Jump to content

The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes there was.

The SPL was a completely distinct organisation, established in 1998 and it included only teams then in the top flight.  The SFL soldiered on subsequently without the big clubs.

Then, after the Rangers saga, the four national divisions came back under the same umbrella.  Of course, the new organisation needed a name.  SPL was not just  a name for the top flight.  It was a brand  name for an organisation that ceased to be.

That's fantastic but if you just answer my questions that would be great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
44 minutes ago, Dr Koop said:

Sorry to end up quoting myself but here's another example of that kind of construction - this time from the phoney liberal Grauniad.

snippitty.PNG

There's nothing wrong with this. It's a simple grammar device for changing the focus of the sentence. In the case in your quote, the focus of the story is the former British soldier, not the body that has decided to drop the charges.

Just as in your first example the focus of the story was on Aberdeen. To make the sentence active would be to focus on Motherwell. The writer wanted to focus on Aberdeen. People make choices between active and passive sentences dozens of times a day based on this distinction of focus. A simple example would be "The police wrongly stopped and searched 1 million black youths last year". Focus on the police, probably an anti-police article. "One million black youths were stopped and searched wrongly by the police last year". Probably an article about the plight of young black people in the UK today.

And using 'have' doesn't mean Aberdeen chose it. For example, you can have your phone stolen, you can have your windows smashed. It's about the focus of the sentence. Passive sentences like that are good for identifying the main focus of the story and also for providing a bit of grammatical variety to a text. Passives also tend to be used in more formal texts or sometimes to show detachment or even-handedness on an issue.

That'll be £50, please.

 

Edited by JTS98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm pretty certain that I did.

Revisit the last two sentences of the post in question, if still struggling.

No, you havent. 

Is there any reason why SPL couldn't have continued to be used as a name or for it to be reverted back to?

Did the original SPL copyright it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

No, you havent. 

Is there any reason why SPL couldn't have continued to be used as a name or for it to be reverted back to?

Did the original SPL copyright it?

With the SPL more or less taking over the SFL they obviously wanted a new name as everything was coming under the one company rather than the two don't really see the problem here apart from the names being rather naff and just a rip off of the English ones.

Most folk seem to have grasped the new names apart from a few thick ex footballers on Radio Scotland.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

No, you havent. 

Is there any reason why SPL couldn't have continued to be used as a name or for it to be reverted back to?

Did the original SPL copyright it?

I've no idea whether or not there would have been legal barriers.

Either way though, the SPL was a name for an altogether separate body. It was also a largely discredited brand, so for the new organisation to attempt to retain or revive the name would have been thoroughly bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Darren said:

If everyone could stop saying "revert back  to" that would be lovely.

Was just about to post that! It's one of my pet annoyances, Same as present incumbent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cowdenbeath said:

With the SPL more or less taking over the SFL they obviously wanted a new name as everything was coming under the one company rather than the two don't really see the problem here apart from the names being rather naff and just a rip off of the English ones.

Most folk seem to have grasped the new names apart from a few thick ex footballers on Radio Scotland.

 

I appreciate the considered response without throwing a hissy fit like MT. 

I think the ripping off of the English names is exactly what gets on folk's nerves. Cringey at the very least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

I appreciate the considered response without throwing a hissy fit like MT. 

I think the ripping off of the English names is exactly what gets on folk's nerves. Cringey at the very least. 

I don't like the ripping off of the English names just need to call the Lowland League National League South and the Highland League National League North and we'll have the set:lol:

I would just go with Premier or Premiership then One, Two and Three as that's what they are. I can understand having the Championship as the 2nd tier down south as its run by the EFL and its their top division but no need for it in Scotland.

Edited by cowdenbeath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

I appreciate the considered response without throwing a hissy fit like MT. 

I think the ripping off of the English names is exactly what gets on folk's nerves. Cringey at the very least. 

A totally separate argument.  Of course there was no need to copy the names given to the English divisions - it smacks of crippling wannabe insecurity.

I'll continue to fit however, if people say things that miss the entire point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'll continue to fit however, if people say things that miss the entire point.

:lol:

How the f**k could I miss the point if it was me that was making the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst (and best) part about the top flight of Scottish football currently being called the Premiership is that in trying to latch on to the popularity of English football in copying the four division names they did so by erroneously copying a name that hadn't been used since 2007, apart from by the sort of mouthbreathers that get people on here so wound up. People - English and Scottish and elsewhere - still call it the English Premiership despite being wrong. We can't even copy something we've no hope of replicating right.

All of this is utterly inexcusable and irrelevant of course. It's the Scottish Premiership. Not hard to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

I agree, they've been English Champions the same number of times as Spurs and were the only the third English side to play in the  European Cup after Man Utd and Wolves (reaching the QF).

They do have an excellent stadium of which I have personal experience, having attended their 2-0 defeat to Spurs in April last year.

They play in a town with a similar population to Paisley but for all that to "Transport a town and ground that size to Scotland though and you'd have a club that regularly qualifies for Europe." is wild conjecture.

 

To be fair, in 1960, the quarter-finals were only the second round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...