| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You misunderstand me, I don't think what he did was spun at all, but other things they then connected to it like the police visit and the second "Sighting" were both inaccurate and one should expect journalists to check the veracity of what they print. What the police actually did should at least have been fairly easy to verify if they had bothered. Or don't you agree? "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"Originally Posted by Heisenberg
the person who made up seeing Cummings in co Durham was not the person who originally reported it, just someone who jumped on the bandwagon for a laugh. the original report was valid and has since been confirmed by Cummings himself.
the mail article made it seem as though the person who has admitted making up seeing Cummings was the original person who made the claim but that isn't true.
I never said that. I said the person who reported the first sighting was correct. He is the man who drove to Ascot to collect his daughter from a house when she was isolating and take her to another house where he and his family were isolating.
The man who reported the second sighting, Mr Matthews was lying. If you have read an article in the daily mail that says different I'd like to see it.
Where did you read it?
Where did you read it?
Supply answer for anything else.
I've no idea what xsnaggle reads but the points in his post earlier today that seems to have first fired him up mostly appear to have been themes in recent Daily Mail articles.Where did you read it?
Supply answer for anything else.
no the first person that reported the second sighting wasn't the same person that later admitted he made it up. the person who made it up was the second person to report the second sighting!
Not sure what the point of all this is. Cummings has admitted that he was in Durham and in Barnard's Castle. The second sighting being a lie does not negate the antics of Cummings and his 30 mile eyesight test.
exactly, he admitted it himself.
in any case the second sighting was not a lie, just someone who jumped onto the bandwagon of the second sighting was making it up.
what is being attempted here is to muddy the waters and exhaust people's capacity for critical reasoning. and it seems like it is working.
Well, we are talking about xsnaggle who, to be fair, isn't an atypical critical thinker. Or, even, a thinker of any description.
There were 2 sightings , the first, reported by a retired teacher was correct.
The second reported by Mr Matthews was a lie. he later added more info to this lie by rigging his exercise app on his phone. This not conjecture by the media, he has admitted it. He says he did it as "a joke".
Read my last post then read RJK's post again and it'll make sense
I did read it, but the man himself apparently said it was him. Perhaps the journalist who said it wasn't him was protecting his source. I don't really give a toss, it was all made up whether by 1 or 2 people.Read my last post then read RJK's post again and it'll make sense
What police visit? I don't remember that part of the story, sorry. I only remember the police saying that they spoke to the family about self-isolating - number 10 said they didn't speak to the family - then the police said that they spoke to his dad about security matters. If I'm wrong, then I'll accpet that - but I'm having problems finding the reporting of a police visit.
But if I'm not wrong, then we're having this debate just because someone lied in one part of this story and the media printed it - because he made it look like it was accurate.
The papers couldn't verify the Barnard Castle visit btw - yet they printed what the witness had told them and after Number 10 vehemently denied it - Cummings came out and admitted it.
I don't see where the "spin" is in this story at all, sorry. All of the spin has been after the news broke and certain agendas have been trying to poke holes wherever they can so that they can say "if that bit wasn't true - none of it was".
Just my opinion.
The police said they attended the property, the media added the reason. The Durham police have now stated that they did not visit as a result of a complaint about Cummins' presence, and they did not speak to him and his wife. The actually visited the property at Mr Cummins senior's request to discuss security of the property. It had nothing to do with Cummins or anything connected to lock-down . Another point that bothers me about this is that the Durham Police could have corrected the suggestions regarding the visit immediately but that chose not to. I wonder who made that call?
Yes the Barnard castle visit was correct, the alleged second sighting was the lie. It seems to me that the media don't check too hard when what they hear suits their argument and do if it doesn't. It should have been easily proven that Cummins was in fact in London on the day of the alleged second visit.
Every time the do this kind of thing they just make me doubt the honestly of anything in the media.
And that is why you have come to the decision not to read any newspapers (real or online), but you will abstain from abstaining if something you read suits your argument.
Well, this was the original Durham police statement to the press on the Friday. ‘Officers made contact with the owners of that address who confirmed that the individual in question was present and was self-isolating in part of the house. In line with national policing guidance, officers explained to the family the guidelines around self-isolation and reiterated the appropriate advice around essential travel’.
Yes I gathered that but now apparently they have said something else. As I have kept saying all these tales and counter tales just make it impossilbe to trust anything you read or hear most of the time In the long run none of them do themselves any favours.
At the risk of you showing yourself to be a complete arsehole with an emoticon, but maybe you could provide a link so that we could read these "tales and counter tales"?
and there we have it - exactly what the purpose of that disingenuous article was
BINGO!
The follow-up police statements did seem to shift the emphasis, particularly the final one that arrived just in the nick of time for Cummings' press conference. But it wasn't very helpful that Cummings said the police hadn't spoken to his family considering they'd released an initial statement like that. And a bit too easy to just blame the media for subsequent confusion arising over these apparent inconsistencies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote