| Barton isn't happy! on 14:59 - Dec 5 with 3089 views | JonDoeman |
https://twitter.com/Joey7Barton
I see Jim Royles giving it beans about my sexuality in the Daily Mail. Like thats anything to do with him. Can he say what he's said?
Sounds slightly bigoted and homophobic to me. Any legal-eagles out there know if he can get away with this?
My sexuality is of no concern to anyone except me and my family. Can't see the missus being happy about this piece.
Actually, no. Theres no olive branch. Enough's enough!! |  |
|  |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:00 - Dec 5 with 3084 views | JonDoeman |
He doth protest too much methinks! | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:06 - Dec 5 with 3070 views | Jamie |
In fairness it is embarrassingly poor journalism. The Fail are on a roll today. |  | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:22 - Dec 5 with 3030 views | TacticalR |
Martin Samuel sounds pretty desperate for a gay footballer. Perhaps someone will give him one for Christmas. |  |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:38 - Dec 5 with 2997 views | Northernr |
He's right to be annoyed. That reads like something written about about 12 pints. Pathetic piece that should actually have seen Samuel called in by senior management for a long chat about his performance and possible problems with alcohol rather than actually published. |  | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:43 - Dec 5 with 2984 views | Jamie |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:38 - Dec 5 by Northernr |
He's right to be annoyed. That reads like something written about about 12 pints. Pathetic piece that should actually have seen Samuel called in by senior management for a long chat about his performance and possible problems with alcohol rather than actually published. |
Pretty regular occurrence with the Mail to be fair. Seems as though nobody there actually checks what is being published. | | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:53 - Dec 5 with 2954 views | Northernr |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:43 - Dec 5 by Jamie |
Pretty regular occurrence with the Mail to be fair. Seems as though nobody there actually checks what is being published. |
The Mail website is literally all about hits. Daker doesn't care what's on it, in fact he rarely looks at it and doesn't even have a computer on his desk. Just all about driving traffic with headlines and shock pieces like this one. Scandalous that it's allowed, and a sad indictment that so many people read it. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:57 - Dec 5 with 2945 views | TacticalR |
But don't Samuel's drunken ramblings tell us *something*?
Isn't he trying to tell us that he is an enlightened fellow? If you listen to recent sports broadcasts a lot of them get very tedious when the subject of racism is discussed because every middle-aged sports journalist is desperate to flaunt their anti-racist credentials, and the discussion ends up as a sort of prayer meeting.
Perhaps Samuel is trying to get ahead of the pack on the gay issue...if only he could find someone to defend. It really is very selfish of these gay footballers to stay in the closet when there is good copy to be made. | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 15:59 - Dec 5 with 2937 views | Jeff |
I generally have a lot of time for Martin Samuel, i agree with the vast majority of what he says, but this is ridiculous gutter journalism of the lowest kind.
actually quite disappointed by it. |  |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 16:31 - Dec 5 with 2869 views | Northernr |
Patrick Barclay did the same thing, said we should just get on and shake his hand or we'd end up apologising to him. Then after the FA hearing slamming the way Chelsea defended him and dealt with the whole thing. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 16:36 - Dec 5 with 2854 views | daveB |
I always liked Martin Samnuels column but the last 18 months he has lost the plot with a lot of what he's said, not been the same since he left the Times. |  | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 16:39 - Dec 5 with 2847 views | TacticalR |
Perhaps he's just bored with Allardyce and wants a bit of cosmopolitanism at the Boleyn? | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:13 - Dec 5 with 2798 views | TGRRRSSS |
You'd be annoyed if somoene said something about you that wasn't true. Samuels isn't as good as he was when at The Times.
A girl I know had a fling with Barton very early on in his career (at Man City) and he's now settled with a kid I think, so we can rule him out I suspect.
What Norf said further up.
Funny what Lindegaard said last week about time a footballer should come out ) but was quite keen to point out he himself wasn't gay. |  | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:21 - Dec 5 with 2779 views | TacticalR |
I don't think Samuel is saying Barton is gay. I think he is saying that he (Samuels) and football is in need of a gay footballer. The position is open, if you will excuse the expression. | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:25 - Dec 5 with 2769 views | TGRRRSSS |
Why the focus on Joey then, it had to be somone and who else but our Joey who actually appeared on that Gay footballers programme John Fashanu's daughter did last year, where he came across quite well to be honest.
ON the subject of Samuels on Supplement when I do watch it and he's on he comes across as mumbling and well poor really, reminds me slightly of Claridge's style on Football League show but you can (unfortunately) understand better what Claridge is saying. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:27 - Dec 5 with 2767 views | whittocksRs |
It's a real shame sports journalists are encouraged to write this stuff; Samuel is normally a pretty solid writer and fair with it. Of course, the Fail absolutely laps it up, especially for its online product. A friend of a friend has been working on their celebrity news web desk in the past few weeks and they've reported back that reporters get absolutely roasted by editors if they don't write salaciously enough, or if there's a story about Kim Kardashian's arse on E! News that they don't have. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:46 - Dec 5 with 2744 views | TacticalR |
To be honest, I don't think it's *that* bad. He's just trying to be funny.
The real question is...why is Samuel hunting for gays? And in the pages of the Daily Mail?
I think this tells us something about British society. The thing it tells us is that the British are desperate to appear enlightened (or being enlightened is becoming part of British identity).
Anti-gay? That's Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe and places like Jamaica isn't it? Oh football...a lot of men, but no gays in sight. Hmmm...probably something to do with the backward working classes. Quick, somebody get me a gay before it's too late!
Then we can show the world how enlightened we are. | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 17:52 - Dec 5 with 2733 views | CanadaRanger |
Probably more to do with that we care what happens on the pitch, not at the homes of players... . |  | | |
| Barton isn't happy! on 18:13 - Dec 5 with 2703 views | TacticalR |
I am very sorry Roller, but I think your article completely misses the point. It very accurately describes the situation *in the past* (indeed the not too distant past). *But it doesn't explain what's happening now*.
In the past (described in your article) people would do anything to conjure gays away, whereas now Samuel is desperate to find some, or conjure some up if none are to be found. | |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 18:41 - Dec 5 with 2665 views | R_from_afar |
Who is this Barton of whom you speak? Didn't we use to have a decidedly average player who went by that name, and others, like "liability," "moron" and "self-obsessed b3ll end"?
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 19:03 - Dec 5 with 2634 views | thisismyengland |
| Barton isn't happy! on 18:13 - Dec 5 by TacticalR |
I am very sorry Roller, but I think your article completely misses the point. It very accurately describes the situation *in the past* (indeed the not too distant past). *But it doesn't explain what's happening now*.
In the past (described in your article) people would do anything to conjure gays away, whereas now Samuel is desperate to find some, or conjure some up if none are to be found. |
You're taking Samuel at face value then? I think he's doing a Daily Mail version of satire (God help us), playing to his crowd and having a little snigger at those ruddy gays. |  |
| www.thisismyengland.blogspot.com |
| |
| Barton isn't happy! on 19:39 - Dec 5 with 2589 views | TacticalR |
| Barton isn't happy! on 19:03 - Dec 5 by thisismyengland |
You're taking Samuel at face value then? I think he's doing a Daily Mail version of satire (God help us), playing to his crowd and having a little snigger at those ruddy gays. |
That's hard to answer, but I think you can take this at face value, in the context of the times...
A significant change since the Thatcher era is that conservatism doesn't coalesce around anti-gay politics any more. Remember the furore around Section 28 and the "promotion of homosexuality in schools"? Here is a description of David Cameron's (rather rapid) transformation on the subject:
"In 2000, David Cameron (at that time an unelected Conservative party member) repeatedly attacked the Labour government's plans to abolish Section 28, publicly criticising then-Prime Minister Tony Blair as being "anti-family" and accused him of wanting the "promotion of homosexuality in schools". In 2003, once Cameron had been elected as Conservative MP for Witney, he continued to support Section 28. As the Labour government were determined to remove Section 28 from law, Cameron voted in favour of a Conservative amendment that retained certain aspects of the clause, which gay rights campaigners described as "Section 28 by the back door". This was unsuccessful, and Section 28 was repealed by the Labour government without concession (Cameron was absent for the vote on its eventual repeal). However, in June 2009, Cameron – then leader of the Conservative Party whilst campaigning to be the next Prime Minister – formally apologised for his party introducing the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28
Obviously it's impossible to know what Samuel 'really thinks', (or what some MPs think of removing Section 28), as if he said he hated gay people (or if he said he hated black people) there would be an outcry and he would be dismissed faster than you can say 'Ron Atkinson'. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
