Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol Post news headline.......


Tipps69

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Dollymarie said:

If @AdamB hadn't just started his well deserved holiday I'd be contacting him. 

About what?  Factually correct article appears in local newspaper?  

I'm obviously failing to understand this on quite a fundamental level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigAlToby&Liam said:

**** 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 :whistle:

The story is about some scumbag that bit a baby. Totally agree.

It would be the work of 2 seconds to remove the irrelevant reference to football from their web story (to make it read like the paper version) but they can't be arsed to do it.

It isn't the worst thing in the world, it's a trivial detail, but it comes from a paper that has history for negative reporting of City and it's quite right that the pointless inclusion of that fact but not others (how tall was he for example? What colour shirt was he wearing?) is challenged. It might make the reporter think a bit more carefully in future about what needs to be included in the story to tell it. When I read about a criminal, my first thought is not "I wonder what team he supports?" I suspect you don't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

The story is about some scumbag that bit a baby. Totally agree.

It would be the work of 2 seconds to remove the irrelevant reference to football from their web story (to make it read like the paper version) but they can't be arsed to do it.

It isn't the worst thing in the world, it's a trivial detail, but it comes from a paper that has history for negative reporting of City and it's quite right that the pointless inclusion of that fact but not others (how tall was he for example? What colour shirt was he wearing?) is challenged. It might make the reporter think a bit more carefully in future about what needs to be included in the story to tell it. When I read about a criminal, my first thought is not "I wonder what team he supports?" I suspect you don't either.

You're spot on. Thought wouldn't have crossed my mind. Would have thought about the baby though.

Irrespective of negative reporting I'd have asked myself so what? Or what about the baby?

Not start thinking about who to email to complain? Who gives a shit and why? If you want to something positive - which let's face it has to be better than coming across as a small minded victim - then why not have a OTIB or Supporters Trust fund raising event?

Tell 'ee why. Cos bellyaching and being negative is easier.

Pathetic.

Anyway got to go. Mum's telling me my tea's ready ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

The story is about some scumbag that bit a baby. Totally agree.

It would be the work of 2 seconds to remove the irrelevant reference to football from their web story (to make it read like the paper version) but they can't be arsed to do it.

It isn't the worst thing in the world, it's a trivial detail, but it comes from a paper that has history for negative reporting of City and it's quite right that the pointless inclusion of that fact but not others (how tall was he for example? What colour shirt was he wearing?) is challenged. It might make the reporter think a bit more carefully in future about what needs to be included in the story to tell it. When I read about a criminal, my first thought is not "I wonder what team he supports?" I suspect you don't either.

No but it also doesn't matter whether it is stated, who cares (same rationale as your point).  The story is the story and not the shitfest that has happened on here jumping on an insignificant detail to send letters to the editor decrying the story is embarrassing.

Anyone worried more about the clubs name being factually stated in the story than the story needs to have a bloody hard look at themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people can't see that this is an irrelevance then I give up, anyway I am not going to add any more posts to this self serving thread, there are more important things to worry about than BCFC being mentioned, factually, although pointlessly in an article. 

You lot work yourself into a lather, you may even get quoted on the papers website if you keep going, that would be amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RumRed said:

About what?  Factually correct article appears in local newspaper?  

I'm obviously failing to understand this on quite a fundamental level.

Because it isn't relevant, which brings into valid questioning why it was referred to. 

We all know the way it would be construed if reference was made to his sexuality or religion. People would believe it was being used as an underhand way to stigmatise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RumRed said:

No but it also doesn't matter whether it is stated, who cares (same rationale as your point).  The story is the story and not the shitfest that has happened on here jumping on an insignificant detail to send letters to the editor decrying the story is embarrassing.

Anyone worried more about the clubs name being factually stated in the story than the story needs to have a bloody hard look at themselves.

 

And no one is more worried about the club than the baby. no one's written that.

The important point is that this **** gets properly punished for what he does and he is hopefully ostracised by those that know him..

As an aside, it isn't unreasonable to stop a pisspoor paper continuing pisspoor practices.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CotswoldRed said:

Because it isn't relevant, which brings into valid questioning why it was referred to. 

We all know the way it would be construed if reference was made to his sexuality or religion. People would believe it was being used as an underhand way to stigmatise.

 

It was presented in court, that's the difference.  This really isn't difficult to understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RumRed said:

It was presented in court, that's the difference.  This really isn't difficult to understand.

 

Rum. The things that are in that 15 sentence story are not the only things that were presented to the court and the sentence devoted to the probation officer is highly unlikely to be the only things she said in her report. They tend to talk for about 15 minutes on the defendant's background.

For this reason, people are querying why that particularly fact was selected for publishing, rather than a plethora of other irrelevant facts.

I agree that in the context of a very serious case it IS trivial, but there are two reason it irks me and other fans:

1) The Post has a history of antipathy to the club and has on many occasions in the past been taken to town for it.

2) Football supporters are routinely portrayed as thugs and chavs by those who know nothing about the game. Now it happens this supporter was a thug, but including his club loyalty in a story that has nothing to do with football just feeds into a lazy prejudice.

There were probably several hundred other facts the reporter could have used about the case; that he selectively used this one naturally leads one to believe it might have been motivated by malice. It certainly doesn't add anything to the tale, so why aren't they taking it out?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RumRed said:

It was presented in court, that's the difference.  This really isn't difficult to understand.

 

Is that what we're asking here? I thought the point being raised was in relation to what the Post selectively chose to mention. 

I could edit the transcript of any court case to make a different slant on a story altogether. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ok. Even Rovers supporters are in agreement with us as to the irrelevance of which football team he supported. For any Gasheads who take an alternative view I would like to point out that the guy alluded to being a Bristol City fan, but using Gasheads own Gas logic Bristol City FC died in 1982 and the current Ted's are now Bristol Sport Franchise 1982 plc, so the guy has no association whatsoever with the current club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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. 

What court ruling is this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

Just doing Jury service and you can tell 90% of the stuff being said has no relevance to the case

 

CPS always paint a very dark picture and close your creative mind to only believing what they are saying whereas the defence lawyer will use more expressive words to open your creative mind to the possibility of more than one suspect for example.

 

To include he's a city fan in essence could hinder a jury's view, Rovers fans could be swayed subconsciously to vote guilty and vice versa for city fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dollymarie said:

Tristan said it was included in the article because of court reporting, so not to included it in the paper version breaks that. 

Oh I see. He'll have meant the fact you have to be "fair and accurate" in your reporting of a case, so Geoff will have included the extra fluff to help on that front.

One person's interpretation is not the same as another's, I think it could easily have run without it. One thing I will say though, is if that you read the article not looking for any City bashing, there's nothing in it which suggests being a City fan has anything to do with also biting children...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Rum. The things that are in that 15 sentence story are not the only things that were presented to the court and the sentence devoted to the probation officer is highly unlikely to be the only things she said in her report. They tend to talk for about 15 minutes on the defendant's background.

For this reason, people are querying why that particularly fact was selected for publishing, rather than a plethora of other irrelevant facts.

I agree that in the context of a very serious case it IS trivial, but there are two reason it irks me and other fans:

1) The Post has a history of antipathy to the club and has on many occasions in the past been taken to town for it.

2) Football supporters are routinely portrayed as thugs and chavs by those who know nothing about the game. Now it happens this supporter was a thug, but including his club loyalty in a story that has nothing to do with football just feeds into a lazy prejudice.

There were probably several hundred other facts the reporter could have used about the case; that he selectively used this one naturally leads one to believe it might have been motivated by malice. It certainly doesn't add anything to the tale, so why aren't they taking it out?

 

I just don't think it matters and there are bigger fish to fry, this story wasn't the one to do it about in my opinion.

Obviously just me so I'll leave you all to it.

If this was the Rovers forum attacking an article about an assault on a child because they want to blub over 'unfair reporting' how would this forum respond?

******* grow up, all of you.  I'm honestly shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said:

Just doing Jury service and you can tell 90% of the stuff being said has no relevance to the case

 

1) CPS always paint a very dark picture and close your creative mind to only believing what they are saying whereas the defence lawyer will use more expressive words to open your creative mind to the possibility of more than one suspect for example.

 

2) To include he's a city fan in essence could hinder a jury's view, Rovers fans could be swayed subconsciously to vote guilty and vice versa for city fans

 

1) The Barrister representing the CPS will merely prevent evidence facts to support the prosecutions case 

and

2) Not when it was a sentencing hearing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** me. This still running?

How's about just accepting that since Christ knows when the Bristol Evening Post is long gone. What's in its place is an irrrelevance.

Put your energy into something positive. Raise funds for the baby. Send the family on holiday. Anything but continue to bellyache about something that really isn't that important.

Or keep on wasting your breath and keep making yourselves look narrow minded and stupid :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RumRed said:

I just don't think it matters and there are bigger fish to fry, this story wasn't the one to do it about in my opinion.

Obviously just me so I'll leave you all to it.

If this was the Rovers forum attacking an article about an assault on a child because they want to blub over 'unfair reporting' how would this forum respond?

******* grow up, all of you.  I'm honestly shocked.

Not just you matey. We're making a stand ;)

I can't believe it either. Assholes. As my old gran would have said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigAlToby&Liam said:

**** me. This still running?

How's about just accepting that since Christ knows when the Bristol Evening Post is long gone. What's in its place is an irrrelevance.

Put your energy into something positive. Raise funds for the baby. Send the family on holiday. Anything but continue to bellyache about something that really isn't that important.

Or keep on wasting your breath and keep making yourselves look narrow minded and stupid :facepalm:

No it had died down before you posted on it and decided to insult your fellow City fans. :facepalm:

If you don't like the thread. Don't read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

 

1) The Barrister representing the CPS will merely prevent evidence facts to support the prosecutions case 

and

2) Not when it was a sentencing hearing

1) They would be sh*t if they started supporting the opposition, and I was merely stating the physiological techniques used by how they use their words, using stronger words to narrow your trail of thought etc. 

 

2) It is now in the public domain that there will be a case at Bristol Crown Court where the defendant (a Bristol city fan) will be trailed for Child Abuse and the evidence supplied by the CPS will include the defendant biting the child's cheek. To me that (hopefully) narrows it down to one case. So regardless of when it is released it can still have an effect on you subconscious mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said:

 

2) It is now in the public domain that there will be a case at Bristol Crown Court where the defendant (a Bristol city fan) will be trailed for Child Abuse and the evidence supplied by the CPS will include the defendant biting the child's cheek. To me that (hopefully) narrows it down to one case. So regardless of when it is released it can still have an effect on you subconscious mind. 

You suggested his Footballing allegiances could influence a jury . I've pointed out - it couldn't as there was no jury - it was a sentencing hearing 

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say in the response above tbh :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BobBobSuperBob said:

You suggested his Footballing allegiances could influence a jury . I've pointed out - it couldn't as there was no jury - it was a sentencing hearing 

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say in the response above tbh :blink:

Apologies, thought it was a plea hearing. But, my point was a paper shouldn't be publishing anything that could potentially influence a juror.

 

For example, If someone was being trialled for Racism and then, even if it has no link to the case, a paper publishing the defendant is a member of the EDL this could influence a jury's decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/05/2017 at 09:18, Tristan Cork said:

clearly that's how the company gets its money (and through advertising in the paper and newspaper sales) but it's not how individual reporters are paid, thank god.

I'm guessing they receive sweets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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