[Spire1866]

freelander2, on 27 April 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

I'm yet to see any evidence that shows Demetri in the face on their goalkeeper. In fact, in the last 24hrs the lad's gone up in my estimation.

He'll know he's in the wrong to go on, but it's massively unfortunate for him that he's the one to have his face in the national press.

I can only echo what's been said on here previously, he's a good lad and I enjoy having a chat with him at away games.

[KevoBMMD]

martatcross, on 27 April 2011 - 07:57 AM, said:

because she is showing behaviour of a hooligan despite which you cannot see her face the paper have every right to show people doing things that are anti social

I believe in your sentiments but it was not just CFC Fans on the pitch. How many mentions or photo's of the 4 Bury Invasions or the mention of Tommy being assaulted have you seen in any of the national rags....

It still does not mean what CFC Fans did but the nation now think it was just CFC.


For the record I am totally against entering the field of play, until after the players have left the pitch, WHEN there is something to Celebrate and the club will not suffer for the consequences.

Was there a pitch invasion after Chris Beaumonts goal or Jamie Hewitts on the Cup Run. Now that's a time to celebrate and get carried away with excitement.

[spireitetoo]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 27 April 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

You genuinely have no idea how Social Services work do you? What you suggest would never happen. It takes a he'll of a lot more than that to take kids from anyone.

Also why's everyone got such a downer on the Sun. We've had some cracking positive coverage from them this season. Yeah it's not the most intellectual paper in the world, but sometimes you just need a quick read of the main newspaper stories and a bit of human interest stuff as well.
There are no extreme views in it and it generally captures the mood of the public pretty well. There's very little political bias unlike other papers and their support for things such as help thr heroes is exemplary.
If you don't read it then fine it's your choice but don't make out that those of us who do are somekind of inbred moron. I find this patronising and insulting and sterotyping of the worse possible kind.

i suggest you re-read the thread, nowhere on here or on any other thread, have i ever stated or insinuated any of the accussations you make, i have stated that i won't buy it or wouldn't even wipe my backside on it, but that is down to the lives they and sis paper the news o the world have destroyed, not because of whoever reads it.


my personnal opinion is they are the worst of the gutter press, which is why I won't buy it, but i have never stopped anyone else if they want to read it its their choice.

This post has been edited by spireitetoo: 27 April 2011 - 12:40 PM

[SamosBlue]

Old Gregg, on 27 April 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

In the interests of democracy, genuine free press and to avoid the utilitarian dumbing down of television and news coverage I would ask everyone to avoid anything owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Fox news anyone? The Tea Party? Sarah Palin for USA President?

Please do not see this as condoning pitch invasions etc, see this as an anti Murdoch corporation party political broadcast!

Excellent post - should add the Cameron and his cronies to the list too (no need to bother with the Competition Commission if you line the right pockets handsomely)

[trickytrevsfanclub]

spireitetoo, on 27 April 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

[/color]

i suggest you re-read the thread, nowhere on here or on any other thread, have i ever stated or insinuated any of the accussations you make, i have stated that i won't buy it
or wouldn't even wipe my backside on it, but that is down to the lives they and sis paper the news o the world have destroyed, not because of whoever reads it.


my personnal opinion is they are the worst of the gutter press, which is why I won't buy it, but i have never stopped anyone else if they want to read it its their choice.

Re read my post, that bit wasn't for you only the but about social services.

[Spireite1969]

Blueprint, on 27 April 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

If the young girl wasn't sticking v signs up at their keeper and was acting like an angel, or even just abiding by the the football league rules and staying off the pitch she wouldn't have been in the paper. She's obviously not an angel given her actions and where she is making them. Is she a demon, well yes in the eyes of the proper supporter who goes to games to watch the team they support do well and doesn't go to cause trouble. As for young lads being heroes or louts, you can't tell me that the lads who got in the face of their keeper were heroes.

They deserve what they get, and if national humiliation is the only way the youth of today will start to realise they need to behave at games, and keep of the pitch then so be it. We can't afford to be wasting our hard earned money on fines due to our young supporters being unable to control there feet and their actions. Although we have made much more money this season than we ever did at Saltergate we don't have money to throw away on stupid things like fines.

The question is, will these kids view it as humiliation or a badge of honour through bragging rights? They certainly acted with no regard towards authority.

[Duckys Moved]

cfcblues, on 27 April 2011 - 08:14 AM, said:

How many have never bought a copy of the mirror ever again? I certainly haven't, this is the same kind of thing.

Press/FA don't like town, end of.

The Sun have given us good press this season notably through Chris Kamara's column and some decent write ups. The Sun had every right to show this, didn't notice anyone complaining when the Stevenage player got decked and that was in the Sun. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

[Arnold Tabbs]

calvin plummers socks, on 27 April 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Silly cow shouldn't have gone on the pitch and made obscene gestures then!

So she has been promoted from trash to a silly cow. It's a start I suppose. Now then, I haven't called anyone who reads The Sun an inbred moron or anything like that, but I maintain that showing this particular photo not just to Chesterfield, not just to Derbyshire, not just to the UK but to the entire world is child abuse. In the mass media age this picture will be accessible to somebody somewhere for eternity, just because the little lass did something naughty and there happened to be a cameraman around.

Who here never did bad things at her age? Put your hands up out there if you were as good as gold. I suppose none of you ever nicked crisps, smoked fags behind garages, used the F word copiously or pulled girls' chairs from under them so they would bang their heads on the radiator (and then lied about it). I confess to all of those, and I was considered to be a nice polite child by most adults! Difference is, in that era I didn't have to live with the consequences for ever or be pilloried in public. If you say you were never naughty I don't believe you; otherwise get your fingers her face.

[Arnold Tabbs]

animal, on 27 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

So she has been promoted from trash to a silly cow. It's a start I suppose. Now then, I haven't called anyone who reads The Sun an inbred moron or anything like that, but I maintain that showing this particular photo not just to Chesterfield, not just to Derbyshire, not just to the UK but to the entire world is child abuse. In the mass media age this picture will be accessible to somebody somewhere for eternity, just because the little lass did something naughty and there happened to be a cameraman around.

Who here never did bad things at her age? Put your hands up out there if you were as good as gold. I suppose none of you ever nicked crisps, smoked fags behind garages, used the F word copiously or pulled girls' chairs from under them so they would bang their heads on the radiator (and then lied about it). I confess to all of those, and I was considered to be a nice polite child by most adults! Difference is, in that era I didn't have to live with the consequences for ever or be pilloried in public. If you say you were never naughty I don't believe you; otherwise get your fingers her face.

Sorry: that last bit should read "get your fingers out of her face."

[calvin plummers socks]

Are you her boyfriend/dad?

[Duckys Moved]

animal, on 27 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

So she has been promoted from trash to a silly cow. It's a start I suppose. Now then, I haven't called anyone who reads The Sun an inbred moron or anything like that, but I maintain that showing this particular photo not just to Chesterfield, not just to Derbyshire, not just to the UK but to the entire world is child abuse. In the mass media age this picture will be accessible to somebody somewhere for eternity, just because the little lass did something naughty and there happened to be a cameraman around.

Who here never did bad things at her age? Put your hands up out there if you were as good as gold. I suppose none of you ever nicked crisps, smoked fags behind garages, used the F word copiously or pulled girls' chairs from under them so they would bang their heads on the radiator (and then lied about it). I confess to all of those, and I was considered to be a nice polite child by most adults! Difference is, in that era I didn't have to live with the consequences for ever or be pilloried in public. If you say you were never naughty I don't believe you; otherwise get your fingers her face.

You've got to be having a laugh, you couldn't see her face it could have been a really small woman for all we know !! We were all naughty as a child but the crimes you quote didn't happen in a large public domain, however this one did in front of nearly 10,000 people. Where were her parents, because if they weren't there who was she with, and if they were did they do anything about it !!

[JonB]

animal, on 27 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

but I maintain that showing this particular photo not just to Chesterfield, not just to Derbyshire, not just to the UK but to the entire world is child abuse.

Why is it only child abuse for the girl to be shown but you dont appear to be moaning about the showing of the lad who did the punch who it appears is 13 and the even younger lad in a shirt at the front of the pictures?

[Arnold Tabbs]

JonB, on 27 April 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:

Why is it only child abuse for the girl to be shown but you dont appear to be moaning about the showing of the lad who did the punch who it appears is 13 and the even younger lad in a shirt at the front of the pictures?

OK. That is child abuse as well.

[Nassau_board]

Unless I am mistaken, you only can see the back of her/his head in the photo, so unless you are a good reader of ponytails, how is it giving someones identity away?

[JonB]

animal, on 27 April 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

OK. That is child abuse as well.

No, none of it is child abuse and its ridiculous to suggest it is. The pictures were taken in a public place by an official newspaper photographer capturing them committing a criminal act. The same photos appeared on the BBC website as well and have been used by one of the kids as his profile pic on Facebook so obviously he wasnt to bothered about it!!

[Town_Fan]

JonB, on 27 April 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

No, none of it is child abuse and its ridiculous to suggest it is. The pictures were taken in a public place by an official newspaper photographer capturing them committing a criminal act. The same photos appeared on the BBC website as well and have been used by one of the kids as his profile pic on Facebook so obviously he wasnt to bothered about it!!

If she's under 10 she wont be criminally liable for her actions.

[JonB]

Town_Fan, on 27 April 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

If she's under 10 she wont be criminally liable for her actions.

Probably makes it worse if anything....if she is under 10 what the hell is someone doing letting her be on her own to do that!!

[Nassau_board]

if she is under ten, her parents need to stop buying junk food.

[calvin plummers socks]

A condition of entry means you allow oneself to be photographed for broadcast or whatever

[Arnold Tabbs]

JonB, on 27 April 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

No, none of it is child abuse and its ridiculous to suggest it is. The pictures were taken in a public place by an official newspaper photographer capturing them committing a criminal act. The same photos appeared on the BBC website as well and have been used by one of the kids as his profile pic on Facebook so obviously he wasnt to bothered about it!!

If one of the kids is OK about it that's up to him. If the others are not then it's not OK. And the girl is going to be easily recognised even though the picture is of her back. There is enough to identify her; the long pony tail for a start. I'm still waiting for someone to say they didn't do bad things when they were children and that putting their picture on the net doing those bad things, for billions of people to see, and for others to bring up and revile them for for ever, would not have bothered them. It's no better than putting kids in the stocks.

JonB, on 27 April 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

No, none of it is child abuse and its ridiculous to suggest it is. The pictures were taken in a public place by an official newspaper photographer capturing them committing a criminal act. The same photos appeared on the BBC website as well and have been used by one of the kids as his profile pic on Facebook so obviously he wasnt to bothered about it!!

If one of the kids is OK about it that's up to him. If the others are not then it's not OK. And the girl is going to be easily recognised even though the picture is of her back. There is enough to identify her; the long pony tail for a start. I'm still waiting for someone to say they didn't do bad things when they were children and that putting their picture on the net doing those bad things, for billions of people to see, and for others to bring up and revile them for for ever, would not have bothered them. It's no better than putting kids in the stocks.