Westminster Politics

Pexbo said:
Superb trolling, a strong 3/10 for effort.
Click to expand...

it’s not trolling. The Mirror has been a joke for 20 years. It’s not a serious paper.

next you will be saying The Star is a serious paper!

do you actually think anything in the mirror should be taken seriously, no matter what the story is today
TheReligion said:
Fair point. You've clearly not looked in one for years
Click to expand...

good one. Need to go to A&E my sides just split:(
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
it’s not trolling. The Mirror has been a joke for 20 years. It’s not a serious paper.

next you will be saying The Star is a serious paper!

do you actually think anything in the mirror should be taken seriously, no matter what the story is today


good one. Need to go to A&E my sides just split:(
Click to expand...

I expect parity. If the headlines are going to be shown in The Sun, The Daily Express and The Spectator then they should be shown for one of the few left wing national newspapers too.

This isn’t the issue here though, the issue is that they are usually shown on Marr and were selectively removed when they contain a story which should be politically damaging to the Prime Minister.

I appreciate you’re right wing yourself so have a hard time caring but trying to be at least a little bit objective and a little less partisan you can surely see the problem here?

The story this morning should be not about Boris being a man whore but about Boris securing £136,000 for Acura’s business interests while he was London Mayor while failing to state his conflict of interest. He has since defended that position by denying a relationship ever took place which we now know to be a lie.

If you’re fine with this sort of corruption when they’re on your team, you can forget being taken seriously in any other political discussions.
 
Pexbo said:
I expect parity. If the headlines are going to be shown in The Sun, The Daily Express and The Spectator then they should be shown for one of the few left wing national newspapers too.

This isn’t the issue here though, the issue is that they are usually shown on Marr and were selectively removed when they contain a story which should be politically damaging to the Prime Minister.

I appreciate you’re right wing yourself so have a hard time caring but trying to be at least a little bit objective and a little less partisan you can surely see the problem here?

The story this morning should be not about Boris being a man whore but about Boris securing £136,000 for Acura’s business interests while he was London Mayor while failing to state his conflict of interest. He has since defended that position by denying a relationship ever took place which we now know to be a lie.

If you’re fine with this sort of corruption when they’re on your team, you can forget being taken seriously in any other political discussions.
Click to expand...
I do often watch the Andrew Marr show, but don’t take note of what papers are reviewed.

I’m also certainly not right wing, I am a centralist - although I appreciate this forum is very left leaning, and so it may appear that way, but it’s not.

I do have a particular dislike (putting it mildly) for the mirror as they published falsified reports of the army torturing Iraq prisoners which were in fact photos taken in a TA Centre. This at the very least put people in danger, and likely contributed to soldiers being injured or killed.

if it was reported by any other paper, then I would take it seriously. Never The Mirror. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with a political viewpoint.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
I do often watch the Andrew Marr show, but don’t take note of what papers are reviewed.

I’m also certainly not right wing, I am a centralist - although I appreciate this forum is very left leaning, and so it may appear that way, but it’s not.

I do have a particular dislike (putting it mildly) for the mirror as they published falsified reports of the army torturing Iraq prisoners which were in fact photos taken in a TA Centre. This at the very least put people in danger, and likely contributed to soldiers being injured or killed.

if it was reported by any other paper, then I would take it seriously. Never The Mirror. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with a political viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here in terms of this story though. Are you saying that it is correct that the story isn't covered by the BBC just because it's in the Mirror even though it's come from the actual person involved so hardly needs verification. Surely that's news worthy considering the potential political motivations behind it?
 
Last edited:
It's not 'reported' in the mirror, it's a full interview she gives them.

So out of interest, what exactly is your point here?
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
I do often watch the Andrew Marr show, but don’t take note of what papers are reviewed.

I’m also certainly not right wing, I am a centralist - although I appreciate this forum is very left leaning, and so it may appear that way, but it’s not.

I do have a particular dislike (putting it mildly) for the mirror as they published falsified reports of the army torturing Iraq prisoners which were in fact photos taken in a TA Centre. This at the very least put people in danger, and likely contributed to soldiers being injured or killed.

if it was reported by any other paper, then I would take it seriously. Never The Mirror. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with a political viewpoint.
Click to expand...
What about other papers like The Sun? Or do they get a pass?
 
My point is very clear. I would read, and wouldn’t believe a word that’s printed in that newspaper. That’s not to say it’s not true - don’t make that assumption. If it was covered by a paper that didn’t have a large portfolio of made up, fabricated and coerced stories I would read it.

I am entitled to disregard anything from a particular publication.

As stated, nothing to do with politics, and my opinion would be the same, no matter the subject of the story.

likewise, I will disregard every word Piers Morgan ever says, and will do my best to avoid everything he’s on or writes.
 
Out of interest the newspaper summary page on the BBC has a picture of the Mirror and a short comment about the story underneath it. In the editorial section on the same page they have "The joy of six is the headline in the Sunday Mirror, which says millions of people are gearing up for a Magic Monday, which will see them reunited with family and friends for the first time in months."

Unless I'm missing something that isn't even mentioned on the front page of the Mirror as a headline and they've missed off the Boris story completely :lol:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-56553014
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
im not critiquing every newspaper.

I’ve made it clear it’s the mirror that I have a problem with. It’s very personal.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Regardless of the publication and who interviewed her, I'm sure you'd agree its quite ridiculous that the media have barely criticised Boris for this?
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
My point is very clear. I would read, and wouldn’t believe a word that’s printed in that newspaper. That’s not to say it’s not true - don’t make that assumption. If it was covered by a paper that didn’t have a large portfolio of made up, fabricated and coerced stories I would read it.

I am entitled to disregard anything from a particular publication.

As stated, nothing to do with politics, and my opinion would be the same, no matter the subject of the story.

likewise, I will disregard every word Piers Morgan ever says, and will do my best to avoid everything he’s on or writes.
Click to expand...

Name one.
 
I can guarantee that nobody gives a feck what newspaper you like, distrust, or masturbate over (though obviously this would be the Daily Mail).

That was not the point of the initial observation: that a newspaper normally reviewed on the show was overlooked when it contained a damaging front page to the Tory PM.

Are you trying to deliberately derail the potentially damaging story of your Tory mates, or are you seriously obtuse.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
The fact this is only being reported in The Mirror is the story.
Click to expand...

It's an exclusive interview so wouldn't have been in any of the other Sunday newspapers.

If it's not in tomorrows papers at all (which is probable) then that's an issue. It should be on websites though and the Independent have it on there now and I expect the Guardian and more liberal sites to follow. Whether it will appear on the likes of the Times, Telegraph or Sky is another matter of course.
 
dumbo said:
I can guarantee that nobody gives a feck what newspaper you like, distrust, or masturbate over (though obviously this would be the Daily Mail).

That was not the point of the initial observation: that a newspaper normally reviewed on the show was overlooked when it contained a damaging front page to the Tory PM.

Are you trying to deliberately derail the potentially damaging story of your Tory mates, or are you seriously obtuse.
Click to expand...

do you think this is a good way to debate?

“Masterbate over”.

I suggest you come back when you can articulate something useful.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
do you think this is a good way to debate?

“Masterbate over”.

I suggest you come back when you can articulate something useful.
Click to expand...
Oh it was a debate you wanted? I thought this thread was just a dump for your greasy Tory apologia, shitting on nurses and detailing your historical gripes with newspapers as a means to thwart criticism of your leader.

If I knew you were inviting a debate then I wouldn't have replied, you give me the creeps.
 
dumbo said:
Oh it was a debate you wanted? I thought this thread was just a dump for your greasy Tory apologia, shitting on nurses and detailing your historical gripes with newspapers as a means to thwart criticism of your leader.

If I knew you were inviting a debate then I wouldn't have replied, you give me the creeps.
Click to expand...

Fecking hell :lol:
 
Balljy said:
It's an exclusive interview so wouldn't have been in any of the other Sunday newspapers.

If it's not in tomorrows papers at all (which is probable) then that's an issue. It should be on websites though and the Independent have it on there now and I expect the Guardian and more liberal sites to follow. Whether it will appear on the likes of the Times, Telegraph or Sky is another matter of course.
Click to expand...
It's in the DM. Is quite a way down the site, but written fairly long. It's placing is partly cos they'll hate going big on a Mirror scoop, not just their love of Boris.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ri-claims-Boris-Johnson-four-year-affair.html

Best rated comment:

Ronnietherant, Newcastle , United Kingdom,
How very tacky of her. She also proves that looks aren't important
 
Last edited:
dumbo said:
Oh it was a debate you wanted? I thought this thread was just a dump for your greasy Tory apologia, shitting on nurses and detailing your historical gripes with newspapers as a means to thwart criticism of your leader.

If I knew you were inviting a debate then I wouldn't have replied, you give me the creeps.
Click to expand...

wow.

please can you reread this to yourself.
 
dumbo said:
Sure I'll get on it, right after I've finished this article about serial love cheat and cowardly wet noodle Boris Johnson's torrid love affairs including two ex-wives and countless lovers as Jennifer Acruri says philandering PM 'will never change'.
Click to expand...

I assume that will take you quite a while then! :lol:

enjoy.
 
Who had "faux outrage" on their Clayton Diverts From The Subject bingo card?
 
Berbasbullet said:
Fakes outrage as a way to escape and ignores the perfectly reasonable relies. :lol:
Click to expand...

outrage at what? :lol:

in 2021 I’m very surprised anyone considers The Mirror as a source of good information/ insight?

do people actually consider them a credible source?

that aside, hasn’t this story been rumbling on for A year or so?

not saying it’s not newsworthy, but it’s not breaking news is it?

probably why no one is interested, is that it’s Boris sleeping around. In other news, the sky in blue. In all seriousness, if it was a public figure without such previous, perhaps news outlets would be more interested?

not defending him at all, just that it’s normalised for him... I’m sure HIGNFY would be talking about it, if on air.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
outrage at what? :lol:

in 2021 I’m very surprised anyone considers The Mirror as a source of good information/ insight?

do people actually consider them a credible source?

that aside, hasn’t this story been rumbling on for A year or so?

not saying it’s not newsworthy, but it’s not breaking news is it?

probably why no one is interested, is that it’s Boris sleeping around. In other news, the sky in blue. In all seriousness, if it was a public figure without such previous, perhaps news outlets would be more interested?

not defending him at all, just that it’s normalised for him... I’m sure HIGNFY would be talking about it, if on air.
Click to expand...
When it’s a direct interview it makes criticising the source fairly pointless doesn’t it? I’m happy to be corrected on that.

I agree with the last bit of what you said, it has been normalised for the prime minister who is referred to as fecking “Boris”. Which is a big part of the problem.

Would you agree that is should be a resigning matter? Funnelling 100s of thousands of pounds of tax payers money to his side piece?

I think a lot of us get frustrated at the double standards at the media who constantly turn a blind eye to the PM and his mates conduct.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
outrage at what? :lol:

in 2021 I’m very surprised anyone considers The Mirror as a source of good information/ insight?

do people actually consider them a credible source?

that aside, hasn’t this story been rumbling on for A year or so?

not saying it’s not newsworthy, but it’s not breaking news is it?

probably why no one is interested, is that it’s Boris sleeping around. In other news, the sky in blue. In all seriousness, if it was a public figure without such previous, perhaps news outlets would be more interested?

not defending him at all, just that it’s normalised for him... I’m sure HIGNFY would be talking about it, if on air.
Click to expand...

It’s directly from her mouth after he previously denied it. If she’s lying he can sue her.

If she’s not lying, when London Mayor, he ensured that £126,000 was granted to one of her business interests. When this came to light last time he denied the relationship.

That’s what the problem is here and what you are choosing to ignore. It’s pure corruption and he’s already lied to cover it up once.

Now you have the above information provided to you for a second time, are you going to address the problem or continue to dismiss it as just a bit of titillation from old shagger Bozza? “We know what he’s like” was exactly the line which let Trump get away with so much.
 
Berbasbullet said:
When it’s a direct interview it makes criticising the source fairly pointless doesn’t it? I’m happy to be corrected on that.

I agree with the last bit of what you said, it has been normalised for the prime minister who is referred to as fecking “Boris”. Which is a big part of the problem.

Would you agree that is should be a resigning matter? Funnelling 100s of thousands of pounds of tax payers money to his side piece?

I think a lot of us get frustrated at the double standards at the media who constantly turn a blind eye to the PM and his mates conduct.
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but I disagree. We don’t know whether she had been paid/ paid how much? Whether the story has been sensationalised. But again, I’m not debating the story. I am seriously questioning the source, and it’s one I would never trust.

20 years ago it probably would be a matter to resign on. But it’s now normalised behaviour. Probably not just in politics, but in life. How much are relationships, and being faithful valued? Not as much as 20/30 years ago.

it’s not just the Torirs, the public don’t trust politicians. As a result, no one really cares, and there’s so much shit flying around, it barely sticks.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the PM being called Boris, don’t understand that Criticism,
 
Pexbo said:
It’s directly from her mouth after he previously denied it. If she’s lying he can sue her.

If she’s not lying, when London Mayor, he ensured that £126,000 was granted to one of her business interests. When this came to light last time he denied the relationship.

That’s what the problem is here and what you are choosing to ignore. It’s pure corruption and he’s already lied to cover it up once.

Now you have the above information provided to you for a second time, are you going to address the problem or continue to dismiss it as just a bit of titillation from old shagger Bozza? “We know what he’s like” was exactly the line which let Trump get away with so much.
Click to expand...

read my posts, I’ve barely made a comment on ‘the story’ and that was never my point.

I don’t understand your post?

read my reply above.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
presumably it’s noted, that I haven’t in anyway condoned it?
Click to expand...
Well no, but that's not really the issue. The little you have actually mentioned about it, it looks like you've focused only on the affair and sought to downplay that when I think the main issue for a lot of people is the money that seems to have gone to the lady's business.
 
sebsheep said:
Well no, but that's not really the issue. The little you have actually mentioned about it, it looks like you've focused only on the affair and sought to downplay that when I think the main issue for a lot of people is the money that seems to have gone to the lady's business.
Click to expand...

just retreading back through, the focus had very much been on the affair, and that seems to be what the article is about, rather than the money? That’s my reading of it. Happy to be corrected.

In terms of money going into her business, that something that should be investigated.

one would presume the opposition would call for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.