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

He really is some gobshyte isn't he.

Not having the basic decency to withdraw the Starmer remarks even as Starmer is getting hassled in public with those Savile comments being a factor.

and I don't see why he wouldn't withdraw the comments ecen if purely for political purposes - he seems to have very badly misjudged how even his own party colleagues feel about it.

I think it was going away, but now a bunch of crazy arseholes (think I read the people who harrassed Starmer yesterday may be linked to Piers Corbyn) have brought it back up again. So they're trying to target Starmer with it, but it's going to impact Johnson a lot more because like you say, Johnson now has to try and retract what he previously said again and make clear Starmer did nothing wrong, or dig his heels (even further) in and be called out for causing the harrassment.

Gotta love Twitter for calling out faux outrage hypocrisy

But it's not hypocrisy really is it. It's just a great load of spin from people with an agenda who use the media to spin a narrative for their own gain, as if the general public are too stupid to see it.

Well I see what you mean there, and I wouldn't particularly disagree.

That was just a random one from Twitter where there was many today, including one there some time ago where Mogg and his son were heckled, but there didn't seem to be as much outrage about it. Go figure. And the milkshake Farage one where it was celebrated by some, including by the comedian Jo Brand.

Oh, and I do recall when Anna Soubry was heckled, that got great press. Wasn't a guy arrested because of that? Well in that case he was over the top and I would agree he was hounding her. See, I'm fair. 

He could have retracted it and stopped it dead. Johnson choose not to.

Hardly the media to blame for yet another bad decision

This is just turning into pure conspiracy forum stuff at this stage. Sad attacks on the media because they wont back your hero. Especially funny when you take into account that Johnson and Gove were both involved in said media.

In 2019 and for many years before the Westminster media bubble paid him a prince's fortune and gave him a column where he could publish his lies without contradiction or correction. This is hardly an indication of bias against him.

And your claim that what happened to Starmer is the media's fault because it wouldn't have happened if "the Brutish media didn't give wall to wall coverage of what Boris said re Saville for more than a full week now" is just bizarre. Johnson made his statement in the House of Commons, which is the most public and most significant forum in the country, and one which the media are considered to have a public interest obligation to cover. And he made the statement because it was shocking and outrageous, and for no other reason. He wanted exhaustive coverage of this statement and, as a seasoned media professional, he knew exactly how to get it. It was certain that an independent, impartial, professional media would give this statement a great deal of attention; that was his object in making the statement.

Basically, you are (once again) characterising independent, impartial, professional media behaviour as bias against Johnson. This reveals far more about you than it does about the UK Media.

Again, before we get the apologists to try to pick holes in the story, none of this is because Johnson had a drink, or even a quiz. He was asked about these gatherings and he choose to lie. Not the media, not the lefties, not the remoaners. Johnson decided, and all the ministers and party members opted to brazen it out on the basis that they would simply lie and nobody could prove anything.

He lied. He lied to parliament, he lied to the public.

Yep. they knew Johnson would be desperate to get to the Commons recess at the end of this week without any more cock-ups. Then he would have had some breathing space until the 21st of the month.

Like his namesake from Fawlty Towers, this Mr Johnson appears to enjoy champagne when he's 'on the job'. Or perhaps he's going to take a leaf from our civil service and inform us it was actually 'sparkling wine'...

This. If Downing Street had modestly competent PR advisers (or, perhaps, if the PM would listen to them) when all this kicked off the parties would have been admitted and apologised for, and the public debate wold have been about a lapse of judgment many months ago in having had office parties. By lying, and lying to Parliament, they make it about character, about fitness for office, and so about an issue that is still very much a current issue. AllForIt's theory that there is a media conspiracy to hound Johnson over this only makes sense if you accept that Johnson himself has to be part of that conspiracy. Every time he's faced with a choice between apologising and lying, he lies, thereby reinforcing the "Johnson the liar" perception that is now so damaging to him. No media conspiracy can force him to do that; he chooses to do it. He even chooses to do it when the lies are almost certain to be exposed because, hey, there are photographs.