Bristol Post news headline.......

[Dollymarie]

Just now, Tipps69 said:

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

Copy and paste job then! 

[RedM]

Well I'm still unclear from that if the Probation Officer was trying to portray his client favourably or unfavourably. What an odd thing to include in a report. He needs his ass kicked as much as the paper for for reporting such rubbish in my opinion.

[Dollymarie]

1 hour ago, Tristan Cork said:

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

But then in that case Tristan, if as you say the reason it was in included in the article was because it was from the court reporting that he was a "Bristol City fan" yet it's not in the paper article, either what you've said is untrue, or the paper has broken court rulings by not including it in the paper version. 

I appreciate you coming on here and responding, but maybe instead you could ask those further up the chain to get the online article changed, instead of the person responding to people just copying and pasting the same response. 

[Red-Robbo]

9 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

But then in that case Tristan, if as you say the reason it was in included in the article was because it was from the court reporting that he was a "Bristol City fan" yet it's not in the paper article, either what you've said is untrue, or the paper has broken court rulings by not including it in the paper version. 

I appreciate you coming on here and responding, but maybe instead you could ask those further up the chain to get the online article changed, instead of the person responding to people just copying and pasting the same response. 

 

The paper copy was probably sub-edited by a different person than the online version, Dolls.

Sadly, local papers tend to do online on the cheap, often just cutting and pasting the raw copy and hitting publish with the briefest scan through. I see some utter howlers on Somerset Live, the online presence of my local rag.

[Tipps69]

My reply & reasoning from Chris Allen, News Editor.

 

The information about him being a Bristol City fan was said in mitigation by his defence barrister and as this is a report of court proceedings it is a relevant piece of information.

Had the barrister told the court what his favourite music was, we would have mentioned that in the story as well.

To suggest that the Bristol Post, by saying one Bristol City fan did this, is therefore somehow implying all Bristol City fans must have done it is clearly nonsense. That would be like accusing us of saying one man was a murderer and therefore, by implication, all men must be murderers because they're men.

 

Thanks for your email.

 

Regards,

Chris

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

My reply & reasoning from Chris Allen, News Editor.

 

The information about him being a Bristol City fan was said in mitigation by his defence barrister and as this is a report of court proceedings it is a relevant piece of information.

Had the barrister told the court what his favourite music was, we would have mentioned that in the story as well.

To suggest that the Bristol Post, by saying one Bristol City fan did this, is therefore somehow implying all Bristol City fans must have done it is clearly nonsense. That would be like accusing us of saying one man was a murderer and therefore, by implication, all men must be murderers because they're men.

 

Thanks for your email.

 

Regards,

Chris

that doesn't explain why it isn't mentioned in the printed copy of the post

[Tipps69]

And my reply to Chris Allen, as I don't agree with his reasoning......

 

Hi Chris 

But in which case why has it not been seen as news worthy in the printed (paper) edition of the Bristol Post but it was said in mitigation & had to be included in the online version?

What relevance does it have to the case & news that he's a Bristol City fan? 

If I was taken to court would it be mitigation that I support Bristol City, England football, cricket & rugby, Gloucestershire Cricket Club, Judd Trump (snooker player) and that I like the Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Madness, The Jam (the list goes on)

Who I am a fan of has no bearing on any case unless any offence caused involved me being at or even supporting an event involving those teams / bands / individuals on tv, which I assume from your papers report, the lad involved wasn't.

From my perspective it is trying to portray that being a Bristol City fan is part of the reason why this offence occurred which isn't the case.

I have never seen anyone who has been reported as causing an offence before, having their sporting preference referred to unless it has been because an offence has occurred while partaking in trying to follow the club named.

Should I look forward to seeing future reports that list guilty people's interests?

Kind regards

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I'm still struggling to see how being a supporter of a football club could be used as a mitigating factor. Truly bizarre. 

[YorkshireSection]

If anyone fancies trying to make a joke about what is in NO WAY a joking matter, please PM me so I can show you in person how funny I think this is, I'm disgusted that any human being finds this funny at all, there's a line and it's been crossed.

However much you may think it's funny, try imagining its your INNOCENT BABY that's involved here, YOU ARE A SERIOUSLY WRONG UN!

[Tristan Cork]

OK - just catching up with this now, and the points made.

I can't imagine why they even mentioned Bristol City in the court at all. Perhaps, and here's a thing, it was done to try to suggest that he isn't normally a **** who bites babies. Maybe they knew the judge was a City fan. who knows? Geoff told me this morning it was the defence in mitigation - he's clarified now it was the probation report. Anyone who's been in court (in whatever capacity) knows that the probation do a pre-sentence report on most people who could be jailed to present a picture of the person concerned. Is he a psycho who bites babies all the time? Is he a wholesome family man and this was completely out of character? It was clearly mentioned in court, and added in to the report online.

I don't know why it wasn't in the print edition - I can only suppose it was cut along with other stuff to fit on the page. Or it was the only thing cut because space was slightly tight and the sub-editor putting the page together saw it as an extraneous bit of odd detail.

As for the motives? I honestly don't think anyone here went 'ooo they said 'Bristol City' let's stitch up all City fans by association'. 

Why? The point made by Robin1988 above about Google is worth repeating for all those conspiracy theorists claiming all we care about is 'hits' about this. Now, if the whole story had been headlined 'Bristol City fan bit baby', then I would be seriously side-eyeing my colleagues and bosses and staying late to put stickers on their monitors. Doing this story that way would certainly have got more hits, but we didn't do that because clearly that would have been unfair and ridiculous.

Robin1988 also says this thread is far higher up Google search results than the story itself. If anyone is worried some Rovers fan will see this and think they've got one back on the horse-punching (which WAS relevant to headline - it was at a football match) then they'll see it from this thread, not from the Post online.

 

 

 

[YorkshireSection]

1 hour ago, RedM said:

Well I'm still unclear from that if the Probation Officer was trying to portray his client favourably or unfavourably. What an odd thing to include in a report. He needs his ass kicked as much as the paper for for reporting such rubbish in my opinion.

If he was to then miss probation and be re arrested and put on remand awaiting sentencing it would probably cause him to argue that his judge or jurors when sentencing could be swayed by his allegiance to a named football club, the case would be prime for the cps/defence to petition for the trial to be dropped. The probation officer has dropped a major bollock.

[Judda]

8 hours ago, Super said:

You really aren't remotely funny.

Everyone in the pubs laughing!

[Super]

16 minutes ago, Judda said:

Everyone in the pubs laughing!

at you?

[Chivs]

1 hour ago, YorkshireSection said:

If anyone fancies trying to make a joke about what is in NO WAY a joking matter, please PM me so I can show you in person how funny I think this is, I'm disgusted that any human being finds this funny at all, there's a line and it's been crossed.

However much you may think it's funny, try imagining its your INNOCENT BABY that's involved here, YOU ARE A SERIOUSLY WRONG UN!

Everyone, please be on the lookout for Godwin's Law.  It's around the corner....

[AppyDAZE]

I really thought this was going say

IT WAS THE POST WOT WON IT. JEREMY IS A****.

[Antman]

5 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

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.

The quality of the content on the BP site is staggeringly poor - they've obviously moved on all of their reasonable reporters and seem to use teenage click-bait writers.

the standards were never high when it was a print paper, now its execrable

i can't believe anyone proofs or sub edits anything.

 

 

[RumRed]

Jesus you can tell it's the off season when people start complaining about what appears to be a factually correct article.

Ok Bristol City has nothing to do with the crime, but how many times have we had on this forum 'famous people' who support City, equally two things that are not connected?

Stop the Witch Hunt FFS and appreciate the true crime that occurred, and don't get your knickers in a twist , you're drawing attention away from the actual crime to something so trivial it's embarrassing.

Using this story to point score against the EP, really? 

 

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

13 minutes ago, Antman said:

The quality of the content on the BP site is staggeringly poor - they've obviously moved on all of their reasonable reporters and seem to use teenage click-bait writers.

the standards were never high when it was a print paper, now its execrable

i can't believe anyone proofs or sub edits anything.

 

 

 

Sadly, it seems to be happening everywhere.

Papers that served and informed local communities now merely regarded as vehicles to carry advertising.

[RumRed]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Sadly, it seems to be happening everywhere.

Papers that served and informed local communities now merely regarded as vehicles to carry advertising.

True, but the article appears to be factually correct based off of the court proceedings?  The journalism is therefore correct, I don't understand the issue?

This is not the story to have a pop at the EP in my opinion, lack of class being shown.

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, RumRed said:

True, but the article appears to be factually correct based off of the court proceedings?  The journalism is therefore correct, I don't understand the issue?

As I noted, there are a lot of things said in court and the essence of a reporter's job is to sift through the verbiage and report what are the relevant points of the case.

While it may be relevant to report that this clart was a heavy cannabis user, it isn't in the slightest bit relevant to the case what football team he supports. It's as irrelevant to the case as his inside leg measurement.

The Post didn't carry a verbatim report on everything that was said during the trial - otherwise the piece would be many pages long - so it is a failure of the reporter in his job of filtering out irrelevancies and just telling the story of what happened, to include this particular line.

[WhistleHappy]

 

Springs to mind....

[RumRed]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

As I noted, there are a lot of things said in court and the essence of a reporter's job is to sift through the verbiage and report what are the relevant points of the case.

While it may be relevant to report that this clart was a heavy cannabis user, it isn't in the slightest bit relevant to the case what football team he supports. It's as irrelevant to the case as his inside leg measurement.

The Post didn't carry a verbatim report on everything that was said during the trial - otherwise the piece would be many pages long - so it is a failure of the reporter in his job of filtering out irrelevancies and just telling the story of what happened, to include this particular line.

Every supporter of every club knows that complete bellends support the same team, other clubs also know this.  I understand the City link has nothing to do with the story but it appears to be factually correct.  The crime the guy committed is more important than a bunch of whiners on OTIB taking the local rag to task over stating a fact that was mentioned in court, pick your ******* arguments and don't hijack a child being assaulted.

 

If people can't tell this is embarrassing then god help you.

 

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, RumRed said:

Every supporter of every club knows that complete bellends support the same team, other clubs also know this.  I understand the City link has nothing to do with the story but it appears to be factually correct.  The crime the guy committed is more important than a bunch of whiners on OTIB taking the local rag to task over stating a fact that was mentioned in court, pick your ******* arguments and don't hijack a child being injured.

 

If people can't tell this is embarrassing then god help you.

 

That has nothing to do with it. No one said the story isn't factually correct or that every City fan is an angel.

It was the inclusion of an unnecessary detail, which associates the club and its supporters with something that has nothing to do with football.

It would be as if, in reporting Jeffrey Archer's trial, the papers made pointless references to his supposed support of the Gas.

[RumRed]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

That has nothing to do with it. No one said the story isn't factually correct or that every City fan is an angel.

It was the inclusion of an unnecessary detail, which associates the club and its supporters with something that has nothing to do with football.

It would be as if, in reporting Jeffrey Archer's trial, the papers made pointless references to his supposed support of the Gas.

Who cares?  Facts were put in a newspaper, facts that didn't matter to the story but facts all the same.

People are really taking THIS story to attack the EP?  

No class, pick your fights and this isn't one that should have been fought in my opinion.

But hey ho if people want to use a story about a kid being attacked as an excuse to moan about a newspaper and see a bias against their football team then knock yourselves out.

I stick with my point that this thread is ******* embarrassing.

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, RumRed said:

Who cares?  Facts were put in a newspaper, facts that didn't matter to the story but facts all the same.

People are really taking THIS story to attack the EP?  

No class, pick your fights and this isn't one that should have been fought in my opinion.

But hey ho if people want to use a story about a kid being attacked as an excuse to moan about a newspaper and see a bias against there football team then knock yourselves out.

I stick with my point that this thread is ******* embarrassing.

Why not write to the Post in that case and suggest they include the football loyalties of every criminal they feature? Hell! Why restrict it to Bristol.

"Bradford City-fan Peter Sutcliffe, Nottingham Forest supporter Harold Shipman etc etc...."

The Post's story was a badly written and subbed piece, containing an utter irrelevance. That is why the detail was omitted from the better edited paper version.

I've worked for local and national newspapers at a senior editorial level and feel qualified to pass that judgement.

If you don't like the thread, stay off it. Most posters who've expressed an opinion don't agree with you. Accept it.

[Tears in rain]

I think you would have to be on a fishing trip if you were a rovers fan for example and try to imply all city fans are like that. 

Pretty much everyone (unless thick) will understand this criminal is one messed up person not representing city fans, bristolians, let alone a moral person. 

I don't understand why it was used in court by the defence team but oh well. 

City fans should just ignore this, the B post is awful anyway. 

[RumRed]

18 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Why not write to the Post in that case and suggest they include the football loyalties of every criminal they feature? Hell! Why restrict it to Bristol.

"Bradford City-fan Peter Sutcliffe, Nottingham Forest supporter Harold Shipman etc etc...."

The Post's story was a badly written and subbed piece, containing an utter irrelevance. That is why the detail was omitted from the better edited paper version.

I've worked for local and national newspapers at a senior editorial level and feel qualified to pass that judgement.

If you don't like the thread, stay off it. Most posters who've expressed an opinion don't agree with you. Accept it.

Fair enough, I'll toddle off this thread but I really think that people are taking the BCFC bit to heart rather than thinking about the underlying story.  

I think this just detracts and makes BCFC fans look like a bunch of unsympathetic whinging prima donnas.

TTFN

 

[BigAl&Toby]

55 minutes ago, RumRed said:

Jesus you can tell it's the off season when people start complaining about what appears to be a factually correct article.

Ok Bristol City has nothing to do with the crime, but how many times have we had on this forum 'famous people' who support City, equally two things that are not connected?

Stop the Witch Hunt FFS and appreciate the true crime that occurred, and don't get your knickers in a twist , you're drawing attention away from the actual crime to something so trivial it's embarrassing.

Using this story to point score against the EP, really? 

 

 

 

Bloody too right.

If that's all people have to worry about we really are in the shit. Rather than belly ache about what was said in the Post how's about campaigning on behalf of the baby who had its face bitten.

**** me. Has it really come to this? 

[RumRed]

2 minutes ago, BigAlToby&Liam said:

Bloody too right.

If that's all people have to worry about we really are in the shit. Rather than belly ache about what was said in the Post how's about campaigning on behalf of the baby who had its face bitten.

**** me. Has it really come to this? 

Finally, someone that has an ounce of compassion towards the victim. Someone who's not gone overboard because the perpetrator has been identified as being to a few Bristol City games in the local rag, which appears to be factual as it is in the court papers.

**** me the world has gone mad.

 

 

[BigAl&Toby]

14 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Why not write to the Post in that case and suggest they include the football loyalties of every criminal they feature? Hell! Why restrict it to Bristol.

"Bradford City-fan Peter Sutcliffe, Nottingham Forest supporter Harold Shipman etc etc...."

The Post's story was a badly written and subbed piece, containing an utter irrelevance. That is why the detail was omitted from the better edited paper version.

I've worked for local and national newspapers at a senior editorial level and feel qualified to pass that judgement.

If you don't like the thread, stay off it. Most posters who've expressed an opinion don't agree with you. Accept it.

**** me Robbo.

I'm with RedRum . Is this really what matters? I couldn't give a shit whether the Post said this or that. Long gone are the days of any sort of journalism that's worthwhile reading - least of all the shit that requires you to take a questionnaire to read.

But hey. You and rest are spot on. Me and RedRum? We're wrong