The "delighted Ashley has gone, but uncomfortable with Saudi ownership" thread

[Rich]

Fair enough. It was Tom Parmenter, @TomSkyNews, for what it’s worth.

 

My point is just that if it’s the right thing to do, to shed a light on it to what will largely be a new audience, should we not just let them crack on even if they live in a glass house or are “hopping on a bandwagon”?

 

[Hanshithispantz]

Asking someone to essentially grief their their boss on the spot is just a massively snakey thing to do. Howe has done 

nothing wrong and clearlly doesn't deserve to be used in that way. Same as the fans.

 

It's nothing personal like, that's just the nature of the press. 

[Rich]

As Stan said, there’s no way he was ever taking the bait anyway. He’ll have been fully briefed and expecting it.

 

The alternative is that it just doesn’t get asked at all. Is that preferable?

[Hanshithispantz]

I'm not bothered about them asking it as from their POV it would be daft not too. It's a weird industry and I find it hard to take these things to heart anymore personally.

 

 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

50 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I didn't say it wasn't relevant and I didn't say a profession defined the extent of anybody's knowledge. If the journo has a history of asking questions of the Saudi regime at every opportunity then fair enough. If they're jumping on a bandwagon that I believe in [simply because it is suddenly relevant], then they  can jump right back off again.

 

 

 

 

Pleeeease. So people can only ask questions of a development if they've asked questions previously? Maybe we should ask the CCP to help us with our new firewall. 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Super Duper Branko Strupar

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

Pleeeease. So people can only ask questions of a development if they've asked questions previously? Maybe we should ask the CCP to help us with our new firewall. 

 

 

 

No. Just setting a parameter at the other end of the possibilities. 

Fucking drama queen.

Safety smiley.

[Happinesstan]

28 minutes ago, Rich said:

Fair enough. It was Tom Parmenter, @TomSkyNews, for what it’s worth.

 

My point is just that if it’s the right thing to do, to shed a light on it to what will largely be a new audience, should we not just let them crack on even if they live in a glass house or are “hopping on a bandwagon”?

 

Oh aye. Absolutely. Not like we'll ever change the integrity of the media, is it. But just as valid as them asking the question, is questioning the integrity of the question.

[Happinesstan]

13 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

Pleeeease. So people can only ask questions of a development if they've asked questions previously? Maybe we should ask the CCP to help us with our new firewall. 

 

 

 

If I honestly thought there was a genuine interest in the plight of the people of Yemen, then I would be right behind them.

[Hanshithispantz]

2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Oh aye. Absolutely. Not like we'll ever change the integrity of the media, is it. But just as valid as them asking the question, is questioning the integrity of the question.

There's a difference though in a journalist asking a question at a press conference and someone running a campaign/protest or something. 

 

With the latter I would completely agree that bandwaggon jumping is weird but the job of the journalists in that press conference is to generate 'clicks' for whatever rag they represent.

 

The press have always been like this.

 

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Hanshithispantz said:

There's a difference though in a journalist asking a question at a press conference and someone running a campaign/protest or something. 

 

With the latter I would completely agree that bandwaggon jumping is weird but the job of the journalists in that press conference is to generate 'clicks' for whatever rag they represent.

 

The press have always been like this.

 

So we never ever raise the question of integrity because we assume they have none. Is that wat you are saying?

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

If I honestly thought there was a genuine interest in the plight of the people of Yemen, then I would be right behind them.

 

Does he have to be asking it for him? You're coming up with quite a few wild excuses to condemn a journalist for asking a simple question. Do you think yours or my interest in the plight of the Yemeni people are greater or more virtuous than his? 

 

Let the man in a role ask a question that is going to be asked and accept it. The alternative as Rich said is him not asking it, which is infinitely more unpalatable. 

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

Does he have to be asking it for him? You're coming up with quite a few wild excuses to condemn a journalist for asking a simple question. Do you think yours or my interest in the plight of the Yemeni people are greater or more virtuous than his? 

 

Let the man in a role ask a question that is going to be asked and accept it. The alternative as Rich said is him not asking it, which is infinitely more unpalatable. 

Not sure I've condemned anybody at all.

[Hanshithispantz]

6 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

So we never ever raise the question of integrity because we assume they have none. Is that wat you are saying?

No. I think the question is shitty (directed at Howe) and the press by large have zero integrety. I think that's widely accepted.

 

What I mean though is, from an individual journos POV he doesn't need to be invested in the questions he asks as he's just hunting for news. That question is low hanging fruit, as much as I find it unfair it was always going to be asked. If that same journalist was also running a 'remove the PIF' campaign despite previously displaying no interest in the subject it would be different.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Hanshithispantz

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

3 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Not sure I've condemned anybody at all.

 

Well, in 3 posts you've suggested he had no interest in the human suffering of people in Yemen, alluded to the fact he lacked integrity by asking a relevant question, and claimed he must hold infinitely higher standards to that you think he (or anyone else) has previously held in order to be included in the debate at all. Not exactly a glowing endorsement is it. Because he asked a relevant question.

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

Well, in 3 posts you've suggested he had no interest in the human suffering of people in Yemen, alluded to the fact he lacked integrity by asking a relevant question, and claimed he must hold infinitely higher standards to that you think he (or anyone else) has previously held in order to be included in the debate at all. Not exactly a glowing endorsement is it. Because he asked a relevant question.

I wasn't alluding to anything.

[Happinesstan]

I didn't ask "Oh what does he know?" I simply commented that as a sports journo who spends his professional life [likely more than half of his waking time] focussing on sport, is he in a position to deal with any response. The fact that he knows the response will likely be a big fat fuck off, I suppose he is. It brings nothing to the debate but a little bit of focus on the journo.

 

[Happinesstan]

I bet every journo in the room was itching for that "no comment" response. You can just imagine the tension as everybody plays pass the parcel with the sports questions, praying that the music stops on them.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Happinesstan

[Happinesstan]

I've had a weird week, with many varied influences. I watched HIGNFY as they ripped into Johnson, and I was reminded of the fact that it was that show that propelled him to a position to become PM. Not intentionally, I'm sure. in fact I seem to remember they pulled him apart at the time. Now he's pulling the country apart. So you'll have to forgive my cynicism towards relevance in the world of entertainment.

[Smal]

I think I would have to question your own motives as to why you don’t want journalists asking these questions.
 

Ultimately it’s not at all important why they’re asking. Let them get on with it and stop trying to pick holes in their legitimacy, because we really don’t want to be on the side of people trying to shut down discourse on KSA human right abuses. The questions are too important not to ask and if we discourage journalists from doing so, then nobody will ask them at all.

[Dokko]

Tbh I feel those asking the questions are far less bothered about the answer than actually asking the question. 

[Guest HTT II]

42 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Tbh I feel those asking the questions are far less bothered about the answer than actually asking the question. 

They don’t give a fuck about human rights or any of that stuff in reality, but I do agree questions need posed still. Whoever it’s by. They are mostly bandwagon jumpers though and in terms of the validity of their questions, they can do one as they are false as fuck most of them.

[christ]

I can’t speak for the intent of the journalists, but the reason our fans don’t like them asking questions is because we all know what an honest answer would entail. 
 

I think it’s important this topic doesn’t become a cudgel to beat supporters with because ultimately we have no control here. But that only lasts as long as our fans don’t act like fuckwits around the topic. Certain dickheads who shall rename nameless have already decided they’re absolutely going to lean into the worst of this, but the rest of us would do well not to flip our lids because a journalist is suggesting our owners might not be the nicest people in the world. 

[South-Cheshire-Toon]

To be honest I do care that we are associated with this type of 'badness'. I use the word 'badness' as there are a lot of companies / countries out there that 'preach' on one hand, yet on the other they aren't doing what you would call the common 'good'.

 

This common good covers all aspects of life, the universe and everything.

 

For an example, I work for a company, as part of Covid we've not been allowed into our site offices, so working from home, as the restrictions have been lifted an office or two has come open.

I has to go to one the other week, and when I went in, half the site had been cleared ( it must be said at this point that I didn't visit this site often).

I asked someone, where all that stuff gone ? they replied, 'Oh, they've shipped all to xxxx (won't say where as thinking this might get me in the shit)'.

Why ?

'Oh what they are making doesn't comply with some EU regulations so they've moved the manufacturing elsewhere'

 

So my company has knowing moved manufacturing of something elsewhere because it would likely cost to much to move to a cleaner product - so instead they moved to somewhere where there weren't the same regulations.

 

So you can imagine that for all of the 'owners' of all of the (top) football clubs around the world - how many of them have 'clean fingers' - I would say none of them. Only those that are owned by trusts etc will probably have a 'cleaner' bill of health, but then that may not be any fault of their own - ie - having a bank account with a bank that has ties to laundering.

 

How far do you take this ?

 

At the end of the day, all you, we, can do is press these owners through actions - don't buy their food, oil, gas etc - then changes will happen.

 

As an actual point - in Afghanistan, thousands are dying - but no aid being sent - because the rulers are discriminating against women, children etc, I know it's hard to watch and understand, but I do agree with these actions - there is no place in the world for rules from a bygone era being in place in todays world.

 

 

[gjohnson]

I;m still waiting on the out-cry from the Boro lot regarding PIF putting 800m back into SABIC. 

I saw their delegation arrive on site a few weeks ago and there's not been a whisper about human rights down here. 

[gjohnson]

5 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I;m still waiting on the out-cry from the Boro lot regarding PIF putting 800m back into SABIC. 

I saw their delegation arrive on site a few weeks ago and there's not been a whisper about human rights down here.