Jump to content

Anti-Chelsea media


Recommended Posts

JT can be a bit of a prick at times, but the way the media went after him was disgusting. They even admitted at first they loved him when he was England captain as he was open and honest with them, and always available to them. Then they turned on him, set his dad up then tried to set him up. The Bridge thing was pathetic, it was Bridges ex, he had nothing to do with her any more (and he had even actually taken her from another Chelsea player years ago).

The worst thing about the Ferdinand thing was the only openly racist thing involved in the whole debacle was Rio Ferdinand slandering Ashley Cole and that was basically laughed off as just messing around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The media do like to go after big-name players from time to time. Sterling is another recent example that springs to mind.

With the Terry/Ferdinand thing I think the FA were probably just desperate to be seen to take a tough stance on racism and so Terry didn't stand a chance, even though his version of events is plausible (as shown in backbiter's video) and it was impossible to prove anything either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Backbiter said:

There are enormous threads on here about the Terry - Ferdinand case. Like you, I don't believe for one second that the captain of one of the most racially diverse teams in the history of English football is a racist. I am able to lipread pretty well and there is zero doubt that he used the words f... b ... c.... even though not a single one of the players or officials on the pitch heard them. Terry admits to using them. The only question was in what context.

He argued that Ferdinand accused him of calling him that, and that what he was saying was either 'Did you think I called you a.....' or 'I never called you a ....' JT' s defence team provided a lip reader who stated that the word before 'f....' was not 'you' but 'a', but even though there were about 10 different cameras not one of them managed to capture the full sentence. 

There was a YouTube clip where JT appeared to say ' I n..' at the start (I never) and they they added the words 'called you a' before the fbc, and it fitted perfectly on the clip. Not sure if it's still online but it was very convincing.

Edit:  here it is. It reminded me that after using the words 'fbc', he called him a f**king knobhead, which lends weight to Terry's argument. Calling someone a knobhead is like calling them an idiot, when compared to calling them a c**t. It's a far more mild insult, so it would be like saying, for example, I never called you a rapist, you twat'. If you were shouting abuse at someone, you would never call them, say, a w**ker and then follow it up with milder insult like a pillock. If you call some a c**t, there isn't anywhere else to go, really.

The magistrate found Terry to be a credible witness who stood up very well to intense cross-examination, and acquitted him because the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I remember a journalist ( maybe Martin Samuel) saying that JT came up with his version of events that same day and never wavered at all, even though he must have known there were up to a dozen cameras, anyone of which could have shown him to be a bare-faced liar. If he was simply inventing his defence he was taking a massive risk, so the journalist concluded he was telling the truth

The FA used entirely different criteria for convicting him. Basically, they said he was guilty because he used the words on the pitch and admitted it, and context was therefore not relevant. It was a bit more complicated than that and they did appalling character assassination of both JT and Ashley Cole, who they accused of changing his statement, when in fact he simply asked for it to be amended after it was sent to the club for him to check and sign. It is in fact entirely normal for a witness to review and amend a statement before signing it when it has been written up after an interview and then sent on for signing.

The FA were basically desperate to convict JT to show they had a zero-tolerance approach to any racial/ racist language and overrode their own regulations that stated the law courts had primacy over their tribunals. They had to come up with the Ashley Cole allegation to do that.

It was a horrendous episode for all concerned, and ultimately the person to blame was.... Chris Foy, who refereed the game so appallingly that tempers frayed really badly, and Ferdinand got away with elbowing JT in the head. A red card for that would have avoided everything. I seem to remember we were down to nine men by half-time, but I might be mixing up my shocking Chris Foy refereeing performances.

Thank you for that, really added a lot of context. 

I wasn't around on this forum at the time when this incident happened. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 12/05/2020 at 08:57, dkw said:

JT can be a bit of a prick at times, but the way the media went after him was disgusting. They even admitted at first they loved him when he was England captain as he was open and honest with them, and always available to them. Then they turned on him, set his dad up then tried to set him up. The Bridge thing was pathetic, it was Bridges ex, he had nothing to do with her any more (and he had even actually taken her from another Chelsea player years ago).

The worst thing about the Ferdinand thing was the only openly racist thing involved in the whole debacle was Rio Ferdinand slandering Ashley Cole and that was basically laughed off as just messing around.

Well it seems the BBC are about to dig it all up again with a one hour documentary - Anton Ferdinand: Football, Racism and Me. Look forward to our club and JT being castigated all over again.

Why FFS?

I'm all for the Black Lives Matter but the BBC seem to be going out of their way to to balance all the bad things that have happened to blacks throughout history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nibs said:

Well it seems the BBC are about to dig it all up again with a one hour documentary - Anton Ferdinand: Football, Racism and Me. Look forward to our club and JT being castigated all over again.

Why FFS?

I'm all for the Black Lives Matter but the BBC seem to be going out of their way to to balance all the bad things that have happened to blacks throughout history.

They can’t get out their own way. Be good if they also show how much the club does to combat racism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nibs said:

Well it seems the BBC are about to dig it all up again with a one hour documentary - Anton Ferdinand: Football, Racism and Me. Look forward to our club and JT being castigated all over again.

Why FFS?

I'm all for the Black Lives Matter but the BBC seem to be going out of their way to to balance all the bad things that have happened to blacks throughout history.

I believe what he says about Terry has already been released; 

Which is essentially

"I didn't hear him say it, I hugged him after the game, then later I found out what he said and I've kicked myself for not speaking out"

Speaking out about what? You didn't hear it. What can you possibly say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TV License is bollocks. Even if you don't have a TV/watch live TV, they'll harass you with nonsense letters about non-existence "investigations" that have been launched. Even if they did send someone round to investigate, they'd have no right to enter your property. Fact is, unless you're genuinely watching the BBC, don't pay it. They'd be better off moving to a subscription service.

Outside of nature documentaries, BBC produces mostly complete crap anyway. All of their drama/fiction is shot and performed the same across each of their shows. It's like a really boring, niche genre, for people that can't be bothered to find anything original elsewhere.

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

TV License is bollocks. Even if you don't have a TV/watch live TV, they'll harass you with nonsense letters about non-existence "investigations" that have been launched. Even if they did send someone round to investigate, they'd have no right to enter your property. Fact is, unless you're genuinely watching the BBC, don't pay it. They'd be better off moving to a subscription service.

Outside of nature documentaries, BBC produces mostly complete crap anyway. All of their drama/fiction is shot and performed the same across each of their shows. It's like a really boring, niche genre, for people that can't be bothered to find anything original elsewhere.

What you say about not giving access is very true yet how many of us would have gullible partners that just might open the door.............. to a large fine.

Edited by Strider6003
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hessleboink said:

They have to prove you're using it to watch live TV, which is almost impossible to do. You're allowed to have a TV without paying it. 

or recording live TV....

I have never understood this "Hill to die on Lefty Tax hate the BBC never Watch it bollocks" for starters it works out at about 40p a day. Is still regarded as the one of the best broadcasters in the world, provides Radio stations nationally and internationally, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bonzodog29 said:

or recording live TV....

I have never understood this "Hill to die on Lefty Tax hate the BBC never Watch it bollocks" for starters it works out at about 40p a day. Is still regarded as the one of the best broadcasters in the world, provides Radio stations nationally and internationally, 

I love the BBC. TV would be unwatchable within 5 years if they got rid of it. 

They make all tv and radio better because they provide a standard which isn't bending over for advertisers. 

Too many people complain about the content produced which they don't like. If there was no BBC then the content provided would be even worse and the parts that those people do like wouldn't even be made. 

Anyway. The BBC have always been fairer to Chelsea than other broadcasters. Garth crooks seems to have a raging hard on for Rudiger which I don't understand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For balance, the German equivalent to the licence fee is not 'optional' (every single residence must pay it), costs a lot more, and the TV is really sh*t. The news is alright though.

Having a reasonably reliable news service is one of the main advantages of the BBC, in my opinion. Without it, you would end up with a similar ridiculously polarised FOX NEWS vs. CNN situation as in the USA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I see some tits referring to the TV licence as "a lefty tax"???????  Really?

A licence introduced originally introduced by the Conservative government of 1904, aligned with the BBC by the Conservative government of 1922, and then dedicated to the full funding of the BBC in 1927 by another Conservative government.  It was jacked up from £34 to £58 by Thatcher, 

What sort of right-wing tool do you have to be to consider Lord Salisbury, Bonar Law, Stanley Baldwin and Thatcher as "lefty"??

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

Did I see some tits referring to the TV licence as "a lefty tax"???????  Really?

A licence introduced originally introduced by the Conservative government of 1904, aligned with the BBC by the Conservative government of 1922, and then dedicated to the full funding of the BBC in 1927 by another Conservative government.  It was jacked up from £34 to £58 by Thatcher, 

What sort of right-wing tool do you have to be to consider Lord Salisbury, Bonar Law, Stanley Baldwin and Thatcher as "lefty"??

One of our tits said so (therefore only tit singular), one only quoted :quote:  If someone makes you pay, it must be lefty, right? 

Edited by Valerie
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strider6003 said:

Surely you don't think Match of the Day is fairer to Chelsea?

I personally don't buy into the view that any media outlets are unfair to Chelsea but I do think that Sky and BT Sport have a bias towards Liverpool and United and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would agree.

BBC pundits are spread across the footballing world, Shearer, Linekar, Ian Wright, Jenas, Murphy, Keown, Nevin, Lawro, Alex Scott. 

Sky pundits are almost exclusively Liverpool and United (with the always token "other club" added in). Neville was the f**king co commentator when we played United. 

The reason is because those clubs are bigger than us and Sky and BT Sport are commercial outlets, they are paid to be biased. 

Edited by bisright1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I personally don't buy into the view that any media outlets are unfair to Chelsea but I do think that Sky and BT Sport have a bias towards Liverpool and United and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would agree.

BBC pundits are spread across the footballing world, Shearer, Linekar, Ian Wright, Jenas, Murphy, Keown, Nevin, Lawro, Alex Scott. 

Sky pundits are almost exclusively Liverpool and United (with the always token "other club" added in). Neville was the f**king co commentator when we played United. 

The reason is because those clubs are bigger than us and Sky and BT Sport are commercial outlets, they are paid to be biased. 

I can't comment on Sky or BT as don't use them yet respect your point about commercial interest being the reason.

A point on Liverpool, I wonder now if we have more people following CFC than Liverpool on digital platforms / media, no contest with Utd though. 

MOTD, actually think Lineker likes Lampard it's just the limited coverage we have gotten in recent seasons and never reviewing any contentious points against our team though recently admit they did with Maguire on Azpi and it was good to hear it.

Edited by Strider6003
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I personally don't buy into the view that any media outlets are unfair to Chelsea but I do think that Sky and BT Sport have a bias towards Liverpool and United and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would agree.

BBC pundits are spread across the footballing world, Shearer, Linekar, Ian Wright, Jenas, Murphy, Keown, Nevin, Lawro, Alex Scott. 

Sky pundits are almost exclusively Liverpool and United (with the always token "other club" added in). Neville was the f**king co commentator when we played United. 

The reason is because those clubs are bigger than us and Sky and BT Sport are commercial outlets, they are paid to be biased. 

As much as it pains me to say it I think Neville is pretty good and balanced in his commentary, Jenas when we have played Spurs is always a Tit though 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strider6003 said:

I can't comment on Sky or BT as don't use them yet respect your point about commercial interest being the reason.

A point on Liverpool, I wonder now if we have more people following CFC than Liverpool on digital platforms / media, no contest with Utd though. 

MOTD actually think Lineker likes Lampard it's just the limited coverage we have gotten in recent seasons and never reviewing any contentious points against our team though recently admit they did with Maguire on Azpi and it was good to hear it.

You'd have loved neville's commentary on the maguire Azpi incident then if you had sky 🤣

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bonzodog29 said:

As much as it pains me to say it I think Neville is pretty good and balanced in his commentary, Jenas when we have played Spurs is always a Tit though 

Jenas is a tit. Neville can be a tit. 

It's not their fault. Most bias is unconscious. You can't help it. If you want someone to do well, you will notice positives more than negatives. 

Neville tries to be balanced, but the fact that him and carragher are the main pundits mean the lens will be on those two clubs more. 

Jenas doesn't even try. But it matters less because there are a wide range of pundits at the BBC so I can tune him out and it's rare the BBC have live football 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!