thirdcrank wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 2:11pm I think this really belongs on the Boris's brain is missing thread. I was originally commenting here on some tittle-tattle about the Duke of York's teddy bears or somesuch.
Ah OK As you were!
thirdcrank wrote: ↑24 Jan 2022, 2:11pm I think this really belongs on the Boris's brain is missing thread. I was originally commenting here on some tittle-tattle about the Duke of York's teddy bears or somesuch.
https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/14 ... XUgaEpAAAATangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm Did he really DEMAND a jury trial? Or is that a modern media phrase for a routine court process that probably involves nothing much from the guy himself.
He demanded it too.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!
That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
Not more partiesBonefishblues wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 12:21pm Analysis this morning was that he was going to have one anyway, so he's better to demand one...
Parties are positioning at the moment.
Penny's dropped thenTangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm .......The more I read the news (online) the more I am getting sick of the way they all can't just present the news without embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, lies, misdirection and many other dodgy and I'd hope uneccesary practises.
After she did so the news didn't report the original demand. The demand bit is only significant if it can be used with the implication the defendent is an overprivilaged person. I think that is unprincipled reporting which is my point. It's trying to effect a certain POV rather than simply reporting the facts.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 4:32pmHe demanded it too.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!
That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
Hey like politicians news media disillusioned me decades ago. We condemn Russian control of the news media but let's face it our media "freedoms" aren't working out much better. Who's to say which media is closest to the bottom of the barrel?reohn2 wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 5:44pmPenny's dropped thenTangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 1:27pm .......The more I read the news (online) the more I am getting sick of the way they all can't just present the news without embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, lies, misdirection and many other dodgy and I'd hope uneccesary practises.
This is Andrew's Defence Team's doing in terms of placing the story.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑28 Jan 2022, 7:10amAfter she did so the news didn't report the original demand. The demand bit is only significant if it can be used with the implication the defendent is an overprivilaged person. I think that is unprincipled reporting which is my point. It's trying to effect a certain POV rather than simply reporting the facts.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 4:32pmHe demanded it too.Tangled Metal wrote: ↑27 Jan 2022, 4:22pm So the headline should read that the claimant DEMANDED it surely? So sensational and incorrect headlines all round then!
That twitter account linked to got me thinking. Are there any legal twitterati making online clarifications from the Andy side of this? Whilst interesting twitter account she certainly makes it clear she's only going to post on matters that support the claimant. I mean with the nature of the claim you can understand it but no neutral legal twitter accounts on this case giving unbiased commentary?
I wonder how you'd report this case in a completely neutral, facts based and non sensationalist way? If this happened with cases such as this would there be a difference in the views of people?
Yes. It's never been easier, quicker or cheaper to discover what's happening or what experts think than it is now.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑28 Jan 2022, 8:14amFor anyone who cares to look, the facts are out there, and being widely discussed.
Were we in a certain type of church, I might be moved to raise my hands and say "Amen Brother"Jdsk wrote: ↑28 Jan 2022, 8:52amYes. It's never been easier, quicker or cheaper to discover what's happening or what experts think than it is now.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑28 Jan 2022, 8:14amFor anyone who cares to look, the facts are out there, and being widely discussed.
And it's up to each of us to choose where we get our news.
Jonathan