FFS! WTF? Grrr….. Kill!
That wom,,,, no that thing looks like it could be responsible for 95% of the total UK CO2 emissions.bigrichFull Member
fat people are selfish, and they smell.barnsleymitchFree Member
She obviously has a slow metabolism – that, and a fast f*****g pie arm
Gus, I salute your restraint. 🙂
OK, for the thickies, like GG:
A ‘newspaper’ has a legal duty to report only those stories which they can back up with facts. They are free to offer opinion, but they cannot legally print what they know not to be facts.
They get around publishing laws, by making statements such as ‘the Sun was told that…’ and ‘our sources tell us that…’ etc. That kind of thing. They are very, very careful to always cover themselves. So, if something turns out not to be true, then they can simply say ‘oh, well we were given misleading information (WMDs…)’, or whatever.
Feel free to engage the services of a lawyer, to clarify this. You’re not having mine.
As for lies, no newspaper will ever admit to printing stuff their journalists and editors know to be untrue. That would be professional suicide. They merely defend themselves with ‘we believed it to be true at the time. We were given false information’. This happens a lot, but is rarely reported. Have you any idea how many cases are settled out of court? Misrepresentation, factual inaccuracies, defamation of character?
Papers like the Scum see this as ‘occupational hazard’, and will consider having to pay out, as part of their operating costs. As such lawsuits cost them a mere fraction of their profits, they will see it as a very small price to pay.
There. Got it, now?
Under the Trade Descriptions Act, and publishing law, a ‘newspaper’ has to operate in a certain manner. So, they’re ‘not allowed to lie’, but do anyway. And certainly give very heavily biased reporting, according to the whim of their proprietors.
I doubt very much, that this story would fall under the auspices of ‘journalistic licence’ (you can’t just make stuff up), and must therefore, in part at least, be true.
If you want to discuss this further, then you shall have to speak to my legal team.
So, if they paid this woman to tell us about the pre-chewed fish and chips and cheesy wotsits, even if it wasn’t strictly true and they knew perfectly well it wasn’t strictly true and didn’t care, where would we be?
It would appear to fall into the category of knowingly printing something which is, at best, wild exaggeration by a woman who can see your chequebook, non? I apreciate that there are moral differences between that and inventing it entirely, but it is unclear to me that they have any practical effect here. 🙂horaFree Member
Maybe she is just misunderstood?
We are all wrong and she and her kin are right? You never know, those who tend to be in the wrong just dont even know it…
Just a parallel-world spin for ya
Likewise the government and parliamentary committees, official enquiries etc are generally not legally allowed to lie to the public – but yet you persist in believing various conspiracy theories.
Incredible that on one hand you apparently consider yourself as one of the few great intellects of our time that can “keep an open mind on things” and spot the outright lies in the “official line”, while others “don’t possess sufficient courage to question things themselves”; but on the other hand you believe that tabloid papers carefully follow the rules.
but on the other hand you believe that tabloid papers carefully follow the rules.
READ WHAT I WROTE.
Then read it again.
And come back to me, when you’ve sussed it out.
Alternatively, try this:
Wasn’t the recent story about that baby-faced 12 year-old father that kicked up another massive hand-wringing thread also a Sun story?
And wouldn’t you know it, that turned out to be complete bollocks that any journalist who was remotely concerned about reporting the truth would have seen straight through.trailmonkeyFull Member
I think she’s pretty fit.
READ WHAT I WROTE. Carefully.
Dream. On.surferFree Member
Seldom holds up under scrutiny!
READ WHAT I WROTE.
I did. You indicated that they probably embellished the story (being careful to stay within the law) but you believed it to be basically true:
“I doubt the story is made-up at all. That would be illegal. No newspaper, not even the Scum
..to completely fabricate a story like this, would be ridiculous. Far too blatant. They have undoubtedly embellished this story, of course, but they will have been careful not to have printed owt which could possibly see them in court.
So, there has to be at least some element of truth in this story.
I believe this story to be at least partially factual.
I just find it amusing to contrast your unwavering belief in the effectiveness of law in monitoring the truthfulness of the media with your belief that governments tell massively illegal lies and that only you can see the “real truth”.
No, what I’ve actually said, is that the ‘facts’ appear to be that she’s giving her kids crap food. The rest of it is created by the Scum, and people reading it. So, the actual story is pretty mundane. Fayt woman gives her kids bad food. Wow. Tell us something we don’t know.
All the ‘she’s a bad parent’, ‘it’s Thatclher’s fault’, ‘exterminate all fat people’ stuff is in the minds of the readers.
Somewhere, this person probbly does exist. And has sold a ‘story’, to the press. Like the ’13-year old dad’ story (on which there appears to be a ban on reporting, so we don’t know that he’s the dad or not).
It’s a carefully constructed piece, designed to gain maximum reaction. Oh look, it’s worked!
If you really want to prove it’s a completely fictitious story, be my guest. If you wish to challenge the Scum, in court, then go for it.
So, the upshot is, that the Scum are probbly not actually printing stuff they know to be made up, they are reporting the ‘facts’ as presented to them.
Whether or not the situation is ‘real’, is not their concern. they’ve been sold a story, they can offer a reasonable argument as to their belief in it’s validity, and are perfectly legally covered. If it does indeed later turn out to be untrue, they will have their corporate arses covered.
What is true, however, regardless of this bit of sensationalist crap, is that too many people give their kids crap food. The Scum is expert in feeding off public hysteria over all sorts of social issues, and has used the flavour of the month, obesity and childcare, to create a sensation, a Spectacle.
And it’s worked on us, for sure…
Wow, these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple. Big words and sentences don’t make you right…we can all do it if we want but some feel we don’t need to.DaRC_LFull Member
If we can’t blame Thatcher for her-faytness as the event horizon has been reached…
can we blame the Motor Car instead? Without the motor car she’d have to walk….
There’s a simple solution to this situation = don’t read, and particularly buy, newspapers. Particularly those owned by that Antipodean right-wing manipulator of truth.
Like the ’13-year old dad’ story (on which there appears to be a ban on reporting, so we don’t know that he’s the dad or not).
Sun stories on Alfie:
Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13
I love Alfie and he took my virginity. There has been nobody else
Alfie ‘inspires sex ed rethink’
Parents not told Alfie was dad-to-be
Alfie agrees to take DNA test
I looked in his eyes.. it was so sad
DNA test is for sake of the kids
‘I’m the daddy… if I’m not **** you all’
Alfie a victim of Broken Britain?
The tangled web of Alfie and Chantelle
Ant: ‘I look like baby dad Alfie’
Lad’s sister blames their dad
Feeding, nappies… and PlayStation
Baby shambles… I blame the parents
How sad that biggest victim is little Maisie
Benefit bonanza if pair ‘move in’
Meanwhile in the real world:
Alfie not Britain’s youngest dad
Media watchdog to investigate payments to Alfie Patten’s parents
these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple
isn’t it naive to think such things are ‘simple’ ?
Whether or not the situation is ‘real’, is not their concern. they’ve been sold a story, they can offer a reasonable argument as to their belief in it’s validity, and are perfectly legally covered.
I agree with your assertion here by the way. But I don’t really think that the tabloid approach of “report anything you like as long as it sells and you can find someone who says it’s true” is entirely in-keeping with the spirit of the publications law.
And it doesn’t fit with your earlier protest that it must be true because it is illegal for the papers to lie.
OK. I’ll re-phrase it; No newspaper can print what they know to be untrue.
So, the ‘truth’ of this story, is that there appears to be a fayt lass who feeds her kids crap. That’s pretty plausible, tbh, woon’t you agree?
The Sun does still need to try to appear truthful and sincere, in order to keep it’s place on the news stands. So, they will at least cover their arses, legally, as I’ve said. For them to print this, they would have to be able to have a reasonable argument that there is at least some element of truth in this. Which, from what we can see, there does appear to be. HairyBarnes’ claim that this is entirely made up, is his own onion. He is of course free to prove it is a fake, however, if he so chooses.
All I was trying to do, was state the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing. Granted, the Sun has been guiltyer than most.
As for the Alfie Patten thing; yes, it appears the Scum were scammed. They won’t care; they probbly sold loads more papers ‘cos of that story…
Scenario in Scum press room:
‘Ear, check this out; fayt bird feeds her kids crap’
‘Ooh, that’s a goodun! Is it true?’
‘Well, looks all right’
‘Can we be sued?’
‘Shoon’t think so. Sources seem to check out’
‘Can we embellish it, to whip up public hysteria, and sell more papers?’
‘I’m bored. There’s no juicy scandalous stuff to write about’
‘Why don’t we make up a story about a fayt bird who feeds her kids crap?’
‘Ooh, nice. We’d need a model. My mate’s brother goes out with a right porker, we could get her’
‘Excellent. And my girlfriend’s hairdresser knows a woman who’s had triplets. Treble bubble!’
‘Brilliant. Now, we need to get them together, for a photoshoot and that. then make up a story about the bird being on benefits, smokes, not with the kids’ dad, etc’
‘Ear, but what if we get caught?’
‘Ooh, good point. We could lose our jobs, and get screwed by Murdoch’
‘That’s not good. I’m struggling with my mortgage enough as it is’
‘No, we’d have to be careful. Lets talk to the Ed about it’
‘What? You want to run a completely fictitious pack of lies? And if I say yes, I could lose my job/home/marriage/kids/
‘Er, yeah. But ittud sell papers!’
Come on. Work it out…
I’m wasted, on here.
(‘Phones up the Sun…)
Both of those scenarios seem equally likely to me – I suspect the truth is somewhere between 🙂D0NKFull Member
Sorry SFB et al it appears she does exist.
The mail have run with it too
And the coventry telegraph have a follow up, she agreed to appear in closer on a weight loss article and is not happy with whats ended up in the papers.
This has thread was an interesting read until it got to bickering about how much papers
liestretch the truth.
she does exist.
And judging by the Coventry Telegraph report that is about the only aspect of the story that is true.
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
RudeBoy – Member
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
I think between the dates the two stories were run she gained a stone in weight, they are probably still telling the truth!HairychestedFree Member
If The Sun and The Mail both write she does then she does (it’s like the Labour and the Torries agreeing).
The topic ‘FFS! WTF? Grrr….. Kill!’ is closed to new replies.