|
Post by elystokie on Jun 20, 2022 12:51:25 GMT
Johnson has proven he isn't and shown himself to be really bad at the job. It's like rolling a one on a die and then saying I'll stick with that. The bar is so unbelievably low I guess that Stammer will be able to get above it. That would be my main argument. The fact he has held high office positions without being preselected from attending the right school or having been sacked from previous jobs for lying is also a decent start. Again the bar is the lowest it's ever been. Agree that being more competent than Johnson isn’t exactly a challenge But I’ve seen nothing in starmer’s constant fence sitting His treatment of his predecessor And his handling of labours covid policy that would suggest competence It would probably be easier to say he’s less incompetent The bloke that makes patterns in the gravel on the central reservation of the Hanley bypass and shouts at the traffic would probably be less incompetent than the bluffer
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 20, 2022 12:54:56 GMT
You can see why they have installed so many ex-Tories in the BBC and want to privatise C4. It must be so nice when so much of the media is owned by your friends, is so compliant and is therefore little more than official government mouthpieces...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2022 13:00:39 GMT
Jesus, trying to get another mistress on the payroll is yet another low. It's just mind blowing Maybe that’s why corbyn gave abbot a shadow cabinet job I despair 😔
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 20, 2022 13:02:11 GMT
How many Jewish MPs were promoted under the previous Labour leader? I'd be interested to see some stats on this Luciana Berger was made a shadow cabinet minister before resigning over Brexit: Not sure who else was Jewish or not, as I'm not sure if any of the current cabinet are Jewish?
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jun 20, 2022 13:04:27 GMT
President Putin likes this.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 13:13:42 GMT
Surely Walker has asked his bosses (and almost certainly got a reply) as to why they pulled the story? Thats what a proper journalist would do he's just a FBPE throbber. Story reported in full in february in Mail as part of a book serialisation so I imagine the Times is just embarassed by a journalist passing off a 4 month old story as an exclusive and or not paying the serialisation fee. Your attemt to deflect from the content of the story is typical and transparent It doesn't matter one jot whither Ashcroft/Walters Mail/Times broke the story There is something fishy as to p
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 20, 2022 13:14:04 GMT
It's going to be very interesting to find out why No. 10 pressurised the Times to retract the story.
It's highly unusual for a newspaper to retract an entire story, yes they might amend it and make a correction but for the whole thing to completely dissapear without explanation is extremely weird.
If there is an issue with the legitimacy of the story, then why wasn't any action requested when Lord Ashcroft released his book (which is still available) and the Daily Mail serialised it (which is still online)?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 20, 2022 13:27:34 GMT
It's going to be very interesting to find out why No. 10 pressurised the Times to retract the story. It's highly unusual for a newspaper to retract an entire story, yes they might amend it and make a correction but for the whole thing to completely dissapear without explanation is extremely weird. If there is an issue with the legitimacy of the story, then why wasn't any action requested when Lord Ashcroft released his book (which is still available) and the Daily Mail serialised it (which is still online)?
This is such a strange story for the reasons you outline. What we really need, as you said yesterday, is the Times to explain why it pulled the story.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jun 20, 2022 13:48:54 GMT
It's going to be very interesting to find out why No. 10 pressurised the Times to retract the story. It's highly unusual for a newspaper to retract an entire story, yes they might amend it and make a correction but for the whole thing to completely dissapear without explanation is extremely weird. If there is an issue with the legitimacy of the story, then why wasn't any action requested when Lord Ashcroft released his book (which is still available) and the Daily Mail serialised it (which is still online)?
This is such a strange story for the reasons you outline. What we really need, as you said yesterday, is the Times to explain why it pulled the story. I think it's safe to assume we will never find out the real reason this has happened.
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jun 20, 2022 13:56:22 GMT
This is such a strange story for the reasons you outline. What we really need, as you said yesterday, is the Times to explain why it pulled the story. I think it's safe to assume we will never find out the real reason this has happened. Good living in a democracy isn't it!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 20, 2022 14:00:25 GMT
Maybe that’s why corbyn gave abbot a shadow cabinet job Or why Abbott gave her son a job, or Corbyn gave McDonnells son a job and by pure coincidence McDonnell then gave Corbyn's son a job, or Ange made her boyfriend her pps, those tories you just cant trust them ohhhh..... Are you really sure you want to go there?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 20, 2022 14:25:26 GMT
This is such a strange story for the reasons you outline. What we really need, as you said yesterday, is the Times to explain why it pulled the story. I think it's safe to assume we will never find out the real reason this has happened. Most likely. But I’d like, at least, to hear what the Times puts forward as an explanation. I’d got used to newspapers publishing and be damned. It’s not like they have been gentle on Johnson since he became PM. I’m honestly surprised that there should be such apparent angst over something that’s apparently been in the public domain for months. Two other thoughts… shocking as the story is, I doubt anyone would be surprised. Most folk would read it and go something like “that’s what I’d expect from Johnson”. The other thing is, if you want to keep a story quiet, you don’t make a story about the story; which is what has happened. Only a brain dead idiot would not realise that a retraction would only inflame the original story. Then, again, as I type those words, I’m minded we are talking about Boris Johnson and his comms team and realise that is certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2022 14:31:56 GMT
Jesus, trying to get another mistress on the payroll is yet another low. It's just mind blowing Maybe that’s why corbyn gave abbot a shadow cabinet job I don't vote labour so couldn't care less what Corbyn did. The issue is what this government does, hasn't done, and should have done. We should all be focusing on tha. Sadly there is presently no one capable of effectively governing the country and this government is the most inept in history no to mention the deliberate lies and corruption.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 20, 2022 14:48:51 GMT
It's going to be very interesting to find out why No. 10 pressurised the Times to retract the story. It's highly unusual for a newspaper to retract an entire story, yes they might amend it and make a correction but for the whole thing to completely dissapear without explanation is extremely weird. If there is an issue with the legitimacy of the story, then why wasn't any action requested when Lord Ashcroft released his book (which is still available) and the Daily Mail serialised it (which is still online)?
Another possible reason?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 14:58:43 GMT
Surely Walker has asked his bosses (and almost certainly got a reply) as to why they pulled the story? Thats what a proper journalist would do he's just a FBPE throbber. Story reported in full in february in Mail as part of a book serialisation so I imagine the Times is just embarassed by a journalist passing off a 4 month old story as an exclusive and or not paying the serialisation fee. As usual your attempt to obfuscate from the content of the story is typically transparent It doesn't matter one jot if the story came from Ashcroft/Walters or Mail/Times No one is saying the story isn't true , least of all No 10 The reason to pull the story by The Times is as Fishy as Carrie's Cooch Maybe there's a super injunction in play The Real Issue is that while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attempted to appoint his Mistress to an Advisory position at a salary of £100K+ Her only qualification being her ability and willingness to open her legs to anyone from whom she could obtain a financial gain, a Prostitute if you will Should we be shocked, that Johnson would misuse Taxpayers Funds while in Public Office for his personal sexual gratification, of course not he has form While Mayor of London against the wishes of his Advisors his Long Term Poontang Jennifer Arcuri received Grants of £126K Her Tits/Brains were so important that they accompanied him on Trade Missions
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2022 15:24:26 GMT
Thats what a proper journalist would do he's just a FBPE throbber. Story reported in full in february in Mail as part of a book serialisation so I imagine the Times is just embarassed by a journalist passing off a 4 month old story as an exclusive and or not paying the serialisation fee. As usual your attempt to obfuscate from the content of the story is typically transparent It doesn't matter one jot if the story came from Ashcroft/Walters or Mail/Times No one is saying the story isn't true , least of all No 10 The reason to pull the story by The Times is as Fishy as Carrie's Cooch Maybe there's a super injunction in play The Real Issue is that while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attempted to appoint his Mistress to an Advisory position at a salary of £100K+ Her only qualification being her ability and willingness to open her legs to anyone from whom she could obtain a financial gain, a Prostitute if you will Should we be shocked, that Johnson would misuse Taxpayers Funds while in Public Office for his personal sexual gratification, of course not he has form While Mayor of London against the wishes of his Advisors his Long Term Poontang Jennifer Arcuri received Grants of £126K Her Tits/Brains were so important that they accompanied him on Trade Missions I mean if you read the independent story it quite clearly states No 10 deny it was true you dullard, so theres you no one is denying it claim in tatters. And pointing out printing in June an exclusive of a story another paper printed in February from a book serialisation when the journalist in question was working for The Mail is not obfuscation its stating facts thats pretty embarrassing you can't see it. Not as embarrassing as the vile misogyny you seem to think is funny and insightful after all there is no way someone who in the past had been employed as the £80k director of communications for the conservatuve party would have the skills to be a chief of staff is there....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 20, 2022 15:30:17 GMT
As usual your attempt to obfuscate from the content of the story is typically transparent It doesn't matter one jot if the story came from Ashcroft/Walters or Mail/Times No one is saying the story isn't true , least of all No 10 The reason to pull the story by The Times is as Fishy as Carrie's Cooch Maybe there's a super injunction in play The Real Issue is that while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attempted to appoint his Mistress to an Advisory position at a salary of £100K+ Her only qualification being her ability and willingness to open her legs to anyone from whom she could obtain a financial gain, a Prostitute if you will Should we be shocked, that Johnson would misuse Taxpayers Funds while in Public Office for his personal sexual gratification, of course not he has form While Mayor of London against the wishes of his Advisors his Long Term Poontang Jennifer Arcuri received Grants of £126K Her Tits/Brains were so important that they accompanied him on Trade Missions I mean if you read the independent story it quite clearly states No 10 deny it was true you dullard, so theres you no one is denying it claim in tatters. And pointing out printing in June an exclusive of a story another paper printed in February from a book serialisation when the journalist in question was working for The Mail is not obfuscation its stating facts thats pretty embarrassing you can't see it. Not as embarrassing as the vile misogyny you seem to think is funny and insightful after all there is no way someone who in the past had been employed as the £80k director of communications for the conservatuve party would have the skills to be a chief of staff is there.... Dan Hodges, whose tweet you quoted in support of your useless defence tweeted this morning that he has 2 very well trusted colleagues who confirm what we all knew. You really are dying on this hill mate.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 20, 2022 15:53:35 GMT
There's nothing really added here but nevertheless, it is interesting to see a media lawyer's perspective on what has gone on.
Something does indeed smell very fishy ...
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jun 20, 2022 15:54:35 GMT
Maybe that’s why corbyn gave abbot a shadow cabinet job I don't vote labour so couldn't care less what Corbyn did. The issue is what this government does, hasn't done, and should have done. We should all be focusing on tha. Sadly there is presently no one capable of effectively governing the country and this government is the most inept in history no to mention the deliberate lies and corruption. That’s the saddest thing. There aren’t really any options that the majority would be genuinly happy with. I just don’t know what the answer is. Maybe that’s why I voted Liberal. One things for sure though we need a change at the top.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 20, 2022 15:57:07 GMT
I don't vote labour so couldn't care less what Corbyn did. The issue is what this government does, hasn't done, and should have done. We should all be focusing on tha. Sadly there is presently no one capable of effectively governing the country and this government is the most inept in history no to mention the deliberate lies and corruption. That’s the saddest thing. There aren’t really any options that the majority would be genuinly happy with. I just don’t know what the answer is. Maybe that’s why I voted Liberal. One things for sure though we need a change at the top. [br Come on down Big Nige 😏
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jun 20, 2022 16:02:51 GMT
That’s the saddest thing. There aren’t really any options that the majority would be genuinly happy with. I just don’t know what the answer is. Maybe that’s why I voted Liberal. One things for sure though we need a change at the top. [br Come on down Big Nige 😏 Yes, another humiliation for him failing to get elected to the UK Parliament for an eighth time would give the population a timely comedic boost I think
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 20, 2022 16:19:36 GMT
As usual your attempt to obfuscate from the content of the story is typically transparent It doesn't matter one jot if the story came from Ashcroft/Walters or Mail/Times No one is saying the story isn't true , least of all No 10 The reason to pull the story by The Times is as Fishy as Carrie's Cooch Maybe there's a super injunction in play The Real Issue is that while Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attempted to appoint his Mistress to an Advisory position at a salary of £100K+ Her only qualification being her ability and willingness to open her legs to anyone from whom she could obtain a financial gain, a Prostitute if you will Should we be shocked, that Johnson would misuse Taxpayers Funds while in Public Office for his personal sexual gratification, of course not he has form While Mayor of London against the wishes of his Advisors his Long Term Poontang Jennifer Arcuri received Grants of £126K Her Tits/Brains were so important that they accompanied him on Trade Missions I mean if you read the independent story it quite clearly states No 10 deny it was true you dullard, so theres you no one is denying it claim in tatters. And pointing out printing in June an exclusive of a story another paper printed in February from a book serialisation when the journalist in question was working for The Mail is not obfuscation its stating facts thats pretty embarrassing you can't see it. Not as embarrassing as the vile misogyny you seem to think is funny and insightful after all there is no way someone who in the past had been employed as the £80k director of communications for the conservatuve party would have the skills to be a chief of staff is there.... When in doubt you just tell lies Your original source for the rebuttal Dan Hoges is now saying he has independently verified the story IS TRUE from 2 independent sources The "Denials" in the Independent are typical "Non Denials" from an "unnamed spokesman" Not that it's too relevant but Walters Story was an expansion of Ashcroft's I'm sorry to disturb your sensibilities but how would you characterise a woman who accepts financial gain in return for sexual favours? Her brief period "Advising" Zac Goldsmith was followed by her appointment to Tory Ceentral She was asked to leave that position because of incompetence and excessive expenses as reported by your Holy Bible the Daily Fail www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7230155/amp/Boris-Johnsons-girlfriend-Carrie-Symonds-quit-job-Conservative-Party-expenses-claims.htmlBesides being a breach of the Ministerial Code what on earth gives you the impression she was in any way competent Some speculate that she has continued to "Advise" Zac Goldsmith, I couldn't possibly comment
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Jun 20, 2022 17:35:39 GMT
I'm genuinely starting to think at some point, Boris will entertain leading us into war with Russia, as to avoid all the negativity at home, and for him to cosplay his dream role of Churchill.
The strikes are going to go on and on Inflation is rising We have a cost of living crisis We have key workers at food banks His wife is allegedly 'missing' He has been proven to lie and lie again in the commons and everywhere else The country is falling apart at the seams Brexit has fucked us He's about to fuck Northern Ireland Impending recession ... and the list goes on.
He has no morals, and would happily start WWIII, sending thousands of brits to fight (not his own, naturally) if it meant it took the heat off him.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jun 20, 2022 17:57:06 GMT
I think it's safe to assume we will never find out the real reason this has happened. Most likely. But I’d like, at least, to hear what the Times puts forward as an explanation. I’d got used to newspapers publishing and be damned. It’s not like they have been gentle on Johnson since he became PM. I’m honestly surprised that there should be such apparent angst over something that’s apparently been in the public domain for months. Two other thoughts… shocking as the story is, I doubt anyone would be surprised. Most folk would read it and go something like “that’s what I’d expect from Johnson”. The other thing is, if you want to keep a story quiet, you don’t make a story about the story; which is what has happened. Only a brain dead idiot would not realise that a retraction would only inflame the original story. Then, again, as I type those words, I’m minded we are talking about Boris Johnson and his comms team and realise that is certainly possible. If Cameron thought Johnson would become PM I bet he would have implemented the recommendations from the Leveson inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 20, 2022 18:00:02 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2022 18:22:46 GMT
I mean if you read the independent story it quite clearly states No 10 deny it was true you dullard, so theres you no one is denying it claim in tatters. And pointing out printing in June an exclusive of a story another paper printed in February from a book serialisation when the journalist in question was working for The Mail is not obfuscation its stating facts thats pretty embarrassing you can't see it. Not as embarrassing as the vile misogyny you seem to think is funny and insightful after all there is no way someone who in the past had been employed as the £80k director of communications for the conservatuve party would have the skills to be a chief of staff is there.... When in doubt you just tell lies Your original source for the rebuttal Dan Hoges is now saying he has independently verified the story IS TRUE from 2 independent sources The "Denials" in the Independent are typical "Non Denials" from an "unnamed spokesman" Not that it's too relevant but Walters Story was an expansion of Ashcroft's I'm sorry to disturb your sensibilities but how would you characterise a woman who accepts financial gain in return for sexual favours? Her brief period "Advising" Zac Goldsmith was followed by her appointment to Tory Ceentral She was asked to leave that position because of incompetence and excessive expenses as reported by your Holy Bible the Daily Fail www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7230155/amp/Boris-Johnsons-girlfriend-Carrie-Symonds-quit-job-Conservative-Party-expenses-claims.htmlBesides being a breach of the Ministerial Code what on earth gives you the impression she was in any way competent Some speculate that she has continued to "Advise" Zac Goldsmith, I couldn't possibly comment No Hodges was the original source to prove there was no cover up and as I mentioned offered the possibility the story was pulled because it wasn't exclusive as claimed and seemed to be rehashing parts of a book serialisation the times didn't pay for. A spokesman for Ms Johnson send the claims were untrue hows that a non denial denial seems a pretty straight up denial. I have not actually passed a comment on the substance of the story as I really couldn't care one way or another. I have no idea on how she advanced in her career but you can try and be a smartarse all you like it still doesn't hide your vile misogyny.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2022 18:27:31 GMT
Usual suspects seem to have gone missing That or they’ve just forgotten to post About the racist lammy forgetting to declare his earnings in time I don't think Lammy is racist but you are correct he is under investigation along with Starmer, Reeves, Raynor, Phillips and thats before we get onto their next leaders rather interesting tweets.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 20, 2022 18:28:09 GMT
No 10 said it had spoken to the Times BEFORE and after the story came out. The prime minister's spokesman said it had been made clear by his political colleagues in Downing Street - and by Mrs Johnson's spokesperson - that the claim was "not true". But a government source told the BBC the conversation following publication had not included mention of legal action. Two sources told the BBC that Mr Johnson HAD floated the idea with members of his team that his now-wife could be employed as his chief-of-staff when he was foreign secretary - and said multiple aides had advised him against it. The Times declined to comment on why it had removed its story regarding Mr and Mrs Johnson during his time at the Foreign Office. The journalist who wrote the Times story, Simon Walters, told the New European website that he stood by it "100%". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869650This story gets weirder by the hour, if Downing Street had told the Times that the claim was not true before they went to press, why did they publish it? And why are the Times declining to comment why it removed the story, when their journo is saying that he stands by it 100%? All very odd ...
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jun 20, 2022 19:45:44 GMT
How many Jewish MPs were promoted under the previous Labour leader? I'd be interested to see some stats on this Luciana Berger was made a shadow cabinet minister before resigning over Brexit: Not sure who else was Jewish or not, as I'm not sure if any of the current cabinet are Jewish? IF you cant name one you certainly dont know your politics just think who was leader before corbin also should it matter at all
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jun 20, 2022 19:49:04 GMT
No 10 said it had spoken to the Times BEFORE and after the story came out. The prime minister's spokesman said it had been made clear by his political colleagues in Downing Street - and by Mrs Johnson's spokesperson - that the claim was "not true". But a government source told the BBC the conversation following publication had not included mention of legal action. Two sources told the BBC that Mr Johnson HAD floated the idea with members of his team that his now-wife could be employed as his chief-of-staff when he was foreign secretary - and said multiple aides had advised him against it. The Times declined to comment on why it had removed its story regarding Mr and Mrs Johnson during his time at the Foreign Office. The journalist who wrote the Times story, Simon Walters, told the New European website that he stood by it "100%". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869650This story gets weirder by the hour, if Downing Street had told the Times that the claim was not true before they went to press, why did they publish it? And why are the Times declining to comment why it removed the story, when their journo is saying that he stands by it 100%? All very odd ... Alan Duncan's diaries seem to suggest it is true as well www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/carrie-johnson-symonds-job-b2105349.html
|
|