Off Topic The English press

Same as me mate hate all the bastards couldn’t care less which party they are in

 

Apparently there is a sweet shop opposite the houses of parliment which has a sign up saying "Only one politician allowed in the shop at any time"

 

How can the BBC or any news outlet report facts about Boris Johnson when he won't answer any awkward questions about how he conducts his personal and work life. Remember when he took a reporters phone off him so he didn't have to look at the picture of the boy lying on a hospital floor or when he hid in a fridge to avoid reporters on the eve of the general election. The man simply won't give answers to questions he doesn't like, Trump did the same. I suggest you write to the PM and insist he tells the truth and always answers questions and doesn't try to dodge his responsibilities.

As regards your position that the BBC should only report facts and not the news that is breaking, that is a preposterous proposition. It is the job of news organisations to report on the current news which nearly always breaks as a news story not news facts. The program is called BBC News or SKY News and not BBC Facts or Sky Facts.

 

You expect every public figure to answer every charge on any and every subject? If you genuinely think the BBC is impartial, just go and check out what the numerous people who used to work for it have to say. Or use a filter of your own.

Certainly the Tories should be examined. But I can remember almost no mention at all during the Labour tenure of their incestuous reliance on Union money, and their influence on policy. And very little when Blair was caught red handed doing Bernice Ecclestone's bidding.

Perhaps they just forgot.

 

News is the reporting of events which have taken place. This is not preposterous.

 

On that subject, I'd say some were greatly overpaid, bog standard MPS who know that their 90k a year plus expenses and pension is light years above what they could get or have been paid in the past.

When it comes to ministers though, this is not always the case. The UK PM currently earns about a third of the salary commanded, ( well actually self awarded) by the chancellors of many universities and ex polytechnics, for doing the job they used to do for a quarter of said bonanza.

In the case of Johnson, it will be the poorest pay he has had in a long while. Blair and Cameron could also have earned much more outside of politics. Probably not so the wooden Brown, and definitely not so the useless May or Major.

So I would say the MPs salary should be dropped by 20 per cent, ministers rise by ten, and the PM salary raised to around £1/2m.

But the hair shirtists everywhere won't have it. This started by the way under the Tories when it was felt inappropriate to have rising MP salaries in the recession of the late seventies and early eighties. That's where the expenses came to mean so much more, and that's where we are now.

 

Yes I expect any public figure to answer any and every charge. They are our employees and we have a right to know as we pay their wages. Labour has nothing to do with the allegations against Johnson, but if a Labour MP was accused of similar chenanigans I would expect them to answer the questions put to them. The BBC is simply reporting NEWS which is part of their remit, and should certainly take to task any alleged wrongdoing by any MP. Johnson's refusal to answer a direct question by Kier Starmer, not once, but 5 times, is evidence enough for me.

 

And exactly what "qualifications" does Johnson have have to deserve this massive salary. Aside from his worse than useless one in "Classics" and his fluency in the dead languages of Latin and Ancient Greek? A degree in lying? A diploma in clowning? An honorary doctorate in corruption? A level lechery?...

 

What a load of bollocks

 

The same qualification as anyone else who becomes Prime Minister. He's been appointed Prime Minister under the electoral system that we have in place in the UK.

 

I was replying to the original poster who said he could expect to earn far more outside of politics in another job.

 

He can. He earns far more from newspaper columns and after dinner speaking. He's said that himself.

 

Didn't say he can't, I said what qualifications does he have to deserve it, but you twist it Boris stylee if you like. Would those newspaper columns be the ones he was sacked from for fabricating "facts" by any chance?

 

What?! What on earth am I twisting? I'm just stating facts. You're the one that's passing judgement on his actions. But you're so eaten up with anti-Conservative bias that you can't see that.

 

A robust argument.

The pay is too low to attract anyone of genuine talent, but so high with so few qualifications required it's going to attract every ****ehawk and grifter in the country.

 

Pay them all more, on the proviso that they are not allowed to have any other "jobs" outside of politics which could lead to a possible conflict of interests.

 

[/QUOTE]

 

More bollocks

There is an argument that you do not want as a politician someone who wants to make a career out of politics from a very early age. We need people who have already done something with their life... and brings that to politics.

So... the present chancellor, made it as a Goldman Sachs junior partner (£2m pa + bonuses), married a billionaires daughter... does not need his salary.

Or even somebody like Sir Patrick Vallance was head of medicine at UCL, then went to GSK, was head of research and the new drugs he brought to market are worth billions, so he made £ millions as reward.

Useless ****ers like Bonko, who other than lying in articles he wrote as a journalist and who gave grants to an American businesswoman who he wanted to shag or could be bribed by a donor for the price of a roll of wallpaper, to keep his latest woman quiet.... should never be a politicians let alone PM... he is a disgrace..

 

[/QUOTE]
And what's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I've been taken in by something? As I've repeatedly said on this thread and others, I remain completely neutral in terms of politics. I maintain that its you with the bias.

 

And what's that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that I've been taken in by something? As I've repeatedly said on this thread and others, I remain completely neutral in terms of politics. I maintain that its you with the bias.[/QUOTE]
For someone who is so "neutral" you seem to rush to the "defence" of Bonko every time someone criticises him in an almost partisan way. Tell me why I am not allowed to criticise Alexander/Boris? Is he beyond criticism?