Non-motoring > Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot...	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: zippy	Replies: 49

New Sun 9 Feb 25 14:45   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-14377205/Health-minister-Andrew-Gwynne-sacked-Keir-Starmer-WhatsApp-messages.html At least he was sacked quickly. Teapot, because I didn't want to invoke the wrath of the swear filter! :-D Last edited by: zippy on Sun 9 Feb 25 at 14:45 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 16:26   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Robin O'Reliant

It's beyond belief that a supposedly intelligent person would post anything like that in a whatsapp message. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 17:02   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Zero

>> It's beyond belief that a supposedly intelligent person would post anything like that in a >> whatsapp message. The world is littered with such occurrences, the met police being a prime example. It has to be said such whatsapp stupidity is not limited to the Labour Party, every party has them, < cough> Boris Johnson Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 18:26   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

Which reminds me.. As a forum that allows interaction, C4P will fall within the scope of The Online Safety Act. How much work will be involved for our venerable webmaster and mods? www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/ Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 21:00   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Terry

The man was a fool to post what he did, apparently ignorant or uncaring of the way the media would react to its content. I have a wider concern, which may or may not be applicable in this case: - analysis by the media and others - of that written or uttered by someone possibly decades earlier, - is reported out of context - judged against standards prevailing today - irrespective of how the originators views may quite reasonably have changed - nor how public opinion and social niceties may have evolved We now have politicians with aspirations towards political advancement becoming hugely competent in avoiding any possible offence, preferring communication (written, verbal) which conveys nothing of any value at all. Iwould prefer honesty, balance, warts and all!! Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 21:05   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

And perhaps the character not to have that type of thought in the first place. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 21:14   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

>> Which reminds me.. >> >> As a forum that allows interaction, C4P will fall within the scope of The Online >> Safety Act. How much work will be involved for our venerable webmaster and mods? >> >> www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/ >> Part of the act, AIUI maks it illegal to lie on line if that lie causes alarm etc. with serious consequences. However news organisations are exempt from the condition. So AIUI it is entirely possible for the BBC to blatantly lie on line and be read by millions. But if one of us were to post exactly the same lie on line we could face serious jail time. A totally unjust situation. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 21:59   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - CGNorwich

"Part of the act, AIUI maks it illegal to lie on line if that lie causes alarm etc. with serious consequences" NO IT DOESN'T The Act’s duties apply to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other. This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including social media services, consumer file cloud storage and sharing sites, video-sharing platforms, online forums, dating services, and online instant messaging services. It APPLIES TO THE PLATFORM NOT THE POSTER. Suggest you read www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 10 Feb 25 21:53   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

>> "Part of the act, AIUI maks it illegal to lie on line if that lie >> causes alarm etc. with serious consequences" >> >> NO IT DOESN'T >> www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179 Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 9 Feb 25 23:43   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - smokie

As a mod I responded to the questionnaire fairly faithfully and it said that "Based on the answers you have provided… No … the Online Safety Act is not likely to apply to your online service." Reply to this message | Report message

New Sat 22 Feb 25 23:38   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14424959/Knock-knock-Thought-Police-thousands-criminals-uninvestigated-detectives-call-grandmother-crime-went-Facebook-criticise-Labour-councillors-centre-Hope-Die-WhatsApp-scandal-exposed-MoS.html This police interference with just normal commenting on events, if that is the case, is outrageous. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 09:33   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> This police interference with just normal commenting on events, if that is the case, is >> outrageous. What did she actually post and what was the nature of the complaint made? I'm guessing it was of a repeated nature and that the subject reported it as harrassment. No action taken. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 23 Feb 25 at 09:36 Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sun 23 Feb 25 09:43   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - smokie

And on another day the police would be slated for not following up a complaint. Win some, lose more... Reply to this message | Report message       2

New Sun 23 Feb 25 11:08   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

>> And on another day the police would be slated for not following up a complaint. >> >> Win some, lose more... >> I think the point is, there was no crime, so the police shouldn't be butting in. The police can't cause harassment in the normal course of fighting crime, but continued visits over non-crime could well be considered harassment and then tax payers would be liable for any payments. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 12:27   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

"I think the point is, there was no crime, so the police shouldn't be butting in." That cannot be fully ascertained until the other party ha the opportunity to give their side been can it? Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Sun 23 Feb 25 13:20   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - tyrednemotional

As I read it, there had been a complaint of harassment. I don't think the police have much option but to investigate such (particularly given the level of press publicity when they don't). As part of that investigation it would appear that they visited the woman to inform her that there had been such a complaint, not to accuse her of harassment, or an offence, or arrest her, or anything else (at least yet ;-) ). The less lurid part of the story in the Mail appears to say just that. Complete no-story as far as I am concerned, apart from reinforcing some of my feelings about policing nowadays. "Damned if they do, damned if they don't!". Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 12:55   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> The police can't cause harassment in the normal course of fighting crime, but continued visits >> over non-crime could well be considered harassment and then tax payers would be liable for >> any payments. If there were continued visits with no operational justification I'd agree. So far as can be ascertained the granny here was visited once and the complaint has been NFA'd. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 11:07   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

>> What did she actually post and what was the nature of the complaint made? >> >> I'm guessing it was of a repeated nature and that the subject reported it as >> harrassment. >> >> No action taken. >> It's in the article: Mrs Jones wrote: 'Not looking good for Cllr Sedgwick!!!' to which another member added: 'Cllr Sedgwick, will you be resigning?' Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 11:31   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> Mrs Jones wrote: 'Not looking good for Cllr Sedgwick!!!' to which another member added: 'Cllr >> Sedgwick, will you be resigning?' It looks as though she then did several (multiple?) rinse/repeat posts about resignation. Maybe Councillor Sedgewick needs to grow a pair or thicken his skin but one can see such stuff edging towards a line where harassment might be perceived. I agree it's a marginal call but it doesn't justify the way the Mail have covered it. The logging of 'non hate crime incidents' has its roots in past serious crimes where, if a pattern of behaviour had been identified sooner, things might have been nipped in the bud. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 12:25   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Biggles

Or maybe it was Councillor Sedgwick's team engaging in SLAPP practices. Reply to this message | Report message

New Sun 23 Feb 25 23:59   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

Good take on it from a barrister... www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeMzl9219w Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 07:38   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - smokie

Somewhat ironic that his video is titled "Monumental waste of time" don't you think? :-) Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 24 Feb 25 09:52   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> Good take on it from a barrister... >> >> www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeMzl9219w Quite worrying that a Barrister has so little grasp of what might be required of Police. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 24 Feb 25 12:23   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

He is pitching at a certain type of fan base for views and likes. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 24 Feb 25 13:30   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

A more focussed and succinct report in today's Times includes a statement from Gtr Manchester Police: “We are under a duty to inform her that she is the subject of a complaint. The genuine threats that have been made to local councillors recently have meant it has been more necessary to ensure all reports are looked at. On this day officers were making 203 arrests for crimes like assault, burglary and rape. Tackling these priorities are why the complaint was dealt with two days after it was reported.” Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 13:40   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Manatee

Still makes no sense. Ring her up, write to her, or send a constable. No offence committed. I agree hate crime can be a problem and very difficult to deal with but dealing with it can get out of hand and here the cure is clearly worse than the disease. The woman has made far milder remarks than sometimes appear here and has been harassed more then the supposed victims. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 15:25   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

"Still makes no sense. Ring her up, write to her, or send a constable. No offence committed." There's a lot to be gained from meeting someone face to face in their own environment. Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 16:06   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> Still makes no sense. Ring her up, write to her, or send a constable. No >> offence committed. If the suggestion from the complainant was that their was harassment or similar then sending somebody around to see the alleged perp F2F may be good use of resources. In this case it was apparently an innocent Granny though perhaps one with a bee in her bonnet. If, when spoken to, she turned out to have some other more serious motivation it would be dealt with. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Mon 24 Feb 25 17:12   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Manatee

You're reaching a bit here. They have presumably shown the police the messages they object to. They were not illegal and the complainants have done worse themselves albeit it in a private group! It's clearly ludicrous to send such heavy resource, bordering on harassment I would say. No wonder she went to the Daily Mail Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 17:42   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - tyrednemotional

>> In this case it was apparently an innocent Granny ........ >> I don't think that provides a get-out. My innocent-looking Granny was downright dangerous. ;-) (Think Giles' grandma, for anyone who can remember his cartoons) Reply to this message | Report message

New Mon 24 Feb 25 23:33   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

Testing Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 09:13   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

I wonder if the guy now warming the seat in his cell will stand down? Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 12:42   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

> I wonder if the guy now warming the seat in his cell will stand down? I think he should call plod. Some woman called Yvette Cooper has been saying he should resign. Needs a F2F visit to see if she has "some other more serious motivation." Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 15:43   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

With some assistance from Smokie as Copy and Paste was causing some issues. From a Police forum: No, The Thought Police Haven’t Arrived – But The Clickbait Has. Let’s break down the latest manufactured outrage currently being spoon-fed to the public, courtesy of The Mail on Sunday. The headline? ‘COME OUT, IT’S THE THOUGHT POLICE’ – the kind of dystopian, fear-mongering rhetoric designed to get clicks, shares, and angry comments. According to the Mail, a grandmother in Stockport was visited by two detectives simply for criticising Labour councillors on Facebook. A chilling attack on free speech! A totalitarian nightmare! The beginning of Orwell’s 1984, right? Well... not quite. What Actually Happened? The woman in question, Helen Jones, had posted online about a group of Labour councillors embroiled in a WhatsApp scandal. This led to a harassment complaint being made to Greater Manchester Police (GMP). Within 48 hours, two plainclothes officers visited her home to inform her of the complaint. That’s it. They made it clear that she had not committed a crime. They didn’t demand she delete posts. They didn’t issue any threats. The interaction lasted approximately six minutes. Yet, thanks to the Mail, the story has been spun into a sinister tale of the ‘Thought Police’ – as if GMP officers, who on the same day oversaw 203 arrests for crimes such as assault, burglary, and rape, were instead prioritising intimidating pensioners over Facebook posts. GMP’s Official Statement and Context. GMP has confirmed the following: Duty to Inform: GMP stated, "We are under a duty to inform her that she is the subject of a complaint." Recent Threats: Due to genuine threats made to local councillors, GMP has taken complaints more seriously, ensuring reports are assessed and responded to appropriately. They further clarified: "We have received an increased number of threats against elected officials, and it is our duty to assess and respond to reports of harassment accordingly." Resource Allocation: While this visit was taking place, GMP officers were making arrests for serious crimes, reinforcing that resources were not misallocated. So much for ‘wasting police time’—but you won’t hear that from the Mail. Direct Quotes from the Mail’s Coverage. The Mail deliberately framed the incident with incendiary rhetoric, describing it as a “chilling clampdown on free speech” and comparing GMP’s actions to those of the “Stasi secret police”. One commentator even went so far as to say that the visit was evidence that “we are living in an authoritarian state”. The article prominently featured outrage from politicians and commentators, including Iain Duncan Smith, who branded the police action as “pathetic”, and the Free Speech Union, which likened the visit to tactics used in “East Germany”. The Media’s Game: Rage for Revenue. Let’s be absolutely clear: the real problem here isn’t the police; it’s the clickbait-driven outrage machine that is British tabloid journalism. The Mail knows exactly what it’s doing: It deliberately omits context to stoke the flames. This wasn’t about ‘criticising politicians’—it was about a harassment complaint being made, which the police are obligated to respond to. It uses emotionally charged language (‘Stasi’, ‘clampdown on free speech’) to provoke knee-jerk reactions without readers actually checking the facts. It strategically presents one-sided outrage, featuring only voices from politicians and commentators who align with their narrative while conveniently ignoring the legal reality of the police visit. The result? A wave of angry social media posts, rants about ‘police priorities’, and a whole lot of unnecessary public mistrust in officers who, let’s be honest, have far bigger problems to deal with. GMP: Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don’t. The same people now screaming about ‘thought policing’ would be the first in line to demand police action if any politicians received harassment complaints and police failed to act. If the police ignored such reports, we’d see headlines accusing GMP of ‘failing to protect elected officials from abuse’. Let’s also not forget that only a few weeks ago, another scandal erupted where politicians were calling for greater protections against online abuse and harassment. Yet, when the police actually investigate complaints as they are required to do, it suddenly becomes a war on free speech? Make it make sense. The Bigger Picture. This isn’t just about a misleading story—it’s about the way the media routinely manipulates public perception of policing. 1. They sensationalise minor incidents to push their own agenda. 2. They ignore the actual legal duties of officers and cherry-pick facts to generate outrage. 3. They undermine trust in policing, making the job of frontline officers even harder when they’re already stretched beyond belief. This is the same Mail that runs headlines screaming about ‘soft justice’ and ‘police failing victims’—yet now, they’re acting like the police are too proactive. So which is it? Final Thought: Don’t Buy Into The Nonsense. The reality is simple: No one was arrested. No one was ‘silenced’. No crime was committed. No free speech was crushed. The exact nature of the harassment complaint remains unclear—whether it met a legal threshold or was merely a political dispute. But why let facts get in the way of a good rage-inducing headline, eh? Don’t fall for the manufactured outrage. Think for yourself Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 25 Feb 25 at 15:46 Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 17:01   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

That deserves a wider audience. Any chance of getting sympathetic media to reflect the key point; click bait. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 25 Feb 25 17:51   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Manatee

The comments on the Mail's rhetoric I agree with. Unjustified and not a little ironic that the Nazi-supporting Mail should innocently claim to be protecting us from authoritarism. It was still a waste of police time and completely OTT, and now it's GMP blustering to cover their own embarrassment. I loathe the Mail and I'm not keen on IDS, but "pathetic" was fair comment. I quite agree that the police can't win in the court of public opinion, so they should just do what's right rather than pander to anybody. And there was some pandering going on there, whom to I'm not quite sure. Andy Burnham with his PCC hat on maybe? Just exercising my free speech :) Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 18:41   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> The comments on the Mail's rhetoric I agree with. Unjustified and not a little ironic >> that the Nazi-supporting Mail should innocently claim to be protecting us from authoritarianism. >> >> It was still a waste of police time and completely OTT, and now it's GMP >> blustering to cover their own embarrassment. Genuinely puzzled as to how we know police time was wasted until they've heard both sides. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 25 Feb 25 18:54   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

That's how I read it too Manatee. A couple of sentences repeating the GMP line that they have a 'duty' to inform her of a complaint accompanied by multiple paragraphs frothing over how revolting the tabloid media is (shock!, horror!). I would have thought that plod's first 'duty' would be to assess whether any complaint of harassment is justified before they go around intimidating members of the public. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 25 Feb 25 20:06   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> I would have thought that plod's first 'duty' would be to assess whether any complaint >> of harassment is justified before they go around intimidating members of the public. How can they assess whether the complaint is justified without some idea of what's motivating the parson accused of harassing? They don't set out to intimidate. If 'Grandma' feels she was intimidated by being asked who owns the problem? Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 25 Feb 25 20:15   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

Thats the issue. You don't know necessarily whats bubbling under the surface. I don't think we know exactly the content of what she is supposed to have done. There are some very strange and potentially dangerous people out there. Risk assessment is part of the process. Lets just consider what happened to Jo Cox. Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 21:24   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

>You don't know necessarily whats bubbling under the surface. .. >There are some very strange and potentially dangerous people out there. Risk assessment is part of the process. If you and GMP think that voicing a perfectly valid political opinion that a councillor should resign is sufficient reason to suspect someone of more nefarious deeds then Glub help us! >I don't think we know exactly the content of what she is supposed to have done. She was interviewed on one of the morning news channels and according to her she hadn't posted anything that could be construed as a threat, no violence or abuse, no hurty words, just expressing her opinion that the councillor should resign. That tally's with what GMP have said. >Lets just consider what happened to Jo Cox. I don't think Jo Cox would have welcomed anyone using her murder as justification for attacking free speech. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Tue 25 Feb 25 21:50   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

"She was interviewed on one of the morning news channels and according to her she hadn't posted anything that could be construed as a threat, no violence or abuse, no hurty words, just expressing her opinion that the councillor should resign. That tally's with what GMP have said." The article fully explains what happened and why. Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 25 Feb 25 at 21:54 Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 21:57   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Fullchat

And at what point does free speech become cause for concern? How do you identify the potential for escalation? Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 25 Feb 25 at 21:59 Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 22:04   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

Cause for concern to who? Those being criticised? Reply to this message | Report message

New Tue 25 Feb 25 22:03   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

How is what she said different to what's in your earlier post? Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 26 Feb 25 00:09   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - zippy

If I saw someone cycling up and down in the road and reported it to the police because I thought it was threatening, would the police visit the cyclist to say that a report had been made against them? I think not, cycling is totally legal after all, and the police would probably tell me no crime had been committed and to stop pestering them. So, why, when someone posts something totally legal, non-threatening do they need to visit and then why do GMP need to make a statement about it, save to cover backsides. It's over-reach. Should I post that we ought to be a republic and therefore the king should resign, should I expect a visit from the police? In Thailand perhaps. What should have happened is that the police should have told the complainant that no crime has been committed and left it at that. If they wanted to make a record then that's up to them. A more heinous aspect of these Non-Crime Incidents is that they go on your record and you could be denied employment because of it, through a DBS check. Last edited by: zippy on Wed 26 Feb 25 at 00:12 Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Wed 26 Feb 25 14:08   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> What should have happened is that the police should have told the complainant that no >> crime has been committed and left it at that. If they wanted to make a >> record then that's up to them. I don't think we've enough sight of the facts to know that - see my reply to Kevin. >> A more heinous aspect of these Non-Crime Incidents is that they go on your record >> and you could be denied employment because of it, through a DBS check. They'd only show on an enhanced check and that's not certain: www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-crime-hate-incidents-how-they-can-affect-your-dbs-check/ I agree it could be a problem but the employer will need to take a view on relevance jist as they do with Criminal Records at the lower levels of DBS. Reply to this message | Report message

New Wed 26 Feb 25 09:45   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Bromptonaut

>> If you and GMP think that voicing a perfectly valid political opinion that a councillor >> should resign is sufficient reason to suspect someone of more nefarious deeds then Glub help >> us! That I think is where we don't know exactly what happened. If all that was posted was a one off message that the Councillor should resign it's one thing. If the message was repeated multiple times and/or had the appearance of a wider campaign to the extent that the Councillor felt threatened/harassed then maybe it's different. If he feels that genuinely to be the case, GMP tell him to grow a pair, and it escalates so that he's hurt GMP will have a lot of egg on their faces. AIUI once a report has been made the police are obliged to let 'Granny' know that. Which is what they did. There's an element of he said/se said about the facts of this specific case. The thrust of the article posted by Fullchat makes some very salient points about the way the media's need for clicks is driving and distorting our news and perceptions. Reply to this message | Report message       1

New Wed 26 Feb 25 18:25   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - Kevin

>That I think is where we don't know exactly what happened. Well, I'm only going by the matching statements from a TV interview and GMP, not speculation about what she may/may-not have done. >AIUI once a report has been made the police are obliged to let 'Granny' know >that. Which is what they did. Which brings us back to square one. Did the complaint justify sending two plain clothes detectives unannounced just to 'inform' her? I'd like to see something official which covers this obligation to inform. My cursory search didn't come up with anything and GMP's statement uses the weasel word 'duty' which is often used to mean anything between legal obligation and courtesy. Petty officialdom likes to hide behind it when they want to imply that someone's personal decision was somehow involuntary. >There's an element of he said/se said about the facts of this specific case... Her interview and GMP's statement seem to agree. So far. >..very salient points about the way the media's need for clicks is driving and >distorting our news and perceptions. I must admit I haven't read the original article but was it factually incorrect or deliberately misleading? I try not to get involved with the media snobbery, shoot the messenger rants but in this particular case I think the Mail have done us all a public service. Where else is 'Granny' supposed to go to highlight this stupidity? Reply to this message | Report message

New Thu 27 Feb 25 00:33   Labour - For a Bit of Balance - What a Teapot... - sooty123

Interesting that they felt they had to pop round, i wonder why. Reply to this message | Report message