[News] More quality journalism from the Argus

[Commander]

Imagine being the journalist writing that. This is what you do for a living. What an utterly pointless role.

 

[Chicken Run]

I disagree. The punishment for offences is prescribed in law. No where does it say public shaming is part of the punishment. It's the modern day version of the stocks.

The problem is that The Argus is a scummy publication who have lazy journalists ( many of whom don't appear to have English as their first language ) that use quick methods to produce their copy. So they screen scrape Tripadvisor, Rightmove, court lists and the council health rating websites to produce a so called 'story'. It really is a contemptable rag - can't even bring myself to call it a newspaper. In this case - what has his sister got to do with his speeding etc ? So why name her ?

Their only single saving grace is Brian Owen. Other than that, close them down.

Now the Argus are reporting he was CLEARED of speeding [emoji2357][emoji2357]

NOTE: This story previously incorrectly stated that Euan Strafford had been found guilty of speeding and driving without insurance. We apologise for the error.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/198...cinda-staffords-brother-cleared-speeding-a27/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Guinness Boy]

 

[stingray]

Argus is an embarrassment. Unreadable online and content is puerile .

 

[London Irish]

Now the Argus are reporting he was CLEARED of speeding [emoji2357][emoji2357]

NOTE: This story previously incorrectly stated that Euan Strafford had been found guilty of speeding and driving without insurance. We apologise for the error.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/198...cinda-staffords-brother-cleared-speeding-a27/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They've had a mare and now that's rendered some of the comments on this thread defamatory (not that he's likely to sue I suppose)

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I disagree. The punishment for offences is prescribed in law. No where does it say public shaming is part of the punishment. It's the modern day version of the stocks.

The problem is that The Argus is a scummy publication who have lazy journalists ( many of whom don't appear to have English as their first language ) that use quick methods to produce their copy. So they screen scrape Tripadvisor, Rightmove, court lists and the council health rating websites to produce a so called 'story'. It really is a contemptable rag - can't even bring myself to call it a newspaper. In this case - what has his sister got to do with his speeding etc ? So why name her ?

Their only single saving grace is Brian Owen. Other than that, close them down.

Who cares though

 

[Jesus Gul]

Now the Argus are reporting he was CLEARED of speeding [emoji2357][emoji2357]

NOTE: This story previously incorrectly stated that Euan Strafford had been found guilty of speeding and driving without insurance. We apologise for the error.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/198...cinda-staffords-brother-cleared-speeding-a27/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

lol

and lol again

 

[Chicken Run]

They've had a mare and now that's rendered some of the comments on this thread defamatory (not that he's likely to sue I suppose)

I bet they were scurrying around like rats trying to get that story righted [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gwylan]

They've had a mare and now that's rendered some of the comments on this thread defamatory (not that he's likely to sue I suppose)

Well no. Someone who's been done for driving without insurance can scarcely claim that his name has been besmirched.

I'm not sure why people are hitting on The Argus. The news model these days is for newspapers to drive traffic to their sites and, like it or not, Love Island is a clickbait headline. Everyone who says "why should I pay for a newspaper when I can read for free" is the reason why that's the case. The Argus isn't alone in this regard - that's what people want.

 

[Badger Boy]

Even if the story had been about the Love Island loser, it still would not have been worth reporting. The story is speeding on the A27 and if they focused on that, whilst mentioning statistics of how many are caught and prosecuted, etc, it might be close to something worth churning out a story about. But some brother of a nobody? Leave it off.

 

[m@goo]

The piece has completely changed now. No clickbait photos and no life story of the woman...

Funny that.

 

[London Irish]

Well no. Someone who's been done for driving without insurance can scarcely claim that his name has been besmirched.

I'm not sure why people are hitting on The Argus. The news model these days is for newspapers to drive traffic to their sites and, like it or not, Love Island is a clickbait headline. Everyone who says "why should I pay for a newspaper when I can read for free" is the reason why that's the case. The Argus isn't alone in this regard - that's what people want.

Err, he wasn't done for driving without insurance though, was he, according to the updated version of the story. And accusing people of breaking particular laws when they've been found not guilty of doing so is clearly defamatory. But yes he's unlikely to sue because it would draw attention to a case he'd not want to draw attention to because he did fail to give his details when asked to by the police

 

[Gwylan]

Err, he wasn't done for driving without insurance though, was he, according to the updated version of the story. And accusing people of breaking particular laws when they've been found not guilty of doing so is clearly defamatory. But yes he's unlikely to sue because it would draw attention to a case he'd not want to draw attention to because he did fail to give his details when asked to by the police

I couldn't open the link earlier but the text said he'd been cleared of speeding so I assumed that he was still guilty of the insurance claim. Mea culpa - that was poor of me.

But the point I was making that being defamed isn't enough on its own, the plaintiff would have to show it caused "serious harm" to his reputation. Someone who's just been fined for a driving offence would not really qualify but if, say, someone who gave lectures on safe driving had been charged, then that's a different matter.

The first time I was sued for libel was when we named someone as fire-bombing a shop. We had no proof and he sued for libel. My brief advised me to sweat it out as the geezer had a lengthy record (including assault, criminal damage and threatening behaviour) and, even if won, he'd likely to get 1p damages and pay costs. As predicted, he dropped the case before any trial date.

 

[bluenitsuj]

Its not news. Its just bollocks

 

[Seagull58]

The brother did choose to go speeding and driving without insurance.

He was cleared of those charges.

 

[Seagull58]

Well no. Someone who's been done for driving without insurance can scarcely claim that his name has been besmirched.

I'm not sure why people are hitting on The Argus. The news model these days is for newspapers to drive traffic to their sites and, like it or not, Love Island is a clickbait headline. Everyone who says "why should I pay for a newspaper when I can read for free" is the reason why that's the case. The Argus isn't alone in this regard - that's what people want.

He was cleared. The Argus had to correct the story.