Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
One facet that equally occurs in science and Medicine is some areas are focused on and others are overlooked. So yes one is undoubtedly a better source of information and if they were to produce a piece refuting the findings of the critic I would believe them. But in the absence of better information - and along with other rather weak sources (as well as Kier himself trying to get rid of these entities) leads me to view this as highly likely to be true.

Otherwise we enter the territory of "the witness is a prostitute so the evidence is worthless" territory.

You've missed my point that one of them is a reputable publication talking about the current government indulging in massive corruption. The other is an unknown publication talking about something irrelevant. Doubly so with Furunculus's conclusion: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?".

In case you've missed it, Momentum began life as The Campaign to Elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader. Labour are not in government, so that makes the article less relevant. Jeremy Corbyn is not Labour leader, so that makes the article less relevant still. Jeremy Corbyn isn't even in the Labour party, so that erases any remaining relevance Furunculus sees in the article. And in case there are any more doubts, Momentum are opposed to the current Labour leadership, even supporting an anti-Labour campaign in a recent by-election.

What do you think of Furunculus's conclusion to the article: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?"