5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

 

 

 

Eh??

 

 

Double Eh?

10 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

 

 

It was video, of someone speaking.

"Posting an untrue video on social media that harms someone's reputation can be considered libel or slander, depending on the context. Libel refers to defamatory statements that are published or broadcast (like a video), while slander refers to spoken defamation. In the context of social media, a video would typically be considered libel because it's a permanent, recorded medium" So published therefore libel. The person speaking I assume would have been committed slander unless it was them that published the video. In am not legally qualified to say and I guess neither are you.

3 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

"Posting an untrue video on social media that harms someone's reputation can be considered libel or slander, depending on the context. Libel refers to defamatory statements that are published or broadcast (like a video), while slander refers to spoken defamation. In the context of social media, a video would typically be considered libel because it's a permanent, recorded medium" So published therefore libel. The person speaking I assume would have been committed slander unless it was them that published the video. In am not legally qualified to say and I guess neither are you.

To be honest I don't really care to nitpick. It can be slander or libel. Both are equally horrendous and it doesn't change the fact someone posted a completely fabricated story and posted a completely fabricated commentary to go with it.

Call it what you will, it makes no difference.

My post was not to argue of the definition of a word but to make the point that barramarra posted a lie that he can't back up and it should be removed because it is 100% false, dangerous (as others then spread it), and pretty vile.

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Fish all you want joe im not playing your game trying to bait me so i get a warning or a ban for breaking the rules but carry on.

Your fall back line whenever your lies are challenged. "Stop trying to bait me". 

I didn't insult you, I explained my position in nice language, why can't you respond in the same manner and explain your position? I assume you have conviction in what you say, so when challenged why not explain? It's what most other posters do and what a discussion forum is supposed to be about. No running away, hitting "report", or evading.

But I know I am wasting my effort, I don't think I have ever seen you respond to a challenge or question, ever - even when what you have posted is clearly explained is fake. So unlikely you will start now, but why not surprise us?

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

To be honest I don't really care to nitpick. It can be slander or libel. Both are equally horrendous and it doesn't change the fact someone posted a completely fabricated story and posted a completely fabricated commentary to go with it.

Call it what you will, it makes no difference.

My post was not to argue of the definition of a word but to make the point that barramarra posted a lie that he can't back up and it should be removed because it is 100% false, dangerous (as others then spread it), and pretty vile.

Just trying to educate you. If I make a mistake I am happy to be be put right by a more knowledgeable people. If in doubt do what I do and run it through Google first. Just take few minutes.

43 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Your fall back line whenever your lies are challenged. "Stop trying to bait me". 

I didn't insult you, I explained my position in nice language, why can't you respond in the same manner and explain your position? I assume you have conviction in what you say, so when challenged why not explain? It's what most other posters do and what a discussion forum is supposed to be about. No running away, hitting "report", or evading.

But I know I am wasting my effort, I don't think I have ever seen you respond to a challenge or question, ever - even when what you have posted is clearly explained is fake. So unlikely you will start now, but why not surprise us?

Look who is talking. When somebody suggests a better way of putting something over you shout nit picking. 

57 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Your fall back line whenever your lies are challenged. "Stop trying to bait me". 

I didn't insult you, I explained my position in nice language, why can't you respond in the same manner and explain your position? I assume you have conviction in what you say, so when challenged why not explain? It's what most other posters do and what a discussion forum is supposed to be about. No running away, hitting "report", or evading.

But I know I am wasting my effort, I don't think I have ever seen you respond to a challenge or question, ever - even when what you have posted is clearly explained is fake. So unlikely you will start now, but why not surprise us?

All you need to do is ignore my posts and move easy Joe. Iv'e come across many like you on older forums with the same game.

12 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Look who is talking. When somebody suggests a better way of putting something over you shout nit picking. 

I said I don't care, I am not arguing with you. The lady make a complete untrue accusation in her video. Slanderous. 

BM reposted it with a completely untrue commentary. Does that make the slander libelous? Or his libel slanderous?

Maybe you are right, in which case I defer. It really isn't worth losing a few posts over, I am not arguing about the semantics, it is not important.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

I said I don't care, I am not arguing with you. The lady make a complete untrue accusation in her video. Slanderous. 

BM reposted it with a completely untrue commentary. Does that make the slander libelous? Or his libel slanderous?

Maybe you are right, in which case I defer. It really isn't worth losing a few posts over, I am not arguing about the semantics, it is not important.

I wasn't really arguing about semantics. I didn't know what you were referring to, in fact I still don't. I haven't see the particular post of the video. It is difficult sometimes to keep abreast what is going on on these contentious threads. I was confused as to why something written here would be slanderous. Hence why I checked.

8 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

This is Sidiq Kahn Lord Mayor of London's response to the Attack by the Muslim brothers attack at Manchester Airport. Begs the question Who's side is he On.

 

Is this the video that you are referring to? Seems to me that as the original video was not an official police release but was leaked I assume by security at the airport or may be the police. But why somebody at the police would leak it when it contained the kick I don't know. But as the Mayor of London I fail to see why khan would choose to go public on an issue as serious as this without being in full possession of the facts. May be as the incident occurred in Manchester there would be reason for the Mayor of Manchester to comment but not the Mayor of London who has nothing to do with this incident. The only connection is that Khan of Pakistani descent was commenting to the arrest of two people of Pakistani descent in Manchester. Khan should not use his position as Mayor of London to make personal statements unless it was in private or personal circumstances. He is not and MP and he should keep his private thoughts to himself. Did he comment on Axel Rudakubana or Kyle Clifford, both who also committed very serious offenses back in July 2024. I guess not , I wasn't in the country in July 2024 so all my knowledge is what was published on the BBC. Seems to me that being the person in charge of policing in London Khan should keep his mouth shut about criticising the police and saying nothing about two violent offenders. Better still until this had gone to court say nothing at all.

This doesn't look good for the Manchester two. The two morons who cut down the tree on Hadrian's wall got 4 years and 3 months. I wonder what a violent assault of 4 people gets you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clymgm1v43vt

Strange Geof all reporting restrictions have been blocked so all MSM is not allowing whats happening in the Trial.

19 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Strange Geof all reporting restrictions have been blocked so all MSM is not allowing whats happening in the Trial.

More unsubstantiated nonsense from you. Where do you get this stuff from, seriously?

There has been live reporting all over the MSM throughout the trial. Court is adjourned until 10am tomorrow. Nothing has been blocked.

You live in a weird conspiracy bubble, you really do. 

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

More unsubstantiated nonsense from you. Where do you get this stuff from, seriously?

There has been live reporting all over the MSM throughout the trial. Court is adjourned until 10am tomorrow. Nothing has been blocked.

You live in a weird conspiracy bubble, you really do. 

It has been days since the BBC has reported on the case and it only seems to be the Manchester Evening New still reporting on the case. I wonder if somebody high up in the BBC has decided to censor this case.

 

24 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

It has been days since the BBC has reported on the case and it only seems to be the Manchester Evening New still reporting on the case. I wonder if somebody high up in the BBC has decided to censor this case.

 

Their last report was one day ago. That was the last time the court was in session.

Seriously, it's not hard to type something into Google and check before you shout "Conspiracy!", or "Censorshiiiiiiiiip"!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20n2lwljp2o

 

34 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

It has been days since the BBC has reported on the case and it only seems to be the Manchester Evening New still reporting on the case. I wonder if somebody high up in the BBC has decided to censor this case.

 

 A reporter mentioned it last night on local north news but could not broadcast what was said in court due to restrictions. Of course he will come back with lies and b/s. Geoff. 

19 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Their last report was one day ago. That was the last time the court was in session.

Seriously, it's not hard to type something into Google and check before you shout "Conspiracy!", or "Censorshiiiiiiiiip"!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20n2lwljp2o

 

I haven't found any BBC reports for over a week. The court has not been closed for that long. There were daily reports in the MEN up until the session closed and nothing on the BBC and believe me I searched. The UK page, the England page, and the NW England page, nothing. Why do you suppose that is when the MEN had stuff to report? Good for you for finding the report from the 14th. I was looking and found nothing. 

8 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

I haven't found any BBC reports for over a week. The court has not been closed for that long. There were daily reports in the MEN up until the session closed and nothing on the BBC and believe me I searched. The UK page, the England page, and the NW England page, nothing. Why do you suppose that is when the MEN had stuff to report? Good for you for finding the report from the 14th. I was looking and found nothing. 

So you admit there is no cover up then, right?

I can see all their almost daily reports from the courtroom. Maybe I have magic fingers? Or maybe I just looked?

 

29 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

 A reporter mentioned it last night on local north news but could not broadcast what was said in court due to restrictions. 

Almost daily updates are all on the BBC website if you care to look. Also everywhere else on news sites.

 

Quote

Of course he will come back with lies and b/s. Geoff. 

Ah, imagining conspiracies that will happen in the future again. Keep up the good work!
 

 

4 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Strange Geof all reporting restrictions have been blocked so all MSM is not allowing whats happening in the Trial.

43 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Their last report was one day ago. That was the last time the court was in session.

Seriously, it's not hard to type something into Google and check before you shout "Conspiracy!", or "Censorshiiiiiiiiip"!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20n2lwljp2o

 

 

Also refusing to respond to any post that points out your errors, points out the flaws in your conspiracies, points out your blatant lies. Don't go changing!
 

Just keep spewing them out! 

Of course there is no report from today as 1) it is early morning in the UK. 2) the court is not in session again until tomorrow.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Almost daily updates are all on the BBC website if you care to look. Also everywhere else on news sites.

 

Ah, imagining conspiracies that will happen in the future again. Keep up the good work!
 

 

 

Also refusing to respond to any post that points out your errors, points out the flaws in your conspiracies, points out your blatant lies. Don't go changing!
 

Just keep spewing them out! 

Of course there is no report from today as 1) it is early morning in the UK. 2) the court is not in session again until tomorrow.

Oh believe me I have been searching the BBC news site daily and on days when the MEN the BBC news site that I access had not had any reports on the case. That included searching the UK page, the England page and the NW England page. Yes it will be great if you don't post any of your offensive responses.

3 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Oh believe me I have been searching the BBC news site daily and on days when the MEN the BBC news site that I access had not had any reports on the case. That included searching the UK page, the England page and the NW England page. Yes it will be great if you don't post any of your offensive responses.

Cool. And it would be great if you and barra didn't post your completely false conspiracy nonsense. If you stop doing that, I can stop replying to point it out. Deal?

Go to the BBC website, use the search box, type in "Manchester Airport".

And to help because I am nice, here is the MEN live update page for the trial, just follow it and refresh it when the court is in session. OK?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-police-assault-trial-32006497

You don't need to send me the MEN links its is the MEN that I am getting to news on this case from now on. I reiterate I have not seen any high lighted BBC News reports on the UK page of the news or the England page or the NW England page for a number of days. Sorry I don't go searching in the dregs of the BBC archive. This in an important case and as such the BBC should at least have it as a news item on the England page.

51 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

You don't need to send me the MEN links its is the MEN that I am getting to news on this case from now on. I reiterate I have not seen any high lighted BBC News reports on the UK page of the news or the England page or the NW England page for a number of days. Sorry I don't go searching in the dregs of the BBC archive. This in an important case and as such the BBC should at least have it as a news item on the England page.

Ah ok, so we gone from "it's a cover up" to "I don't like the placement".

I have had no trouble coming across the reports on "MSM". Believe it or not in a five week trial there will be days of mundanity with not much to say. Why would every single day be up there right on the home page? That would be ridiculous. There are other things going on in the world and in the UK. But it has not been hidden, buried, censored or deleted. No one from up high has told them not to show it - it's all there, ugly violent videos and all.

Bad as it undoubtedly is, a man punching police officers is not international news, it is local news. This is bigger because it was in an airport and the officers were armed. And obviously because there are many bandwagon jumpers involved, but essentially it is being reported as such a case should be. Local news is giving minute-by-minute courtroom updates, national news reports when something interesting happens.

 

Quote

It has been days since the BBC has reported on the case and it only seems to be the Manchester Evening New still reporting on the case. I wonder if somebody high up in the BBC has decided to censor this case.

 

 

9 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Bad as it undoubtedly is, a man punching police officers is not international news, it is local news. This is bigger because it was in an airport and the officers were armed. And obviously because there are many bandwagon jumpers involved, but essentially it is being reported as such a case should be. Local news is giving minute-by-minute courtroom updates, national news reports when something interesting happens.

 

 

oh here we go, not International news, blah blah blah. I said UK, England and NW West England. You are the one making it and International story. And yes this, I think, is one of the most important national stories at the moment, that and the boat people. 

Let's see what is on the England page today:

Top England News story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0qvx52z01o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c14eyexp7mvt

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75ryqkw4reo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20xvv1re0o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20xvv1re0o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0pm2n9lno

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7n3n7zjzno

 

The third most important story in England by the BBC is a boy throwing a seat from the top floor of the Westfield shopping centre. It narowly missed shoppers. But guess what the video that was taken went viral. Seventh most important is Le Pong, the French sending us their stinky gas as well as their illegal migrants. Ok probably not the French's fault the wind is blowing this way. The case of the girl killed by the falling branch was tragic and unnecessary. The Sycamore tree felling is very important to a lot of people so rightfully there. So there you have it, the most important News items in England today, according to the BBC.

42 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Bad as it undoubtedly is, a man punching police officers is not international news, it is local news. This is bigger because it was in an airport and the officers were armed. And obviously because there are many bandwagon jumpers involved, but essentially it is being reported as such a case should be. Local news is giving minute-by-minute courtroom updates, national news reports when something interesting happens.

Seriously? "A man punching police officers"? Not sure why you're playing it down so much. 

 

Two men beat the crap out of several police officers at a major airport (heightened security risks etc.). All caught on video.

 

This is one of the most talked about and eagerly awaited trials in recent history! Why should we need to use the search function on BBC website to find it?

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Seriously? "A man punching police officers"? Not sure why you're playing it down so much. 

 

Two men beat the crap out of several police officers at a major airport (heightened security risks etc.). All caught on video.

 

This is one of the most talked about and eagerly awaited trials in recent history! Why should we need to use the search function on BBC website to find it?

I am glad I am not the only one finding the whole case bizarre. Happened at the busiest International Airport in the UK outside of London. Armed police officers who would been expected to deal with a terrorist incident, not a couple of run of mill thugs. And yet some people think it is unimportant. The most bizarre aspect of this whole business is that the two thugs think that they have done nothing wrong. Truly amazing.

27 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

I am glad I am not the only one finding the whole case bizarre. Happened at the busiest International Airport in the UK outside of London. Armed police officers who would been expected to deal with a terrorist incident, not a couple of run of mill thugs. And yet some people think it is unimportant. The most bizarre aspect of this whole business is that the two thugs think that they have done nothing wrong. Truly amazing.

No one has said it is unimportant. It is important, as is any case of extreme violence against police officers.

It has been reported as such. Covered at length by national news broadcasters, national newspapers, and minute by minute in local news.

6 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

No one has said it is unimportant. It is important, as is any case of extreme violence against police officers.

It has been reported as such. Covered at length by national news broadcasters, national newspapers, and minute by minute in local news.

You conveniently ignore the fact that it was overlooked for a whole year. And we are only now finding out what actually happened, like the assault in Starbucks that was very conveniently swept under the carpet. But the stamp the head was top news.

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Seriously? "A man punching police officers"? Not sure why you're playing it down so much. 

 

Two men beat the crap out of several police officers at a major airport (heightened security risks etc.). All caught on video.

 

This is one of the most talked about and eagerly awaited trials in recent history! 

One of the most eagerly awaited trails in recent history? Really??  Only because of their religion, and only by a certain segment of society.

I am following it because I want to see them found guilty and sentenced to jail. But it's hardly crime of the century in the overall scheme of things is it. One of the most eagerly awaited trials in recent history - get a grip.

 

Quote

Why should we need to use the search function on BBC website to find it?

You don't have to. It's been on their front page several times. If you think it should be there every single day of a five week trial then you have ridiculous expectations, especially the last couple of days when the court has not even been in session! Have a report on the front page? "Today, nothing happened, the end."

It is tiring repeating all this over and over. As I said before first it was "why no arrests". Then when they were arrested it was "why no charges". Then they are charged. Then, "why no trial?" Then a trial starts. Then it became "why is the trial not in the media or "MSM" - someone at the BBC is covering it up". Oh wait, it has been widely reported in the BBC and all the national media. Then it's "why is it not prominent enough". Because nothing is currently happening.  When does it stop? Constant moving of goalposts.

When the trial is over if it gets buried then come back and I will join you in outrage, until then just let justice take its course without the daily conspiracy theories (which have so far all been proven to be false).

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

You conveniently ignore the fact that it was overlooked for a whole year. And we are only now finding out what actually happened, like the assault in Starbucks that was very conveniently swept under the carpet. But the stamp the head was top news.

It wasn't overlooked for a whole year! We've been through this several times. It was moving through several investigations from several bodies and since December through the criminal justice system.