Spectator/Douglas Murray - 1 Lying YouTuber - 0
Discussion
"For a long time, Mohammed Hijab has bullied the British press, threatening publications and outlets who crosses him with crushing lawsuits. The Spectator, rightly, did not bow to his pressure."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectator-...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectator-...
"But messages that he relied on for these claims ‘have the appearance of being contrived for the purpose of these proceedings,’ the judge said. They addressed Hegab formally, despite coming from people who knew him well; they blamed the article; and they ‘provided material that would be necessary to support a claim for financial losses…when one might not generally expect such detail.’ They also arrived at ‘roughly the same time, which was several weeks after the article, but very shortly before a letter of claim was sent’."
Wow.
Wow.
Yertis said:
Al Gorithum said:
I despise the Spectator but am pleased about this victory over the parasite.
Why is that? I've been considering subscribing but my reading time is already a bit stretched.
t crazy policies. The Spectator can hardly be considered an example of good journalism.
What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
Edited by fizz47 on Tuesday 5th August 16:03
fizz47 said:
The Spectator can hardly be considered an example of good journalism.
What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
Hmmmm… How does it compare with say ‘Spiked’ or ‘Unherd’?What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
Edited by fizz47 on Tuesday 5th August 16:03
Another gem from Douglas Murray.
Apart from the witnesses who failed to apear for Hijab - having become too ill or having left the country - another witness - "Mr Wasway from Nature’s Blends – had to try to explain his recent conviction and time spent in prison for making false court claims after staging car accidents."
Quality!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-victory-ove...
Apart from the witnesses who failed to apear for Hijab - having become too ill or having left the country - another witness - "Mr Wasway from Nature’s Blends – had to try to explain his recent conviction and time spent in prison for making false court claims after staging car accidents."
Quality!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-victory-ove...
BikeBikeBIke said:
"But messages that he relied on for these claims ‘have the appearance of being contrived for the purpose of these proceedings,’ the judge said. They addressed Hegab formally, despite coming from people who knew him well; they blamed the article; and they ‘provided material that would be necessary to support a claim for financial losses…when one might not generally expect such detail.’ They also arrived at ‘roughly the same time, which was several weeks after the article, but very shortly before a letter of claim was sent’."
Wow.
That was the bit that stood out for me. Wow.
Surely that is criminal in itself? And deserves more than 'just' being called out by the judge.
It's fraud isn't it?.
fizz47 said:
The Spectator can hardly be considered an example of good journalism.
What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
Yawn, bored of posting on the Israeli thread then?What it routinely offers is little more than opinion pieces masquerading as fact, often loaded with inflammatory rhetoric.
Writers like Douglas Murray are repeat offenders, known for peddling insensitive and divisive commentary on race, religion, and gender thinly veiled as thought-provoking analysis
The same individuals who churn out these so-called articles are often the first to cry foul when challenged or when the public discourse turns against them. They champion free speech until it no longer serves their agenda.
But like any other publication aligned with your views then people will always take it as fact and no different than articles on the other side of the spectrum.
ETA: no fan of the hijab fellow so not sticking up for him and his foolishness.
Edited by fizz47 on Tuesday 5th August 16:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff