarious seeing some opposition fans lap it up. These are the same twats - fans and gutter journos alike - who claim UEFA are corrupt to the core but when it comes to FFP and City, they're desperate for UEFA to punish us. So much so, that if it was Donald Fucking Trump conducting the investigation, they'd take his word as gospel. Bunch of bitter, clueless, jealous whoppers who wouldn't have the balls to say half the shit in person that they spout from behind their keyboards.
 
BrianW said:
It's the sheer hypocrisy that gets me. You might think that outside the UAE the entire world was a sort of Camelot, where everyone was treated with justice and respect. It's more the case that you struggle to think of a country that is "clean". Norway or Denmark, maybe, but I bet they've got some marks against them. The UK has more marks against it than my old Maths school book, and the USA and Russia are a whole lot worse again.

Nowadays, to own a Premier League club you need to be a billionaire, and you don't get to be a billionaire by working down the salvation army hostel. You have to shit on people from a great height, and, more often or not, break the law and fiddle taxes. Unless you've inherited it from your Dad and then put it all straight in the Post Office.

As for the people who run countries - fuck me, they're the biggest selection of cnuts known to man. Again, you don't generally get to run a country by being a nice guy.

So to pick on the UAE specifically, or Sheikh Mansour in particular, is hypocrisy, with (probably) a nice side helping of racism.
Click to expand...

Yep.

This is the potted definition of moral relativism...

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. ... Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.

Problem with that is that all sorts of horrors can be justified by using the moral relativism argument, and the real shitheads and crappy countries can bat away any criticism by hiding behind the cultural imperialism argument...

The imposition of a foreign viewpoint or civilization on a people.

To cut through the babble, a number of organisations, most notably the UN, have worked to create and promote universal rights, first and foremost human rights...

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Problem with that is there are very few countries, if any, that tick all the boxes. Nevertheless, as a goal for humanity to strive towards it cannot be seriously questioned.

Problem with all this is that accusations of human rights violations in the hands of politicians and vested interest, tend to be very selective, so regimes the "West" don't like get human rights accusations thrown at them all the time, whereas regimes that are "Pro Western" get a bye.

Then there are those in the media, other club owners, opposition supporters and footy governing bodies, with a clear and obvious agenda against City, who choose to highlight our owners "alleged" human rights abuses, not out of moral outrage, but as a stick to beat the club with.

And then there are those that genuinely seek to promote human rights, who highlight City and Sheikh Mansour, not because of the severity of human rights abuses in the UAE, but simply because our high profile with the man in the street, means they can reach an audience not normally vexed by such issues.

Given all this noise, it is important to use accusations of human rights violations judiciously, without agenda and for maximum effect, otherwise the accusations are lost in a sea of hypocrisy and liberal outrage babble.

Which brings us back to the UAE.

By any objective analysis, free of any ulterior motive, is the UAE so heinous, so uniquely horrible, so flagrant in its human rights abuses, that the criticism it is presently receiving is justified in a rational and dispassionate way?

The answer is emphatically no.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong. I think the concept of human rights is a noble aspiration, and that we should all be working towards a world where every human (and indeed every animal) is treated decently. Unfortunately we are a million miles away from that desirable target and (IMHO) we are moving further away from it with every passing day. If this country, the UK, was a world leader in the issue, instead of a deeply cynical Power that sells terrible weapons to its "friends" (some of whom are decidedly dodgy) and doesn't give a shit about what they use them for, then we, as a nation, might be entitled to preach on the subject. If the UAE was in any way uniquely wicked, then again, there might be a case to be made for singling them out.

What is unusual about the criticism is that the UAE is a "friendly" nation. That is, the UK is its ally and has very close links. Generally, when it comes to "human rights" the media focus on countries that are considered hostile (like North Korea) but give something very close to a pass to our allies. I can't help but think that City are part of the problem - we will never know how different the media treatment would have been had Mansour bought United or Liverpool, or Arsenal. However, I think we can all have a good guess.
 
McGeehan proving himself to be an even bigger c*nt than we previously thought. More than a hint of racism in his attack on a female City fan who he previously accused of being male. Clearly rattled by someone who has run rings round him a fair few times of late:
 
M18CTID said:
McGeehan proving himself to be an even bigger c*nt than we previously thought. More than a hint of racism in his attack on a female City fan who he previously accused of being male. Clearly rattled by someone who has run rings round him a fair few times of late:
Click to expand...


And British-expat in Brussels a few months before that. It's a weird attack to have made.
 
M18CTID said:
McGeehan proving himself to be an even bigger c*nt than we previously thought. More than a hint of racism in his attack on a female City fan who he previously accused of being male. Clearly rattled by someone who has run rings round him a fair few times of late:
Click to expand...

Thought this **** was supposed to be a human rights advocate?
 
The perfect fumble said:
Yep.

This is the potted definition of moral relativism...

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. ... Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.

Problem with that is that all sorts of shit can be justified by using the moral relativism argument, and the real shit heads and crappy countries can bat away any criticism by hiding behind the cultural imperialism argument...

The imposition of a foreign viewpoint or civilization on a people.

To cut through the babble, a number of organisations, most notably the UN, have worked to create a number of universal rights, one of which is human rights...

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Problem with that is that is there are very few countries, if any, that tick all the boxes. Nevertheless, as a goal for humanity to strive towards it cannot be seriously questioned.

Problem with all this is that accusations of human rights violations in the hands of politicians and vested interest, tend to be very selective, so regimes the "West" don't like get human rights accusations thrown at them all the time, whereas regimes that are "Pro Western" get a bye.

Then there are those in the media, other club owners, opposition supporters and footy governing bodies, with a clear and obvious agenda against City, who choose to highlight our owners "alleged" human rights abuses, not out of moral outrage, but as a stick to beat the club with.

And then there are those that genuinely seek to promote human rights, who highlight City and Sheikh Mansour, not because of the severity of human rights abuses in the UAE, but simply because our high profile with the man in the street, means they can reach an audience not normally vexed by such issues.

Given all this noise, it is important to use accusations of human rights violations judiciously, without agenda, and for maximum effect, otherwise the accusations are lost in a sea of hypocrisy and liberal outrage babble.

Which brings us back to the UAE.

By any objective analysis, free of any ulterior motive, is the UAE so heinous, so uniquely horrible, so flagrant in its human rights abuses that the criticism it is presently receiving is justified in a rational and dispassionate way?

The answer is emphatically no.
Click to expand...
Wow, great post. It is worth noting that AD has made many strides forward in recent years. See employment legislation 2016 and 2017. Even Human Rights Watch called this legislation 'a step forward'. Given the history, there is bound to be tension between the religious establishment and progressive elements in the government, so treading softly is necessary.
City was the first English club to receive Stonewall's accolade of 'Gay friendly Employer' and we all know about Canal St. Blues. Sheik Mansour must have approved these policies. Onward !
 


Rabin has gone after Der Spiegel

giphy.gif
 
The perfect fumble said:
Yep.

This is the potted definition of moral relativism...

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. ... Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.

Problem with that is that all sorts of horrors can be justified by using the moral relativism argument, and the real shitheads and crappy countries can bat away any criticism by hiding behind the cultural imperialism argument...

The imposition of a foreign viewpoint or civilization on a people.

To cut through the babble, a number of organisations, most notably the UN, have worked to create and promote universal rights, first and foremost human rights...

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Problem with that is there are very few countries, if any, that tick all the boxes. Nevertheless, as a goal for humanity to strive towards it cannot be seriously questioned.

Problem with all this is that accusations of human rights violations in the hands of politicians and vested interest, tend to be very selective, so regimes the "West" don't like get human rights accusations thrown at them all the time, whereas regimes that are "Pro Western" get a bye.

Then there are those in the media, other club owners, opposition supporters and footy governing bodies, with a clear and obvious agenda against City, who choose to highlight our owners "alleged" human rights abuses, not out of moral outrage, but as a stick to beat the club with.

And then there are those that genuinely seek to promote human rights, who highlight City and Sheikh Mansour, not because of the severity of human rights abuses in the UAE, but simply because our high profile with the man in the street, means they can reach an audience not normally vexed by such issues.

Given all this noise, it is important to use accusations of human rights violations judiciously, without agenda and for maximum effect, otherwise the accusations are lost in a sea of hypocrisy and liberal outrage babble.

Which brings us back to the UAE.

By any objective analysis, free of any ulterior motive, is the UAE so heinous, so uniquely horrible, so flagrant in its human rights abuses, that the criticism it is presently receiving is justified in a rational and dispassionate way?

The answer is emphatically no.
Click to expand...

The Observer publishes an annual Human Rights Index and lists the 100 worst offenders. UAE is at 86 this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/Tables/4_col_tables/0,,258330,00.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top