I'm pretty much with nfe on this.
It's amusing to see them f@ck-up but using the word "lie" about it is a bit misleading.
Like Philly says, the Queen's obituary (and I suspect a whole bunch of related editorial material, public interest stuff, etc, etc) is already written in draft form. Is that material all lies? Nope, it's the writers being ready to complete their copy on time when it's needed.
Would it be lies if this material was accidentally posted on a website or included in tomorrow's newspaper (and the old girl was still eating her boiled egg and soldiers that morning)? Probably not, or at least not in my book. It would be somewhat tasteless maybe, but I'd still be amused someone had f@cked-up that badly.
Would it be lies if someone deliberately published this stuff knowing what they were doing? I'd probably call it lies then - but on the other hand I take everything I read with a pinch of salt anyway :lol:. Most of the "facts" we read are a bunch of speculation and opinion from people with no better judgement than we have ourselves.
No, I'm convinced this Daily Mail thing was a f@ck-up, nothing else. A writer would have had at least two versions. Any writer in this arena will fail miserably (miss out on getting published) if he or she waits for the result before composing anything. When the result came in, the writer would have taken the existing draft that best fitted and then completed the piece. Looks to me like this writer did all that and then posted the wrong bluddy one :lol: - of course it's wrong and apparently contains deliberate untruths... he didn't read or review this draft at all. He was never going to use it, he probably wasn't intending to open the document and ever read it again... he spent all of his time working on the other draft!
How long was this "article" actually posted for? It sounds to me like it was taken down pretty damn quick.
Storm in a teacup... Funny though. :D
