Topics about News International
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Posts
#494664
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:

They keep saying this:
We take issue with several of the President’s pronouncements.
But I've yet to see them actually condemn him and/or saying what they take issue with.
It's like May's non-disagreement with him. "We don't do that round here". They may well disagree with much of what he's doing, but it's an age of binary choices. With or against. And that means if you back him you have to back everything he says and does.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#494673
I'll be 101. Whoopee.
 
By KevS
Membership Days Posts
#495037
Banned from Liverpool FC, apparently. Not allowed in at Anfield or the training ground.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#495038
KevS wrote:Banned from Liverpool FC, apparently. Not allowed in at Anfield or the training ground.
SCORCIO!
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Posts
#495040
Wonder why now? Anyone any idea?
 
By Littlejohn's brain
Membership Days Posts
#495051
I thought they were already banned?
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#495669
Back to the judges...


THE SUN SAYS God forbid the free press would want to question the intentions of Remoaners and the thin-skinned Supreme Court chief
IS our most senior judge so arrogant he believes himself above all criticism?

The answer would appear to be yes, because thin-skinned Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, has moaned about Press coverage of the Article 50 Brexit court

He and his fellow justices revelled in the attention they received until newspapers took a closer look at who was deciding Britain’s exit from the EU.

In Lord Neuberger’s case that included his wife’s tweets dismissing the referendum as “mad and bad… a protest vote”.

Little wonder then, the Supreme Court president is so dismissive of the USA’s more transparent system of elected judges.

God forbid we understand the political persuasions and motivations of our judiciary before they rule on issues of critical national importance.
Lord Neuberger is right to stress the importance of the rule of law in society.

But equally vital is the independence of the free Press.


KELVIN MACKENZIE: You CAN criticise judges… especially if their wives want them to halt Brexit
AS President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger is a clever and important man. So when he says media criticism of his Brexit ruling is “undermining the rule of law” we should take note.

And having taken note we should then dump it in the waste paper basket. It’s absolute cobblers.

In this world nobody, not me, not the Prime Minister, not The Queen, nor even his wife Lady Neuberger, can be exempt from attack.

Especially Lady Neuberger. Let me remind you what she tweeted under her maiden name, Angela Holdsworth.

She denounced the referendum as “mad and bad”. She clearly didn’t want ordinary people for the first time in my lifetime to have a say in our future. Not bright enough, don’t you know. Bright enough to go in under a referendum 42 years ago but not bright enough to come out, eh?

She dismissed Ukip and Brexit as “just a protest vote” — some “protest” as you watch the whole of the EU fall apart.

She gave her old man a nudge when she retweeted a Remain group message, saying it seemed unlikely a Prime Minister could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.

Some seven months later Lord Neuberger duly obliged. Clearly his wife’s views were at best injudicious and at worst compromising. You have to wonder whether chatter over the Neuberger breakfast table would have an influence.

Having the missus nagging at him, and the papers describing him and his legal chums as “enemies of the people”, has clearly rattled Lord Neuberger.

The importance of the law must be matched by free speech and effectively he is asking to be given a free ride, no matter what daft judgments are handed down. That was the 1960s, old chum.

Perhaps he should concentrate on making it clearer how you get “promotion” to the Supreme Court. Right now, as long as you went to Oxford and didn’t put peas on the side of your knife, there was a sleight of hand which got you to the top.

Why don’t we adopt the American method and balance judges between Left and Right? That way all of us would know their views on abortion, the EU, immigration, etc.

At the very least, we want to know how judges are selected for the top jobs and why. A centre-Right character as President would be a nod to ordinary people that their views were being listened to.

Neuberger stands down soon. It can’t happen a moment too soon.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#496161
Wow..shots fired!


MARTIN SAMUEL: The Roly Poly Goalie, dumb punts and how Sun Bets became the bookies who corrupted the most romantic game of the season
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -game.html


I guess because it technically isn't The Sun newspaper then perhaps this isn't breaking the 'gentleman's agreement' between the tabloids.


For those who don't know about it - Sun Bets are getting a real kicking. A murky betting/PR stunt by SunBets regarding Sutton's reserve keeper eating a pie on tv during the game. The keeper has now been sacked/asked to resign. We don't know if he got into bed with The Sun at all but he was aware of the bet and was aware that his mates had placed money on the bet. SunBets are being investigated by the gambling commission. They're calling in an "OTT Probe".


Image

Image
 
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Posts
#496165
Wow, comments on the Samuel column...almost sane...
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#496172
That tends to happen with sports related articles. The sports fans who comment on the Mail are often extremely different to typical Mailites. Far more rational, when not being drowned out by the "overpaid primadonna's kicking a pig bladder around" crowd.

Seeing as many of their sporting heroes are foreigners they aren't necessarily on board with the Mails attitudes and often do a good job of giving the Mail a kicking.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#496201
On Monday evening, "SunBets" was nothing more than one more voice in the muddled, shouty space that is the gambling market. Now it's a thing.

How much would that amount of coverage cost? Would it even be possible to achieve this in such a small space of time?

Even if the regulator throws the book at them, it will have been well worth it.
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#496236
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:That tends to happen with sports related articles. The sports fans who comment on the Mail are often extremely different to typical Mailites. Far more rational, when not being drowned out by the "overpaid primadonna's kicking a pig bladder around" crowd.

Seeing as many of their sporting heroes are foreigners they aren't necessarily on board with the Mails attitudes and often do a good job of giving the Mail a kicking.
I think we've covered this before:
There are only a limited number of publications for a national sports correspondent.
They're not writing commons sketches or editorials - so less subject to the proprietor's and editor's whim.
This leads to little correlation between a newspaper's editorial stance and the political views of the correspondent.


This creates a real congnitive dissonance for some politicians.
Those with the default assumption that sporty types are right-wing because: (All the Rugger buggers I knew at Uni / It's competition at its finest / Loadsamoney / Botham / Buster Mottram / No Pooofters ).
They tend to treat sports get-togethers as a safe space for their views, with occasionally embarrassing results.
For example the outrage when Gary Lineker said something.

Anybody who read this far will recognise just how outdated all those assumptions in brackets actually sound.
 
By Catkins
Membership Days
#496269
I've never forgotten Martin Samuel writing a non-sports article to accuse John O'Farrell of being basically corrupt. Because he spent years as a state school governor in inner London. As self-serving school governors only undertake such jobs in order to gain unfair advantage for their kids.
 
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Posts
#496295
Was that around the time O'Farrell was standing for office and the DM took some out of context quotes from a comedy book he wrote as evidence of vicious lefties picking on poor downtrodden Tory ministers?

If so, that was out of order, and out of character for Samuel. He's always managed the bloke down the pub schitck without turning into a total tosser (see also Tony Parsehole vs Stuart Maconie).
  • 1
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 204
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

The modern problem with arguing with idiots is tha[…]

Nigel Farage

A lavish, fawning, sympathy-inducing spread on the[…]

More "middle-class" bollocks

Umm... So what else do you drink out of? Your sh[…]

Shona Sibary

Blimey, it's been a while! Admittedly I don't […]