Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Once the speaker starts interfering in the freedom of speech then it is wrong
He demanded a meeting with the editor to explain himself and inevitably the Mail has rejected the request, and as I said earlier even a Sky presenter was questioning what authority the speaker has to intervene
Considering that both benches of the HoC were offended by the Mails slurs that seems reasonable to me.
No one has stopped the Mail repeating its misogyny, there is no restraint on the papers free speech.
So when another newspaper offends the HOC as it will is the speaker to summon the editor
Yes, I have no problem with that.
The Speaker can only speak words himself, he cannot ban the paper or the story.
Why do you want to censor the Speaker?
Why does the Speaker need to summon someone to speak his mind? Honest question. Have no idea what this spat is about, and don't really care.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
First rule of Freedom Big G, Freedom had to come with responsibilities or else it’s not Freedom of which you speak but anarchy and unfairness.
That sounds like a form of sensorship
Hmmm. Would you feel any differently about the MoS and the Speaker's failed intervention if the story was about a nice lady MP like say Liz Truss rather than a nasty one?
The speakers intervention is not about this single issue but more generally about the intervention by the speaker in any journalists story that is controversial from whatever source across the political spectrum
This isn’t any journalist, though. The request was for a meeting with the editor and the author of the story, the political editor, who holds a Commons pass. In view of the latter point, it’s within the remit of the Speaker to request a meeting.
The Mail are entitled to refuse, and Hoyle has said he has no intention of removing the Commons pass (which he is entitled to do), so I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The journalists may have freedom of speech, but that does not include freedom from criticism of their repulsive behaviour. It doesn’t sound even remotely like censorship - more like typical right wing snowflakery when they get well deserved flack for their bullshit.
Just wondering if Russia can get their strategy any more wrong. Banning gas sales to Poland and Bulgaria just as the weather is warming up and energy demand is diminishing seems nothing more than symbolic vis-a-vis the war, and very damaging to Russia's future prospects as a reliable energy partner.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
First rule of Freedom Big G, Freedom had to come with responsibilities or else it’s not Freedom of which you speak but anarchy and unfairness.
That sounds like a form of sensorship
Hmmm. Would you feel any differently about the MoS and the Speaker's failed intervention if the story was about a nice lady MP like say Liz Truss rather than a nasty one?
The speakers intervention is not about this single issue but more generally about the intervention by the speaker in any journalists story that is controversial from whatever source across the political spectrum
This isn’t any journalist, though. The request was for a meeting with the editor and the author of the story, the political editor, who holds a Commons pass. In view of the latter point, it’s within the remit of the Speaker to request a meeting.
The Mail are entitled to refuse, and Hoyle has said he has no intention of removing the Commons pass (which he is entitled to do), so I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The journalists may have freedom of speech, but that does not include freedom from criticism of their repulsive behaviour. It doesn’t sound even remotely like censorship - more like typical right wing snowflakery when they get well deserved flack for their bullshit.
Thanks for the explanation. The Commons Pass makes sense of the request for a meeting.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Because it implies politicians have the power to rebuke a journalist.
They don’t - he can say what he thinks but he can’t summon the editor for a dressing down
The Speaker is telling them to do anything. He’s politely asking them not to be such dickheads.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Because it implies politicians have the power to rebuke a journalist.
They don’t - he can say what he thinks but he can’t summon the editor for a dressing down
The Speaker is telling them to do anything. He’s politely asking them not to be such dickheads.
And that's fine - as long as he does the same whenever *any* media organisation is a 'dickhead' about MPs.
If he is, he is going to be busy. If not, then he's wide open to allegations of bias.
That Charles Grant article reads like a love letter to Macron to me; he's hoping he'll fulfil the federalist agenda he's always dreamed of, even whilst he acknowledges (without blinking) that other EU nations are not in the same place at the same time.
It will be interesting to revisit the article in 5 years time to see how much of it actually happened. And on that which may, such as moves on defence and security, how far they did so without substantial British support.
Lots of Europeans and more specifically French government people just think saying "strategic autonomy" thousands of time will magically make it happen.
In finance, defence, semi-conductors, energy and a number of other key sectors the EU is significantly or wholly reliant on an external party. With no way out, on the last check, the City has been gaining market share of financial services.
On defence Eastern Europe will never agree to a France/Germany led defence of the realm without US and UK involvement, in fact given everything happening in Ukraine I'm almost certain that Eastern European countries would leave the EU if EU and NATO membership became mutually exclusive.
On energy there still seems to be a real lack of acceptance that relying on Russian energy was a bad idea in Germany, loads of German officials are still waiting for this to all die down so they can quietly forget to reform their energy sector.
Finally on semi-conductors, it's the one area where Europe could potentially win back a lot of market share, Intel already has manufacturing in Ireland but at the same time, they're not domestic and Biden has, realistically, purchased all of Intel's investment capacity for the next 5-8 years for domestic production. The other major semi-conductor powers are in Asia and will be significantly less helpful to the EU than Intel. The lack of key domestic players is the issue, same as the UK. Both parties would essentially be building an industry from scratch, the US, Korea, Taiwan and Japan already have significant domestic industries and national champions like Intel, Samsung, TSMC and Sony who invest billions of dollars per year into semi-conductor development and manufacturing and dominate specific sectors.
This kind of rhetoric may win over blinkered EUphiles or those vanishingly few people who still like Macron but the reality is that both the UK and EU will struggle to achieve anything like strategic autonomy in very many key sectors. What the UK lacks in autonomy we make up for in speed and having a dynamic economy that is able to move with the times, just talking about my little sector of tech start up investing and consulting, nothing like this industry exists anywhere in the EU.
I think the UK has largely accepted that strategic autonomy is unlikely in a lot of sectors, it means we have to make sure our alliances count. Hence AUKUS, potentially pulling Japan into it, the new bridging security agreement for Sweden to join NATO etc... The EU seems to behave as if it were a benevolent superpower asking for favours but giving nothing in return. As I've said on many occasions, I'd start looking to tie UK-EU defence and intelligence cooperation to very long term mutual recognition in agricultural standards, financial services standards and customs pre-clearance of UK goods in key sectors and push these into the TCA and extend the TCA break period to 5 years rather than 12 months. No more freebies.
And strategic autonomy from whom?
The important thing is that the West (the democratic world) has it - I'm not particularly interested in "Europe" having it separate to the USA, which they seem to be.
Hunt isn't going to win. Members won't have it, he's too associated with the May regime and being too pro-EU. The suspicion is that Hunt would have signed us up to the EU vaccine scheme and his competitor will push that theory and to the old Tory members Hunt will be the candidate that would have sacrificed their lives because he still loves the EU and will secretly push the UK to rejoin.
That might be true, but I think it's nonsense.
Hunt isn't a Hammond, May or Rudd - yet alone a Soubry.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Because it implies politicians have the power to rebuke a journalist.
They don’t - he can say what he thinks but he can’t summon the editor for a dressing down
We need decency back in public life, which was Lindsay Hoyle's purpose. The Mail has gone down the drain since the editorial change, albeit from a low starting position.
Separate to that, the Select Committees can summon people.
Pace Elon Musk, we are NOT free to publish whatever we like. There are consequences, on a legal foot obviously, but also on an ethical and moral one.
I've not actually read the Mail articles. But I strongly think, that they should be allowed to publish whatever they want. For many years, I have detested this publication and found it incredibly annoying. But now, it has become a final dissident in the mainstream media against a puritan and almost totalitarian political culture. With this Rayner stuff, I have no doubt that it will continue to be consumed and gleefully digested by the public, and the howls of outrage are part of the story, and as many people have pointed out, it is not exactly clear who benefits from it.
I agree.
I detested Bercow but sense Hoyle is a bit of a sponge who soaks up the mood of the House, and plays it back.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
First rule of Freedom Big G, Freedom had to come with responsibilities or else it’s not Freedom of which you speak but anarchy and unfairness.
That sounds like a form of sensorship
Hmmm. Would you feel any differently about the MoS and the Speaker's failed intervention if the story was about a nice lady MP like say Liz Truss rather than a nasty one?
The speakers intervention is not about this single issue but more generally about the intervention by the speaker in any journalists story that is controversial from whatever source across the political spectrum
This isn’t any journalist, though. The request was for a meeting with the editor and the author of the story, the political editor, who holds a Commons pass. In view of the latter point, it’s within the remit of the Speaker to request a meeting.
The Mail are entitled to refuse, and Hoyle has said he has no intention of removing the Commons pass (which he is entitled to do), so I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The journalists may have freedom of speech, but that does not include freedom from criticism of their repulsive behaviour. It doesn’t sound even remotely like censorship - more like typical right wing snowflakery when they get well deserved flack for their bullshit.
Thanks for the explanation. The Commons Pass makes sense of the request for a meeting.
What all this Tory snowflakery is obscuring is that there is serious misconduct and perhaps even criminal behaviour.
Consider what happens in a real workplace, or should.
Someone is ion charge of a major public facility which gives special access to employees of an outside firm. This employee untruthfully accuses a contractor on site of serious sexual harassment of another contractor and publishes it in the media. The correct action for the person in charge is
(a) to ask for a meeting ASAP woth the outside firm and the employee to establish the facts (b) to remove special access if the story is sunstantiated, or the outside firm refuses to offer evidence otherwise (suspension).
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Because it implies politicians have the power to rebuke a journalist.
They don’t - he can say what he thinks but he can’t summon the editor for a dressing down
We need decency back in public life, which was Lindsay Hoyle's purpose. The Mail has gone down the drain since the editorial change, albeit from a low starting position.
Separate to that, the Select Committees can summon people.
Pace Elon Musk, we are NOT free to publish whatever we like. There are consequences, on a legal foot obviously, but also on an ethical and moral one.
What did you think of the Guardian's cartoon representing Patel - a Hindu - as a cow?
Surely that was more insulting than the comments against Rayner? Or from now on, does Hoyle give cartoons an exemption, for reasons (e.g. satire)? Hoyle has put himself into the situation where he has to decide *when* the media has gone too far - and that's going to cause him a load of issues if he is not careful.
I understand where you are coming from that nasty MPs like Rayner are fair game and nice MPs like Patel don't deserve the abuse. Fair enough.
However, aside from the misogynistic offence caused, the broader issue is a false narrative was manufactured for perceived political advantage.
If the journalist in question is going to fabricate fiction rather than report facts from the House, Hoyle is perfectly within his rights to demand the press pass back.
Oh so sweetly delicious 🤤 the Mail doubles down refusing to admit it’s done anything wrong or anything to apologise for. The Mail written and edited by imbeciles - a gift that keeps giving this week. And they are going to continue digging themselves deeper in allowing the Labour Party all the fun of the fair aren’t they 🤣
Do you agree that the speaker is able to summon a journalist and if so what has happened to the freedom of speech
I have roundly condemned that article but giving the speaker this power is a step too far
Whats wrong with the Speaker telling the editor to behave with more dignity to MPs?
Because it implies politicians have the power to rebuke a journalist.
They don’t - he can say what he thinks but he can’t summon the editor for a dressing down
We need decency back in public life, which was Lindsay Hoyle's purpose. The Mail has gone down the drain since the editorial change, albeit from a low starting position.
Separate to that, the Select Committees can summon people.
Pace Elon Musk, we are NOT free to publish whatever we like. There are consequences, on a legal foot obviously, but also on an ethical and moral one.
What did you think of the Guardian's cartoon representing Patel - a Hindu - as a cow?
Surely that was more insulting than the comments against Rayner? Or from now on, does Hoyle give cartoons an exemption, for reasons (e.g. satire)? Hoyle has put himself into the situation where he has to decide *when* the media has gone too far - and that's going to cause him a load of issues if he is not careful.
I understand where you are coming from that nasty MPs like Rayner are fair game and nice MPs like Patel don't deserve the abuse. Fair enough.
(Snip)
You evidently do not 'understand' where I am coming from.
I have said nothing in this conversation about the various attributes of Patel or Rayner. The comment I was replying to stated that we needed 'decency back in public life'; and it appears that Hoyle wants that as well. In which case he will have to be *very* even-handed.
(I have in the past commented that her very delayed apology for the 'scum' comment was insincere. Because of the attempts to defend it and the delay in the eventual apology. But that's irrelevant to this, especially as I think Patel is an awful HS.)
That Charles Grant article reads like a love letter to Macron to me; he's hoping he'll fulfil the federalist agenda he's always dreamed of, even whilst he acknowledges (without blinking) that other EU nations are not in the same place at the same time.
It will be interesting to revisit the article in 5 years time to see how much of it actually happened. And on that which may, such as moves on defence and security, how far they did so without substantial British support.
Lots of Europeans and more specifically French government people just think saying "strategic autonomy" thousands of time will magically make it happen.
In finance, defence, semi-conductors, energy and a number of other key sectors the EU is significantly or wholly reliant on an external party. With no way out, on the last check, the City has been gaining market share of financial services.
On defence Eastern Europe will never agree to a France/Germany led defence of the realm without US and UK involvement, in fact given everything happening in Ukraine I'm almost certain that Eastern European countries would leave the EU if EU and NATO membership became mutually exclusive.
On energy there still seems to be a real lack of acceptance that relying on Russian energy was a bad idea in Germany, loads of German officials are still waiting for this to all die down so they can quietly forget to reform their energy sector.
Finally on semi-conductors, it's the one area where Europe could potentially win back a lot of market share, Intel already has manufacturing in Ireland but at the same time, they're not domestic and Biden has, realistically, purchased all of Intel's investment capacity for the next 5-8 years for domestic production. The other major semi-conductor powers are in Asia and will be significantly less helpful to the EU than Intel. The lack of key domestic players is the issue, same as the UK. Both parties would essentially be building an industry from scratch, the US, Korea, Taiwan and Japan already have significant domestic industries and national champions like Intel, Samsung, TSMC and Sony who invest billions of dollars per year into semi-conductor development and manufacturing and dominate specific sectors.
This kind of rhetoric may win over blinkered EUphiles or those vanishingly few people who still like Macron but the reality is that both the UK and EU will struggle to achieve anything like strategic autonomy in very many key sectors. What the UK lacks in autonomy we make up for in speed and having a dynamic economy that is able to move with the times, just talking about my little sector of tech start up investing and consulting, nothing like this industry exists anywhere in the EU.
I think the UK has largely accepted that strategic autonomy is unlikely in a lot of sectors, it means we have to make sure our alliances count. Hence AUKUS, potentially pulling Japan into it, the new bridging security agreement for Sweden to join NATO etc... The EU seems to behave as if it were a benevolent superpower asking for favours but giving nothing in return. As I've said on many occasions, I'd start looking to tie UK-EU defence and intelligence cooperation to very long term mutual recognition in agricultural standards, financial services standards and customs pre-clearance of UK goods in key sectors and push these into the TCA and extend the TCA break period to 5 years rather than 12 months. No more freebies.
And strategic autonomy from whom?
The important thing is that the West (the democratic world) has it - I'm not particularly interested in "Europe" having it separate to the USA, which they seem to be.
Strategic autonomy from whomsoever we potentially require it from.
To take one example - Mr Macron and his various tantrums threatening the channel tunnel, electricity supplies and so on and so on, if we refused to let him violate the fishing arrangements of the Treaty he had signed. That particular snake needs to be defanged by various not-very-difficult means such as making sure that we are not dependent on the chunnel, energy imports etc.
Yet Boris the Useless sat on his butt, fingering whatever he was fingering, whilst accepting P&O closing the obvious alternative to the channel tunnel - the ferry connection from Zebrugge - one day after we left the EU.
Comments
The request was for a meeting with the editor and the author of the story, the political editor, who holds a Commons pass. In view of the latter point, it’s within the remit of the Speaker to request a meeting.
The Mail are entitled to refuse, and Hoyle has said he has no intention of removing the Commons pass (which he is entitled to do), so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.
The journalists may have freedom of speech, but that does not include freedom from criticism of their repulsive behaviour. It doesn’t sound even remotely like censorship - more like typical right wing snowflakery when they get well deserved flack for their bullshit.
He’s politely asking them not to be such dickheads.
If he is, he is going to be busy. If not, then he's wide open to allegations of bias.
The important thing is that the West (the democratic world) has it - I'm not particularly interested in "Europe" having it separate to the USA, which they seem to be.
Hunt isn't a Hammond, May or Rudd - yet alone a Soubry.
He's his own man.
I detested Bercow but sense Hoyle is a bit of a sponge who soaks up the mood of the House, and plays it back.
Consider what happens in a real workplace, or should.
Someone is ion charge of a major public facility which gives special access to employees of an outside firm. This employee untruthfully accuses a contractor on site of serious sexual harassment of another contractor and publishes it in the media. The correct action for the person in charge is
(a) to ask for a meeting ASAP woth the outside firm and the employee to establish the facts
(b) to remove special access if the story is sunstantiated, or the outside firm refuses to offer evidence otherwise (suspension).
Whereas in Westminster ...
However, aside from the misogynistic offence caused, the broader issue is a false narrative was manufactured for perceived political advantage.
If the journalist in question is going to fabricate fiction rather than report facts from the House, Hoyle is perfectly within his rights to demand the press pass back.
I have said nothing in this conversation about the various attributes of Patel or Rayner. The comment I was replying to stated that we needed 'decency back in public life'; and it appears that Hoyle wants that as well. In which case he will have to be *very* even-handed.
(I have in the past commented that her very delayed apology for the 'scum' comment was insincere. Because of the attempts to defend it and the delay in the eventual apology. But that's irrelevant to this, especially as I think Patel is an awful HS.)
To take one example - Mr Macron and his various tantrums threatening the channel tunnel, electricity supplies and so on and so on, if we refused to let him violate the fishing arrangements of the Treaty he had signed. That particular snake needs to be defanged by various not-very-difficult means such as making sure that we are not dependent on the chunnel, energy imports etc.
Yet Boris the Useless sat on his butt, fingering whatever he was fingering, whilst accepting P&O closing the obvious alternative to the channel tunnel - the ferry connection from Zebrugge - one day after we left the EU.