Don't talk bollocksSo that's it then. Sorry for starting this up again last night but when I saw his Facebook status I thought it'd be worthwhile. At least this is definitively put to bed now.
I do think that CWR need to issue an explanation for how they let this individual onto their programme and bigged him up as someone to take seriously. Everything else flowed from that. They ought to apologise for their unprofessional failure of due diligence.
The bigger question is, where does the mad hatter go from here??
At least the club isn't owned by someone who likes to waste time and money on unnecessary court cases.Something from the club, Evans is deep in the shit now.
I don’t like to brag, but...
I’d need to go back over the initial radio interview to pinpoint whether it was 30 seconds in or 42 when I realised it was a bunch of arse. He lost me at “I won the money at poker”.
The letter pretending to be from Laura is pretty serious fraud imo
Really brings in to question Hoffmans competence. At the point Evans became part of the consortium we all knew it was bollocks but Hoffman welcomed him in and said he'd had proof of funds.
All well and good saying now he sussed it out weeks ago but how did he let it go on for so long and why wasn't there a statement as soon as he knew he was full of shit?
While on the one hand I think Dale has mental issues you have to wonder why his friends and family have let this continue to the point where he could end up in serious trouble.
Which part of that is bollocks?Don't talk bollocks
A bit harsh. I'm sure GH is kicking himself.
CWR issuing an apology. They don't need to do due diligence, they present what appears to be a news story and let people make their own minds up. The BBC is impartial.Which part of that is bollocks?
Brilliant! Even looks like him!
The bigger question is, where does the mad hatter go from here??
I doubt SISU will sue him. They're just saying that to put the frightners on him and so get him to shut up. I can't see any point in them suing him.
CWR issuing an apology. They don't need to do due diligence, they present what appears to be a news story and let people make their own minds up. The BBC is impartial.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
They are meant to do a bit of digging and due diligence to make sure that they don't just let any old wally with tall story onto their programming i.e. to sus out if they're broadcasting worthwhile content or total rot.CWR issuing an apology. They don't need to do due diligence, they present what appears to be a news story and let people make their own minds up. The BBC is impartial.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
What would that involve then? How is that behaving impartially?They are meant to do a bit of digging and due diligence to make sure that they don't just let any old wally with tall story onto their programming i.e. to sus out if they're broadcasting worthwhile content or total rot.
How does that work then, this 'proof of funds' stuff?Really brings in to question Hoffmans competence. At the point Evans became part of the consortium we all knew it was bollocks but Hoffman welcomed him in and said he'd had proof of funds.
How does that work then, this 'proof of funds' stuff?
First you have to have enough money to buy a computer and photoshop.. then the world's your oyster.How does that work then, this 'proof of funds' stuff?
I can't believe it would be that simple.It is probably a doctored screenshot like everything else he tries.
They wouldn't breach impartiality by checking him out to see if he's genuine. Otherwise, any of us, including me or you, could equally expect to make up a tall story about buying CCFC and expect a full segment prime time interview. News organisations like the BBC usually do their homework on this to see if something is newsworthy or not.What would that involve then? How is that behaving impartially?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Which part of that is bollocks?
Yes. I know how they work a lot better than you do. Like I said, they're not presenting the story with any sort of slant, he had provided (admittedly shaky) evidence of wealth. Easier to get the story out and let it be disproved. CWR would have no right to see other personal data as proof.They wouldn't breach impartiality by checking him out to see if he's genuine. Otherwise, any of us, including me or you, could equally expect to make up a tall story about buying CCFC and expect a full segment prime time interview. News organisations like the BBC usually do their homework on this to see if something is newsworthy or not.
They bigged up the story and span it as if he was a credible candidate to invest in / take over the club. Which is clearly untrue. They hung their credibility on it by doing so, hardly neutral. They decided he was serious or they wouldn't have put him on the radio, simple as.Yes. I know how they work a lot better than you do. Like I said, they're not presenting the story with any sort of slant, he had provided (admittedly shaky) evidence of wealth. Easier to get the story out and let it be disproved. CWR would have no right to see other personal data as proof.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
They bigged up the story and span it as if he was a credible candidate to invest in / take over the club. Which is clearly untrue. They hung their credibility on it by doing so, hardly neutral. They decided he was serious or they wouldn't have put him on the radio, simple as.
P.S. how do you know anything about my knoweldge of the media? That's a bit of a Dale Evans style tall claim!
Why? I pointed out it was bollocks at the time, I was told that Gary Hoffman is a successful businessman and wouldn't be fooled by it. He's had his pants down like everybody else based on nothing and he let it go on to save face.
The least Hoffman could be doing is speaking with Evans family and trying to use his contacts to get the bloke help, instead he invited him in and blew smoke up his arse. Elliott posing for pictures with him and giving it the handshake and now look? They look silly and they just distance themselves from a bloke who looks to have issues.
I don't think you are in any position to criticise (when you no facts about how much of light of the day GH actually gave this knob). May only been 5 mins or 2 min phone conversation and one statement saying now keep your gob shut Mr Evans.
GH has to explore all options. and btw hes not offering counselling services to the knob.
Media outlets are impartial. They can’t make investigations - it’s their job to just show the story - they didn’t big it up they stated he claimed to have won the money. From that interview alone most would have concluded he was an idiot with no money.
I don't think you are in any position to criticise (when you no facts about how much of light of the day GH actually gave this knob). May only been 5 mins or 2 min phone conversation and one statement saying now keep your gob shut Mr Evans.
GH has to explore all options. and btw hes not offering counselling services to the knob.
Media outlets are impartial. They can’t make investigations - it’s their job to just show the story - they didn’t big it up they stated he claimed to have won the money. From that interview alone most would have concluded he was an idiot with no money.
They bigged it up during the day.
Yep. It smelled of bullshit right from the off.Which no doubt attracted some listeners. Eakins interview left you in little doubt he had no money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?