Oh dear, it appears that Jeff may be learning an important lesson about political intrigue. When he posted this earlier. Somebody called Kate has pulled him up over the accuracy of some of the comments he posted about Malcolm Chisholm. He has offered to magnanimously post the other side of the tale if it is emailed to him, so no doubt I'll be back there later.
Jeff has said in his comments that he highly trusted the person who provided him with such tidbits. However, it is always worth either being able to verify the details from first hand experience or knowing that the person who provided the tidbits would indeed have access to such information. As an example I was certain enough about something recently before posting and nobody has denied that.
This is especially true at by election times. There are all sorts of rumours that fly around many of which I cannot be certain of and avoid writing up personally. Although being on the ground, seeing and hearing things in person, plus knowing the weight of reliability of some sources over others is a different matter altogether.
2 comments:
Well, I decided to gloss over it (for now) on my own blog but I didn't actually post any "comments" from Malcolm Chisholm.
The only issue that is up for denial is that he was locked out of his office. Not an easy thing to get confused about if someone mentions it to you (or for that matter, if that person is standing outside their party's office on a dark evening in Pilton twiddling their thumbs.)
We'll see what Kate has to say (I've not yet received the email) but suffice it to say, I've not learned this supposed "lesson" I have coming my way.
The suggestion that Labour are fighting like ferrets in a sack still stands.
Oh I'm not denying that they may well be fighting like ferrets in a sack.
They generally don't seem to have a flexible enough structure to enable them to cope with the various boundaries that are being drawn. My map for deliveries last night showed just how many boundaries differences there were.
Post a Comment