DohDohDoh wrote:

QUOTE:
Honestly I have never come accross a more incompetent bunch of collective utter idiots and that is saying something.

Well nobody's going to accuse you of being a Mackem anymore. I guess that's something.

Otto Katz wrote:

QUOTE:
DohDohDoh wrote:

QUOTE:
Honestly I have never come accross a more incompetent bunch of collective utter idiots and that is saying something.

Well nobody's going to accuse you of being a Mackem anymore. I guess that's something.

LOL, hopefully not!

Lord Mauleverer wrote:

QUOTE:
Well, that's a lesson learnt by me as regards taking news stories at face value and commenting on the basis of that.

DohDohDoh, I apologise unreservedly for my comments above in the light of the fuller version of events which you've shared with us. (Just spotted that, as I don't visit this forum very often these days.) As you have pointed out, the BBC website's account of events appears to be a totally misleading selective account which implies that your compensation request related solely to the distress caused by a mistaken phone call, corrected 10 seconds later. Needless to say, I wouldn't have dreamed of making that kind of comment if I'd had the full story or anything like it. It can't have been very pleasant reading my comments, so I'm very sorry for that. You have my sympathy with regard to what sounds like appalling behaviour by the airline.

Thanks, you were not the only one to jump to conclusions.

I always kind of knew how the media worked but this experience confirmed everything about how bad they really are. I have personally seen this before.

As an aside by chance I came accross this story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1530572.ece

If you read the story and then scroll down the comments you will see that the person in the story posts a reply and explains that what is in the published story is not what he said. I suspect this kind of thing happens all the time.

As a journalist, I'm wary of blanket criticism of my industry. As in any profession, there are slackarsed incompetents, cynical manipulators and meticulous writers who sometimes don't get things right.

It seems that whoever interviewed you fell within one of the former or a combination of both camps. It's not how the media works, but it is what often happens. I'd be offended if somebody presumed on the basis of my job title that my ethics coincide with that of a tabloid sensation seeker, just as the human rights lawyer would not like to be associated with an ambulance chaser.

Anyway, DohDohDoh, I think you've responded here with very good grace. Stick around.