| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Doctored Brighton article? http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1758 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | TDO [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Doctored Brighton article? |
Anyone see the reproduction of the Brighton and Hove Argus's article in this month's Taxi Talk magazine? Funny how the original said that plates were being sold for £45,000 each, whereas in Taxi Talk this had been changed to read a 'substantial amount'. 
Wonder why that was 
The headline was also changed from: Taxis among UK's dearest to Expensive fares? No, not really! |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Brighton and Hove Argus's
ahh, the paper that doesnt respond to emails 
Captain cab |
|
| Author: | TDO [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mabye they thought you were from Taxi Talk 
You could try the telling-bone 
What did you ask them? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wanted to clarify the taxi expert, they havent responded. coincidence or something more sinister? hehe or they only open there emails once a week Captain cab |
|
| Author: | TDO [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I think I said a few days ago, I think journalistic ethics dictate that they won't provide any details regarding sources, so you were unlikely to get very far anyway. It's one of the cornerstones of a free press, which in turn is one of the foundations of a free and democratic society. I'm surprised you haven't found a piece on this on the inernet Captain
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: As I think I said a few days ago, I think journalistic ethics dictate that they won't provide any details regarding sources, so you were unlikely to get very far anyway.
Journalists and ethics donts really go together in the same sentence
Captain cab |
|
| Author: | gedmay [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dusty, Why do we keep returning to this story and each time a different spin is put on it? I queried why a story put up by Alex in January referred to David Smith, Manchester taxi expert. Then C.Gull placed a link to the original story in the newspaper suddenly Smith became Spencer. I asked who made the edit and the reply was it had been changed to protect the identity of the source. Either you misunderstood my query or perhaps I did not make myself clear, I wanted to know why it was deemed necessary in January not to print the name Spencer, subsequently with the charges and countercharges over this man do you not see that you may have inflamed the situation? After all, from memory, the controversy was not ongoing in January. Now you are telling the Cap that the paper is maybe protecting its source, I would agree if the source was not named. Surely anybody that advises a council cannot hide behind journalistic secrecy. I am sure that under the often quoted Freedom of Information, the Council involved would reveal all. My bet he did not do it for nothing so that info must be in the public domain. Ged |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gedmay wrote: I wanted to know why it was deemed necessary in January not to print the name Spencer, subsequently with the charges and countercharges over this man do you not see that you may have inflamed the situation? After all, from memory, the controversy was not ongoing in January.
I think it was done because Nigel thought he was on to something big, so those behind Taxi Driver Online decided to feed his stupidity. Then the Angel  and others joined in with the frenzy.
But Mr Cgull posted the link to the correct story, which anyone could have done at anytime, but choose to ignore. It would appear that Taxi'talk' have also joined in with amendments, but the Argus story is the true one IMHO.
But does it really matter who he is? You either believe him/her or you don't. |
|
| Author: | gedmay [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy, I seem to be repeating myself, but it does matter. When the truth starts to be dissembled, for whatever reason, how are we then able to distinguish truth from fiction. My reply to another contributor was it matters not who he is or where he hails from, all I need to know when I read something, is that somebody is not writing what they think I need to know. Ged |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ged has a point, although I'm more concerned at who this person is, as stated on another thread, the trades not exactly overrun this experts, I dont doubt he's an expert, just the fact nobody seems to have heard of him. Captain cab |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gedmay wrote: Andy,
I seem to be repeating myself, but it does matter. When the truth starts to be dissembled, for whatever reason, how are we then able to distinguish truth from fiction. The broad thrust of the story, if not all of it, was spot on. The only difference was the name of the expert. IMHO the Taxi'talk' changes were more significant, because they changed the story, and the plate values.
|
|
| Author: | gedmay [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Captain, "Manchester taxi expert".... does that mean that he expert in all things taxi in Manchester or perhaps he really is an expert from Manchester. Either way he is keeping his expertise well hidden from the trade here, his name just brings a shrug of the shoulders. Perhaps we can all, by virtue that we drive either PH or Hackney, start using the nomenclature EXPERT. I do already but that is another story. My wife has just told me that I have got it wrong it should read Artist 
Ged |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
at the risk of being controversial, the words manchester and expert.......naa dont go there Captain, you support Carlisle Utd
and I think your Mrs is being a little rough on you, from what ive heard, you attain a similar qualification. Captain cab |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
me and sussex know who mr spencer is dont we......mr T |
|
| Author: | TDO [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gedmay wrote: Dusty Why do we keep returning to this story and each time a different spin is put on it? I give up Ged, why? I can't speak for other people, but I don't think I've even commented on the story yet, so it's certainly not me that's spinning it. Indeed, I haven't seen much in the way of comment on the story at all, just an obsession with who Mr Spencer may be. But looking at the latest thread, my point was effectively that Taxi Talk was spinning the article, both in terms of the changed headline and the amendment in the text, so why are your implying that it's me that's spinning things? Quote: I queried why a story put up by Alex in January referred to David Smith, Manchester taxi expert. Then C.Gull placed a link to the original story in the newspaper suddenly Smith became Spencer. I asked who made the edit and the reply was it had been changed to protect the identity of the source. Either you misunderstood my query or perhaps I did not make myself clear, I wanted to know why it was deemed necessary in January not to print the name Spencer, subsequently with the charges and countercharges over this man do you not see that you may have inflamed the situation? After all, from memory, the controversy was not ongoing in January. Maybe you didn't see the post I made on 26 March in the relevant thread which said: I think it was edited as a genuine mistake. It was thought that the source named in the article may have been someone who might want to protect his idenitity, but it transpired that we were in error. I think that if people weren't so obbsessed with this person's identity then none of the debate would have happened, but unfortunately there are too many people in the trade incapable of debating on the issues, and instead are obsessed with personalities and (for example) putting the personal details of people they don't like in the public domain. I see lots of articles in the trade and general press, but I know nothing about most of the authors, and I don't make a song and dance about finding out who it is. And if they want to remain anon, I may be mildly curious, but I won't conduct a witch-hunt to find out who it is, because presumably they don't want people to know who they are, and any decent person would respect that. For example, that 'Open letter to LOs' in the most recent Taxi Talk is anon, and you will no doubt be aware that I disagree almost entirely with the contents. I'm curious as to who the author is, but I'm not going to make a song and dance about it, instead I may do an article in response, but that's another issue for another time. I think it's YOU and the witch-hunters that are inflaming the situation; it wasn't me that brought Mr Spencer into the thread, and I've never been particularly interested in who he is, as per the other authors of article that I mentioned above. Indeed, it now seems fairly clear that the author does not want to make his identity know, which is good enough for me, and should be to every other decent person. Let's face it, if the article had been extolling the virtues of restricted numbers, you and the witch-hunters would never have raised an eyebrow. Quote: Now you are telling the Cap that the paper is maybe protecting its source, I would agree if the source was not named. Surely anybody that advises a council cannot hide behind journalistic secrecy. I am sure that under the often quoted Freedom of Information, the Council involved would reveal all. My bet he did not do it for nothing so that info must be in the public domain.
What I meant about the paper protecting the source is regarding contact and other details, how on earth could I have possible meant the name if the name was in the article 
I haven't a clue what you are on about as regards the council. Are you saying that either David Spencer or the journalist was in the pay of the council? I took the tone of the article and the information provided by David Spencer as being anti-council, so why on earth would either be advising the council 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|