- This topic has 54 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 11:39 am on Feb. 3, 2007[br]It makes me p**s that people moan about handing over a quid fifty for a hundred pages of priceless data – ….. and then stick fifty quid on a losing favourite in the first at Plumpton.<br>
Couldn’t put it much better myself tbh!
Quote: from Lingfield on 9:41 pm on Feb. 2, 2007[br]Agree entirely that the owners appear to want to shed papers and that much of the columns are full of sycophantic,preserve the status quo nonsense e.g. the "save our Fallon" editorial campaign – little vision of the wider picture.
The Fallon case has polarised opinion like nothing else, not least on here. Many people agree with the decision to stop him riding here pending the criminal trial and many disagree. Why criticise the Post for taking a view? You obviously take the opposite one and that’s fine.
Quote: from Lingfield on 9:41 pm on Feb. 2, 2007[br]Incidentally it makes me smile the number of journos who visit racing web forums – presumably assessing the mood and plagiarising ideas as they are too lazy to think of their own.
I would like to see more journos and racing people in general on the forums. At least it shows they are taking an interest in the sport and are more likely to discuss current issues of concern.
Gus,
Of course the Post can take a view.
But might it then also remind its readers about any actual or perceived interest of its own in the matter?
Say, in relation to a libel action that might have been brought against it where a High Court Judge might have commented:
"it was hardly wise to publish material which could well form part of a prosecution case.   Moreover, it is not surprising that the Attorney-General should have expressed his concern at the possible prejudice to the course of justice."    ?
best regards
wit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.