It’s easy to say - well, it’s the Daily Mail. But, of course, Mandelson could have used legal means to block claims which were untrue. We can now say conclusively that the claims were not true - hence they went unchallenged.
... should it say the 'claims were true- hence unchallenged" ?
Im having trouble parsing thus paragraph..
It’s easy to say - well, it’s the Daily Mail. But, of course, Mandelson could have used legal means to block claims which were untrue. We can now say conclusively that the claims were not true - hence they went unchallenged.
... should it say the 'claims were true- hence unchallenged" ?
whoops - well spotted, edited, thank you!
You can sum it up with my saying, ‘when it suits.’