Crosswords2 mins ago
Help please
Where did I get the idea that Ken Livingstone was Gay ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I don't quite understand your reasoning Gromit, surely in this day of P.C. and liberal acceptance of such things, being gay must be to Mad Ken's advantage.
Incidently since you are always accusing the Daily Mail of printing lies, could we have some proof of the times they have been taken to court for printing lies?
Incidently since you are always accusing the Daily Mail of printing lies, could we have some proof of the times they have been taken to court for printing lies?
They are too numberous to list, but only today they have been found guilty of libeling the actor Nicolas Cage and have been forced to agree to make a substantial donation to charity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/73301 11.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/73301 11.stm
I can't find this story anywhere. Maybe it's because I've developed a natural immunity to news stories I find extremely uninteresting.
Otherwise, you may have gotten the idea from the fact that one of his opponents for the upcoming mayoral elections is gay. Perhaps you got them mixed up.
Just looked it up on Wiki: the guy's name is Brian Paddick.
being gay must be to Mad Ken's advantage
It won't be an advantage. The whole idea of the 'P.C.' thing is that it's inconsequential.
Otherwise, you may have gotten the idea from the fact that one of his opponents for the upcoming mayoral elections is gay. Perhaps you got them mixed up.
Just looked it up on Wiki: the guy's name is Brian Paddick.
being gay must be to Mad Ken's advantage
It won't be an advantage. The whole idea of the 'P.C.' thing is that it's inconsequential.
The Daily Mail did not lie, it only published an extract from a book written by Kathleen Turner. They were not to know that what she wrote was un-true, just as anyone else knows what is the truth or direct lies, when reading or quoting an extract from someone's autobiography.
Since it came to light they have issued an apology and removed it from their Web-Site, as have the publishers Headline.
Good try Gromit, but not a very good example of direct lies, so I am waiting patiently for some more examples from that all too numerous to quote list.
Since it came to light they have issued an apology and removed it from their Web-Site, as have the publishers Headline.
Good try Gromit, but not a very good example of direct lies, so I am waiting patiently for some more examples from that all too numerous to quote list.
AOG: have a read.
I admit that it's a blog, so is hardly the most high-end of soruces. But the guy who writes it provides evidence in the form of direct quotes from source material in comparison with the Mail's use of it. So while it's a blog (which I admit are often unreliable), and the language is kind of smug and dumb, the evidence used in it is solid.
The reason I'm using is that for the moment I'm too lazy to go out and find a classier source. But it'll do.
I admit that it's a blog, so is hardly the most high-end of soruces. But the guy who writes it provides evidence in the form of direct quotes from source material in comparison with the Mail's use of it. So while it's a blog (which I admit are often unreliable), and the language is kind of smug and dumb, the evidence used in it is solid.
The reason I'm using is that for the moment I'm too lazy to go out and find a classier source. But it'll do.
Or this article from October, in which the author's figures include numbers for cost of immigrant crime and HIV treatment. Which would be
slightly more credible if his source also did. Slack changes the wording to make his figures more spooky.
The report that the author quotes also includes the following: 'These different estimates should not be added to make a total. They are preliminary and some categories may overlap with others.' Slack does this anyway despite a clear warning not to do so (and why) from his own source. Which inflates his figures on the cost of immigration.
He also (incorrectly) rounds a figure (in the report he is sourcing) of �3.08bn to �4bn. This adds an extra billion to numbers which are allready incorrect.
I don't want to start an immigration debate here. But it's an example of the way the DM fiddles its evidence.
slightly more credible if his source also did. Slack changes the wording to make his figures more spooky.
The report that the author quotes also includes the following: 'These different estimates should not be added to make a total. They are preliminary and some categories may overlap with others.' Slack does this anyway despite a clear warning not to do so (and why) from his own source. Which inflates his figures on the cost of immigration.
He also (incorrectly) rounds a figure (in the report he is sourcing) of �3.08bn to �4bn. This adds an extra billion to numbers which are allready incorrect.
I don't want to start an immigration debate here. But it's an example of the way the DM fiddles its evidence.
what, so a coke-snorting Etonian can get in?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04 /boris.london08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04 /boris.london08
OR ?
The barmy bureaucrats of Brussels appeared to have gone totally bonkers last night...they banned the sticks used by our lollipop ladies. The Euro meddlers say foreign drivers may not understand the "Stop:Children" sign, suggesting they will simply drive on when a lady stands in front of them.
News of the World, 4 July 1999
The barmy bureaucrats of Brussels appeared to have gone totally bonkers last night...they banned the sticks used by our lollipop ladies. The Euro meddlers say foreign drivers may not understand the "Stop:Children" sign, suggesting they will simply drive on when a lady stands in front of them.
News of the World, 4 July 1999
Well, to be fair the DM try to keep outright fabrication to a minimum. The trick is that they like to cherrypick from sources, misquote people, and generally twist evidence (see above).
I might post some more examples in the morning, if I remember. But for now, my eyes hurt. Which is weird, because I've not been on the computer that much today.
I might post some more examples in the morning, if I remember. But for now, my eyes hurt. Which is weird, because I've not been on the computer that much today.
-- answer removed --