Several rags (including one or two that really should know better) report that the attack, by a “hooded thug” was a “copycat of the shamed England rugby star Mike Tindall's behaviour in the summer.” This, despite there being absolutely no evidence that Tindall (or any other England player for that matter) did anything other than get pissed on the night in question nor any evidence that the alleged perpetrator of the attack (who has not been found) was trying to re-create something that didn’t actually happen.
Still, why let something as trivial as the facts get in the way of a good story?
And why, we may ask, is this being reported now, some 3 months after the event? This might sound somewhat churlish of me, but could it be that the alleged victim – who supposedly has a “promising acting career” – might be indulging in a spot of cheap PR?
No comments:
Post a Comment