pete 2,499 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I can't see the BBC saying they have a document they are relying on for a story if they haven't got it, or at least seen it. How often have the NOTW been in court for claiming things that weren't true or true but no evidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It seems to me the ban was for putting the company into liquidation so it may be argued that it was not strictly for his treatment of creditors and therefore he was not lying. I know that there's a knock-on effect but it's all getting pedantic. There's far bigger issues than whether he was technically banned for his treatment of creditors or something else and whether he was or was not actually lying. The BBC are really struggling if that is all they can come up with. The whole article is BS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.