DuxDeluxe
LIFE MEMBER
Yes indeed I did, but you have gone slightly out of context.....Sorry mate, I thought you mentioned 'facts'?
My quote:
I think that the difference is between stating facts (xyz group trashed abc carpark by leaving rubbish after they camped illegally there) and broad sweeping statements (shoot the lot of the thieving swine). The second statement is not acceptable and it is this sort of thing that we all must steer clear of. The internet is a very public place - there is a difference between "closed" and "confidential"
Unquote
Just saying that we must be careful to quote facts.
The second mention of facts
Here I am saying that the existence of the report was fact not necessarily the report itself, which in any case had presumably been passed by the legal staff.Well, it was written in a newspaper with a decent reputation for finding good verifiable stories, not least of which was the parliamentary expenses scandal. If it is good enough to pass their libel lawyers then it is good enough for me. It has also been reported in the Guardian, Independent, ITV news and Sky news. I would call the report of the investigation fact not supposition as it is in writing clear for all to see in print