Quote: Mintball "I did not offer that link as reasons to strip Patnick of his knighthood.
Do try harder next time to follow a discussion.'"
I never said you did. I was following the discussion fine, and simply asking for evidence and/or reasoning, seeing as you weren't offering any.
Quote: Mintball "The 'reason' would be because someone in a position of authority should not simply go around passing on highly damaging hearsay as 'the truth'.
At best, he was/is a gullible imbecile.'"
You have no evidence that he did pass on hearsay as the truth. All you have is MacKenzie fingering him as his source.
Even if Patnick did offer rumours as fact, any decent journalist would have asked follow up questions to find out how deep his knowledge was. They'd have tried to find the police officers who made the initial allegations to determine when and where the incidents happened. They'd have been asking to see footage of the areas to determine that the accounts were accurate. An MP, who clearly wasn't at the event, is obviously not a reliable source to print the story. He should have simply been a starting point of an investigation, not the main source to a front page story.
Quote: Mintball "At worst, I suspect his worldview coloured his happiness at being told such things and he determined to make as much use of them as possible.'"
I suspect that your worldview colours your happiness so much that you are doing exactly what you accuse Patnick of doing.
The jury is out on Patnick until further evidence is offered. There's no proof he's done anything wrong.
But you and MacKenzie are pathetic examples of the journalistic profession.
