If we all want to go into ignore mode as you say, then why not close the thread, thing is some people (not me) may read more into it and put up discussions, so where to put it Members or Closure?
If we are going to get into this post, and discuss with constructive ideas, would it not be better as Members Only, can just see Fartsmell and Co lapping this all up No doubt Freshfields and Thomas are "dealing with it all
"what was it that drew your attention to a single, disproved HR issue in a different country several years ago that is linked to a division 1 football club director, what element of it did you deem to be of such importance that you wrote an article on said story, and do you feel it merited column inches in The Times. Do you believe your source was providing newsworth content (on the basis that you had a source, given that you are a sports journalist as opposed to a news or investigative journalist) and is there any merit in the suggestion that you ran with the story on the basis of your association with the source and / or their network rather than on the basis of any journalistic merit."
"what was it that drew your attention to a single, disproved HR issue in a different country several years ago that is linked to a division 1 football club director, what element of it did you deem to be of such importance that you wrote an article on said story, and do you feel it merited column inches in The Times. Do you believe your source was providing newsworth content (on the basis that you had a source, given that you are a sports journalist as opposed to a news or investigative journalist) and is there any merit in the suggestion that you ran with the story on the basis of your association with the source and / or their network rather than on the basis of any journalistic merit."
I'm sure that Thomas could make a complaint about the article. Not so sure he should, Charlton fans should but not so sure they would consider it from us? I'm sure that a good case can be made.
I'm sure that Thomas could make a complaint about the article. Not so sure he should, Charlton fans should but not so sure they would consider it from us? I'm sure that a good case can be made.
Very good question, @TellyTubby. Unfortunately, I believe I may know the answer from bitter experience.
It goes back to the 4 week long fight to stop Parker from going to Chelsea. The new Abramovic machine there was trying all kinds of dirty tricks that were new then. It included a late night story on the Sun’s online edition that the deal had been done. It hadnt. I checked. The Sun never ran it in the print edition but it remained visible on line, these versions were all new and niche then. I rang the Press Complaints Committee. The guy I spoke to was very helpful and having looked at the matter, opined that I had good grounds for complaint. So I did. But after several weeks they turned my complaint down, and the reason was that they considered me a thrid party, not directly affected by the issue, and so not, in fact entitled to complain, even though I had been encouraged to do so initially.
I fear the same thing might happen here. But actually, I would be game to call them and discuss that in advance based on my previous experience, if that would help.
You'll get nothing out of The Times, but you might want to alert Private Eye to it as this is the sort of low level dodginess they'll happily cover. Not sure they're on Twitter, but email works strobes@private-eye.co.uk
You'll get nothing out of The Times, but you might want to alert Private Eye to it as this is the sort of low level dodginess they'll happily cover. Not sure they're on Twitter, but email works strobes@private-eye.co.uk
There's no grounds for a complaint about the Times article.
Nothing that was said about Sandgaard was a lie, he was given, and used, the right to reply.
TS smartly turned it around as a chance to push his values.
The question brilliantly highlighted by Fergus is that Northcroft almost never writes about clubs below the premier league and never before about our ownership but is now digging up this non-story.
Clearly it came from Farnell and my twitter bestie @itsagoldfinch Fred Rose knew about it in advance.
It's not been the big story he hoped and has just brought more exposure to Farnell.
It's disappointing the Times ran the article now given that the issue has been in the public domain for three years. You have to question the reasons behind it.
It's disappointing the Times ran the article now given that the issue has been in the public domain for three years. You have to question the reasons behind it.
The reasons behind it as Fartsmell and his sick demented mind, not a lot else really and the Times should be ashamed of being hoodwinked into printing this crap
You'll get nothing out of The Times, but you might want to alert Private Eye to it as this is the sort of low level dodginess they'll happily cover. Not sure they're on Twitter, but email works strobes@private-eye.co.uk
Good idea
Yup, very good, they cover stuff like this all the time.
itsagoldfinch is a knob and a few of us have offered to meet him to discuss his grievances with Charlton but as yet he has not responded.
If he is Fred Rose then he’s another one of these idiots who puts their home address on companies house. You could send him a strongly worded letter regarding his behaviour on twitter
It's disappointing the Times ran the article now given that the issue has been in the public domain for three years. You have to question the reasons behind it.
The reasons behind it as Fartsmell and his sick demented mind, not a lot else really and the Times should be ashamed of being hoodwinked into printing this crap
Given the history the Times has with serious investigative journalism it's pretty sad this is the level they have now reached.
There's no grounds for a complaint about the Times article.
Nothing that was said about Sandgaard was a lie, he was given, and used, the right to reply.
TS smartly turned it around as a chance to push his values.
The question brilliantly highlighted by Fergus is that Northcroft almost never writes about clubs below the premier league and never before about our ownership but is now digging up this non-story.
Clearly it came from Farnell and my twitter bestie @itsagoldfinch Fred Rose knew about it in advance.
It's not been the big story he hoped and has just brought more exposure to Farnell.
With a "denied" story, a bit of mud sticks, especially if the headline catches the eye. That's what Farnell presumably wants
There is no evidence for the David Cameron piggate story, but it's in the public demain and many people believe it.
I could write a story like the following
Chris Farnell denies having sex with sheep
(complete with mocked up photo of Farnell holding a sheep) Chris Farnell today denied having sex with a sheep. The story first appeared on Burnley Life but was later removed.
"I'm not even going to reply to such a nonsense story" said Farnell, "I have far more important things to worry about."
Farnell is known to be an animal lover, who enjoys the countryside, and can often be seen walking in the farms of Cheshire.
(MOD NOTE (AW): for the avoidance of doubt, @killerandflash is using an exaggerated scenario as a hypothetical example, not suggesting there is any foundation to said story)
OK, we've had to delete a few posts due to the following situation:
Last night a girl purporting to be Farnell's daughter posted on TikTok slagging him off, and this got shared around various Charlton fan accounts on twitter. What appears to be the same girl has then spent the morning frantically tweeting to those accounts begging them to take it down, as she says that she's not actually his daughter but just a friend of his daughter. The video was made as a joke but they're now in massive trouble, as it made a rather defamatory allegation about Farnell. Most of the tweets I've seen circulating it have now been removed, but we can't say for certain that they all have.
If you should come across the video, please don't repost it or post links to it here, or refer to the nature of the allegation made against him, as we'd really rather not get sued. (We'd also strongly advise you not to share it elsewhere, but if you're daft enough to do so, that's not our problem)
Comments
close the thread, thing is some people (not me) may read more
into it and put up discussions, so where to put it Members or Closure?
Would that fit on Twitter?
https://www.ipso.co.uk/complain/
It goes back to the 4 week long fight to stop Parker from going to Chelsea. The new Abramovic machine there was trying all kinds of dirty tricks that were new then. It included a late night story on the Sun’s online edition that the deal had been done. It hadnt. I checked. The Sun never ran it in the print edition but it remained visible on line, these versions were all new and niche then. I rang the Press Complaints Committee. The guy I spoke to was very helpful and having looked at the matter, opined that I had good grounds for complaint. So I did. But after several weeks they turned my complaint down, and the reason was that they considered me a thrid party, not directly affected by the issue, and so not, in fact entitled to complain, even though I had been encouraged to do so initially.
I fear the same thing might happen here. But actually, I would be game to call them and discuss that in advance based on my previous experience, if that would help.
Nothing that was said about Sandgaard was a lie, he was given, and used, the right to reply.
TS smartly turned it around as a chance to push his values.
The question brilliantly highlighted by Fergus is that Northcroft almost never writes about clubs below the premier league and never before about our ownership but is now digging up this non-story.
Clearly it came from Farnell and my twitter bestie @itsagoldfinch Fred Rose knew about it in advance.
It's not been the big story he hoped and has just brought more exposure to Farnell.
and the Times should be ashamed of being hoodwinked into printing this crap
There is no evidence for the David Cameron piggate story, but it's in the public demain and many people believe it.
I could write a story like the following
Chris Farnell denies having sex with sheep
(complete with mocked up photo of Farnell holding a sheep)Chris Farnell today denied having sex with a sheep. The story first appeared on Burnley Life but was later removed.
"I'm not even going to reply to such a nonsense story" said Farnell, "I have far more important things to worry about."