Isn’t all this getting rather silly?

No one has suggested it was a “cardinal sin”, still less than Stephen is “a worthless human being” or any of the other straw-man nonsense that Alix came out with.

All that’s being said is that, considering how inconsistent the claim was with everything Davis had said before, the facts should have been checked before the name-calling started.

I’m not given to conspiracy theories so I don’t think they misquoted Davis on purpose, just as I’m prepared to accept that they weren’t deliberately misrepresenting the ramificiations of the voting system in the Mayoral election. Rather it’s typical laziness and an inability to think beyond the confines of old fashion politics – I reckon the reporter assumed that Davis said that because that’s what politicians say. I still browse the Guardian onlione but I certainly wouldn’t pay money for it. Frankly I wouldn’t mourn if they went down with the New Labour ship.

As to Stephen Tall’s piece, I probably wouldn’t have been quite so strident without corroboration but that’s just me, I’m naturally a rather cautious. I certainly don’t think it was the cardinal sin that some people seem to be suggesting.

Yes, I did check it. My point was rather that I wouldn’t automatically have done it, the story coming from the MSM. It didn’t quite ring true with me because, as you say, there was such a public deal with Clegg. I just don’t want to leap to condemn Stephen for not having the same hunch.

You’d be right It doesn’t change what I said And repeating something you have read elsewhere isn’t a defence if it turns out to be incorrect. Doing just that cost a former candidate a bit of money and certainly derailed his election campaign.

Do as I say not as I do applies Especially so if you are making comments about someone’s character based on such reports.

Increasingly, though, I can’t stand the Grauniad. Nor can most of its regular readers, to go by CiF – and especially the responses to Ashley, Toynbee et al.

All I’m saying is that Stephen Tall was unwise to attack David Davis on the basis of a single newspaper report which claimed he had said something that completely contradicted the line he has consistently followed for the last few weeks.

Frankly, it astonishes me that you and others seem to find this controversial.

You disappoint me, Alix

Mind you, it was a slightly suspicious quote given DDs very clear position on the LDs on this particular issue (and, to be fair, was picked up by some as such) so the headline might have been a bit OTT.

But if a single newspaper report claims someone has said something that completely contradicts the line they’ve previously maintained, it’s rather stupid to launch a volley of insults at the person on that basis, without checking your facts.

I suspect not

And I don’t see why you should have. We all rely on what is reported by others to some degree. A healthy scepticism of single – or indeed multiple – reports however isn’t the same as saying that you should never ever say something based on just the one newspaper report.

He is the Messiah

You should always check that what a newspaper is reporting is actually correct before relying on it. At least one Lib Dem candidate I know of had to make a fairly hefty libel settlement after putting out a leaflet based on a report (in the Guardian as it happens) about his opponent.

Whilst an opposing candidate might settle for an apology and correction from a national newspaper they might not be as accomodating towards a political opponent.

I find it strange you should say that, because you responded to Stephen’s article just over half an hour after it was posted with a post querying whether Davis really had said it, and pointing out that it wasn’t in the audio report.

As the correction said, “He has always made it clear that he is grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for his views on the 42 day detention and related civil liberties issues”. It would have been a bizarre thing for Davis to say, particularly given the widespread belief that he announced his resignation only on the understanding that the Lib Dems _wouldn’t_ stand in the by election.

“Which makes it all the more disappointing to see him stooping to indulge in petty partisan politics, at least according to this quote in today’s Guardian attributed to Mr Davis:”

He makes it quite clear that his comments are dependant on the report being true. Stephen, you are in the clear on this one.