PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

My response above is obviously to the pre-edit post. But just in case you missed it elsewhere, no issue with the queation whatsoever. It is a bit obvious and cliché, but it is fair.

No issue with the perception of hypocrisy either, which is just as fair. As noted previously, neither is as simplistic as the queations make out.
 
domalino said:
It only makes it hollow if you think she's asking for her own reassurance.

As a journalist, she's asking questions that she thinks the readership wants to know the answer to, and so it doesn't matter if she's married to a Sheikh herself, the question is on behalf of the reader, and at this point it's a question that should be easily answered by anyone.

The fact is 61% of the country thinks we should have less of a business relationship with the UAE because of their human rights records. Most of the people on this forum might be in the 20% that prioritises business, but you have to accept it's a minority position and every time anyone announces a big investment or partnership they should be able to answer the question. And if they can't or don't want to answer it then they probably shouldn't be doing the deal.
Click to expand...
How many people do you think will give a toss about Human rights when attending an event at the new arena. Human rights won't come into it with 99% of people who just want to see a concert, just like us as fans of the club, who just want to get on with watching football.
 
domalino said:
I know where you're coming from, but really, her integrity doesn't matter.

This isn't a undercover or deep investigative piece of reporting where the reader is relying on the journalist to be honest and faithfully relay the information they've uncovered from people off the record. All she's doing is prompting the person being questioned to speak on a subject.

It could be a parrot asking the question, the only thing that matters is if the question is relevant and in the public interest, which this question obviously was, and what the answer was.

Neil Custis being a detestable person doesn't affect the validity of the answer Pep gives when he's asked what injuries we have.

You say it does matter, but who does it matter to? About 20 die hard Manchester City fans on a forum who were delighted they could discredit the questioner rather than accept the question is valid. No one reading her paper or any of the people in the room or listening to the answer cares/cared.

And that's the same in politics or the other walks of life you're referring to. It only matters to a very small, hyper partisan minority.
Click to expand...

Depends on how small or partisan the minority. Which is becoming far more significant in all parts of life. As seen with Brexit, Indyref, etc.
 
Academica said:
How many people do you think will give a toss about Human rights when attending an event at the new arena. Human rights won't come into it with 99% of people who just want to see a concert, just like us as fans of the club, who just want to get on with watching football.
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make?

You think 99% of people don't give a toss..so? So what?

61% of people in this country do care when asked, which makes asking the public officials about it perfectly valid.
 
domalino said:
What point are you trying to make?

You think 99% of people don't give a toss..so? So what?

61% of people in this country do care when asked, which makes asking the public officials about it perfectly valid.
Click to expand...

I would bet more than 61% would disapprove of sexual harassment.

And yes, the two are comparable, MCC are making a choice to take investment from individuals linked to a state with poor human rights. She is making a choice to share a household income with a person of misconduct. Both are there to link or not link.
 
Coatigan said:
I would bet more than 61% would disapprove of sexual harassment.

And yes, the two are comparable, MCC are making a choice to take investment from individuals linked to a state with poor human rights. She is making a choice to share a household income with a person of misconduct. Both are there to link or not link.
Click to expand...

Again it's just an ad hom attack on the person asking a valid question because you're uncomfortable with the question being asked.

That's why this woman's husband is even being mentioned, and not the possible crimes of the spouses of every other journalist present. This one asked a question you don't like so you attempt to discredit her.

It just comes across as increibly thin skinned and kind of pathetic that 15 year into the takeover so many fns still can't cope with someone asking a question about the Middle East when it's relevant. What are you so scared of?
 
lancs blue said:
Do you think 61% of people in the country have the foggiest idea of what human rights are like in the UAE when a sizeable chunk wouldn't even be able to locate it on a map?
Click to expand...

I think I value properly carried out polling data a lot more than baseless assumptions about hypothetical polls.

If you can find anything serious that backs up your assumptions about British people's awareness of human rights or geography then I'd consider it.
 
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
✖
  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.