SW
Well, I don't doubt that everyone is taking part in this discussion with the utmost good faith, but some posts are in danger in straying into "let's try and sort this out", which is not the role of the forum. There may be points to be made about what the broadcasters are reporting and how it compares to the line the authorities are putting out, but it sounds in part as if we're hoping to solve the issue on here. I'm sure there's also a great danger of this thread straying into potential libel.
I guess there might be a value in saying "oh, the BBC are reporting this about the fire, but that contradicts something else has been said", but to me, some of these posts sound too much like "we need to find out who is right". We don't. We are woefully unsuited to the task. Other, more qualified people will do that.
See... in my opinion, you'd be right if the discussion were purely about the legality or otherwise of the cladding, but really, it's about the journalism, which goes hand-in-hand with the presentation, which I reckon therefore makes it fair game, though the mods are free to disagree if they wish
Well, I don't doubt that everyone is taking part in this discussion with the utmost good faith, but some posts are in danger in straying into "let's try and sort this out", which is not the role of the forum. There may be points to be made about what the broadcasters are reporting and how it compares to the line the authorities are putting out, but it sounds in part as if we're hoping to solve the issue on here. I'm sure there's also a great danger of this thread straying into potential libel.
I guess there might be a value in saying "oh, the BBC are reporting this about the fire, but that contradicts something else has been said", but to me, some of these posts sound too much like "we need to find out who is right". We don't. We are woefully unsuited to the task. Other, more qualified people will do that.