Quote Originally Posted by Ragatino View Post
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/spor...manda-18419773

Revisited: takeover podcast.

This guy talks a lot of nonsense about the takeover.

They have a section from a Barrister who clearly define the legal scope of the ODT. That is how a board member can be accepted or rejected. Nothing else.

He then disagrees with the Barrister comments and says 'Perhaps he knows more about these things than me, I don't know.' Well, Luke, let me tell you. He does know more than you about these things and you, as a journalist is to report FACT not spout your own no-nothing-opinions.

Ridiculous.

He then poses fatuous questions, answers them then says that the answer may not be the case?

Follows on by apologising to those who's mental health may have been affected by the whole thing when he and his ilk are the ones heaping stress and anxiety on to those who are adversely affected psychologically by constantly printing garbage baseless, factless articles to pocket a few extra quid.

Hypocrite.
The problem with Luke Edwards, and many more like him, is that he can't decide whether to be decisive or indecisive. What a dilemma to be in.

Most journos are the same, they look at a story and decide which angle will be most controversial regardless of the facts and the truth and then go ahead and pump it out for figures and attention until it suits them to support the reverse argument.

Reminds me of our illustrious "Prime Minister" who when licking up to David Cameron a few years ago for a senior cabinet post declared himself to be a staunch remainer.

Oh how many gullible people were duped

The only thing you can say in his defence is that he would be slightly more preferable than Corbyn.

As with journos what a terrible choice to have to make.