Mud stirring from the Daily Mail

[Houston_Blade]

JimPhipps the post in response further up this thread really wasn’t necessary, albeit it was appreciated as it puts into context the kind of bullshit that the mail comes out with.

I know I’ve been one your critics on here over the last few years based on the PR and tweets during your spell at the club. However I think this was more misguided enthusiasm than anything sinister.

You really don’t have to worry that your perception on this forum will be worsened by a rag like the mail.

There’s still a part of me that views your comments on here with a level of cynicism and as a ‘plant’ of Prince Abdullah, however you seem to be genuine and you seem to be really interested in the ongoing fortunes of the club and for that I think that my opinion is changing.

Not that you probably give a toss either way!

 

[northsomersetblade]

Looks like it all got thrashed out in the end.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I don't have the time to go through the past 30 years of their small minded shite. You also need to look further than the front page mate. I suggest you monitor it over the next 12 months and make your own mind up. Orrrrr...you could take a peek at their coverage of the last election, look at 'articles' by such rancid shits as Katy Hopkins and Melanie Phillips.oh and look at their 'coverage' of Prince Harry and Meghan, then tell me they're ok.

It's a shite paper, but if you follow the line of shutting it down, then you are part of the same book burning mentality.

 

[essexblade73]

It's a shite paper, but if you follow the line of shutting it down, then you are part of the same book burning mentality.

We need proper press regulation that ensures certain standards are met. We do not have that and the rhetoric coming out of rags like the heil and the scum does nothing but create a feeling of otherness and divides society...but hey that's the whole point of these rags, keep the plebs fighting amongst each other whilst the rich can do anything they want...look a squirrel etc

 

[Toronto Blade]

In the states 6 corporations own 90% of all media it refers to any medium that controls the distribution of information. So here, “media” includes 24-hour news stations, newspapers, publishing houses, Internet utilities, and even video game developers.
Easy to see that if you are not going along as one of their darlings you are out.

 

[Kev Gee]

Fuck them.........

trying to stir shit up.


KMC "forced" to sell his stake for £5 million..............

The exact same figure he lowballed at............

Hmmmm

Absolute wankers.......

 

[PokerBlade]

Imagine being a newspaper so bad that wikipedia won't consider it a source.

 

[JimPhipps]

Nice one! Ta. On to Arsenal ...

 

[ComedyClub]

That seems contradictory.

How so?

 

[Champagneblade]

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.

Thanks for commenting Jim. Whilst I also think Saudi law can be draconian, if you enter a country you accept their laws a d the corresponding punishments.

So to that point, I'm not even sure where the story is.

Certainly your 2 cents bad more give more light to it. Heck, if they'd given you a call they might even have gotten a better story!

 

[grafikhaus]

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

...but then you'd miss West Ham-loving, Blades-hating resident fuckwit Martin Samuel spouting his usual shite:

A further point about the foolishness of football's new rule interpretations, arising from West Ham's disallowed goal at Sheffield United last week.

As you may recall, Declan Rice was judged to have handled the ball, unavoidably and accidentally , in the build-up to Robert Snodgrass scoring. He was five yards outside Sheffield United's penalty area at the time.

Yet suppose the offence had been committed inside West Ham's penalty area? It could happen. Son Heung-min ran the length of the field to score for Tottenham this season. Equally, Rice could have won the ball in a melee and taken it 10 or 20 yards upfield in a counter-attack before striking a long pass for Snodgrass to run on and score.

What would unfold then? VAR replays the move and notes that Rice handled and by the new rules instructs the goal to be disallowed.

Yet where did the offence take place? Inside West Ham's penalty area. So, it's a penalty to Sheffield United? No, because it was an accident and unavoidable. But the goal's been disallowed for handball? Yes. And that took place in the penalty area? Yes. So it must be a penalty? No. Right, so now it's not a goal, but also not a penalty. How do we restart?

There seems to be no provision in the rulebook for this eventuality but, clearly, it is possible. Plenty of counter-attacking goals start from breaks inside the penalty area. This is why it is ridiculous to have one handball rule for attackers, another for defenders.

The game is being made unnecessarily complicated and not even comprehensible.


Highly biased pic. ignoring Rice's blatant handball

 

[Davalon]

...but then you'd miss West Ham-loving, Blades-hating resident fuckwit Martin Samuel spouting his usual shite:

A further point about the foolishness of football's new rule interpretations, arising from West Ham's disallowed goal at Sheffield United last week.

As you may recall, Declan Rice was judged to have handled the ball, unavoidably and accidentally , in the build-up to Robert Snodgrass scoring. He was five yards outside Sheffield United's penalty area at the time.

Yet suppose the offence had been committed inside West Ham's penalty area? It could happen. Son Heung-min ran the length of the field to score for Tottenham this season. Equally, Rice could have won the ball in a melee and taken it 10 or 20 yards upfield in a counter-attack before striking a long pass for Snodgrass to run on and score.

What would unfold then? VAR replays the move and notes that Rice handled and by the new rules instructs the goal to be disallowed.

Yet where did the offence take place? Inside West Ham's penalty area. So, it's a penalty to Sheffield United? No, because it was an accident and unavoidable. But the goal's been disallowed for handball? Yes. And that took place in the penalty area? Yes. So it must be a penalty? No. Right, so now it's not a goal, but also not a penalty. How do we restart?

There seems to be no provision in the rulebook for this eventuality but, clearly, it is possible. Plenty of counter-attacking goals start from breaks inside the penalty area. This is why it is ridiculous to have one handball rule for attackers, another for defenders.

The game is being made unnecessarily complicated and not even comprehensible.

View attachment 68796
Highly biased pic. ignoring Rice's blatant handball

I actually agree with him on the law itself

 

[ComedyClub]

...but then you'd miss West Ham-loving, Blades-hating resident fuckwit Martin Samuel spouting his usual shite:

A further point about the foolishness of football's new rule interpretations, arising from West Ham's disallowed goal at Sheffield United last week.

As you may recall, Declan Rice was judged to have handled the ball, unavoidably and accidentally , in the build-up to Robert Snodgrass scoring. He was five yards outside Sheffield United's penalty area at the time.

Yet suppose the offence had been committed inside West Ham's penalty area? It could happen. Son Heung-min ran the length of the field to score for Tottenham this season. Equally, Rice could have won the ball in a melee and taken it 10 or 20 yards upfield in a counter-attack before striking a long pass for Snodgrass to run on and score.

What would unfold then? VAR replays the move and notes that Rice handled and by the new rules instructs the goal to be disallowed.

Yet where did the offence take place? Inside West Ham's penalty area. So, it's a penalty to Sheffield United? No, because it was an accident and unavoidable. But the goal's been disallowed for handball? Yes. And that took place in the penalty area? Yes. So it must be a penalty? No. Right, so now it's not a goal, but also not a penalty. How do we restart?

There seems to be no provision in the rulebook for this eventuality but, clearly, it is possible. Plenty of counter-attacking goals start from breaks inside the penalty area. This is why it is ridiculous to have one handball rule for attackers, another for defenders.

The game is being made unnecessarily complicated and not even comprehensible.

View attachment 68796
Highly biased pic. ignoring Rice's blatant handball

I remember that saying.. you know... Handball is handball regardless... think the Shammers journos should build a bridge and get over it...

 

[grafikhaus]

I actually agree with him on the law itself

He has a very selective view on which laws should be adhered to. Fielding unregistered players? Being gifted Coe's Folly rather than funding their own stadium?

Betway has just given them another £60m in 'sponsorship'. They deserve each other.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

We need proper press regulation that ensures certain standards are met. We do not have that and the rhetoric coming out of rags like the heil and the scum does nothing but create a feeling of otherness and divides society...but hey that's the whole point of these rags, keep the plebs fighting amongst each other whilst the rich can do anything they want...look a squirrel etc

I agree with proper regulation, but not silencing people or things because you disagree with them. If it's within the law, then it should be said openly, or we're back to book burning.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

How so?

You don't have a problem with some peoples history, but you do with others.
Sticking to what they do wrong now is more important. This is a case in point. Instead of talking about the bollocks they print now, it's pulled onto the irrelevance of what they printed 90 years ago.

 

[Bert]

I agree with proper regulation, but not silencing people or things because you disagree with them. If it's within the law, then it should be said openly, or we're back to book burning.

Indeed, it's called a free press which we are very fortunate to enjoy in this country. It might produce endless bigoted shite but as long as it's lawful we should celebrate it.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

...but then you'd miss West Ham-loving, Blades-hating resident fuckwit Martin Samuel spouting his usual shite:

A further point about the foolishness of football's new rule interpretations, arising from West Ham's disallowed goal at Sheffield United last week.

As you may recall, Declan Rice was judged to have handled the ball, unavoidably and accidentally , in the build-up to Robert Snodgrass scoring. He was five yards outside Sheffield United's penalty area at the time.

Yet suppose the offence had been committed inside West Ham's penalty area? It could happen. Son Heung-min ran the length of the field to score for Tottenham this season. Equally, Rice could have won the ball in a melee and taken it 10 or 20 yards upfield in a counter-attack before striking a long pass for Snodgrass to run on and score.

What would unfold then? VAR replays the move and notes that Rice handled and by the new rules instructs the goal to be disallowed.

Yet where did the offence take place? Inside West Ham's penalty area. So, it's a penalty to Sheffield United? No, because it was an accident and unavoidable. But the goal's been disallowed for handball? Yes. And that took place in the penalty area? Yes. So it must be a penalty? No. Right, so now it's not a goal, but also not a penalty. How do we restart?

There seems to be no provision in the rulebook for this eventuality but, clearly, it is possible. Plenty of counter-attacking goals start from breaks inside the penalty area. This is why it is ridiculous to have one handball rule for attackers, another for defenders.

The game is being made unnecessarily complicated and not even comprehensible.

View attachment 68796
Highly biased pic. ignoring Rice's blatant handball

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

Plus, I'm not adding to their advertising revenue like you are

 

[Bladesman]

I agree with proper regulation, but not silencing people or things because you disagree with them. If it's within the law, then it should be said openly, or we're back to book burning.

As Ian Hislop once said “You don’t ban it, you just don’t buy it.”

I think that quote was about The News Of The World but the point remains the same.

 

[ComedyClub]

You don't have a problem with some peoples history, but you do with others.
Sticking to what they do wrong now is more important. This is a case in point. Instead of talking about the bollocks they print now, it's pulled onto the irrelevance of what they printed 90 years ago.

I have a problem with printing a nothing story designed to cause nothing but friction and paint certain people in a bad light. I dont talk about the bollocks they print now as i don't read or have any intention of reading anything they (most newspapers) print these days. I posted the facism links to show that they're the last paper outlet to print about someones/somethings past. Granted they dug up the past 20 years or so ago. And the link i posted was well over 90.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Indeed, it's called a free press which we are very fortunate to enjoy in this country. It might produce endless bigoted shite but as long as it's lawful we should celebrate it.

There is a very disturbing willingness among some supposed liberal thinkers to stop the views of people they disagree with by Any Means Necessary.
It's been very counter productive and has alienated lots of the people they imagine they represent. One of the reasons the last election was thrown away.

 

[Tezza1889]

So I went to the pub after work on Friday , did I miss owt?

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

So I went to the pub after work on Friday , did I miss owt?

Danetheblade has signed all forum members up to free Daily Mail subscription, and got a ban for accusing all forrins of being child rapists. Walthy has took up selling Socialist Worker on Fargate. Pretty quiet apart from that.

 

[Bladesman]

I have a problem with printing a nothing story designed to cause nothing but friction and paint certain people in a bad light. I dont talk about the bollocks they print now as i don't read or have any intention of reading anything they (most newspapers) print these days. I posted the facism links to show that they're the last paper outlet to print about someones/somethings past. Granted they dug up the past 20 years or so ago. And the link i posted was well over 90.

Ask yourself who may have tipped the paper off to write the story in the first place. That’s a much better topic for discussion.

On a completely unrelated matter, does anyone fancy helping me take down that sign on the side of the copthorne?

 

[Tezza1889]

Ask yourself who may have tipped the paper off to write the story in the first place. That’s a much better topic for discussion.

On a completely unrelated matter, does anyone fancy helping me take down that sign on the side of the copthorne?

If you want to - just get a green hi vis, or orange it's your choice, a pair of ladders and have the words Scarborough holdings printed on the back. Screwdriver in hand and take it down. Nobody will question you at all.

Shhh don't tell the criminals about the hi vis caper..

 

[Davalon]

Well Kevin.....

 

[Sean Thornton]

So I went to the pub after work on Friday , did I miss owt?

It looks like some posters are telling other posters they shouldn’t have an opinion on certain things. Pretty basic internet guff.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

If you want to - just get a green hi vis, or orange it's your choice, a pair of ladders and have the words Scarborough holdings printed on the back. Screwdriver in hand and take it down. Nobody will question you at all.

Shhh don't tell the criminals about the hi vis caper..

That's not gonna work. Bladesman needs to assemble 11 trusted forumites. Hack into Copthornes computer and get the building blueprints and alarm system wiring.
Then buy Honest Johns Car yard, and The Real Angus Burger Van to use as a lookout post. Rent an upper room in the hotel and play some of McB's playlist at full volume with a party of 20 Twitter hookers, while a tunnel is being dug from the car lot and up into Copthorne basement. Scale the lift shaft to the roof. A team of six absail down, and cut the sign tiewraps with mini lasers. As the sign falls to the floor another member Base jumps from off the top of the south stand, catching the banner and landing in the car lot. Everybody then legs it up London Road, lobbing the banner over a fence.
Who's in?

 

[Bladesman]

That's not gonna work. Bladesman needs to assemble 11 trusted forumites. Hack into Copthornes computer and get the building blueprints and alarm system wiring.
Then buy Honest Johns Car yard, and The Real Angus Burger Van to use as a lookout post. Rent an upper room in the hotel and play some of McB's playlist at full volume with a party of 20 Twitter hookers, while a tunnel is being dug from the car lot and up into Copthorne basement. Scale the lift shaft to the roof. A team of six absail down, and cut the sign tiewraps with mini lasers. As the sign falls to the floor another member Base jumps from off the top of the south stand, catching the banner and landing in the car lot. Everybody then legs it up London Road, lobbing the banner over a fence.
Who's in?

I don't know, this is starting to sound like a job for The Crab Industries.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I don't know, this is starting to sound like a job for The Crab Industries.

Please god, not for the abseiling gear....