September 23rd, 2010
David Beckham: Let’s Not And Say We Did – UPDATED
UPDATE: It appears the gloves are off and the rumble in the court jungle is about to go down. We eagerly await the next stage!
Could this week get any worse? We have hit the “push a puppy out of the way” stage of cranky already and certainly didn’t need to see the cover of In Touch magazine’s David Beckham + Hooker = Anger Making Skankocity tag line.
So, in the name of our delicate constitutions, how about we just make a few key points about how this story is being reported, and then if it’s alright, we’ll head back to checking if our local chocolate factory has agreed to let us take up employment? Because, Kickettes, we’re dunzo.
1. Always read the statements made by footballers in these types of jams very carefully. They often speak volumes.
2. Threatening to sue is not the same as actually suing. Further to that point, when someone does sue, check the specifics. We sincerely hope this is a clear cut, have-to-issue-an-apology-result. Let’s watch this space.
3. Consider a player’s history; the industry-wide, well-known level of solicitor power; the media blackout that occurred when this went down. (If you’ve not read this story which was only published in Australia, take a moment and read it now.)
4. Read what’s being reported in the UK versus what’s being reported in the US, where restrictions may not apply. Consider the way the UK is covering this story compared to the way they handled the Wayne Rooney and John Terry scandals.
5. Pray we don’t get sued for pointing these things out.
6. Be skeptical. We are. But be realistic.
Side note: As we’ve seen from the John Terry situation earlier this year, a player filing a super-injunction for privacy doesn’t automatically make them guilty. And we’re not implying in any way that Becks has filed an injunction, btw.