"I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)
However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.
Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF." [..]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: Lippestad Attorneys: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Email Transcript:
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:41 AM
To: 'Tord Jordet'
Subject: RE: Lippestad Attorneys: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Thank you.
I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)
However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.
Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF.
Its massive public deception. So that is the source of my disgust… not sure what I am gonna do about it yet; I am still in shock, they can be so blaze about their endorsement of deception! I cannot fucking stand liars… I have more respect for people who tell the truth, even if I vehemently disagree with their truth, even if I find their truth despicable.. than I have for two faced hypocrites who practice public relations bullshit deception!
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so.
Thanks for response.
Lara