Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The Guardian's motto is "Comment is free, but facts are sacred". Should amend that to "Comments aren't allowed and the facts are whatever we say they are, whether they're true or not".
Media thread 2022/23
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
Not really media, but I was reminded of a pic of the world I saw about 10 years ago, with a breakdown of which foreign team was the most ‘supported’ in each country. If my memory serves me correctly it was almost entirely Real Madrid, Barcelona, Trafford, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Idly Googling I came across this from June, so it might have already been discussed:
Every Country’s Favourite Foreign Football Team
As so many of us watch live football from around the world, discover which foreign teams are the world’s most searched on this global football map from Uswitch.www.uswitch.com
How times have changed in only 10 or so years. Not sure why it’s been done by uSwitch!
NB clearly this is just on a metric that is not entirely gospel
Most searched 2022
Real Madrid• Liverpool FC
• Manchester United
• Manchester City
• Arsenal FC
• FC Barcelona
• Juventus
• Chelsea FC
• FC Porto
• Bayern München
• Rangers FC
• AC Milan
SL Benfica• No data
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
But I wonder how many of the City searches were by angry fans of LFC and MUFC seeking out negative stories about City?Most searched 2022
Real Madrid
• Liverpool FC
• Manchester United
• Manchester City
• Arsenal FC
• FC Barcelona
• Juventus
• Chelsea FC
• FC Porto
• Bayern München
• Rangers FC
• AC Milan
• No data
solley attwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,308
When England won the world cup in 66 you could be jailed for being homosexual. Never mind Britain's human rights record in kenya a few years earlier
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,293
Of course they are, they don't want a debate because the argument, such as it is, would fold in an instant.
A sovereign state is a political entity represented by one central government that has supreme legitimate authority over its territory.
This is an accepted fact.
Put bluntly it matters not one jot what you or I or the Guardian thinks about the conduct of another sovereign state, as long as that state does not seek to influence affairs in another country, how it conducts its affairs within its own territory is its own business.
So as long as the Sheikh obeys the rules and norms of the UK in his investments in this country, and he does, then how affairs are conducted in his own country are of no legitimate concern of ours. Hence the invention of "sportswashing" by the liberal left, a sinister version of soft power, that asserts that how City conducts itself in the UK is immaterial (though still questionable) because the club is simply a front, the Sheikh bought City as a means for his nefarious ends.
What ends might they be?
Despite the fact our owners obey the rules and norms of this country, our detractors maintain we do not. They have been rebuffed in the courts, if not in the court of public opinion, but this is a minor setback for them, because regardless of how the club conducts its affairs, it makes no tangible difference to the liberal left case against City, because everything the club does is just cover for the Sheikh's real intent.
Which is?
To buy a slice of soft power (sports entertainment) in order to promote itself (the UAE and all it stands for) and in so doing undermine the western liberal world order. To use ownership of a football club and the pursuit of sporting excellence and all the marketing opportunities that affords, as a means of legitimising a profoundly conservative state and by extension its values.
How does that work?
The argument is that City is a "state owned" club and as such is a threat to western norms.
Why?
Because the club is nothing more than a political vehicle used by one sovereign state to influence others.
How so?
Because the Sheikh, acting on behalf of the government of the UAE, of which he is a part, set out to purchase a club playing the worlds most popular sport, in the world's most popular league, as part of a deliberate propaganda campaign to influence public opinion here in the UK and more importantly the wider world.
How does the Sheikh buying City do this?
He does this by using the club as a vehicle to promote his nation and its values. In so doing he is attempting to legitimise, to normalise, to render acceptable what he and his chums believe and how they run their country.
Put simply, by coupling the UAE with sporting excellence, the Sheikh's political aim is legitimisation by association.
The Guardian believes that this legitimisation by association propaganda campaign must not be allowed to succeed. and must be vigorously exposed at every opportunity, that's why they write the same City article, regardless of the context, over and over again.
Their argument is simple, the Sheikh's ownership of City seeks to undermine the liberal world order by making the unacceptable acceptable.
Last edited:
Spurs quarter 69
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 1,743
- Team supported
- City and Fleetwood Town
We showed little tolerance to gay people before and after the fa cup fifth round in 1988, shameful.
JULES
Well-Known Member
I can tell you all that down here city shirts outnumber dippers by a good 50 -1, see plenty of rags and chelsea, and down here they tend to know a bit about football.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
In June 2019, it was revealed that only two men had sought pardons for historic gay sex offences in Northern Ireland and that they both failed to have their convictions overturned. Across the UK, over half of those who applied for a pardon did not have their convictions overturned.
Ithryn Luin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 661
- Team supported
- City & Bolton
Nail on head, any comment that disagrees with the narrative is removed! Any criticism of the author of a piece risks you being placed on pre moderated posts or even banned!
- Status