Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
that'll be the day!yeh they should be socially distancing
that'll be the day!yeh they should be socially distancing
ahhh...didn't know that. Still think the anonymity is a good idea.
she should be wary of them, never trust a journalist is an adage i have kept by since the one time i did trust a journalist they nearly (metaphorically) shafted me. and that they didn't wasn't down to any skill on my part but that they drank about 15 pints before writing their story. these were (pre-guardian) observer journalists, someone or other harrison iirc and his photographer chum.I think she did that as she was getting nowhere with the Chief Whip and internal party procedures. From the content and tone of their articles, they are supporting and helping her.
agreed, raisesd the question of who to trust less, journoes or Tory pols!she should be wary of them, never trust a journalist is an adage i have kelp by since the one time i did trust a journalist they nearly (metaphorically) shafted me. and that they didn't wasn't down to any skill on my part but that they drank about 15 pints before writing their story. these were (pre-guardian) observer journalists, someone or other harrison iirc and his photographer chum.
i would trust tories less as there is a chance of getting a drink out of journalistsagreed, raisesd the question of who to trust less, journoes or Tory pols!
having said that, Time magazine (I assume Plhillm really means Time, not the Times) have an industry rep for noth ethics and high quality journalism.
Sure and these are News International ones to boot...she should be wary of them, never trust a journalist is an adage i have kept by since the one time i did trust a journalist they nearly (metaphorically) shafted me. and that they didn't wasn't down to any skill on my part but that they drank about 15 pints before writing their story. these were (pre-guardian) observer journalists, someone or other harrison iirc and his photographer chum.
Sure and these are News International ones to boot...
Given that the link posted in the same post was from The Times, I suspect he did mean the UK Murdoch-owned rag, not the respected US publication.agreed, raisesd the question of who to trust less, journoes or Tory pols!
having said that, Time magazine (I assume Plhillm really means Time, not the Times) have an industry rep for noth ethics and high quality journalism.
I'm pretty sure he meant the Times seeing as it was a Times article he C&P'd.agreed, raisesd the question of who to trust less, journoes or Tory pols!
having said that, Time magazine (I assume Plhillm really means Time, not the Times) have an industry rep for noth ethics and high quality journalism.
ahhh....I didn't see that C&P, my bad.I'm pretty sure he meant the Times seeing as it was a Times article he C&P'd.
Yeah, the Times I took out a free sub for a month just to take a peek over the paywall - not worth the eye-watering 26 quid a month they want for it.ahhh....I didn't see that C&P, my bad.
In that case, the poor woman really is caught between a rock and a hard place.
2a: serves me right for skim-reading. I really should have seen that C&P
Do that away from urban, please. Don't get this site shut down with your speculations.I'm still trying to find out who it is.
Yes, I think he got that the second time I told him. Thanks for reminding him thoughDo that away from urban, please. Don't get this site shut down with your speculations.
I'm not sure this is really a suitable subject for what I think is intended as a "joke".
I'm not sure this is really a suitable subject for what I think is intended as a "joke".
This post, combined with your earlier speculation about the ID of the accused and your "trolling through life" tagline are all combining to create a bit of a bad smell about you, as far as I'm concerned.
I think post 284 is in even worse taste than that - given that Carrie Symonds herself is a rape survivor.I'm not sure this is really a suitable subject for what I think is intended as a "joke".
This post, combined with your earlier speculation about the ID of the accused and your "trolling through life" tagline are all combining to create a bit of a bad smell about you, as far as I'm concerned.
I had no idea of that just and have just looked it up absolutely terrible - I shall delete it forthwith - sincere apologies for any offence caused.I think post 284 is in even worse taste than that - given that Carrie Symonds herself is a rape survivor.
As a general note, please can everyone think very carefully before posting anything on this thread
Agreed, but no one is suggesting it should be a sticky atop each thread, or anything even remotely like that.If this was a sticky at the top of each thread we'd have about 6 threads in total and none totaling more than 7 posts.
OK, sorry, my bad, work stress has drained my humour-o-meterI feel like you missed the humour there. I should have used a smillie.
Should have used a simile...I feel like you missed the humour there. I should have used a smillie.
Like I did that other time?Should have used a simile...
Agreed, but no one is suggesting it should be a sticky atop each thread, or anything even remotely like that.
FTR: the only reason why I posted that is because the subject matter has to do with ongoing and very serious legal proceedings involving a criminal matter, and absolutely the last thing this site - or anyone connected with it needs - is for either m'Learned Friends or inspector Knacker to come crawling over these baords.
There are laws of Contempt.
I reckon it probably comes down to how big your lawyering budget is.is it a matter of contempt at the moment, or more a case of getting in trouble for naming the wrong person? Just curious as I don’t know what the legal situation is regarding the reporting of an arrest - whether something specific to this case or in general. Also aware that there is a moral case for not naming names as it can lead to identifying the alleged victim.
His name should be dragged through the mud now, not simply as the perp in this instance but because of the misery he has helped inflict on the country. There's 22 people who fit the info released, so all of them should have their public misdeeds aired.I reckon it probably comes down to how big your lawyering budget is.
But perhaps a more important consideration is to ensure that some slippery cunt (well, he IS a senior Tory ) isn't able to claim that he didn't get a fair trial. There'll be plenty of time to drag his name through the mud after conviction...