In true tabloid fashion, the disclaimer acknowledging the story might be bollocks ...
[that no corroboration of the story has been received by the authors of the book & article and that their request for sight of the photo has been ignored and that the whole thing could just as easily be a case of mistaken identity or even an elaborate hoax and that even the prop said to be in the picture was not an uncommon find at parties attended by students at that university at that time]
... doesn't come until after the authors have told *only of their hearing of* the story themselves.
[Hearsay evidence - noun - (law) evidence based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what he has himself observed or experienced (not generally admissible as evidence)]
I'm left wondering whether I am intended to believe the photographer had their own darkroom, seeing as a roll of film with the implied image on it wouldn't be one you would readily entrust to the local chemist for processing or stick in a bag and bundle off to Bonusprint. Certainly not if you were rich, whichever side of the camera you had been.
I think whoever it was blocked Lord Ashcroft's appointment to Government made a good call.
Even if the allegation were to be completely true and blah, blah, blah, I am reassured that the eight million pounds donated by the author to the Conservative Party didn't buy him the level of influence he wanted it to. He appears far too spiteful.
No comments:
Post a Comment