Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Council bans the Mercury from its offices

Over the last few weeks readers of the local paper the Mercury might have noticed a change in editorial coverage, with the paper now being more critical of the council. The paper used to be given out for free in the entrance hall of the Town Hall but since the change in tone it is no more.

When the paper tendee towards reproducing Council press releases and it was responsible for distributing the Council's own propaganda paper, Greenwich Time, it was much more in favour. We guess there really is such a thing as bad press.

When we started this blog up we were a little rude about the local press, but in that time we've built a bit of a relationship up with some of them. We feel your pain, keep up the scrutinising work.

21 Comments:

Blogger Inspector Sands said...

Have you got any examples where the Mercury's rediscovered its teeth? I haven't seen a copy in a very long time.

It's now under new ownership, so perhaps it's found some soul again. It'd be nice to think so.

2:55 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's easy to forget to be shocked we are so used to these things. But this IS shocking. I'll have to make sure I read it now.

4:20 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to work at the Mercury, we were never in favour of the council or against it.
The council leader's garden was my particular favourite of stories done.

9:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story is also untrue - copies in the Town Hall today when I went to check this out and pick one up...

Looking at the back of greenwich time, the council's paper, anyone can see it is printed by the South London Press who own the Mercury.

End of story.

8:02 pm  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

Not untrue at all. The leader came running down the stairs screaming for all copies to be removed last week when he got angry with a story that was supporting the Council on education but didn't read it properly. Your use of the word "also" is interesting to us. Which other stories are untrue?

9:19 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you saw the Leader of the Council do this did you? Did you hear him say that this was his issue with the paper - or are you just speculating again.

And how do you explain why the owners of the Mercury print Greenwich Time if you believe the Council has an issue with this paper.

Care to speculate again?

9:21 pm  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

No speculation. Triple source checked fact.

8:05 am  
Anonymous Indigo said...

@anonymong, 9:21 PM, And how do you explain why the owners of the Mercury print Greenwich Time if you believe the Council has an issue with this paper.

Because the Council cannot afford to repudiate the contract? You don't think that each issue of Greenwich Time is a one-off printing order, do you?

10:41 am  
Anonymous The Council Baiter said...

Anonymous: Even our council couldn't act that quickly to retract Greenwich Times from the Mercury publishing service!! In addition they probably have a contract or special deal with them - and in their financial strapped times they need to get all the deals they can get wouldn't you think?

11:16 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh so we are just expected to believe you then Greenwich Watch.

And when you say triple checked - triple checked with who exactly?

Let me guess you wont name your source...

As for the clearly independent "council baiter" etc - how do you know the terms of the council's contract.

yet more speculation on the king of speculation sites

eg pure nonsense

9:31 pm  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

Let us put it like this. We've been right far more times than we've wrong and of course we're going to protect our sources.

6:22 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the alternative might be that the Mercury was banned but once this site and the papers started making enquiries it was magically un-banned again.

It is possible for something to be true when written but not true once circumstances change.

9:15 am  
Anonymous peninsulablp said...

Wow, the Eltham Mafia's rattled on this one.

Keep it up!

2:06 pm  
Anonymous Sceptic said...

"No speculation. Triple source checked fact."
Really?
By 'me, myself and I'?

10:46 pm  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

Three council officers.

8:17 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Council officers with an agenda perhaps?

12:11 pm  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

Whether they have an agenda or not it is irrelevant to the validity of what they said. We for example hate cabbage, but if we saw a rotten cabbage and said "that's a rotten cabbage" it would quite silly of you in reply to say "well you have an anti-cabbage agenda" as a means of suggesting the cabbage wasn't rotten.

12:35 pm  
Anonymous The (independent) Council Baiter said...

GW - They 'fear your name'! Keep it up - you are clearly on the right track.

Socrates stated that 'wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance' - clearly that is the case of those currently ruffled.

12:40 pm  
Blogger Barbara said...

Keep it up guys - you obviously have them going!

9:55 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha - this is what I pay my Council tax for - this sounds like an official denial.
I'm grateful for letting me know who prints Greenwich Time though. It costs me and others a fortune but is nowhere near as good as Andrex.

5:41 pm  
Blogger Barbara said...

Greenwich Watch - you bring a smile to my face - thank you for everything you do for the poor saps who live in this beleaguered borough!

10:36 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home