U.S President: Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Mick

Sigh, Sean Spicer did not make that claim. Very poor journalism given that GCHQ, rubbished the claims made by the Fox News commentator.

Sean Spicer only relayed what this commentator had said on Fox, he did not make any such claim by himself.

As the President's official spokesman, perhaps he should validate what a news organisation has said before repeating it.

Repeating something, especially if you are in a position of authority, validates it - it's not an excuse to say 'someone else said it first' (especially in libel cases... ).

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

What does Russian intelligence asset mean? Seems odd people on his team were talking to them?

I think we should all take a moment to congratulate GCHQ for their efforts in supporting democracy. And for being the first to spot the Russian links to Trump's team, we can be rightly proud of them. Well done.

Originally Posted by Hugh

As the President's official spokesman, perhaps he should validate what a news organisation has said before repeating it.

Repeating something, especially if you are in a position of authority, validates it - it's not an excuse to say 'someone else said it first' (especially in libel cases... ).

I disagree.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I disagree.

On to something that I hope we can all agree upon. Can we unleash the patriot in you to join me in congratulating the hardworking British men and women at GCHQ for being the first to spot the Russian links to Trump's team?

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

I disagree.

Melania Trump's lawyers disagree with you. She recently won damages and costs against the Mail Online and Daily Mail when they repeated incorrect allegations made against her.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

On to something that I hope we can all agree upon. Can we unleash the patriot in you to join me in congratulating the hardworking British men and women at GCHQ for being the first to spot the Russian links to Trump's team?

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

Melania Trump's lawyers disagree with you. She recently won damages and costs against the Mail Online and Daily Mail when they repeated incorrect allegations made against her.

She did not win, they settled out of court.

Either way we are not discussing any libel case though, so your analogy is irrelevant. I stand by my point that it was not Spicer who made any such claim. Answer is no to your other question because the Russian links story is getting tenuous.

Originally Posted by Mick

She did not win, they settled out of court.

The Daily Mail think they were in the wrong...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/arti...p-Apology.html

We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them. We apologise to Mrs Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs Trump's two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.

Either way we are not discussing any libel case though, so your analogy is irrelevant. I stand by my point that it was not Spicer who made any such claim. Answer is no to your other question because the Russian links story is getting tenuous.

I disagree...

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Daily Mail think they were in the wrong...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/arti...p-Apology.html

I don't care, it has absolutely no correlation to a claim made by Fox News commentator which was then quoted by Sean Spicer.

[papa smurf]

funny how the Daily Fail gets such a pounding for getting it all wrong all of the time

until it suits an agenda then it's a viable news source

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't care, it has absolutely no correlation to a claim made by Fox News commentator which was then quoted by Sean Spicer.

What is the difference between Sean Spicer repeating false information from Fox News and The Daily Mail and Mail Online repeating false information from a website?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

funny how the Daily Fail gets such a pounding for getting it all wrong all of the time

until it suits an agenda then it's a viable news source

Agree. Not just Daily Mail, other newspapers have had a bashing on this site, the guardian to name another. And now conveniently that they are Anti-brexit or Anti-Trump, they're rags of stories told by saints, as you say, because they align with a negative agenda and it's pathetic.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

Agree. Not just Daily Mail, other newspapers have had a bashing on this site, the guardian to name another. And now conveniently that they are Anti-brexit or Anti-Trump, it's a rag of stories told by saints, as you say, because they align with a negative agenda and it's pathetic.

The best thing is not to read such one sided tripe.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

The best thing is not to read such one sided tripe.

but if you only read the other side where does that leave you [is there a paper that is neutral]? and if any one suggests the FT i will puke

For me personally Trump has made some beginner's error's which is fine as politically he is a beginner and as he is spending longer in the job is realising that talk when your not in office and what has to be done when your in office are worlds apart. Has he made some unforced error's yes he has and it does no one any good trying to pretend he hasn't but he does appear to be slowly learning and may eventually become a decent president.

Originally Posted by denphone

The best thing is not to read such one sided tripe.

Or read it from both sides and then form a well informed view.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

but if you only read the other side where does that leave you [is there a paper that is neutral]? and if any one suggests the FT i will puke

Sadly 90 per cent of the newspapers are one sided now in their views whether its right or left as the days of neutral and independent journalism are sadly quite a rarity these days.