Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol Post news headline.......

Tipps69

By Tipps69
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

CyderInACan

CyderInACan

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Tristan Cork said:

Apparently, the fact this guy is a City fan was pretty much the only thing said in mitigation by his defence barrister to the judge.

For such an obviously serious crime, what a bizarre plea of mitigation! How did that affect the judge's decision at all? He may as well have offered up that his favourite colour was brown, he loves to play Nintendo or that his favourite food is steak. 

Mind you a glance at any newspaper or website nowadays just shows actually it's pretty hard to get a custodial sentence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robinito

Robinito

Posted
Posted

Obviously, the rest of the journalistic world is missing out on providing information that the reader or viewer really needs to know. All these murders, assaults, terrorist activities etc. And not once are we told which football club the perpetrator supports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royston Red

Royston Red

Posted
Posted

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-who-bit-one-year-56128

 

What kind of News Paper is this?

 

Really, they should have written something like: "The Barrister said the defendant was a Bristol City fan". Instead they attribute the comment to a probation officer!?

 

Disgusting. Really I am a very angry and upset City fan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
16 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

My email was undelivered, no such email address.

Have you got a correct email address @Tristan Cork ? Please.

@Tipps69 is this the one you sent it too? geoff.bennett@b-nm.co.uk

Understand where @Tristan Cork is coming from above - that there was clearly nothing else to write - but do agree it paints a bad picture against the club more than associating the idiot in the report as being a "fan"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tipps69

Tipps69

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, phantom said:

@Tipps69 is this the one you sent it too? geoff.bennett@b-nm.co.uk

Understand where @Tristan Cork is coming from above - that there was clearly nothing else to write - but do agree it paints a bad picture against the club more than associating the idiot in the report as being a "fan"

No, the one Tristan posted which was chris.allen@trinitymirror.co.uk

But I have just forwarded my email to the address you have posted too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Joker

The Joker

Posted
Posted

I cannot see for the life of me what bearing the fact that this individual supports a football club has any relevance in this sad story,but i do question why this person was allowed to babysit the child in the first place, would you as a parent allow access to your child from such a individual or was the mother completely unaware of this persons history,in which case she should never have allowed him access to the child in the first place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted

After previous stitch-ups you can understand why we're quick to jump on anything like this, but having worked with Geoff in years gone by he's not the kind of guy to try a hatchet job. He's one of the few old-school journalists left. He spends his life in Bristol Crown, pretty much, and has done for many years.

It does read oddly though and I don't agree with @Tristan Cork that it was required; the law says any court reporting must be accurate and fair, does taking out his favourite club change that? Unless he's saying this season's driven him to drink and drugs, which would be more understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BobBobSuperBob

BobBobSuperBob

Posted
Posted

Apologies for my daft joke #4 , and anyone offended - posted before I read the OP properly

 

What I find bizarre is how being a Bristol City Fan cane be offered  in mitigation in any way :blink:

bizarre 

 

EDIT

I see now it was actually in a Probation Officers report , not in mitigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dollymarie said:

So basically thanks for your email and we're not changing it. :facepalm:

If I were the club I'd be contacting the post about slander, being a city fan has no relevance of the story and does nothing but drag our clubs name through the mud for no reason,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

If I were the club I'd be contacting the post about slander, being a city fan has no relevance of the story and does nothing but drag our clubs name through the mud for no reason,

It's not slander (or more accurately libel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red-Robbo

Red-Robbo

Posted
Posted

A good court reporter learns to sort out the wheat from the chaff. 

I was a court reporter for many years and I know that 90% of what is said during proceedings is "chaff".  The City line is an example. 

So, bad journalism and poor subbing too, as had I subbed that story I'd have cut the unnecessary reference out.

I honestly think the club should complain in person to the editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tristan Cork

Tristan Cork

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

So either it was the only thing offered in mitigation or it wasn't. There is no 'pretty much' about it.

Assuming of course the reporter did indeed follow the rules on court reporting.

I don't know Rob because I wasn't there. Reading the report by our court reporter, I can only imagine there was a brief line from the defence barrister when asked to give mitigation mentioning something about him being a Bristol City fan and having a cannabis problem. That's what he told me in person this morning.
The very last part of the story says: "The court heard Stone maintained he had always been very good with children and his mother confirmed that. The Bristol City supporter relapsed into cannabis use because of court proceedings, Miss Middleton said."
It's not my report, so I can't say too much about it. What I would say in partial defence, though, is that if the Post was specifically mentioning this to try 'to get hits', the words 'Bristol City' would have been in the headline, not in the very last line. Only someone making it to the end of this story having already clicked on it, would notice the City reference.
The title of this thread says 'Bristol Post news headline', and that's just not the case.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dollymarie

Dollymarie

Posted
Posted

@Tristan Cork you aren't quite telling us the full story here. I've just come across a paper version of today's story. No mention of City at all. Maybe the online version contains the words "Bristol City" so you get more hits/google searches onto the Bristol Post website, and nothing to do with what was said in court at all? 

Just saying like. IMG_4352.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tristan Cork

Tristan Cork

Posted
Posted
Just now, Dollymarie said:

@Tristan Cork you aren't quite telling us the full story here. I've just come across a paper version of today's story. No mention of City at all. Maybe the online version contains the words "Bristol City" so you get more hits/google searches onto the Bristol Post website, and nothing to do with what was said in court at all? 

Just saying like. IMG_4352.JPG

Just now, Dollymarie said:

@Tristan Cork you aren't quite telling us the full story here. I've just come across a paper version of today's story. No mention of City at all. Maybe the online version contains the words "Bristol City" so you get more hits/google searches onto the Bristol Post website, and nothing to do with what was said in court at all? 

Just saying like. IMG_4352.JPG

14 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

I know I shouldn't look through the rag but I do have a look every now & then.

Anyway, the first news story is about a lad who has been in court for biting a 1 year-old baby boy on the cheek while he was baby-sitting him.

But what I don't understand is that the last paragraph decides to state that the lad involved is a Bristol City fan who smokes cannabis!!

WTF has him being a Bristol City fan got to do with him biting a baby on the face? There is no longer anywhere to comment on their stories & to make a complaint you have to write a letter!! 

Sorry but I'm really pissed off that the club have been brought into this, what difference does it make that he's supposedly a City fan?

Is this acceptable to the club @Dollymarie @AdamB @Mkelly ?

Not sure who else to bring this to the notice of.

Hi Dolly
I honestly have no idea - it's not my story and not me who puts them in the paper. This has nowt to do with me. All I can do is come on here as a City fan and try to help and answer questions if I can.

The reference to City was made in court and reported by the court reporter. It wasn't included to 'get more hits' because that only works if Bristol City is in the headline.
What I can say is that the story would have been written for the web and gone online first, and then been taken by someone else and put in the paper at the end of the day. Either they saw that reference and took it out because they, understandably, didn't think it was relevant, or because the whole thing had to be cut down for length.

Everyone is free to make their case, as I already have in person, to Geoff the court reporter or the news editor chris.allen@trinitymirror.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tipps69

Tipps69

Posted
  • Author
Posted
45 minutes ago, Tristan Cork said:


The title of this thread says 'Bristol Post news headline', and that's just not the case.
 

That was because at the time of me posting this thread (last night), it was the headline news story on the Bristol Post website.

And as I then went on to explain, the last paragraph made the reference of the lad in question being a City fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robin1988

Robin1988

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

@Tristan Cork you aren't quite telling us the full story here. I've just come across a paper version of today's story. No mention of City at all. Maybe the online version contains the words "Bristol City" so you get more hits/google searches onto the Bristol Post website, and nothing to do with what was said in court at all? 

Just saying like. IMG_4352.JPG

Ok now this is turning into a hatchet job, just on Tristan by OTIB. If you're going to suggest someone is being dishonest at least know what you're talking about first!

Please don't take this as me sticking up for the Post in general but with a journalist in a former life hat on, it's not really fair to hammer them for stuff they haven't done wrong.

The Post has been web-first for a long time, where there is no limit to length (except the length of your regular reader's attention span, so we're talking seconds). So something like a final par adding a small amount of colour would be the first thing to go when the same story is put on a page.

Also, the point about search engines is nonsense. Try googling "Bristol City fan court" and limiting the search to the past 24 hours. Even then, the story on the Post website isn't even on the first page of results, but ironically this thread is. You'd have to be looking very hard to find it through Google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tipps69

Tipps69

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Reply I have just received from Geoff Bennett..........

Thanks for your email.
The football supporter line came from a detailed report on Stone given in court by a probation officer, as part of his profile.
I included it to paint a picture of the man, in so far as I could due to the circumstances of the case.
But I hear what you say and I take it on board.

Best Regards,
Geoff Bennett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...