politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whittingdale: Will he survive or not survive?
Comments
-
O/T Apols of previously posted.
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-_-Imageandlink0 -
No chance of Syed Kamall defecting to Labour now.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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-_-Imageandlink0 -
If there was some evidence that was the case there might be a hint of a story. There isn't.Polruan said: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.0 -
Senior Conservative MP Crispin Blunt on Sky News "raises a eyebrow" that the tabloid press hadn't run the Whittingdale story long ago.
He couldn't possibly comment on the possibility that the tabloid press sat on the story for ulterior motives. ..
0 -
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.JackW said:
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?Cyclefree said:Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
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.
0 -
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.Polruan said:
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.0 -
Is that true? If so, I'm thinking of revising my canvassing technique.RobD said:
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair gameCarlottaVance said: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?
0 -
It’s a possible I suppose but surely the Sun is an even less reliable source of information about the Labour Party than the Mail.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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-_-Imageandlink0 -
The raft of new rules include:
- 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.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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-_-Imageandlink0 -
Top post, Miss Cyclefree.0
-
Off topic.
Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?0 -
What do they plan to do when everyone decides this is as much fun as sticking pins in your eyes and decides to go to the pub instead ?Plato_Says said:The raft of new rules include:
- No comments under the breath or to members during meetings.
- ... lots of other silly orwellian rules...0 -
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.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Polruan said:
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.0 -
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)0
-
This is a non-story
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.
0 -
She does that a lot, doesn't she?Morris_Dancer said:Top post, Miss Cyclefree.
0 -
Recent events show that the standard that MPs need to reach is to be both poor and sexless.0
-
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.JonCisBack said:This is a non-story
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.0 -
I think is the ultimate dead cat from Whittingdale to save Jez.
I mean we're now not talking about Corbyn and his tax return are we?0 -
Is there a JonTransBack btw?JonCisBack said:This is a non-story
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.0 -
Mr. Price, indeed. I still think Miss Cyclefree should be PM.
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.0 -
Shoo-in for poster of the year IMO.Tissue_Price said:
She does that a lot, doesn't she?Morris_Dancer said:Top post, Miss Cyclefree.
0 -
A very comprehensive reply.Cyclefree said:
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.JackW said:
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?Cyclefree said:Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
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.
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".
0 -
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.MaxPB said:
She did it while seeing him, maybe he had no intention of being cuckolded?ReallyEvilMuffin said: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...
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?0 -
It's hard to see on what grounds Whittingdale should resign (as long as his version of events is what happened of course)0
-
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 PS4.0
-
Translation please.Morris_Dancer said: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.
0 -
Plato_Says said:
The raft of new rules include:
- 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.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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
But they can say whatever they like in whatever terms about Jews. Funny old party, Labour.....0 -
Perhaps you should correspond openly with those noted and tell them so.perdix said:0 -
Man: Doctor Doctor, I want to live until I am 120.Morris_Dancer said: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.
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.
0 -
Hacked Off hypocrites:
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/0 -
Puns about gagging orders come to mind....JackW said:Senior Conservative MP Crispin Blunt on Sky News "raises a eyebrow" that the tabloid press hadn't run the Whittingdale story long ago.
He couldn't possibly comment on the possibility that the tabloid press sat on the story for ulterior motives. ..0 -
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sushee/fear-effect-sednaDavid_Evershed said:
Translation please.Morris_Dancer said: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.
0 -
Plato_Says said:
The raft of new rules include:
- 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.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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
Cue for search of photos of dismayed looks as Corbyn speaks in H of C, Labour Conference.
Suspended for a look...0 -
Really STV, of course, but defaults to AV because there is only one person to be elected.TheScreamingEagles said:
If there's a tie in any round, they draw lots.Philip_Thompson said:
How can you use AV in a three voter situation?Pulpstar said:
They're using AVSandyRentool said:FPT:
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.
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.
It really is an AV election0 -
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.JackW said:
A very comprehensive reply.Cyclefree said:
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.JackW said:Cyclefree said:
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.
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".
0 -
Don't forget incompetent.David_Evershed said:Recent events show that the standard that MPs need to reach is to be both poor and sexless.
I think that's what Labour stand for now.0 -
Dr. Spyn, the Gesture Approval Committee is one of the most powerful of the Chairman's allies
0 -
This thread is all about nothing. Nothing that the majority of men haven't done , in some form, all their lives.
If Cameron sacks him, it will only be to his own detriment.0 -
What's interesting about McDonnell's manoeuvres is that they must surely be partially endorsed by Corbyn:
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/7201764835500318720 -
Put a sock in it ...MarqueeMark said:
Puns about gagging orders come to mind....JackW said:Senior Conservative MP Crispin Blunt on Sky News "raises a eyebrow" that the tabloid press hadn't run the Whittingdale story long ago.
He couldn't possibly comment on the possibility that the tabloid press sat on the story for ulterior motives. ..0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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).0 -
What do people think about Merkel's position regarding the 'satire' poem? Interesting to see the wider fallout whatever action is taken (or not)0
-
Mr. Rog, has she taken a position? I thought she was still considering.0
-
It is a horror story about what muslims really think so has to be after the watershed.Morris_Dancer said: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).
0 -
Eh? What is this thing that the majority of us are supposed to have done?MikeK said:This thread is all about nothing. Nothing that the majority of men haven't done , in some form, all their lives.
If Cameron sacks him, it will only be to his own detriment.0 -
Which season of 100 is that? I saw S1 on amazon last week.Morris_Dancer said:
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).0 -
Accepted.Cyclefree said:
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.JackW said:
A very comprehensive reply.Cyclefree said:
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.JackW said:Cyclefree said:
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.
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".
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.0 -
Very goodWanderer said:
Is there a JonTransBack btw?JonCisBack said:This is a non-story
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.
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 to0 -
Miss Plato, on E4, it's currently up to the third series.
I almost stopped watching halfway through the first series, but Mr. kle4 (I think) persuaded me to persevere. Glad I did.0 -
Ooh, will set dvr - just binged two seasons of Under The DomeMorris_Dancer said:
Miss Plato, on E4, it's currently up to the third series.
I almost stopped watching halfway through the first series, but Mr. kle4 (I think) persuaded me to persevere. Glad I did.0 -
-
Fernando said:
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.
Twaddle from the pair of you, @JackW is correct on this one.volcanopete said: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.
0 -
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.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Polruan said:
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.0 -
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!Blue_rog said:What do people think about Merkel's position regarding the 'satire' poem? Interesting to see the wider fallout whatever action is taken (or not)
0 -
Well we will end up with MPs whose tax returns are dull at least. As for the sex, let's just say I think this missionary zeal is misplaced.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Price, indeed. I still think Miss Cyclefree should be PM.
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.0 -
Fernando's comment isn't so much twaddle as an attempted smear.Pulpstar said:Fernando said: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.
Twaddle from the pair of you, @JackW is correct on this one.volcanopete said: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.
0 -
A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.0
-
Gone out with a woman who turned out, for whatever reason, to be something other than your perfect match.Theuniondivvie said:
Eh? What is this thing that the majority of us are supposed to have done?MikeK said:This thread is all about nothing. Nothing that the majority of men haven't done , in some form, all their lives.
If Cameron sacks him, it will only be to his own detriment.0 -
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 !FrancisUrquhart said:A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
0 -
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?Cyclefree said:
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.JackW said:
You think the Dowler family, Christopher Jeffries and the McCanns are "ghastly people" ?Cyclefree said:Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy.
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.
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.
0 -
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.Cyclefree said: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.
0 -
Those calling for further action against Whittingdale should remember that he has already had his bottom smacked.0
-
@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!0 -
Mike, I think you've hit a bum note there ....MikeSmithson said:Those calling for further action against Whittingdale should remember that he has already had his bottom smacked.
0 -
O/T - I'd recommend Nick Robinson's Europe: Them or us. I learned a lot from it.
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-apart0 -
If not an ARSE note.JackW said:
Mike, I think you've hit a bum note there ....MikeSmithson said:Those calling for further action against Whittingdale should remember that he has already had his bottom smacked.
0 -
@idgnicholson: @IanDunt I'm also wondering how Labour will fuck up this political opportunity, oh wait, Chris Bryant..0
-
Note fieldwork is nearly a week old
YouGov EURef poll
Remain 40 (+1)
Leave 38 (nc)
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/euromyths/0 -
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.
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/
0 -
You could have shared some last Friday!Pulpstar said:
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 !FrancisUrquhart said:A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
0 -
Cue for search of photos of dismayed looks as Corbyn speaks in H of C, Labour Conference.dr_spyn said:Plato_Says said:The raft of new rules include:
- 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.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Apols of previously posted.
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
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.jpg0 -
Uh oh
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/0 -
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.Scott_P said:@idgnicholson: @IanDunt I'm also wondering how Labour will fuck up this political opportunity, oh wait, Chris Bryant..
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.
0 -
Any similarity between my ARSE and this spanking story is very harsh .. very harsh indeed.David_Evershed said:
If not an ARSE note.JackW said:
Mike, I think you've hit a bum note there ....MikeSmithson said:Those calling for further action against Whittingdale should remember that he has already had his bottom smacked.
0 -
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!0 -
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 !Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
You could have shared some last Friday!Pulpstar said:
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 !FrancisUrquhart said:A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
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.html0 -
There are new unspecified stories in regards to Bonking Boris which OGH / OGH Jnr are aware of.Pulpstar said:
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 !Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
You could have shared some last Friday!Pulpstar said:
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 !FrancisUrquhart said:A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
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.html0 -
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.0 -
I would second that. Both of your recent pieces have been interesting.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
0 -
Indeed, Mike shared that interesting snippet in the boozer.FrancisUrquhart said:
There are new unspecified stories which OGH / OGH Jnr are aware of.Pulpstar said:
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 !Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
You could have shared some last Friday!Pulpstar said:
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 !FrancisUrquhart said:A tit bit from the byline article that went up on Sunday, Boris was originally offered Wittingdale's job and he said no.
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
0 -
Clearly Roger's articles whips TSE into a frenzy ....TheScreamingEagles said:
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.0 -
Check the date -- July 2014. It wasn't that.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
Shades of Lauren Booth in PM's SIL going off the reservation.TheScreamingEagles said:Uh oh
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/0 -
Both of Roger's pieces ... ?????? .... he hasn't advertised that too well ....TheScreamingEagles said:
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.
Is he not as other men ?!? ...
0 -
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.DecrepitJohnL said:
Check the date -- July 2014. It wasn't that.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why is her tweet from July 2014 problemic with that timeline?0 -
I think your nurse needs to increase your dosage of bromideJackW said:
Both of Roger's pieces ... ??????TheScreamingEagles said:
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.
Is he not as other men ?!? ...0 -
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.geoffw said:Off topic.
Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?0 -
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.Cyclefree said: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.
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.
0 -
I can well imagine that they're like young Mr Grace's nurses in Are you being served.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think your nurse needs to increase your dosage of bromideJackW said:
Both of Roger's pieces ... ??????TheScreamingEagles said:
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.
Is he not as other men ?!? ...0 -
I haven't seen a nurse in weeks, except when Mrs JackW puts on ....TheScreamingEagles said:
I think your nurse needs to increase your dosage of bromideJackW said:
Both of Roger's pieces ... ??????TheScreamingEagles said:
Superb.Roger said:
That's very kind of you. I'll write one on the campaigns when they become clear.TheScreamingEagles said:@Roger - I really enjoyed your piece yesterday, well apart from the opening two sentences.
Hopefully we'll see more from you!
Both your pieces have been enjoyable.
Is he not as other men ?!? ...
0 -
Of course they will be dull if they all take the Corbyn line and leave a lot of it out :-), or if it gets eaten by Chairman Miaow.JonCisBack said:
Well we will end up with MPs whose tax returns are dull at least. As for the sex, let's just say I think this missionary zeal is misplaced.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Price, indeed. I still think Miss Cyclefree should be PM.
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.0 -
Agree with Rafael Behr
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-privilege0 -
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.DecrepitJohnL said:
Check the date -- July 2014. It wasn't that.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why is her tweet from July 2014 problemic with that timeline?0 -
Txdavid_herdson said:
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.geoffw said:Off topic.
Anyone know whether the referendum result will be reported by constituency, and whether there's betting odds at that level?0 -
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.TheScreamingEagles said:O/T - I'd recommend Nick Robinson's Europe: Them or us. I learned a lot from it.
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
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.0
