Cake gate latest

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Cake gate latest

It's a video from Good Morning Britain.

Nonetheless, you clearly don't read Guido Fawkes. A quick glance through of the last 15 stories shows a pretty good balance of who they criticise - and they do criticise all sides.

So, do you read Guido Fawkes and therefore know it criticises all sides? Or do you not read it and therefore why would you pass judgment on it?

For me it's one of around 10-15 websites, blogs and newspapers that are required reading to have a good grasp of what is going on in British politics.

Last 15 stories:
1 - Story on Starmer and beer gate from GMB
2 - Story on informal Lib - Lab pact in parts of the country
3 - Story on Tory MP stepping down and criticising him
4 - Story mocking Labour election leaflets
5 - Boris's speech to the Ukraine parliament
6 - Lib Dem candidates saucy photos
7 - Murdoch owned Talk TV's shit viewing figures
8 - Full Trevor Noah speech given to white house press dinner
9 - Starmer and beer gate
10 - Tories allegedly giving sexiest of the year awards to MPs
11 - David Lammy on beergate
12 - Green Party on wanting to leave NATO
13 - Starmer interview pieces
14 - Kwasi Kwarteng interviews
15 -Tory MP resigns over porn

No.3 is a quick sentence, not a story.

Do you really believe the rest of those "stories" are fair and unbiased?

Guido Fawkes in a nutshell, here:

Screenshot_20220504-120732.jpg

Links to other stories that meet the same criteria as Order Order. Seems balanced to me.

If you think that this is one of the 10-15 sites people should use to get a grasp on British politics, may I also suggest The Daily Mail website and comments section for further balance, neutrality and nuance.

[lardy]

Re: Cake gate latest

James, you talk a lot about balance, nuance, political bias, political benefit - so to talk down people on here as being the CCMB labour party and straightaway linking to a right wing blog was notable.

"Net is tightening on Starmer. Personally I have little sympathy given how sanctimonious they have been. 30 currys at 10pm, beer...it sounds more like a party than a slice of cake and happy birthday in your office at lunchtime to me."

Is this balance to you? Are the Starmer and Johnson cases similar?

The facts are that the police investigated Starmer's gathering and didn't pursue it further. The police investigated Johnson's and have given 50 FPNs with more to come and at least one to Johnson.

Even if they had both received FPNs, Johnson's case would still be worse because he made the rules, every night he told the country that they had to stick to the rules or people would die, people resigned over the gatherings (not him, of course),and he lied to Parliament about what had happened.

I know that you know all this, because it's been said multiple times on here weekly and you've previously agreed that he should resign. It's clearly the worse of the two - so why is the whataboutery back again? Why are you back with the "happy birthday cake" line when you know that is not the problem with Johnson's behaviour?

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

No.3 is a quick sentence, not a story.

Do you really believe the rest of those "stories" are fair and unbiased?

Guido Fawkes in a nutshell, here:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4905[/ATTACH]

Links to other stories that meet the same criteria as Order Order. Seems balanced to me.

If you think that this is one of the 10-15 sites people should use to get a grasp on British politics, may I also suggest The Daily Mail website and comments section for further balance, neutrality and nuance.

Guido Fawkes has an angle; it's broadly libertarian and anti-establishment etc. But yes I think it is broadly neutral in terms of going after all political parties equally. Either way, only a fool would rely on it entirely, hence why I would say it's one of the top 15 or so sources to get a good grasp of whats going on. It's real strength is in it's scoops.

Incidentally; two new stories now up today. If you think they don't go after all parties, I would humbly suggest you are wrong, and if you read it more you would realise that

1 - Tom, Newton Dunns (ex Sun journalist) on Murdoch owned Talked TV being mocked for low viewing figures

https://order-order.com/2022/05/04/tom-newton-dunns-show-drops-to-zero-viewers-on-talktv/

2 - Hartlepool Tories criticising the Westminster party

For what its worth, I think the following are required reading

1 - Guardian - for a slightly dreary, dreamy left wing perspective. Rolling daily news coverage is exceptional, opinion pieces very biased
2 - Daily Mail - for a spiky, populist right wing perspective. Digs up a lot of dirt, opinion pieces more diverse than people give it credit for
3 - BBC, obviously.
4 - WalesOnline. Not great, but required here.
5 -Reuters for an international perspective
6 - Euronews to keep abreast of european news
7 -TradingEconomics.com. For facts, devoid of opinion
8 - Guido Fawkes for scoops and it's perspective
9 - The NEw Statesman sometimes
10 - The Spectator sometimes
11 - The Times - paper of record, good diversity of opinion
12 - The i. An excellent newspaper
13 - Unherd website - does what it says on the tin - some excellent journalism on there
14 - Britainelects on twitter - excellent electoral analysis
15 -politics.co.uk. Good for general stuff.

https://order-order.com/2022/05/04/local-tories-beg-voters-not-to-punish-them-for-mistakes-made-in-westminster/

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

James, you talk a lot about balance, nuance, political bias, political benefit - so to talk down people on here as being the CCMB labour party and straightaway linking to a right wing blog was notable.

"Net is tightening on Starmer. Personally I have little sympathy given how sanctimonious they have been. 30 currys at 10pm, beer...it sounds more like a party than a slice of cake and happy birthday in your office at lunchtime to me."

Is this balance to you? Are the Starmer and Johnson cases similar?

The facts are that the police investigated Starmer's gathering and didn't pursue it further. The police investigated Johnson's and have given 50 FPNs with more to come and at least one to Johnson.

Even if they had both received FPNs, Johnson's case would still be worse because he made the rules, every night he told the country that they had to stick to the rules or people would die, people resigned over the gatherings (not him, of course),and he lied to Parliament about what had happened.

I know that you know all this, because it's been said multiple times on here weekly and you've previously agreed that he should resign. It's clearly the worse of the two - so why is the whataboutery back again? Why are you back with the "happy birthday cake" line when you know that is not the problem with Johnson's behaviour?

I'll break it down for you:

1 - Yes, I think Starmers case and Johnsons case probably are similar.

2 - The police initially didnt investigate Johnson. They then did. There is no reason not to reinvestigate Starmer if new information emerges. It is critical all political parties are treated the same

3 - The CCMB Labour Party was of course said in jest. Although I don't doubt there are Labour party activists on here, which is fine of course. If that upsets you, you want to read what people call anyone who doesn't toe the line on here..

4 - I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse, and the Tories generally worse given the parties at work (genuine boozy parties too). However, Labour positioned themselves as white than white, and it seems they may have been doing the same.

Why are you so worried about journalists investigating this? Surely holding all politicians to account is important? People were dying and couldnt go to funerals etc, so if the leader of the opposition and most likely next PM was drinking and eating in a group of 30, and spent months lying about it, is this not news?

[lardy]

Re: Cake gate latest

A pretty textbook James Wales reply.

Wordy, a reference to the other person being upset/angry, overlooking the main point (despite me writing it in bold).

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

A pretty textbook James Wales reply.

Wordy, a reference to the other person being upset/angry, overlooking the main point (despite me writing it in bold).

You clearly missed the point where I said:

"I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse, and the Tories generally worse given the parties at work (genuine boozy parties too)."

[lardy]

Re: Cake gate latest

You clearly missed the point where I said:

"I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse, and the Tories generally worse given the parties at work (genuine boozy parties too)."

That is addressing the nature of the events. It doesn't address lying to parliament oh god I'm so bored of writing this again and again and again.

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

That is addressing the nature of the events. It doesn't address lying to parliament oh god I'm so bored of writing this again and again and again.

I've said....I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse. I can't be clearer on it. I get it.

But the point is, if Starmer essentially did the same, if he is found guilty and charged (as Johnson was) then that is still a very bad state of affairs.

In this hypothetical scenario, we could argue then which is worse; Johnson was the lawmaker tuned lawbreaker, Starmer (potentially) the person who claimed to be perfect who actually wasn't.

Either way, you should welcome scrutiny of Starmer on this as it's important to hold politicians to account.

[lardy]

Re: Cake gate latest

I've said....I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse. I can't be clearer on it. I get it.

But the point is, if Starmer essentially did the same, if he is found guilty and charged (as Johnson was) then that is still a very bad state of affairs.

In this hypothetical scenario, we could argue then which is worse; Johnson was the lawmaker tuned lawbreaker, Starmer (potentially) the person who claimed to be perfect who actually wasn't.

Either way, you should welcome scrutiny of Starmer on this as it's important to hold politicians to account.

And the bit about one of them lying to parliament?

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

And the bit about one of them lying to parliament?

Yes it's worse in my opinion than if Starmer was found guilty.

Although people could then decide for themselves who is worse.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Cake gate latest

Yes it's worse in my opinion than if Starmer was found guilty.

Although people could then decide for themselves who is worse.

Let's say that Starmer (the leader of the opposition who has already been investigated but found to have not broken any laws) is guilty of breaking the law (the same thing that Johnson has already been guilty of on one occasion so far)...

If people think that is worse than Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister who made the laws in the first place, consistently lied in Parliament about knowing that these parties took place, then lied in Parliament again to say that they did happen but no rules were broken and then refused to resign...

Well, that would just signify that they don't care about what Johnson did and it's, what do keep referring to... Playing politics.

If Starmer is ever found guilty of breaking any laws, at least you can be pretty sure that he would resign (and so he should).

The fact that you're even contemplating that these two are comparable when one of the two is literally the Prime Minister is beyond parody.

You're legendary balance needs a top-up on one side methinks.

[Dorcus]

Re: Cake gate latest

Let's say that Starmer (the leader of the opposition who has already been investigated but found to have not broken any laws) is guilty of breaking the law (the same thing that Johnson has already been guilty of on one occasion so far)...

If people think that is worse than Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister who made the laws in the first place, consistently lied in Parliament about knowing that these parties took place, then lied in Parliament again to say that they did happen but no rules were broken and then refused to resign...

Well, that would just signify that they don't care about what Johnson did and it's, what do keep referring to... Playing politics.

If Starmer is ever found guilty of breaking any laws, at least you can be pretty sure that he would resign (and so he should).

The fact that you're even contemplating that these two are comparable when one of the two is literally the Prime Minister is beyond parody.

You're legendary balance needs a top-up on one side methinks.

Typical desperate Tories. Drag everyone down to their own sordid level. Pity help us.

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

Let's say that Starmer (the leader of the opposition who has already been investigated but found to have not broken any laws) is guilty of breaking the law (the same thing that Johnson has already been guilty of on one occasion so far)...

If people think that is worse than Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister who made the laws in the first place, consistently lied in Parliament about knowing that these parties took place, then lied in Parliament again to say that they did happen but no rules were broken and then refused to resign...

Well, that would just signify that they don't care about what Johnson did and it's, what do keep referring to... Playing politics.

If Starmer is ever found guilty of breaking any laws, at least you can be pretty sure that he would resign (and so he should).

The fact that you're even contemplating that these two are comparable when one of the two is literally the Prime Minister is beyond parody.

You're legendary balance needs a top-up on one side methinks.

What I'm saying is that I think Starmers beer event probably, in reality was as bad as Johnsons cake event. Actually I genuinely think it was worse as at least Johnson was in the office. However, thats by the by.

I have already said taking it all into account, Johnsons (and the Tories) behaviour was worse, and whats more it's proven, so thats not in question.

The issue now is that Labour made a huge deal of this - claimed the moral high ground, talked endlessly about it, and it may well be the case that actually they were involved in something similar.

I don't see how it's different. A cake at the end of a meeting, or a beer and curry? Thats what I'm saying.

Starmer should welcome an investigation to be able to clear his name.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Cake gate latest

What I'm saying is that I think Starmers beer event probably, in reality was as bad as Johnsons cake event. Actually I genuinely think it was worse as at least Johnson was in the office. However, thats by the by.

I have already said taking it all into account, Johnsons (and the Tories) behaviour was worse, and whats more it's proven, so thats not in question.

The issue now is that Labour made a huge deal of this - claimed the moral high ground, talked endlessly about it, and it may well be the case that actually they were involved in something similar.

I don't see how it's different. A cake at the end of a meeting, or a beer and curry? Thats what I'm saying.

Starmer should welcome an investigation to be able to clear his name.

How are you still missing the point:

Johnson lied to Parliament about the parties (plural) and he's the Prime Minister of the country who was in charge of making the laws he broke. That's worse than Kier Starmer having a curry and any hypothetical crime he committed by doing so as leader of the opposition.

Starmer was already investigated and his name was cleared. How many investigations would you be happy with until he's found guilty?

[JamesWales]

Re: Cake gate latest

How are you still missing the point:

Johnson lied to Parliament about the parties (plural) and he's the Prime Minister of the country who was in charge of making the laws he broke. That's worse than Kier Starmer having a curry and any hypothetical crime he committed by doing so as leader of the opposition.

Starmer was already investigated and his name was cleared. How many investigations would you be happy with until he's found guilty?

:hehe: ffs mun!!

I've agreed with you on that! It is a bigger issue, but Starmer potentially covering something up is still news. He's quite possibly the next PM! By definition, if we dont want a liar as PM, we want to know he isnt!

Durham police didnt investigate it. They chose not to. Same as the Met initially chose to do.