06-07-14, 12:51 PM
Yeah but people do believe the crap they read in the gutter press. And frankly it's not just the gutter press, Murdoch owner of The Times is known to phone up his editor and tell him what to publish.
One of the best examples of pish presented as fact is the fella 'that could not be deported because he had a cat' under the "right to private and family life" within the European Human Rights Act.
Of course the whole story is totally bogus, and based on some humorous perhaps mischievous remarks made by the ruling judge.
But of course once a story is out there. Well a paper can put it on a front page, and if directly challenged (which I don't think they were in this case), which takes a huge effort and subsequently ruled against, well, aside from paying any fine, a little snippet of an apology buried somewhere in the paper is all that is required.
Meanwhile Theresa May uses said incorrect bogus story to attack the Human Rights Act at the Tory conference. One would expect under such circumstances that a home secretary having got their facts so wildly wrong would have to resign, particularly as she was most strongly criticised by several in her own party. I dunno, I think it's a sign of the state of today's politics that she managed to hang on to her most senior position with just an apology.
But the damage is done and the story still lives. To my surprise UKIP dropped a Euro election leaflet through my door recently. Not so surprising in that leaflet they talked about illegal immigrants being given UK citizenship becuase they had a cat - yup the European Human Rights Act was quoted.
One of the best examples of pish presented as fact is the fella 'that could not be deported because he had a cat' under the "right to private and family life" within the European Human Rights Act.
Of course the whole story is totally bogus, and based on some humorous perhaps mischievous remarks made by the ruling judge.
But of course once a story is out there. Well a paper can put it on a front page, and if directly challenged (which I don't think they were in this case), which takes a huge effort and subsequently ruled against, well, aside from paying any fine, a little snippet of an apology buried somewhere in the paper is all that is required.
Meanwhile Theresa May uses said incorrect bogus story to attack the Human Rights Act at the Tory conference. One would expect under such circumstances that a home secretary having got their facts so wildly wrong would have to resign, particularly as she was most strongly criticised by several in her own party. I dunno, I think it's a sign of the state of today's politics that she managed to hang on to her most senior position with just an apology.
But the damage is done and the story still lives. To my surprise UKIP dropped a Euro election leaflet through my door recently. Not so surprising in that leaflet they talked about illegal immigrants being given UK citizenship becuase they had a cat - yup the European Human Rights Act was quoted.