Andrew Neil’s interview with Johnson

Perhaps we would stand a better chance of hearing these questions put if the interviewer was not a lifelong supporter of the Tory party.

We can expect an apology!

Will Neil ask Boris Johnson about his role in Vote Leave fraud? And why he’s stonewalled MPs? Neil dismissed
@shahmiruk
’s now proven allegations,
@observeruk
’s investigation & has been abusive to me. He also employs Cummings’ wife. I trust he will not omit these crucial qs

Neil has systematically minimised the now substantial body of evidence of illegalities in EUref. His
@spectator
has published multiple pieces on ‘conspiracy theories’ now proven. To hold Johnson to account for his role in these crimes, Neil first needs to acknowledge them himself
I trust Neil will put also aside his personal feelings & ask Johnson about his meeting with ex-KGB agent Lebedev in middle of Skripal crisis? Both he & his
@spectator
magazine have again systematically minimised allegations & evidence of Russian interference in UK politics.

C. Caldwalder.

Oh come on AN will be so busy crawling it will be a miracle if he gets past how wonderful it is and how honoured he is to have BJ speaking to him. (And please can he have an honour in the next list)

As Varian says!

Andrew Neil did not ask open questions and should have done so. Corbyn can't apologise for Andrew Neil's imaginary hypothesis.

AN is a forensic interviewer. That’s why he is feared! I disagree, he won’t be giving Boris an easy ride. It would (a) be too obvious and (b) it would damage AN’s well deserved reputation.

Boris must know where he is going to skewered. He’d better get his answers prepared (unlike JC who seems surprised - silly man).

But what will the answers be? Will he answer or will he woffle (yes, Woffle is a dog).

Oh come on Urmstongran no one surely takes Andrew Neil as a "forensic" interviewer (well only if forensic means you are allowed to skew the results of any tests to fit your preconceived views). His political prejudices shine through everything he does.
His career so far
During his time at the University of Glasgow, Neil was a member of the Uni’s Conservative club, and in 1971 he became the chairman of the official Tory Student organisation, the Federation of Conservative Students
After his graduation, Neil was handed a job in the Conservative Party Research Department.
Following this, Neil branched out into political journalism, becoming a correspondent with The Economist in 1973, and from 1983-1994 he was the Editor of the right-wing Murdoch-owned Sunday Times newspaper – a position he used to appoint as a writer Britain’s foremost Holocaust denier and Nazi apologist, David Irving.
Furthermore, whilst he was editor at the Sunday Times, his newspaper ran a series of articles attempting to deny that HIV caused Aids – a horrendously harmful conspiracy theory which has since been proven as such.
Judging by his blatant past jobs with the Conservative Party and the right-wing British Establishment, added to his deeply disturbing personal opinions and associations, it seems incredible that such a person would be chosen to front the political journalism of a supposedly impartial public broadcaster.
How on earth this man can be permitted to do the job he does I really don't know.

This

Jonathan Lis
@jonlis1

We’ve already forgotten Zac Goldsmith’s nakedly Islamophobic campaign. It included an op-ed which painted Sadiq Khan as a friend of terrorists and was illustrated by the 7/7 bus. Boris Johnson joined the campaign wholeheartedly and wrote that Khan is ‘pandering to extremists’.

I am sorry (no I am not) I find these relentless samey political threads so tedious. The same people saying the same thing again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. and again and again and again and again ad infinitum.

Constant repetition does not convert people to your cause, it just puts people off and the relentless 'my side is perfect and pure the other side is relentlessly evil' is equally off putting because it is so obviously untrue.

Whatever you say all parties want the best for the country, they just disagree how this can best be done. Both also have an equal number of people in them who are out for their own advantage, we are all human.

So please, unless you have something novel and interesting to say that truly throws a new light on matters. Stop these endless posts that demonise one side or the other, both these actively political and those who just vote for them and pretending your lot are plaster saints, they aint.

Monica I totally agree with your post ????????

monica

A good suggestion

Don’t read them

simples.

Indeed trisher, indeed.

I cannot help scanning them, hoping that one day one of the incessant posters will actually say something interesting.

It is very difficult when you have a strong interest in politics and are looking to join discussions that are fair-minded and wide ranging to find that every single one is the same old, same old and that if you threw all the political threads up in the ether and they landed without their titles you would not be able to tell one from the other.

monica then stop trying to suppress free speech

Or start a really intelligent, fair minded, and wide ranging brand new discussion of vast interest.

This must be asked about.

Oh. My. God. Jeremy Corbyn is holding a press conference revealing 400 pages of unredacted documents exposing the NHS is on the table in US trade talks

Trisher you asked
How on earth this man can be permitted to do the job he does I really don't know.

He is a safe pair of hands for the establishment and vested interests.

Several people have commented about his "forensic style" of interviewing - repeating the same question several times until you get an answer is NOT forensic, it's called bullying.

If he was as smart as he says, he would have come at that from a different perspective on each occasion - looking for patterns, examining the details of the interviewee's response is a 'forensic' approach.

The level of vitriol expounded in this particular GE demonstrates clearly that the old empire/established order is terrified of losing their control of us - the public.

If the UK had opted for a proportional representation mechanism, it would have been more democratic. It is NOT democracy to say to people because I want it this way, you will all have to accept it, because my dig's bigger than your dog and I won.

Referenda are the last - or maybe in some cases the first - resort of the dictator.

railman good post

M0nica you are free to comment as you wish however just because you have no political alignment doesn't mean that you can malign those of us who do. Of course no one is perfect (has anyone said they are?) But the choice is clear between a party which will make our society more caring, more inclusive and more supportive and a party who will happily let the weakest and poorest go to the wall as long as the rich prosper. Sitting on the fence has been widely criticised on GN, I don't see it as a posiion that is good for anyone.

monica isn’t politically neutral

I found AN rude, aggressive and bias when interrogating NS and JC. What exactly was he trying to achieve by such behaviour? He needs lessons on diplomacy, respect and tact, maybe Fiona Bruce can give him a few hints on how to be fair but firm, and giving the interviewee a chance to answer the questions. There seems to be too many self-opinionated male journalists over the age of 55 in the BBC. AN should be pensioned off like they did to all women when they reached that magical age.

AN spent most of the time reading his questions, which by the way have already been answered and dealt with on other media formats. His tactics was to deliberately trip up the interviewee to make a mistake. Good example was to demand an apologise for racism, even though JC had already explained a thousand times that the racist issue in the labour party is being addressed. Sadly in this aggressive climate created by the Tory party over Brexit, racism is something no one will ever be able to completely eradicate. Likewise same behaviour when NS was interrogated on the drugs problem in Glasgow.
I too am interested on what questions he has for BJ and will he use the same bully boy interviewing tactics the BBC seems to like and promote.

I see the Corbyn supporters have got the WhatsApp message about the "truly horrific" interview and to "flood" the internet with positive comments