pedg

Hoping for another interesting day of this today. Headline acts as far as some sections of the media are concerned are JK Rowling and Sienna Miller but fully expecting Max Mosley to be the most forceful in his comments.

Yes because everyone knows that even though you own 75% of a company having your name taken off the website makes so much difference. Of course if he is innocent and prepared to clear his name why remove it at all? Plus everyone knows his position with CSI and pompey so airbrushing him off the websites just looks like an admission of guilt.

So does that mean that if Antonov is found guilty that he would have to find someone else to sell his share of CSI to or that CSI would have to find someone else to buy pompey?

I see they are referring to their new manager as 'Appy'. I think we know that 'Twitchy' is another of the pompey related dwarf's but what about the other 5?

Anyone else and you would be wondering why they missed out "good". The self admission that they have used convers to get round the ban on Snoras is a very good find but you wonder about the regulatory authorities if they have not found it themselves. As it is "payday loans" is as close as we get to legal loan sharking in this country so guess we should not be surprised.

Could have been worse, could have got the express out.

My good deed for the day was not to feed the troll. damn....

Another interesting day today. Especially as it was a relatively 'celebrity free' day (Unless you count the solicitor, Gazza's ex-wife, random journo and the McCann's as celebrities). Interesting bit when Gazza's ex-wife taking papers to court over libel. She had to put the house on the market to get to the point where they could get to court and when she presented her detailed evidence all the paper could provide is tape recordings of someone phoning in and making the accusations reported.

I get my news by throwing dice with letters on and trying to interpret news stories from them. This is guaranteed to be at least 50% more accurate than the Mail or the Express.

I like the way they have just cut the whole list but not the bit before which says "These shareholders are:" Way to make it really obvious...

Currently number 5 in the BBC's most read news items list: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15859800

I think the main things to point him at is rumafia site and their description of what was being arranged and how the facts now coming out tie in exactly with that account.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-23/lithuanian-prosecutor-lists-snoras-shareholders-as-wanted.html

Meant horizontal like this

Is it true that pompey's next away kit will be vertical black and white stripes.

Oh surprise surprise.... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-21/snoras-assets-may-be-revised-lower-on-low-provisions-fitch-says.html

Remember Dune to wear this t-shirt they love irony honest!

I wonder how much the readers of tabloids (I also fall into the possible sanctimonious group who have never bought one and avoid things such as xfactor like the plague) are truly ignorant of the methods used to get them the stories they like and how many play blindfully ignorant (i.e. sort of know how they are obtained but choose not to think about it)? There is one thing to say people continue to buy papers because the story says: "A close friend of the family said they were distraught" but would they if the truth was told: "We listened to their voice mail, door stepped their 86 year old grannie, pretended to be someone from the council and blagged their details from various official sources and can tell you they are distraught"

Makes a nice change.

Its part of the two branch approach to defending in this sort of situation: 1) Someone let them get away with it for a time so its all right 2) Other people have done the same (if not quite to the same extent) and not many have complained about them

I think the thing that sums up for me is that there was a warning before the inquiry started that the press could take revenge on those that give evidence and that a eye would be kept on the press to try and make sure they did not and then the Daily Mail basically come out and call Grant a liar and got themselves in hot water because of it. As the judge said he would have been okay if they had just said why they disagreed but even at this most delicate of times for the press they just decided to let loose with both barrels. It will be interesting if Coogan gets a mention in the mail editorial tomorrow.

Less

Its a pity really that Grant and Coogan gave evidence on consecutive days as the press coverage tends to concentrates on them which has distracted from the evidence given by the other witnesses who are not celebrities but have suffered at the hands of the press. You can debate for as long as you like about whether by choosing a profession in sports or the performing arts somehow cancels any protection you have against press intrusion but the testimony of normal people suffering from media intrusion should not be ignored.

Does not the definition of Shaven I quoted state it can be used in the past participle sense?