RlCO

Go Joe. Not that I'm that much of a supporter, but it unifies the belts and ends the bullshit of the current system.

They even lie about the fucking tits man! Melanie 21 was Sophie 18 a month ago!

Aye there's the rub for me tbh. While she's perfectly right about tabloid lies, she hasn't got a leg to stand on (pun virtually unavoidable) as she's a complete stranger to the truth herself. Aside from the question of lies, I agree with the broader points made about tabloids generally too. It is as much a fault of the people who buy them (which clearly is in the millions) as the tabloids themselves. I think the world would be a better place if they just didnt exist- if they didn't then people like Mills and numerous other no mark celebs would be far less renowned and that can only be a good thing for me. You just despair when you see what some people are famous for. I'd also put 95% of women's magazines and a massive percentage of satellite TV up there as fuelling worthless celebrity too. The public's appetite for it is fucking insatiable and women are by far the worst offenders. Well Alex likes Chat! so maybe not all of them. The thing is the world would not only be a better place if tabloids and gossip mags didn't exist, but likely the people that buy them too (genocide is the solution to all the world problems ). In Mills case she'd be better off being locked up somewhere and allowed to play out her delusion in private - I actually think that's why she gets SO upset about the tabloids, there's little a raving fantasist dislikes more than being accused of being such (whether they are telling the truth or lying about that particular point is fairly irrelevant, the reaction will be the same). People like Mills (and Gazza and the pig faced one of BB whatever she's called) have sort of replaced the spectacle of public executions and stocks in our culture. Like I said, because it's her, people will brush aside the real issues.

The point being she did have a concrete example of a blatant falsehood being printed, and recieved an apology for it. The fact remains, there is no incentive for them not to print lies if they think it will sell the paper, not from a negative publicity aspect (the tiny apologies) or from a legal aspect (the financial penalties are miniscule compared to the likelihood of being sued, as it takes years and thousands to even come to court). I say again, why should you have to sue to cause a retraction of blatantly false information? That is not a free press in my book. And again, this is not an issue about her ability to protect herself, or even about what she claims is untrue, it is about the lack of punishment for blatant falsehoods and it is about everybody. Gordon Ramsey took the Evening Standard to court, he eventually won in court and was awarded just £75k. Probably less than half the daily income of the paper.

Try to separate the 'leaving anyway' part of it right out of your mind on this one. The money is yours IF they make you redundant, that's what contracts are for. You have every right to it, so make sure they don't get cheeky.

Would depend on the individual circs. For instance a cleaner living in Plymouth would be made redundant if the firm offered him/her an alternative position in Aberdeen. A chief executive in charge of that company might not be made redundant if the location of the work suddenly switched from one place to the other. Anyways it seems from Chez's post that he's saying there's no issue on that score. They're actually looking at offering him the redundancy package. Presumably Chez is pushing a brush round the u-bend rather than pushing through hard business deals. It doesn't sound like he has been offered it though. I would be concerned if I was him as that's a fair whack to lose on the equivalency point. I would take independant advice on his sector/role and any precedents.

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written. ...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation" I won't hold my breath. That's her whole point - even if she started suing now (against all 140odd separate pieces she claimed) she would be in court for years before seeing a penny. She detailed an apology printed about something reported about the divorce, it was completely false and the paper admitted so, but the apology was like 1 paragraph on page 20 - that was why she's talking about equivalent sizes etc. Anyway, why should you have to sue them to stop them printing (patently and proveably false in that case) fabrication? I sound like I'm defending her, I'm not, I never much gave her much thought till today, but in fact the way she put it across today has got me wound up about the injustice of it all. And she was clear in detailing the less well known people/organisations this happens to every day, giving it the 'they don't have the profile I do to be able to stand up for themselves' line, which in a way is completely true.

Isn't it the case that it isn't technically redundancy if they do offer in their view an equivalent position and you just choose not to take it? I don't know if it has to be in the same place or the same line of work.

Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

Unless you take company secrets with you I'm sure it's perfectly legal. They have a claim on knowing where you're going on this basis though, if you work in that kind of thing (the R&D makes it sound like you might have some privelaged knowledge).

No, Ashley's increase is a blocking move.

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years. The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it. Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money. A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'? As you put it "the masses". All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc. She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed. I wouldn't have said any of those have a better standing with the public to be listened to either. Like I said, she has a very good point, but because of who she is, like the Royals etc, it will be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, none of those above have put the issue across in as general and as sensible way as she did today. The paparazzi conviction point was a real eye opener. It's about time these scum were rightly put out of business.

It also steps up the Premier League chairman wars, with JJB nabbing a 10% stake as well.

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years. The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it. Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money. A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'?

I'd rather go to Brazil than France or Germany, bollocks to pansy fear of crime worries .

She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work. She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

It's moot anyway because as we have seen, Owen has the drop on Allardyce anyway regarding when he does or doesn't play, but if this was say Fergie and Rooney, I'd say there was a definite conflict of interest. If England don't qualify for the Euros the Umbro valuation is way off what Nike are offering. Then again, Ashley could get the club to nobble Owen to make sure he doesn't play for England, and then he picks up another massive brand for his empire on the cheap.

Now that Ashley has doubled his stake in Umbro to 30% and is possibly launching a counter offer against Nike, given Umbro's profits are very much linked to England's success, do we not now have a rather major conflict of interest between manager and owner regarding Owen's alleged commitment issues?

Viscount Linley now apparently (the Queens cousin)

We're quite good at F1 when you consider most teams are based in the UK, the top man at Ferrari was a Brit, and now we have Lewis.

Bumming sheep until he gets some real pussy and sending pics of his tiny boyhood to strangers apparently! Magma isn't the kind of bloke to be sending pictures of Magmas cock to people Magma has never met.

He was on the telly earlier, practically admitted nobody was interested in him, and he was very very gratefull to get the Norwich job.

Elemafants! Elemafants!

"With only Croatia, Russia, Israel, Estonia, Macedonia and Andorra to overcome it should be a cakewalk in Group E for the new manager whoever he, or she, may be." That's quite hilarious really.

Puts London 2012 in the shade doesn't it? I fancy this could be the first World Cup I go to, combining it with a tour of the Americas. How's that for planning ahead?