O/T:- Is Boris a mini Trump?

[BigFatPie]

Given that the Guardian isn't exactly an impartial arbiter, I've posted below Guido Fawkes' take on events from earlier today.

Senior Lobby hacks have staged a walkout of a Number 10 briefing this afternoon, in protest at smaller titles not being invited to the extra briefing. A briefing after Boris’ speech took place for all accredited journalists, and this afternoon’s briefing is still set to go ahead as planned…

Guido understands that Number 10 invited a small group of senior political editors of larger media organisations including the BBC, ITV, Daily Mail, Guardian, The Sun, Sky News, and The Times for an additional detailed briefing in Downing Street. This is not the first time this has happened, nor the first time that Downing Street has favoured selected hacks from the so-called “inner Lobby”. This has happened under previous administrations.

Today many more Lobby hacks turned up uninvited to this extra briefing, causing a stand off in the entrance hall of Number 10, with journalists demanding to attend the extra briefing and Number 10 rebuffing them. Eventually, the invited journalists walked out along with the uninvited ones, and the briefing did not go ahead. Remember that two weeks ago the same Lobby hacks walking out today tried to get Guido reporters banned for live tweeting the briefings…

Guido Fawkes are by no means impartial either, of course, but you pays your money and takes your choice what you believe.

‘I didn’t like that account from a journalist who was actually there, backed up by all the other journalists who were there, so I’ve posted the bullish!t made up and put about by the unofficial propaganda arm of the Tory party’.

‘Still, as we all know, all journalism is ‘fake news’, so take your pick about which bolox you believe’. I am of course, an unbiased observer. Wink.

[Elite_Pie]

I know a lot of people in here chose to vote for Boris. And I don't want to be antagonistic about that in this thread.

But I also want people to realise that his governments attempts at manipulating how they are reported on actually made ALL of the reporters (including The Sun, The Guardian, Daily Mail, Sky, BBC, Telegraph etc) walk out of Number 10 United in protest today.

There's some pretty dodgy stuff going on here wherever your politics lie...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-reporter-ban

Pathetic and cowardly. Is this really what leave voters wanted as "taking control of our own destiny"?

[Elite_Pie]

Fine with me. I don't know if you're assuming I'm a Royalist, but to be honest I can take 'em or leave 'em. In light of recent events I could certainly think of better things to spend my money on.

No assumption on your royalist leanings or otherwise at all on my part. I don't even know whether you have any friends or not (snigger)!

[BigFatPie]

Sorry Dave I've just realised you've abandoned your other thread, in which case I'll re-post Guido Fawkes' take on things here, to give yet another perspective.

Senior Lobby hacks have staged a walkout of a Number 10 briefing this afternoon, in protest at smaller titles not being invited to the extra briefing. A briefing after Boris’ speech took place for all accredited journalists, and this afternoon’s briefing is still set to go ahead as planned…

Guido understands that Number 10 invited a small group of senior political editors of larger media organisations including the BBC, ITV, Daily Mail, Guardian, The Sun, Sky News, and The Times for an additional detailed briefing in Downing Street. This is not the first time this has happened, nor the first time that Downing Street has favoured selected hacks from the so-called “inner Lobby”. This has happened under previous administrations.

Today many more Lobby hacks turned up uninvited to this extra briefing, causing a stand off in the entrance hall of Number 10, with journalists demanding to attend the extra briefing and Number 10 rebuffing them. Eventually, the invited journalists walked out along with the uninvited ones, and the briefing did not go ahead. Remember that two weeks ago the same Lobby hacks walking out today tried to get Guido reporters banned for live tweeting the briefings…

I didn’t like that account from a journalist who was actually there, backed up by all the other journalists who were there, so I’ve posted the bullish!t made up and put about by the unofficial propaganda arm of the Tory party’.

‘Still, as we all know, all journalism is ‘fake news’, so take your pick about which bolox you believe’. ‘I am of course, an unbiased observer. Wink’.

[DaveSmithRules]

I've got no problem with you or anyone else who wants to see/hear the BBC continuing to pay your licence fee, much like I pay a subscription to watch Sky TV, but there's no reason why I should fund your viewing/listening if I don't want to watch the Beeb. In order to see the channels I want to watch on a television, I'm currently forced to do so.

To be fair, if the BBC offers what I want to see, I might be a subscriber myself, but it would be by choice, not by coercion.

I think this is a fair point. The current system isn't right if you literally never watch or listen to BBC and still have to pay for it.

Technically tho, if you want to avoid this right away could you get rid of your digibox/ TV aerial like me and still get Sky online? I've got a Now TV trial and I think (if you pay enough) you can get all your sports and movies etc that way instead. Although others may know more about this than me.

On the subject of the licence fee I think a lot of Notts fans would be sad to lose the commentary. I can't get to many away games, so £150 ÷ 30 away games (including cup matches) still seems a bargain at £5 each. Not to mention everything else the BBC provides on top.

[BigFatPie]

I understand your problem, because I have been forced to pay part of my taxes to subsidise the Royal Family, when I would rather give the cash to more worthy causes.

Maybe we should have an opt out clause for things like this.

Before I had kids, it really pissed me off that my hard-earned cash paid for schools.

[jackal2]

‘I didn’t like that account from a journalist who was actually there, backed up by all the other journalists who were there, so I’ve posted the bullish!t made up and put about by the unofficial propaganda arm of the Tory party’.

‘Still, as we all know, all journalism is ‘fake news’, so take your pick about which bolox you believe’. I am of course, an unbiased observer. Wink.

There's no such thing as unbiased observer, but when it comes to masquerading as one, folk on the so-called progressive side of politics play that card as hard as anyone. The local Labour Party around here have a particular talent for organising events and 'community meetings' that "aren't political..."

And as for the Lib Dems, their entire existence is based on being politically 'non-political'.

[jackal2]

I didn’t like that account from a journalist who was actually there, backed up by all the other journalists who were there, so I’ve posted the bullish!t made up and put about by the unofficial propaganda arm of the Tory party’.

‘Still, as we all know, all journalism is ‘fake news’, so take your pick about which bolox you believe’. ‘I am of course, an unbiased observer. Wink’.

There's no such thing as unbiased observer, but when it comes to masquerading as one, folk on the so-called progressive side of politics play that card as hard as anyone. The local Labour Party around here have a particular talent for organising events and 'community meetings' that "aren't political...". And as for the Lib Dems, their entire existence is based on being politically 'non-political'.

(PS I think Swale should lock the other thread otherwise we'll be saying everything twice )

[BigFatPie]

There's no such thing as unbiased observer, but when it comes to masquerading as one, folk on the so-called progressive side of politics play that card as hard as anyone. The local Labour Party around here have a particular talent for organising events and 'community meetings' that "aren't political..."

And as for the Lib Dems, their entire existence is based on being politically 'non-political'.

Eh?

Which version of today’s events has more credibility and is more likely to be true, the Guardian’s or Guido Fawkes?

[jackal2]

Technically tho, if you want to avoid this right away could you get rid of your digibox/ TV aerial like me and still get Sky online?

Yes I think that would work, although call me old fashioned but I'm not a big fan of online streaming when it comes to the sort of stuff I watch, which is often football and other sports. I know the young 'uns today watch a lot of their footie online, but even with the advances in technology I still find it a poor and sometimes unreliable substitute for watching on TV.