Re: Essex Lad
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:58 am
David Johnson wrote:
> "How do you know? You are always taking people to task for not
> backing up their pinions/allegations with facts so how do you
> know it is a tabloid smear story?"
>
> I did not say "I know". Got that? What I did say, to be
> precise, is
>
> "This has all the wonderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story"
>
> This is obviously not the same as stating - I know that this is
> definitely a smear story.
I think most readers would miss that nuance.
>
> Apparently, as a tabloid journalist in the past, you will know
> that to prove a negative is somewhat difficult.
>
> David Johnson " Essex Lad you are a kiddie fiddler".
>
> Essex Lad "Oh no, I am not".
>
> DJ "Prove it"
>
> Essex Lad "Err"
>
> All you can do in the situation is disprove the evidence given
> and since the evidence given to the police was not sufficient
> to bring a case, there is nothing to disprove.
That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin.
>
> And the hallmarks of a smear story tend to include:
>
> 1. The victim has snuffed it so that libel laws do not apply.
> 2. An absence of any proof whatsoever. The fact that this was
> already investigated years ago and turned down because there
> was not sufficient evidence.
> 3. The level of innuendo e.g. "BBC insiders" complaining that
> it was pulled because of a BBC tribute programme being planned.
> "Colourful character" etc etc.
>
> ""The "victim" wouldn't have been by herself in the back of his
> car then if she was being taken advantage of, would she?"
>
> Not a hugely, relevant point !wink!. Clearly I refer to the
> fact that there was no corroborating evidence to support her
> claim.
No, you missed my linguistic point. You wrote she was alone in the back of the car when he took advantage - therefore, she wasn't alone.
>
> "Remember the Jersey children's home... "
>
> WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
Er, he was a regular visitor.
>
> "but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
> world."
>
> They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
I know they don't apply to the dead.
>
> "So you want the press to become like the French, unable to
> report on misdemeanours?"
>
> No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
>
It doesn't.
> "How do you know? You are always taking people to task for not
> backing up their pinions/allegations with facts so how do you
> know it is a tabloid smear story?"
>
> I did not say "I know". Got that? What I did say, to be
> precise, is
>
> "This has all the wonderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story"
>
> This is obviously not the same as stating - I know that this is
> definitely a smear story.
I think most readers would miss that nuance.
>
> Apparently, as a tabloid journalist in the past, you will know
> that to prove a negative is somewhat difficult.
>
> David Johnson " Essex Lad you are a kiddie fiddler".
>
> Essex Lad "Oh no, I am not".
>
> DJ "Prove it"
>
> Essex Lad "Err"
>
> All you can do in the situation is disprove the evidence given
> and since the evidence given to the police was not sufficient
> to bring a case, there is nothing to disprove.
That does not mean that there is no smoke without fire. Lots of people get away with stuff yet are as guilty as sin.
>
> And the hallmarks of a smear story tend to include:
>
> 1. The victim has snuffed it so that libel laws do not apply.
> 2. An absence of any proof whatsoever. The fact that this was
> already investigated years ago and turned down because there
> was not sufficient evidence.
> 3. The level of innuendo e.g. "BBC insiders" complaining that
> it was pulled because of a BBC tribute programme being planned.
> "Colourful character" etc etc.
>
> ""The "victim" wouldn't have been by herself in the back of his
> car then if she was being taken advantage of, would she?"
>
> Not a hugely, relevant point !wink!. Clearly I refer to the
> fact that there was no corroborating evidence to support her
> claim.
No, you missed my linguistic point. You wrote she was alone in the back of the car when he took advantage - therefore, she wasn't alone.
>
> "Remember the Jersey children's home... "
>
> WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?
Er, he was a regular visitor.
>
> "but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the
> world."
>
> They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful
> rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.
I know they don't apply to the dead.
>
> "So you want the press to become like the French, unable to
> report on misdemeanours?"
>
> No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with
> smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.
>
It doesn't.