Poor David Attenborough

[Serial_Apologist]

Yesterday, on Today, am Radio 4 - Bernard Jenkin explaining away their intention of re-writing the House of Commons discliplinart process for Owen Patterson. (I thought, time to send emails (1st time for years and years) a sheaf of handwritten, stamped letters.
Only to find they had the affrontery to go ahead and do it yesterday. Before this government neuter it, we need not fear for the independence of BBC News. This morning I again listened to "Today, from 7.30 until 8.55. A blinder of a programme, exposing the true nature of what had been done. Putting Bryant's summation we are now like Russia in denial of the Rule of Law to "Minister "(Mister emollient)"Nadhim Zahawi" and skewering him on his reply. Analysis how the enquiry will have no validity because it does not have the consent of Parliament as a body.

And the link to COP and this thread - asking why Johnson came back by private jet from Glasgow to have dinner with Charles Moore at the Garrick Club - both of them big buddies of Patterson.

And today, the magnificent climb down. And either in Today or the World at One, the point has been made it was Johnson's decision to make this a government, whipped motion - and MPs, in particular the new intake and the "Red Wall" ones among them are beginning to doubt his viability as a leader for the next election; his cynical calculation that not enough voters would care has backfired. I cannot wait for the day he returns to writing his broadsheet trash newspaper columns and gets paid handsomely for his irrelevant speeches at business dinners.

Ooh I dunno - someone could spike his dinner!!! Seriously though I have to take your report on this morning's Today as given, because I didn't hear it - probably running my bathwater at the time - but it certainly would make a welcome change from the customary status quo semi-acquiescence from the usual BBC suspects.

[AuntDaisy]

Yesterday, on Today, am Radio 4 - Bernard Jenkin explaining away their intention of re-writing the House of Commons discliplinart process for Owen Patterson. (I thought, time to send emails (1st time for years and years) a sheaf of handwritten, stamped letters.
Only to find they had the affrontery to go ahead and do it yesterday. Before this government neuter it, we need not fear for the independence of BBC News. This morning I again listened to "Today, from 7.30 until 8.55. A blinder of a programme, exposing the true nature of what had been done. Putting Bryant's summation we are now like Russia in denial of the Rule of Law to "Minister "(Mister emollient)"Nadhim Zahawi" and skewering him on his reply. Analysis how the enquiry will have no validity because it does not have the consent of Parliament as a body.

And the link to COP and this thread - asking why Johnson came back by private jet from Glasgow to have dinner with Charles Moore at the Garrick Club - both of them big buddies of Patterson.

And today, the magnificent climb down. And either in Today or the World at One, the point has been made it was Johnson's decision to make this a government, whipped motion - and MPs, in particular the new intake and the "Red Wall" ones among them are beginning to doubt his viability as a leader for the next election; his cynical calculation that not enough voters would care has backfired. I cannot wait for the day he returns to writing his broadsheet trash newspaper columns and gets paid handsomely for his irrelevant speeches at business dinners.

Yes, Today was excellent - it could have been Brian Redhead doing those interviews.

Surprisingly, our local Tory MP, Mark Harper, was one of the 13 that did the decent thing & voted against the whip. ("It's the workings of conscience, of course.").

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Which reminds me. On Sunday it occurred to me that the translators must be facing a near impossible task with the Johnson waffle - no complete sentences, just a stream of (semi-) consciousness interspersed with umms and errs.

He might get a job on Breakfast then.

[Frances_iom]

He might get a job on Breakfast then.

I doubt if he can get up that early over the weekend.

[jayne lee wilson]

That will certainly mean the disappearance of BBC news in future - BJ still has nearly 4 years to run and has demonstrated he has a bunch of apparatchiks who will do his bidding for fear of losing their pay - as for £100k pa for lobbying I wonder just how much it cost the public that those firms thought it worth paying (interestingly these firms unnamed in the news reports). Recently a labour politician was censured and forced to apologise for rightfully calling out the Tory party.

Those firms reported on here.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-59147044

[oddoneout]

That will certainly mean the disappearance of BBC news in future - BJ still has nearly 4 years to run and has demonstrated he has a bunch of apparatchiks who will do his bidding for fear of losing their pay - as for £100k pa for lobbying I wonder just how much it cost the public that those firms thought it worth paying (interestingly these firms unnamed in the news reports). Recently a labour politician was censured and forced to apologise for rightfully calling out the Tory party.

The Guardian reports have named them from the off, I assumed that information was in the public domain now so why wouldn't the BBC also name them?

[DracoM]

[cloughie]

He might get a job on Breakfast then.

Hell’s teeth NO! up till now it’s redeeming feature is that it has to date, other than a few mentions in news bulletins been a Boris free zone, and should remain so during my lifespan!

[jayne lee wilson]

The Guardian reports have named them from the off, I assumed that information was in the public domain now so why wouldn't the BBC also name them?

They have, see link in #20.....

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hell’s teeth NO! up till now it’s redeeming feature is that it has to date, other than a few mentions in news bulletins been a Boris free zone, and should remain so during my lifespan!

[french frank]

I've always rated the Daily Express a rung or two below the Mail in terms of contemptibility, only mitigated by the fact that it sells fewer papers. So I was interested to see the Mail's splash yesterday: "Shameless MPs sink back into sleaze" (with a cutout of Paterson). The Express, alongside it on the rack, had an advertising wraparound (for gin) so I had to touch it with my bare fingers to see what the front page was: don't remember the exact words, but something like: "Be careful and protect Christmas" …

[oddoneout]

They have, see link in #20.....

But by the time that went out the Guardian had already covered the matter on Wednesday and named the firms.

[oddoneout]

He might get a job on Breakfast then.

Whatever your view of Breakfast its presenters do not warrant that level of slur.

[AuntDaisy]

I've always rated the Daily Express a rung or two below the Mail in terms of contemptibility, only mitigated by the fact that it sells fewer papers. So I was interested to see the Mail's splash yesterday: "Shameless MPs sink back into sleaze" (with a cutout of Paterson). The Express, alongside it on the rack, had an advertising wraparound (for gin) so I had to touch it with my bare fingers to see what the front page was: don't remember the exact words, but something like: "Be careful and protect Christmas" …

I hope you sanitised instantly.
The exact headline was "WARNING: LET'S BE CAUTIOUS AND SAVE XMAS" with a "Boosters and masks 'vital to get us through winter'" subhead above.
(The Daily Express cover was on Auntie's Papers webpage.)

[french frank]

The exact headline was "WARNING: LET'S BE CAUTIOUS AND SAVE XMAS" with "Boosters and masks 'vital to get us through winter'" above it.

Correct. A better headline than mine if you want to bury the bad news! (I did take a photo to get the Mail headline exact, but the Express was covered with gin).