Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    568
Well, there was coverage otherwise you wouldn't have known Blackford, Kinnock or any others who have and, no doubt, who will break the rules (even Tory backbenchers).

Will they attract the same level of coverage as for the people actually making the rules? I would very much doubt it. If you want balance on a straight case-by-case basis, then we perhaps we should see covid yobs in the street also getting the same level of coverage.

Who is going to attract more attention after being stopped for driving whilst pissed and then peeing up the leg of the arresting officer?

i) A Supreme Court judge?
ii) A local justice of the peace?
iii) Kevin from the council estate?
On the logical basis that Kevin from the local council estate is far more likely to be pissed and thus more likely to piss up the leg of said constable he is far more likely to be reported in what passes for the press. I would be far more interested in investigative journalism were to establish that a Supreme Court judge was flitting between jersey and the UK mainland in expensive yachts moving gold bullion. Something like that has been done and received minimal coverage, quelle surprise. Now kinnock daddy being an ex EU commissioner in comparison has received minimal coverage. Blackford being SNP has pretty much avoided the baying hounds. One wonders why? If it’s down to the fact that Beeb has admitted bias, then how can you defend the indefensible. Note to defence brief, the Beeb have coughed, no mitigation necessary.
 
Last edited:

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Must be true... one person’s anonymous tale of woe In the totally agenda free Guardian. Good spot Inspector.

If Track and Trace call me I’ll remind them the article and tell 'em to do one.
just a slight but important addition.
 

Rod924

LE
Kit Reviewer
I know Scotland isn’t important you but Blackford is a senior member of the party that make the rules for us.

I don’t think he broke the law but his actions in going to the radio station put other people at risk when there was no reason beyond his ego to do it.
Sadly, I think he's in the clear on this. Radio Cuillin FM confirm it was a telephone interview; all interviews have been with no guest entering the premises. And the pic appears to be from his garden; he posted a sunset image that's on Google search.

But he is an odious prick.
 
Talking of "facts" and "trust", as the Guardian and the Mirror are left biased and their reports are not mostly factual, that must mean they are biased and untrustworthy.

The Guardian: The Guardian - Media Bias/Fact Check
View attachment 478150
Daily Mirror: Daily Mirror - Media Bias/Fact Check
View attachment 478151
On looking at those pages, they mention several stories carried by those papers.All were either "false" or "inaccurate".
Thank God for the gentlemen of the press.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
The institutions who were responsible for covering up this widespread problem are still in place. The public need to know the extent of that problem and what has been done and is being done to deal with it.
...
You still haven't said what releasing the report would achieve, and I'm not sure why you think that the public at large need to know any of the details.

...
If the report has established that, after, forensic consideration, it was a problem emanating overwhelmingly from the Pakistani Muslim community, then it needs to be stated. We have already seen what covering it up achieved. Worked like a charm, didn't it?
Why does it need to be stated? What would stating that actually acheive? And why do you think that releasing all the information would have prevented the issues that you allege not releasing it caused?
 
No. It was a cock up because of exactly what I said.

Arresting Sir Cliff was (arguably) in the public interest. Televising the event live using a helicopter to take intrusive images was not in the interest of the public, though it may have been thought to be in the interest of the BBC and the Police.

As for grooming gangs, what exactly would releasing the report for general consumption achieve? If it will neither prevent future occurrences nor help detect previous ones, then what would it achieve? Additionally, if it just added fuel to the already stoked fire at anti Islamic hatred amongst certain parts of the community, then that would be against the public interest.
I would argue that it is most definetly in the public interest of white Britains who live within or near areas which have large asian* populations.


* I make a deliberate difference here between Muslim and Asian as most offenders appear to be of Pakistani descent, most Muslims appear not to be inflicted with the same urges to have sex with underage white girls as their fellow Pakistani Muslims.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Well done on drawing our attention to something already known and accepted.

Now, if you would be kind enough, please do the same for all the other representatives of the British press, using the same website.

(Spoiler alert: There will be no surprises there, either.)
Do you think just maybe that is why there is a degree of skepticism about anything the press says? And why when you base your entire claim on something the press says as fact it's laughed at? Take your time, you'll probably need to confer about it.
 
Do you think just maybe that is why there is a degree of skepticism about anything the press says? And why when you base your entire claim on something the press says as fact it's laughed at? Take your time, you'll probably need to confer about it.
Nope. I'm saying what I've said all along. They're each and all a mixed bag. If you believe them all to be malicious and biased all of the time, then you have to accept that anything they say in support of your chosen viewpoint is equally balls.
 
I would argue that it is most definetly in the public interest of white Britains who live within or near areas which have large asian* populations.
...
Which is precisely why I mentioned the prospect of it preventing future occurrences. If it might, then we probably all agree that would be reason enough to release it. If however, it plays into the hands of the likes of Tommy Robinson (not his real name) and creates new problems, then that might be reason enough not to.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Nope. I'm saying what I've said all along. They're each and all a mixed bag. If you believe them all to be malicious and biased all of the time, then you have to accept that anything they say in support of your chosen viewpoint is equally balls.
So you agree with me, marvelous, that's all sorted out then.
 
Why does it need to be stated? What would stating that actually acheive? And why do you think that releasing all the information would have prevented the issues that you allege not releasing it caused?
Because keeping the authorities things in the shadows caused the issue to perpetuate for may years (and will continue to do so if the facts are stifled.

It is all in the public interest because the public were the victims and would coninue to be so if the facts are kept from them, accountability is obscured and recommendations and future actions are unknown or cannot be compared against the original problem.

Oh, and because the government and the Civil Service are the servants of the public and not the other way around.
 
Because keeping the authorities things in the shadows caused the issue to perpetuate for may years (and will continue to do so if the facts are stifled.

It is all in the public interest because the public were the victims and would coninue to be so if the facts are kept from them, accountability is obscured and recommendations and future actions are unknown or cannot be compared against the original problem.

Oh, and because the government and the Civil Service are the servants of the public and not the other way around.
How many thirteen year old girls in care do you think would read that report?
 
Yawn, yet another Guardian anti Boris piece. Are you ever going to get fed up posting the same shit from that rag?
Whichever paper I post from, people disagree 100%. So it makes no difference, Times, Telegraph etc.
 

Latest Threads

Top