Posts
Entrapment/Cash Offers: Guardian and BBC Out-Nuance Times
The Guardian coverage of the potential Lords entrapment involving various Peers being offered retainers is less bullish than that of The Sunday Times as advertised by Iain Dale at about 11:15pm last night. Nonsensically he claims the BBC only started running the story at 10:30pm. Probably means 10:30am today? Far from ignoring the story the BBC has a sensible Q&A alongside other coverage. And of course Andrew Marr's AM Show, starting 9 am had lined up Lady Royall (above) as an additional live guest to discuss the matter.
The story was towards the top of the programme after news headlines and before the weather. Priority in other words. Around 6 minutes 10 seconds in. Dale and other Tory BBC-baiting really is very tiresome and pretty much unfounded, though he - an IDF cheerleader - is clearly right to call them on the silly Gaza Appeal decision.
Though Iain doesn't seem to see any connection between rejoicing at the half-arsed entrapment attempt and condemning some lass from the Mirror for seeking Tory friends on facebook.
UPDATE 14:26: Dale's perfidy is highlighted by his ignoring of a comment at 1:43 AM stating that the BBC website was already leading with the story then. That's almost nine hours before Dale claims they cottoned on. Several also point out BBC Radio leading with it.
5 comments:
this needs proper investigation.At this stage those accused should be given the chance to explain their actions.i would suspect that these Lords have not broke any laws more likely the grey areas may need clarifying
Yes!
Let's focus in on the timline of events rather than the actual issue......namely that FOUR LABOUR PEERS have been caught red handed, willing to 'sell' changes to primary legislation for CASH.
THAT'S the ISSUE!
You focus on the timeline is a smokescreen to hide the fact that this is going to HOLE Labour below the waterline of SLEAZE.
28% in the latest polls and dropping like a stone....any wonder when we see so starkly just what a bunch of venal, corrupt criminals the Labour Party are.
The Times have run a number of duff stories over the last couple of years and though there may be some problems here with Lords prepared to weigh up offers of employment they don't seem to have either agreed any details of pay or services to be provided.
If that is so then the worst they'll have been guilty of is considering sailing close to the wind on the advice/influence tack.
Until we see the timelines and the transcripts and any emails and letters we're left with "undercover reporter" aka untrained chancer assertion and suggestive writing.
That's not good enough.
Why did the Times ejaculate this prematurely? Were the entrapment and the too-good-to-be-true offers unraveling? Were any of these Lords playing them?
The Tories were getting the money, asking the questions, having the trips and the hotel rooms etc. Not just getting offered bungs and not accepting this from very real vested interests.
I can see the Times having to run apologies and pay damages here. All the allusions and the juxtapositions and so on ...
I love the way the lefties try and spin these things. If the conservatives had done it, they would be screaming bloody murder, if the Labour party do it, they're poor innocent victims that have been entrapped by some fiendish Sunday Times plot.
The Tories were getting the money, asking the questions, having the trips and the hotel rooms etc. Not just getting offered bungs and not accepting this from very real vested interests.
Despite intensive, extensive and multiple investigations Hamilton was never found guilty of doing anything illegal, yet the Labour party deliberately and viciously destroyed him, and you here are still going on about it now as a means of defence for people who if the allegations are true truly did something illegal.
You go on about Mrs Dale here and in his comments accusing him of perfidy and hypocrisy, but the truth is you are far worse. If these had been Tory peers you would be wallowing in their discomfiture and holding them up as sleazy and corrupt, as would the BBC be in their main news headlines; but these are Labour peers, so you mouth platitudes to them about entrapment and offers only. The only reason they didn't actually take money was because labour changed the law governing what was admissible for the media to do, and actually handing money over is not admissible, though getting an admission they would take it is.
Is it any wonder the credibility of Labour and their supporters hang in tatters?
Post a Comment