Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday

[totalrovers]

After reading numerous online threads regarding their reporting of the Lord Triesman comments it would appear there is growing disdain at their actions. I for one will never buy one of their disgusting rags again. Why did they do it?

[northern soul]

Only in England would we stitch ourselves up at the vital time.

[donnyjay]

I notice that The Mail have the story online under the headline 'The woman who could cost England the 2018 World Cup'. As though they've got nothing to do with it!

I wish nothing less than a severe dose of the pox on everyone involved in this sordid story.
The Mail editor and reporter, the stupid old Lord, Max Clifford, The ginger tart, Jamie Oliver.

Ok, technically Jamie Oliver hasn't got anything to do with the story but I'm sick of seeing the fat-tongued halfwit all over the telly.

[Barmby Rover]

They would do it because they are not interested in the oiks game, their journos are only interested in Rugger don't you know!

[graingrover]

scandalous journalism... seeking cheap one off sales but no sign of a 'thinking head' in the whole show!

[BillyStubbsTears]

totalrovers wrote:

. Why did they do it?

Just a wild stab in the dark.  Because Triesman was a Labour peer?

I'd rather wipe my arse on broken glass smeared with Tabasco than degrade my anus by using that rag for the purpose.

[Boycie]

What a stitch up.
His ex- private secretary (Melissa Jacobs) has dinner with him and secretly tapes their conversation.
She's got her picture in the Daily Mirror looking all prim and proper- probably cost us hosting the world cup for god knows how many years.

[silent majority]

Further gossip suggests that one of her friends was ready to sell a story that she was having an affair with Dave. She then contacted Max Clifford who orchestrated the rest of it and she picks up £100k. Disgusting!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Trouble is of course; every society gets the press it deserves. If there wasn't a market for titilation, half-truths and morally-bankrupt shock stories, the press wouldn't print it.

The Mail sells 2million copies a day.

People want to read the self-serving sham moralistic propaganda that they write. So any one of you who buys that rag has no right to complain when England doesn't get the World Cup. They ran that sting because they knew that YOU wanted that sort of story.

[bpoolrover]

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

[BillyStubbsTears]

bpoolrover wrote:

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

The most telling aspect of our national obsession with Tabloid shite is this way that we expect our public figures to be angelic, whiter than white paragons if perfection.

Or do we? Is it that we actually get our collective rocks off by moralising about the failures of our public figures. We're a nation of pathetic nobodies who ignore their own inadequacies and collectively point the finger at everyone else's. There is no other explanation for the uniquely nasty, vitriolic and deeply destructive style of our most popular papers. Like I say, they hold a mirror up to their readers.

[BillyStubbsTears]

bpoolrover wrote:

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

The most telling aspect of our national obsession with Tabloid shite is this way that we expect our public figures to be angelic, whiter than white paragons if perfection.

Or do we? Is it that we actually get our collective rocks off by moralising about the failures of our public figures. We're a nation of pathetic nobodies who ignore their own inadequacies and collectively point the finger at everyone else's. There is no other explanation for the uniquely nasty, vitriolic and deeply destructive style of our most popular papers. Like I say, they hold a mirror up to their readers.

[snods big brother]

In this country we have a free press where they are allowed to print what they want (within reason) and long may that stay the same. This is a story that could be worth printing if the comments by Lord Triesman have any basis. Should we not wait until FIFA have investigated these comments to find out if there is any truth behind them before we get over excited about the possibilities of losing the bid?

I for one would not like to see a censored press - a censored press would be something to get excited about!

[bpoolrover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

bpoolrover wrote:

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

The most telling aspect of our national obsession with Tabloid shite is this way that we expect our public figures to be angelic, whiter than white paragons if perfection.

Or do we? Is it that we actually get our collective rocks off by moralising about the failures of our public figures. We're a nation of pathetic nobodies who ignore their own inadequacies and collectively point the finger at everyone else's. There is no other explanation for the uniquely nasty, vitriolic and deeply destructive style of our most popular papers. Like I say, they hold a mirror up to their readers.

or do we just expect them to do there jobs properly?

[BillyStubbsTears]

bpoolrover wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

bpoolrover wrote:

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

The most telling aspect of our national obsession with Tabloid shite is this way that we expect our public figures to be angelic, whiter than white paragons if perfection.

Or do we? Is it that we actually get our collective rocks off by moralising about the failures of our public figures. We're a nation of pathetic nobodies who ignore their own inadequacies and collectively point the finger at everyone else's. There is no other explanation for the uniquely nasty, vitriolic and deeply destructive style of our most popular papers. Like I say, they hold a mirror up to their readers.

or do we just expect them to do there jobs properly?

And how do you think any high profile person will be able to \"do their job properly\" if they are constantly having to worry that trusted confidants may actually be being paid by the gutter press to shaft them?

Every public figure needs to be able to discuss things off the record. Every public figure has potentially embarrassing issues that do not in any way stop them from doing their job, but that are the lifeblood of the tabloid shite.

John F Kennedy was fcuking Marilyn Monroe. It didn't stop him successfully steering the world through the single most dangerous moment in history. Imagine if The Sun or The Mail were in the USA in 1962. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there would have been headlines like \"Randy Pres Beds Blonde Bombshell\".

Winston Churchill was a raging alcoholic and manic depressive, as well as being a cantakerous old t**t that would make Gordon Brown look like Graham Norton. Picture The Mail in the height of The Blitz: There'd have been an interview with his secretary about how he pours whiskey down his throat in the middle of bombing raids and mooches about shouting at his staff.

David Lloyd George was the PM that steered us to victory in the First World War. He was also as bent as a nine bob note on financial scandals, and shagged anything that moved. If the gutter press had existed then, no doubt he would have been bombed out of office.

Personal failings don't matter, as long as they remain private. The real story for the Mail is that Triesman is a married man who may have been knobbing the fit aide that set him up. THAT is why they ran the story. Because they know that the Great British Public gets off on that sort of tut-tut story.

Putting every public individual in the firing line, for our own entertainment and titilation sells papers, but it also eats away at the core of our public life. We'll end up with dull second-raters as our public figures, because no one with real ability would dream of putting themselves in that sort of firing line.

[Sandy Lane]

Billy, I agree with you, but I'm also a bottom line type of gal and I'd say everyone had their reasons:

(in order of culpability, imo):

Lord Triesman = wants to get laid and a serious lack of good judgement
Personal secretary = 15 minutes (so far) of fame, and money
The Daily Mail - embarrass a Labour Lord, point out that Labour set up an aging pol in a cushy job, and  make money
the public = love this stuff

But all of this comes down to personal accountability, doesn't it??

what suffers?  football, trust in refs, England to lose bid = lose money, lose face,  lose decent pols, relations amongst countries suffers = everything

Will anything good come of it r/t cleaning up football bribes?  possibly in the short term, but as long as there are people with enough money willing to pay and make more money from it, it will continue to exist.

P'S.  Hope this makes sense, a bit early in the morning for me on this heavy stuff.

[bpoolrover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

bpoolrover wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

bpoolrover wrote:

or is it Lord Triesmans fault? Easy 2 blame the papers but if they had not bought the story someone else would typical labour messing things up anyway.

The most telling aspect of our national obsession with Tabloid shite is this way that we expect our public figures to be angelic, whiter than white paragons if perfection.

Or do we? Is it that we actually get our collective rocks off by moralising about the failures of our public figures. We're a nation of pathetic nobodies who ignore their own inadequacies and collectively point the finger at everyone else's. There is no other explanation for the uniquely nasty, vitriolic and deeply destructive style of our most popular papers. Like I say, they hold a mirror up to their readers.

or do we just expect them to do there jobs properly?

And how do you think any high profile person will be able to \"do their job properly\" if they are constantly having to worry that trusted confidants may actually be being paid by the gutter press to shaft them?

Every public figure needs to be able to discuss things off the record. Every public figure has potentially embarrassing issues that do not in any way stop them from doing their job, but that are the lifeblood of the tabloid shite.

John F Kennedy was fcuking Marilyn Monroe. It didn't stop him successfully steering the world through the single most dangerous moment in history. Imagine if The Sun or The Mail were in the USA in 1962. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there would have been headlines like \"Randy Pres Beds Blonde Bombshell\".

Winston Churchill was a raging alcoholic and manic depressive, as well as being a cantakerous old t**t that would make Gordon Brown look like Graham Norton. Picture The Mail in the height of The Blitz: There'd have been an interview with his secretary about how he pours whiskey down his throat in the middle of bombing raids and mooches about shouting at his staff.

David Lloyd George was the PM that steered us to victory in the First World War. He was also as bent as a nine bob note on financial scandals, and shagged anything that moved. If the gutter press had existed then, no doubt he would have been bombed out of office.

Personal failings don't matter, as long as they remain private. The real story for the Mail is that Triesman is a married man who may have been knobbing the fit aide that set him up. THAT is why they ran the story. Because they know that the Great British Public gets off on that sort of tut-tut story.

Putting every public individual in the firing line, for our own entertainment and titilation sells papers, but it also eats away at the core of our public life. We'll end up with dull second-raters as our public figures, because no one with real ability would dream of putting themselves in that sort of firing line.

a fair point bst,so long as he has proff what he was saying is correct and he has not just made it up.