StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Rather than go to the police and follow standard practice, go to Channel 4 and make a prime-time expo$è.
Dispatches and the Times wouldn't be dare going to press if they felt they didn't have something.
It’s not just this one (I’ve not seen the documentary or read the report), it’s the whole trial by media that now seems to be more prevalent.Dispatches and the Times wouldn't be dare going to press if they felt they didn't have something.
The problem is people don't complain through fear of losing their job or being edged out.
It's an environment I've worked in almost my entire career, usually regarding much lesser behaviour but the point still stands.
But have they though? Lots of stories about people everyday that turn out to be incorrect or incorrect (in no way am I saying that this is what’s happened here).Yeah they’ve got to be 200% certain to be going public with this.
Are you watching the Dispatches that is on right now? They’d get sued if it’s not true.But have they thought? Lots of stories about people everyday that turn out to be incorrect or incorrect (in no way am I saying that this is what’s happened here).
No evidence they haven’t/didn’t. Lots of criminal prosecutions have occurred off the back of a civil case.Rather than go to the police and follow standard practice, go to Channel 4 and make a prime-time expo$è.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that anyone in this video has allegations against them btw. SPG was a bit dodgy in his day though.
This is investigative journalism which, if wrong, would have severe repercussions for the organisations making the allegations. This is very different from making something up and posting it on Twitter.But have they though? Lots of stories about people everyday that turn out to be incorrect or incorrect (in no way am I saying that this is what’s happened here).
But have they though? Lots of stories about people everyday that turn out to be incorrect or incorrect (in no way am I saying that this is what’s happened here).
Rather than go to the police and follow standard practice, go to Channel 4 and make a prime-time expo$è.
But that right there is the point. You have taken a side, rightly or wrongly, based on a piece in the media. Calling it investigative journalism is fine but a journalist is not judge and jury.This isn't a tabloid headline. This is an investigation that has taken place over many years.
You are barking up the wrong tree here and drawing false comparisons.
This is true. And as creditable as investigative journalism always sounds, it may not be. As you allude, best left to legal agencies.But that right there is the point. You have taken a side, rightly or wrongly, based on a piece in the media. Calling it investigative journalism is fine but a journalist is not judge and jury.
But that right there is the point. You have taken a side, rightly or wrongly, based on a piece in the media. Calling it investigative journalism is fine but a journalist is not judge and jury.
Missing the point completely. Firstly, they might have gone to the police already. Secondly, on the basis of that programme, it seems unlikely there’s enough evidence (yet) to meet the threshold for a criminal prosecution. That’s very different to it not being true. The newspaper and Channel 4’s lawyers will be 100% confident they would win any libel action, otherwise none of it would see the light of day.Rather than go to the police and follow standard practice, go to Channel 4 and make a prime-time expo$è.