Jump to content

Unbelievable sh!te from the Guardian


Backbiter

Recommended Posts



I thought it was a reasonable article, it worried and upset me to see the owner walk out on his team at the first sign of a loss. He's the f*ckin' owner, he has no right to be in the dressing room before or after the game anyway, his dealings should be done in the boardroom not in the dressing room. Walking out early showed a lack of respect for the players, management, fans and the opposition board.

I wasn't impressed with him on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More defamatory imputations in that article than the Drog's goal tally last season. The Guardian rightly deserves a plaint for that and I trust that Roman's trusty lieutenants are preparing same. Chels, just your local totalitarian football club. Jesus, what vituperative garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More defamatory imputations in that article than the Drog's goal tally last season. The Guardian rightly deserves a plaint for that and I trust that Roman's trusty lieutenants are preparing same. Chels, just your local totalitarian football club. Jesus, what vituperative garbage.

Hold on, let me look up vituperative....

Pronunciation: vI-'t?-p(&-)r&-tiv, -p&-"rA-

Function: adjective

: uttering or given to censure : containing or characterized by verbal abuse

- vi?tu?per?a?tive?ly adverb

yeahthat.gif

How clever and erudite of Mr. Hattenstone to be reminded of Hitler and Stalin by Roman's leaving a few minutes early. All that insight into what Roman thinks and why he acts in certain ways..... I'm in awe.

I personally wish to experience all the agony for my money, but I confess to having left my seat once just before fulltime because my bladder was about to burst. Woe unto me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With his beloved team a goal down and the players looking deflated as the clock runs down, if Simon Hattenstone had shot up in the 88th minute at Highbury and stormed out in a huff, no one would have noticed. If he?d dramatically seized the microphone to grandly announce his angry exit because Man City were losing their first game in the brave new Shinawatra dawn, no one would have batted an eyelid. And that is the problem. Mr Hattenstone is a frustrated Man City supporter who thinks his pathway to fame is through madcap criticisms of Chelsea. I don?t think he?s qualified to join the queue yet, because on this evidence, he?d first need to hire a ghost writer to help out. Reading him is the ultimate out-of-reason experience.

Like the poor copycat he is, Hattenstone, in this piece, is trying to intellectualize the senseless sobriquet coined for Roman by his slimy constituency. In one of their most enlightening moments, the press dubbed Abramovich ?Red Rom?. From thence the bolshevization of the man took a life of its own. After all, he always has that vacant, cold look in his eyes, moves around with a herd of scary bodyguards, hardly talks to the press, is dangerously quiet, calculating and, most importantly (and this is the clincher), he is from Mother Russia!

So, making a Stalin of Roman is all red-romantic. It?s the proud contribution of the dregs of the fourth estate to the war effort - a supposedly timely warning to the rest of us uninformed lot (ungrateful inheritors of a post-cold War victory against the Red Army) that we need not fall into dreary complacency, believing that this Russian isn?t dangerous while he amasses nuclear points against all other competitions as he compromises our national football security. We can see that he?s pretending to be the poster boy of western capitalism only to smuggle himself into our confidences - following in the dreaded footsteps of a long list of communist spies that once built their nests on these shores. His real red nature is the one we?ve seen at Villa Park. To put it another way, Chelsea is the Russia that glasnost and perestroika couldn?t destroy!

It would have been funny if it isn?t this sad. Hattenstone is paid by the newspaper-buying public, yet he consistently comes up with such putrid prattles in the name of sane commentary. On this one, his editor should have tasked him with sorting out his own confusion first before feeding the public such garbage. Yes, someone should have told him that this attempt to make a literary correlation between ?walking?, ?walking a couple of strides behind?, ?walk out? and ?walkout? has fallen flat on its face once again. Walkouts do not happen two minutes before the end of the show. They happen at the beginning of the show or sometime almost after. The idea of a walkout is to supplant the planned action or spectacle. It is to show that you aren?t interested in what is to be offered, having been given an idea of what is to follow. You don?t do walkouts in the 88th minute of a 90 minutes match. In that case, you?re merely walking away or walking out because the match is effectively over. No drama.

Those calling for Roman to sue should save their venom. Simon, even in his stupidity, has not written anything libellous. He has a right to be reminded of Stalin, Hitler or Napoleon the Pig by merely seeing Roman?s frustration at watching his beloved Chelsea lose a match at Villa Park, just as we have the right to declare him bonkers after reading him.

CHEERS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Disagree Kenn, definitely libellous in my humble opinion, that opinion is hardly, as you say, "venomous". Whilst the Hitler/Olympics analogy was crude and obtuse at best, the Stalin/Shosta:Roman/Jose analogy is appalling. Perhaps you should brush up on your Russian history as to what became of most of Shostas relatives and friends in 1936 after Stalin's walk out not to mention his complete denunciation for at least the next 2 years of his life. Moreover, the piece is neither fair comment, true or in the public interest. I'd like to know how you would plead defences to the more obvious imputations within the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, this mealy mouthed sh*tfaced slimeaball is bang out of order. The bloke obviously thinks he's clever but comes across as a pretentious, intellectual piece of sh*t. Can you burn sh*t? I only ask because if this slag was on fire, I wouldn't cross the road to piss on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lofty - if you want to get really wound up by something on the Guardian blog website, plough through the vast number of posts from readers in response to the Abramovich=Hitler article I posted, and another one on the same site about the Ballack business.

There's a Liverpool scumbag on there called 'Mawaltrees' or something. When I get round to it I'll post some of what he's written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well, I'll read anything about Chelsea, no matter how mauch it winds me up, but here's a sample from that sad deluded tw@t I referred to:

Your claim chelsea get bad press is total nonsense. the british media have been on a buttkissing exercise when it comes to chelsea and mourinho in particular that makes blair's previous relationship with bush look evenly balanced and normal.

This alone proves that this tosser is utterly insane

at the same time rafa has been totally belittled as mr 'hopeless' in the epl, it's been like listening to a broken des o'connor lp with commentator after commentator spilling the same old crap about rafa not understanding epl footy... we'll see... what i do know is everyone else's squads actually make sense... mourinho's makes nonsense...

nothing wenger, saf, rafa have done... [and no they are not exactly saints themselves] is even in the same ballpark as the frisk affair, i don't see any of the other top three encouraging their centre-backs to do star jumps every time an opposition player shoots and thus hand balling it 15 times a season either...

This guy spends so much time writing reams of garbage about us i think he might be redrobmol's alter ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just skimmed through some of the comments without, it has to be said, paying alot of attention. But the poster who has named himself

.......... Jimmy Floyd BottleBank..................

Has made my day. A big, huge, mega Gold Star is in the post.

Though I doubt he'll be getting a Xmas card from Brian M and Liam. icon_lol.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's this one:

only speaking for myself, but what ruined it all is the manor in which chelsea have achieved all this, their pathetic cheating on the pitch which is supremely irritating given the talent at their disposal, nonsensical rants by their manager, forcing drogba to defend, drogba's hair, arrogance, smugness, disgusting transfer policy which makes real madrid's look rational by comparison [obi mikel anyone?], over dependance on lampard who is as limited a player as becks ever was despite being good at certain things, the frisk affair, kenyon who is despicable, robot like performances on the pitch [tho that's a minor 'crime' it brought results], breaking up the duff/robben partnership, dismal failure to replace it, their supporters who make even man u supporters look humble in comparison, the fact that 3 out of 4 of their unimpressive fanbase had never heard of chelsea til abrom arrived... dodgy oligarch money, paying JT 130k a week for reason's i still can't fathom, hatred of Liverpool just because we beat them when it matters, fact that everyone liked or at least respected mourinho in his first season, and he's gone and ruined it all, his failure to stand up to Abrom last season, he buttkissed and virtually begged instead, did i mention kenyon's loathsome presence, JT and Lamps acting like world class players simply because they have world class salaries, bidding on any player saf, rafa, wenger have their eyes on, is there anyone they haven't bid on??? which makes a mockery of any suggestion they have a clear football philosphy, and their assumption they will be seen as having class, greatness, pedigree etc based on 2 epl wins and having more money than everyone else... could go on... but u get the picture...

OK, I'll stop quoting this drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Youlots,

Disagree Kenn, definitely libellous in my humble opinion, that opinion is hardly, as you say, "venomous". Whilst the Hitler/Olympics analogy was crude and obtuse at best, the Stalin/Shosta:Roman/Jose analogy is appalling. Perhaps you should brush up on your Russian history as to what became of most of Shostas relatives and friends in 1936 after Stalin's walk out not to mention his complete denunciation for at least the next 2 years of his life. Moreover, the piece is neither fair comment, true or in the public interest. I'd like to know how you would plead defences to the more obvious imputations within the article.

I do not need to brush up on any Russian history to discuss the issues here. What happened to Shostakovich?s relatives and friends as a consequence of his differences of opinion with Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party of his day has no bearing on the matter of whether or not Simon Hattenstone?s comment about Abramovich is libellous. Of course, you can see that I?m not a great fan of Hattenstone?s comment; but that does not mean every unsavoury or stupid comment made by a crackpot is justiciable on the defamation front. It does not mean every senseless or ?unfair? insult hurled at us in a newspaper calls for action in libel. If it were so, the courts would be overwhelmed by such cases.

Having said the above, I also wouldn?t say you?re wrong to believe that Hattenstone?s comparison of the supposed Abramovich walkout with Stalin?s is libellous, especially as libel cases are complex, uncertain and the judges definition of defamation are by no means comprehensive. Indeed, as things are, there is no definition covering every case. Thus, my claim that there?s nothing libellous in Hattenstone?s comment in question is only an opinion based on what I?d want to think is an informed view of how a libel court would look at it, based on the facts of this case.

Of course, it?s quite stupid to say the supposed walkout of a fan or the owner of a football club from a game his club were losing reminds him of walkouts by some of the political world?s vilest figures, but, in my opinion, that?s all there is to it ? stupidity. I believe that questions of opinion which are neither true nor untrue can be defended on the basis of ?fair comment?, even though in non-legal circumstances the statement itself could be uncharitable, irresponsible and indeed unfair, as in this case.

Based on this comment, I do not think Roman would waste his time thinking legal action against Hattenstone.

CHEERS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Tech GIF by Atlassian

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!

Sure, let me in!