Here’s a test for you...

What, even though you posted it in reply to SuperTyke’s quote, and then made a point of putting ‘you’ in bold?

 

Again
Read the words
Happy to send an adult round to explain the longer words if necessary

 

I took it as you meaning that which is why I didn't reply to such a stupid post

 

Aye, I’m not the brightest. I’m guessing my academic achievements lag well behind yours.

I wouldn’t be allowed to let him in, he’d have to explain it through the letterbox ;-)

If you can’t see that the way you typed it made it look like a specific accusation to SuperTyke, then I’m sorry, I can’t help you.

 

Happy to send an adult round.

 

Let’s have a look how this statement works...
it starts with ‘if you’; so that means if you have done any of these things the following applies; but if not, then it doesn’t apply.

I didn’t expect to be having to explain ‘if’ at 11 on a Monday; we do live in strange times.

 

Bloody hell ST, someone from Donny is taking the piss out of your intellectual capability. Next week Stephen Hawking will be laughing at your running style.

 

In fairness I am a **** runner

 

What. !!! Your making your own assumptions there .
If that had been Corbyn you would have had the pitch forks out .
It’s reported in a paper he’s said it I doubt a paper would print that without some sort of Idea .
He’s denied it do your taking his word for it and dismissing cos he’s denied it .
As someone once said about Corbyn why isn’t he suing the paper then ?
It suits to witch Hunt one person whilst protecting another on similar grounds ?
It isn’t proved he’s said it and it isn’t proved he hasn’t but your theory’s right and others are wrong ?
The butt kisding of this lot is sickening but they’ll get their comeuppance theirs rumblings in their own backbenchers so something’s amiss and it’ll come out .

 

And every leaked comment via an inside source is always false. Obviously.

 

Without wishing to belittle the Archbishop of Canterbury in any way at all, I'd rather take guidance from Bert, Ernie and the Cookie Monster than Nigel Farage.

 

If there was any real substance iwhy would the source be 'unnamed'.? 'Tittte-tattle', 'Gossip' and innuendo without proof are not 'News' Papers should report facts based on proof and evidence not become like social media where chinese whispers are much in evidence.

 

Plenty of unnamed sources are correct. Plenty aren't.
You have to use balanced judgement on the situation in each case.
Whistleblowers are unnamed sources in many instances. Are they all liars too?

 

Prime example: Watergate.

The Times is fairly well connected inside the government, a good number of them used to work for it after all.

 

True that Woodward and Bernstein from the Washington Post relied heavily on anonymous whistleblowersin uncovering the truth, including 'Deep Throat'. However, comparing the complex multiple illegal activities leading to the resignation of Nixon (before he would have been impeached ) and the arrest of high profile people within the Government and the forensic way in which W&B went about their investigation corroborating information from multiple 'witnesses' and the way the events unfoilded and more and more hard evidence came to light hardly compares to lazy journalism i.e. running a story from one unnamed source alleging someone said something offensive at a private meeting .
Plenty of allegations have been made about McDonnell and Corbyn, many of which their supporters label as politically motivated smears which is probably a correct analysis.
Poeple choose to believe only what they want to believe when it comes to the rumour mill and that which fits in with their beliefs.