|
Post by realtrottersforever on Dec 23, 2015 19:17:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Dec 23, 2015 19:22:25 GMT
Yes, RTF, the ethical standards of all of our media leave a lot to be desired. I suppose it's a question of degrees of sleaze (nice rhyme!). On the other hand, if that's what the public want to read, it's hardly surprising that we get served up the grisly details of people's private lives. Celebs can't really complain, given that they court publicity much of the time, but to harass and spy on the ordinary man or woman in the street and to insinuate some moral outrage is extremely hypocritical and frankly depressing. Even worse occurs when newspapers openly invite scandalous stories and happily pay for them. We all know some of the appalling invasions of privacy that have hit the headlines, many of which have been discovered eventually to have no basis in fact......but by then the damage to some poor innocent's life has been done. There then follows a cursory apology, reeking of insincerity. Their increased income from sales presumably compensates for any damages they might be required to pay, so they will continue to trawl the gutter quite happily, with no concern for human consequences.....or for the truth.
Anyway, stirred into action by this interesting debate, I was motivated enough to write to my local MP, asking, amongst other things, why the Leveson recommendations had not been implemented fully, and also about the delightful Rupert Murdoch.
The reply I got was surprisingly honest:-
"Yes - losing high profile sporting events to Murdoch is just vile, and I am probably one of the (sadly) few Tory MPs who has an enduring affection for the BBC. It remains the main news channel that I watch and I have no doubt Murdoch is a hideously manipulative man who works to nobody's agenda save his own.
To a certain extent I think we are all a little afraid of the press, I know I have spent the last five years ducking out of sight whenever a Mail on Sunday reporter comes into view! Not exactly brave, and hardly something I am proud of, but I guess at the end of the day a survival instinct kicks in and I would rather not draw myself to their attention.
It does cut both ways me (sic) and certainly since the General Election earlier this year I have been more determined to talk to journalists, but only on the issues I want to, and will I ever be beholden to them? No, and if you are going to sup with the devil you need a very long spoon indeed.
The Leveson report has, I know, been a disappointment to many, or rather the lack of implementation. To be blunt I am not sure that IPSO has much more in the way of teeth than its predecessor."
As I say, I was quite impressed with this MP's candour.....especially a Tory!!
Wishing everyone a very merry Christmas and all the best for the new year.
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Dec 24, 2015 9:11:07 GMT
Surprising response.S/he very candid. Am not convinced Neil hard done by. But at least he has apologised. Wouldn't want to be around his Christmas Tree!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2015 10:47:22 GMT
I think there are broadly two narratives of Neil's time with us: A Neil is a good manager. He knows a lot about football and his preparation,selections, in game adjustments and substitutions are more or less correct. He makes a few mistakes but not many. He has been in an impossible position with sub strength players,no resources, kept in the dark and has been plagued by injuries and suspensions. We are 24th because of the overall context not Neil. We can see he's good because of his excellent start with us and his CV with Celtic. His off field indiscretions are sadly not uncommon and his business not ours. He has been focused at work but has personal problems that have no bearing on results B. Neil has good managerial skills and made a superb start with us and was charismatic and immediately attractive to Bolton fans recently tortured by stultifyingly tedious managers.However as time has gone on he has made some capricious decisions and seems to be driven by emotion sometimes rather than intellectual assessment of the best tactics to adopt. He is a bit moody and seems to have exiled or ignored some players whilst continually picking others. He retreats into his mood and is slow to make tactical adjustments and substitutions. He hangs on to leads or draws without making changes hoping not be found out by opposition managers. This is four square with what is reported about his off field flirtations which have been driven by emotion and need rather than the exercise of good judgment. He has charmed people but has turned against them or become bored once the novelty has worn off. To a degree this may be reflected in the league position. He has been distracted from his managerial responsibilities and the honeymoon period has worn thin for him. He is in part responsible or our league position Either? Which? A bit of both?Other? I tend to think B my self My Mrs hates him from day one says he has shifty eyes (womens logic) as for his cv with Celtic everybody does well there its a one horse race . well looks like Mrs was right from day one bump
|
|