- Date published:
11:09 am, June 28th, 2010 - 63 comments
Categories: accountability, Media - Tags: brian edwards, chris carter, duncan garner, margaret bazley
I’m not going sides in the dispute between Brian Edwards and Duncan Garner over Garner’s targeting of Chris Carter. I think Edwards is wrong to attack Garner’s general worthiness as a political editor, he is one of our best journos, and I think Garner is wrong to attack Edwards’ politics rather than responding to the legitimate issues raised. The level of behaviour all round is unimpressive. The only one who comes out looking good is Margaret Bazley:
It is no secret around Parliament that, roughly 11 months ago, Garner and Carter had a verbal stoush in the Auckland Koru Club. Following the release of the report detailing the 2008 travel expenses of Labour Ministers, Garner had run a TV3 story alleging that Carter was a big-spending Minister whose travel could not be justified in what was essentially a domestic portfolio – Education. The story also referred to Carter’s long-time partner and travelling companion, Peter Kaiser, and included the name of the primary school of which Kaiser is principal.
Not surprisingly, there was bad blood between the two men. Carter and Darren Hughes were in the Koru Club waiting for their flight to Wellington to be called when Garner approached them. He is reported as having said, â€˜Travelling on the fucking taxpayer again, Chris.’ Carter told him to â€˜fuck off!’
Carter had already taken his seat on the plane when Garner, who had boarded later, stopped next to him, jabbed his finger into Carter’s chest and said loudly, â€˜I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.’ Sitting directly behind Carter was Dame Margaret Bazley. Appalled by what she had heard, she commented loudly, â€˜What a disgraceful man. You don’t have to put up with rubbish like that on a plane, Mr Carter.’ Garner moved on down the plane.
Though his Christmas deadline was ambitious, Garner appears to have been as good as his word. Just over 3 months later, in the April 7 post, Duncan Garner on Chris Carter – Journalism or Personal Campaign?, I wrote:
â€˜Garner has now run four stories on Carter’s overseas travel. All four have featured pictures from the Civil Union, mentioning Kaiser’s name and on at least one occasion the name of the school at which he is Principal.
â€˜Garner’s coverage of Carter’s international travel has begun to take on the complexion of a personal campaign to discredit the MP. In a different context, it would constitute harassment.
â€˜If I am wrong, I invite Duncan Garner to respond to this blog and, providing nothing in it is defamatory, I undertake to publish that response unedited.
â€˜If I’m right, TV3 should be considering whether their Political Editor is fit to hold the job.’
Garner did not take up my invitation to deny that he was running a personal campaign to discredit Chris Carter.
I do not want to revisit the issue of Carter’s excessive international travel. He has apologised for the second time. Labour leader Phil Goff has declared himself satisfied with that apology. He has his pound of flesh.
Instead, I want to direct the following questions to TV3â€² Head of News and Current Affairs, Mark Jennings:
*Would you consider it acceptable for a Political Editor to say to a Member of Parliament, â€˜I am going to fucking get you. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.’?
*Could you continue to have confidence in a the integrity and impartiality of a Political Editor who said these words to a Member of Parliament?
*Will you now make enquiries to establish whether your Political Editor, Duncan Garner, did say these words to Chris Carter?
*If those enquiries reveal that Garner did in fact say these words to Chris Carter, will you continue to employ him?
[Oh, and one other silly little enquiry while I’m at it: Why was there a shot of a semi-naked man going into a sauna in last night’s coverage of the Carter apology? Just struck me as a bit queer.]
I have never denied there was an incident between myself and Chris, indeed I told everyone about it at the time because I was shocked that Chris would call me by a four letter word – that your version of this story doesn’t reflect.
Unfortunately your version of it is very, very wrong and you do yourself no favours.
You have relied on the word of Chris Carter and even Phil Goff can’t rely on that.
Yes Darren Hughes was there and he will confirm what happened if people wish to approach him.
Darren may even wish to write on this site?
But why rely on my word? Surely the Chief Whip, Mr Hughes will launch a defence of the incident for Mr Carter. Or will he?
I bet he doesn’t. Because Carter behaved disgracefully in the Koru Club that evening and provoked the incident.
I will consider posting the full version on the 3News website tomorrow. I certainly won’t do it here to satisfy former broadcaster and Labour Party raffle ticket seller Brian Edwards.
Because Brian, I am not going to give you the pleasure of writing it on your site. Before you publish your version, you should check your facts – you will be very embarrassed shortly. Once again, in your attempt to defend your Labour mate – you will drag this on and perhaps back into the public arena. Just what Labour needs. What a media strategist you are!!!!
Your version is simply wrong on so many fronts – you expose yourself once again as a sham and a Labour Party hack.
And an increasingly unemployed one at that. Why is Labour now using other â€˜mediatrainers’ and not you?
Once again I will consider putting my version on the 3 News website tomorrow.
But one more thing Brian. I also notice that your claim I attacked Chris was because I hated gays and was homophobic? Even Chris says that’s not true now. So where does all this leave your wimpering campaign against me? In tatters.
Once again, rather than taking my word, why doesn’t Darren Hughes post on here now about the Koru Club incident?
Don’t take my word Brian, take his.
Like you challenged me to front to defend myself – I am inviting Darren to tell the full story, to defend Chris. I somehow think he won’t .. but I’m waiting ..
Duncan, I’m not going to respond to your infantile insults. But I will correct some of the things you’ve said in your comment.
I’m not particularly inerested in what was said in the Koru Club. I said in the post that Carter told you to â€˜fuck off’. If he used a stronger four-letter word, it makes very little difference. Both of you behaved badly. And, as I also said in the post, â€˜Not surprisingly, there was bad blood between the two men.’ Which is why I did not write about this incident at the time.
I have never said that you â€˜hated gays’. This is what I said in the post of April 7:
â€˜There was a barely disguised homophobia in those earlier television reports of Carter’s allegedly spendthrift approach to taxpayer subsidised travel. Considerable emphasis was placed on the fact that he was often accompanied on overseas trips by his partner, Peter Kaiser. Shots of the couple drinking champagne at their Civil Union appeared in almost every story, while photographs of the wives or husbands of other MPs and cabinet ministers on â€˜overseas jaunts’ rarely if ever appeared.’
I stand by that. But you might like to explain to me the relevance of the shot in Friday’s 3 News bulletin on Carter’s apology of a half naked man going into a sauna.
Finally, Duncan, the post you complain of, was headed â€˜Incident on an Air New Zealand Flight’. What the post was about is your allegedly having said to Carter, â€˜â€˜I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.’ If I were in your shoes, I would consider this the more damaging allegation made about you. Yet not only is there no denial of this event in your reply to me, it is not even mentioned. I would consider that admission by omission. If in fact Carter â€˜behaved disgracefully’ to you in the Koru Club before the flight, then you may well feel that what you are alleged to have said to him on the plane was understandable. But it is no less unacceptable from the political editor of a major television network.
Why write another post on this that just cuts and pastes the links from Sprout’s post?
[lprent: You’re assuming that there is an editorial policy – which doesn’t exist. It is a coop blog – not a news organisation. The authors usually write independently and post independently. Consequently it isn’t unusual to get two or more posts on the same topic quite close together on a breaking story. Sometimes the authors even agree with each other.
See the about. ]
[Just some context, for example, this post of Eddie’s was written and scheduled last night, Sprout’s post germinated this morning and was posted right away. It’s cheerful chaos back here in the engine room! — r0b]
[sprout: my mistake, i should’ve read the scheduled posts more carefully in the first place – apologies to eddie]
I guess it’s better to have been a ‘Labour Party raffle ticket seller’ than to be a Crosby|Textor lap dog: ‘Jump Duncan’; Duncan jumps and it seems, this time, lands in a mess of his own making.
Not really a good look for Garner. Not as professional as he should be.
Yeah, I thought it was pathetic when Duncan broke the “secret National tapes” story. Crosby Textor fed that story to him, obviously.
Not really a good look for Garner. Not as professional as he should be.
The professional media are supposed to be unbiased. It is understandable when the amateur blogs (like this one,Red Alert, Kiwiblog, or Gotcha!) run a campaign against an individual but for a professional news organisation to do so is unacceptable.
I think it’s not only understandable but perfectly acceptable for a blog to campaign against someone – they wear their bias on their sleeves. the problem for garner here is that he has revealed a big bias and his work requires him to be considered objective.
“but for a professional news organisation to (run a campaign against an individual) is unacceptable.”
You’re kidding me on aren’t you? Which individual should we begin with in an illustrative list that would be as long as a ‘soft, strong and very, very, very long’ roll of bog paper.
One of the interesting things about this story is that you guys seem to have forgotten that it was Duncan Garner who ran a number of stories in 2008 regarding secret taping at the National Party conference. The Standard had multiple posts prior to the 08 election based on Garner’s revelations via Kees Kiezer.
All that this shows is that Garner runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds, as do most political journalists. If he publicly made the statement he is alleged to have made to Carter, than is a serious lapse in judgment, and unprofessional. But it’s stretching credibility for the left to accuse Garner having an agenda against Labour when the left was happy to use Garner as an authoirty on National’s so-called “secret agenda”.
Sorry guys; you can’t have it both ways
The suggestion is it’s an agenda against Carter, not Labour.
I2, if you are saying Garner put the taper up to the caper then you’d have a point. But the way I understand it, the taper drip fed the tapes to Garner, leaving Garner in the position of “do I run an exclusive or do I not run the story and let my competitors have an exclusive’
Which is a decision even Garner can get right, even on a bad day.
In other words, this…
“based on Garner’s revelations via Kees Kiezer.”
…is completely arse backwards.
Yes this does not appear to be an agenda against Labour. In fact for that matter the Kees Keizer recordings were not an agenda against National. If anything the use of a mole to secure embarrassing quotes made Labour look bad.
Considering that Labour didn’t actually have anything to do with it – no it didn’t.
And if someone had revealed that the guy taping National Party conversations was a senior political editor who had a grudge against Bill English, we might have been having a similar conversation then. The fact is that the two situations compare like apples and oranges.
have to side with the doctor on this one.
garner is a lightweight with heavyweight pretensions.
where did he come from and how did he get his present position is the question.
garners politics are the politics of personality and envy so he should take it on the chin when the chickens come home to rosst.
garner should get a real job and be a man about it.
This appears to be Garner V Carter with Venom. (Not Labour.)
In 2008 it was Garner V W. Peters with Venom. (TV 3 Meet the Leaders.)
Gladiatorial combat it should not be, especially when the defence is denied.
This whole incident demonstrates both the quality of the media and politicians. Both sides need to get out of the mud and pick up their game.
An interesting parallel with the resignation of reporter Dave Weigel from the Washington Post. Weigel quit because of leaked personal emails in which he was scathing about the intellectual capacity of Tea Party activists and Republican staffers. His job was to monitor the conservative movement in the states and their was no serious complaint about bias in the actual articles he wrote, but it was clear his personal feeling was that the people he was reporting on were idiots.
(not a big fan of the Huffington, just the first article that came up when I googled it)
Weigel handed in a resignation letter on the basis that the mere perception of possible bias was enough to render his job untenable. Compare that with Garner, who has admitted targetting Carter, but doesn’t seem to realise that renders him totally and completely unsuitable to fill the senior political reporter role. With a bit of luck, his employers will understand what he doesn’t, and sack him.
Well found and well put VOR.
Richard Harmon has come out in defence of the Garners bias.
If it is OK for the PM to blur accountability then it seeps through others. It is a sort of decay of integrity.
I think he’s watched All The Presidents Men too many times and fancies himself as Woodward/Bernstein type, when in reality he is more Azamat Bagatov from Borat.
So many on this site think I need to resign because I’m biased against Labour. What a load of horse shit. Which stories have I done on Carter that don’t stack up on the facts?
If I had a dollar for everytime some said I was biased towards a political party I’d be in the Wairarapa blogging and growing grapes and wondering how to spend the dosh.
In 2008 I was accused of being in Labour’s pockets. Now I’m apparently anti Labour. It doesn’t stack up guys.You can’t have it both ways. You know it. Ask Phil Goff if I’m biased towards one party? Ask John Key? Ask Helen Clark? Ask Jim Bolger? Ask Jenny Shipley?
[lprent: There is a good probability that this is a fake Duncan Garner. ]
[lprent: Checked and the e-mail is correct. ]
No, I think it’s more because you appear to be a homophobic lightweight with an axe to grind, Duncan. I haven’t spotted that many comments saying you are ‘biased against labour’ and should therefore resign. If you think it is acceptable journalistic practise to target a person in this way, then more fool you. It’s not ethical, it lets down your viewers and your employer and calls into question the impartiality of you and your colleagues.
Just for the hell of it, can I ask you to clarify what remarks you said to Carter? And did you assault him? If you have said anything like ‘I’m going to get you’ or pushed the man, as alleged, you should do the decent thing and resign. At least Carter eventually got round to acknowledging his mistakes. Can you?
Ask Phil Goff if I’m biased towards one party? Ask John Key? Ask Helen Clark? Ask Jim Bolger? Ask Jenny Shipley?
You get real. Unless you’re gonna give me their numbers so i can ask them it aint gonna happen.
besides I’m sure they got better things to do than talk about you.
“So many on this site think I need to resign because I’m biased…. What a load of horse shit. Which stories have I done on Carter that don’t stack up on the facts?”
Please tell me that isn’t all you think bias amounts to?
I think you need to be sacked (not resign) because you haven’t backed off and let someone else cover stories about a person who you have an obvious personal issue with, and cannot be trusted to cover objectively, and have left yourself open to accusations of a set-up, regardless of whether your program had an excuse to run the story, or even if it’s factual. There were already objections to the framing of the issue as gay-bashing before the personal conflict was in the public square.
What this boils down to is that there is an incredible lack of journalistic ethic in our print and television news, and you’re just part of the problem. I could care less if it was Labour, National, (although for some strange reason, the press is always on best behaviour with National) New Zealand First, or the National Front that you were covering. You have a professional obligation to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. What’s really depressing is that you seem to need bloggers to lecture you on the fact.
As to asking (former) PMs if you’re biased- that’s a laugh, they’d be seen as whining if they answered in the affirmative, so it’s a rather pointless exercise. In a functional media market, you’d be responsible to media critics, but we don’t bother with that sort of thing in New Zealand, because we don’t really have “news” anymore- just boring attempts at infotainment where I get very little information on actual policy and far more about personality politics and What The Government Has Decided to Leak This Time.
Duncan Garner: You would have to be a bit blind. No one is saying that you were biased against Labour. Most are saying you have a thing about Carter. It is a Garner V Carter to my eyes. Way over the top. You have a politician’s style and look as though you want to deflect, and no doubt hope that folk will not notice that the primary issue remains.
In my opinion Garner is obsessed with Carter. Biased.
I assure you I am not obsessed with Chris Carter. Or any other Honourable Member.
[lprent: There is a good probability that this is a fake Duncan Garner. ]
[lprent: Checked and the e-mail is correct. ]
So that clears it up then you do not have an obsession with Chris Carter. I guess it is normal behaviour to be yelling obscenities at an MP (or whatever happened with Carter) in a public place.
I think the problem is you have been immersed in the mud slinging world of political reporting for so long that you have lost perspective. Maybe you need to send some time in the Wairarapa growing grapes to gain a sense of what is ‘normal’ again.
Prior to the last election I emailed Duncan Garner strongly criticizing him for being anti National in his writings.
Its funny how Labour supporters are now claiming the opposite.
The one thing that impressed me about Duncan was he had the decency to respond to my email.
Whilst he might infuriate a lot of people ( on both sides ) he dosent hide his identity like a lot of posters on this site and those of us who respond
[lprent: Wrong. Arguably I’m the rudest and most obnoxious person on this site in comments, notes, and posts. I state things pretty much how I see them and I really can’t be bothered with being polite. Similarly I don’t exactly have a moderate reputation when I comment on other sites. Yet my name is well-known. The only reason I bother use a pseudonym is because it is shorter to type (and was my original login at Waikato 3 decades ago).
You really should reduce the amount you wank off in public. It really makes you look like a miserably stupid luser. ]
My (personal) issue with Duncan is that the news he presents is not left to be news in its own right – instead there is a need to editorialise everything (‘this is not a good look for X’, ‘the public won’t like this’ etc) – for the ‘I told you so’, or ‘I was there when…’ effect.
There appears to be a problem with journalists aspiring to become part of the news they report, or get the story moving in the direction they want so they can say ‘I told you so’, or ‘wasn’t I right on this?’ etc.
Same with the ads in TV regarding the abilities and actions of the news presenters – be it Mike McRoberts or John Campbell (holding people to account etc). No longer can they simply present the news and leave it for the people to judge the merits of it, instead we have to have a personal analysis of events – which inevitably leads to questions of bias (hence the frustration and calls of bias on both sides). That’s really what’s wrong.
It makes sense that (as part of a ‘news’ organisation) you want to have the scoop, the credibility of being perceived to know what’s going on (and what may happen in the future), and the ability to become ensconced in the latest headline issues, but the way it’s done in NZ generally lacks neutrality (both sides of an issue critically assessed), the end-product is clearly targetted at the lowest-common demoninator, and the result is that issues are skewed and/or muddied to the detriment of real political discourse.
/my two cents
That’s absolutely an issue with all sorts of news. But I don’t think it really has anything to do with Garner or this situation in specific. 🙂
Just a response to Duncan’s earlier post (10.0), and to the issue generally – hence the ‘/my two cents’.
BUT – I think it does relate – rather than merely ‘presenting’ news re Carter there is editorilising to spin this however Garner/TV3 etc believe will best get the punters watching/sell advertising real estate/cater to their own egos/pride.
This can lead to perceptions of bias, AND can get journalists in deeper than necessary, leading to the events that may or may not have transpired.
– that makes four cents.
Oh, I agree, but it’s not really what I think he did wrong in this case. That’s just poor-quality journalism in general.
That doesn’t matter. The issue is that you must be above any perception of having engaged in a personal grudge during your reporting, and that you failed to meet the ethical standards required of you on the job. Your actual behaviour with regards to the story or any actual grudge are irrelevant- you knew there was an issue but you didn’t hand off the story.
Obsessions aside, was it, or is it, your intention to end Chris Carter’s political career – using some of the opportunities, time and resources available to you as TV3’s political editor – because Chris Carter insulted you (or provided some similar, personal motive for such an intention)?
I’ll just switch the channel or turn off the tv next time he pops up.
Btw, what is the email for the TV3 editor?
I don’t think Garner’s biased against Labour and Eddie makes the point of not taking sides. There’s clearly an issue with Carter and Garner though.
A rule of responsible behaviour I was taught was “Unless you want to be seen as a loud mouthed bully you should keep you personal thoughts about individuals to yourself… especially if you are in a position of responsibility or where your personal integrity was the basis of your credibility.” Such a rule appears to be eminently sensible especially if you are a senior journalist or, for that matter, a politician.
To declare that you would use your position to destroy another is nothing more than an abuse of one’s perception of power and position.
Firstly, this does not relate to the blog post – please forgive the digression.
I have never felt compelled to comment before but Iprent’s comment to Mark M has prompted me to swim with the sharks.
Mark seemed to make a fairly reasonable point and I don’t think it was neccessary to call him a “stupid luser” [sic]. Such a response probably makes Jo and Jane Bloggs apprehensive about posting a comment on this site in case he or she comes under fire for having an opinion which you or your fellow bloggers and readers disagree with.
I also find it hard to believe you chose a nom de plume purely because it was shorter than your real name.
Lynn Prentice (sp?) shorted to lprent. This seems like a university login where they take your first initial and first 5 letters of your surname.
So yes, if you have to choose a nom de plume, have been using one for donkeys years and don’t care that it gives away your real name, it’s an obvious choice.
It is my 6 letter login from 1980 into a DEC1170. Spelling is correct. Just don’t drop the last ‘n’ on the first name because that is my partners name 🙂
That must get confusing sometimes.
Only to other people. We always know who each of us are.
It is a frequent ‘argument’ that comes up on political blogs and a rather spurious one. Mark is perfectly aware of our feelings on the subject because it has been part of the sites About since the site began, and he has read it from some of his comments.
The basic argument runs something like this from Marks side. If people had to put up their real names then they’d be more polite and have more considered comments (my experience on real name only systems is that the debate is much the same – depends on the moderation rather than real names). My position on it is that it makes very little difference in the quality of the argument. What it does do is to inhibit some people from commenting for fear of retribution (there is an example of the lengths that some people will go to in the About).
In my opinion almost every debate on this type of forum in favor of using real names is about gaining leverage to bully people. So you’ll find that attempts to ‘out’ people get stomped on really hard with a high degree of intimidation to prevent a repetition of the behavior. Bully behavior is a right reserved for the moderators, and the main reason for its use is to crush bullying by anyone else.
Since this is a place for debate not bullying, we actively encourage people to use pseudonyms, and defend peoples privacy (see the Policy)
If you have a look at the Policy of the site, the reason for the moderation was on the basis of Mark M deliberately trying to start a flamewar on the subject. So I clamped down on it. Furthermore to demonstrate my point that knowing peoples real names isn’t an issue, I spiced up the note with some gratuitous insults to drive the point home.
Of course I could have just zapped or banned. But this was more fun.
BTW: We seldom do that type of moderated note for peoples opinions unless they’re covered by parts of the policy. You can pretty much argue what you like – just read the About and Policy first to find out where the boundaries are. Which is something you should do for ANY site with comments.
I too have never commented on this blog site before now, but your comment has prompted me to comment also.
Quite simply, people can say what they like on their blogs, and frankly, lprent’s comment was tame compared to many I’ve seen.
Believe it or not baby, on the internet, you really are swimming with the sharks, and it’s naive to think otherwise.
I found lprent’s comment funny and honest. Mark M’s commented on this site in the past, and if he’s making a wanky comment, I expect someone to call him on it – that’s what I love about this blog.
If you want to comment, you should have the guts to argue you point, even if the blogger disagrees with your view. There is nothing wrong with not using your real name – particularly on a political blog site.
That’s seems logical then. However that’s not my primary point.
If Garner wants to be considered “professional” what the hell is he doing commenting here. He should be fired.
Professionals of all sorts comment on blogs.
Yes, we’ve had a handful of Labour MPs posting here in the past.
we’ve had a handful of Labour MPs posting here in the past.
now that goes to the heart of Adrian’s comment…
Well if you look at the National party blog sites, then you’d have to conclude that they really don’t know how to comment. They are essentially invisible around the net and rather colorlessly stupid in person as well.
Labour MPs are not expected to be impartial, and what’s more any of them writing Garner type self-important drivel would be laughed off the site.
There have been quite a few journos who have commented here in the past under their own names. Even more read the site. Same with politicians and their staffs.
Often of course it has been to complain about what has been written about them.
I don’t think garner is biased against the Labour Party.
He IS a joke as a political reporter and he and his station ARE demonstrably biased in their coverage.
That’s more to do with being starry eyed in the presence of John Key and simply bad at their job than being biased against anyone, I think. Key et al are manipulating them and and Garner and his cronies at TVNZ haven’t the wit nor the cajones to do anything about it.
There have been several stories about corruption on the part of NACT MP’s in the past couple of years. TV3 and TVNZ have failed to make any headway with these stories and have let them die. We know what happened during the last labour Government – these stories woiuld have been dragged out for weeks. Just compare the mileage TV got out of Clarke’s speeding story compared to how quickly they dropped English’s Doubledipton.
The latest “credit card scandal” is a case in point – while Garner and his mates were giggling about Shane Jones’ porn and chasing Carter down hallways they completely ignored – completely – the National MP’s with similar spending issues. There has also been no coverage of Finlayson’s failure to disclose his company or English’s lies to Parliament about PEDA. c.f. with David Parker.
This isn’t some lefty perception. It’s easily demonstrated by adding up airtime and column inches.
Garner doth protest too much. He’s a joke. Espiner is a joke. Armstrong is a joke. Their companies are jokes.
“Just compare the mileage TV got out of Clarke’s speeding story compared to how quickly they dropped English’s Doubledipton…”
The thing is one was ok ed by the authorities(same groupo taht was lauded on this site for not entering into Manukaus mayor spending and quite right for them to do so !!!) the other we the tax payer have spent millions on speed campaigns and yet even with a sign on SH 2 “There are no excuses for speeding”, unless you are… then there are exceptions !!!
Chris Cater did wrong on the country yet all I see here is people climbing to his defense of spinning the story to reduce the damage to C.C.
Why is CC so important because he holds and controls the unlossable seat for Labour, but how many potential new blood MP’s on the list is he holding back?
“I do not want to revisit the issue of Carter’s excessive international travel. He has apologised for the second time. Labour leader Phil Goff has declared himself satisfied with that apology. He has his pound of flesh…” (Brian Edwards), you cannot extract much flesh with an old used wet bus ticket.
If that is the case, then I must have missed all of the “if you’re a passenger in an allegedly speeding car you’re a bloody idiot” advertisements.
Mr Garner comes across as being from the mouthbreathing “boofhead’ style of journalism.
The cumulative effect of years of his items says -National, National-drink more piss! (so to speak).
His record of favouring the right, or at least being overly dismissive of Labour, does appear to go beyond perception.
“I’m not going sides in the dispute between Brian Edwards and Duncan Garner over Garner’s targeting of Chris Carter.”
You are an idiot eddie. That sentence explicitly implies whose side you are on. you may as well say “no offence, but….”
Is there another way to interpret what this dispute is about?
If so, let’s have it.
If not, Eddie’s statement implies no siding.
p.s. “explicitly implies”? Please tell me that was a joke..
totally bad word use. hating cold down south. makes the mountains pretty though
the argument remains the same. eddie is taking the side of edwards, because edwards is supporting carter, who eddie has a thing for (not like duncan does).
First you said that Eddie’s statement implied his support of Edwards.
Now you’re saying “Well I already know Eddie supports Edwards so therefore his statement must imply that support in some way even if I can’t say how”
So no, the argument doesn’t remain the same TR. Your contention remains the same but you still haven’t provided any reasoning to support it.