Comments on: Football365 and the Mirror must stop Fergie witch-hunt. Now. http://www.stretford-end.com/2009/10/football365-and-the-mirror-must-stop-their-fergie-witch-hunt-now/ Manchester United's experts opinion! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:48:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: yolkie http://www.stretford-end.com/2009/10/football365-and-the-mirror-must-stop-their-fergie-witch-hunt-now/comment-page-1/#comment-42914 yolkie Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:26:49 +0000 http://www.stretford-end.com/blog/?p=632#comment-42914 LO AND BEHOLD - Philip Cornwall, the very same who proudly wrote the Rooney and Beckham articles as discussed in this blog, has written on football365 - http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8742_5615667,00.html He writes "Suggestions that he should be suspended from duty, though, are surely unenforceable and, in truth, out of proportion". I can't bring myself to comprehend that someone is entertaining the notion that Ferguson should be SUSPENDED FROM DUTY for saying "the referee looked unfit". Then again, when this absolute MORON feels justified in suggesting Ferguson should face a kangaroo court - "The only way to control Ferguson is to force him to face his inquisitors, from all broadcasters and the papers, too." - then what can you say? You won't be surprised that Philip Cornwall was not calling for the animals when Rafa exploded or Wenger did his rant a few weeks ago. Absolutely f*cking stupid idiot. LO AND BEHOLD – Philip Cornwall, the very same who proudly wrote the Rooney and Beckham articles as discussed in this blog, has written on football365 -

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8742_5615667,00.html

He writes “Suggestions that he should be suspended from duty, though, are surely unenforceable and, in truth, out of proportion”.

I can’t bring myself to comprehend that someone is entertaining the notion that Ferguson should be SUSPENDED FROM DUTY for saying “the referee looked unfit”.

Then again, when this absolute MORON feels justified in suggesting Ferguson should face a kangaroo court -

“The only way to control Ferguson is to force him to face his inquisitors, from all broadcasters and the papers, too.”

- then what can you say?

You won’t be surprised that Philip Cornwall was not calling for the animals when Rafa exploded or Wenger did his rant a few weeks ago.

Absolutely f*cking stupid idiot.

]]> By: yolkie http://www.stretford-end.com/2009/10/football365-and-the-mirror-must-stop-their-fergie-witch-hunt-now/comment-page-1/#comment-42911 yolkie Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:04:10 +0000 http://www.stretford-end.com/blog/?p=632#comment-42911 Here is the email I sent them -- Dear Sirs, I am writing to ask a simple question regarding an article written by David Anderson published today here - (link) On Monday in your Mirror Mania section the Man Utd / Sunderland report was written by David McDonnell who included a piece at the side that strangely cannot be found on your website. To save your research I went to the trouble of typing it up. (typed article) Given that Mr Anderson feels a ban is a suitable punishment for Sir Alex Ferguson could I ask what his or the Daily Mirror's stand is Mr McDonnell's article which is incredibly offensive to the same individual. The most offensive quote I could find from Sir Alex Ferguson about the incident was that "He was not fit... He was needed a rest. It was ridiculous". Mr McDonnell called the same individual "roly poly", a "pie eater" (well, he said that Ferguson said that and this was nothing of the sort), and that it was hard to tell if he was carrying "four stone of added weight". Furthermore, Oliver Holt has called Ferguson a "sneering bully" as described in this article. (link) I should expect that being a man of moral standing he has suggested you temporarily suspend him from his position given that his comment was a direct insult rather than an opinion given from observation. Why is it deemed suitable for your journalists to print things far more offensive than the man in question ever did and why is it deemed suitable for those same journalists to feel they are in a moral position where they can, after making said insults, demand action? I anticipate your response. Here is the email I sent them –
Dear Sirs,

I am writing to ask a simple question regarding an article written by David Anderson published today here – (link)

On Monday in your Mirror Mania section the Man Utd / Sunderland report was written by David McDonnell who included a piece at the side that strangely cannot be found on your website. To save your research I went to the trouble of typing it up.

(typed article)

Given that Mr Anderson feels a ban is a suitable punishment for Sir Alex Ferguson could I ask what his or the Daily Mirror’s stand is Mr McDonnell’s article which is incredibly offensive to the same individual.

The most offensive quote I could find from Sir Alex Ferguson about the incident was that

“He was not fit… He was needed a rest. It was ridiculous”.

Mr McDonnell called the same individual “roly poly”, a “pie eater” (well, he said that Ferguson said that and this was nothing of the sort), and that it was hard to tell if he was carrying “four stone of added weight”.

Furthermore, Oliver Holt has called Ferguson a “sneering bully” as described in this article. (link)

I should expect that being a man of moral standing he has suggested you temporarily suspend him from his position given that his comment was a direct insult rather than an opinion given from observation.

Why is it deemed suitable for your journalists to print things far more offensive than the man in question ever did and why is it deemed suitable for those same journalists to feel they are in a moral position where they can, after making said insults, demand action?

I anticipate your response.

]]>