Mud stirring from the Daily Mail

[broomhillblade]

Sheffield United rep was lawyer who demanded British nurse's beheading

Sheffield United's vice chairman Joseph Giansiracusa demanded Britons Deborah Parry and Lucille McLaughlin be executed in Saudia Arabia when he represented the family of their victim.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I wonder who's been briefing the Mail?

 

[davidblade]

Sheffield United rep was lawyer who demanded British nurse's beheading

Sheffield United's vice chairman Joseph Giansiracusa demanded Britons Deborah Parry and Lucille McLaughlin be executed in Saudia Arabia when he represented the family of their victim.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I wonder who's been briefing the Mail?

It doesn’t take a genius to work it out

 

[Danetheblade]

Well.... This is awkward.. I know which ones worse

 

[bertieblade]

Err who was supporting the blackshirts, my eyes are no longer very good.?

 

[1066blade]

Quality post never forget what those facist fuckers stood for.

 

[Danetheblade]

Little bit more recent... You know.. glass houses and that.

 

[1066blade]

The Daily Mail supported Oswald Moseley's rag tag bunch of Nazi wannabee's way back when most of the world were recognising the evil scum for what it was.

 

[Danetheblade]

Err who was supporting the blackshirts, my eyes are no longer very good.?

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[40][41] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[42] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[43][page needed]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[44] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[45] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[46]

The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."[47]

The paper's support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia in June 1934.[48] Mosley and many others thought Rothermere had responded to pressure from Jewish businessmen who it was believed had threatened to stop advertising in the paper if it continued to back an anti-Semitic party.[49] The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."[50]

 

[bertieblade]

Many thanks

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

If guilty of the alleged crime then the death penalty is what they deserve.

Shame we don’t do that in this country.

 

[essexblade73]

Don't read that rancid racist fascist wankrag.

 

[dc_blade]

If there was a referendum in the UK on bringing back the death penalty, the Mail would be marching in the front ranks of those demanding its re-imposition.

Moreover, if the lawyers in question had been American prosecutors who had sought the death penalty in a case in that country, would the Mail being making the same fuss?

I think it's distasteful to have people like this associated with our club, but that article is hypocritical bullshit.

 

[HaywoodBlade]

If there was a referendum in the UK on bringing back the death penalty, the Mail would be marching in the front ranks of those demanding its re-imposition.

Moreover, if the lawyers in question had been American prosecutors who had sought the death penalty in a case in that country, would the Mail being making the same fuss?

I think it's distasteful to have people like this associated with our club, but that article is hypocritical bullshit.

Couldn't agree more

 

[HighfieldBlade]

I wonder who's been briefing the Mail?

A Google search on his name quickly links him with SUFC. Probably exactly what the lazy journo did.

 

[Harry's Game]

Daily Mail.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[40][41] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[42] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[43][page needed]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[44] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[45] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[46]

The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."[47]

The paper's support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia in June 1934.[48] Mosley and many others thought Rothermere had responded to pressure from Jewish businessmen who it was believed had threatened to stop advertising in the paper if it continued to back an anti-Semitic party.[49] The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."[50]

I don't read the Mail, but how is what any institution said going on for 100 years ago relevant today? It's like copy and pasting things the german government said in the 30s.
It's a slimy paper, isn't pointing the finger talking about blackshirt support the opposite side if the same coin?

 

[HighfieldBlade]

I don't read the Mail, but how is what any institution said going on for 100 years ago relevant today?

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

I don't read the Mail, but how is what any institution said going on for 100 years ago relevant today? It's like copy and pasting things the german government said in the 30s.
It's a slimy paper, isn't pointing the finger talking about blackshirt support the opposite side if the same coin?

The problem is, it hasn’t changed much.

 

[mattbianco1]

Old Phippsy lobbed under the bus too

 

[Danetheblade]

I don't read the Mail, but how is what any institution said going on for 100 years ago relevant today? It's like copy and pasting things the german government said in the 30s.
It's a slimy paper, isn't pointing the finger talking about blackshirt support the opposite side if the same coin?

Silly little point scoring really. If you look above. I've given more recent examples.

 

[JimPhipps]

Sheffield United rep was lawyer who demanded British nurse's beheading

Sheffield United's vice chairman Joseph Giansiracusa demanded Britons Deborah Parry and Lucille McLaughlin be executed in Saudia Arabia when he represented the family of their victim.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I wonder who's been briefing the Mail?

Where to begin?

The writer wrote this article knowing that Yusuf Giansiracusa was not involved in the court case; still he wrote the article. It's anything for eyeballs, I suppose. And what better for eyeballs than something connected to a Premier League side.

This is a retread of 22 year old story ... and not a particularly good one. The writer gets so many facts wrong, it makes one wonder whether any actual journalism was involved.

Not only does the writer fail to get Yusuf's name right, he accuses him of involvement in the case. Wrong! It was me and two Saudi lawyers. We did not demand specific relief (beheading and whipping, as the writer reports), but only that the private right be respected. Yes, this included the possibility of a death sentence; but the judge alone came up with the sentences and the remedies per the law.

The writer tries to make my involvement in the case into a negative. It was not. My involvement created the pathway to the settlement that saved these two British nurses from the penalties notoriously associated with their crimes. Their lawyers on the other hand failed at every turn to get them off or to get them relief of any kind. For our part, we saw to it that justice was seen to be done and that a settlement was brought about, sparing one and all (save only the victim) from the worst possible outcomes.

Lawyers represent people in shitty, unwanted circumstances. That's the job. In this case, I did my job and did it successfully. Together with my team, we got justice for the victim's family, who in settlement received not cash, but a namesake hospital wing for women and children; we made a horrific loss into something that honored and preserved the memory of the victim, while providing needed medical care for others. We arranged a settlement that saved the perpetrators from the worst consequences of their conduct and rescued Saudi-British relations from potential disaster. Call me crazy, but doing one's job as a lawyer sometimes makes things better.

It doesn't always work out this way. It might not have in this case, but because lawyers did their job, it did. I do not expect everyone to understand this, but, hey, that's okay.

Where did this 22 year old retread story come from? Who pushed the story? I don't know and won't join in any speculation. I do know the story is a crappy, inaccurate portrayal of something that happened decades ago and has literally nothing to do with our football club.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

View attachment 68787

So, in your book anybody who is involved with any organisation that said stuff 90 years ago is fair game to tar with the same brush?
You can come to the pub and slag my German mates off for things their great grandads might have said. It'll be an interesting evening, seeing how your liberal credentials hold up to scrutiny.
Likewise to anybody working for BMW, Bosch, VW, Mercedes??

 

[BladeInIreland]

I'm not sure what the big deal us. A lawyer pushing for the death penalty for a murder probably isn't odd in a country that has the death penalty like say...America.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So, in your book anybody who is involved with any organisation that said stuff 90 years ago is fair game to tar with the same brush?
You can come to the pub and slag my German mates off for things their great grandads might have said. It'll be an interesting evening, seeing how your liberal credentials hold up to scrutiny.
Likewise to anybody working for BMW, Bosch, VW, Mercedes??

Factual. According to Jim, unlike the story peddled by the rag.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Silly little point scoring really. If you look above. I've given more recent examples.

Unfortunately your recent example is blurred and can't be read, and no doubt is actually relevant to a sensible conversation.
Linking people to fascism is out of order in my book, unless they actually are, then by all means shoot at will.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Where to begin?

The writer wrote this article knowing that Yusuf Giansiracusa was not involved in the court case; still he wrote the article. It's anything for eyeballs, I suppose. And what better for eyeballs than something connected to a Premier League side.

This is a retread of 22 year old story ... and not a particularly good one. The writer gets so many facts wrong, it makes one wonder whether any actual journalism was involved.

Not only does the writer fail to get Yusuf's name right, he accuses him of involvement in the case. Wrong! It was me and two Saudi lawyers. We did not demand specific relief (beheading and whipping, as the writer reports), but only that the private right be respected. Yes, this included the possibility of a death sentence; but the judge alone came up with the sentences and the remedies per the law.

The writer tries to make my involvement in the case into a negative. It was not. My involvement created the pathway to the settlement that saved these two British nurses from the penalties notoriously associated with their crimes. Their lawyers on the other hand failed at every turn to get them off or to get them relief of any kind. For our part, we saw to it that justice was seen to be done and that a settlement was brought about, sparing one and all (save only the victim) from the worst possible outcomes.

Lawyers represent people in shitty, unwanted circumstances. That's the job. In this case, I did my job and did it successfully. Together with my team, we got justice for the victim's family, who in settlement received not cash, but a namesake hospital wing for women and children; we made a horrific loss into something that honored and preserved the memory of the victim, while providing needed medical care for others. We arranged a settlement that saved the perpetrators from the worst consequences of their conduct and rescued Saudi-British relations from potential disaster. Call me crazy, but doing one's job as a lawyer sometimes makes things better.

It doesn't always work out this way. It might not have in this case, but because lawyers did their job, it did. I do not expect everyone to understand this, but, hey, that's okay.

Where did this 22 year old retread story come from? Who pushed the story? I don't know and won't join in any speculation. I do know the story is a crappy, inaccurate portrayal of something that happened decades ago and has literally nothing to do with our football club.

They should be subject to a libel prosecution, especially in Giansiracusa's case if he wasn't even part of the case. And the representation of your involvement is at best purposely misleading.

 

[Linz]

They should be subject to a libel prosecution, especially in Giansiracusa's case if he wasn't even part of the case. And the representation of your involvement is at best purposely misleading.

They'll just issue one of their notoriously tiny retractions.

I'd recommend everyone installing an ad-blocker. The site stops you from viewing anything.

JimPhipps - You need a "hated by the Daily Mail" badge. Stephen Fry is quite proud of his.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

They'll just issue one of their notoriously tiny retractions.

I'd recommend everyone installing an ad-blocker. The site stops you from viewing anything.

Or don't click on Daily Mail stories is even easier

 

[Linz]

Or don't click on Daily Mail stories is even easier

Sometimes people hide links and you don't know where you're going until the Heil pops up.

An ad-blocker is the internet equivalent of double bagging.

 

[Danetheblade]

Unfortunately your recent example is blurred and can't be read, and no doubt is actually relevant to a sensible conversation.
Linking people to fascism is out of order in my book, unless they actually are, then by all means shoot at will.

Agreed. However, their roots started in fascism. Simply bringing up history, just as they have with a remedial article produced for nothing but clickbait.