I have mentioned before about some newspapers spinning falsehoods, and some posters on here have contemptuously suggested that I must have some secret source of information not available to others. Those people ignore cited facts legal cases and official reportd and usually resort to further ridicule.
Here is another example of press lies. This is not a secret, it is a legal decision and the full transcript will be available on Lexel and similar legal sites.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... pp_Outlook
The libel damages will not compensate for this mans loss of contact with his children; or inability to secure a reasonable job. The 'newspaper' will not particularly mind because they managed to get another angle of grooming, taxi driver and Muslim all in one, just more gossip and less truth.
There is discussion in another thread and either Seahermit or cbe suggests that that the police are not doing their jobs and it is an excuse for them to say it is lack of resources. The ex police officer I would expect is likely of the opinion that the nature and investigation of crime is more complicated, and geographically distanced in many cases than it was when he started his service. Officers will have to travel from their home base where the crime was committed to the place where the perpetrator or other events happened. That takes time and resources. Johnson and his pals government cut 20,000 officers and support staff in the last few years. With the complexity of crime they cannot do 'more for less'. The amount of social media messages sent between parties all have to be electronically analysed and then checked manually. In one underage sex case near here involving a 15 yr old and a footballer they had exchanged some 1500 messages in two weeks. That takes a lot of work.
I doubt some of you would have the stamina and would just put a note on the file 'obviously guilty'
Hastings Forum
Tabloid press
Re: Tabloid press
I was hoping for some fresh and more-considered thoughts on this subject – instead it is a re-run of previous statements, atleast some of it just nonsense. Since when did anyone ever suggest that newspapers (or the media generally) did not spin falsehoods? If newspapers cannot get hold of the precise truth about the royal family, celebrities, any other targets, they just invent stories or allegations – hence a plethora of lawsuits over the years, good luck to Harry, he has a lot of support from the public.
I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. An intelligent person scans news stories from a variety of sources and from differing political persuasions and then judges what is credible and what is suspect or open to further research. But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!
It is stating the obvious to say that the nature of crime is more complex and time-consuming than it used to be. Of course that is one reason for the declining number of successful prosecutions, lack of resources is another – but the latter has still become too easy an excuse. It is not just about money, it is about making the best use of existing resources and having the “will” and the “determination” to combat the surge of crime. I know it is easy for someone who doesn’t have to deal “frontline” with the problems to pontificate, but clearly there needs to be fresh thinking and new approaches.
“I doubt some of you would have the stamina and would just put a note on the file 'obviously guilty' ” - This is a nonsensical remark. Since when did police officers investigating a crime have the authority to make a judgement about guilt/innocence and even put notes on the file to that extent?! This statement is coming from someone who claims to have been a lawyer! In Basutoland maybe, not in the UK.
I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. An intelligent person scans news stories from a variety of sources and from differing political persuasions and then judges what is credible and what is suspect or open to further research. But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!
It is stating the obvious to say that the nature of crime is more complex and time-consuming than it used to be. Of course that is one reason for the declining number of successful prosecutions, lack of resources is another – but the latter has still become too easy an excuse. It is not just about money, it is about making the best use of existing resources and having the “will” and the “determination” to combat the surge of crime. I know it is easy for someone who doesn’t have to deal “frontline” with the problems to pontificate, but clearly there needs to be fresh thinking and new approaches.
“I doubt some of you would have the stamina and would just put a note on the file 'obviously guilty' ” - This is a nonsensical remark. Since when did police officers investigating a crime have the authority to make a judgement about guilt/innocence and even put notes on the file to that extent?! This statement is coming from someone who claims to have been a lawyer! In Basutoland maybe, not in the UK.
Re: Tabloid press
Since it costs around £56 thousand/year to provide council care, per child (with 75,000 in care in England) and the funding is not there, so councils will only pay attention to children at high risk.
Local authorities went over budget on children’s social care by an estimated £807m, in 2018, by far the highest area of overspending in council budgets.
Against that background and with children sometimes abusing others, leading the victims to do more of the same by a process of psychological 'imprinting' and with abuse (some sexual) possibly by a small number of the care home employees, you have children being offered a ride in a car to buy clothes and make-up/jewelry by unscrupulous taxi-drivers, etcetera, and the children feel they are being offered love for the first time and offer their bodies in return.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 95101.html
I am sure that the Police do indeed make a judgement over likelihood of guilt but they will know cases will not be taken up by the prosecution authority without good evidence.
Local authorities went over budget on children’s social care by an estimated £807m, in 2018, by far the highest area of overspending in council budgets.
Against that background and with children sometimes abusing others, leading the victims to do more of the same by a process of psychological 'imprinting' and with abuse (some sexual) possibly by a small number of the care home employees, you have children being offered a ride in a car to buy clothes and make-up/jewelry by unscrupulous taxi-drivers, etcetera, and the children feel they are being offered love for the first time and offer their bodies in return.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 95101.html
I am sure that the Police do indeed make a judgement over likelihood of guilt but they will know cases will not be taken up by the prosecution authority without good evidence.
Re: Tabloid press
Of course police officers must form some sort of personal opinions at times as to likelihood of guilt or otherwise. I myself as a human being would do the same, lawyers too probably go home thinking some very difficult thoughts about people they have to deal with.
That is a very different matter from allowing personal opinions to influence the conduct of an investigation - which is what is being suggested.
There have of course been plenty of cases where corrupt or prejudiced police officers HAVE influenced an investigation to go in one direction or another. But nobody would argue that that is the correct way of proceeding, or even that that in any way reflects normality - there will always be "bad" coppers in a bunch and those whose integrity and honesty is not what is required by that profession. We keep hoping that most police officers are not like that as they go about their jobs ..
That is a very different matter from allowing personal opinions to influence the conduct of an investigation - which is what is being suggested.
There have of course been plenty of cases where corrupt or prejudiced police officers HAVE influenced an investigation to go in one direction or another. But nobody would argue that that is the correct way of proceeding, or even that that in any way reflects normality - there will always be "bad" coppers in a bunch and those whose integrity and honesty is not what is required by that profession. We keep hoping that most police officers are not like that as they go about their jobs ..
Re: Tabloid press
Bingo!
"But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!"
I merely report facts, legal decisions, and comment on them. Some such as yourself, put forward opinion, as if it is fact and then get annoyed that your opinion is challenged. Do you actually have any comment on the role of the press faleshoods, seemingly pursuing this man because of his particular belief system?
It is very sad that on the one hand you claim to want "fresh and more-considered thoughts on this subject – instead it is a re-run of previous statements," ,yet provide nothing yourself other than the standard "rubbish", "excuses", "avoidance" and personal comment about me.
"But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!"
I merely report facts, legal decisions, and comment on them. Some such as yourself, put forward opinion, as if it is fact and then get annoyed that your opinion is challenged. Do you actually have any comment on the role of the press faleshoods, seemingly pursuing this man because of his particular belief system?
It is very sad that on the one hand you claim to want "fresh and more-considered thoughts on this subject – instead it is a re-run of previous statements," ,yet provide nothing yourself other than the standard "rubbish", "excuses", "avoidance" and personal comment about me.
Re: Tabloid press
seahermit said:
"I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. An intelligent person scans news stories from a variety of sources and from differing political persuasions and then judges what is credible and what is suspect or open to further research. But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!"
Unfortunately Iqbal was affected by reactions to Press reports, unless he was lying.
Employers were influenced and his family life was affected.
So, perhaps the lynch-mob mentality, fueled by newspaper stories, cannot be brushed aside.
"I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. An intelligent person scans news stories from a variety of sources and from differing political persuasions and then judges what is credible and what is suspect or open to further research. But some, like Colin, claim to know the real facts better than anybody else!"
Unfortunately Iqbal was affected by reactions to Press reports, unless he was lying.
Employers were influenced and his family life was affected.
So, perhaps the lynch-mob mentality, fueled by newspaper stories, cannot be brushed aside.
Re: Tabloid press
I didn't go into the Iqbal case because I was making general remarks, not wanting to get sidetracked by arguments over the details of one individual case.
That doesn't mean of course that the lynch-mob mentality is not a deplorable consequence of the press recklessly splashing stories over their front pages - stories which have not been properly researched and are based on hearsay and allegation. The more coverage given by the press, the more the public think it must all be true. Even the quality of reporting in the Times is pretty appalling compared to the calm impartiality of the past - sensationalist and dirt-raking.
A completely separate case I know but I I find the witch-hunt against Prince Andrew disgraceful. The accusations about him are allegations from a single source - I don't find them at all believable, I think there are financial and other motivations in play, but of course there should be an investigation if hard evidence emerges. But there is little or none - he even has a sound alibi for one of the alleged dates quoted. One lawyer's assertion of "non-compliance with the FBI" has been shown to be false (the FBI themselves have made no complaint) since no formal charge has been put together and no formal request made to Andrew for an interview. He has done nothing and committed no proven offence (except stupidly remaining loyal to a friend who had indulged in a pretty appalling private life).
That is why one needs to take as broad a view as possible, not believe the attention-grabbing press headlines but balance all opinions and reports, for and against.
That doesn't mean of course that the lynch-mob mentality is not a deplorable consequence of the press recklessly splashing stories over their front pages - stories which have not been properly researched and are based on hearsay and allegation. The more coverage given by the press, the more the public think it must all be true. Even the quality of reporting in the Times is pretty appalling compared to the calm impartiality of the past - sensationalist and dirt-raking.
A completely separate case I know but I I find the witch-hunt against Prince Andrew disgraceful. The accusations about him are allegations from a single source - I don't find them at all believable, I think there are financial and other motivations in play, but of course there should be an investigation if hard evidence emerges. But there is little or none - he even has a sound alibi for one of the alleged dates quoted. One lawyer's assertion of "non-compliance with the FBI" has been shown to be false (the FBI themselves have made no complaint) since no formal charge has been put together and no formal request made to Andrew for an interview. He has done nothing and committed no proven offence (except stupidly remaining loyal to a friend who had indulged in a pretty appalling private life).
That is why one needs to take as broad a view as possible, not believe the attention-grabbing press headlines but balance all opinions and reports, for and against.
Re: Tabloid press
Seahermit producing conflicting view said:
"I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. "
Yet this morning then says "the more coverage given by the press, the more the public think it must all be true".
My original response was to Seahermit claim that the stories in the papers about Corbyn were true. Then when I was able to disprove a selection of those stories by reporting legal cases, he then say that nobody believes the stories. Yet the libel case confirms that indeed the tabloid lies were believed. And now you switch back to that the public think it must be true. Your shifting sands are going to sink you.
I will give you this much agreement. The standard of journalism in the Times has hit rock bottom and standards are comparable with the Sun - and of course they are owned by the same company.
Whilst there was a definite Tory slant in the Times, the actual factual journalism was very good quality but now stories are strewn with words such as 'it is believed that', ' a source close to X says' , 'documents seen suggest' (without showing the full document). So much is innendo for the reader to come up with their interpretation, that they then propagandise else where. The lies multiply.
I come back to my orginal point that most of the press stories about Corbyn are inaccurate in most cases. Read the Schlosberg University of London report.
"I have repeatedly made the point (currently being ignored) that NOBODY believes media reports as they stand. "
Yet this morning then says "the more coverage given by the press, the more the public think it must all be true".
My original response was to Seahermit claim that the stories in the papers about Corbyn were true. Then when I was able to disprove a selection of those stories by reporting legal cases, he then say that nobody believes the stories. Yet the libel case confirms that indeed the tabloid lies were believed. And now you switch back to that the public think it must be true. Your shifting sands are going to sink you.
I will give you this much agreement. The standard of journalism in the Times has hit rock bottom and standards are comparable with the Sun - and of course they are owned by the same company.
Whilst there was a definite Tory slant in the Times, the actual factual journalism was very good quality but now stories are strewn with words such as 'it is believed that', ' a source close to X says' , 'documents seen suggest' (without showing the full document). So much is innendo for the reader to come up with their interpretation, that they then propagandise else where. The lies multiply.
I come back to my orginal point that most of the press stories about Corbyn are inaccurate in most cases. Read the Schlosberg University of London report.
Re: Tabloid press
Not much subtle thinking going on at your end, I would suggest, just obtuseness. In stating "Nobody believes media reports as they stand", my obvious unspoken inference was that no sensible and intelligent person would/should do so. Do I really have to spell that out?
Unfortunately, many people have not had the benefit of a good education (no fault of their own necessarily) and have not learned to be sceptical and critical. Of course the wider the spread of inaccurate information in the media, the more likely that many of the public will believe it. Deplorable but that's the way it is.
In Jeremy Corbyn's case, I agree that some of the stories about him were inaccurate - the fate of any politician or celebrity who starts doing anything controversial. But in many cases the gist of the story was correct and not even denied by Corbyn himself. He did attend the Palestinian wreath-laying ceremony and did take £20,000 for hosting shows on Iranian TV. He merely made non-believable excuses and explanations for his actions. That is part of why he lost the election.
Unfortunately, many people have not had the benefit of a good education (no fault of their own necessarily) and have not learned to be sceptical and critical. Of course the wider the spread of inaccurate information in the media, the more likely that many of the public will believe it. Deplorable but that's the way it is.
In Jeremy Corbyn's case, I agree that some of the stories about him were inaccurate - the fate of any politician or celebrity who starts doing anything controversial. But in many cases the gist of the story was correct and not even denied by Corbyn himself. He did attend the Palestinian wreath-laying ceremony and did take £20,000 for hosting shows on Iranian TV. He merely made non-believable excuses and explanations for his actions. That is part of why he lost the election.
Re: Tabloid press
You are shifting ground. You made it abundantly clear that you believed all the stories about Corbyn's bad character, indeed you referred me to the 'well documented and reported articles'. So there was no unspoken inference that you did not accept the veracity of the tabloid lies.
You were promoting and encouraging it. As for the Iranian TV issue. Amongst a number of MPs from the three parties Corbyn presented programme to give a British political angle on issues - and not as was implied (and ignored with the other MPs) to present Iranian govt views. There is a substantial difference. Wreath laying. The gutter press showed a picture of him at a funeral or memorial and claimed that it was of him commemorating terrorists. It was not. He was at an event along with numerous other world leaders including I seem to remember the UN, of innocent civilians killed in airstrikes. It was not about terrorists. Another fabrication. Just like 'dancing at the Cenotaph'. Yes without doubt he was there to pay tribute to our troops, but he was most definitely not dancing, despite the efforts of the press. Do you have any explanation as to how that could have been created, other than by wilful intent to deceive?
No excuses, no gist of the story being accurate, just plain lies.
You were promoting and encouraging it. As for the Iranian TV issue. Amongst a number of MPs from the three parties Corbyn presented programme to give a British political angle on issues - and not as was implied (and ignored with the other MPs) to present Iranian govt views. There is a substantial difference. Wreath laying. The gutter press showed a picture of him at a funeral or memorial and claimed that it was of him commemorating terrorists. It was not. He was at an event along with numerous other world leaders including I seem to remember the UN, of innocent civilians killed in airstrikes. It was not about terrorists. Another fabrication. Just like 'dancing at the Cenotaph'. Yes without doubt he was there to pay tribute to our troops, but he was most definitely not dancing, despite the efforts of the press. Do you have any explanation as to how that could have been created, other than by wilful intent to deceive?
No excuses, no gist of the story being accurate, just plain lies.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests