Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Was quite funny watching the paper roundup on Newsnight right now, Razzall having to watch what she said.
You don’t think the BBC have issued the apology because the Government put pressure on them?
Am really enjoying this now ... literally lying to each other now to alleviate their paranoia.They are stuck in the Cummings echo chamber and it's eating them up alive.
You don't think this Government is capable of behaving like that?
Oh what a coincidence, this also falls exactly in line with the leaked plan for how to play it out publicly.
Found it, wasn’t a leak but prescient all the same. Of course a research group that can’t be named has found the public is bored of the episode.
Last edited:
Sure Maitlis went hard and in a vacuum it would be too much. It didn't feel entirely
impartial.
However given their unequivocal backing and defence of LauraK after she is caught posting known lies that favour a particular political angle, any chastisement of Maitlis is fecking bizarre.
The BBC has quite clearly been compromised by government interference manipulation and propoganda.
impartial.
However given their unequivocal backing and defence of LauraK after she is caught posting known lies that favour a particular political angle, any chastisement of Maitlis is fecking bizarre.
The BBC has quite clearly been compromised by government interference manipulation and propoganda.
Tweet thread capturing sequence of events.
Last edited:
It does annoy me that well-known male broadcasters are apparently allowed by their employers to act as they please - this licence ranges from the utter jadedness and bias of Humphreys to the foghorn hectoring of Morgan and so on - yet female broadcasters are, it seems, only permitted to act as tokens and be decorative. This is plain wrong, and its a tradition whose time should be over.
to be fair it looks a bad decision on the face of it but I guess by now the BBC have looked into it and have a lot more material on which to base a decision
who wrote the monalouge at the start - was it her? and is there a process by which that is checked - and was that process followed?
If she has gone off an agreed script or not followed an agreed process in getting her stuff checked then that would on the face of it seem to but the blame on her
Of oits had be signed off by a producer then the blame is on the producer and equally if somebody else wrote it and she just read it off an autocue then again the blame should not lie with her
of there isnt a process in place for checking things then the blame lies with the bbc management / governance
Given that the BBC will have looked into this and have taken the action to pull her as presenter (for at least one episode) suggests to me that from a HR / legal perspective they mist have some indication that she had some involvement?
Same as it ever was.
I dont think so
I don't see how it fulfills that criteria (plus writing a letter and being prepared to vote against the government are very different things)
Also because I think it clearly falls outside of that scope trying it would I think be a mistake as it will be spun as people playing party politics at a time of national crisis... getting Cummings in-front of a select committee and having him refue to answer questions or lie about it and then going after him for contempt would be a more logical play but that will probably have to wait for the inevitable CV19 inquiry's by which point it will probably be old news anyway
It clearly obstructs legislature as it has completely eroded the trust between the public and this government and any measures that are required to overcome this virus are no longer going to be followed to the same standard as people cite Cummings excuses.
business of the legislature has the narrow scope of interfering with the business of the house of commons or the house of lords.
i.e. when the government failed to provide legal advice on time
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/contempt/
eroding trust in a government does not pertain to the day to day functioning of the house under contempt rules
read erskine may if you want https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4991/contempts/
the only way you are getting cummings or johnson on contempt is getting them to lie or refuse to attend a select committee ...
Fair enough, nail the bastard on contempt then.
They don’t have to be impartial they have to be balanced. (Attempts at being balanced has caused its own issues in the past decade too, mind)
I believe that all polls show that public mood is against Cummings. Remaining impartial leads to no criticism. What’s the point of that.
They've actually done it
Well no, clearly not.
Spoke to an auntie last night who lives in a seaside town down south where lots of Londoners own second homes. She said that over the last couple of days lots of those holiday homes have started being filled up again, presumably by people either thinking they're allowed to go there or just thinking sod it and going anyway. This Cummings thing is definitely having an impact on the public's behaviour.
This town has no recorded deaths by the way, but has a very old population, suggesting the outbreak hasn't reached there. Having 100 Londoners going back and forth could change that pretty dramatically.
This town has no recorded deaths by the way, but has a very old population, suggesting the outbreak hasn't reached there. Having 100 Londoners going back and forth could change that pretty dramatically.
He's laughing. 37,000 deaths, a buggy track and trace system launched too early and a government accused of flouting the rules to protect their advisor. And. He. Is. Laughing!
He's laughing. 37,000 deaths, a buggy track and trace system launched too early and a government accused of flouting the rules to protect their advisor. And. He. Is. Laughing!
Absolutely disgusting. Sociopaths the lot of them.
Funny that our BBC journalists have to follow the official government line? Dangerous precedent imo and probably only the first steps.
I think a big part of the problem is that these broadcasters and politicians know each other socially so the tv back n' forth is, if not a game, merely doing their job (i.e. going through the motions) without genuine feeling/righteous anger.He's laughing. 37,000 deaths, a buggy track and trace system launched too early and a government accused of flouting the rules to protect their advisor. And. He. Is. Laughing!
Even if that was the case, they must have some sort of self awareness to know how that would look to an outsider looking in, especially when one of the biggest problems the public have with the government is that they are, as you put it, going through the motions.
I'd probably just put it down to Matt Hancock being part of the problem.
Hancock's laughter is an accidental side-effect of this atmosphere - even under what passes for tough questioning, between those two there'll be an air of 'Come on, Matt, help me out here .You know the game - answer the question' & 'Come on, Kay, take it easy - you're weren't this feisty over Pimms last summer'.
There is definitely an element of that, but it doesn't have to stop the difficult questions being asked. Politicians feeling they can just lie or bluster their way out of it seems more prevalent now in the current government though.
With the Cummings press conference, you could sense the needle with Gary Gibbon.
There are never any consequences, mate, and I guess that's the fundamental problem and why the likes of Hancock feel free to be blasé.
2nd wind!
So the government will likely claim that the lack of action proves he didn't break the rules because nothing matters to these cnuts.
BBC owe Maitlis an apology.