<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0">	<channel>		<title>Alex Wickham (&#039;top tabloid journo&#039;) vs. John Cleese, Hacked Off and the facts Comments</title>		<language>en-us</language>		<link>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/</link>		<description>Comments from Alex Wickham (&#039;top tabloid journo&#039;) vs. John Cleese, Hacked Off and the facts</description><item>
<title>peterjukes</title><link>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953687207</link><description>There are so many inaccuracies and biases in Wickham&amp;#039;s account that I can say - from some experience - he&amp;#039;d been thrown out of court and referred to the Attorney General if he tried this kind of misrepresentation in a trial. Every quote is a cherry picked phrase akin to a theatre publicist who changes a drama review &amp;quot;this show is about as compelling as a changing traffic ligh&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;this show is... compelling&amp;quot;     One egregious misrepresentation: Wickham says that Cleese called him a liar. As Bloggerhead records verbatim, Cleese said &amp;quot;You&amp;rsquo;re absolutely free to tell any lies you want about me.&amp;rdquo; The other abbreviated version of this line:  &amp;quot;Cleese called me a free man.&amp;quot;      Let&amp;#039;s just reverse this for a moment. I say to Wickham &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;&amp;#039;re absolutely free to sext me if you want.&amp;quot; There&amp;#039;s a thing in the English language called the future conditional tense.    And no, I&amp;#039;ve haven&amp;#039;t been sexted by Alex Wickham. </description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:47:12 +0000</pubDate><guid>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953687207</guid></item><item>
<title>Tarasap</title><link>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953345835</link><description>I also attended this meeting, with the main purpose of trying to get a better handle on the issues involved- my position was / is neither pro or con. I can also confirm that this is an accurate description of what happened in the meeting - from the various comments by people who were not there the impression is that they have a vested interest in ensuring that truth in reporting becomes a dying facet of journalism </description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:06:59 +0000</pubDate><guid>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953345835</guid></item><item>
<title>Sue Stapely</title><link>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953292096</link><description>I was also at the rally and can verify this is a wholly accurate representation of what happened.  It&amp;#039;s unsurprising a minor journalistic misbehaviour has been allowed to hijack more useful coverage of a well-attended and important event.  I am a board member of the Media Standards Trust and represented pro bono many victims of miscarriages of justice and press assassination, including the late Sally Clark. </description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:28:38 +0000</pubDate><guid>http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2015/02/alex-wickham-john-cleese/#IDComment953292096</guid></item>	</channel></rss>