The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Page:
But people have said that there was no evidence to back up the claim. From the testimonies it seemed to me as if they were saying "The 45 minute figure was plucked from thin air".
No they did not, they testified they had doubts, they testified they were worried, they testified many things but not one person has said it was lies, not one person has said it was purposely false.
No, people did testify that the 45 minute claim was pants with stains.
Blank wrote:
> So they found him guilty? My mistake, must've missed it.
>
> What I did see were people giving evidence that the 45 minute claim
> was basically unsubstantiated rubbish.
Oh deary me, go read some more, intel people testified that in actual fact, the intelligence was telling them 20-45 minutes, the decision was made to go with the longest estimate, whilst other witnesses have testified that they had concerns about the authenticity of the information, no one has testified that is was "unsubstantiated rubbish".
Similalry, whilst the dossier was added to/changed, no evidence at all has been found that the claim was rubbish, intel people at the time believed it enough, apparently whilst it was single sourced the same source has previoulsy given consistently accurate information.
Single sourced ? Yes, rubbish ? No.
Your mistake, yes ?
> So they found him guilty? My mistake, must've missed it.
>
> What I did see were people giving evidence that the 45 minute claim
> was basically unsubstantiated rubbish.
Oh deary me, go read some more, intel people testified that in actual fact, the intelligence was telling them 20-45 minutes, the decision was made to go with the longest estimate, whilst other witnesses have testified that they had concerns about the authenticity of the information, no one has testified that is was "unsubstantiated rubbish".
Similalry, whilst the dossier was added to/changed, no evidence at all has been found that the claim was rubbish, intel people at the time believed it enough, apparently whilst it was single sourced the same source has previoulsy given consistently accurate information.
Single sourced ? Yes, rubbish ? No.
Your mistake, yes ?
So they found him guilty? My mistake, must've missed it.
What I did see were people giving evidence that the 45 minute claim was basically unsubstantiated rubbish.
What I did see were people giving evidence that the 45 minute claim was basically unsubstantiated rubbish.
I'd go read up on the September 4th findings of the enquiry Blank...
I just type a reply to this but got disconnected for the second time in an hour before it could send. The jist was thus:
a) No need to pop it only 9 mins after the original post.
b) Other networks are bound to follow suit so they don't lose ratings, and that's how they make money. If one channel is broadcasting the result while others are still saying "it's being counted", then everyone will turn to the one with the results.
c) Just because someone got fired in one instance doesn't mean it happens every time - and Gilligan hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
a) No need to pop it only 9 mins after the original post.
b) Other networks are bound to follow suit so they don't lose ratings, and that's how they make money. If one channel is broadcasting the result while others are still saying "it's being counted", then everyone will turn to the one with the results.
c) Just because someone got fired in one instance doesn't mean it happens every time - and Gilligan hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
Popped it for you Blank
> Light wrote:
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
A Sky reporter, on the night coalition forces crossed into Iraq en masse, claimed to have filmed, live, the launching of a cruise missile from a Royal Navy Submarine, and that's how it was reported. What was not found out until later on, was that he'd knowingly done the initial report (from inside the sub) live, then spliced in archive footage obtained on the submarine to give the appearance that he was filming a live launch. His commentary was live, but not the launch.
A Fox reporter did another "live" report, he was embedded with a US Infantry division, claiming the convoy was under enemy fire and he, again live, directed viewers to footage of said "fire" - which later turned out to be US Troops doing practice night firing exercises to test newly issued equipment.
Both were sacked.
Blank wrote:
> What happened to Bush's relative who announced that Bush had won
> before the votes had been counted? I'm pretty sure he wasn't sacked.
The relative announced it roughly 2 minutes before every other network did likewise, furthermore, Democrats had already declared victory in many states before counting had even finished.
I shall find the post for you :)
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
A Sky reporter, on the night coalition forces crossed into Iraq en masse, claimed to have filmed, live, the launching of a cruise missile from a Royal Navy Submarine, and that's how it was reported. What was not found out until later on, was that he'd knowingly done the initial report (from inside the sub) live, then spliced in archive footage obtained on the submarine to give the appearance that he was filming a live launch. His commentary was live, but not the launch.
A Fox reporter did another "live" report, he was embedded with a US Infantry division, claiming the convoy was under enemy fire and he, again live, directed viewers to footage of said "fire" - which later turned out to be US Troops doing practice night firing exercises to test newly issued equipment.
Both were sacked.
Blank wrote:
> What happened to Bush's relative who announced that Bush had won
> before the votes had been counted? I'm pretty sure he wasn't sacked.
The relative announced it roughly 2 minutes before every other network did likewise, furthermore, Democrats had already declared victory in many states before counting had even finished.
I shall find the post for you :)
I've come to realise that British Justice is the biggest oxymoron there is so stories like this really don't surprise me one bit.
Page: