Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...oh and the site slowness should now be fixed.
eerrmm uhh erm uhh-a-uhh a
I saw them [looking through my bins], and they weren't tramps. (They didn't look far off, though...)
he does seem a little naive on going from being very media savvy to then assuming things are off the record, though chronologically it's a bit difficult to folow and could be getting to know what's going on.
There was just a really odd moment about the commandments, some general enquiry lols and admissions of adultery from the inquirers i think muted laughs and mumblings. tbh i didn't really get it, some confusion over the commandment being referred to.
which is to keep Sunday holy and the seventh, which is about adultery. I think the committee were all admitting to having broken the fourth frequently, hence the laughter. Something like that.
'he chose the venue' : D
He's laying into PM a little here...i don't know how seriously he's taking this.
made me snort, it was delivered in THAT voice
burn them all with extreme prejudice
Shame they didn't have room to print that Jemima Khan has categorically denied this.
unless she insists she never spoke about the matter to anyone.
She said the first she heard about the story is when she read it in the paper.
The area of sources is hugely problematic, but generally considered to be of great importance to the notion of a free press. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act makes specific allowance for the protection of the sources.
It's pretty obvious he's not implying there's nothing good about anonymous sources!
And obviously, even though the principle might be the same, there is a massive difference between the Sun quoting 'a close pal of the star' and Woodward and Bernstein triple checking confidential information with people deep inside the administration. But there are kneejerk reactionaries who would like to do away with anonymous sources, or being able to take photos of people in public, or all sorts of other things with have ramifications far beyond a popstar covering up their affairs.
Anyone who wants to do away with anonymous sources can fuck right off. If celebrity tattle is the price we have to pay, so be it.
it's just telling you that the source regularly speaks to Jemima Khan but not that Khan supplied the information the source has given.
It implies it, obviously, but I assume it's enough to avoid legal problems.
whose round is it...?
when Leveson said *to bed, for we start at 10.*