Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobbyowenquiff said:
The City statement was put out immediately after Gerard's comments (prematurely). The complaint was never progressed by the keeper and there was not enough evidence. So it never was an assault. At worst it was an allegation. As far as I know the BBC have never corrected their original story or made any attempt to check the story.
I don't think the whole BBC is biased. But I know for a fact that some individuals within the BBC Online football operation are biased against City and seem incapable of reporting on the club in a professional way.
Click to expand...

The City statement was put out after everyone saw what happened and the club chose to call it an assault because it was, accidental or otherwise.
 
domalino said:
The City statement was put out after everyone saw what happened and the club chose to call it an assault because it was, accidental or otherwise.
Click to expand...

In my opinion Olsen was not assaulted however the BBC & the club, Gerard & yourself may disagree.

I realise the legal definition is different, but personally I & I Imagine most others consider an assault to be like a violent attack. An example could be twatting a DJ for not playing a song you’ve requested.
 
cheekybids said:
In my opinion Olsen was not assaulted however the BBC & the club, Gerard & yourself may disagree.

I realise the legal definition is different, but personally I & I Imagine most others consider an assault to be like a violent attack. An example could be twatting a DJ for not playing a song you’ve requested.
Click to expand...

That's certainly fair enough, and I can respect the difference of opinion - I probably wouldn't call it an assault myself - but I can accept that it does fit the legal definition and the club used the word itself, which is why I thought it a bit much for someone describing the BBC reporting as "total lies" and an example of BBC bias against City.
 
domalino said:
That's certainly fair enough, and I can respect the difference of opinion - I probably wouldn't call it an assault myself - but I can accept that it does fit the legal definition and the club used the word itself, which is why I thought it a bit much for someone describing the BBC reporting as "total lies" and an example of BBC bias against City.
Click to expand...

I think that’s what people get at when the angle of reporting is always negative.

When the numerous Sterling articles were written, no one denied the facts but the adjectives & writing style presents a deliberately negative view. Same with City.

The BBC is supposed to be the organisation that doesn’t do this & when they do it makes me wonder on every single story whether it be political, financial, scientific, what do they want me to believe or what could it be if I view it objectively.
 
heslops barnet said:
BBC Sports at it again……

Aston Villa keeper Robin Olsen was assaulted at Manchester City on the final day of the Premier League campaign
Click to expand...
No he wasn't. " jostled " was about the most accurate term from my memory on the day
And whilst it was unacceptable it was nowhere near the vicious assault on Grealish which got a Wolves player a red card in our last game !
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
Common Assault offences cover both intentional and reckless (sometimes construed as 'accidental') actions. This means that you can be charged with Common Assault both if you meant to hurt someone (or cause them to think they were going to be hurt) and if you didn't mean to.

Oh and before you start whining about fake news and the biased BBC, perhaps you should see this statement from Manchester City.

Manchester City would like to sincerely apologise to Aston Villa goalkeeper Robin Olsen, who was assaulted after the final whistle at today’s match when fans entered the pitch.​
​
​
Or are the club also part of the anti-City media agenda? I suppose it's only a matter or time.
Click to expand...

If you are talking legal language, then there were no allegations of assault to the police, and there were no charges brought by the police, and so there was, ipso facto, no assault.

As for the club, it wasn't wise to use the word assault, but I suppose they reacted quickly to defuse the situation in what otherwise should have been a joyous occasion. On the other hand, the press, and you, now have an excuse to use the word assault every time they talk about it. There must have been a better way to apologise for what happened after the final whistle without using terminology with a specific legal meaning.

As for the press, especially the BBC, they should have a duty of care to report what happens fairly. Every normal person understands assault to mean an attack, notwithstanding any legal definition. Unless they are writing to the enormous legal professional, football supporting demographic, they should be using language that makes the event understandable to the general public. Describing what happened as an assault doesn't do that, yet they continue to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.