Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
Here's the gist:
Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course
)
Of course that was what the meeting was about. The floppy haired shambles is nothing if not predictable.Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course
)don'tbesilly said:
Here's the gist:
Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course)
How do you mean "is getting"? Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course
)Using sources has been the staple of serious journalism for generations. It's what reporters do. It's their function. They are judged by their sources. Newspapers are judged by the information they obtain via these 'unnamed' sources. Do you really not understand that?
If a journo fabricates a story while suggesting it came via a source, they get sacked. Johnson knows this only too well. There's nothing quite so untouchable as a journo who fakes sources.
Not only that, the editors of quality newspapers and particularly the quality TV news broadcasters, will not run a story unless they have two independent sources saying the same thing or some other form of corroboration.
As regards 'unnamed' sources, that does not necessarily mean unknown. ITN has broken a number of scoops over the last i8 months or so. If memory serves, the photo doing the rounds at the moment of Johnson at a party came via ITN. Although Peston often breaks it, he always gives credit to one of his colleagues. Everyone, which includes me, knows the source of much of the information. There can be little doubt as to who is pushing such info towards broadcast news, but he (or she I should add) is still unnamed.
It's going on, and has been going on for years. The tories have been restricting the freedom of your news reporters, and part of the problem is these leaks.
That said, some government leaks come directly from the government. They will lobby against a particular MP on occasion. They, that's the government, is also an unnamed source.
Murph7355 said:
My "democracy died" comment was against your very own yardstick (which I agree, was bulls
t).
We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
Is straw man arguments all you have left?t).We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
Electro1980 said:
Murph7355 said:
My "democracy died" comment was against your very own yardstick (which I agree, was bullst).
We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
Is straw man arguments all you have left?t).We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
don'tbesilly said:
Here's the gist:
Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course)
I guess we'll see when the report gets published, in terms of what additional morsels it gives to get everyone moist.Two Whitehall sources said the prime minister suggested that Gray did not need to publish her full report, given the investigation by Scotland Yard. “He asked her is there much point in doing it now that it’s all out there,” a source said. “He was inferring that she didn’t need to publish the report.”
The Times is getting as bad as the Guardian with their unnamed sources, it gets worse when two become one unnamed source.
Pinch of salt required right now with little from the article to give it any credibility, it's not as though there is any love lost between 'Whitehall' and Johnson at the moment.
The Independent has reported the claim/s are/have been denied by Downing St (unnamed source of course
)Denials from Downing St don't count for much
Electro1980 said:
Murph7355 said:
My "democracy died" comment was against your very own yardstick (which I agree, was bullst).
We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
Is straw man arguments all you have left?t).We won't attain Chinese rates of growth. However, we all have our own priorities and vote accordingly. The above was playing two off against each other as an example. Not as a definitive, complete set.
But broadly, could I put up with politicians lying/spinning/etc if the policy areas that matter to me are covered well? Yup. Though it does depend what they're lying about to degrees.
If people have "never lying" at the very top of their own voting agenda, that is their choice and I respect them for it...
Ivan stewart said:
Murph7355 said:
Nah. Theresa May.
Tony Blair!! Absolute , he sowed the seeds of destruction , most of our current problems are his fault Snide t
t that he is !!. At the same time blaming past politicians for current problems might feel cathartic but it also too easily lets the current lot off the hook.roger.mellie said:
Derek Smith said:
I thought I'd pull up this thread to see what the PH massive thought of last night's Panorama.
Only joking. Of course I didn't expect to find much discussion.
I didn't see it but thanks for the reminder, I'll watch it at some point if it's worth a watch?Only joking. Of course I didn't expect to find much discussion.
Just some fluff about cake.
While Boris Johnson partied, I helped a child put on PPE to see his dying dad
While Boris Johnson partied, I helped a child put on PPE to see his dying dad
But of course there was no need for the child to put on anything as the risk to the child from covid was miniscule compared to the journey to hospital.
But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
Dixy said:
But of course there was no need for the child to put on anything as the risk to the child from covid was miniscule compared to the journey to hospital.
But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
Those were the rules set. It's not the Guardian making up a situation to help advertising numbers. But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
What do you mean that the staff in the hospital were having parties?
Dixy said:
But of course there was no need for the child to put on anything as the risk to the child from covid was miniscule compared to the journey to hospital.
But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
Not just cake MrsVS did not have to take her usual packed lunch to work for months... But of course it makes a great headline for the Guardian to help its advertising numbers.
Oh and dont forget that the staff in the hospital were also having parties with cake, but that does not sell papers.
pghstochaj said:
Those were the rules set. It's not the Guardian making up a situation to help advertising numbers.
What do you mean that the staff in the hospital were having parties?
Some of the NHS were posting their little cake/pizza events to social media with absolutely no shame. I have no criticism of them doing this personally as a little break amongst the madness is required for all.What do you mean that the staff in the hospital were having parties?
Arguably a more dangerous place to do this than No10 though as they would have been in direct contact with vulnerable patients.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff