The Guardian didn't use a photo of the 22nd victim, because they would have left a widow :clap:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-250000-killed
The Guardian didn't use a photo of the 22nd victim, because they would have left a widow :clap:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-250000-killed
:hehe: Yes, very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Do you actually think that's why they didn't show the 22nd? If so, that would be a truly appalling PR blunder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
They'll be soooooooo embarrassed. Find out who's missing and have at itQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
[QUOTE=Monty92;4173383]Do you actually think that's why they didn't show the 22nd? If so, that would be a truly appalling PR blunder.[/QUOTE
They say it is 21 or the 22....... why don;t you ask them why they didn't show the other
Is it not more likely that they either don't have a pic of the 22nd? Or no permission to use one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Yes, that would be my guess, but it seems suspiciously convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Or maybe the other one was really ugly or a spaz or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Well they included one of that appalling bender with the tattoo of Deirdie Barlow on his leg (the one who was defending Islamists on Twitter a couple of weeks before they killed him), so how bad could the 22nd have been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
True. I'd forgotten him. Hard to feel he was any great loss, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92