The freedom of the press is under attack in England

[PAUL C]

The leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has ordered the editor of an old but obscure publication call the Spectator to go to Liverpool and apologise for an editorial written in the publication.

That the editorial was grass and full of inaccuracies is beyond doubt. That the editor is also a member of Parliament in the Leader of the Oppositions party is well known.

But where does his authority end? If he ever becomes elected Prime Minister will he feel it his right to order all editors to apologise for any article he finds offensive? Will his next step be to want to see and sanction all copy before printing?

He has opened the door to the curtailment of the freedom of the press. And I don't think anybody noticed.

 

[oggbashan]

The member of parliament concerned also holds office in the opposition as a parliamentary spokesman.

As a supposed leader in the party he should have been more diplomatic.

It is not about freedom of the press, but about embarrassing his party and his leader.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

Paul C - You say:
"The leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has ordered the editor of an old but obscure publication call the Spectator to go to Liverpool and apologise for an editorial written in the publication."

"That the editorial was grass and full of inaccuracies is beyond doubt. That the editor is also a member of Parliament in the Leader of the Oppositions party is well known."

As I understand the situation, a member of a political party has ordered another member of his political party to apologise for a grass [sic, possibly crass???] and inaccurate editorial appearing in a newspaper called [The???] Spectator.

So what? The matter would seem to be an internal matter involving Her Majesty's Opposition. I am not all that familiar with British politics, but it would appear that the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has no formal authority over the writer.

I mean, this is not a direct attack on a major bastion of British newpapers [say, Private Eye or The Sun], it is very probably an attempt by the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to osculate the gluteus maximi of those who may have been offended by the editorial so they don't vote against Her Majesty's Opposition party.

I mean, this is not an attack on something really important [the Page 3 girls], it is just an attempt to recover from something that should not have been published in the first place. [Calm down an go check out the Page 3 girls for today!

JMHO.

 

[Guest]

Blimey, talk about sensationalism.

R. Richard, yep, you just about hit the nail on the head with your interpretations.

Ken Bigley's brother called the Tory MP, Boris Johnson a "self-centred pompous twit". I'm inclined to agree, but that's just my personal opinion.

There is such a thing as a conflict of interest, Johnson is VERY lucky he's allowed to continue to be editor of The Spectator. This "story" has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of the press, and as both Og and R. Richard said, it has everything to do with towing the party line and not saying anything to embarrass the leader.

I didn't notice, Paul, because to me it just isn't worth noticing.

Lou

 

[cantdog]

I think it's "toeing" that one does to party lines.

 

[Guest]

I think Boris Johnson should be the prime minister.

I like Boris.

 

[amicus]

Where do I cast my vote? This is Iowa isn't it...I mean Ohio...where the hell is toto....who is that guy in the cornfield with no shoes on?

Where can I get a copy of the 'Private eye' this sounds like fun and I really like the word 'twit'

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I think it's "toeing" that one does to party lines.

Depends if it is a line that you are inching toward in the desire to cross, or whether it is a line you must be dragged to kicking and screaming. (Such as me being forced to open Amicus’ ignored posts)

There is the story of the three baby pigeons, one of which did not believe in flying and refused to leave the nest. In a temper, its father warned it that if it did not fly on its own, he and his brothers would pluck stings out of the fabric of the nest, tie it to his feet, and tow him across the sky.

The last word heard from the anti aeronaut was the cry of, “No! No! I don’t want to be pigeon-towed!”

 

[amicus]

Is there an award for the 'most ignored' on the hangout?

nevermind....

 

[TheEarl]

I don't ignore you amicus. I'm still laughing from our last discussion; why would I want to miss out on more of the same?

I like Boris. He's daft and could never be a party leader simply for his tendency to say stupid things in public, but behind the blethering exterior, he's actually quite a good politician and a keen observer.

The Earl

 

[Boxlicker101]

First, I'm wondering asbout something. There is a local newspaper around here that is mostly porno and classified sex ads. It the British "Spectator" the same?

Second, as I see it, the leader is ordering a member of his party to do something political. Without expressing an opinion on the offensive article, I see nothing out of line about that. If the editor were not an MP, I am sure that nothing would have been said because the leader would have no authority at all, he would know it, and he would know that making such a demand would just call attention to the article and make himself look stupid. This is not an attack on Freedom of the Press; it's just politicians bickering.

 

[Boota]

I like Boris. He's daft and could never be a party leader simply for his tendency to say stupid things in public...
The Earl

Daft and says stupid things in public? He is certainly qualified to be President of the United States then. You know, other than citizenship and such.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think it's "toeing" that one does to party lines.

It's not nice to pick on simple typos.

However, I was going to ask for clarification on just why the party line need to be towed; is it broken or just underpowered?

 

[Guest]

Bah, wtf do I know? Towing, toeing, it's all the same bollocks to me.

Sounds a bit kinky, if you ask me.

 

[Guest]

Good grief, we're back to toe sucking. Poor Helene. P.

 

[Wholemanz]

So why all the hastle over the Ironing?

Press it, put the crease in it and move on...

Gosh and they think I'm a dumb blonde...

 

[scheherazade_79]

Can we assume that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are safe then?

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: The freedom of the press is under attack in England

Can we assume that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are safe then?

No. Boris is a Westminster MP with shadow responsibilities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Members of the Welsh Assembly can produce their own home-grown idiots with responsibility for Wales. England is safe from them. I hope.

Og

 

[scheherazade_79]

Re: Re: Re: The freedom of the press is under attack in England

No. Boris is a Westminster MP with shadow responsibilities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Members of the Welsh Assembly can produce their own home-grown idiots with responsibility for Wales. England is safe from them. I hope.

Og

Of course he is, which is why I was amazed that only the English press was mentioned. Evidently I'd been far too subtle for some.

 

[matriarch]

Re: Re: Re: The freedom of the press is under attack in England

No. Boris is a Westminster MP with shadow responsibilities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Members of the Welsh Assembly can produce their own home-grown idiots with responsibility for Wales. England is safe from them. I hope.

Og

Naughty, naughty Ogs. Fair's fair, if the Welsh might at some time have to put up with a shadowy moron like Boris, then we should be prepared to tolerate the same from Wales.

But we all know, home grown is always best. Much better for you.

 

[bloodsimple]

Leaving aside the inaccuracies in Boris Johnson's editorial (and I think there was only one, although it was a biggie - the number who died at Hillsborough), I think there is an issue buried deep in all this.

Michael Howard (the Conservative leader) has allowed Boris to be both Shadow Arts Spokesman AND editor of The Spectator. Possibly a daft decision in oh-so-many ways, but he has done. Presumably, he must know that Boris will then write editorials. So he shouldn't be surprised when he does.

Boris does one thing (legitimately) in one job, but is ordered by his boss in another job, to apologise for it. So if I work in an office in the day and a bar at night, why would I have to apologise to my office manager because I gave people short measures in the pub?

By allowing him to do both roles, Howard gave Boris the right to pursue his editorial work. Aside from apologising for factual inaccuracies (which newspapers have to do all the time anyway), I fail to see why Boris should be made to apologise by Michael Howard. Sack Boris (or don't appoint him) if he embarrasses you, but what he writes for the Spectator actually isn't your business.

 

[oggbashan]

...Boris does one thing (legitimately) in one job, but is ordered by his boss in another job, to apologise for it. So if I work in an office in the day and a bar at night, why would I have to apologise to my office manager because I gave people short measures in the pub?

By allowing him to do both roles, Howard gave Boris the right to pursue his editorial work. Aside from apologising for factual inaccuracies (which newspapers have to do all the time anyway), I fail to see why Boris should be made to apologise by Michael Howard. Sack Boris (or don't appoint him) if he embarrasses you, but what he writes for the Spectator actually isn't your business.

Confusion of roles is a common trait.

The Justice Commissioner-elect of the European Commission is a devout Roman Catholic and a friend of the Pope.

He has said quite openly that he sees homosexuality as a sin and that he is unhappy with women's roles that conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church yet he is prepared to put those personal beliefs aside as Justice Minister and work according to the rules of the EU.

He is expressing the conflict that faces many people who have a deep faith in their religion - he has to work in the world as it is, not as his faith wishes it to be.

Yet despite his clear commitment to obeying the rules he is being vilified for stating his concerns.

He is being judged, not on what he will do, but on what he believes.

Og

 

[PAUL C]

the point at last

ty bloodsimple. that was the point i was trying to make. I thought i was fairly clear about it.

 

[SlickTony]

It's not nice to pick on simple typos.

I don't think it's a simple typo. The correct spelling is toeing, but a lot of people get it confused.