On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Note, in other words, that the "defence"
of the PR editing here is
> entirely deflection
To an extent.
It also represents frustration along the lines of: "whenever one of us does
a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it
gets no traction or notice"
Note that PR Week seems to have avoided asking for comment from CIPR,
who put out a statement on the matter with WMUK joining in:
http://newsroom.cipr.co.uk/cipr-responds-to-reports-of-rlm-finsbury-editing…
So at least it's not actually unanimous.
- d.