The Guardian trolls its own readers.

From The Guardian:

Scientific research findings that are probably wrong gain far more attention than robust results, according to academics who suspect that the bar for publication may be lower for papers with grabbier conclusions.

Studies in top science, psychology and economics journals that fail to hold up when others repeat them are cited, on average, more than 100 times as often in follow-up papers than work that stands the test of time.

The finding – which is itself not exempt from the need for scrutiny – has led the authors to suspect that more interesting papers are waved through more easily by reviewers and journal editors and, once published, attract more attention.

Say the newspaper that will publish every single climate change scare story going (many of which were probably hoaxes), the scarier the better.

"Still a member of the Labour Social Club in my former constituency? Me? Are you having a laugh?

Do you think I've even set foot in the constituency since "stepping down"?

Oh dear. The things that can happen when you omit to keep your entry in 'Who's Who' up to date!"