"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 13/06/2015 09:48, tim..... wrote:
[...]




You're ridiculous. Who is the "claimant" of which you speak - the
journalist Tom Edwards who wrote the article? In which case, journalism
doesn't work like that - you provide summaries.

You both seem, to have completely ignored the text that I had issue with

It was: "But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor " (which is still there!)

written by the journalist

and I asked what "evidence is the to support this claim?".

(then you and Paul came in saying he was right, presumably without actually
considering what it was he said/I asked)

I've watched the (part of the) cast now and there as, as I said, absolutely
zero evidence to support this claim

If you're referring to Paul C,

It wasn't

he jumped in to support the journalist without (apparently) actually
considering what I had asked.

then why on earth should he provide a transcript if you're too distrustful
of him and also too lazy to find it yourself. His previous postings
clearly show that his analysis has integrity, so he's not just going
making something like that up.

Also, given two sources corroborate the point - a BBC journalists report
and Paul C's summary of the committee hearing - I trust the point. More
fool you if you don't.

Well, I have seen nothing in the cast to support the view that the objection
to the change in the franchise is even linked to the airport (perhaps on the
grounds that airport trains would abstract paths) and certainly not that it
was done just out of spite.

If you have this evidence, please tell me what it is?

tim