BoJo banished - Liz Truss down. Is Rishi next for the toaster? **threadbans in OP**

Dempo1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568377#Comment_118568377

Not sure but it was a well timed distraction 😉

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568386#Comment_118568386

Click on the quoted post in your reply and then click the thrash can icon to remove it.

AllForIt

Theo Usherwood went to the trouble of tracking down a Jimmy Savile victim and interviewed him so said victim could express his outrage on air over Bojo's comments in the HoC yesterday.

I'm sorry, but this is just farcical stuff from the media. I'm never seen anything like this in my life to this degree that the British media are so clearly intent on getting rid of Bojo for their own reasons.

I mean it's fine, report on partygate, but couldn't they try, even a little bit, not to make it so obvious what their personal motivations are?

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568518#Comment_118568518

So in summary your argument is it's a witch-hunt by the media on poor Johnson...give me a break...boo hoo.

It was an abhorrent comment and he is rightly being criticized.

The majority of media outlets have given the conservatives an incredibly easy ride in recent times. They are attempting to hobble any outlet they can that dares even question them e.g. threatening funding for the BBC.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568526#Comment_118568526

I'd hardly think Sky News gave the Cummings story an 'easy ride'. They were relentless for weeks.

Well yes, I am kinda saying it's a witch-hunt. But also i would say it's great 'press' for them. They've turned this into a Netflix Drama series.

And I do think the rhetoric is way over the top, like your 'abhorrent' comment.

All adds to the 'drama' I suppose.

As far as the BBC, all they did was freeze an increase for 2 years. How on earth is that controversial. It's already way too much and imo they should bring it down to €100 flat. Let the BBC decide what they have to cut. It's way over-bloated as it is, and a cut would concentrate minds, as in what's valuable and what isn't. I think they should get rid of the BBC News channel. I just don't see how it's justifiable to say that the state has an obligation to provide a 24 hour news channel.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568666#Comment_118568666

All Boris has to do his retract his comment, but he won't, because he's an ass.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568518#Comment_118568518

🙄 Surely the real question is, how did the British media get Johnson to co-operate with their anti-Johnson campaign by making the Savile comparison in the first place? By your account Johnson is a leading player in the conspiracy to shaft Johnson.

I'm afraid you've lost the plot, AllForIt, even by the low standards of those who shill for Johnson. Johnson invokes the victims of Savile in an attempt to attack Starmer, and journalists ask the victims of Savile about that. That's not a farcical campaign against Johnson; that's normal journalism at work. It's Johnson who chose to point to the victims of Savile; journalists looking where Johnson has encouraged people to look are not engaged in an anti-Johnson conspiracy - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568776#Comment_118568776

🙄 Surely the real question is, how did the British media get Johnson to co-operate with their anti-Johnson campaign by making the Savile comparison in the first place? By your account Johnson is a leading player in the conspiracy to shaft Johnson.

You'd have to explain that one in more detail because I haven't the first clue what your talking about.

I'm afraid you've lost the plot, AllForIt, even by the low standards of those who shill for Johnson. Johnson invokes the victims of Savile in an attempt to attack Starmer, and journalists ask the victims of Savile about that. That's not a farcical campaign against Johnson; that's normal journalism at work. It's Johnson who chose to point to the victims of Savile; journalists looking where Johnson has encouraged people to look are not engaged in an anti-Johnson conspiracy - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

It is your view I'm shilling for Alexander when all I was doing was giving my view on the whole affair, media included. How you can say "I've lost the plot" by commentating on this episode generally, speaks more to your biases than anything else.

And if you really think it's 'professional journalism' to seek out victims of child abuse to use as a weapon then that's fine, but don't tell me I'm the one that's loosing the plot.

Peregrinus

Johnson is the one who chose to invoke the victims of child abuse as a weapon for his political purposes. If you fail to notice this then, yes, you are losing the plot. And if you think it's fine for Johnson to do this but anyone who looks where Johnson is points is "clearly intent on getting rid of Bojo for their own reasons" then, yes, you have lost the plot. If Johnson didn't want them to look at Savile's victims, he wouldn't point at Savile's victims. This is not that hard to grasp.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568845#Comment_118568845

What I am saying is that the media and you are taking the most hysterical and hyperbolic inference from what Johnson said, for dramatic effect.

And I'm also saying 'as bad as each other', in respect of the media and his detractors, and even Johnson.

I'm not loosing the plot, I'm watching the plot unfold in an 'on the fence' way most around here don't, including yourself.

Peregrinus

Johnson used parliamentary privilege to accuse Starmer, as DPP, of failing to prosecute Savile. You don't think that's hysterical and hyperbolic? Savile's victims are - predictably - disgusted and appalled, but if the media cover their feelings about what Johnson has done they are clearly "intend on getting rid of BoJo for their own reasons"?

Stop digging, AllForIt.

As for you are saying "as bad as each other" in respect of Johnson as well, you insult your own integrity and our intelligence with this line. Your posts are still up, remember. You didn't breath a word of criticism of Johnson over this; you just suggested that the media, in talking to Savile's victims about the use Johnson chooses to make of Savile's crimes, were engaged in some kind of personally-motivated vendetta against Johnson.

Seriously, stop digging.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568875#Comment_118568875

What on earth is this? My posts are still up? I think it is you that should 'stop digging'. You are clearly not in any way impartial.

You accused me of loosing the plot, and I've shown that if anyone is following the plot it is me.

So why don't you and your remoaner friends stop being so hyperbolic, including interviewing child abuse victims to use them as a weapon to oust Johnson as a form of retribution for Brexit.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568881#Comment_118568881

Here, have some more rope, AllForIt.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568885#Comment_118568885

Weak exit strategy Mr impartial.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568886#Comment_118568886

No, please, as much as you like. I've got plenty, and if you don't use it its only mouldering away in the cupboard.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568902#Comment_118568902

Don't forget to save some for yourself, because one day you'll realize that interviewing child abuse victims because of a remark made in the HoC, where they had to relive their trauma due to an 'interview', for yours and others petty grievance that you think is warranted, might give you cause to use that mouldering rope in your cupboard on yourself, if you have any sense of proportion or rightfulness at all.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568881#Comment_118568881

"Remoaner" eh? So much for being "impartial" in an "on the fence" way...

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568914#Comment_118568914

See, that's where you're wrong. Why would you think anyone that uses the term 'remoaner' cannot be impartial? It's a thing...right?

I could just as easily use the term 'Brexiteer' as well, in context. But this thread is full of remoaners, so why would I.

So, the problem you have is if anyone uses the term remoaner, you make assumptions

And that's why youz can't bear my commentary. Because I'm neither one side or the other.

Except I am on the side of the democratic result of the ref and anyone who ever tried to overturn the result of the ref is on my bad side. I'm defiantly not impartial in that regard.

edit: and I will expose the British media for their clear bias, and that includes interviewing child abuse victims for the dramatic effect of it, rather that it is done because they could give a flying eff about child abuse victims, no more than they ever cared to expose Jimmy Saville or Grooming Gangs for whatever reason they chose not to in the first place.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568917#Comment_118568917

Why not call them "Remainer" instead of "Remoaner"?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568905#Comment_118568905

Curiously, the actual victims of Savile do not seem to blame the media for their re-traumatisation. Apparently, they blame Someone Else.

https://inews.co.uk/news/jimmy-savile-victims-boris-johnson-weaponising-suffering-lawyers-keir-starmer-1435580

https://news.sky.com/story/jimmy-saviles-victims-call-on-boris-johnson-to-withdraw-sir-keir-starmer-accusations-12530517

But, sure, feel free to ignore what Savile's victims say about this while continuing to invoke them in pursuit of your political agenda. And be sure to pre-emptively accuse others of doing precisely what you yourself are doing.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568666#Comment_118568666

There comes a point where a lot of the media will cover what they think will sell papers/get viewers. The story with Johnson and his parties has bloomed and escalated they cant all ignore it, he didn't deal with it admit guilt etc and now more details have come out which are damning. His attempt to throw other people under the bus hasn't helped. The polls are brutal. How many other scandals has Johnson had...the holidays...the redecorating fund...trying to save his mate paterson...or hancock...Patels bullying...lobbying..cash for access...cash for peerages.. early prorogation of parliament..dodgy COVID contracts with VIP access...the list goes on and on.

Simple question would you be calling it a witch hunt if Starmer did the things that Johnson is accused off with regards parties etc? And the media reported on it. The fact all they could dig up on him was him having a beer after a days work with a takeaway and 4 colleagues in a constituency office...even that was an old story brought back to life for convenience...it speaks volumes. Oh an old story that was resurrected by the Sun...the deputy editor of which used to be...wait for it...Johnson's communications director..and was at some of the parties in question...lol you couldn't make it up.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/14/james-slack-the-sun-deputy-editor-in-latest-no-10-party-scandal

The editor in chief of the daily mail is also a dedicated Tory as well, his mates tried to slide him in as head of OFCOM. But he is now editor in chief of the group that owns the daily mail.

I did enjoy the daily mails attack on Starmer for buying a field beside his mother which spectacularly blew up on their faces I will say. If you want to talk about media bias.

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1261928553727262722?t=8L9zn0xyogLwx7RdF00DQg&s=19

Nadine Dorries (what an arse she has made of herself in general..the recent interviews supporting Johnson have been total car crashes but I would expect no less) froze the license fee but also threatened to abolish it. Her intentions were pretty clear. She only backed down after a backlash. But the Tories have a long history of criticism and wanting to abolish the BBC.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/17/no-final-decision-made-on-bbc-licence-fee-says-nadine-dorries

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568000#Comment_118568000

Let's not forget that Keir Starmer himself personally barbed Johnson many times during that engagement; many of which cut to the bone. I thought many of Starmer's comments were appallingly personal.

You can't be surprised when Johnson fights back.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568949#Comment_118568949

Simple question...were any of them in that exchange not true?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568955#Comment_118568955

Johnson is also overweight, would that have been an acceptable comment to make just because it's "true"?

Of course not. So even if what you are saying is correct, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a justification for Starmer's abusive digs.

Peregrinus

First of all, I'm not saying that child abuse victims are protesting at what Johnson said; their own representatives are saying it, and this is being widely reported.

Secondly, you ask if I expect people to believe these reports, in a way that suggests you consider it simply incredible that Savile's abuse victims would take exception to what Johnson said, or the purpose for which he has said it.

That's very sad. It's not incredible at all; most people will have no difficulty in believing this. Why would Savile's victims not take exception?

The fact that you do have difficulty believing this reflects on you, not on the people reporting these views. You seem view everything through the prism of Brexit - if people are reported as being critical of Johnson on any subject this must be because they are opposed to Brexit. If they are people who do not appear to oppose Brexit and whose criticism has nothing to do with Brexit then the reports must be false, and must be circulated by a media driven to do so by their opposition to Brexit. Either way, it is unnecessary to consider whether the criticisms have any merit.

Everything, on this view, comes down to Brexit. You discount entirely the idea that Savile's victims might be appalled by the cynical and manipulative use that Johnson makes of Savile's crimes to try to save his miserable hide from the consequence of his disdain for rules and his monstrous sense of entitlement. You can't understand any of this, except in terms of Brexit and "remoaners"; the criticisms being reported can, in your view, only be explained as part of some anti-Brexit plot.

Brexit is done, AllForIt. The world has moved on. Sometimes, criticism of Johnson for things that have nothing to do with Brexit has, in fact, nothing to do with Brexit. If you can bring yourself to accept that you won't find yourself dismissing the voice of Savile's victims quite so glibly.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118569010#Comment_118569010

I don't know what line of work you are in P, but you sure has hell would have a great career in British Journalism after reading that. Spin doctoring even.

edit: "Brexit is done". I had a good laugh at that one, especially coming from you.

Dempo1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568410#Comment_118568410

Unfortunately doesn't always work on mobile, Android, kind of has a mind of its own, so to speak 😉

Leroy42

AllfotIt, why do you think Johnson brought the Saville remark into a debate about parties held in Downing Street and the Sue Gray report?

It clearly has nothing to do with it, and had no place in the debate.

And you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. The reason for it was to try and distract from report, to get people like you so worked up about Starmer, and in your case how unfairly treated Johnson is, that you have completely forgotten about the core issue.

Johnson has lied, tried to cover up, used the Met police to buy himself time, used ministers to lie for him, degraded the reputation of himself, the government, the civil service, the Met, and now is seemingly intent on dragging Starmer down with him, all just to save himself.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568966#Comment_118568966

Can you not just answer a simple question? Did Starmer say anything that wasn't true? Yes or no.

Did Starmer make a comment about weight?... No....the only person who made a body shaming dig in parliament recently ...Johnson...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-ian-blackford-cake-body-shaming-pmqs-parliament-b978932.html

breezy1985

Well I have to say fair play to this thread for getting to 27 pages before turning into the usual nonsensical unfaithful posting BShte. It's obvious Johnson is clearly undefendable when the rabbit hole tactics come out.

It was good while it lasted.