Ops-Normal.org

So is the Breitbart article total fictiion and lies and liable to an expensive court case for libel, slander and all the other offences worth a court case to garner some dosh?

Yer at it again, criticise the source and/or the delivery in order to smokescreen the original information, or as you probably judge it to be, dis/mis information.

It’s becoming tedious to put it mildly...

barkingmad wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:50 am

So is the Breitbart article total fictiion and lies and liable to an expensive court case for libel, slander and all the other offences worth a court case to garner some dosh?

Yer at it again, criticise the source and/or the delivery in order to smokescreen the original information, or as you probably judge it to be, dis/mis information.

It’s becoming tedious to put it mildly...

You do yourself no favours by using such dubious sources as the basis for making what otherwise might be reasonable points bm.

I mean David Icke and now Breitbart...

A bit like like quoting Ptolemy as the basis of your proof for a heliocentric system!

https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-brei ... nspiracies.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

Unfortunately since the unpalatable dark and dirty underside of the "narrative" has begun to be exposed, so also are the dubious credentials of the "fact-checkers" and even the so-called "peer review process" is under question.

So I will ignore your pathetic attempt to discredit the story on the basis that you and others don't like the source and I trust that 'fact-checking' might become yet another of the oxymorons discovered since the 'plague' outbreak.

barkingmad wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:52 am

Unfortunately since the unpalatable dark and dirty underside of the "narrative" has begun to be exposed, so also are the dubious credentials of the "fact-checkers" and even the so-called "peer review process" is under question.

So I will ignore your pathetic attempt to discredit the story on the basis that you and others don't like the source and I trust that 'fact-checking' might become yet another of the oxymorons discovered since the 'plague' outbreak.

Factuality is not pathetic at all but the basis of rational discourse I am afraid bm!

I mean wasn't the basis of the last link you posted, all about Breitbart railing against the lack of verifiable fact in the BBC report?

Ye canna have it both ways my dear fellow!

Surprised no one regenerated the thread.

BBC suspended senior male presenter who paid a youth £35k for porn pics.

They refuse to name the presenter. This is the same BBC that televised the police search of Sir Cliff Richards.

Excellent point made on Talk TV yesterday. This is the BBC that takes public money, our money, to enable a presenter to pay £35,000 over 3 years.

The story I hear from someone who is very likely to know, is that a super injunction has been taken out. That means that the presenter cannot be named, but more than that, the injunction itself cannot be referred to. It's an expensive way (£50k a pop the last time I got one - lol!), to claim anonymity, but the person concerned doubtless has deep pockets.

Interesting twist. The teenager's lawyer says that the mother's claims are rubbish.

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:02 pm

Interesting twist. The teenager's lawyer says that the mother's claims are rubbish.

I bet the phones are busy at The Sun's lawyers...

Wouldn't the absence of a presenter through process of elimination reveal the identity?

PP

Yes, but it might take some time to show up if they are not a daily/weekly presenter.
I wonder who HE can be?

There is a name, and only one name, being bandied about abroad, but with no evidence presented.
It is being reported that the Met have said they have not yet received a formal accusation, which would appear to justify the BBC dealing with it internally.
However, the Met are talking to all involved, and obviously the pictures themselves, if available and date-confirmed, would seem to give a prima facie case.

I see what you did there, F3

Me, guv?
Don't know what you mean.
Pure as the driven slush, I am

This is worrying - it looks as if 'The Sun' may not have published the truth. I mean, if we cannot trust 'The Sun', who can we trust?

Well, The Sun always was the most honest, on account of them being sued so often.
I haven't read the article, but they usually have only three or four stated facts maximum, and the rest is couched as "believed', 'understood', etc, so they may not have lied?

Randomly, in the Daily Post (aka North Wales Live ...if that isn't an oxymoron) there is an article on Huw Edwards, for no particular reason, published a few hours ago.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1dFVT1

F3, who hates the media, has a sudden interest in regional newspapers. I was told a long time ago, by reporters and editors in both national and regional newspapers, that the Regionals can often be useful sources when there is something the Nationals don't seem to be quite getting a grasp of. Subsequently, of course, the Nationals can report on what the Regionals are reporting on, which isn't the same (legally) as reporting things directly.
I wonder where the Regionals get their info?

I note the DT has decided to highlight which of the top BBC presenters got the highest salary raise.

..which ends up with the name Huw Edwards as the first two words in its top headline.

And, coincidentally I'm sure, the article immediately below it is "BBC must name Presenter X"

I expect there will be possibly even more contrived ways of naming him in other rags.

Another source says that a presenter suddenly went on holiday on Monday. I guess that might fuel a hue and cry. And no, it's not Huw Edwards. I was told the name but can't remember it.

Why the fuss to know?

Boac wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 2:43 pm

Why the fuss to know?

My opinion as well. Prurient nonsense! Let justice be done one way or the other. The world has its full share of the guilty or innocent, whether they be deviants, perverts, or not, or whatever.

Well, whoever it is, I suspect his career is over. While most of the Conservative voters were happy to have a PM with no morals, I suspect BBC viewers will not want this chap. They have standards, you know............