(04-17-2020, 09:41 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:(04-17-2020, 05:10 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(04-17-2020, 03:52 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: That said I cannot day for certain he didn’t simply ring the BBC up to get the number and neither can anyone else.
Another case of arguing a point that wasn't asked! Of course you can't say for certain - you're not him!
If you really believe there is any possibility that it's true, then you're in effect saying it's possible he's mind-blowingly stupid, because surely we can agree that the only certainty we have is that anybody who can't find a phone number and thinks the only way left is phoning the BBC is certainly mind-blowingly stupid.
I sincerely hope he's not, or that trust is seriously in the shit. So I'd prefer to think he's lying for the 'greater good'.
Why you should cling to this is beyond me - It smacks of somebody who can't ever admit they're wrong!
The rest (which is more important) of what you say I mostly agree with. It just shows how one lie can completely overshadow the message.
Oops
In all fairness, I can see why everybody would have taken it on face value. It didn't occur to me either that the BBC would be so unprofessional.
To be honest, I'm relieved. If he had said it, it didn't look good either way. It's probably the best outcome.
You've got to worry about the fact-checking of the BBC. Didn't they even cross reference his name or call him back at work to ensure they'd got who they thought they had?
That was obviously going to be big news, especially the way it had been framed. Certain politicians are going to have a field day with this.