• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Stokes Family Abused

The Voice Of Reason said:
Telling him to find another job ( would hardly be a backward step ) I hope
Click to expand...

I suspect, in my own experience he will be in the shit, could cost them sales, and thats the only thing that ever matters to these people.

I am actually awaiting the great Piers Morgan response, he is seemingly a huge Ben Stokes fan and has him as his profile pic on twitter. Piers Morgan always shoots down anyone who criticises press freedom and he will be desperate to defend The Sun over this, the fact he hasn't backed Ben Stokes here says a lot.
 

I've not looked for the offending article but unfortunately I've been told what it's about. I can see why it would be a big story 30 years ago. It has nowt to do with Ben Stokes since he wasn't even born. It's nowt to do with cricket. His mother did nowt wrong so should be allowed make the most of her life.
 
Disgraceful.

Being vindictive, if I had the money and was the subject of this type of "reporting", I would hire people to dredge up dirt on the reporters/editor and put it in the public domain. Live by the sword etc.
 
Last edited:
The Rat said:
The fact that is almost disappeared from the website shows you they've messed up like marra.
Click to expand...
You mean the story has disappeared from the Sun website? It clearly hasn't disappeared from the cricket section of this one.

Have they messed up? I mean clearly it's nasty but it's only generated so much interest because of the Stokes link and I think many people will be interested so I'm not so sure they have messed up from a journo point of view.

And they should n't get on any high horses, this is what journos do, day in day out, the difference here is Stokes is able to hit back and has a lot of goodwill. Many of their targets don't.

I was just thinking about Mary Bell, the child murderer from Newcastle. Every now and then that gets raised and linked with something topical, on local papers and on local TV. And it happened such a long time ago, I'm old and I can't remember it. But every time it is raised it will have caused pain to the relatives of the victim. - Does that mean the crime can never be mentioned again?
 
Bri said:
You mean the story has disappeared from the Sun website? It clearly hasn't disappeared from the cricket section of this one.

Have they messed up? I mean clearly it's nasty but it's only generated so much interest because of the Stokes link and I think many people will be interested so I'm not so sure they have messed up from a journo point of view.

And they should n't get on any high horses, this is what journos do, day in day out, the difference here is Stokes is able to hit back and has a lot of goodwill. Many of their targets don't.

I was just thinking about Mary Bell, the child murderer from Newcastle. Every now and then that gets raised and linked with something topical, on local papers and on local TV. And it happened such a long time ago, I'm old and I can't remember it. But every time it is raised it will have caused pain to the relatives of the victim. - Does that mean the crime can never be mentioned again?
Click to expand...

Yes they have messed up marra, they've lost access to Ben Stokes for the rest of his career, that will cost them.

It is a major major fuck up and I know exactly what will be going on right now in their offices.

They never release statements like that btw, ever
 
Without reading it, I know what the story will be. It's ancient history and has got absolutely fuck all to do with him.

And this won't be a direct family member of Stoksey, it will be a couple of times removed.

If you buy newspapers like The Sun, Mail, etc etc etc then you are part of the problem.
 
max wartbug said:
Disgraceful.

Being vindictive, if I had the money and was the subject of this type of "reporting", I would hire people to dredge up dirt on the reporters/editor and put it in the public domain. Live by the sword etc.
Click to expand...

To be honest, you’re a better man than me - if I had the money I’d have these people disappear :eek:
 
chunkylover53 said:
Because the response drives the story?
Click to expand...

Yes. If there wasn't a market for this shit, it wouldn't happen.

Two ways of stopping it. One: some sort or regulation. But this is murky - what are the rules? That's what I was saying - plenty of people outraged here I am sure will gossip about politicians or celebrities private lives. The Royals. Ordinary people. Whoever. Codifying the limits of privacy and creating regulation to make private media organisations act accordingly is tricky because of freedom of speech and enterprise.

Two: everyone stops paying attention to shit like this. Yet here is everyone saying it's disgusting with one hand, whilst clicking furiously away at the clickbait with the other.

It's the same with fake news. Easy to blame the publishers, tougher to put the attention back on what dark impulses make us revel in it.
brandon said:
Well played BBC - applause necessary for them.

Been a report on the Lunchtime news there which gave short thrift to the rag and showed a very sympathetic view to Stokes and his family.

No surprise that the toilet paper have issued a statement in response which includes NO APOLOGY.

A look at Stokes’ Twitter restores my faith in humanity somewhat. If only one of the muppets on here took note.


So what the fuck are you doing then? Because it looks very much like you are.
Click to expand...

You seem incapable of talking about the matter in anything other than Stokes = hero, The Sun = ***** terms. And yet you are nifty enough to quote me here whilst omitting the rest of my sentence which explained to you exactly what I was doing. Nice cut and paste that, the irony.

If you don't want to talk about any of the issues it raises and just want cheap dunks on me then carry on. But can't be bothered to explain to you, again, the points I'm making.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top