Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Two things I find depressing about this. The first is that the Tories have done all sorts of heinously evil shit over the last few years and have generally shrugged off any criticism for it, and the first thing that really sticks is a fucking Christmas party - which even if it does for Boris won't put any sort of pressure on whoever comes after him to be less heinously evil, just marginally better at keeping their nose clean while they do it. And the second is the suspicion that they'd probably be shrugging this off too if parts of the right-wing media hadn't decided - for whatever reason - that they're no longer bothered about propping Boris up and they're not going to play along and move the story on when it suits him for it to move on anymore.
 

jenks

thread death
I think what is interesting is how this story looked like it was going to peter out - no pics, no direct quotes from people at the party - and yet it’s gripped the public. My younger son works for LBC - he does producer work for them and he says that the public last week weren’t phoning in about the parties but as more details have emerged it’s really cut through - more so than Patterson. As much as Allegra did something daft, she is surely just a fall guy - she joked about the party. She didn’t hold the fucking party!
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Two things I find depressing about this. The first is that the Tories have done all sorts of heinously evil shit over the last few years and have generally shrugged off any criticism for it, and the first thing that really sticks is a fucking Christmas party - which even if it does for Boris won't put any sort of pressure on whoever comes after him to be less heinously evil, just marginally better at keeping their nose clean while they do it. And the second is the suspicion that they'd probably be shrugging this off too if parts of the right-wing media hadn't decided - for whatever reason - that they're no longer bothered about propping Boris up and they're not going to play along and move the story on when it suits him for it to move on anymore.
Daily Mail was on the warpath today. I took a photo but the image is too big to upload - headline was "a sick joke". Except in capitals, obviously.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Two things I find depressing about this. The first is that the Tories have done all sorts of heinously evil shit over the last few years and have generally shrugged off any criticism for it, and the first thing that really sticks is a fucking Christmas party - which even if it does for Boris won't put any sort of pressure on whoever comes after him to be less heinously evil, just marginally better at keeping their nose clean while they do it. And the second is the suspicion that they'd probably be shrugging this off too if parts of the right-wing media hadn't decided - for whatever reason - that they're no longer bothered about propping Boris up and they're not going to play along and move the story on when it suits him for it to move on anymore.
Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at on the previous page. Don't get me wrong, it is bad that the government imposed laws on the rest of us, then ignored them completely and lied about it.... so thiis is a non-trivial issue in that sense. But I don't think it is as bad as, say, giving public money to Arcuri's company that she was definitely not entitled to receive, purely so that he could get his horrlble flabby leg over her equally unattractive body... how is it hat he was able to slide out of that one, something which has been a clear resigning matter over my lifetime. And then we have the small matter of Covid, of course I am not saying that he is responsible for every death, but the government's lack of interest, slow response, mixed messages and so on have caused extra deaths which should have been avoided. Keeping the citizenry safe is surely one of THE most important rules of any leader so to fail at it so egregiously should have been the end of him for certain.

So yeah, why isn't he being allowed to just slide out here? Who decided to stop protecting him and why and what does it mean? Something bad I guess, as always.
 

version

Well-known member
The way he flatly said “socially distanced from the truth” expecting it to be a lethal blow
tenor.gif
 

sufi

lala
Two things I find depressing about this. The first is that the Tories have done all sorts of heinously evil shit over the last few years and have generally shrugged off any criticism for it, and the first thing that really sticks is a fucking Christmas party - which even if it does for Boris won't put any sort of pressure on whoever comes after him to be less heinously evil, just marginally better at keeping their nose clean while they do it. And the second is the suspicion that they'd probably be shrugging this off too if parts of the right-wing media hadn't decided - for whatever reason - that they're no longer bothered about propping Boris up and they're not going to play along and move the story on when it suits him for it to move on anymore.
mmm my preference is for the dog evacuation scandal, personally,
we're so indulged we can choose which juicy cover-up to be scandalised about
 

sufi

lala
impressive how much everybody is getting behind the lying too,
either you toe the line or you are out, so all the cabinet, MPs, PPSs and these civil service bigwigs are just lying their little socks off in support and service of the bosses, its a contagion spreading from the top like a proverbial rotting fish
 

version

Well-known member
impressive how much everybody is getting behind the lying too,
either you toe the line or you are out, so all the cabinet, MPs, PPSs and these civil service bigwigs are just lying their little socks off in support and service of the bosses, its a contagion spreading from the top like a proverbial rotting fish
Barnard Castle all over again.
 

sufi

lala
Barnard Castle all over again.
but the cover ups and lying starts to eclipse the events that they are denying, if they fronted up earlier and said "yes and what of it", it would be less damaging?
"yes we tory bastards like a party att xmas fuck you so what you gonna do?"
"and we dumped the afghans on the useless FCDO who gives a?"
"i took my mother in law out for a fucking jolly alrght?"
 

sufi

lala
but the cover ups and lying starts to eclipse the events that they are denying, if they fronted up earlier and said "yes and what of it", it would be less damaging?
"yes we tory bastards like a party att xmas fuck you so what you gonna do?"
"and we dumped the afghans on the useless FCDO who gives a?"
"i took my mother in law out for a fucking jolly alrght?"
so you get this scandal and fuss about the barefaced dishonesty that is somehow even more slippery than the orginal offenses, which were actualy arguably not even hugely serious and yet still...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
i can never work out if there is any relationship at all between what 'the public' think and get upset about and what the press decide to make a fuss about or if it is pure fantasy from top to bottom.
Good question, seems there are three basic positions or ways in which the press can deal with events that occur and which they should be relaying to us...

1. They look at everything that has happeneed and conscientiously and objectively choose those things which truly seem to be the most in the public interest and put those on the front pages, the second most important on page two and so on throughout the paper with an amusing story about a dog that thinks it's a parrot near the back. In other words, they report the news as well as they can and objectively as is possible, while at the same time recognising that objectivity is impossible.

2. They pick the stories that most advance their agenda at the front. They do deal with stories which challenge their view of the world - but only cos the papers on the other side are writing their own version of it and so they have to fight back. In other words they are pure propaganda for their own side and the only thing that keeps them vaguely related to the truth is the knowledge that they can be sued adn that there are other people writing about the same stuff trying to catch them out and so on.

3. Somewhere in between with a few people writing honest and important stories that inform people about things they need to know, while others are creating pure fantasy and propaganda.

And the sad thing is, I desperately hope it's 3 cos that is the best we can dream of... and I fear I might be hopelessly naive thinking that there is a chance that it's as good as that.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
impressive how much everybody is getting behind the lying too,
either you toe the line or you are out, so all the cabinet, MPs, PPSs and these civil service bigwigs are just lying their little socks off in support and service of the bosses, its a contagion spreading from the top like a proverbial rotting fish
Yes, up to a point. But all they are saying is "no rules were broken at any point" which is utterly bland to the point of being meaningless. None of them will elaborate on that in any way cos they know that any specific lie that they tell runs the risk of being undermined by the truth coming out. So every interview goeas something like

Journalist - do you feel that this party has undermined the government's moral authority to make laws relating to covid?
MP - I don't feel that because no rules were broken at any time
Journalist - but if there was a party which wasn't primarily a work party then it was banned so the rules must have been broken unless this was in fact a working event rather than a party. Are you saying that this was mainly a working event?
MP - all I can tell you is that no laws were broken at any time
Journalist - but reports are saying that there were more than twenty people there from several different bubbles. How can this have happened without breaking the rules?
MP - I don't know anything about that, all I know is that no rules were broken at any time

And it just goes on and on like that, with them asserting this claim but unable to provide any evidence that supports it, or even to deny claims that make it impossible. They daren't say "there were fewer than 20 there" in case a photo appears with 50 people in party hats... so they repeat the overall larger claim which, if it were true, would entail loads of particular smaller claims which they oiught to be able to asserrt with equal certainty... yet somehow they don't dare.
 

sufi

lala
Yes, up to a point. But all they are saying is "no rules were broken at any point" which is utterly bland to the point of being meaningless. None of them will elaborate on that in any way cos they know that any specific lie that they tell runs the risk of being undermined by the truth coming out. So every interview goeas something like

Journalist - do you feel that this party has undermined the government's moral authority to make laws relating to covid?
MP - I don't feel that because no rules were broken at any time
Journalist - but if there was a party which wasn't primarily a work party then it was banned so the rules must have been broken unless this was in fact a working event rather than a party. Are you saying that this was mainly a working event?
MP - all I can tell you is that no laws were broken at any time
Journalist - but reports are saying that there were more than twenty people there from several different bubbles. How can this have happened without breaking the rules?
MP - I don't know anything about that, all I know is that no rules were broken at any time

And it just goes on and on like that, with them asserting this claim but unable to provide any evidence that supports it, or even to deny claims that make it impossible. They daren't say "there were fewer than 20 there" in case a photo appears with 50 people in party hats... so they repeat the overall larger claim which, if it were true, would entail loads of particular smaller claims which they oiught to be able to asserrt with equal certainty... yet somehow they don't dare.
yeah i think that despite the careful words everyone can smell the stink of bullshitting
but the drama is fascinating and tantalising, like a snake, but its a trap because the prospect of the lies catching up is so delicious its intoxicating the more you hate the junta,
 

sufi

lala
Yes, up to a point. But all they are saying is "no rules were broken at any point" which is utterly bland to the point of being meaningless. None of them will elaborate on that in any way cos they know that any specific lie that they tell runs the risk of being undermined by the truth coming out. So every interview goeas something like

Journalist - do you feel that this party has undermined the government's moral authority to make laws relating to covid?
MP - I don't feel that because no rules were broken at any time
Journalist - but if there was a party which wasn't primarily a work party then it was banned so the rules must have been broken unless this was in fact a working event rather than a party. Are you saying that this was mainly a working event?
MP - all I can tell you is that no laws were broken at any time
Journalist - but reports are saying that there were more than twenty people there from several different bubbles. How can this have happened without breaking the rules?
MP - I don't know anything about that, all I know is that no rules were broken at any time

And it just goes on and on like that, with them asserting this claim but unable to provide any evidence that supports it, or even to deny claims that make it impossible. They daren't say "there were fewer than 20 there" in case a photo appears with 50 people in party hats... so they repeat the overall larger claim which, if it were true, would entail loads of particular smaller claims which they oiught to be able to asserrt with equal certainty... yet somehow they don't dare.
apparently the journalists were at this party too but noone is saying who
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think it's precisely because of the careful words. If you are being honest you don't need to tiptoe around like that, you just say what happened. But they say "no rules were broken" and then the journalist says "so no two people from different bubbles met?" or something like that which simply MUST be true if the rules weren't broken, but the MP won't confirm that... why? If A happened then B must have occured, you're claiming A, then why on earth won't you confirm B? What is stopping you? Any normal person would just say "yep" so what the fuck is going on? It is so abnormal and suspicious and with everyone doing it it really adds up into the impressino that the whole boiling of them are doing something incredibly dodgy, much worse than any party.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
apparently the journalists were at this party too but noone is saying who
Well that is an interesting extra dimension in itself. If they were there then why the fuck didn't they say something? I notice on twitter every time Laura - what's her name - Kuensberg (sp) says anything there are loads of people going "just answer the question - were you at the party?"
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
mmm my preference is for the dog evacuation scandal, personally,
we're so indulged we can choose which juicy cover-up to be scandalised about

Dunno, for me it's a toss-up between the enthusiastic moves towards ethno-nationalist authoritarianism (if only there was a handy word for that ideology, eh?) and the callous indifference to the suffering of anyone who isn't a wealthy white pensioner or a property developer. And what bothers me is that all this stuff about "is this fuck-up the end for Boris" is that it suggests that as a nation we're totally fine with all of that stuff, we'd probably go for some more of it actually, but we'd like the person in charge to be competent at it and keep their nose clean. Deporting undesirable brown people, drowning refugees and supressing protests is all great so long as the contracts for doing it are being awarded fairly and not given out to minsters' mates or something.
 
Top