? what the fornication!?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by wHoSaIdThAt?, Feb 18, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I think that original story may have run in The Sun, and been subsequently withdrawn

    Any Sun lurkers care to comment?

    Rebecca? :D
  2. It's quite well done - the links on the left go to the correct URL's at the Sun site.
    to know if it's gen up, you'd have to see the photos for yourself and since they're probably sub-judice pending the police investigation that may never happen.
    Silly bugger for taking them to a Civvie lab though - we do have Brigade CPC's for genuine classified material - he should have burnt the negs if he'd thought there might be incriminating evidence on the films.
    Labs are legally obliged to inform the authorities if they find images that they think may have been taken in 'questionable' circumstances - mostly to safeguard against paedophile porn - though some unlucky parents have been hauled in over pictures of their kiddies at bath-time or in the paddling pool.
    If it does turn out to be true, then shoot the fools - we are the good guys after all...
  3. Its genuine I remeber reading that edition when it first came out..........pr a tt what did he expect!! :roll:
  4. [​IMG]

    This stereotypical Sun image is a beat...

    Complete with laughing fork-lift driving squaddie chap.

    Litigation anyone?
  5. Spoken to 'someone in the know' and he's been under investigation by SIB for a while now. His defence is that although it's his camera, it was loaned around the platoon and he didn't know what was on the film when he took it to be processed - a point in his favour being that he did take it to a civvie processing lab. He's either innocent (says his brief) or incredibly stupid.
    The onus is on the prosecution to prove that he actually took the photos, or had knowledge of what was on the film. Very difficult.
  6. 'Kelly's' obviously been offered a position by the Sun reporter...
  7. The point I was trying to get across is the fact that no matter when you view it it always has the correct date and the URL is obviously not the suns!

    Thats what makes it WIERD!
  8. Has it appeared in the Hard-copy Sun?
    Has anyone thought to ring the newsdesk and ask?
  9. Yes (said patiently) it has appeared in hard copy......although it was back about june /july last year :roll:
  10. I have contacted the sun about it,
    not really about the content but about the way it constantly apears as a 'new today'story.

    Fine, bite the bullet if it's true on the day but you shouln't have to have it reported new every day!
  11. It was published hard copy in the Sun on 31 May 2003 and Sunonline are investigating the link to propagandamatrix.
  12. are you an insider at the sun petwoodspa?

    no stigma/insult intended!

    :oops: :twisted:
  13. Sorry, brief moment of Biff-ness there...
  14. Looks like they're not being used for propaganda anymore!