Another reason why we'll never win a major tournament...

Friday night, England demolish the plucky part-timers from north of the border in a World Cup qualifier 3-0 and everybody's happy.

Fast forward to Thursday morning and the popular press is awash with damning stories about how Wayne Rooney got drunk 24 hours later and popped into a wedding at the team hotel.

Given some of the language used, you'd think he'd taken a taxi to Buckingham Palace and had a dump on the Queen's bed.

Seriously......what's the big fuss about?

It's no wonder these (admittedly over-paid ponces) don't give a shit about playing for England, if they know that they're going to get publicly crucified over nonsense like this.

If it isn't the players it's the manager. We, Brits, build them up then tear them down. Anyway Rooney was injured. Perhaps we should recruit players from monasteries.

I can't believe any player is so highly tuned that a couple of beers is going to affect their performance enough to make a difference. Not only that, even if they are 'highly tuned', surely they would throw off the effects quicker than most ?
Its all bollocks.

If it had been 24 hours before the game, fair enough.

But it wasn't - it was after and that fact makes quite a big difference.

But hey, if it sells papers, who cares?

We all know that facts and evidence apparently aren't important anymore, don't we?

We live in the Post Truth Age now.

Totally agree. As with his promises about the referendum, Cameron promised to abide by the findings of the Leveson Report but shied away once they didn't accord with what he wanted.......in this case for fear of upsetting the press that he needed on his side. So standards of decency and ethics in the media have been allowed to remain shameful. 

For example, despite the hounding of Lady Di and the pain caused to her sons, the press now pursue Harry's girlfriend to the point of harassment. If an individual did the same, they would be charged with stalking and a restraining order would be imposed.

No England manager will ever stand a chance. The press will find ways of discrediting whoever is in charge. Was BSA actually guilty of any crime?

I don't have a problem with players going out for a meal and a few drinks,but it seems it's only foreign players who can do so without getting pissed,and dancing about with a plant pot on their head.
I don't expect them to be saints.
I do expect them to be grown up.

Oh dear. I appear to have taken my stuffy old duffer pills a little early today.

okocha wrote:Totally agree. As with his promises about the referendum, Cameron promised to abide by the findings of the Leveson Report but shied away once they didn't accord with what he wanted.......in this case for fear of upsetting the press that he needed on his side. So standards of decency and ethics in the media have been allowed to remain shameful. 

For example, despite the hounding of Lady Di and the pain caused to her sons, the press now pursue Harry's girlfriend to the point of harassment. If an individual did the same, they would be charged with stalking and a restraining order would be imposed.

No England manager will ever stand a chance. The press will find ways of discrediting whoever is in charge. Was BSA actually guilty of any crime?

The trouble with the Leveson Report recommendations is that they would effectively allow the rich to gag press freedom. The most astonishing and incredibly repressive measure is the suggestion that in a libel case even if the defendant wins the case (i.e. what they said about the claimant is true) they would still have to pay their own legal expenses. This means that someone like "Sir" Philip Green just has to threaten a paper with an expensive legal action to halt publication.

The trouble with the Leveson Report recommendations is that they would effectively allow the rich to gag press freedom. The most astonishing and incredibly repressive measure is the suggestion that in a libel case even if the defendant wins the case (i.e. what they said about the claimant is true) they would still have to pay their own legal expenses. This means that someone like "Sir" Philip Green just has to threaten a paper with an expensive legal action to halt publication.  

I wasn't aware of that fact. I'm assuming the recommendation wasn't  accepted ?

Oops ! wrong box.

gloswhite wrote:Oops ! wrong box.

Nat hears that a lot

gloswhite wrote:

The trouble with the Leveson Report recommendations is that they would effectively allow the rich to gag press freedom. The most astonishing and incredibly repressive measure is the suggestion that in a libel case even if the defendant wins the case (i.e. what they said about the claimant is true) they would still have to pay their own legal expenses. This means that someone like "Sir" Philip Green just has to threaten a paper with an expensive legal action to halt publication.  

I wasn't aware of that fact. I'm assuming the recommendation wasn't  accepted ?

It's complicated. This draconian provision is one of Leveson's recommendations and would be applied to any paper or journal that does not sign up to the approved regulatory body. However most newspapers have set up and joined their own new regulatory body the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

It is a tough balancing act to be fair, if someone comes out and accuses a footballer of some misdoing it hits the press whether it is proved or not and even if the claims are found to be false he has still had his name dragged through the mud so a level of protection should be afforded.
But our press seem to work very much on a print first ask questions later system which means people have no protection at all.
They can drag someones name through the mud all over the front pages and if they are wrong can get away with some minuscule 1 paragraph apology hid somewhere where people don't read.
It is a very tough balancing act between responsible reporting and freedom of the press, in my opinion at the moment it is weighted towards the press who can sensationalise without too much accountability.

The press should certainly be accountable but it cannot be right that a newspaper should have to pay its own costs even when it wins the case. The libel laws in this country are already biased in favour of the rich and powerful. That's why we are the place foreign billionaire crooks always choose to launch their libel actions.

I was thinking more about The Millie Dowlers of this world and the appalling behaviour of the press. 

It's one thing to bring to light illegal or immoral practices, and quite another to ignore innocent people's rights to privacy and cause utter pain and dismay for families of victims.

We watched the  Oscar-winning film "Spotlight" and applauded the tenacious investigative journalism of The Boston Globe, exposing the Catholic Church's wrong-doings. In other words, the press at its best can do terrific work, but it can equally sacrifice morality, decency and ethics for the sake of a sensational story that is not in the public interest. Controls are a must!

The most important recommendations of Lord Leveson have been ignored and the gutter press continues its sordid practices unabated. Once again the government did not get the result it wanted and hoped the issue would magically go away.

I don't disagree with your points Okocha but it can never be right to be punished for exposing corruption.