On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:24:00 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

It's interesting that Bombadier seem to have backed down a bit and are
saying that the news pages can now go ahead proving the info is checked (ie
censored) by them. I wonder why (according to Stephen's info) they
originally weren't prepared even to indicate which info was wrong or to
discuss it with him - they just branded everything "libellous rubbish".

Perhaps they were simply trying to scare him? Asking objectors to put
their specific complaints in writing (then putting details of the
complaint on the website if possible) can be a good way getting
complainers to change their minds. If they have to sit down and think
what is "libellous rubbish", they might change their minds about what
it is.

I bet Bombadier's and Tramlink's PR departments have been working overtime
over the past few days trying to work out how to play down the negative
publicity of the newspaper stories which could easily be far more damaging
for them than the apparent libels on the site.

Given some other things (see what the Free Tibet people have to say
about Bombardier), I doubt they really care. How many Croydon
newspaper readers would be likely to go out and buy a tram or aircraft
anyway?!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK