Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 164 comments are related to the topic:
I hope The Telegraph & the British Press are happy with themselves

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 164
By:
kellydamo
When: 28 Sep 16 14:57

Sep 28, 2016 -- 2:38PM, dustybin wrote:


I still think newspaper should be forced to declare all the failed attempts at temptation.The way they do it now they invest in entrapment and never speak again of the failed ones while making their money back on the ones that they 'catch'That means you hear nothing of virtue but get a steady stream of 'cheating', so the knock on effect is to see only those that 'cheat'.


Really?  Absolutely ludicrous statement.  You've really thougt about that I can tell

By:
Johnny_Mustang
When: 28 Sep 16 15:01
Yes, absolute rubbish I'm afraid. Why should they anyway? And let's face it, nobody on here ever mentions a losing bet.......
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 15:10
What?
You think the national press who shape public opinion should essentially regulate themselves, and that they are comparable to the betting punter?
The Leveson Inquiry was largely ignored.
By:
efisio.
When: 28 Sep 16 15:12
Best way to catch vermin... set a trap.
By:
mesmerised
When: 28 Sep 16 15:15
If Shakira put it on a plate for anyone of you, married or not, you would not turn it down and anyone that says otherwise is lying, even though it could end marriages, happy families etc, yet here you are all preaching about morals and integrity, get a grip, you are all guilty, now move on.
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 15:23
Entrapment is enough to get a court case thrown out for good reason, because its incitement and coercive.
Nobody gets carte blanche not even the press.
By:
Johnny_Mustang
When: 28 Sep 16 15:27
Behave yourself. Allardyce exposed himself as a greedy buffoon and we should be grateful The Telegraph brought it to everybody's attention. You're doing yourself no favours son.
By:
DOUBLED
When: 28 Sep 16 15:32
Talentless manager who has won f all and gets paid 3 million a year and still wants more. Lucky man to have got anywhere near the England job so deserves f all sympathy
By:
asparagus
When: 28 Sep 16 15:42
Very odd for some people to think that because they have extremely dubious morals that the rest of us would too. Allardyce was very lucky to get the England job in view of his previous and fully deserved the sack.
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 15:45
Im not talking about the individual, since the press would likely go for low hanging fruit and stuff em up over a long period like a turkey and only release a contrived version of events to support their story.
All the press almost exclusively have nodded away like dogs in tacit agreement that the actions justify the means, yet they arnt the ones that decide that and its indicative of the types feeding from the same trough and dont want to criticise their bread and butter.
Only Mathew Syed of the Times has to my knowledge said anything about the problems with the way the press have acted. Its not unreasonable to suggest that any sector should itself be properly regulated.
By:
geordie1956
When: 28 Sep 16 15:55
It might be morally dubious what the press did but unfortunately you need evidence to prove someone's guilt - how else other than to play the part of the piper would they have obtained it?
By:
kincsem
When: 28 Sep 16 16:06
Honesty, drive, ability.
Candidates must have all three.  If they have two from three you are in trouble.

England managers lack all three. Laugh
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 16:15
The code of conduct for the press pivots around a central axis (instigated by the press) that the press should be allowed to act in a manner outside of legislation so they can 'hold to account' those in power.
But that itself is such a small fig leaf that covers all eventualities and is insufficient since even the police arnt allowed to do what the press are.
We have to understand how we got here. Its because it was only ever regulation through voluntary inclusion.
By:
unbiased
When: 28 Sep 16 16:53
mesmerised,you come out often enough with some odd views,but you have surpassed everything thinking we would ALL be adulterers if the opportunity was there(especially with no risk of being caught).
   Some of us are decent people that have respect,and morals,and respect the marriage vows.You obviously don't,that's your choice.So don't put us in the same category as yourself!
   For my part I find it totally unacceptable that people holding high office,and so are well-paid,like footie managers,other top sportspeople,POLITICIANS etc.,can't be relied on to be honest,upright citizens.
  I don't like the gutter press,and only read racing papers,but exposing dishonesty needs to be done.
By:
OnePercenter
When: 28 Sep 16 17:02
Shakira!!!!

Who the **** wants Piqué's sloppy seconds Cry
By:
Injera
When: 28 Sep 16 17:03
I think it's a shame he's gone. Were there not other discplinary routes to be taken? A fine etc to go to charity?

When he said he could get around transfer rules, there are loopholes everywhere and the bigger the business you're in the more you can find. As for backhanders from agents, do we really think that ONLY SAM gets offered them?

None of these things trouble the average fan. What troubles me is diving,feigning injuries, dissent, appealing for corners when you know it hit you last and managers like Hughes (one of many ) who use disgusting language to an FA employee (linesman) and get a silly fine. Why didn't Stoke sack him?
By:
bix
When: 28 Sep 16 17:25
mesmerised
So now the world knows Sam is like the rest of us, greedy,

If Shakira put it on a plate for anyone of you, married or not, you would not turn it down

Speak for yourself mesmerised. What I can't understand in all this is why Allardyce at 61 and presumably with a fair bit tucked away and having everything he needs in life and a job paying £3m pa needs more.
By:
mesmerised
When: 28 Sep 16 17:44
Is there anyone willing to admit they'd cheat if they knew they'd get away with it? Apart from Pope Bix and Pope Unbiased.

We live in more enlightened times, marriage is a very outdated concept conceived at a time when men needed to own women. It's not natural to be with just one women for the rest of your life, you are all attracted to many different women and if a bit of paper is stopping you fulfilling your needs in 2016 then it's a sorry state of affairs. Your wives and girlfriends think about cheating all the time and given half a chance, would cheat to if they haven't already.
By:
geordie1956
When: 28 Sep 16 17:53
you are a complete tool and your words merely emphasise that
By:
geordie1956
When: 28 Sep 16 17:56
better to be thought of as a fool than to put it into words and remove all doubt
By:
kincsem
When: 28 Sep 16 18:00
mesmerised
16,834 posts in six years ...
.... or about eight witty and insightful posts every day. Sad
By:
mesmerised
When: 28 Sep 16 18:20
Whose trying to be witty, just honest. If you're fairly old like Geordie (60) than you are more likely to hold these old fashioned views because of the era you were born in, a sin it was to have kids without being married, you are indoctrinated, a bit like religious people, you believe what you have been taught to believe, but in today's modern world, people have a more divergent way of thinking rather than linear, churches are emptying and closing.

People cheat all the time from Prime Ministers (Major), to Presidents (Clinton) to Newsreaders (Letterman) to actors (Jude Law) to models (Heidi Klum). It's a cheating world and there's nothing wrong with it, people do what their instinct tells them to, some are braver than others and act on it.
By:
BARNEY15C
When: 28 Sep 16 18:43
trial by entrapment - don't make be f ucking laugh sam. Note umbrella man has described Sam as innocent, i bet he's one of the 8 waiting to be named by the Telegraph.
By:
unbiased
When: 28 Sep 16 18:46
mesmerised,how low a level are you trying to reduce yourself to?You have already passed basement,not much further to go.What on earth has being faithful got to with religion?You certainly have warped views on life.Also it has nothing to do with old-fashioned values.Goodness knows what you teach your kids,that is if you have any.
  Integrity,honesty,reliability,respect,decency,being faithful,aren't old-fashioned values,or anything to do with religion,they are all about being a decent person.
  So because people at the top level are dishonest pieces of filth,setting a rotten example,that is acceptable to you,and the norm.For what it's worth,the crime rate amongst kids from single parent families is proportionately higher than those from married couples.
"It's a cheating world and there's nothing wrong with it",according to mesmerised.Is he on a mission to see how big a catch he can get in his net,as it appears to be the point of a statement like that!!??
  Nothing whatsoever to do with being "brave",more like being an untrustworthy piece of filth,rotten right through.
By:
charwell.
When: 28 Sep 16 18:59
muggerised is your life so bereft of any form of value that you have to act like an attention seeking, odious, squealing banshee at every opportunity?
By:
mesmerised
When: 28 Sep 16 19:21
Law abiding citizen here, I don't break laws I bend rules that are there to be bent and have no issue with others who do the same if it means they can get ahead in life, although even with the wealthy, I have no problem with tax avoiders, this country spunks an insane amount of money on everything and anything from quango's to helping people feel more European to buying giant stones outside of hospitals because that apparently helps their well being, that 20k would have paid a nurses salary for a year, so if people choose to keep their money by legal means and spend it the way they see fit that's fine by me. Nothing to do with seeking attention, it's a viewpoint that many people hold.
By:
charwell.
When: 28 Sep 16 19:50
You are an attention seeker.

And a 1st class 1diot.
By:
mesmerised
When: 28 Sep 16 19:54
You'd make someone a lovely wife CharleneLaugh
By:
Diff-rent
When: 28 Sep 16 21:20
I am not sticking up for Sam and he accepts he has done wrong. But I do not agree with the way the press go about destroying people's careers for the sake of selling it and making money. (Entrapment)

I thought legally it's wrong to record someone without their knowledge as evidence ?   If this went to court / tribunal how would this have panned out ?
By:
Diff-rent
When: 28 Sep 16 21:24
Greed is a small part of human nature. Money speaks many languages as they say. Sam must have huge regrets.
By:
skygreenzone
When: 28 Sep 16 21:29
Diff-rent money makes the world go round telegraph is a business is sam a business.
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 22:04
That's quite correct, they are businesses, and when they say 'in the public interest' what they are actually saying is 'what we say you should be interested in'.
Not for the good of the public good or morals or integrity, but in something that pays.
That is why those that create the content shouldn't be the ones regulating themselves because they too are acting for money alone.
By:
dustybin
When: 28 Sep 16 22:06
Who in the street honestly cares if Sam took home 3million or 3.4million with after dinner engagements thrown in?
Honestly?
Without the papers telling you you should care probably nobody
By:
themightymac
When: 28 Sep 16 22:29
Greedy b****** Devil The more money they get, the greedier they get. Best job in English football and the job all managers want with 3 million a year but still not enough. No scruples whatsoever. His own fault and he must be sick as a parrot - at getting caught out, that is.
By:
hippie
When: 28 Sep 16 22:37

Unbeknown to Allardyce, the businessmen were undercover reporters and he was being filmed as part of a 10-month Telegraph investigation that separately unearthed widespread evidence of bribery and corruption in British football.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/exclusive-investigation-england-manager-sam-allardyce-for-sale/


He wasn't targetted, his "mate" walked him into the middle of it.

By:
Johnny_Mustang
When: 29 Sep 16 08:32
Diff-rent
I am not sticking up for Sam and he accepts he has done wrong. But I do not agree with the way the press go about destroying people's careers for the sake of selling it and making money. (Entrapment).



This is EXACTLY the type of thing newspapers have a responsibility to report. Allardyce's career should have been cut short years ago for his one-dimensional, Neanderthal brand of hoof ball blighting the beautiful game. That it took a leading broadsheet to expose him on an entirely different subject is of no consequence.
By:
dustybin
When: 29 Sep 16 08:58
I understand your argument JM and in many ways I agree with it.
However it's wrong to say a 'for profit' entity should be the bearers and shapers of society in my view.
Newspapers have no 'role' other than to take money from the public's pockets by keeping them enthralled in a saga that's as much entertainment as informative.
To suggest the press are practically unapproachable (yes some journalists went to jail) but look at the fuss and effort that took, most just paid off those they had wronged out of the purses made from the tickle tackle they'd created via the business model.
By:
spyker
When: 29 Sep 16 09:53
Baffling that anybody has any sympathy for fat sam esp with his long history of known dodgy dealings, hmmm maybe the telegraph just picked his name at random? Whomever advised him to portray himself as 'just doing a mate of 30 years a favour' should be shot as well. Turning up for the meeting is 'doing a mate a favour', staying there with your financial advisers and lawyer (who obv aren't 100% innocent) and discussing obviously dodgy dealings that enrich you with complete and utter strangers when you've just been appointed England manager on a multi million pound contract (when one knows one may have been out of one's old job very soon anyway) is pure avarice and stupidity.
Anybody that thinks Eng haven't dodged a hail of bullets with this, as it's obv something would have come out at some point very soon, needs a good think!
By:
dustybin
When: 29 Sep 16 10:01
Personally I took the stance that the operation of creating stories needs to be transparent in the sense it has to be scrutinised by regulation, I didn't get into the whys and where fors about the character of the individual in question.
To me it seems wholly illogical to say that a person has form in this area and then to have to set them up artificially.
If they have done it before then investigate that, after all that would be proper journalism not entrapment which isn't lawful anywhere else.
By:
dustybin
When: 29 Sep 16 10:11
If it's any consolation I can actually appreciate why people might not see it the way I do, but just consider this.

What we are seeing before us is a show trial outside of court by a public opinion which is lead by a party who supplies contrived and selective evidence that they have a vested interest in.

That to me isn't what our system should be trumpeting as some vestibule of virtue.
Page 3 of 5  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com