It's almost like you have a legal background with meta-arguments like that.
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
If there was some evidence that was the case there might be a hint of a story. There isn't.
Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?
No - they are not the people behind Hacked Off. They are victims whose sad cases have been used by others with agendas which have little with really preserving privacy and much to do with muzzling the press and controlling what the rest of us are told about those in power.
To be specific: the Dowlers had a lot of personal details put in the public domain as a result of the trial of the man who murdered their daughter. It was harrowing, I have no doubt. But callous as it may sound if you are involved in such a criminal matter as witnesses you will have to answer a lot of personal questions and those will be reported. Unless we're going to have secret trials.
Christopher Jeffries was much wronged: principally by the murderer who deliberately laid a false trail which pointed the finger at the landlord, then by the police who deliberately fed details about him to the press and, thirdly, by the press. The A-G did what he had every right to do and took action against the press. The police were by far more blameworthy in that case.
But note that sometimes the police do release details because they think that this can help them get witnesses to come forward. Would you want investigation of crimes to be hampered just to avoid someone having to face the press? There are balances to be struck.
The McCanns - for obvious reasons which I will not criticise - courted the press in order to help their search for their daughter. Entirely understandable. They employed a PR person to help them. He will doubtless have told them that once you involve the press you are inevitable going to find that they will want to know all sorts of things about you and not just what you want to tell them. You have to weigh that up. They also published a book about their search for their daughter in which they revealed details about their sex life. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this, personally. Their call. But when you have invaded your own privacy to that extent I'm not sure you're in the best position to accuse others of invading your privacy.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
It's almost like you have a legal background with meta-arguments like that.
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
I can't see for the life of me what you're suggesting he might have done. "Man with known views acts in accordance with those known views" really doesn't seem like much of a scandal to me. Has anyone suggested that he's put the frighteners on the press? Because that's the only way I can see that he might conceivably have done anything wrong. The evidence for that suggestion so far seems to be nil.
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
Is that true? If so, I'm thinking of revising my canvassing technique.
- No comments under the breath or to members during meetings.
- No raised voices or comments made in anger.
- No dismissive body language, including eye-rolling, tutting or head shaking whilst someone is speaking.
- No comments that make reference to personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender or individual personal politics.
-No action which may be interpreted as aggressive physical behaviour, regardless of whether that was the intent, for example, finger pointing at other members.
It's almost like you have a legal background with meta-arguments like that.
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
I can't see for the life of me what you're suggesting he might have done. "Man with known views acts in accordance with those known views" really doesn't seem like much of a scandal to me. Has anyone suggested that he's put the frighteners on the press? Because that's the only way I can see that he might conceivably have done anything wrong. The evidence for that suggestion so far seems to be nil.
Well if anything he has been championing freedom of the press and has been a vocal critic of the Leveson reforms. I have seen no evidence that he was threatening press freedom in order to cover up this story.
Anybody still use AOL email and unable to sign in this morning? (Yes I know I should have changed to GMail, MSN, etc... but I'm lazy when it comes to changing over the email addresses of all my different online accounts, LOL)
Even lefty Kevin Maguire is annoyed that Whittingdale is under pressure.
Attempting to set an impossibly high bar for the conduct of our politicians in any and all aspects of their lives including ones not relevant to their jobs is not realistic and will rule out all kinds of people. We will end up with nothing but vanilla dullards who aren't very good.
Even lefty Kevin Maguire is annoyed that Whittingdale is under pressure.
Attempting to set an impossibly high bar for the conduct of our politicians in any and all aspects of their lives including ones not relevant to their jobs is not realistic and will rule out all kinds of people. We will end up with nothing but vanilla dullards who aren't very good.
Probably because Whittingdale is holding back the tide of state censorship and willing to give the state monopoly news provider a kicking which journos who work for private enterprise probably agree with, though not openly.
Even lefty Kevin Maguire is annoyed that Whittingdale is under pressure.
Attempting to set an impossibly high bar for the conduct of our politicians in any and all aspects of their lives including ones not relevant to their jobs is not realistic and will rule out all kinds of people. We will end up with nothing but vanilla dullards who aren't very good.
Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?
No - they are not the people behind Hacked Off. They are victims whose sad cases have been used by others with agendas which have little with really preserving privacy and much to do with muzzling the press and controlling what the rest of us are told about those in power.
To be specific: the Dowlers had a lot of personal details put in the public domain as a result of the trial of the man who murdered their daughter. It was harrowing, I have no doubt. But callous as it may sound if you are involved in such a criminal matter as witnesses you will have to answer a lot of personal questions and those will be reported. Unless we're going to have secret trials.
Christopher Jeffries was much wronged: principally by the murderer who deliberately laid a false trail which pointed the finger at the landlord, then by the police who deliberately fed details about him to the press and, thirdly, by the press. The A-G did what he had every right to do and took action against the press. The police were by far more blameworthy in that case.
But note that sometimes the police do release details because they think that this can help them get witnesses to come forward. Would you want investigation of crimes to be hampered just to avoid someone having to face the press? There are balances to be struck.
The McCanns - for obvious reasons which I will not criticise - courted the press in order to help their search for their daughter. Entirely understandable. They employed a PR person to help them. He will doubtless have told them that once you involve the press you are inevitable going to find that they will want to know all sorts of things about you and not just what you want to tell them. You have to weigh that up. They also published a book about their search for their daughter in which they revealed details about their sex life. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this, personally. Their call. But when you have invaded your own privacy to that extent I'm not sure you're in the best position to accuse others of invading your privacy.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
A very comprehensive reply.
However the Dowler family, Jeffries and McCanns are prominent supporters of "Hacked Off" and listed as so on their website.
Perhaps you should have chosen you earlier comment more wisely rather than rubbish all members and supporters of "Hacked Off" as "ghastly".
Maybe it's a generation divide but I really didn't even clock this as a story. The only thing I now read is that he seems like a bit of a bigot for dropping a women because she escourted...
She did it while seeing him, maybe he had no intention of being cuckolded?
I thought he ended the relationship when he found out she was selling the story, and didn't know that she was a Pro Dominatrix.
On that basis, my current view is that all we have here is a gold-digger (or someone who became a gold-digger), and a rather cynical troll (Brian Cathcart and Hacked-Off).
Incidentally, there's a new Fear Effect being kickstarted. Looks a bit like XCOM (real time, but can be paused). Quite intriguing, though it needs stretch goals to reach PS4.
Incidentally, there's a new Fear Effect being kickstarted. Looks a bit like XCOM (real time, but can be paused). Quite intriguing, though it needs stretch goals to reach PS4.
- No comments under the breath or to members during meetings.
- No raised voices or comments made in anger.
- No dismissive body language, including eye-rolling, tutting or head shaking whilst someone is speaking.
- No comments that make reference to personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender or individual personal politics.
-No action which may be interpreted as aggressive physical behaviour, regardless of whether that was the intent, for example, finger pointing at other members.
Mr. C, currently, it seems some clowns want MPs to publish their tax returns, never make a lot of money, and never have any sex.
Man: Doctor Doctor, I want to live until I am 120. Doctor: Well, don't drink, don't smoke, don't eat rich food, and don't have sex Man: Will that make me live until I am 120 Doctor: No, but it will feel like it.
I would also question most sex exposes of politicians. Unless, as I say, the politician has been elected on the platform of traditional family values, or has publicly criticised or legislated against the private sexual conduct of other people, or is breaking the law or harming anyone. I don’t believe that knowing the intimate details of his or her sex life is in the public interest. Some of history’s greatest leaders have had colourful sex lives.
Incidentally, there's a new Fear Effect being kickstarted. Looks a bit like XCOM (real time, but can be paused). Quite intriguing, though it needs stretch goals to reach PS4.
- No comments under the breath or to members during meetings.
- No raised voices or comments made in anger.
- No dismissive body language, including eye-rolling, tutting or head shaking whilst someone is speaking.
- No comments that make reference to personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender or individual personal politics.
-No action which may be interpreted as aggressive physical behaviour, regardless of whether that was the intent, for example, finger pointing at other members.
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
They're using AV
How can you use AV in a three voter situation?
If in round 1 two votes go to a candidate then they're duly elected, no second round. If in round 1 no candidates get two votes who do you eliminate and transfer the vote of?
AV doesn't apply here.
If there's a tie in any round, they draw lots.
It really is an AV election
Really STV, of course, but defaults to AV because there is only one person to be elected.
No - they are not the people behind Hacked Off. They are victims whose sad cases have been used by others with agendas which have little with really preserving privacy and much to do with muzzling the press and controlling what the rest of us are told about those in power.
To be specific: the Dowlers had a lot of personal details put in the public domain as a result of the trial of the man who murdered their daughter. It was harrowing, I have no doubt. But callous as it may sound if you are involved in such a criminal matter as witnesses you will have to answer a lot of personal questions and those will be reported. Unless we're going to have secret trials.
Christopher Jeffries was much wronged: principally by the murderer who deliberately laid a false trail which pointed the finger at the landlord, then by the police who deliberately fed details about him to the press and, thirdly, by the press. The A-G did what he had every right to do and took action against the press. The police were by far more blameworthy in that case.
But note that sometimes the police do release details because they think that this can help them get witnesses to come forward. Would you want investigation of crimes to be hampered just to avoid someone having to face the press? There are balances to be struck.
The McCanns - for obvious reasons which I will not criticise - courted the press in order to help their search for their daughter. Entirely understandable. They employed a PR person to help them. He will doubtless have told them that once you involve the press you are inevitable going to find that they will want to know all sorts of things about you and not just what you want to tell them. You have to weigh that up. They also published a book about their search for their daughter in which they revealed details about their sex life. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this, personally. Their call. But when you have invaded your own privacy to that extent I'm not sure you're in the best position to accuse others of invading your privacy.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
A very comprehensive reply.
However the Dowler family, Jeffries and McCanns are prominent supporters of "Hacked Off" and listed as so on their website.
Perhaps you should have chosen you earlier comment more wisely rather than rubbish all members and supporters of "Hacked Off" as "ghastly".
Fair enough. I don't think my earlier comment was addressed at the supporters but I am happy to clarify that my comment is aimed at those running Hacked Off.
Incidentally, the Radio 4 programme - The Deobandis - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqr66 - is well worth listening to. It provides very useful context for the Muslim attitudes poll. Deobandis control about 40% of Britain's mosques with strong links to some very alarming groups in Pakistan. It is somewhat worrying but a first class piece of journalism of the type which Radio 4 does so well.
This has to be a non-story. Unprepossessing, middle-aged man sleeps with prostitute and then ends the relationship. Reading Sean-T contributions, it happens all the time. It's no wonder the tabloids never bothered with the story: no-one is interested.
Whittingdale is compromised in his current role.Of course,he should be sacked and ordered to vacate his post.Cameron has enough problems on his plate already.A severe cull of his disorderly cabinet in a night of the long knives is perhaps his only chance of survival.
Miss Cyclefree, on a related note the Channel 4/Trevor Philips polling programme is on tonight, at the rather odd time of 10pm (bit later than I would've thought).
Immediately after The 100 (although that's on E4, of course).
Miss Cyclefree, on a related note the Channel 4/Trevor Philips polling programme is on tonight, at the rather odd time of 10pm (bit later than I would've thought).
It is a horror story about what muslims really think so has to be after the watershed.
Miss Cyclefree, on a related note the Channel 4/Trevor Philips polling programme is on tonight, at the rather odd time of 10pm (bit later than I would've thought).
Immediately after The 100 (although that's on E4, of course).
No - they are not the people behind Hacked Off. They are victims whose sad cases have been used by others with agendas which have little with really preserving privacy and much to do with muzzling the press and controlling what the rest of us are told about those in power.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
A very comprehensive reply.
However the Dowler family, Jeffries and McCanns are prominent supporters of "Hacked Off" and listed as so on their website.
Perhaps you should have chosen you earlier comment more wisely rather than rubbish all members and supporters of "Hacked Off" as "ghastly".
Fair enough. I don't think my earlier comment was addressed at the supporters but I am happy to clarify that my comment is aimed at those running Hacked Off.
Accepted.
I should note that whilst very suspicious of the strange sloth of our fearless press on the Whittingdale front I don't think there is any case for him to resign unless events take a more determinedly hard hitting and punishingly incorrect turn.
Even lefty Kevin Maguire is annoyed that Whittingdale is under pressure.
Attempting to set an impossibly high bar for the conduct of our politicians in any and all aspects of their lives including ones not relevant to their jobs is not realistic and will rule out all kinds of people. We will end up with nothing but vanilla dullards who aren't very good.
Is there a JonTransBack btw?
Very good
No
I am Jon C but I left for a few months after the 2010 election and couldn't remember my log in...as has happened on oooh about 97% of things online I have ever signed up to
This has to be a non-story. Unprepossessing, middle-aged man sleeps with prostitute and then ends the relationship. Reading Sean-T contributions, it happens all the time. It's no wonder the tabloids never bothered with the story: no-one is interested.
Whittingdale is compromised in his current role.Of course,he should be sacked and ordered to vacate his post.Cameron has enough problems on his plate already.A severe cull of his disorderly cabinet in a night of the long knives is perhaps his only chance of survival.
Twaddle from the pair of you, @JackW is correct on this one.
It's almost like you have a legal background with meta-arguments like that.
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
I can't see for the life of me what you're suggesting he might have done. "Man with known views acts in accordance with those known views" really doesn't seem like much of a scandal to me. Has anyone suggested that he's put the frighteners on the press? Because that's the only way I can see that he might conceivably have done anything wrong. The evidence for that suggestion so far seems to be nil.
That's what's been suggested, yes. I don't know what evidence is behind such claims. From an outsider's point of view, the reticence of the tabloids to publish what they would see as a routine juicy story isn't immediately explained by an attack of conscience, though it could be explained by a desire to save up a good story for the day when they needed some leverage.
What do people think about Merkel's position regarding the 'satire' poem? Interesting to see the wider fallout whatever action is taken (or not)
Merkel can't win what ever she decides to do, she'll either offend an important diplomatic partner or alienate German supporters. Or she could have Böhmermann disappear I suppose!
This has to be a non-story. Unprepossessing, middle-aged man sleeps with prostitute and then ends the relationship. Reading Sean-T contributions, it happens all the time. It's no wonder the tabloids never bothered with the story: no-one is interested.
Whittingdale is compromised in his current role.Of course,he should be sacked and ordered to vacate his post.Cameron has enough problems on his plate already.A severe cull of his disorderly cabinet in a night of the long knives is perhaps his only chance of survival.
Twaddle from the pair of you, @JackW is correct on this one.
Fernando's comment isn't so much twaddle as an attempted smear.
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
I've heard rumours of alot more Boris tales than I've actually seen printed in black and white in a newspaper. I'm guessing with the precedent that's being created here they'd immediately have to dump about 90 pages of news in the week he took office !
Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?
No - they are not the people behind Hacked Off. They are victims whose sad cases have been used by others with agendas which have little with really preserving privacy and much to do with muzzling the press and controlling what the rest of us are told about those in power.
Christopher Jeffries was much wronged: principally by the murderer who deliberately laid a false trail which pointed the finger at the landlord, then by the police who deliberately fed details about him to the press and, thirdly, by the press. The A-G did what he had every right to do and took action against the press. The police were by far more blameworthy in that case.
The McCanns - for obvious reasons which I will not criticise - courted the press in order to help their search for their daughter. Entirely understandable. They employed a PR person to help them. He will doubtless have told them that once you involve the press you are inevitable going to find that they will want to know all sorts of things about you and not just what you want to tell them. You have to weigh that up. They also published a book about their search for their daughter in which they revealed details about their sex life. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this, personally. Their call. But when you have invaded your own privacy to that extent I'm not sure you're in the best position to accuse others of invading your privacy.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
Why not assume a total right to privacy unless the press can establish a public interest in breaching that right? I don't see why the McCanns discussing their sex lives in a book should mean they're not entitled to any sort sex life not shared with the public. Why should it?
You are describing the press as you might a Pit-Bull. 'Because they have been given information by the police or a celebrity their voracious appetites have been whetted so what do you expect'? Well I think you can expect a lot more than that.
To accept that a police trawl for information is a reasonable excuse to trash an innocent person's reputation as long as it might help capture a guilty one is quite a shocking concept and takes you deep into Kafka territory.
Incidentally, the Radio 4 programme - The Deobandis - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqr66 - is well worth listening to. It provides very useful context for the Muslim attitudes poll. Deobandis control about 40% of Britain's mosques with strong links to some very alarming groups in Pakistan. It is somewhat worrying but a first class piece of journalism of the type which Radio 4 does so well.
Yes, it is an excellent piece, particularly on the politics of mosque committees. The hardliners seem to be dominant there but with some signs of their grip loosening.
Whittingdale: meh.It's possible that the press held off from him because of his role, which would reflect badly on the press in view of their eagerness to print everyone else's private lives (that Mail on Sunday story quoted by Uniondivvie is particularly revolting), but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that he asked for special treatment. Move on.
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
I've heard rumours of alot more Boris tales than I've actually seen printed in black and white in a newspaper. I'm guessing with the precedent that's being created here they'd immediately have to dump about 90 pages of news in the week he took office !
- No comments under the breath or to members during meetings.
- No raised voices or comments made in anger.
- No dismissive body language, including eye-rolling, tutting or head shaking whilst someone is speaking.
- No comments that make reference to personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender or individual personal politics.
-No action which may be interpreted as aggressive physical behaviour, regardless of whether that was the intent, for example, finger pointing at other members.
@idgnicholson: @IanDunt I'm also wondering how Labour will fuck up this political opportunity, oh wait, Chris Bryant..
My my my Delilah...Victoria Derbyshire had Eagles on this morning and she was utter s##t even being "interviewed" by the incredibly Labour sympathetic Derbyshire.
One thing I am interested in and not conspiracy theory. Sun / Mail didn't run Wittingdale story because he was a single man and no public interest, but they are losing their marbles that the courts have banned them from being able to name the olive oil wrestlers...I am not sure the second story is any more or less in the public interest than the first.
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
I've heard rumours of alot more Boris tales than I've actually seen printed in black and white in a newspaper. I'm guessing with the precedent that's being created here they'd immediately have to dump about 90 pages of news in the week he took office !
You could have shared some last Friday!
Oh, seems they are out in the open - I've never bothered to look for such stories myself though on Boris - just got them second hand !
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
I've heard rumours of alot more Boris tales than I've actually seen printed in black and white in a newspaper. I'm guessing with the precedent that's being created here they'd immediately have to dump about 90 pages of news in the week he took office !
You could have shared some last Friday!
Oh, seems they are out in the open - I've never bothered to look for such stories myself though on Boris - just got them second hand !
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
I've heard rumours of alot more Boris tales than I've actually seen printed in black and white in a newspaper. I'm guessing with the precedent that's being created here they'd immediately have to dump about 90 pages of news in the week he took office !
You could have shared some last Friday!
Oh, seems they are out in the open - I've never bothered to look for such stories myself though on Boris - just got them second hand !
Not sure I follow...Timeline is early 2014 woman tries to sell story to press, he ends it, they don't run story...then for the next year it is banded about other newspapers, none run it.
Why is her tweet from July 2014 problemic with that timeline?
Off topic. Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?
It won't. I believe that the reporting level will be council authorities. Certainly that's the great majority, presumably because it's local authorities which run elections.
Incidentally, the Radio 4 programme - The Deobandis - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqr66 - is well worth listening to. It provides very useful context for the Muslim attitudes poll. Deobandis control about 40% of Britain's mosques with strong links to some very alarming groups in Pakistan. It is somewhat worrying but a first class piece of journalism of the type which Radio 4 does so well.
Yes - good programme, though the "Badoom-Tosh!" stuff about unmasking a secret history of extremism is a little rich. This was a known issue 20-30 years ago.
The preponderance of extremist Mosques is significantly down to funding having been available at the time, and consequential continuing influence, and importing, and setting up training centres for, Imams. That latter aspect is well covered in the programme.
David Cameron may be out of touch but it won’t help Labour
Voters prefer competence to compassion, so the opposition won’t gain ground by focusing on his wealth and privilege. Labour needs to prove its fitness to govern
Not sure I follow...Timeline is early 2014 woman tries to sell story to press, he ends it, they don't run story...then for the next year it is banded about other newspapers, none run it.
Why is her tweet from July 2014 problemic with that timeline?
Because the question is: why is it news now, as opposed to last week or two years ago? The more likely culprits are either Labour or the Tories trying to move on from tax wars, but really I've not had time to do any kremlinology on the story.
Off topic. Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?
It won't. I believe that the reporting level will be council authorities. Certainly that's the great majority, presumably because it's local authorities which run elections.
It was a very good watch, albeit it seemed to be a fair repackaging of a programme 20 or so years ago which featured the interviews with Heath, Powell et al. It complemented nicely my Easter holiday reading of Boris's cracking good book on Churchill.
If only Labour had engaged with our European cousins post WWII, as Churchill wanted in opposition, we might have had a very different EU eventually emerge.
Comments
Dismissive body language can get you banned from Labour meetings.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7069310/Labour-members-could-be-suspended-for-eye-rolling-during-meetings.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-SunPolitics-_-20160413-_-Politics-_-429956808-_-Imageandlink
He couldn't possibly comment on the possibility that the tabloid press sat on the story for ulterior motives. ..
To be specific: the Dowlers had a lot of personal details put in the public domain as a result of the trial of the man who murdered their daughter. It was harrowing, I have no doubt. But callous as it may sound if you are involved in such a criminal matter as witnesses you will have to answer a lot of personal questions and those will be reported. Unless we're going to have secret trials.
Christopher Jeffries was much wronged: principally by the murderer who deliberately laid a false trail which pointed the finger at the landlord, then by the police who deliberately fed details about him to the press and, thirdly, by the press. The A-G did what he had every right to do and took action against the press. The police were by far more blameworthy in that case.
But note that sometimes the police do release details because they think that this can help them get witnesses to come forward. Would you want investigation of crimes to be hampered just to avoid someone having to face the press? There are balances to be struck.
The McCanns - for obvious reasons which I will not criticise - courted the press in order to help their search for their daughter. Entirely understandable. They employed a PR person to help them. He will doubtless have told them that once you involve the press you are inevitable going to find that they will want to know all sorts of things about you and not just what you want to tell them. You have to weigh that up. They also published a book about their search for their daughter in which they revealed details about their sex life. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this, personally. Their call. But when you have invaded your own privacy to that extent I'm not sure you're in the best position to accuse others of invading your privacy.
I don't share the view - which seems far too widespread - that simply being a victim of a crime or a tragedy gives you some special insight or position to opine or be listened to on matters.
Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?
Even lefty Kevin Maguire is annoyed that Whittingdale is under pressure.
Attempting to set an impossibly high bar for the conduct of our politicians in any and all aspects of their lives including ones not relevant to their jobs is not realistic and will rule out all kinds of people. We will end up with nothing but vanilla dullards who aren't very good.
I mean we're now not talking about Corbyn and his tax return are we?
Mr. C, currently, it seems some clowns want MPs to publish their tax returns, never make a lot of money, and never have any sex.
However the Dowler family, Jeffries and McCanns are prominent supporters of "Hacked Off" and listed as so on their website.
Perhaps you should have chosen you earlier comment more wisely rather than rubbish all members and supporters of "Hacked Off" as "ghastly".
On that basis, my current view is that all we have here is a gold-digger (or someone who became a gold-digger), and a rather cynical troll (Brian Cathcart and Hacked-Off).
Accurate account anywhere?
But they can say whatever they like in whatever terms about Jews. Funny old party, Labour.....
Doctor: Well, don't drink, don't smoke, don't eat rich food, and don't have sex
Man: Will that make me live until I am 120
Doctor: No, but it will feel like it.
I would also question most sex exposes of politicians. Unless, as I say, the politician has been elected on the platform of traditional family values, or has publicly criticised or legislated against the private sexual conduct of other people, or is breaking the law or harming anyone. I don’t believe that knowing the intimate details of his or her sex life is in the public interest. Some of history’s greatest leaders have had colourful sex lives.
http://hackinginquiry.org/guardian/about-hacked-off/ten-common-myths/
Cue for search of photos of dismayed looks as Corbyn speaks in H of C, Labour Conference.
Suspended for a look...
I think that's what Labour stand for now.
If Cameron sacks him, it will only be to his own detriment.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/720176483550031872
It's no wonder the tabloids never bothered with the story: no-one is interested.
Immediately after The 100 (although that's on E4, of course).
I should note that whilst very suspicious of the strange sloth of our fearless press on the Whittingdale front I don't think there is any case for him to resign unless events take a more determinedly hard hitting and punishingly incorrect turn.
No
I am Jon C but I left for a few months after the 2010 election and couldn't remember my log in...as has happened on oooh about 97% of things online I have ever signed up to
I almost stopped watching halfway through the first series, but Mr. kle4 (I think) persuaded me to persevere. Glad I did.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/watsons-fingerprints-all-over-whittingdale-story/
You are describing the press as you might a Pit-Bull. 'Because they have been given information by the police or a celebrity their voracious appetites have been whetted so what do you expect'? Well I think you can expect a lot more than that.
To accept that a police trawl for information is a reasonable excuse to trash an innocent person's reputation as long as it might help capture a guilty one is quite a shocking concept and takes you deep into Kafka territory.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Part 1 on last night, part 2 is on next Tuesday at 9pm
Part 1 is repeated tonight at 11.15pm and is on the iplayer too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b077nrb1/europe-them-or-us-1-an-island-apart
YouGov EURef poll
Remain 40 (+1)
Leave 38 (nc)
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/euromyths/
Has the latest Wales poll been reported here? Nothing very startling except a modest Tory decline:
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2016/04/11/the-new-welsh-political-barometer-poll-2/
Suspended for a look...
Does 'Chewing a Wasp' come under the rules? That was Corbyn's visage when Hillary Benn was talking on Syria......
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/23/2F00A1CC00000578-3342813-image-m-24_1449098009440.jpg
Samantha Cameron’s sister gets behind Sadiq Khan’s mayoral campaign
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/samantha-camerons-sister-gets-behind-sadiq-khans-mayoral-campaign/
One thing I am interested in and not conspiracy theory. Sun / Mail didn't run Wittingdale story because he was a single man and no public interest, but they are losing their marbles that the courts have banned them from being able to name the olive oil wrestlers...I am not sure the second story is any more or less in the public interest than the first.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/he-s-fathered-a-love-child-and-had-three-affairs-but-the-british-public-still-loves-boris-johnson-8636709.html
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.
Is he not as other men ?!? ...
Why is her tweet from July 2014 problemic with that timeline?
The preponderance of extremist Mosques is significantly down to funding having been available at the time, and consequential continuing influence, and importing, and setting up training centres for, Imams. That latter aspect is well covered in the programme.
David Cameron may be out of touch but it won’t help Labour
Voters prefer competence to compassion, so the opposition won’t gain ground by focusing on his wealth and privilege. Labour needs to prove its fitness to govern
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/david-cameron-labour-competence-wealth-privilege
If only Labour had engaged with our European cousins post WWII, as Churchill wanted in opposition, we might have had a very different EU eventually emerge.