Who's talking about substantiating anything? You don't need to. All you have to do is keep repeating the allegation, substantiated or not, and attribute it. Which, as we have seen, can totally happen in an all-channels, high-pitched screeching way designed to cause maximum damage. Should that be what the commentariat/media wishes.
I suppose it comes down to who they particularly want to harm and who they think deserves a 'nothing to see here' and it's not difficult to see which was which here, is it?
Who's talking about substantiating anything? You don't need to. All you have to do is keep repeating the allegation, substantiated or not, and attribute it
You can still be sued for repeating it, regardless of whether you're not the original source.
Damien Green is handsy at parties = actionable
Damien Green, who appears on the leaked Whip's office list as allegedly being 'handsy at parties' = not actionable.
Who's talking about substantiating anything? You don't need to. All you have to do is keep repeating the allegation, substantiated or not, and attribute it. Which, as we have seen, can totally happen in an all-channels, high-pitched screeching way designed to cause maximum damage. Should that be what the commentariat/media wishes.
I suppose it comes down to who they particularly want to harm and who they think deserves a 'nothing to see here' and it's not difficult to see which was which here, is it?