So, whadda we gonna moan abart?

[moonay]

Didn’t realise he lived in the same household as Boris. His wife didn’t have covid symptoms. So his return was perfectly within the rules, no matter how often you stamp your feet about this. So therefore your opinion is anything but clear or accurate..

Are you seriously suggesting that after learning Johnson had been infected, and he'd presumably been working alongside him at some point in the past 7 days, that it was OK for him to go into work the following day?

As for his wife ....... fine ......she's no symptoms, so there were no exceptional circumstances ................. and absolutely positively no "risk to life" (as per Jenny Harries).

He gave his justification. Your assumption of wrong doing isn’t clear..

The instruction at the time was no travel, except for specific circumstances. Even you conceded the other day that if the BC trip took place, then it would be a breach. Testing out his eyes ......with the rest of the family in the car ....... 30 miles away from his temporary residence seems reckless.

Did his wife go with him in case she needed to drive home? ......... then why couldn't she have driven back to London?

No it wasn’t fact. It was a diatribe. It wasn’t impartial. Her bosses agreed and reprimanded her.

No.......on 3 accounts. Firstly, it wasn't a diatribe (even though you think it was). Secondly, her bosses didn't agree it was a diatribe ........ they thought it contained "fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism" .However, they conceded that they "should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, with all the accompanying evidence".

If you read that as admitting to a diatribe, then I think you need to brush up on your English.

Thirdly, nowhere does it suggest - in the BBC statement or elsewhere - that Maitlis was "reprimanded". That's just what you want to have happened.

‘Usually’ - nice to see you conceding it wasn’t on this occasion, but I disagree as sadly their failings are all too frequent..

You're getting quite good at putting word into people's mouths ......... and yes, I would concede that the BBC - and this particular journalist - may very very occasionally transgress from the very highest standards ..........but it's not due to bias in any way .......as evidenced by the challenging scrutiny of all sides of the political landscape.

There are just as many "lefties" who are equally as excited as you at the BBC's treatment of their "side". It's just that neither of you notices.

 

[moonay]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265817733578579968

 

[Made in Wigan]

Are you seriously suggesting that after learning Johnson had been infected, and he'd presumably been working alongside him at some point in the past 7 days, that it was OK for him to go into work the following day?

As for his wife ....... fine ......she's no symptoms, so there were no exceptional circumstances ................. and absolutely positively no "risk to life" (as per Jenny Harries).

The rules were live in same household. He didn’t live with Boris. His wife had symptoms when he returned. All perfectly fine and legal.

The instruction at the time was no travel, except for specific circumstances. Even you conceded the other day that if the BC trip took place, then it would be a breach. Testing out his eyes ......with the rest of the family in the car ....... 30 miles away from his temporary residence seems reckless.

Did his wife go with him in case she needed to drive home? ......... then why couldn't she have driven back to London?

That’s my opinion. You have yours. Others think differently. It isn’t clear, it was emergency legislation, nothing has been tested or interpreted in court. Why couldn’t she drive? Any number of reasons. Ask her if your so interested.

No.......on 3 accounts. Firstly, it wasn't a diatribe (even though you think it was). Secondly, her bosses didn't agree it was a diatribe ........ they thought it contained "fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism" .However, they conceded that they "should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, with all the accompanying evidence".

If you read that as admitting to a diatribe, then I think you need to brush up on your English.

Thirdly, nowhere does it suggest - in the BBC statement or elsewhere - that Maitlis was "reprimanded". That's just what you want to have happened.

Yes. On all 3 accounts.

If you’re going to quote something why not provide the whole thing for context. You’ve missed these bit out The BBC must uphold the highest standards of due impartiality in its news output. As it was, we believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality. Our staff have been reminded of the guidelines."

Seems you’re are also afflicted with an inability to provide balance and the full facts. It was a diatribe, a public statement reminding her of the guidelines is a reprimand.

You're getting quite good at putting word into people's mouths ......... and yes, I would concede that the BBC - and this particular journalist - may very very occasionally transgress from the very highest standards ..........but it's not due to bias in any way .......as evidenced by the challenging scrutiny of all sides of the political landscape.

There are just as many "lefties" who are equally as excited as you at the BBC's treatment of their "side". It's just that neither of you notices.

They are your words. You typed them. This whole Cummings non story has not panned out the way you, the left, remoaners, nor the journalists who have put so much into pushing a particular agenda, had hoped.

 

[Made in Wigan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265817733578579968

As I said last night, she’s scattered her toys.

 

[moonay]

As I said last night, she’s scattered her toys.

You also said - with no evidence - that she's been reprimanded.

Scattered her toys my arse ......... if any of Johnson, Cummings, Hancock, Raab, or Gove had the balls to go on the programme and be interviewed, I reckon she'd have been there .....don't you?

Take back control .................. and (to quote the PM) spaff it up the wall.

 

[Made in Wigan]

You also said - with no evidence - that she's been reprimanded.

Scattered her toys my arse ......... if any of Johnson, Cummings, Hancock, Raab, or Gove had the balls to go on the programme and be interviewed, I reckon she'd have been there .....don't you?

Take back control .................. and (to quote the PM) spaff it up the wall.

A public statement saying her diatribe didn’t meet the standards of impartiality is a reprimand.

I can’t speculate on what she would or wouldn’t have done if so and so had been due to appear. An interview is one thing, being rudely and aggressively questioned is something entirely different. Sadly this is the standards of journalists these days when speaking to politicians- from all sides i’ll add. Personally if I was facing questions and she interrupted me I’d ask them not to be so rude or aggressive and remind them it is bad manners to interrupt someone when they are answering a question they’ve asked.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Not sure that 6th former Tom, is the answer.
You are correct about Newsnight editorial team.
Now what about the Politics Live editorial team?
Also I see that Jon Pienar has left Been to join Murdoch's new radio channel
Loads of Tories and Labour in the BBC, at least they cover politics unlike other broadcasters

Of course Tom Harewood is not the answer, he is a political partizan and is fine to have on as a guest to share his views and talk from that side of the debate against someone like Goodall on the other side. The issue is the person who should be on to argue the left wing case is the editor and it shows in his commentary on Twitter and the way he runs his program. Harewood and Goodall are mirrors of each other and neither should be anywhere near the position one currently holds and the BBC would never dream of giving to the other.

 

[moonay]

A public statement saying her diatribe didn’t meet the standards of impartiality is a reprimand.

I can’t speculate on what she would or wouldn’t have done if so and so had been due to appear. An interview is one thing, being rudely and aggressively questioned is something entirely different. Sadly this is the standards of journalists these days when speaking to politicians- from all sides i’ll add. Personally if I was facing questions and she interrupted me I’d ask them not to be so rude or aggressive and remind them it is bad manners to interrupt someone when they are answering a question they’ve asked.

No. It's not. I posted the statement for you. It concluded with "Our staff have been reminded of the guidelines". No mention of a reprimand.

So. Cummings broke the rules.

Johnson won't say what allegations are untrue.

Hancock believes that a reasonable person can look at what Cummings did and interpret that he broke the rules (which by definition suggests that it's unreasonable to to interpret that he didn't!).

I note you didn't comment on Johnson's appearance before the committee yesterday. Did you see it? Well worth a watch. It portrays a man who is absolutely shitting himself ................... it was like Orville being interviewed, and being told that they were taking Keith Harris away..................... only Orville would still have made more sense.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Maitlis is dreadful unless you agree with her politics that she doesn't hide. If she wants to have a talk show like O'Brien, Hartley Brewer, Piers Morgan then she can say what she wants but that's not her job, she's paid by the tax payers to be impartial and there is no way anyone can say her speach was a fair representation of the situation in full context. No mention of his counter argument which is at the very least arguable which is litterally the whole story.

But we sholdn't be suprised since she has a history of attacking Brexiteers but not remainers, tweeted something along the lines that Brexit put her off the idea of democracy and congratulated the Mirror editor of the second false trip story after it had been debunked. She is not remotely impartial and she doesn't even hide it. It's not a level playing field with her giving it equally to both sides and that is the issue.

Imagine if she went on Newsnight and gave a scathing monologue along the lines of Starmer failing the girls of Rotherham as no one was brought to justice from the grooming gangs scandal during his time in CPP. Technically you can argue that is not wrong, as you can argue technically what she said about Cummings is not wrong but it omits huge amounts of detail and context that makes the story not black and white that makes it a big lie by omission on the whole event. Some Conservative MP's were critasised for doing just that very reccently by sharing a video with context removed and i know Labour were going nuts for a distorted version of events. Understandably so - but it works both ways. A lie by omission for a political opponent is not on just as a lie by omission from what is meant to be a neautral journalist.

We all have a degree of confirmation bias but it takes it to a whole new level to say Maitlis gave anything approaching a fair recap of the story in context. I don't think there is any point discussing anything further if we can't agree what she said was inapropriate and one sided as we live in such parrallel universes it's like arguing black is white rather than a shade of grey.

 

[moonay]

Hold on KDZ ....you're now switching onto Goodall, when yesterday, you said:

We know with people like Maitlis it only works one way.

I posted 3 separate links to disprove that.

As for Goodall, whatever his own personal views, as editor, it's his job to maintain a balance. Given the evidence I posted re Maitlis, then this clearly shows that Goodall does exactly that.

In any "to camera" pieces done by Goodall (and there was a particularly excellent one the other day), then he's bound by the same rules and guidelines as any other presenter....... and if he went outside those guidelines, then surely someone would have been just as quick to complain as they were about Maitlis.

I'll say yet again ..................... the BBC challenge and scrutinise all parties............. but people only whinge when it's their guy/gal on the receiving end.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Hold on KDZ ....you're now switching onto Goodall, when yesterday, you said:



I posted 3 separate links to disprove that.

As for Goodall, whatever his own personal views, as editor, it's his job to maintain a balance. Given the evidence I posted re Maitlis, then this clearly shows that Goodall does exactly that.

In any "to camera" pieces done by Goodall (and there was a particularly excellent one the other day), then he's bound by the same rules and guidelines as any other presenter....... and if he went outside those guidelines, then surely someone would have been just as quick to complain as they were about Maitlis.

I'll say yet again ..................... the BBC challenge and scrutinise all parties............. but people only whinge when it's their guy/gal on the receiving end.

From the clips you've shared, they are in interview situations where shew was generally questioning someone within the relms of fairness - i've brought up times she crossed the line which i've only seen go one way.

If i ask 10 good questions attacking one side, but 20 attacking the other - the fact some questions were asked of both sides doesn't mean it was even handed.

I can find you clips of someone like Hartley Brewer attacking Conservative MPs for verious bits and bobs and in this isntance Cummings - but it doesn't mean she is fair and neautral. Most conservative commentators hated May and her treatment of Brexit and were massively critical but their upset wasn't born out of neautrality but upset with the way their party was going. There was certainly some of that with Labour too under Corbyn as he was never the medias choice.

 

[Made in Wigan]

No. It's not. I posted the statement for you. It concluded with "Our staff have been reminded of the guidelines". No mention of a reprimand.

You published part of it. A rate public bollocking is a reprimand.

So. Cummings broke t

No he didn’t.

Johnson won't say what allegations are untrue

He’s answered numerous questions. His answers don’t fit your agenda.

Hancock believes that a reasonable person can look at what Cummings did and interpret that he broke the rules (which by definition suggests that it's unreasonable to to interpret that he didn't!).

No, it means reasonable people can view it different ways. Still after your gotcha I see.

note you didn't comment on Johnson's appearance before the committee yesterday. Did you see it? Well worth a watch. It portrays a man who is absolutely shitting himself ................... it was like Orville being interviewed, and being told that they were taking Keith Harris away..................... only Orville would still have made more sense.

No I didn’t see it so didn’t comment. I did hear the MPs took the opportunity to give their opinions in little speeches instead of asking questions. Shame really.

 

[moonay]

Maitlis is dreadful unless you agree with her politics that she doesn't hide. If she wants to have a talk show like O'Brien, Hartley Brewer, Piers Morgan then she can say what she wants but that's not her job, she's paid by the tax payers to be impartial and there is no way anyone can say her speach was a fair representation of the situation in full context. No mention of his counter argument which is at the very least arguable which is litterally the whole story..

Oh give over ......even Piers Morgan has tweeted in her defence.

As for her "speech" (not a diatribe?), as I asked MiW, aside from the "blind loyalty" comment (though even that can be shown to be fact) which part of it wasn't factual? What context did she miss? The "life or death" dash for isolation? Please.

But we sholdn't be suprised since she has a history of attacking Brexiteers but not remainers, tweeted something along the lines that Brexit put her off the idea of democracy and congratulated the Mirror editor of the second false trip story after it had been debunked. She is not remotely impartial and she doesn't even hide it. It's not a level playing field with her giving it equally to both sides and that is the issue.y.

You make these "brexiteer & remainer" allegations, but if that were so, then again, surely some action would have been taken. After all, we've had a Brexiteer government since the referendum.

As for her congratulating the Mirror, though I'm not saying you're wrong, I can't see that on her timeline.

Imagine if she went on Newsnight and gave a scathing monologue along the lines of Starmer failing the girls of Rotherham as no one was brought to justice from the grooming gangs scandal during his time in CPP. Technically you can argue that is not wrong, as you can argue technically what she said about Cummings is not wrong but it omits huge amounts of detail and context that makes the story not black and white that makes it a big lie by omission on the whole event. Some Conservative MP's were critasised for doing just that very reccently by sharing a video with context removed and i know Labour were going nuts for a distorted version of events. Understandably so - but it works both ways. A lie by omission for a political opponent is not on just as a lie by omission from what is meant to be a neautral journalist.

We all have a degree of confirmation bias but it takes it to a whole new level to say Maitlis gave anything approaching a fair recap of the story in context. I don't think there is any point discussing anything further if we can't agree what she said was inapropriate and one sided as we live in such parrallel universes it's like arguing black is white rather than a shade of grey.

Newsnight covered the grooming stuff in great detail, and (I'm sure) scrutinised Starmer over that period.

What detail and context did Mailtis leave out? She doesn't need to repeat the whole Cummings speech again. It's the bits that were dodgy that formed the basis of the article.

Oh.....and didn't those Tory MPs doctor the video, as opposed to merely remove context?

I say again KDZ, what did she say that wasn't a fact?

 

[moonay]

From the clips you've shared, they are in interview situations where shew was generally questioning someone within the relms of fairness - i've brought up times she crossed the line which i've only seen go one way.

If i ask 10 good questions attacking one side, but 20 attacking the other - the fact some questions were asked of both sides doesn't mean it was even handed.

I can find you clips of someone like Hartley Brewer attacking Conservative MPs for verious bits and bobs and in this isntance Cummings - but it doesn't mean she is fair and neautral. Most conservative commentators hated May and her treatment of Brexit and were massively critical but their upset wasn't born out of neautrality but upset with the way their party was going. There was certainly some of that with Labour too under Corbyn as he was never the medias choice.

It's just a one way street, isn't it?

Never mind ......I'm not preaching ....... just offering my view........ which sees both sides.

 

[moonay]

You published part of it. A rate public bollocking is a reprimand.

You can't keep on making things up like this. I published the full statement ......on page 155. There was no mention of reprimand or public bollocking.

What I suspect you're referring to though is the Telegraph article on the subject, where it added the following: "Although the BBC did not go as far as an apology, Maitlis was said to be furious that she and her colleagues had been publicly reprimanded and she did not appear as planned on Wednesday's programme."

Pure speculation on their part ........and misleading on yours.

No he didn’t

Erm ........ the Durham police have now concluded that yes, he did.

He’s answered numerous questions. His answers don’t fit your agenda.

He gave responses to numerous questions that were bugger all to do with the question, and in no way answered them .................... and he refused to share the information re the allegations.

No, it means reasonable people can view it different ways. Still after your gotcha I see.

I'll grant you this one .......... being reasonable, I concede that. However, given that's the second time (at least) that Hancock's come out with this response, I'd have thought that someone would have asked him that if two reasonable people can interpret the guideline in 2 completely different ways, then a) how can it be described as clear, and b) why wasn't it amended?

No I didn’t see it so didn’t comment. I did hear the MPs took the opportunity to give their opinions in little speeches instead of asking questions. Shame really.

You're right, unfortunately, too many of them did. Some however didn't. Yvette Cooper, Simon Hoare and Darren Jones however had him wriggling, embarrassingly.

 

[Made in Wigan]

ou can't keep on making things up like this. I published the full statement ......on page 155. There was no mention of reprimand or public bollocking.

What I suspect you're referring to though is the Telegraph article on the subject, where it added the following: "Although the BBC did not go as far as an apology, Maitlis was said to be furious that she and her colleagues had been publicly reprimanded and she did not appear as planned on Wednesday's programme."

Pure speculation on their part ........and misleading on yours.

I making up nothing. A rare public statement saying impartiality was not followed is a public bollocking.

Erm ........ the Durham police have now concluded that yes, he did.

Err Incorrect. They concluded as did I. His journey to Durham was perfectly fine. He did not return to Durham as per front page allegations. His trip to BC ‘might’ have been a breach. Not ‘did’. They deemed it minor and that no further action is needed. Only a court can determine he did.

He gave responses to numerous questions that were bugger all to do with the question, and in no way answered them .................... and he refused to share the information re the allegations.

Given a police investigation why would he comment in detail? What obligation does he have to share a private conversation? He provided a response, you just don’t like his response as it doesn’t fit your agenda.

I'll grant you this one

Thankfully I’m sat down.

 

[moonay]

I making up nothing. A rare public statement saying impartiality was not followed is a public.

You said that I
a) "published part of it" ................ I didn't, I published all of it, and then
b) "a rate (sic) public bollocking is a reprimand" ......... no bollocking (public or otherwise) or reprimand can be shown to have taken place. it was speculation from the Telegraph. Was it not?

That's what you're making up. Don't try and change words. Also, it said they "didn't meet the standards of due impartiality" ........ there is a difference.

Err Incorrect. They concluded as did I. His journey to Durham was perfectly fine. He did not return to Durham as per front page allegations. His trip to BC ‘might’ have been a breach. Not ‘did’. They deemed it minor and that no further action is needed. Only a court can determine he did..

You're now putting words into the mouth of the Durham Police!

Firstly, they said “Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence”. They made no comment on his journey, or the reason why he left, as obviously, they would have no reason to dispute his medical "justification".

Secondly, the reason why they said "might" is they enforce the law based on their interpretation. If the person being charged disagrees, they go to court, and a judge rules (so we agree there). Check the legal reasoning behind this if you like.

They said they'd have sent him back........because he shouldn't have been out.

Given a police investigation why would he comment in detail? What obligation does he have to share a private conversation? He provided a response, you just don’t like his response as it doesn’t fit your agenda..

What Police "investigation"? There's been no official "investigation. Durham's comments were presumably offered in response to questions. Johnson's questioning was with one of the most senior committees in Parliament and to say he was elusive is an understatement.

You keep saying I have an agenda .......... I'm just seeing what I see. You're the one who continually feels the need to put words into the mouths of others.

Re leaving London, whether it was against the guidelines or not, it set the wrong example from the PM's SpAd, who helped formulate those same guidelines.

Re BC, there's no doubt that Cummings was in the wrong. The Police have stated that they would have asked him to return (to Durham). If he'd refused, then presumably, further action would have been taken.

Why keep on trying to justify something you know to be wrong?.

 

[moonay]

A remarkable man. I wouldn't have posted this here, but for the very last paragraph. If only Dominic Cummings had been so honest.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/0...ronavirus-covid-19-grief-death-state-failings

 

[moonay]

Next name to be outraged by ........... Dido Harding.

It's just astonishing how there are so few fingers in so many pies.

 

[Made in Wigan]

ou said that I
a) "published part of it" ................ I didn't, I published all of it, and then
b) "a rate (sic) public bollocking is a reprimand" ......... no bollocking (public or otherwise) or reprimand can be shown to have taken place. it was speculation from the Telegraph. Was it not?

That's what you're making up. Don't try and change words. Also, it said they "didn't meet the standards of due impartiality" ........ there is a difference.

You published part of it in that post I replied to as it fit your agenda. A public statement denouncing a lack of impartiality is a reprimand.

You're now putting words into the mouth of the Durham Police!

Firstly, they said “Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence”. They made no comment on his journey, or the reason why he left, as obviously, they would have no reason to dispute his medical "justification".

Secondly, the reason why they said "might" is they enforce the law based on their interpretation. If the person being charged disagrees, they go to court, and a judge rules (so we agree there). Check the legal reasoning behind this if you like.

They said they'd have sent him back........because he shouldn't have been out.

Again you’re posting a part statement. It’s becoming a habit. I’ve no reason to check the law and legal process. I’m fully aware of it and told you this is the case. You claimed they said he ‘did’ break the law. They have never said this. They said ‘might’ for those reasons outlined around the legal process. Don’t confuse the two meanings.

What Police "investigation"? There's been no official "investigation. Durham's comments were presumably offered in response to questions. Johnson's questioning was with one of the most senior committees in Parliament and to say he was elusive is an understatement.

You keep saying I have an agenda .......... I'm just seeing what I see. You're the one who continually feels the need to put words into the mouths of others.

Re leaving London, whether it was against the guidelines or not, it set the wrong example from the PM's SpAd, who helped formulate those same guidelines.

Re BC, there's no doubt that Cummings was in the wrong. The Police have stated that they would have asked him to return (to Durham). If he'd refused, then presumably, further action would have been taken.

Why keep on trying to justify something you know to be wrong?.

They have investigated. You’re wrong again. Perhaps if you careful read their statement you would know what investigation they’ve undertaken.

Indeed, you are seeing what you see. You won’t accept facts and choose to interpret events as you want due to selective bias. You are now moaning he set the wrong example by leaving regardless whether or not he breached guidelines. When I say you have agenda it’s because you are coming across as obsessed.