David Norris gets apology from Herald

MadsL

Missed this at the time; I see the Herald finally apologised. (sorry if this was already posted)



Is it time for timely right-of-reply legislation rather than lame apologies after the damage is done?

MyKeyG

MadsL wrote: »

Is it time for timely

You kind of answered your own question there.

Ellis Dee

I suspect that David Norris would not have bothered to reply to such mudslinging by a despicable rag. It's the kind of crap one expects from that publication, and those who read it and believe it have already made up their minds - or what passes for minds - in any case.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

MadsL

MyKeyG wrote: »

You kind of answered your own question there.

I meant immediate right of reply, rather than I blacken your character and then apologise 3 months later...

FreudianSlippers

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I suspect that David Norris would not have bothered to reply to such mudslinging by a despicable rag. It's the kind of crap one expects from that publication, and those who read it and believe it have already made up their minds - or what passes for minds - in any case.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Be careful... when you see the amount of posters on this very forum that refused to accept the truth of the matter (as now admitted by the Herald) when presented with logic and evidence; you'd be surprised.

efb

Anybody with half a brain would know that it wasn't SW he would have been entitled too

coylemj

efb wrote: »

Anybody with half a brain would know that it wasn't SW he would have been entitled too

Therein lies the problem, it's the people who don't know that who read the EH.

Spread

Private or not .......... how did he ever manage to hold onto this when he no longer seemed to be disabled? Do those people not have snoopers ......... not that they needed these as his attention seeking behaviour has propelled him to the front pages regularly.

FreudianSlippers

Spread wrote: »

Private or not .......... how did he ever manage to hold onto this when he no longer seemed to be disabled? Do those people not have snoopers ......... not that they needed these as his attention seeking behaviour has propelled him to the front pages regularly.

I'm not wanting to get into all this again, but they found he was unable to do the job he was in. It's nothing about being temporarily disabled or whatever.

MadsL

Spread wrote: »

Private or not .......... how did he ever manage to hold onto this when he no longer seemed to be disabled? Do those people not have snoopers

Do we have to explain how insurance works again, really??

......... not that they needed these as his attention seeking behaviour has propelled him to the front pages regularly.

One man's freedom fighter etc....

Could you tell me how you run for the highest office in the land without 'seeking attention'???