By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Really puts the cock in Hancock. The below is deeply objectionable on two fronts. Firstly, a second referendum hasn't been rejected at all, it's not been backed as an amendment to the motion regarding a delay to Article 50. That's as far as the vote tonight goes. Secondly, he seems to be pretending that yesterday in parliament just didn't happen. How is it a choice between May's deal and no deal when both of those options actually HAVE been emphatically rejected?
"Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the idea of another referendum was "emphatically rejected".
He said MPs had increasingly made clear what they did not want and added that they now had to chose between a no-deal Brexit and the prime minister's deal."
Every time a politician opens their mouth at the moment they are, at best, disingenuous. In this case and many others (especially on the government side) they are outright dishonest. What a shower we have sitting in the Commons right now. I wouldn't trust any of them to have the basic level of competence needed to look after my cat for a weekend.
Surely being a festering arsehole is a prerequisite for becoming a Tory MP? Nobody with a shred of decency would consider it.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Surely being a festering arsehole is a prerequisite for becoming a Tory MP? Nobody with a shred of decency would consider it.
I find it genuinely maddening that this is just accepted though. Where's the challenge from the press? He's said it's a straight choice between May's deal and no deal and the interview hasn't pulled him up on the fact that May's deal has been comprehensively rejected twice and no deal has likewise been voted down by a big margin. This all happened within the last 48 hours. Why is he not being held to account? It's a fooking outrage.
I find it genuinely maddening that this is just accepted though. Where's the challenge from the press? He's said it's a straight choice between May's deal and no deal and the interview hasn't pulled him up on the fact that May's deal has been comprehensively rejected twice and no deal has likewise been voted down by a big margin. This all happened within the last 48 hours. Why is he not being held to account? It's a fooking outrage.
May will bring her deal back to the house next week and likely win. The main Brexit contingent have worked out that indeed May is correct to an extent: her deal or potentially no Brexit. I can see many brexiteers now voting to avoid no Brexit at all. It’s completely wrong and I don’t agree with it but think it will play out that way. I’m not a fan of Hancock - but he is just whipping up support for the deal. It’s his job as a ally to May.
You've down arrowed two posts calling out dishonesty from an MP. Your response doesn't address that.
... I’m not a Tory or Labour supporter. I vote for who I feel best represents at the time. I’m becoming though increasingly frustrated at the constant bashing of what would seem just Tory MPs on here. It’s not representative. One could also point the finger at many Labour MPs. Yet it’s Hancock who you are selecting tonight.
Politics is politics. I don’t like him, but he is doing his job. Supporting his leader to presumably further his career. He is not the only dishonest MP. Plenty of Tory AND Labour.
... I’m not a Tory or Labour supporter. I vote for who I feel best represents at the time. I’m becoming though increasingly frustrated at the constant bashing of what would seem just Tory MPs on here. It’s not representative. One could also point the finger at many Labour MPs. Yet it’s Hancock who you are selecting tonight.
Politics is politics. I don’t like him, but he is doing his job. Supporting his leader to presumably further his career. He is not the only dishonest MP. Plenty of Tory AND Labour.
Why not respect other folks opinion? I have not condoned dishonesty. Why won’t you condemn the dishonesty in the Labour Party? Oh ... you are very very clearly proving my point. MPs on BOTH sides are dishonest but sadly Labour folk won’t accept that. Well done for condoning Labour MPs dishonesty.
Why not respect other folks opinion? I have not condoned dishonesty. Why won’t you condemn the dishonesty in the Labour Party? Oh ... you are very very clearly proving my point. MPs on BOTH sides are dishonest but sadly Labour folk won’t accept that. Well done for condoning Labour MPs dishonesty.
I haven't condoned dishonesty. You have. Shameful that you are against people calling for honesty from cabinet ministers. Shameful. And you are the one bringing party politics into this.
... I’m not a Tory or Labour supporter. I vote for who I feel best represents at the time. I’m becoming though increasingly frustrated at the constant bashing of what would seem just Tory MPs on here. It’s not representative. One could also point the finger at many Labour MPs. Yet it’s Hancock who you are selecting tonight.
Politics is politics. I don’t like him, but he is doing his job. Supporting his leader to presumably further his career. He is not the only dishonest MP. Plenty of Tory AND Labour.
He's not just an MP, he's the Secretary of State for health a bit more than just an MP
I find it genuinely maddening that this is just accepted though. Where's the challenge from the press? He's said it's a straight choice between May's deal and no deal and the interview hasn't pulled him up on the fact that May's deal has been comprehensively rejected twice and no deal has likewise been voted down by a big margin. This all happened within the last 48 hours. Why is he not being held to account? It's a fooking outrage.
This is where you should have directed your frustration from the start: the press.
Unfortunately, your thread has turned into a party political one.
We have a supine media establishment. A few select journalists aside, they are largely responsible for the shambolic politics we have at the moment.
The Press have an essential role in a democracy - they are largely not fit for purpose.
I think there's a middle ground where it's also not too much to ask for politicians to display some basic personal integrity. I agree the media should do more to hold them to account. They don't even challenge blatant lies.
I think there's a middle ground where it's also not too much to ask for politicians to display some basic personal integrity. I agree the media should do more to hold them to account. They don't even challenge blatant lies.
I get your sentiment but I gave up expecting any personal integrity from politicians, estate agents, "government" scientists and garage mechanics some while ago. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from our journos and not enough from our politicians.
This is where you should have directed your frustration from the start: the press.
Unfortunately, your thread has turned into a party political one.
We have a supine media establishment. A few select journalists aside, they are largely responsible for the shambolic politics we have at the moment.
The Press have an essential role in a democracy - they are largely not fit for purpose.
[Post edited 14 Mar 2019 20:30]
CIL, serious question for once. If we are to hold the Fourth Estate to account, how would that be possible other than through either political or judiciary means? If the three are intertwined and self-supporting, how would or could any real scrutiny and change happen?
Was Leveson a good first step? And would Leveson 2, as it was originally planned, actually change anything?
Interested to hear thoughts from all interested correspondents.
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
CIL, serious question for once. If we are to hold the Fourth Estate to account, how would that be possible other than through either political or judiciary means? If the three are intertwined and self-supporting, how would or could any real scrutiny and change happen?
Was Leveson a good first step? And would Leveson 2, as it was originally planned, actually change anything?
Interested to hear thoughts from all interested correspondents.
it's a question I'd really like someone to put to Ian Hislop.
Private Eye crucifies the national press for their dishonesty every fortnight, but also seems dead set against any form of regulation.
Print/online media is probably one of the few major industries where there is no regulation. However, broadcast media is regulated (at least in terms of requiring impartiality and basic accuracy) and I don't recall ever seeing many complaints about it.
CIL, serious question for once. If we are to hold the Fourth Estate to account, how would that be possible other than through either political or judiciary means? If the three are intertwined and self-supporting, how would or could any real scrutiny and change happen?
Was Leveson a good first step? And would Leveson 2, as it was originally planned, actually change anything?
Interested to hear thoughts from all interested correspondents.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with Leveson to comment. At the time it served as a big distraction from something else, though I can't remember what.
I think the three are so intertwined and therefore it's impossible to hold the Press to account in obvious ways.
Everything functions in a fight for your attention these days, whether that's news channels, online gaming or sites such as this.
The way to hit back is to stop giving them your attention.
It's easy for me to avoid the BBC and the UK press in general because of where I live, but I avoid all TV news and printed media because I've got rid of my tele and I don't buy news.
If you think they re not doing their job, stop feeding them with your attention.
it's a question I'd really like someone to put to Ian Hislop.
Private Eye crucifies the national press for their dishonesty every fortnight, but also seems dead set against any form of regulation.
Print/online media is probably one of the few major industries where there is no regulation. However, broadcast media is regulated (at least in terms of requiring impartiality and basic accuracy) and I don't recall ever seeing many complaints about it.
Think his answer to the committee on regulation was that the regulator would comprise of people you were criticising, or had criticised, thus skewing any possible outcome of that hearing.
In fact, in the recent edition it emerged that the Eye had been contacted by a non-governmental body apparently 'demanding' at first information on certain things; when it was put back to them that the Eye had no legal requirement to do so, they demured.
Whichever body that is had been sending every publication the same- sure some may have relented, but perhaps not with legal/compliance depts. being as they are.
The only real answer to media regulation is a non-governmental body, which would be inherently biased. And other suggestions to make publishers accountable for opponents' legal fees seems absurd given the number of claims (right or wrong) from all manner of people (mostly quite rich and powerful, some poor and less so).
Difficult one to broach, this.
Edit: Full Hislop Leveson evidence doesn't seem to be on YT for some reason... perhaps his jokes will suffice. But as with all jokes he often hits the point.
[Post edited 14 Mar 2019 21:43]
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
