1/3 Re my last tweet/story. @covtelegraph 2013 removed &chopped down my story as it didn't want to challenge Lucas claim ACL "v profitable"
2/3 @covtelegraph editor also did deal with @coventrycc chief Martin Reeves to suppress £14m Ricoh bailout story in Jan '13 until deal done
3/3 2 examples of public interest journalism suppressed. Shame Cov Tel didn't want all sides properly challenged on #ccfc/Ricoh.More to come
Yep, although isn't that the kind of stuff that lands you in court if incorrect?
i guess he has the evidence to back it up as cov telegraph wud of sued him if not! i imagine itll all come out one day
Seems like an
appropriate time to to share this again: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/coven...uggestions-paper-has-been-gagged-and-censored
Seems like an appropriate time to to share this again: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/coven...uggestions-paper-has-been-gagged-and-censored
You would think so wouldn't you, that's why I put strong claims as that is the kind of stuff you get in trouble for.
He also told us that things would come out at the JR that didn't exist. Or was that just RFC? I get the two confused, they are pretty similar...
I know you aren't the editor or the council boss, but did it happen if you are allowed to say?
Not to my knowledge since I've been at the Telegraph. And not before according to fellow NUJ members who have been with the paper longer. Hence the statement.
Personally, and professionally, I always think evidence adds weight to any claims of wrongdoing. It certainly helps to have some if you're ever pulled up for libel.
Do you think the telegraph / CCC will be taking action against that sort of claim? You know them better than most.
Do you think the telegraph / CCC will be taking action against that sort of claim? You know them better than most.
If they do you must be on the list too for republishing it on an open forum.
How does it go again? Something along the lines of if we sue this journalist for saying something we don't like we'll have to sue you as well. I'd find a good lawyer if I was you.
Finally, I've all evidence in writing from company to support my claims tweeted today. More to come. Any1 who claims otherwise, be v careful
Why do you think I am askingSo I can hover near the delete button if needed.
Strictly speaking, repeating defamatory claims is libel. That includes retweets or copying and pasting on to a forum.
The burden of proof is also on the accuser, not the victim.
Just for guidance of course!
Patiently waiting for the 'Sting in the Tail'!
Nick said:Les Reid said:[h=2][/h]Finally, I've all evidence in writing from company to support my claims tweeted today. More to come. Any1 who claims otherwise, be v careful
Presumably the Telegraph is free to print whatever it wishes?
I was under the impression that we have press freedom in the UK and the Telegraph is under no obligation to print Reid's ranting's.
Some strange ideas on freedom of the press there.
If, as said, stories questioning CCC were suppressed by the Telegraph for CCC, then would be the direct opposite of press freedom I'd have thought.
Strictly speaking, repeating defamatory claims is libel. That includes retweets or copying and pasting on to a forum.
The burden of proof is also on the accuser, not the victim.
What? So press freedom means a newspaper has to print everything?
To me freedom means you have the choice to do something or not do something. If that is strange to you then I don't really know what to say.
Is there not a way to report things like this, can't you just say Fred is claiming this and then quote something. That's not saying you think it's true is it, or does posting / reporting it in any form leave you open to problems?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?