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
Login
Register
FAQ
and others joined in with the frenzy. 