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.
" On Monday Downing Street confirmed it contacted the newspaper on Friday night and asked it to retract the story."
"Political sources with knowledge of the incident have said the original story is correct."
"The story that the Times pulled was rereporting an allegation that appeared in a critical biography of Carrie Johnson by the Tory donor and peer Lord Ashcroft. The original accusation remains available online as part of the serialisation of the book — which is still hosted on MailOnline."
His previous pole dancing floozy was bunged money from public funds by this corrupt shyster, who tried to us a 'charitable trust' set up to find to the refrurbisment of N0 10. That the donors "Mrs Hobhouse and three other family directors were found guilty of breaching charity law over donations of almost £1million to the Tory Party" should not infer that there was any corruption, oh no.
"The Charity Commission ruled they breached their legal duty as trustees by “failing to give proper consideration” to whether the company should be allowed to make political donations”.
So, some cynics might suggest there IS a connection between Johnsons defence of Putins invasion of Crimea in 2014, and money given to him by Putin (see Le Pen & Farage).
A leopard doesn't change its spots, some might say.
0
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 19:58 - Jun 20 with 1041 views
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 19:42 - Jun 20 by HARRY10
The Guardian is now running with
" On Monday Downing Street confirmed it contacted the newspaper on Friday night and asked it to retract the story."
"Political sources with knowledge of the incident have said the original story is correct."
"The story that the Times pulled was rereporting an allegation that appeared in a critical biography of Carrie Johnson by the Tory donor and peer Lord Ashcroft. The original accusation remains available online as part of the serialisation of the book — which is still hosted on MailOnline."
His previous pole dancing floozy was bunged money from public funds by this corrupt shyster, who tried to us a 'charitable trust' set up to find to the refrurbisment of N0 10. That the donors "Mrs Hobhouse and three other family directors were found guilty of breaching charity law over donations of almost £1million to the Tory Party" should not infer that there was any corruption, oh no.
"The Charity Commission ruled they breached their legal duty as trustees by “failing to give proper consideration” to whether the company should be allowed to make political donations”.
So, some cynics might suggest there IS a connection between Johnsons defence of Putins invasion of Crimea in 2014, and money given to him by Putin (see Le Pen & Farage).
A leopard doesn't change its spots, some might say.
Most of Johnson's scandals seem to be things that have been in the public domain for some time. The Birthday party that got him and Sunak a fine had been reported in the Time a year before without anyone making comment.
Next up. Public in shock that Johnson has several children born out of wedlock.
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:04 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
Most of Johnson's scandals seem to be things that have been in the public domain for some time. The Birthday party that got him and Sunak a fine had been reported in the Time a year before without anyone making comment.
Next up. Public in shock that Johnson has several children born out of wedlock.
tbf, digging out loads of stuff from the past was what stitched up Corbyn, and was always likely to be a problem for Johnson once people realised just how little substance there is to him beyond soundbites.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:14 - Jun 20 by Dubtractor
tbf, digging out loads of stuff from the past was what stitched up Corbyn, and was always likely to be a problem for Johnson once people realised just how little substance there is to him beyond soundbites.
But the stuff being drip fed isn't being dug up from the past. As per my link, the Carrie story was in the Mail just 4 months ago and nobody said a word.
I think it's another Tory who fancies Johnson's job who is re hashing this stuff. Gove would be my guess.
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:17 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
But the stuff being drip fed isn't being dug up from the past. As per my link, the Carrie story was in the Mail just 4 months ago and nobody said a word.
I think it's another Tory who fancies Johnson's job who is re hashing this stuff. Gove would be my guess.
So what? The passage of time or previous airing doesn't make it any less corrupt.
He's hardly in any position to complain or receive sympathy if someone's trying to stitch him up given his history.
Why the wish to defend him/ deflect the attention?
-1
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:54 - Jun 20 with 951 views
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:36 - Jun 20 by XYZ
So what? The passage of time or previous airing doesn't make it any less corrupt.
He's hardly in any position to complain or receive sympathy if someone's trying to stitch him up given his history.
Why the wish to defend him/ deflect the attention?
Read what is written man. Not what your warped mind wants to read. I'm not defending him. And haven't posted anything that can be seen as defending him.
I just find it interesting that these stories are suddenly becoming news as they went unnoticed when reported just 4 months ago.
I'm more interested in the motives behind the rehash. It appears to me that one of his rivals is on maneuvers. I already know he is a corrupt liar. That's not news to me.
Now back to the drawing board and try to have another pop at me.
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:54 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
Read what is written man. Not what your warped mind wants to read. I'm not defending him. And haven't posted anything that can be seen as defending him.
I just find it interesting that these stories are suddenly becoming news as they went unnoticed when reported just 4 months ago.
I'm more interested in the motives behind the rehash. It appears to me that one of his rivals is on maneuvers. I already know he is a corrupt liar. That's not news to me.
Now back to the drawing board and try to have another pop at me.
Oh really, give it a rest. Your post deflected the story from the act to the republishing IMO - it's perfectly valid to question why one would do that.
I'd agree with your Gove suspicions, but the story is the story - not the fact that it's the second time it's run.
-1
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 21:04 - Jun 20 with 929 views
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:17 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
But the stuff being drip fed isn't being dug up from the past. As per my link, the Carrie story was in the Mail just 4 months ago and nobody said a word.
I think it's another Tory who fancies Johnson's job who is re hashing this stuff. Gove would be my guess.
Well according to Rory Stewart, The Times is Gove’s personal noticeboard
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 21:01 - Jun 20 by XYZ
Oh really, give it a rest. Your post deflected the story from the act to the republishing IMO - it's perfectly valid to question why one would do that.
I'd agree with your Gove suspicions, but the story is the story - not the fact that it's the second time it's run.
Once again you seem to miss the point.
We know Johnson is a liar and a corrupt charlatan. There is nothing to defend. His corruption is established and doesn’t particularly interest me, as it’s nothing I don’t already know.
What does interest me however, is the political manipulation that is going on behind the scenes. I may be a political anorak, but it’s something piques my curiosity. I want to know who is behind the leaks. That person may well be our next Prime Minister or it may be the kingmaker.
Sorry that you interpret my curiosity as deflection. I thought you were brighter than that and not so easily deflected. Unless you think your fellow board members are dim enough to fall for my sinister act of deflection.
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 22:49 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
Once again you seem to miss the point.
We know Johnson is a liar and a corrupt charlatan. There is nothing to defend. His corruption is established and doesn’t particularly interest me, as it’s nothing I don’t already know.
What does interest me however, is the political manipulation that is going on behind the scenes. I may be a political anorak, but it’s something piques my curiosity. I want to know who is behind the leaks. That person may well be our next Prime Minister or it may be the kingmaker.
Sorry that you interpret my curiosity as deflection. I thought you were brighter than that and not so easily deflected. Unless you think your fellow board members are dim enough to fall for my sinister act of deflection.
So, why not start your own thread setting that out?
Are you incapable of interacting with me without making gratuitous schoolboy insults?
-2
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 07:56 - Jun 21 with 634 views
So, have we done episode 46777543577788765444566 on 20:04 - Jun 20 by GlasgowBlue
Most of Johnson's scandals seem to be things that have been in the public domain for some time. The Birthday party that got him and Sunak a fine had been reported in the Time a year before without anyone making comment.
Next up. Public in shock that Johnson has several children born out of wedlock.
One of the reasons for this, it seems to me, is that despite taking "full responsibility" there are no consequences for the man and seldom have there been. So each corrupt/illegal act is unfinished business.
Of course it is also perfectly possible that the winds of change are blowing around Johnson's premiership and one or more cabinet ministers recogniae this and are pressing to have previous stories drawn back into the light.
The real story this time, surely, is not so much the previously reported nepotism but the "no we didn't/oh what THAT?/yes, yes, we did do that" admission from No. 10 that they requested the "old" story be pulled and the reality that the story WAS pulled.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
