Off Topic The English press

The way they hound politicians and to a lesser extent personalities is disgraceful, its a bit akin to stalking.or bullying. How Boris furnished his flat is of very little concern to me, and i hope to the majority of the nation.
I am sure there is more worthwhile events going on around the world they should report on.

 

Depends how the refurbishment was paid for, and who did the paying really.

If he is breaking rules, he has to be held accountable or what's to stop Duck Island 2: Return of the beaks.

Why a public servant needs 200k to renovate a flat they don't even own is beyond me. He should move into big business if he wants to live that wastefully.

That said, I too despise the press. They are collectively the pits.

 

I think the subject of whether Boris used taxpayers, or party money to decorate his flat whilst the rest of the country were facing economic hardship is absolutely newsworthy, That crook has bluffed his way through controversy after controversy and eventually HAS to be made accountable. I'd also say the issue of whether he claimed he would "let the bodies stack high" is also newsworthy as it shows him up to be the dangerous and self-service Tory prig we all know he is

On the wider point, yeah I'd agree that the British press can be shameful at times and greater regulation is needed

 

Regardless of who was paying, £200.000 is an obscene spend just for a refurb on a short term residency of somewhere he doesn't own. Easy to be extravagant with other peoples money, wonder how much the budget would have been if he was paying himself. Agree though that the press are deplorable.

 

I can't remember the outrage after the heavy expenditure in the Blair years. Not sure there should have been any either, these properties are state owned and remain so.

The issue of " whether" or not someone might or might not have said something is not newsworthy at all.

A charge like that requires evidence. If any emerges, which I very seriously doubt, it is just gossip. And when you see the origins of the story, you should not be surprised.

As for the Downing Street flat, perhaps it's the first time it's been done up since Gladstone lived there.
But I doubt that too.

 

I believe that the Downing Street flat had seen several residents since it was last done up. Pretty sure it could have been done for less but equally, raking it up really is just looking for sticks to beat him with.

 

The papers aren't charging Johnson with anything so no, they don't "require evidence" - they are allowed to report news, especially if multiple sources have confirmed it happened. If the papers are lying, then I assume Johnson will sue them for libel. That's how it works, isn't it?

What do you doubt? That is was refurbished? That it hadn't been refurbished in years?

Whatever the condition of the place, and I highly doubt it's been left to rack and ruin, spending £200k when the country is facing financial hardship is immoral and completely in-keeping with the tone set by Johnson and his Goons in Westminster.

Whether you are a Tory, a Johnson-fan or just anti-press, there is no defending this. None at all

 

If he funded the refurbishment illegally, I want to know... if he paid for it himself fair enough.

We do however seem to have to have a tory party that fits the term KLEPTOCRACY very aptly... ie a bunch of dishonest bastards

 

I suppose it depends very much on a couple of things - where the money came from in the first place, and if a donor has paid for it, what did they get in return?

Unfortunately people will swallow whole without thinking whichever story suits their agenda.

 

I am not a "fan" of anyone. It is an absurd notion. I have no idea how much this refurb cost, who paid, who will pay, or what is being done, and few will know, though can tell you that is very easy indeed to shell out 15k for a modest wren kitchen in a reasonable sized house.

Downing Street's private quarters have always been remodelled down the years, and to no hue and cry at all. The Blairs even had a huge amount of work done so they could swap with the Brown's. Fair enough by me, the Blairs had the children at the time, and it was all paid for by the state. I cannot recall one single critical story about this at the time.

This pathetic hair shirt clutching by some in the media, especially at the over pampered BBC is very selective.

As for the gossip stories, if this is what the BBC and others have finally descended to, then it is time they employed some of the few remaining journalists still working, in place of agenda driven political pamphleteers they mostly employ. It is absolutely NOT their job to report rumours, though it seems to be largely the extent of their abilities.

And if Johnson took everyone on for libel, ( and no actually it isn't how it works, this would be slander, an almost impossible charge to make sticj) He would be playing their game, as would most politicians of recent years.

 

Maybe. Though if he has got someone else to pay, it saves the state. If he gets the state to pay he should have got someone else. If he pays himself he shouldn't have that much money.

It doesn't natter really. This is a small matter, and if it isn't this it will be something else. It might seem over the top to some, it does to me, but no one criticises Starmer for him having a celebrity taylor. And nor should they. But for most in the media, and emphatically at the BBC, Johnson is the anti Christ and must be had.

He has committed the original sin of helping win a referendum, and securing the delivery of it's implications. He is not really a Tory even. He is by far and away the most left wing Tory leader ever, and was similarly inclined when mayor of London.

But he has eaten the apple, and must be punished.

 

Some will tell you that the BBC are essentially nothing but a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party and do nothing but support them and their views. I can't see how it is at all possible to come to that conclusion.
I find the lack of balance in people's views quite disturbing to be honest.

 

Sums MP's from any party up perfectly. All out to feather their own nests and use any loophole in the system for their own gain. Politics and religion - the two most corrupt 'professions' known to man.

 

The best people to listen to on the impartiality of the BBC are the people who used to work for it. Going back as far as Brian Redhead, then John Sissons, Paxton, Humphreys and others have all said publicly how far slanted to the left the organisation is. Jane Garve is one who has said so and still works there. Kind of.

It can't help itself, and I don't mind. I just mind paying for it at pont of law.

 

Of course the multi millionaire Boris Johnson and his mistress are entitled to spend as much as they like doing up their love nest. Just pay for it themselves. If they didn't and some "Tory party donor" paid for it then they are beholden to this anonymous person, who will inevitably want something back for their money. That's how the Chumocracy works. PPE contracts perhaps? No such thing as a free lunch. Simple as.

 

It really is the job of the news media to report accusations made against public figures. As long as they don’t report in such a way that indicates the accusations to be confirmed fact.

 

Not without evidence it isn't. Anyone can make accusations, and repeatedly reporting the same one implies they see it as fact.

Without evidence it is not reporting at all. It is HELLO! level journalism.

 

Yes, I've heard that those people have said things like that. There is a section on John Humphrys' Wikipedia page about his political views. Have to say, I agree almost entirely with what he has to say. I find the idea of aligning yourself with one political party for your entire life completely baffling and essentially counterproductive to the whole point of democracy. And I find the repeatedly implied 'fact' that Labour are nice and the Conservatives are nasty naive in the extreme.

 

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people posting on here are "working class", i.e. they HAVE to work for a living and that is usually for an employer. Those that are "self employed" are effectively employed by their customers. Employers want to pay as little as possible to their employees for the maximum amount of their "labour" they can get. That is just human nature. The Labour party are funded by the workers trade unions, the Tory party are funded by the employers. One is for the employers, the other is for the employees. It really is that simple.

 

All Johnson has to do to quell the stories about who paid for the refurbishment work on his official apartment is to go in front of the cameras and tell the truth, if he can remember how too. If he has paid for the works he will have receipts, also why did Dominic Cummins claim Johnson planned for donors to pay for the works?

As for the reports suggesting he would 'rather see bodies piled high than go into a 3rd lockdown' was first reported by the Daily Mail and then the BBC reported that they have a source confirming Johnson used the phrase. A spokesman for number 10 has refused to deny that Johnson said he would 'rather let coronavirus rip that impose further restrictions.

The BBC has a duty to report stories such as these and to hold him to account, that is the job of a free press.