That would be the media furore around Rio Ferdinand of Manchester United missing a drugs test and being banned for 8 months right?

 

I assume your point is why there wasn't a furore in the media about Ryan Giggs being made captain for Team GB despite being found to have slept with his brother's missus....OK.

 

No my point is, have you found the column yet, because we all know you've been looking, and can you explain why you haven't found it?

 

That's the point.

If you are going to quote me.....

I said 'when they steal things'. The inference that they are clearly guilty.

I know what you said, but that implies Costasvguilt, Costa may have dived before, did he dive last night? Not a chance, so actually the thief hasn't stolen anything.

As for the "stamp" (I use that lightly, some peoples idea of a stamp is bizarre) prove it was in fact deliberate as you say?

As I'd say for your thief being found outside with something that shop sold, prove they stole it from there?

On both accounts, I think you'll find the answer is, you can't.

He overstepped the mark, I think it's a bit silly to try and claim it was accidental. Annoyed at him.

 

That said, the charge by the FA is ridiculously inconsistent after the Aguero stamp and Sterling slap. Expect nothing less from them now though.

Apparently this was deemed to not be a red card offence by the fa.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le-LHsvCgcM

Unbelievable.

I know what you said, but that implies Costasvguilt, Costa may have dived before, did he dive last night? Not a chance, so actually the thief hasn't stolen anything.

As for the "stamp" (I use that lightly, some peoples idea of a stamp is bizarre) prove it was in fact deliberate as you say?

As I'd say for your thief being found outside with something that shop sold, prove they stole it from there?

On both accounts, I think you'll find the answer is, you can't.

No, you clearly did not understand what I said. I give up trying to explain something I thought was pretty clear...

No my point is, have you found the column yet, because we all know you've been looking, and can you explain why you haven't found it?

 

That's the point.

 

You explain what you think this proves. That a bias towards Man United in the 'media' meant that no-one wrote about it being inappropriate that he was captain of Team GB because of his cheating and then draw a parallel between what? John Terry and Wayne Bridge?

 

Feel free to develop that point but I'd much rather talk about this supposed agenda. Who is driving it? 

 

What area of the media have you worked in by the way?

Apparently this was deemed to not be a red card offence by the fa.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le-LHsvCgcM

Unbelievable.

Isn't that a case where the referee saw what happened but did not deem the offence worthy of a red card at the time ?

The FA can only charge a player if the referee does not see what may have happened and, therefore, has had no chance to react to it during the game ? People mention Agueros stamp but my understanding was the referee awarded a foul as a result of the challenge, therefore saw it, and that means no further action can be taken by the FA ?

Here is the video:

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/E3CE9955D21171949212838379520_37686e71bd1.0.1.14667688942729317667.mp4?versionId=CfYeqXg.oSX94eIWlqeZFI39YsT81zgM

 

Good luck trying to prove that this is deliberate. It's a step on the foot, no unatural movement from Costas part and Costa is focusing on the ball..

 

Foul, yellow card, get the f**k on with the game. That is how i see it.

 

At the time i thought it was a red card, but when you are so engrossed in a game your emotions are all over the place.

 

Seriously, who here actually thinks what Diego Costa did here was dangerous ? Has anyone actually had this done to them before ? it doesn't hurt one bit, you feel it, but it doesn't hurt.

 

Violent conduct ? piss off, i have seen more violent conduct from my 7 year old niece

Edited January 28, 201511 yr by Scott Harris

No, clattenburg didn't see it, fa reviewed it and deemed it not be worthy of a retrospective red card. Idiots.

No, clattenburg didn't see it, fa reviewed it and deemed it not be worthy of a retrospective red card. Idiots.

Thanks. Didn't know the context.

You explain what you think this proves. That a bias towards Man United in the 'media' meant that no-one wrote about it being inappropriate that he was captain of Team GB because of his cheating and then draw a parallel between what? John Terry and Wayne Bridge?

 

Feel free to develop that point but I'd much rather talk about this supposed agenda. Who is driving it? 

 

What area of the media have you worked in by the way?

 

No no no no no.

 

Countless column inches have been written on why John Terry and Ashley Cole should never be given the England captaincy on the basis of their sex lives.

 

Ryan Giggs appointed by Stuart Pearce? Not one word of criticism. Not one, in fact quite the opposite, fulsome praise.

 

He banged his brother's wife for eight years, he got her pregnant, had at least one other lover at the same time, a glamour model, he tried to take out an injunction, he was outed in Parliament.

 

Edit: I'm giving you the evidence. Now you provide the explanation. We're waiting.

Edited January 28, 201511 yr by Davey Baby

No no no no no.

 

Countless column inches have been written on why John Terry and Ashley Cole should never be given the England captaincy on the basis of their sex lives.

 

Ryan Giggs appointed by Stuart Pearce? Not one word of criticism. Not one, in fact quite the opposite, fulsome praise.

 

He banged his brother's wife for eight years, he got her pregnant, had at least one other lover at the same time, a glamour model, he tried to take out an injunction, he was outed in Parliament.

 

Edit: I'm giving you the evidence. Now you provide the explanation. We're waiting.

 

The Giggs story was at first buried under a superinjunction and then it actually developed into a much larger story about the freedom of the press. That's the timeline of the story in a nutshell.

 

If you're asking then why no-one kicked up a fuss about Giggs being captain, there are a number of possible reasons. One is simply that it probably didn't have a huge amount of public interest six months after the fact. 

 

It seems like you enjoy asking questions but don't like answering them so let's try again. What's your experience of the media, specifically newspapers and in your opinion who is controlling this agenda and to what end? Perhaps you don't know the names so based on your experience what would be the type of role this person (or persons) might hold?

 

We're waiting....

One is simply that it probably didn't have a huge amount of public interest six months after the fact. 

 

Don't be so ridiculous.

No no no no no.

 

Countless column inches have been written on why John Terry and Ashley Cole should never be given the England captaincy on the basis of their sex lives.

 

Ryan Giggs appointed by Stuart Pearce? Not one word of criticism. Not one, in fact quite the opposite, fulsome praise.

 

He banged his brother's wife for eight years, he got her pregnant, had at least one other lover at the same time, a glamour model, he tried to take out an injunction, he was outed in Parliament.

 

Edit: I'm giving you the evidence. Now you provide the explanation. We're waiting.

Don't forget that I.T.V. had that show The Life Of Ryan. Which as far as i could tell was about a bloke doing a crap job as a manager for 6 weeks. John Terry gets the Chelsea job for a few weeks would there be a documentary about it i doubt it.

Don't be so ridiculous.

 

I'm sure that someone could've written a story about how a man at the centre of such a sordid story was being made captain of the Team GB football team but I'm not too sure it's a story that the public would want to hear in the build-up to the London Olympics. You may disagree but I think a lot is being made of this to obfuscate the actual points at the heart of this matter.

 

The idea of there being some agenda, a conspiracy across different newspapers, different media groups and even individual reporters is simply absurd. That is based on my experience of being in these rooms, knowing these people and even if you don't have that experience, surely a cursory examination of our nation's media would open your eyes to how ridiculous that is.

 

Now davey, I like you as a poster. On this issue though there is a discussion that can be had but let's have an honest one about it. You say there's an agenda against this club and that's a fine starting point to make.

 

Now can you just take it one step further and say by whom and why? That's all. Cheers.

The Giggs story was at first buried under a superinjunction and then it actually developed into a much larger story about the freedom of the press. That's the timeline of the story in a nutshell.

 

If you're asking then why no-one kicked up a fuss about Giggs being captain, there are a number of possible reasons. One is simply that it probably didn't have a huge amount of public interest six months after the fact. 

 

It seems like you enjoy asking questions but don't like answering them so let's try again. What's your experience of the media, specifically newspapers and in your opinion who is controlling this agenda and to what end? Perhaps you don't know the names so based on your experience what would be the type of role this person (or persons) might hold?

 

We're waiting....

I'm not trying to wade in to the debate about Campaigns etc, but i will say is that if you watch MOTD and they do goal of the season from historic years, every goal, of every season for 10 years odd is a Liverpool goal.

 

Why?

 

Because the editor of MOTD was a Liverpool fan. Clear evidence of media bias- so it does exist, and if carried on over a period of time could this not be considered to be a campaign?

Apparently this was deemed to not be a red card offence by the fa.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le-LHsvCgcM

Unbelievable.

 

 

Isn't that a case where the referee saw what happened but did not deem the offence worthy of a red card at the time ?

The FA can only charge a player if the referee does not see what may have happened and, therefore, has had no chance to react to it during the game ? People mention Agueros stamp but my understanding was the referee awarded a foul as a result of the challenge, therefore saw it, and that means no further action can be taken by the FA ?

 

 

No, clattenburg didn't see it, fa reviewed it and deemed it not be worthy of a retrospective red card. Idiots.

 

Well if i was Mourinho this would be my defense of Diego Costa. How can they possibly think that what Diego Costa did was worthy of a violent conduct charge but this not ?

 

In the words of Didier Drogba, IT'S A DISGRACE !!!!

No, you clearly did not understand what I said. I give up trying to explain something I thought was pretty clear...

You've completely avoided countering any of the points I made, carry on in ignorance mate.

I'm not trying to wade in to the debate about Campaigns etc, but i will say is that if you watch MOTD and they do goal of the season from historic years, every goal, of every season for 10 years odd is a Liverpool goal.

 

Why?

 

Because the editor of MOTD was a Liverpool fan. Clear evidence of media bias- so it does exist, and if carried on over a period of time could this not be considered to be a campaign?

 

Gary Linekar even makes jokes about it. The goals of the season are awful as well, the only way they could get voted goal of the season is if there is bias going on.

Gary Linekar even makes jokes about it. The goals of the season are awful as well, the only way they could get voted goal of the season is if there is bias going on.

Deffo, you could understand if they were worldies

Well if i was Mourinho this would be my defense of Diego Costa. How can they possibly think that what Diego Costa did was worthy of a violent conduct charge but this not ?

 

In the words of Didier Drogba, IT'S A DISGRACE !!!!

You missed a word mate ;)

You've completely avoided countering any of the points I made, carry on in ignorance mate.

Jesus wept.

Here goes then.

'When he went to the park'

'When he drove the car down the road'

'When he stole some food'

Now, all of them, by implication, are stating that the writer is suggesting the actual acts took place. He did drive the car, it is not a case of he may or may not have. Do I really need to explain the construct of a simple sentence ? I'm not going to counter your points when you don't actually understand what I was saying to begin with. Comedy that you are accusing me of ignorance.

I'm sure that someone could've written a story about how a man at the centre of such a sordid story was being made captain of the Team GB football team but I'm not too sure it's a story that the public would want to hear in the build-up to the London Olympics. You may disagree but I think a lot is being made of this to obfuscate the actual points at the heart of this matter.

 

Preposterous.

 

Sex sells, the Olympics sells, scandal sells.

 

This was a big story.

 

The public would have lapped it up, instead we got silence.

You don't think the public would want to read a story about one of the most famous footballers in the country, who plays for the most famous team in the country, who was made captain of the Olympic football team had been shagging his brothers wife for 8 years? Again, don't be so ridiculous.

I'm not trying to wade in to the debate about Campaigns etc, but i will say is that if you watch MOTD and they do goal of the season from historic years, every goal, of every season for 10 years odd is a Liverpool goal.

 

Why?

 

Because the editor of MOTD was a Liverpool fan. Clear evidence of media bias- so it does exist, and if carried on over a period of time could this not be considered to be a campaign?

The problem with stating 'facts' on the internet is , using Google, it's very easy to disprove...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_of_the_Season