General Chat > Off Topic

This is the News!

<< < (28/49) > >>

Huey2:
Perhaps we need a thread called " This is NOT the news!"

The Johnson story which broke in Private Eye this week is not being covered anywhere by any of the mainstream media this week.
That something like this - grossly inappropriate behaviour in office + attempted corruption is not out there on every front page is... a staggering level of censorship and quite frightening.

GordonR:
It’s also entirely unsubstantiated - When did this happen?  Who was the unnamed MP who witnessed it? What’s the source of this story? - hence why it’s so far one scurrilous paragraph in a Private Eye story, rather than national news.

Not running an unproven story that’s completely libellous if untrue isn’t censorship.

Tjm86:
To be fair it has been widely covered albeit not quite the same way Private Eye has.  The Times and Mail managed to get themselves plastered all over the news for running part of the story about Johnson and Symonds at the FCO.  Then they both withdrew the story from later editions / web editions.  The result was that far wider coverage was given to the story.

Of course the latest rumour around Johnson is that he has allegedly impregnated his hairdresser.  Needless to say this is totally unsubstantiated and significantly lacking in credibility (Johnson .... hairdresser ...) but does turn up if you do a Google search.

8-/

The Legendary Shark:


--- Quote from: Tjm86 on 02 July, 2022, 11:18:58 AM ---
Of course the latest rumour around Johnson is that he has allegedly impregnated his hairdresser. 


--- End quote ---

I find it very hard to believe that Boris Johnson has a hairdresser.

Huey2:
As Tjm says, at least part of that story did appear in newspapers last weekend but the story was swiftly pulled from the digital editions.

Even leaving aside the inappropriate angle, the facts that:
* Johnson tried to get his mistress a well-paid job she was completely unqualified for - not the first time he's done this, the only difference being this time he was blocked.
and
* the newspapers didn't just stop the story but actually erased it from digital editions

Both of these being, to my mind, very serious and worthy of follow-up.

As to the veracity of Private Eye. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't imagine the magazine risking a lawsuit on mere gossip. I'd also say that as for their journalism goes, they have a history of covering important stories which nobody else has touched - the Post Office scandal being one.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version