Foxes Trust Match Report

[Melton Fox]

As far as match reports are concerned we have not edited a single report since we first published them. This will remain the policy, it is a personal viewpoint of an individual member only and we don't believe we should try & edit in any way.

So if I sign up tomorrow, I'll send you my money, double it if need be. Will you allow me to write an article for the West Brom game and then publish it totally unedited?

 

[Foxes_Trust]

So if I sign up tomorrow, I'll send you my money, double it if need be. Will you allow me to write an article for the West Brom game and then publish it totally unedited?

No, because the match reporters for the next few games are already allocated.

But if you join now & say you want to do a report later in the season than that's fine

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

No, because the match reporters for the next few games are already allocated.

But if you join now & say you want to do a report later in the season than that's fine

even if he includes something in his report such as "I hate this Foxes Trust lark.. what a load of crap.." after all hed still be within your policy and just voicing his opinion..

 

[Melton Fox]

No, because the match reporters for the next few games are already allocated.

But if you join now & say you want to do a report later in the season than that's fine

I'll think about that one.:icon_lol:

I do admire the non editing stance you take, but you must see that this article is going to cause some issues. Any organization is representative of it's members, this guy had is "Foxes Trust hat on" and came across as not wanting MM or his family involved in this club, and also giving the fact that they didn't have a Leicestershire accent as a reason.

Did I read it totally wrong, or do you think it might have been a mistake to publish it

 

[bocadillo]

I do admire the non editing stance you take, ...

I don't admire it at all - I think it marks them out as the half-witted organisation that they seem to wish to strive to be.

 

[fitz]

as far as i am concerned posting an article on behalf of the foxes trust for their webpage is on behalf of the foxes trust. how this ****in bell-end has been allowed to write such garbage without someone considering the comments to be slightly dodgy is beyond me. if i wrote an article saying "the match was alright, the foxes trust are a bunch of twats and all the blacks should **** off" would you publish that if it was my game to be allowed to post on?

my accent is ****in geordie, does that mean i should never set foot in the walkers again?

 

[Dogbreath]

I think that regardless of what they do, like in many other cases the trust is screwed on this. Having always had a no editing policy in the past if they now try to censor/edit this report they get slated yet again for trying to force their views across.

Because they've tried to be open and stuck to that policy, some on here seem to be accusing them of secretly condoning what many have rightly or wrongly taken to be an anti-MM stance by the writer.

If I could be arsed to read back on the reams of posts slagging the trust off since the buy out started I suspect that many of the same posters are going to appear with their trust bashing heads on.

My view for what its worth is that if the trust want to appear as professional and credible then as Jeff says they should have refused to put that report up until the writer had changed it so that it wasn't as ill considered as it is. If he refused then they should have put out a statement stating that there was no report available for that match as the one written may of coursed offence.

They'd still have got grief for changing their policy on censorship but they would have been able to hold the moral high ground. As it is they seem to have shot themselves in the foot again.

 

[drew]

To hide behind a 'policy' and 'disclaimer' is crass. The article should not of been published with those comments end of.

The personal views of the reporter should of been curbed, i'm sure in professional journalism many articles and stories are rejected and rewritten due to certain aspects of the story. It could of quite easily been edited out.

Time to redress the 'policy' don't you think FT?

 

[Lako42]

I had it on in my bed, the match commentary - thats lako or whoever it was who sent the like - i was 'ungover to feck.

It was jessle and Joe501 (bookie winning guy) by the way, thanks lads - also thanks Lako, for the rant

i dont understand a word of that, what are you trying to say?

 

[bocadillo]

I think that regardless of what they do, like in many other cases the trust is screwed on this. Having always had a no editing policy in the past if they now try to censor/edit this report they get slated yet again for trying to force their views across.

Because they've tried to be open and stuck to that policy, some on here seem to be accusing them of secretly condoning what many have rightly or wrongly taken to be an anti-MM stance by the writer.

If I could be arsed to read back on the reams of posts slagging the trust off since the buy out started I suspect that many of the same posters are going to appear with their trust bashing heads on.

My view for what its worth is that if the trust want to appear as professional and credible then as Jeff says they should have refused to put that report up until the writer had changed it so that it wasn't as ill considered as it is. If he refused then they should have put out a statement stating that there was no report available for that match as the one written may of coursed offence.

They'd still have got grief for changing their policy on censorship but they would have been able to hold the moral high ground. As it is they seem to have shot themselves in the foot again.

How does your suggested course of action differ from that suggested by people who have their trust-bashing heads on? It seems to me that even you realise that the FT is wrong on this one.

 

[Dogbreath]

How does your suggested course of action differ from that suggested by people who have their trust-bashing heads on? It seems to me that even you realise that the FT is wrong on this one.

It doesn't particularly, and if the trust is honest about it they would have to admit themselves that they screwed this one up, communication isn't something that they do well, and in many ways they're the victims of their own stupidity.

But that doesn't mean that they're always wrong or that they're the bunch of self seeking useless feckwits some would class them as.

Some folks just seem to want the trust to screw up and then take great pleasure in it. If people don't like them or what they do then ignore them, its not as if theres no escape from the buggers, why slag them off constantly?

 

[drew]

But that doesn't mean that they're always wrong or that they're the bunch of self seeking useless feckwits some would class them as.

Just most of the time....

 

[Dogbreath]

Just most of the time....

 

[joe501]

i dont understand a word of that

neither did i.. :icon_lol:

 

[bocadillo]

To hide behind a 'policy' and 'disclaimer' is crass. The article should not of been published with those comments end of.

I agree - and the FT can't hide behind their disclaimer any more than Jeff could avoid responsibility for what might be published in this forum. He and they have a responsibility for what they enable to be published.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours

 

[fcukcov]

The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours

good to hear.

 

[fitz]

The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours

how about getting people who aren't on a par with alf garnett to write the reports?

 

[bocadillo]

The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours

I sincerely congratulate you on your willingness to reconsider this.

 

[newtonfox]

The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours

for once FT well done