You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
November 25 2024 8.33am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 315 of 435 < 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 >

  

HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 23 Jul 23 5.44am Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Just how do you guarantee that? I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one, but I have had a lot of dealings with them over the years which continue to this day. So I have picked up knowledge as a client. I defer to expert advice on all matters, the law being a primary example, so as a client I listen. I don't tell a lawyer how to handle a case. I give him as much as I can to help him do what I pay him to do.

I do not believe any lawyer would tell a bare-faced lie. They might use deliberately obscure language, or be economical with the truth and miss things that might incriminate, but lie, never. So when the solicitor of the alleged victim of the Edwards Sunfest made his statement I believe he would have chosen his words very carefully to ensure that nothing that was said could later be shown to be untrue, to the best of his knowledge at the time.

Your reply requires no comment Captain Mainwaring.

 


Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
cryrst Flag The garden of England 23 Jul 23 5.54am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Just how do you guarantee that? I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one, but I have had a lot of dealings with them over the years which continue to this day. So I have picked up knowledge as a client. I defer to expert advice on all matters, the law being a primary example, so as a client I listen. I don't tell a lawyer how to handle a case. I give him as much as I can to help him do what I pay him to do.

I do not believe any lawyer would tell a bare-faced lie. They might use deliberately obscure language, or be economical with the truth and miss things that might incriminate, but lie, never. So when the solicitor of the alleged victim of the Edwards Sunfest made his statement I believe he would have chosen his words very carefully to ensure that nothing that was said could later be shown to be untrue, to the best of his knowledge at the time.

“Be economical with the truth” so just little fibs then, or as the oxford dictionary would term it, ‘ LIE’. It’s not the size that determines if something is a lie either. It is or it isn’t!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Jul 23 11.04am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

“Be economical with the truth” so just little fibs then, or as the oxford dictionary would term it, ‘ LIE’. It’s not the size that determines if something is a lie either. It is or it isn’t!

Untrue. Or as any dictionary would term it, a lie!

Being "economical with the truth" is not to lie. It's excluding aspects of a story that may prejudice. It's answering direct questions honestly, but not adding anything else. It's not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!

It's like the child who is asked by his mother, "did you hit your sister 4 times like she says you did", and he says no. Knowing he hit her 3 times. Lawyers being clever, or even devious, doesn't make them liers.

I was once involved in a case where the Judge instructed the two opposing barristers to get together during the lunch break, sort out a settlement and give it to him on the resumption. My barrister apologised and said she couldn't spend time with us at lunch and went off to find her opposite number. He had though disappeared! On resumption the Judge called them to address him and asked whether they had successfully negotiated a settlement. The opposing barrister immediately stepped forward and meekly said "Unfortunately not My Lord". He knew he would get a better deal from the Judge! His words were true though.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (23 Jul 2023 11.17am)

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Jul 23 11.08am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by HKOwen

Your reply requires no comment Captain Mainwaring.

That's a relief, Warden Hodges.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 23 Jul 23 12.46pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Untrue. Or as any dictionary would term it, a lie!

Being "economical with the truth" is not to lie. It's excluding aspects of a story that may prejudice. It's answering direct questions honestly, but not adding anything else. It's not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!

It's like the child who is asked by his mother, "did you hit your sister 4 times like she says you did", and he says no. Knowing he hit her 3 times. Lawyers being clever, or even devious, doesn't make them liers.

I was once involved in a case where the Judge instructed the two opposing barristers to get together during the lunch break, sort out a settlement and give it to him on the resumption. My barrister apologised and said she couldn't spend time with us at lunch and went off to find her opposite number. He had though disappeared! On resumption the Judge called them to address him and asked whether they had successfully negotiated a settlement. The opposing barrister immediately stepped forward and meekly said "Unfortunately not My Lord". He knew he would get a better deal from the Judge! His words were true though.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (23 Jul 2023 11.17am)

Not any dictionary.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 23 Jul 23 12.54pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Not any dictionary.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Solicitors and lawyers don't lie. Best one yet.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Jul 23 6.44pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Not any dictionary.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

You are confused.

What I actually said was that the statement made was untrue, aka "a lie". Not about dictionary definitions of "economical with the truth"! I don't think even you would try to argue that an untruth could not equally be described as a lie.

Nevertheless, let's examine those links.

The last isn't a dictionary and the 5th doesn't open.

2 of them contain this explanation, on where its use in modern times started, quotes the author and must therefore be the most accurate:-

"The expression comes from a statement given in evidence by Sir Robert Armstrong, British cabinet secretary, in the ‘Spycatcher’ trial (1986), conducted to prevent publication of a book by a former MI5 employee, ‘It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.’".

Kindly note "not a lie". There in black and white.

That others wish to interpret it differently is for them to defend. If that's what Mr Armstrong said he meant by it, he should know. It was his term.

Some dictionaries, and sources of reference agree. Wiki's reference to the use of irony by those who suggest it equals lying is particularly relevant:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 23 Jul 23 7.02pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Solicitors and lawyers don't lie. Best one yet.

Who has suggested they don't? I am sure they do as much as any other group in their private life.

What they would not do is tell deliberate untruths when making prepared statements or under oath in court. Should they do so in a way which could subsequently be proven they would likely be debarred.

Not all from the UK, but the same principles apply:-

[Link]

[Link]

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 23 Jul 23 7.06pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Who has suggested they don't? I am sure they do as much as any other group in their private life.

What they would not do is tell deliberate untruths when making prepared statements or under oath in court. Should they do so in a way which could subsequently be proven they would likely be debarred.

Not all from the UK, but the same principles apply:-

[Link]

[Link]

Ok, thanks.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 23 Jul 23 9.29pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You are confused.

What I actually said was that the statement made was untrue, aka "a lie". Not about dictionary definitions of "economical with the truth"! I don't think even you would try to argue that an untruth could not equally be described as a lie.

Nevertheless, let's examine those links.

The last isn't a dictionary and the 5th doesn't open.

2 of them contain this explanation, on where its use in modern times started, quotes the author and must therefore be the most accurate:-

"The expression comes from a statement given in evidence by Sir Robert Armstrong, British cabinet secretary, in the ‘Spycatcher’ trial (1986), conducted to prevent publication of a book by a former MI5 employee, ‘It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.’".

Kindly note "not a lie". There in black and white.

That others wish to interpret it differently is for them to defend. If that's what Mr Armstrong said he meant by it, he should know. It was his term.

Some dictionaries, and sources of reference agree. Wiki's reference to the use of irony by those who suggest it equals lying is particularly relevant:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Again the confusion was from your saying
Or as any dictionary would term it, a lie!
Roy Cohn would applaud such sophistry.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards georgenorman Flag 23 Jul 23 10.43pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You are confused.

What I actually said was that the statement made was untrue, aka "a lie". Not about dictionary definitions of "economical with the truth"! I don't think even you would try to argue that an untruth could not equally be described as a lie.

Nevertheless, let's examine those links.

The last isn't a dictionary and the 5th doesn't open.

2 of them contain this explanation, on where its use in modern times started, quotes the author and must therefore be the most accurate:-

"The expression comes from a statement given in evidence by Sir Robert Armstrong, British cabinet secretary, in the ‘Spycatcher’ trial (1986), conducted to prevent publication of a book by a former MI5 employee, ‘It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.’".

Kindly note "not a lie". There in black and white.

That others wish to interpret it differently is for them to defend. If that's what Mr Armstrong said he meant by it, he should know. It was his term.

Some dictionaries, and sources of reference agree. Wiki's reference to the use of irony by those who suggest it equals lying is particularly relevant:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

The usual Wisbechian claptrap.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 23 Jul 23 10.57pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You are confused.

What I actually said was that the statement made was untrue, aka "a lie". Not about dictionary definitions of "economical with the truth"! I don't think even you would try to argue that an untruth could not equally be described as a lie.

Nevertheless, let's examine those links.

The last isn't a dictionary and the 5th doesn't open.

2 of them contain this explanation, on where its use in modern times started, quotes the author and must therefore be the most accurate:-

"The expression comes from a statement given in evidence by Sir Robert Armstrong, British cabinet secretary, in the ‘Spycatcher’ trial (1986), conducted to prevent publication of a book by a former MI5 employee, ‘It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.’".

Kindly note "not a lie". There in black and white.

That others wish to interpret it differently is for them to defend. If that's what Mr Armstrong said he meant by it, he should know. It was his term.

Some dictionaries, and sources of reference agree. Wiki's reference to the use of irony by those who suggest it equals lying is particularly relevant:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

This is just wrong. The expression dates back to at least Edmund Burke whose views on political representation you've often espoused.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 315 of 435 < 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)