If it's regarding the stories you were discussing today - The Mail and The Sun were reporting everything that you said :thumbup:
Printable View
The observer is the sunday version and sunday papers tend to be more catch-up on the whole week and interviews with people who think they're important than actual news of the previous 24 hours. More like a weekly magazine, Obeserver Times Telegraph all the same kind of thing.
And that's why you're being summoned before the Spanish Inquisition... you questioned everything that was in the Guardian/Mirror stories but have popped on here today after reading The Mail or The Sun and said you believe what you have read in it.
Please, please, please don't say you didn't sat that... It's 25 past 12 and I can't be arsed to find the quote right now :hehe:_
Just to hang off your coat tails a second - I forgot to tell xsnaggle that the journalist from The Mirror stated that Tim Matthews wasn't the source for the "second Durham trip" story too. I thought it was a bit strange that the witness didn't allow them to print their name at the time but was happy to come out and tell the world that they lied about it today.
That smells a bit fishy.
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".
It may have been because he was about to be named by a rival rag and wanted to get his "joke" in first. He didn't admit to as lie, jhe said it was a joke. Apparently that's different. But I expect the story will change again from one side or the other. It makes no difference really, the first was right the second wasn't. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
It makes all the difference if you're believing The Mail's telling of the story that this guy was the one behind the second trip story but doubted everything else printed by the left-wing rags. It's a personal thing about what you're perceiving to be true - not a media is right/wrong thing, xsnaggle.
I only tended to believe it because he says it himself, its not someone accusing him of lying. Why would he lie about lying?
But I just found this from the Evening standard 15 hrs ago.
"A man who claimed to have seen Dominic Cummings in Durham for a second time in April has admitted that he made it up, according to reports.
Tim Matthews said he altered figures on the popular Strava running app to make it look like he had seen Mr Cummings in Durham on April 19, after the PM's aide had returned to London from his first trip.
His claim was reported in the Guardian earlier this week.
But he told the Mail on Sunday: "I made that up afterwards, a few days ago in fact. I modified it for a little bit of comedy value.
"I undid it later, I’m sorry. A bit of comedy value even if it was really inappropriate."
He added: "The only thing that I can definitively say is that at some point during the last few months when I was out running, I had occasion to think to myself, 'That’s Dominic Cummings'.
"What I can’t tell you is any sort of timeframe other than in the last few months."
Mr Matthews is one of two people who originally claimed to have seen Mr Cummings on April 19.
Yes, i got that bit. :-)
I'm not saying that he's lying - you're saying that his lies were the ones picked up by the media when he doesn't say that anywhere. He says he made it up but I don't recall reading anywhere whom he told his pack of lies to. I know there were a few people on Twitter who made some shit up too - but we can't attribute those lies to The Guardian and The Mirror, can we?
The key thing that you've mentioned several times is how you wanted the papers to be better at verifying their facts - if this guy isn't their source then it's not relevant to the story and The Mail are making it look worse by planting that seed of doubt - which you have been watering for the last several hours.
The guy lied about seeing Cummings - but to whom and when? If it wasn't to the people who printed that Cummings made a second trip then it's not relevant in our discussion about the media spin on Cummings.
"I made that up afterwards, a few days ago in fact. I modified it for a little bit of comedy value."
He made up the story after the Guardian broke the news. How is that relevant?
But his claim was reported in the guardian so he must have told somebody? That somebody must have either worked for them or told them, and he says he later added to the story. Its all a load of bollox. I don't know to whom he told it but he must have told someone and now that he has admitted he made it up I'd imagine the person he told isn't in a hurry to admit it.
I think they said he wasn't the first source of the alleged second trip, not that he wasn't a source at all. I really don't care one way or the other its just more media shite.
We had a preview of what cutting of public services and withdrawal of financial support could lead to with Grenfell Tower, now we have the same thing with consequences that are so much more harrowing because of the numbers involved;-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...to-coronavirus
I was going to say that even if the man who said he had seen Cummings the first time was a pathological liar, the fact Cummings admitted that what he had described in this instance did happen should really render any argument pointless, but we live in Bannonworld now where self confession counts for nothing and can be excused and pardoned if it's the right person doing the confessing.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...wsApp_AppShare
I didn't see this article when it was published three weeks ago, but it's good at least to see that Leanne Wood's "fear" did not materialise.
I'm not sure how some people can say the people in this part of the world have been worse than anywhere else in observing the rules when so few are travelling extensively enough to make comparisons. I've seen people who are not keeping to the two metre rule, but far more who are - then again, I've not travelled further than Aberdare, some seven miles away, for nearly three months now so I'm one of those not seeing what things are like elsewhere.
I can remember reading on here years ago about how many people there are with some sort of disability or infirmity in the valleys and thinking they were making sweeping generalisations, but, having lived up here for more than two years now, I can see what they meant.
For a start, I feel much younger in some ways than I did when I lived in Cardiff and this can only be because, relative to many I live close to, I am younger. Also, I see far more older people with walking aids of some sort than I used to in Cardiff and, as remarked in the article, there seem to be more people up here with respiratory problems of some sort or another - I'd favour a combination of a relatively old population, many with some sort of chronic disability or illness, and a dense population in terms of the ammount of people living close to each other in terraced houses as a more likely cause of the problems with the virus in the valleys over poor observation of the guidelines/law.
Another Professor Tim finding.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...missed-expert/
Me confused.
Are you still going on? We've done it all.
I'm calling it an 'alleged' second trip because it never happened.
Shouldn't there be a spike in deaths around now because of the VE day shenanigans and the sunny weather around that time? Not trying to be a smartarse, trying to look for a positive if there hasn't been a spike