Is this 'scandal' the thing people have been getting wound up about on here for the last few days?
A surfeit of scandals - this isn't the 'Celebrity (sic) threesome' injuncted scandal, but one three editors turned down as not a 'story' - yet since it involved a Tory, who was also responsible for press regulation, the Hacked Off crowd decided it must be a 'conspiracy' (no proof) so worth a good 'no smoke without fire' treatment they complained long & hard to Leveson about.....
The problem is that if any newspaper runs with a sex scandal about any other politician it will look very bad. By turning down the ************ story they are basically saying it's not news and not worth reporting. On past performance that's some turnaround from the press.
I think it depends on the context.
Single MP dates unwisely and ends relationship when he discovers nature of date's work - I'm with the three editors - not a 'Story'.
Single man posts photos of himself in his underpants on a dating website - marginal, but probably worth it for the embarrassment/foolishness factor.
Married proclaimer of family values and the sanctity of marriage caught playing away - throw the kitchen sink at him.....
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
I see Chris Bryant is making a late break for 'Pompous Prat of the week' edging out 'low achiever' Sir Alan Duncan:
Shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant, who was Labour's shadow culture secretary until last year, said: "It seems the press were quite deliberately holding a sword of Damocles over John Whittingdale.
"He has a perfect right to a private life but as soon as he knew this he should have withdrawn from all regulation of the press."
I find this whole thing bizarre - isn't this 'no proof, but nudge nudge, wink wink, no smoke without fire' approach, precisely the sort of 'sordid tabloid behaviour' that Bryant and the others such as Hacked Off deprecated - yet are now indulging in themselves?
Takes some chutzpah that ...... Perhaps he should look in a mirror for once....
Is this 'scandal' the thing people have been getting wound up about on here for the last few days?
A surfeit of scandals - this isn't the 'Celebrity (sic) threesome' injuncted scandal, but one three editors turned down as not a 'story' - yet since it involved a Tory, who was also responsible for press regulation, the Hacked Off crowd decided it must be a 'conspiracy' (no proof) so worth a good 'no smoke without fire' treatment they complained long & hard to Leveson about.....
The problem is that if any newspaper runs with a sex scandal about any other politician it will look very bad. By turning down the ************ story they are basically saying it's not news and not worth reporting. On past performance that's some turnaround from the press.
You'd have thought hacked off would be pleased.
Well, yes, I know what you mean. Perhaps they'd be better off waiting for the next time the Sun or whoever run a sex story about a celeb or something and then kick off.
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
Um, sorry, but like the guy who was ticking him off for doing an electronic return, you're passing judgment without knowing the system or the individual..
1. Parliamentary allowances are separately accounted for by Parliament, and are not normally taxable - it's one reason there's a special MP form because it's unusual that MPs are responsible for three full-time staff but the expenses re paid by Parliament directly and don't benefit the MP financially - the staff, the stationery, the postage, the office. It would be unusual for an MP to have taxable expenses - I don't think I ever did.
2. As noted earlier, you aren't allowed to send an electronic return. In return, you have till Jan 31 to submit the paper return.
3. The local government pension service (and Parliament) will be informed directly by HMRC that he's due to pay higher rate income tax. (I'm in the same position with my employer.)
4. The OAP is paid using the personal allowance, without tax.
5. I think it's pretty unlikely that he has invested in any companies, and not too surprised if he's not opened a savings account to get 0.5% interest. He's not interested in money, and not alone in not bothering with the savings interest. I suspect that's also why he does his own return but didn't get round to it on time - can well imagine him thinking it's money stuff, hence boring. Not an excuse but a week's delay is not the end of the world.
6. No idea about his lodger but I bet he isn't charged anything near the market rate.
Obviously MPs don't pay IT on the money they get for their staff etc but no taxable benefits? The IPSA site is truly awful but in fairness nothing jumped out: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx Let's give him that one. I was aware that he had to make a paper declaration.
The OAP needed to be declared on the form. It obviously affects the amount of PA available to be set off against his earnings. As he has not done this he presumably got tax relief on £6000 more than he should have. I think this is his biggest problem.
I find it absurd that a man who lives parsimoniously barely spending any money on clothes for example but being paid approximately 3x the average wage plus 2 pensions plus lodger rent has by the age of 67 not accumulated any savings. I suppose it could be in ISAs but it is more likely he forgot.
My understanding so far as the lodger is concerned is that if he was paying less than about £4500pa he would not need to declare it (generous chap that Osborne). That would be well below the market rate in London. Corbyn does not strike me as someone motivated by money or greed. That is not the point I am making. He strikes me as someone who is utterly and completely incompetent and with his tax return he has once again demonstrated that. Labour really must do better.
It may have been more of a story if he was employing her services, rather than just dating (apparently they matched on a dating website). The fact he isn't married make it even less of a story. But in reality it was just an adult man who happened to have dated someone who was rather kinky.
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said it was “a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing for once”. “This was a story about a man who was unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who hadn’t told him she was a sex worker. When he did know he ended the relationship. I can’t see there was a genuine story there and clearly on the People, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same way.”
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said it was “a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing for once”. “This was a story about a man who was unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who hadn’t told him she was a sex worker. When he did know he ended the relationship. I can’t see there was a genuine story there and clearly on the People, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same way.”
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said it was “a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing for once”. “This was a story about a man who was unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who hadn’t told him she was a sex worker. When he did know he ended the relationship. I can’t see there was a genuine story there and clearly on the People, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same way.”
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said it was “a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing for once”. “This was a story about a man who was unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who hadn’t told him she was a sex worker. When he did know he ended the relationship. I can’t see there was a genuine story there and clearly on the People, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same way.”
"has faced calls to withdraw from the regulation of the press"
'Who exactly' has called him to withdraw from the regulation of the press ?
Bryant
From the Telegraph:
Shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant, who was Labour's shadow culture secretary until last year, said: "It seems the press were quite deliberately holding a sword of Damocles over John Whittingdale.
"He has a perfect right to a private life but as soon as he knew this he should have withdrawn from all regulation of the press."
Um, sorry, but like the guy who was ticking him off for doing an electronic return, you're passing judgment without knowing the system or the individual..
1. Parliamentary allowances are separately accounted for by Parliament, and are not normally taxable - it's one reason there's a special MP form because it's unusual that MPs are responsible for three full-time staff but the expenses re paid by Parliament directly and don't benefit the MP financially - the staff, the stationery, the postage, the office. It would be unusual for an MP to have taxable expenses - I don't think I ever did.
2. As noted earlier, you aren't allowed to send an electronic return. In return, you have till Jan 31 to submit the paper return.
3. The local government pension service (and Parliament) will be informed directly by HMRC that he's due to pay higher rate income tax. (I'm in the same position with my employer.)
4. The OAP is paid using the personal allowance, without tax.
5. I think it's pretty unlikely that he has invested in any companies, and not too surprised if he's not opened a savings account to get 0.5% interest. He's not interested in money, and not alone in not bothering with the savings interest. I suspect that's also why he does his own return but didn't get round to it on time - can well imagine him thinking it's money stuff, hence boring. Not an excuse but a week's delay is not the end of the world.
6. No idea about his lodger but I bet he isn't charged anything near the market rate.
Obviously MPs don't pay IT on the money they get for their staff etc but no taxable benefits? The IPSA site is truly awful but in fairness nothing jumped out: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx Let's give him that one.
Ruth Davidson declared her expenses:
Her tax return shows she received £12,085 in benefits and expenses to cover her office costs which were deducted for tax purposes.
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said it was “a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing for once”. “This was a story about a man who was unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who hadn’t told him she was a sex worker. When he did know he ended the relationship. I can’t see there was a genuine story there and clearly on the People, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same way.”
"has faced calls to withdraw from the regulation of the press"
'Who exactly' has called him to withdraw from the regulation of the press ?
Bryant
From the Telegraph:
Shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant, who was Labour's shadow culture secretary until last year, said: "It seems the press were quite deliberately holding a sword of Damocles over John Whittingdale.
"He has a perfect right to a private life but as soon as he knew this he should have withdrawn from all regulation of the press."
Ridiculous...
Indeed - that's a complete nonsense of a position too.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
To be honest, I'm not sure unmarried minister has sex stories are scandals anymore.
25-30 years ago, perhaps.
Hmm with a dominatrix it is, also there's the issue of hospitality at the EMAs. It's not a huge story, but something for page 2 or so.
We seem to be confusing "in the public interest" with "what interests the public". There will always be prurient curtain twitchers, not that sure it is in the public interest to indulge them unduly.
Obviously MPs don't pay IT on the money they get for their staff etc but no taxable benefits? The IPSA site is truly awful but in fairness nothing jumped out: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx Let's give him that one.
Ruth Davidson declared her expenses:
Her tax return shows she received £12,085 in benefits and expenses to cover her office costs which were deducted for tax purposes.
So did Nicola Sturgeon (and had an allowance which was £1 more....)
That is what I would have expected in the same way I declare my gross receipts and then set off my costs to produce a taxable amount but it may well be that Nick is right and MPs don't do this. He is in a better position to know than either of us.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
I don't mind Jeffries grinding his axe, his life was ruined over a murder charge. It's the luvvies like Hugh Grant, who was arrested for getting a blow job in the street by Devine Brown.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
To be honest, I'm not sure unmarried minister has sex stories are scandals anymore.
25-30 years ago, perhaps.
Hmm with a dominatrix it is, also there's the issue of hospitality at the EMAs. It's not a huge story, but something for page 2 or so.
We seem to be confusing "in the public interest" with "what interests the public". There will always be prurient curtain twitchers, not that sure it is in the public interest to indulge them unduly.
Some papers and websites would be very empty (And boring) indeed if that test was always properly applied
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
The problem with Hacked Off is that they have stopped being principled about privacy rights, and now the political end justifies the means.
Although I'm not as persuaded that they were that principled about privacy rights in the first place - a lot of them went awfully quiet when the spotlight finally alighted on the Mirror Group......
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
The other day when everyone was complaining about the government EU leaflet, I said I couldn't understand all the fuss as there was plenty of money on the Brexit side to do a similar leaflet. Hey presto, a group of Midlands anti-eu business people are coming up with the money according to Telegraph.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
How is it a favour? Had he been married then "politician has affair with woman he met on Match.com" may be a story. But "single man enters a relationship with woman he met via Match.com" is a story no days a week.
Find an equivalent story they've published about another single politician recently and it might show differential treatment.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
The other day when everyone was complaining about the government EU leaflet, I said I couldn't understand all the fuss as there was plenty of money on the Brexit side to do a similar leaflet. Hey presto, a group of Midlands anti-eu business people are coming up with the money according to Telegraph.
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
You mean, had things been different would they have behaved differently? Of course, what does that signify? The question is simply is it a scandal of some kind and so is it a story To be a scandal someone surely has to do something wrong, legally or morally, or else is having hypocrisy exposed. None of those apply here, ergo there's no story. I guess on the basis he's in public life makes a story on his personal life potentially fair game, but I'm generally of the view that depends on the nature of your role in public life p, eg if your job is a reality to star who is constantly needing to court press attention about personal matters, it is more relevant.
That is not the case with a politician, lacking a scandal what justification is there for a story bar nosiness?
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
Yes, I'd agree. It's not about standards it's about control, about having power over their own messaging.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
Plus the celebrity is married ...
If he wanted to protect his children, he shouldn't have played away so to speak,
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
Plus the celebrity is married ...
If he wanted to protect his children, he shouldn't have played away so to speak,
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
I don't see this story on the front of the BBC site - as I thought, the sums are just too small to make it an interesting story, whereas even if Cameron did no wrong, the amount of money made it interesting, as well as allowing the raising of so called moral questions rather than dry technical breaches.
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
You mean, had things been different would they have behaved differently? Of course, what does that signify? The question is simply is it a scandal of some kind and so is it a story To be a scandal someone surely has to do something wrong, legally or morally, or else is having hypocrisy exposed. None of those apply here, ergo there's no story. I guess on the basis he's in public life makes a story on his personal life potentially fair game, but I'm generally of the view that depends on the nature of your role in public life p, eg if your job is a reality to star who is constantly needing to court press attention about personal matters, it is more relevant.
That is not the case with a politician, lacking a scandal what justification is there for a story bar nosiness?
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
Plus the celebrity is married ...
Oh I see. The British Press is now the guardian of the sacred institution of marriage. The po-faced contortions of PB Tories trying to defend the indefensible are sometimes quite hilarious.
I don't see this story on the front of the BBC site - as I thought, the sums are just too small to make it an interesting story, whereas even if Cameron did no wrong, the amount of money made it interesting, as well as allowing the raising of so called moral questions rather than dry technical breaches.
If a politician is publishing their tax return to show transparency then how does with-holding a separate sheet containing other income aid in transparency?
I don't see this story on the front of the BBC site - as I thought, the sums are just too small to make it an interesting story, whereas even if Cameron did no wrong, the amount of money made it interesting, as well as allowing the raising of so called moral questions rather than dry technical breaches.
If a politician is publishing their tax return to show transparency then how does with-holding a separate sheet containing other income aid in transparency?
Brazil seems interesting right now. I liked a quote from the Vice President, who Rousseff, corrupt as she is, is angry she might be replaced by, saying he'd stayed away from the capital for weeks do no one could accuse him of plotting behind the scenes. What, he cannot still speak to people on the phone to plot?
Cromwell and fairfax weren't present The night of prides purge, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything to do with it.
I don't see this story on the front of the BBC site - as I thought, the sums are just too small to make it an interesting story, whereas even if Cameron did no wrong, the amount of money made it interesting, as well as allowing the raising of so called moral questions rather than dry technical breaches.
If a politician is publishing their tax return to show transparency then how does with-holding a separate sheet containing other income aid in transparency?
It doesn't, but clearly that's not interesting enough.
I don't see this story on the front of the BBC site - as I thought, the sums are just too small to make it an interesting story, whereas even if Cameron did no wrong, the amount of money made it interesting, as well as allowing the raising of so called moral questions rather than dry technical breaches.
If a politician is publishing their tax return to show transparency then how does with-holding a separate sheet containing other income aid in transparency?
Because Corbyn being incompetent is not news?
The potential Prime Minister (no stop it) can't even accurately produce his own 'look at me I'm so clean' tax return when challenged to by his opponents?
John Whittingdale has come out of all this looking far better than the press I must say.
I think the printed press has done fine - three editors decided it wasn't a 'story' and spiked it - its Hacked Off who deprecate this happening to others that are making fools of themselves
The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs; the press now have a reason to publish any stories they might have spiked about them because they are unimportant.
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
"The Hacked Off 'celebrities' might be creating a rod for their own backs"
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
The point is not the story per se. It's the sheer hypocrisy of the press doing favours for a politician who can do favours for them - including before he was a Minister - while screaming from the rooftops about the right to publish a sleazy 'sleb slice of salaciousness.
What evidence is there that Whittingdale 'did favours' for the press? Are you suggesting he was blackmailed into doing so?
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
Plus the celebrity is married ...
Oh I see. The British Press is now the guardian of the sacred institution of marriage. The po-faced contortions of PB Tories trying to defend the indefensible are sometimes quite hilarious.
Married people having affairs is more salacious and more of a story than unmarried people starting relationships.
How is saying "unmarried politician starts a relationship using dating website" isn't exactly news a "po-faced contortion". Does the media report on every relationship that a single politician starts?
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
Oh I see. The British Press is now the guardian of the sacred institution of marriage. The po-faced contortions of PB Tories trying to defend the indefensible are sometimes quite hilarious.
The celebrity story would have been forgotten quickly under normal circumstances. The press should have published it - after all, the two people involved are perfectly willing to use the media to promote things they are interested in / making money from, and use the strength of their relationship as part of that. It would have been published, people would have laughed or frowned, and the next week / month the couple's publicist would have placed a positive story out there.
What's propelled the non-story to this level of interest (even if we cannot speak about it directly) is the injunction. It gave the story another angle and very, very long legs. In fact, the rumours and tittle-tattle about it are probably worse than what really happened. They've utterly lost any sort of control they may have had of the story.
It's the sort of reputation management that made the evil and sick Max Clifford his money.
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
I think the big question for Corbyn is where does the money go, after all he earns a fair bit. Perhaps a frequent traveller to the states of eastern Germany?
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
Tribal politics and inverted snobbery are two of the most childish traits but are demonstrated daily on here by intelligent men and women.
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
I think the big question for Corbyn is where does the money go, after all he earns a fair bit. Perhaps a frequent traveller to the states of eastern Germany?
I think I can answer the question as to where Corbyn's money goes. Probably, his wife spends it.
Oh, I see Whittingdale has come clean. That this story was not reported by the papers is a disgrace.
Why?
The question we have to ask is "would this have been treated differently with other politicians?" Okay, so I guess Whitttingdale was/is single and wasn't having an affair. But do you honestly believe if it had been another politician - say Jeremy Corbyn - the press would have sat on it?
This is deserving of a Carry On film style trombone sound.
While I appreciate the sentiment about class and politics, I must say the assumption the main fallout from the tax stuff will be on Corbyn,. even if people think it should be, it doesn't yet seem to have made much of a splash, so I doubt it will be the main takeaway.
http://capx.co/class-war-the-battle-only-david-cameron-will-win/
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
I think the big question for Corbyn is where does the money go, after all he earns a fair bit. Perhaps a frequent traveller to the states of eastern Germany?
I think I can answer the question as to where Corbyn's money goes. Probably, his wife spends it.
Ah yes, I forgot about the money sink that relationships are.
While I appreciate the sentiment about class and politics, I must say the assumption the main fallout from the tax stuff will be on Corbyn,. even if people think it should be, it doesn't yet seem to have made much of a splash, so I doubt it will be the main takeaway.
The tribalists on here are pathetic, this week's willy waving nonsense has been about who's tax return is more dishonest, somebody suggested Corbyn shouldn't be leading Labour because he's got no savings. Somebody else hinted I had no right to comment because Farage married an immigrant.
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It always was, and politicians encourage that.
No it wasn't, look back at QT, serious debate about real issues. Who gives a toss if somebody in a non job like Culture Secretary had a woman? Who cares if Corbyn wastes money? Who cares if Cameron's mum gave him some money? Pathetic, the tribalists on both sides fan the flames, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to be loved.
We never had trivial crap before? Ok.
That's not what I said. What has undoubtedly increased is the willingness, more like addiction actually, of stooping to any level in terms of playing the man not the ball.
The EU referendum has descended into a personality contest when some of us wanted to leave long before anybody had heard of Cameron, now its about his legacy not the future of the UK.
Insecure, immature, unthinking sheep, obsequiously obeying a bloke who wouldn't acknowledge them if he was in a lift alone with them.
meanwhile in Germany President Erdogan is going for the jugular of a satirist who made fun of him on German TV. The comdeian Jan Boehmermann now has to have a police guard.
Angie still buries her head in the sand and hopes the problem will go away but Erdogan just keeps upping the stakes.
“Sex scandals” aren’t what they used to be, no wonder the papers declined to publish.
I've just been reading one blog that is trying to liken it to Profumo, with a member of the London underworld playing the role of the Soviet naval attache in this case.
Crispin Blunt just put the boot into The newspapers on Sky news. "Raises a critical eyebrow" as to why it was not printed at the time particularly by Sun and Mirror. Also states it's more about the papers than Whittingale
Comments
Ghastly that privacy of sex worker caught up in this case seems to be of no consequence; a "price worth paying" to make a political point.
I thought Leveson and media law reform was about protecting the privacy of people caught up in news stories. It would appear not.
The "pro Leveson" campaigners pushing this story should take a good hard look at what they are actually doing with story.
I thought Leveson and media law reform was about protecting the privacy of people caught up in news stories. It would appear not.
Johnny Mercer's shower advert is the same, just not so tacky.
*pushes bacon and eggs to one side*
Mr Jessop will also be back in rehab now.
25-30 years ago, perhaps.
Let's give him that one.
I was aware that he had to make a paper declaration.
The OAP needed to be declared on the form. It obviously affects the amount of PA available to be set off against his earnings. As he has not done this he presumably got tax relief on £6000 more than he should have. I think this is his biggest problem.
I find it absurd that a man who lives parsimoniously barely spending any money on clothes for example but being paid approximately 3x the average wage plus 2 pensions plus lodger rent has by the age of 67 not accumulated any savings. I suppose it could be in ISAs but it is more likely he forgot.
My understanding so far as the lodger is concerned is that if he was paying less than about £4500pa he would not need to declare it (generous chap that Osborne). That would be well below the market rate in London.
Corbyn does not strike me as someone motivated by money or greed. That is not the point I am making. He strikes me as someone who is utterly and completely incompetent and with his tax return he has once again demonstrated that. Labour really must do better.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/13/mp-john-whittingdale-had-relationship-with-sex-worker
'Who exactly' has called him to withdraw from the regulation of the press ?
Shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant, who was Labour's shadow culture secretary until last year, said: "It seems the press were quite deliberately holding a sword of Damocles over John Whittingdale.
"He has a perfect right to a private life but as soon as he knew this he should have withdrawn from all regulation of the press."
Ridiculous...
I'm struggling to see any story here either, twenty years ago - yes, but not nowadays.
Her tax return shows she received £12,085 in benefits and expenses to cover her office costs which were deducted for tax purposes.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-conservative-leader-ruth-davidson-publishes-tax-return-1-4095597#ixzz45gbhAa6d
So did Nicola Sturgeon (and had an allowance which was £1 more....)
The thing that annoys me about the HO group (excluding people like Jeffries) is that they feed the media with stories they want, often via publicists. They want control of both positive and negative stories.
They set themselves above the rest of us plebs, who do not have that power.
Mmmmm.....
Rather an apt turn of phrase one might say given the circumstances......
Dear Mike Kaye,
Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “STOP CAMERON spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets”.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116762
The debate is scheduled for 9 May 2016.
Once the debate has happened, we’ll email you a video and transcript.
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
The problem with Hacked Off is that they have stopped being principled about privacy rights, and now the political end justifies the means.
Although I'm not as persuaded that they were that principled about privacy rights in the first place - a lot of them went awfully quiet when the spotlight finally alighted on the Mirror Group......
The other day when everyone was complaining about the government EU leaflet, I said I couldn't understand all the fuss as there was plenty of money on the Brexit side to do a similar leaflet. Hey presto, a group of Midlands anti-eu business people are coming up with the money according to Telegraph.
Find an equivalent story they've published about another single politician recently and it might show differential treatment.
Killer numbers? 'tis but a flesh wound.
What is the justification of publishing the name of the sex worker (who presumably is not in a position to 'do favours' for the press)?
The point about the celeb threesome is that the law is an ass - you can read about it online, or in 99% of the world's press - just not England & Wales
Are the taxpayers paying for that one as well?
That is not the case with a politician, lacking a scandal what justification is there for a story bar nosiness?
Labour said all tax due on Corbyns pensions had been paid and said details of his retirement income was included on a separate sheet.
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/labour-leader-omitted-state-pension-income-from-tax-return/a897945?re=39563&ea=199352&utm_source=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_EAM&utm_medium=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_EAM&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_EAM
Jesus wept, political analysis, its like children arguing over sweets.
It's not in the same league as Brooks Newmark - that had everything - sexting, weiner pix, young female fake profile and he's married.
Because Corbyn being incompetent is not news?
Cromwell and fairfax weren't present The night of prides purge, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything to do with it.
How is saying "unmarried politician starts a relationship using dating website" isn't exactly news a "po-faced contortion". Does the media report on every relationship that a single politician starts?
What's propelled the non-story to this level of interest (even if we cannot speak about it directly) is the injunction. It gave the story another angle and very, very long legs. In fact, the rumours and tittle-tattle about it are probably worse than what really happened. They've utterly lost any sort of control they may have had of the story.
It's the sort of reputation management that made the evil and sick Max Clifford his money.
https://twitter.com/daysoftheyear/status/719963906047913985
“Journalism largely consists in saying "Lord Jones is dead" to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.”
That's not what I said. What has undoubtedly increased is the willingness, more like addiction actually, of stooping to any level in terms of playing the man not the ball.
The EU referendum has descended into a personality contest when some of us wanted to leave long before anybody had heard of Cameron, now its about his legacy not the future of the UK.
Insecure, immature, unthinking sheep, obsequiously obeying a bloke who wouldn't acknowledge them if he was in a lift alone with them.
“Sex scandals” aren’t what they used to be, no wonder the papers declined to publish.
Angie still buries her head in the sand and hopes the problem will go away but Erdogan just keeps upping the stakes.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/anwalt-erdogans-will-gegen-boehmermann-bis-in-letzte-instanz-gehen-14175538.html#/elections
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
Also states it's more about the papers than Whittingale
Isn't that the hacked off line?