Well-known Exeweb poster
- Aug 23, 2004
Yep.Hardly. McKenzie is saying he didn't leak the information, Shapps is claiming that he did but has come up with nothing whatsoever to substantiate his claim. Mindful that journos don't reveal their sources, if indeed there was a leak, how on earth could Shapps know who was responsible? If the Road Haulage Association were to undertake some kind of investigation then it may be conceivable that they could deduce where the alleged leak had come from. What I can't comprehend is how Shapps can say with such certainty that McKenzie has leaked news from a meeting he wasn't even at. I had hoped you might be able to offer a suggestion as to how this might have occurred but, plainly, you're every bit as stumped as I am!
You said: 'Rumour has it, the top man of the RHA is a former BBC man, who is/was an avowed remainer. Mr McKenzie denies the accusation of course.'
Given this was a paragraph in its entirety and you referred to Mr McKenzie denying 'the accusation' [singular], I took this to refer to the accusation he is / was 'an avowed remainer.' Do, please, point me to the bit I 'literally deleted' where you expressly said 'McKenzie denies the claims against him by Shapps' because I'm damned if I can see it. Alternatively, you might want to apologise for talking veritable ******** [again]. Thanks.
I can see now how you could’ve got the wrong end of the stick. Apologies.
I still don’t see why I personally have to justify Shapps accusation. I quoted Shapps accusation and for balance stated that McKenzie denied the story.
What’s the problem?
As an aside, can I suggest you adopt a less abrasive tone Egg?