Media thread 2022/23

[hammocity]

I’m beginning to think I may have imagined this now but I thought I remembered some legislation passed a number of years ago that required exactly this?

I’m getting a vague flashback of The Sun running a front page story on Bob Crow driving some big fancy car and then later retracting it on the front page admitting that not only doesn’t he drive the car in question but he doesn’t actually drive any car whatsoever.

Probably losing it and imagining the whole thing though.

I also think I remember that as well.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I’m beginning to think I may have imagined this now but I thought I remembered some legislation passed a number of years ago that required exactly this?

I’m getting a vague flashback of The Sun running a front page story on Bob Crow driving some big fancy car and then later retracting it on the front page admitting that not only doesn’t he drive the car in question but he doesn’t actually drive any car whatsoever.

Probably losing it and imagining the whole thing though.

You and me both then as I remember this at least being discussed many years ago.

 

[dickie davies]

Received this reply from the City Press Officer.

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email.


We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.

Best,

MCFC Press Office

so they can say what they want live on air, but so long as it's removed from any Youtube channels or written media afterwards then all is OK

As for the written reminder, has City seen a copy?
And what about the fact that not only did the presenter not challenge the claim, she endorsed it!

 

[Spurs quarter 69]

As a fucking bully and bigger liar than most of the media, he had a vested interest in keeping them quiet.

Wish I could find that clip of him walking back to the coach at Sunderland in 2012. The Mackems are serenading him and his players with Blue moon. He is spitting blood but he can't do anything but suck it up. Don't think he could ever come to terms with how much the rags where hated. It was usually disguised by an arse licking press but their where occasions and this was one when he was brought face to face with how much footy fans wanted him and his team to fall on their arses

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’m beginning to think I may have imagined this now but I thought I remembered some legislation passed a number of years ago that required exactly this?

I’m getting a vague flashback of The Sun running a front page story on Bob Crow driving some big fancy car and then later retracting it on the front page admitting that not only doesn’t he drive the car in question but he doesn’t actually drive any car whatsoever.

Probably losing it and imagining the whole thing though.

There may be some guidance but I’m pretty sure it’s not mandated.

 

[dickie davies]

Are our auditors, BDO, legally responsible for the accounts?
If so, perhaps it's they who should be informed that SKY have broadcast that they are guilty of aiding and abetting fraud

@Prestwich_Blue
@bobbyowenquiff

 

[Newman Noggs]

The replies from City don't cover what getting "in touch with Sky" actually involved, only what Sky's reaction to that contact was.

I suspect our getting "in touch" was bit more than an "excuse me, would you mind awfully..."

 

[BrianW]

I would say that a statement in a public place for all the world to hear that City's professional (and no doubt expensive) auditors are permitting a fiddle on our books is about as defamatory as it gets. It is potentially extremely damaging to that company's professional reputation. If I was their MD I would want to sue the arse off the cnuts as they have no defence.

 

[KS55]

I would say that a statement in a public place for all the world to hear that City's professional (and no doubt expensive) auditors are permitting a fiddle on our books is about as defamatory as it gets. It is potentially extremely damaging to that company's professional reputation. If I was their MD I would want to sue the arse off the cnuts as they have no defence.

CAS were very strong about this, saying an accusation that our accounts were not true implied that there was a widespread conspiracy including our auditors.
They said it was just not credible.

 

[petrusha]

Very difficult to dictate editorial policy, but tend to agree.

Sven once tried to sue me because I described him a "legendary pork swordsman" in a showbiz piece I wrote for the Bizarre column.

Thankfully the lawyer on shift in the office, usually spent sat on their arses and reading the paper for £300-an-hour, batted it back and we settled for £10k to charity.

Worth their weight in gold, those fellas ;)

I'm not a specialist in defamation, mate, but I think your lawyers may have let you down. First, it's true. But second, even if you can't prove it to be true, in order to be libellous, a statement has to harm the reputation of the person involved. How can that possibly damage Sven's reputation? They should have told him to fuck off and they'd see him in court, though it's hard to criticise an outcome that involves money going to charity.