It is unsurprising, perhaps, that a media outlet would prepare two versions of a story where the result was expected but unknown. Unfortunately for the Mail's website, they posted the wrong one. A cock-up, then.
But half way through the article, there's this:
And later, this:
As the appeal was successful, it's clear none of this happened.
Putting up the wrong article is one thing. But filling it with completely invented reactions and descriptions of events that haven't happened is something else entirely.
(Hat-tip to Chantelle Osili and all who highlighted this)
Posts
