[DemolitionRed]

Well what a surprise...yet more abuse of the welfare system! I don't know why they just don't re-open the workhouses and bring back 'poor law' to forbid us feeding the starving....Rule *********g Britannia.


Oh and btw, leaked documents are not lies!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Well what a surprise...yet more abuse of the welfare system! I don't know why they just don't re-open the workhouses and bring back 'poor law' to forbid us feeding the starving....Rule *********g Britannia.


Oh and btw, leaked documents are not lies!

It's not been verified these documents exist except for a sensational story in a tabloid. And yet some are willing not only to believe them, but to stand up for them. Tomorrow the tabloids will print something negative about Labour and there will be people in here saying how the tabloids suck and shouldn't be relied on for news.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's not been verified these documents exist except for a sensational story in a tabloid. And yet some are willing not only to believe them, but to stand up for them. Tomorrow the tabloids will print something negative about Labour and there will be people in here saying how the tabloids suck and shouldn't be relied on for news.

It was initially leaked to the BBC. The thing about the rules of journalism is, that although a journalist is under no obligation to reveal his sources there are exceptions and one of those exceptions are parliamentary matters. In other words, the government can demand to see the source from which this propaganda came.

Its an editors job to ask the questions and in this case, because it could come back and bite him/her on the nose, has to assure himself that this has come from a very good source because the government are within their right to be informed about this whistle-blower.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

It was initially leaked to the BBC. The thing about the rules of journalism is, that although a journalist is under no obligation to reveal his sources there are exceptions and one of those exceptions are parliamentary matters. In other words, the government can demand to see the source from which this propaganda came.

Its an editors job to ask the questions and in this case, because it could come back and bite him/her on the nose, has to assure himself that this has come from a very good source because the government are within their right to be informed about this whistle-blower.

I'm guessing you are not a journalist and I'm certain you know nothing more about the said documents than I do. And I know how it works... I'm a lawyer who used to work in politics.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm guessing you are not a journalist and I'm certain you know nothing more about the said documents than I do. And I know how it works... I'm a lawyer who used to work in politics.

Well actually I have a close family member who is an investigative journalist for the Independent.

I spent years working as a barristers clerk at Grays Inn (We may well of met) and spent a great deal of time within the parliamentary buildings. I'm neither ignorant around the laws and etiquette of journalism and although I probably know a lot less about law than you do (depending of course on what sort of lawyer you are) I'm not as naive as you seem to be pointing out.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Well actually I have a close family member who is an investigative journalist for the Independent.

I spent years working as a barristers clerk at Grays Inn (We may well of met) and spent a great deal of time within the parliamentary buildings. I'm neither ignorant around the laws and etiquette of journalism and although I probably know a lot less about law than you do (depending of course on what sort of lawyer you are) I'm not as naive as you seem to be pointing out.

I have a close family member who is a tailor. I can't sew a button on.

I'm not suggesting you are ignorant. However, your post I felt was a little didactic.