• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

Ham   
5 minutes ago, synavm said:

Chelsea wouldn't have a good libel case. They've made multiple statements acknowledging our problem with racism and antisemitism. Colin Wing might, though, depending on the wording - I.e. is the word accused used or is the implication that he is guilty.

Loads of folk accused of crimes, black or white, have their identities revealed when they are accused or charged and many that are subsequently found not guilty find their names dragged through the mud. Though this is a problem in the so-called 'MSM', it's not at all limited to the mainstream - alternative media has its own agenda and in many cases demonstrates it is lacking in journalistic integrity every bit as much as the more established media companies. Reality is we all need to get our information from somewhere and there are flaws in every corner of the media. Best bet is to stay pragmatic, keep an open mind and pay more attention to well resourced sources. 

I think one of the issues with this article is the pure laziness and lack of research in using that particular photo and the face-palm timing. 

Let's not forget. Everybody really wanted Colin Wing to be prosecuted and even so the evidence presented proved he said "Manc". This isn't a case of a lack of evidence. The evidence cleared him. With the evidence to hand, the Police still referred it to the CPS. That tells you something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, synavm said:

Chelsea wouldn't have a good libel case. They've made multiple statements acknowledging our problem with racism and antisemitism. Colin Wing might, though, depending on the wording - I.e. is the word accused used or is the implication that he is guilty.

Loads of folk accused of crimes, black or white, have their identities revealed when they are accused or charged and many that are subsequently found not guilty find their names dragged through the mud. Though this is a problem in the so-called 'MSM', it's not at all limited to the mainstream - alternative media has its own agenda and in many cases demonstrates it is lacking in journalistic integrity every bit as much as the more established media companies. Reality is we all need to get our information from somewhere and there are flaws in every corner of the media. Best bet is to stay pragmatic, keep an open mind and pay more attention to well resourced sources. 

Absolutely, good example being the Joanna Yeates murder case where the hungry media did a number on the landlord (Christopher Jefferies) because he was a batchelor and a bit weird looking) who was susequently proved innocent. But the dye was cast...

With this Liverpool incident it is so annoying that the likes of the Guardian make it seem like it didn't happen and the BBC soften it (miss out the racist element, make the article small and move it away quickly) so their precious scousers are not smeared. Luckily there are many of us who know the truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ham said:

Do you mean how much or why?

Neither. I wondered what exact action you’d be bringing. What would you be accusing them of exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   

Pure defamation. They used him as the poster boy for racism before and after he was cleared and also gave a lot of personal information away on him including where he lived. They interviewed hia neighbours and colleagues. 

The tweets from the likes of Wright, Ferdinand and Lineker will be easier to pursue.

They outright called him a racist.  Wright called Chelsea as a club racist because of Colin Wing by saying "The bad times are back at Chelsea". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea owner Abramovich not eyeing sale of club to Britain's richest man - source

  •  
  • Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has no interest in selling the club despite fresh speculation linking Britain's richest man, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, with a takeover, a source has told ESPN.

Ratcliffe referred to "conversations" he has had about buying Chelsea in an interview with BBC Sport to promote his takeover and re-branding of cycling giants Team Sky as Team Ineos. The billionaire added that "you never say no" when asked about the possibility of acquiring the club from Abramovich, despite describing himself as "a tortured Manchester United fan."

The 66-year-old did enquire about Chelsea's availability in May 2018, but his approach was politely declined before the discussion advanced to potential valuations.

A source told ESPN that Abramovich has never spoken to Ratcliffe or any other interested party about selling Chelsea. The Russian remains committed to the club he acquired for £140 million from Ken Bates in July 2003, into which he has since invested around £1.13 billion of his personal wealth.

Ratcliffe has also revealed he received a guided tour of Chelsea's Cobham training ground several years ago, though a source said that this was offered to several high-value corporate box owners as a way of thanking them for renewing their financial commitment to matchdays at Stamford Bridge.

Abramovich, by contrast, stopped paying up front for his own corporate box at the stadium this season, raising further questions about the Russian's long-term interest in and commitment to owning Chelsea.

Marina Granovskaia oversees Chelsea's day-to-day football operations on Abramovich's behalf and the Russian has not attended a game at Stamford Bridge since having an application to renew his tier-1 investor visa rejected by the UK government last year, amid heightened political tensions with Russia.

Abramovich responded by seeking Israeli citizenship and halting the proposed £1bn redevelopment of Stamford Bridge into a state-of-the-art 60,000-seat arena. There is currently no timetable for the project to resume.

Chelsea have won 15 major trophies since Abramovich took over the club in 2003, and could still add a 16th by lifting this season's Europa League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on^ Perhaps as well, there are protest groups out around the Ineos Cycle team (I think that is the ex-Sky team) about Ineos Fracking activities.

It could be that by doing a lot of interviews to promote Ineos cycling team, this story is just getting pushed by journalists for no good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ham said:

Pure defamation. They used him as the poster boy for racism before and after he was cleared and also gave a lot of personal information away on him including where he lived. They interviewed hia neighbours and colleagues. 

The tweets from the likes of Wright, Ferdinand and Lineker will be easier to pursue.

They outright called him a racist.  Wright called Chelsea as a club racist because of Colin Wing by saying "The bad times are back at Chelsea". 

Fair enough. Thanks Ham, but it would be a slippery one to win I think. Wright's opinion is his own and so who exactly should be sued would need to be carefully weighed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
6 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Fair enough. Thanks Ham, but it would be a slippery one to win I think. Wright's opinion is his own and so who exactly should be sued would need to be carefully weighed up.

Opinion is one thing. Labelling someone a racist, who has been proven not to be racist, is something entirely diffrent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Opinion is one thing. Labelling someone a racist, who has been proven not to be racist, is something entirely diffrent. 

Especially when if he was a racist it would have been a much more realistic "go to" phrase than Manc .

What he was was angry and frustrated and venting .

Luckily I get to make myself look a dick on the internet and not in real life when I do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Opinion is one thing. Labelling someone a racist, who has been proven not to be racist, is something entirely diffrent. 

Not disagreeing necessarily that the press have behaved as their usual selves here, but there have been a few mentions of people being 'cleared' or 'proven innocent' here and it's worth making the point that isn't true, because it's literally impossible. To my mind being quick to believe things are 'proven' one way or another is exactly what we should be resisting. 

As a tangential point (not specific to to Sterling abuse guy at all), I think we as a club and fan base should aspire to a higher ethical standard than simply 'not illegal' or 'not worth the effort of pursuing a prosecution for'. The most damaging racism isn't illegal at all, hence The Daily Mail existing in the first place. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now