John Wright Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, buncha wankas said: Rubbish Which bit? That he isn’t an investigative journalist? That he uncritically provides a platform? That he wouldn’t know how to open a closed door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 22 minutes ago, John Wright said: Id really like to see what Moulton wrote to Cabinet Office. Just shows how poor a journo he is. Journo 101 includes training on how to avoid defamation. But we don't know what's in it, do we? All we know is that he's received a warning letter on behalf of three top civil servants. As the whole point of cease and desist may be to harass rather than to win, it could well be that he has been careful but they've decided to object anyway. All we can see is the fact that the Review Chair (who may be aware of what was in the letter) issued a statement about cease and desist and FoI requests the day after Moulton publicised his letter. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: But we don't know what's in it, do we? All we know is that he's received a warning letter on behalf of three top civil servants. As the whole point of cease and desist may be to harass rather than to win, it could well be that he has been careful but they've decided to object anyway. All we can see is the fact that the Review Chair (who may be aware of what was in the letter) issued a statement about cease and desist and FoI requests the day after Moulton publicised his letter. We won't know what is in the email because, if it is defamatory, no one will share for fear of being a publisher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 As part of my submission to the covid inquiry I pointed out some of the difficulties that come with voicing dissent to government and their attitude towards you for doing so. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: All we can see is the fact that the Review Chair (who may be aware of what was in the letter) issued a statement about cease and desist and FoI requests the day after Moulton publicised his letter. I really don’t think the two things are related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 (edited) 56 minutes ago, John Wright said: If you put PM in front of a closed door he wouldn’t have clue how to open it. maybe not a front door. the snag with all this is that you can claim something that is absolutely true/correct and have no documented / hard evidence of it at which point the unprovable truth becomes defamation. Edited July 22, 2023 by WTF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 10 minutes ago, John Wright said: I really don’t think the two things are related What do think happened that resulted in that paragraph appearing in the update document? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 19 minutes ago, Two-lane said: What do think happened that resulted in that paragraph appearing in the update document? It’s too quick for the enquiry chair to have said that about Paul. That statement/update will have been a while in the drafting. They are related in time, but that doesn’t mean there’s a causal link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 23 minutes ago, WTF said: maybe not a front door. the snag with all this is that you can claim something that is absolutely true/correct and have no documented / hard evidence of it at which point the unprovable truth becomes defamation. I’ve seen it and experienced it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germann Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 1 hour ago, John Wright said: He isn’t an investigative journalist. Sadly he is the nearest thing we have got to one. All other media outlets are reliant on the IOMG & its tentacles for advertising revenue so don't dare sail close to the wind for fear of biting the biggest hand that feeds them. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 33 minutes ago, Two-lane said: What do think happened that resulted in that paragraph appearing in the update document? Well if it wasn't the PM letter there must(?) have been earlier letters to other people. I can't otherwise see why she would feel the need to refer specifically to cease and desist letters in her update Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Wright said: Which bit? That he isn’t an investigative journalist? That he uncritically provides a platform? That he wouldn’t know how to open a closed door? There were very few in my time that would chase down a story. Paul would. Adrian Darbyshire too. Kelly Foran was good, now on the ITV News at Ten team..Sarah Corker persisted - and Juan Turner without question! Not scared to look in the corners and ask the questions, and follow up leads they had. Jo Overty was another loss to Journalism. Edited July 22, 2023 by Derek Flint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyond Belief Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 To be fair to PM, we voice our opinions by using our electronic devices by hiding behind our pseudonym, and for those who might not understand the definition of the word, its origins in the Greek word pseudōnymos, which means "bearing a false name." pass judgement and comment. At least PM dares to speak up for what he believes. His comments generate discussion, which opens other lines of enquiry. We need a voice. Who else is coming forward? None of us, for fear of reprisal. We must all remember Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If the PM states what he believes to be facts and he is wrong, then he should be held accountable. I read a comment the other day that Hooper Man should be the next person to be sacked, and I could agree more. He lacks transparency, I view him like the Merina trench, the earth's bowels, where bottom feeders live. I spoke with a government minister, and there are whisperings of a vote of no confidence in the CM. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, Beyond Belief said: To be fair to PM, we voice our opinions by using our electronic devices by hiding behind our pseudonym, and for those who might not understand the definition of the word, its origins in the Greek word pseudōnymos, which means "bearing a false name." pass judgement and comment. Not all of us. Yes, you might get a bit of a hard time for posting in your own name, and I get why some choose not to. There can be 'sanctions' as I've found out to my cost on occasions, but I've not been whacked and dumped down the old mine workings. More people need to start feeling confident to have a voice. Allied to that, solutions need to be offered. If mHKs and Commissioners can't cut it, they need to be held to account. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 15 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: Not all of us. Yes, you might get a bit of a hard time for posting in your own name, and I get why some choose not to. There can be 'sanctions' as I've found out to my cost on occasions, but I've not been whacked and dumped down the old mine workings. More people need to start feeling confident to have a voice. Allied to that, solutions need to be offered. If mHKs and Commissioners can't cut it, they need to be held to account. Voice opinions only for MHKs to block the people voicing them on social media, from what I can see? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.