Boris Johnson should be banned from parliament for ‘unprecedented’ lies, rules privileges committee

Galaxy

I am not sure most of the comments are tongue in cheek I am afraid, the snobbery and worse around the Daily Mail is fairly clear.

People display all sorts of prejudices on Gransnet though Galaxy, I’m not sure why you would single out those who are ‘snobbish’ about the Daily Mail above those who regularly display racist, far left or right or other blatantly discriminatory behaviour. Actually, that is far more harmful.

So, in answer to my question about devisive comments, you do it because others do?

Have you seen the other thread about the Mail and its readers, its horrendous, the same 'tone ' directed at those who voted Brexit. It's fairly counterproductive to say the least.

Did you watch HIGNFY last night? It was brilliant

twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1669820629292294144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1669820629292294144%7Ctwgr%5E5aeb4e65be15ae0455fa435f0f897f5b8c853e89%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepoke.co.uk%2F2023%2F06%2F17%2Fian-hislop-boris-johnson-have-i-got-news-for-you%2F

Galaxy

I am not sure most of the comments are tongue in cheek I am afraid, the snobbery and worse around the Daily Mail is fairly clear.

What is "snobbish" about pointing out that the Daily Mail is not a trusted source.

Suggestng people are "snobbish" for pointing out facts, is devisive. Very DM. Why do you do that.? I'm genuinely interested.

I'm more of an inverted snob, than anything. .
Brought up in extreme poverty, I'm pretty au fait of what life is like for those struggling in today's economic climate.

I am not sure most of the comments are tongue in cheek I am afraid, the snobbery and worse around the Daily Mail is fairly clear.

MaizieD it sold 46000 copies?
Don’t forget it was written before 2011 Twin Towers.
Good that the blonde cyclist saved the life of the American President.
But not on my reading list.

ronib

MaizieD Seventy-Two Virgins - seems vaguely autobiographical?

The Guardian said it was 'Racist, sexist and homophobic'...

Galaxy

Oh that's good. God forbid the poor should have access to newspapers.

That comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, as I'm sure Varian's was. Really!

Those families barely had anything to eat ( I kept bread and jam in my classroom to make breakfast for some) and often had no credit for power. Newspapers were the last thing, they were thinking about.

MaizieD Seventy-Two Virgins - seems vaguely autobiographical?

Oh that's good. God forbid the poor should have access to newspapers.

I worked in an area of high deprivation, very few could afford the Daily Fail. Thank goodness. 😉

I do hope you also advised them not to believe a ything printed inside, the Daily Mail

varian

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

When I was teaching, we advised pupils not to use Wikipedia when doing research, for obvious reasons.

In February 2017, pursuant to a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source in most cases.[26][27][28] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[18][26][257] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.[26] It can still be used in reference to an article about the Daily Mail itself.[258] Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[18][26][27] Wikipedia's ban of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[259] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice.

Wikipaedia

He was still on Wikipedia this morning, at least on my google. It is written by members of the public and I don’t think they would actually remove something like that. The Daily Mail also remains as an entry. Maybe there are different versions of Wikipedia in Europe ?

varian

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

"Wikipaedia", varian? Is that a children's online encyclopedia?

ronib

I wonder why Boris Johnson doesn’t have a go at writing a novel? I would say fiction but he’s covered that genre in other ways.

He has written a novel. In 2004.

I wonder why Boris Johnson doesn’t have a go at writing a novel? I would say fiction but he’s covered that genre in other ways.

The Daily Mail is no longer accepted by Wikipaedia as a newspaper as so much of its content has proved to be untrue.

So who better than a proven liar to boost the reputation of the Daily Mail as (mostly) a pack of lies.

The mystery is why do people read it and believe the lies?

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

The Daily Mail has just announced that Boris Johnson is joining them as a columnist quelle surprise…

Which of course having not sought permission, means he has broken yet another rule.

Well spotted.

@Wyllow

Max Hastings writing almost four years ago to the day:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-minister-tory-party-britain

We can't say we weren't warned by someone who knows him very well:

Quote:

Dignity still matters in public office, and Johnson will never have it. Yet his graver vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks most likely to please, heedless of the inevitability of its contradiction an hour later.

Like many showy personalities, he is of weak character. I recently suggested to a radio audience that he supposes himself to be Winston Churchill, while in reality being closer to Alan Partridge. Churchill, for all his wit, was a profoundly serious human being. Far from perceiving anything glorious about standing alone in 1940, he knew that all difficult issues must be addressed with allies and partners.

Churchill’s self-obsession was tempered by a huge compassion for humanity, or at least white humanity, which Johnson confines to himself. He has long been considered a bully, prone to making cheap threats. My old friend Christopher Bland, when chairman of the BBC, once described to me how he received an angry phone call from Johnson, denouncing the corporation’s “gross intrusion upon my personal life” for its coverage of one of his love affairs.

“We know plenty about your personal life that you would not like to read in the Spectator,” the then editor of the magazine told the BBC’s chairman, while demanding he order the broadcaster to lay off his own dalliances.

Bland told me he replied: “Boris, think about what you have just said. There is a word for it, and it is not a pretty one.”

He said Johnson blustered into retreat, but in my own files I have handwritten notes from our possible next prime minister, threatening dire consequences in print if I continued to criticise him.

Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: “It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.” Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.

There is, of course, a symmetry between himself and Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is far more honest, but harbours his own extravagant delusions. He may yet prove to be the only possible Labour leader whom Johnson can defeat in a general election. If the opposition was led by anybody else, the Tories would be deservedly doomed, because we would all vote for it. As it is, the Johnson premiership could survive for three or four years, shambling from one embarrassment and debacle to another, of which Brexit may prove the least.

End quote.

How right he was.

Apologies - didnt mean to link my reply to Maizie to Wyllow's comment.

Wyllow3

Radio 2 had a phone in on it.

One caller was unbelievable. Boris Johnson was heroic like Winston Churchill and (yes really) Enoch Powell. Hero’s. And what a charming man. She’d enjoy a G and T with him of an evening.

I don't suppose it will MaizieD. It will just be more headlines for him which is exactly what he wants and will reinforce the nonsense being trotted out by Gutto Harri on QT yesterday about the Privileges Committee taking away Johnson's livelihood.

8 February 2023

Johnson who has already registered an advance payment of nearly £2.5m for speaking events, in his latest declaration of outside earnings.

It brings the former prime minister's declared income since leaving office last September to almost £4.8m.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64569598