False benefit cheat claim by national press

jamespir

DylanO wrote: »

So the answer to all of my questions is that - yes, he was a willing interviewee. Your mother could have told the reporter to leave - why didn't she?

You may not want to hear this - but national newspapers do not go around printing unfounded lies for malicious reasons. So if your father has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.

There's a difference between only "being able to walk short distances" and playing a long game of boules without rest or sitting down. Both cannot be true - especially if one is claiming benefits for the former, and yet inexplicably doing the latter. So if the Sun prints that then they are not printing lies - they are printing the objective truth. They can print anything your father said to them - he said it willingly, and with your mother's support. If she was able to 'take on' the photographer, then she certainly has it within her to ask someone to leave her house.

You have every right to attempt to stop lies being printed - but you don't know what is being published, and unless you have a lot of money to spare - you can't afford to find out and then stop them printing the objective truth.

You still haven't explained what behaviour you think was unprofessional or out of order?

arent the sun group at them moment being sued for that very reason

DylanO

jamespir wrote: »

arent the sun group at them moment being sued for that very reason

There's no such thing as "the sun group". Unless you supply more information on your claims - I can't understand what you're referring to.

Anubis_2

DylanO wrote: »

So the answer to all of my questions is that - yes, he was a willing interviewee. Your mother could have told the reporter to leave - why didn't she?

You may not want to hear this - but national newspapers do not go around printing unfounded lies for malicious reasons. So if your father has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.

There's a difference between only "being able to walk short distances" and playing a long game of boules without rest or sitting down. Both cannot be true - especially if one is claiming benefits for the former, and yet inexplicably doing the latter. So if the Sun prints that then they are not printing lies - they are printing the objective truth. They can print anything your father said to them - he said it willingly, and with your mother's support. If she was able to 'take on' the photographer, then she certainly has it within her to ask someone to leave her house.

You have every right to attempt to stop lies being printed - but you don't know what is being published, and unless you have a lot of money to spare - you can't afford to find out and then stop them printing the objective truth.

You still haven't explained what behaviour you think was unprofessional or out of order?

Oh come on, they are not called the gutter press for nothing. Papers ALWAYS exaggerate and bend the truth with sensational headlines to make money... More fool for people buying such trash. There should be harsher laws against newspapers, they will sink to any depth to get their headline, look at all the nasty phone hacking done by them, even hacking phones of the bereaved! They make me sick!

MattLFC

Whilst I will never buy the Sun newspaper (see my name), there is no problem with the paper printing the details of an interview with someone. For all we know, it could be a story examining "the other side" (ie. those who have to go through hell proving it, but are ultimately found to be disabled), or something along those lines.

To me, the hard-line you are taking, suggests there is some other reason you do not want the interview to be printed, maybe something sinister, has your dad perhaps said something to the reporter that you'd rather he hadn't (like above relating to the bowls idea etc)... It does not seem rational to kick-up a fuss about a newspaper interviewing someone who opened the door and invited them in. Everyone retains the right to not invite them in, ask them to leave, and call the police if they refuse. Your house is not a public area and thus you are in control of who is allowed in and for how long, even if that person is your landlord!!

This sounds strangely suspicious, your reaction is almost as though "great, he has landed himself in it" and now you want someone to tell you ways to get out of it being printed.

Just the way it seems I'm afraid. I hope though that he is genuine, and the story/interview is only used in a positive manner.

DylanO

Anubis wrote: »

Oh come on, they are not called the gutter press for nothing. Papers ALWAYS exaggerate and bend the truth with sensational headlines to make money... More fool for people buying such trash. There should be harsher laws against newspapers, they will sink to any depth to get their headline, look at all the nasty phone hacking done by them, even hacking phones of the bereaved! They make me sick!

Do they really "ALWAYS exaggerate and the bend the truth"? Really? Are you quite sure of the statement of fact, or are you, perhaps, exaggerating and bending the truth yourself? Do try and remember what I actually wrote, and how that has nothing to do with what you posted in reply.

You should also remember that had it not been for other newspapers that you wouldn't know anything about phone-hacking at all. Nor would you know about the multitude of things the press expose on a daily basis. So the newspapers that make you so so sick, are the newspapers that ensure you are able to express your feelings of sickness - unless of course you would rather live in a country where a free press is impossible. Wouldn't that be lovely?

DylanO

MattLFC wrote: »

Whilst I will never buy the Sun newspaper (see my name), there is no problem with the paper printing the details of an interview with someone. For all we know, it could be a story examining "the other side" (ie. those who have to go through hell proving it, but are ultimately found to be disabled), or something along those lines.

To me, the hard-line you are taking, suggests there is some other reason you do not want the interview to be printed, maybe something sinister, has your dad perhaps said something to the reporter that you'd rather he hadn't (like above relating to the bowls idea etc)... It does not seem rational to kick-up a fuss about a newspaper interviewing someone who opened the door and invited them in. Everyone retains the right to not invite them in, ask them to leave, and call the police if they refuse. Your house is not a public area and thus you are in control of who is allowed in and for how long, even if that person is your landlord!!

This sounds strangely suspicious, your reaction is almost as though "great, he has landed himself in it" and now you want someone to tell you ways to get out of it being printed.

Just the way it seems I'm afraid. I hope though that he is genuine, and the story/interview is only used in a positive manner.

I quite agree. I can only imagine that the reason the OP mentioned the boules playing is because she is aware that someone who claims not to be able to walk more than a short distance without assistance, could not play a game of boules, much less have it medically approved.

Someone isn't being honest and it's not the journalist in my opinion.

Charityworker

How do you know they weren't interviewing your dad as an example of someone who needs benefits?

Decay_2

DylanO wrote: »

So the answer to all of my questions is that - yes, he was a willing interviewee. Your mother could have told the reporter to leave - why didn't she?

You may not want to hear this - but national newspapers do not go around printing unfounded lies for malicious reasons. So if your father has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.

There's a difference between only "being able to walk short distances" and playing a long game of boules without rest or sitting down. Both cannot be true - especially if one is claiming benefits for the former, and yet inexplicably doing the latter. So if the Sun prints that then they are not printing lies - they are printing the objective truth. They can print anything your father said to them - he said it willingly, and with your mother's support. If she was able to 'take on' the photographer, then she certainly has it within her to ask someone to leave her house.

You have every right to attempt to stop lies being printed - but you don't know what is being published, and unless you have a lot of money to spare - you can't afford to find out and then stop them printing the objective truth.

You still haven't explained what behaviour you think was unprofessional or out of order?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:



Dunno what planet you live on but obviously not the same as everyone else.

Proof of alien existence maybe ?:rotfl:

jamespir

DylanO wrote: »

There's no such thing as "the sun group". Unless you supply more information on your claims - I can't understand what you're referring to.

the group who own the sun news international

DylanO

jamespir wrote: »

the group who own the sun news international

Do you have something more than vague riddles for me to go on? Why not just say what you mean the first time rather than alluding to things and giving barely any information?