rationalskepticism.org

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Thommo wrote:That article you linked says the SNP described it as a "fracking company", it also says "It does have a fracking licence but it doesn't engage in shale gas fracking.".

Seems pretty clear cut.

This is true, when *I* acquire a licence I also never intend to use it.

Because I can't actually see where you, the article, the SNP or I said that the company never intended to use the licence, I'm somewhat dubious of that portrayal. It's an energy company, and if we are to believe the material you linked they have a portfolio of 80% renewables, 20% carbon, of which 0% fracking.

To describe that as a fracking company is deliberately misleading. In plain speech: it's a lie.

It is not normally held to be the case that previous good behaviour or someone else's bad behaviour makes lying a good thing. Cases in point being the Tory "factcheckUK" Twitter account and LibDem local newspaper clones.

Alastair Carmichael got away with lying about the FM because it was deemed to be political and therefore fine, so why we’re now being told you can’t put something on a leaflet that’s only untrue if you look at it from a certain angle I’m not sure. Can open, worms everywhere