comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
Probably the wrong place to discuss this and we will end up hijacking the thread.
Have a read of this article that I wrote on the matter:
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/52901
If the papers were apologising for reporting the affair then the statement would have referred to the date of the 29th January when they broke the original story. Instead it referred to the 31st January - which is when they ran the story regarding the abortion. The dates are the key here.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Elvis
Dont you think you are scraping the barrel regarding this issue here, the appologies were ambiguous and many of the stories disingenuous to say the least ??
You keep on about the JT and VP affair as though it was personal.....hang on a minute, is that you Wayne
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
posted 5 minutes ago
Elvis
Dont you think you are scraping the barrel regarding this issue here, the appologies were ambiguous and many of the stories disingenuous to say the least ??
You keep on about the JT and VP affair as though it was personal.....hang on a minute, is that you Wayne
-------------------------------------------
Im not really bothered about the affair to be fair. It was just a little dig at Superb Frank, who at the time was throwing insults about and stating that the affair never took place and that the papers were forced to apologise for suggesting that it had. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong.
I don’t agree with what Terry did and I don’t think that his actions are befitting of the England captain, but it isn’t that big a deal.
And the apologies werent ambiguous - they clearly related to the story on the 31st which was about the abortion. If they were aplogising for claiming the affair took place then legally they would have had to state from the 29th onwards.
And the apologies werent ambiguous - they clearly related to the story on the 31st which was about the abortion. If they were aplogising for claiming the affair took place then legally they would have had to state from the 29th onwards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dude show me an article that states it is because of an abortion!!!!
sure they apologiesd for that too but the article is only refering to the articles they published regarding the allged affair.
it is an apology for running the story itself
this line says it all
articles concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
no abortion mentioned just a statement regarding the ALLEGED affair.
comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
dude show me an article that states it is because of an abortion!!!!
sure they apologiesd for that too but the article is only refering to the articles they published regarding the allged affair.
it is an apology for running the story itself
this line says it all
articles concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
no abortion mentioned just a statement regarding the ALLEGED affair.
---------------------------------------------
Articles CONCERNING the affair. Not the affair itself.
Like I said – if they were apologising for running the story alleging that the affair took place the statement would have referred to the story published on the 29th and thereafter. But it didn’t – it referred to the story run on the 31st and thereafter. So they did not apologise for reporting the alleged affair – just the story about the abortion, which they proceeded to refer to in further editions of the paper. Its pretty simple.
The reason that they do not actually use the words abortion is probably at Perroncell’s request as she didn’t want it raking up again.
yet you keep using thier words of alleged affair!
notice how before this retraction was released they were calling it an affair not an alleged affiar!
sounds like serious backtracking to me
comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
posted 2 minutes ago
yet you keep using thier words of alleged affair!
notice how before this retraction was released they were calling it an affair not an alleged affiar!
sounds like serious backtracking to me
----------------------------------------
I dont know for certain if the affair took place - although I strongly suspect that it did. However, my point was and still is about what the papers were forced to apologise about.
Look at this link here and read the original story that the mail broke on the 29th:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1246974/John-Terry-named-star-affair-Wayne-Bridges-ex-girlfriend-Vanessa-Perroncel.html
You will see in the second paragraph that they used the word alleged, which is standard practice for legal reasons.
So you are incorrect in your point that they started using the word alleged after that retraction. They used the word from the off.
Keep arguing all you like but the apology clearly states that it relates to the story they ran in the 31st - not the story they ran on the 29th. As the story on the 31st was about the supposed abortion; what makes you think that it wasnt about the abortion? What makes you think it was about the story on the 29th and therefore the whole affair. There is just no logical in that.
The reason that they do not actually use the words abortion is probably at Perroncell’s request as she didn’t want it raking up again.
========================================
I notice your use of the word probably in this collection of words.
Nothing more than idle speculation and conjecture on your part then mate
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
I notice your use of the word probably in this collection of words.
Nothing more than idle speculation and conjecture on your part then mate
--------------------------------------------
Think about it like this - she goes after the papers for printing untruths about her having an abortion (the story from the 31st). She wins her case, gets damages awarded and the papers have to print an apology. Do you think that she wants them to rake up the whole abortion story again, or perhaps be a little more discreet?
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
=============================================
The opening 5 words would have you bumped out of any courtroom in the land, and the whole paragraph fits your spin on things
How about this
They never had an affair, thats why they said sorry, you are just reading it incorrectly
It's as likely as your theory, and has less spin on it, yours comes straight out of a Shane Warne leg break
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
=============================================
The opening 5 words would have you bumped out of any courtroom in the land, and the whole paragraph fits your spin on things
How about this
They never had an affair, thats why they said sorry, you are just reading it incorrectly
It's as likely as your theory, and has less spin on it, yours comes straight out of a Shane Warne leg break
------------------
Please explain to me then why the retraction referred to the story printed in the 31st of Jan and thereafter? Why did it nit refer to the story of the 29th and thereafter? That is not spin, it is fact.
The only 'spin' I have put on it is voicing my opinion on why the retraction doesn't specifically mention the abortion at the request of Perroncell. Now I could well be wrong about that, but not wrong about which story the apology relates to.
Bale
I think the trouble is the term justice has lost its meaning. Criminal justice is what the courts decide. Footballers can’t escape that – since it is through the courts that MR Loophole gets them cleared. If you are talking about natural justice… if people can avoid that then surely that just means that natural justice does not exist? If it did exist it would happen and people wouldn’t be able to escape it.
Or is justice just an ideal? If so everyone’s notion of it can be different… and everything open to interpretation… in which case the term itself not being a definite means very little objectively. Are they escaping justice? Justice isn’t there so I’m not sure escape it the right term.
Gunnerbegood
I’m worried you are considering Terry guilty because he hasn’t been cleared instantly! I think the reason it is such a big story and creating such a hype is because it is an issue involving race – and as such has been blown out of all proportion by the media. Any investigation will have to be seen as being more thorough if only to appease the media who would accuse a quick investigation of trying to sweep the matter under the carpet… in fact that suggestion has already been used on this thread!
comment by MrMortimer (U8234)
posted 12 minutes ago
Gunnerbegood
I’m worried you are considering Terry guilty because he hasn’t been cleared instantly! I think the reason it is such a big story and creating such a hype is because it is an issue involving race – and as such has been blown out of all proportion by the media. Any investigation will have to be seen as being more thorough if only to appease the media who would accuse a quick investigation of trying to sweep the matter under the carpet… in fact that suggestion has already been used on this thread!
-------------------------------------------------
I think that the same could well be happening with the Evra case. Unless there is some evidence that we arent aware of, I really cant see Suarez being found guilty. However, the FA have probably had to charge him as to make it look as though they have taken it seriously.
Mr Mortimer,I am not considering Terry guilty at all. I was responding to Frank's view that if Terry were guilty he would be charged by now, but he said on the other hand the police are too busy to clear him. Clearing someone takes a cut and paste letter to him or his legal team a lot less work than getting him in charging him and taking his prints, photograph and DNA. It can be inferred no decision has yet been reached one way or the other so Terry remains innocent.
I could be wrong, but I do not think reading between the lines that Terry's defence is he said blind. The press and it could be rubbish have been saying Terry used the alleged phrase to deny he said it. Chelsea's statement after the game referred to context and misunderstanding. Refs particularly are called blind every week without police intervention.
If you think I was implying Terry was guilty, I apologise, but I thank you for pointing it out.
That could well be the case… I think with both cases it will be impossible to prove either way. But what does it matter? We’ve already had the trial by media so they are guilty – regardless of the truth!
Sign in if you want to comment
Say no racism in football is a farce?
Page 5 of 5
posted on 29/11/11
comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
Probably the wrong place to discuss this and we will end up hijacking the thread.
Have a read of this article that I wrote on the matter:
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/52901
If the papers were apologising for reporting the affair then the statement would have referred to the date of the 29th January when they broke the original story. Instead it referred to the 31st January - which is when they ran the story regarding the abortion. The dates are the key here.
posted on 29/11/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/11/11
Elvis
Dont you think you are scraping the barrel regarding this issue here, the appologies were ambiguous and many of the stories disingenuous to say the least ??
You keep on about the JT and VP affair as though it was personal.....hang on a minute, is that you Wayne
posted on 29/11/11
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
posted 5 minutes ago
Elvis
Dont you think you are scraping the barrel regarding this issue here, the appologies were ambiguous and many of the stories disingenuous to say the least ??
You keep on about the JT and VP affair as though it was personal.....hang on a minute, is that you Wayne
-------------------------------------------
Im not really bothered about the affair to be fair. It was just a little dig at Superb Frank, who at the time was throwing insults about and stating that the affair never took place and that the papers were forced to apologise for suggesting that it had. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong.
I don’t agree with what Terry did and I don’t think that his actions are befitting of the England captain, but it isn’t that big a deal.
And the apologies werent ambiguous - they clearly related to the story on the 31st which was about the abortion. If they were aplogising for claiming the affair took place then legally they would have had to state from the 29th onwards.
posted on 29/11/11
And the apologies werent ambiguous - they clearly related to the story on the 31st which was about the abortion. If they were aplogising for claiming the affair took place then legally they would have had to state from the 29th onwards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dude show me an article that states it is because of an abortion!!!!
sure they apologiesd for that too but the article is only refering to the articles they published regarding the allged affair.
it is an apology for running the story itself
this line says it all
articles concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
no abortion mentioned just a statement regarding the ALLEGED affair.
posted on 29/11/11
comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
dude show me an article that states it is because of an abortion!!!!
sure they apologiesd for that too but the article is only refering to the articles they published regarding the allged affair.
it is an apology for running the story itself
this line says it all
articles concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry.
no abortion mentioned just a statement regarding the ALLEGED affair.
---------------------------------------------
Articles CONCERNING the affair. Not the affair itself.
Like I said – if they were apologising for running the story alleging that the affair took place the statement would have referred to the story published on the 29th and thereafter. But it didn’t – it referred to the story run on the 31st and thereafter. So they did not apologise for reporting the alleged affair – just the story about the abortion, which they proceeded to refer to in further editions of the paper. Its pretty simple.
The reason that they do not actually use the words abortion is probably at Perroncell’s request as she didn’t want it raking up again.
posted on 29/11/11
yet you keep using thier words of alleged affair!
notice how before this retraction was released they were calling it an affair not an alleged affiar!
sounds like serious backtracking to me
posted on 29/11/11
comment by Bluethruandthru (U11684)
posted 2 minutes ago
yet you keep using thier words of alleged affair!
notice how before this retraction was released they were calling it an affair not an alleged affiar!
sounds like serious backtracking to me
----------------------------------------
I dont know for certain if the affair took place - although I strongly suspect that it did. However, my point was and still is about what the papers were forced to apologise about.
Look at this link here and read the original story that the mail broke on the 29th:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1246974/John-Terry-named-star-affair-Wayne-Bridges-ex-girlfriend-Vanessa-Perroncel.html
You will see in the second paragraph that they used the word alleged, which is standard practice for legal reasons.
So you are incorrect in your point that they started using the word alleged after that retraction. They used the word from the off.
Keep arguing all you like but the apology clearly states that it relates to the story they ran in the 31st - not the story they ran on the 29th. As the story on the 31st was about the supposed abortion; what makes you think that it wasnt about the abortion? What makes you think it was about the story on the 29th and therefore the whole affair. There is just no logical in that.
posted on 29/11/11
The reason that they do not actually use the words abortion is probably at Perroncell’s request as she didn’t want it raking up again.
========================================
I notice your use of the word probably in this collection of words.
Nothing more than idle speculation and conjecture on your part then mate
posted on 29/11/11
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
I notice your use of the word probably in this collection of words.
Nothing more than idle speculation and conjecture on your part then mate
--------------------------------------------
Think about it like this - she goes after the papers for printing untruths about her having an abortion (the story from the 31st). She wins her case, gets damages awarded and the papers have to print an apology. Do you think that she wants them to rake up the whole abortion story again, or perhaps be a little more discreet?
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
posted on 29/11/11
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
=============================================
The opening 5 words would have you bumped out of any courtroom in the land, and the whole paragraph fits your spin on things
How about this
They never had an affair, thats why they said sorry, you are just reading it incorrectly
It's as likely as your theory, and has less spin on it, yours comes straight out of a Shane Warne leg break
posted on 29/11/11
comment by SANDSEND 59 fenton, fenton, FENTON, oh jesus christ !!! (U6325)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
Yes I am only speculating - however it does fit in with her preferring to keep the matter private if it had been the truth.
=============================================
The opening 5 words would have you bumped out of any courtroom in the land, and the whole paragraph fits your spin on things
How about this
They never had an affair, thats why they said sorry, you are just reading it incorrectly
It's as likely as your theory, and has less spin on it, yours comes straight out of a Shane Warne leg break
------------------
Please explain to me then why the retraction referred to the story printed in the 31st of Jan and thereafter? Why did it nit refer to the story of the 29th and thereafter? That is not spin, it is fact.
The only 'spin' I have put on it is voicing my opinion on why the retraction doesn't specifically mention the abortion at the request of Perroncell. Now I could well be wrong about that, but not wrong about which story the apology relates to.
posted on 30/11/11
Bale
I think the trouble is the term justice has lost its meaning. Criminal justice is what the courts decide. Footballers can’t escape that – since it is through the courts that MR Loophole gets them cleared. If you are talking about natural justice… if people can avoid that then surely that just means that natural justice does not exist? If it did exist it would happen and people wouldn’t be able to escape it.
Or is justice just an ideal? If so everyone’s notion of it can be different… and everything open to interpretation… in which case the term itself not being a definite means very little objectively. Are they escaping justice? Justice isn’t there so I’m not sure escape it the right term.
posted on 30/11/11
Gunnerbegood
I’m worried you are considering Terry guilty because he hasn’t been cleared instantly! I think the reason it is such a big story and creating such a hype is because it is an issue involving race – and as such has been blown out of all proportion by the media. Any investigation will have to be seen as being more thorough if only to appease the media who would accuse a quick investigation of trying to sweep the matter under the carpet… in fact that suggestion has already been used on this thread!
posted on 30/11/11
comment by MrMortimer (U8234)
posted 12 minutes ago
Gunnerbegood
I’m worried you are considering Terry guilty because he hasn’t been cleared instantly! I think the reason it is such a big story and creating such a hype is because it is an issue involving race – and as such has been blown out of all proportion by the media. Any investigation will have to be seen as being more thorough if only to appease the media who would accuse a quick investigation of trying to sweep the matter under the carpet… in fact that suggestion has already been used on this thread!
-------------------------------------------------
I think that the same could well be happening with the Evra case. Unless there is some evidence that we arent aware of, I really cant see Suarez being found guilty. However, the FA have probably had to charge him as to make it look as though they have taken it seriously.
posted on 30/11/11
Mr Mortimer,I am not considering Terry guilty at all. I was responding to Frank's view that if Terry were guilty he would be charged by now, but he said on the other hand the police are too busy to clear him. Clearing someone takes a cut and paste letter to him or his legal team a lot less work than getting him in charging him and taking his prints, photograph and DNA. It can be inferred no decision has yet been reached one way or the other so Terry remains innocent.
I could be wrong, but I do not think reading between the lines that Terry's defence is he said blind. The press and it could be rubbish have been saying Terry used the alleged phrase to deny he said it. Chelsea's statement after the game referred to context and misunderstanding. Refs particularly are called blind every week without police intervention.
If you think I was implying Terry was guilty, I apologise, but I thank you for pointing it out.
posted on 30/11/11
That could well be the case… I think with both cases it will be impossible to prove either way. But what does it matter? We’ve already had the trial by media so they are guilty – regardless of the truth!
Page 5 of 5