He also likes to paint a picture in one paragraph followed by an extremely vague, theoretical statement in the following one.
He never directly links the two but uses it to paint a picture.
Paragraph 1
‘Everton have engaged with company X who have a large insolvency division’
Paragraph 2
‘Struggling companies are required to engage with insolvency firms if they are at risk of administration’
He will never explicitly say ‘Everton have engaged with company X specifically to deal with insolvency’.
He has a weird obsession with us and it’s all speculative rubbish. Really is a reflection on journalistic standards nowadays. It’s click bait trying to generate revenues. It used to be confined to Ceefax and Teamtalk. Now it’s mainstream broadsheets.
"could have"
"would appear"
"possible scenario"
"probably mean"
"fuelling speculation"
"it is understood"
This feller is a stranger to definitive statements.
Half of his links are to his own puff pieces, as if he's appealing to his own non-existent authority.
This is what happens if a newspaper columnist - who ultimately has Uzmanov in his sights - reaches for the Esk's blogs to back up his case for the prosecution.
Responses