Well if Blair really is pulling troops back home from Iraq (as opposed to simply sending them instead to Afghanistan), then at least for once the diversionary announcement is worthwhile.
(Funny though, I didn't realise Gordon Brown was abroad today...)
February 21, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
Was it under caution?
Has she given a "No comment" interview.
Is Downing Street "furious".
Does Alastair Campbell still think it's just a policital Hoo-ha?
February 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
So it was smoke and mirrors ,kept thinking brilliant idea to bring our troops home ,but what am I missing..
February 21, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous
said...
When I heard Blair was going to make a statement about Iraq troops I knew it meant an imminent development in the Cash for Honours probe.
Political cynicism of the worst kind, and the sign of a dying regime. Will the media buy the tactic? Robinson is a shoo-in to go with the Blair lead, but hopefully the good political commentators will see through it.
February 21, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Anonymous
said...
didn't they manage to find her vibrator the last time?
February 21, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous
said...
Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
February 21, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous
said...
Trumpeter Lanfried rightly said ... "Was it under caution?
Has she given a "No comment" interview.
Is Downing Street "furious".
Does Alastair Campbell still think it's just a policital Hoo-ha?"
To which I add:
Does she have the Prime Minister's "full support"?
Is this just another example of police "theatrics" [sic]?
Is she a "very decent and upright person who has been a loyal servant to the Labour Party and No. 10"?
Ad nauseam.
February 21, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous
said...
Heard she was looking at property in Ireland recently.
February 21, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous
said...
YES YES YES - THIS IS WHAT WE WANT !!
Cue Tiswas style throwing of buckets of water at the 'animals' in the No 10 cage !!!
Don't have time to fully read and appreciate this now so am off to have a dump and a nice hot bath and relax so I can come back and enjoy this news more fully over a nice hot cup of tea YES YES This is more like it, Guido, we don't to waste our time with cartoons, it's sleaze that we need....
February 21, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous
said...
Does having " the Prime Ministers full support" mean that she is all trussed up?
February 21, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous
said...
I'm actually relieved that it happened yesterday. Had Blair tried the Iraq withdrawal tactic ahead of her re-questioning (?re-arrest?) then it would have showed inside knowledge. This demonstrates that Yates still runs the agenda, albeit Blair is trying to run the media line.
Blair is a consumate and brilliant politician. He will present the Iraq withdrawal with immense gravitas, and make it sound momentous. In fact, when we probe a little deeper, we'll discover very little that we didn't already know. It's a classic smokescreen tactic to stop the news agenda once again focusing on the administration's sleaze.
Of course, Blair using Iraq to smokescreen his domestic sleaze is deliciously ironic. No more sleazy foreign agenda has been enacted by this country in decades.
When will we bit rid of this Machiavellian priest in charge?
February 21, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous
said...
Will nick robinson be wearing a 'Ruth Turner is INNOCENT' badge on the news today ?
February 21, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Anonymous
said...
The quote has changed slightly (and importantly?). Up until now the quotes were, "all deny any wrongdoing". Now it's "all deny wrongdoing". Does that mean, "well officer, erm, I didn't want to say anything, but, er, now I'm up shit creek, er, it was all Tony and Levy's idea! They made me do it! It's a stich-up!"? Singing like canaries.
February 21, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous
said...
SATURDAY, SATURDAY, SATURDAY IS TISWAS DAY ! Yes, It's all well and good to have a bit of Multi-coloured Swap Shop over there on Iain Dale, but as soon as Guido gets fired up on Tiswas - then 'This is what the kids want' !!
Who knows, we may even have actual 'would you accompany me to the station in the cuddly panda car'..!
February 21, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous
said...
The Evening Standard carrier this gem:
Detectives are focusing on the so-called Gang of Four they believe to be at the heart of the inquiry.
They are the Prime Minister, his chief of staff Jonathan Powell, Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy and key Downing Street aide Ruth Turner.
Significantly, all four are referred to as 'suspects' by sources close to the investigation.
February 21, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous
said...
11:06 - how can that be true? Mandelson told us last night that Blair was straight, actually. So there.
February 21, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous
said...
mitch - I didn't see the Mandy thing - was it on the telly ?
Perhaps he was referring to his sexuality, not anything else ?
February 21, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
Re 11:06 - how can that be true? Mandelson told us last night that Blair was straight, actually. So there.
Surely thats just a comment on sexual preferences from Mandy's perspective.
February 21, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Anonymous
said...
Guido. No, re-interview does not mean re-arrest. Yates's lads only need to re-arrest for a fresh offence. When you are on bail you just remain on bail until the case is disposed of one way or the other. Or, of course, until you are taken into CUSTODY.
February 21, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Anonymous
said...
"Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing. Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
Erm, yes they do. All the time. See fourth para in the latest BBC story. And every other story on the subject. It's standard journalistic practice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm
Don't get me wrong, I think the BBC have been somewhat cowed since the whole Hutton thing. But some of the criticism on this blog is way wide of the mark. We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument.
And no, I'm not Nick Robinson and don't work for the BBC or the Labour Party.
February 21, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Anonymous
said...
Ruth Turner has answered bail, been re-interviewed and rebailed "pending further enquiries" according to the Scotland Yard statement, which refers to her as "a woman known as D". Perhaps there are other suspects known as A, B and C? A mere speculation.
Its not really a 're-arrest' if she voluntarily agreed to answer further questions while she was reporting as part of her police bail conditions, just 'further questioning as a part of an ongoing investigation'.
As for the Evening Standard reports, I wouldn't even trust that rag to get the colour of the sky right, let alone any serious news.
February 21, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous
said...
@Anonymous 11:27am
The ICA are hosting a debate on "Is the BBC institutionally Biased" on Thursday. Why don't you pop along and see if you still think "the BBC offer the best political reporting in world" on Friday morning?
I have worked for the BBC quite a lot ... and I think it's biased. I'm a moderate of no party affiliation. The BBC is still in a state of shock from the Gilligan affair. He was a sloppy journalist, but Aunty has unfortunately gone completely the other way in its reaction.
It does make me 'larf' tho. When there's a decent news story the various media orgs send along a reporter or two. They occasionally even share (eg Ch 4/Sky - for obvious reasons). But the Beeb? You'll regularly see 6 or more journos to cover the story, and that's being kind to them. Sometimes it will run to double figures: all working for different news wings. The organisation is so unwieldy/old-fashioned that they're incapable of sharing with one another. And the only competetion you get is the bizarre one of the 6 (as it's known) being in competition with the 10. Such wastage only comes from a publically-funded organisation. Unfortunately, it extends into their inability to sift out stories properly and to apply proper critique. I'm afraid Nick really isn't very good.
Anyway, aside from the Beeb, this is clearly a significant story except that it is just a case of 'questionned again and we know no more'. For now. I am just beginning to think though that all hell is going to break loose. It's not Watergate, nor anything like it, but it could be about to get very dirty.
February 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous
said...
ABC is Anyone But Cherie
February 21, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Anonymous
said...
But it was the BBC who broadcast a less than flattering program last night, "Blair - The Inside Story."
Maybe we are seeing the beginning of "worms turning", "rats leaving a sinking ship", etc. etc.
But when are the pussywhipped, timerous, gutless Labour MP's going to pluck up enough courage, and do what is necessary, or are they resigned to going down as well?
February 21, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon 11:27 - I've just done a quick trawl of the BBC and found these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm Details everyone arrested over July 21. Gives names and details of any charges but no mention of responses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265417.stm Outlines prosecution case which are obviously serious allegations. No mention of what accused have pleaded.
Maybe the "standard journalistic practices" were supended that day.
February 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
Is this another case of it's the woman wot takes the blame............surely sleaze is an equal opportunities patron.
February 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
It's not just cash for honours he has to divert attention from now. It is the embarrassment of the media analysing his response to road-pricing petition which falls due... strangely enough... today?
That's a topic the public cares about. Most people have never heard of Ruth.
February 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
I honestly think the thing will just fizzle out eventually...
February 21, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
I just loved the way the big girls blouse did that sweet little eyes down to the right simpering look when being questioned by john Humphries , it was nauseating totaly unmanly.
February 21, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
Just watching pmq's ,our teflon tone is good get's asked about a hospital which is not being used ,spin spin and guess what the question wasnt' answered.
February 21, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
i'm not astroturfing, but the police do seem to be dragging this out. they must know whether they can charge by now.
February 21, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
Best bit last night was Prescott telling us he's been at the centre of events forever and is really very important.
anon 12:41, I think the problem is that the police have got to make sure the file that goes to the CPS is copper-bottomed or heads really are going to roll. If it is indeed true that evidence has been withheld / concealed / destroyed, as the perversion arrest implies, they are naturally going to have to re-question people on the previously suppressed material.
Against this background it is pretty rich for Labour cronies to complain about the time the investigation is taking imho.
February 21, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
I'm listening to Bliar waffling away in Parliament on the radio. If anyone is watching his performance on TV, could you let me know if he has an onion wrapped in a hankerchief in his hand. I think he may use it to aid some 'faux' weeping in a minute.
February 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
I just hope Insp Knacker of the Yard finds enough to jail the whole lot of em! Imagine the No 10 team in chokey doing their own version of OZ (not the wizard of)!
February 21, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mitch - must have taken some frantic digging to find those links.
In the process, I’m sure you’ll have noticed that every single previous news story specified that the accused denied the charges - must have been quite frustrating for you. (You’ll recall your original post said that the BBC 'never' mentions that the accused deny the charges.)
But, to your credit, you dug deeper into the "background" section, which contains specific factual briefings on the progress of the police investigations and court proceedings. Other sections of the background info, like the one profiling the defendants, contain all the usual caveats about the suspects denying the charges.
Still, I will humbly throw the towel in – you have clearly uncovered evidence of massive institutional bias and contempt of court. I trust you will be taking this to the relevant authorities immediately.
February 21, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous [11.27] You say, of the BBC. "We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument."
I think you need to read Robin Aitken's new book.
February 21, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sorry Guido, not a re-arrest. When she was bailed the first time the PACE clock, as it is known, which measures out the 24 hour detention period, is suspended. It restarts when she answers bail as if she never left custody. She can then be questioned again under caution. (See the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Prectice for the full rules and regs.)
Once the 24 hours is up, she must be charged, released or the officer in the case must apply to a Superintendent for an extention up to 36 hours.
Depending on how long she has left on the PACE clock, she might be in play for another chat over tea and tiffin with Inspector Knacker.
February 21, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Anonymous
said...
Will Blair's legacy be 'the hand of history on his shoulder'
> "We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world {from Al BBC}. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument."
I bet the person who wrote that reads the Grauniad! I wonder how many people in jail the "B"BC is worth?
February 21, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
'Blair set to bring home thousands of troops from Iraq'. (The Times). Does Downing Street write the headlines for The Times nowadays?
February 21, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
Looking at Blair lying as usual on PMQ time flanked by Pinky and Perky - Brown and Prescott - made me want to throw up.
How has it come to this that we have THREE lying cheating scumbags running this country?
Anon said "But when are the pussywhipped, timerous, gutless Labour MP's going to pluck up enough courage, and do what is necessary, or are they resigned to going down as well?"
Frankly I think most of them were dazed by Blair's cleverness and charisma pre 1997 and have neither the wit or the sense to realise there is a direct relationship between the longer he reamins in power, and the more the public see and hear him .. and the slide of the Labour Party in the Opinion Polls.
I'm just an ordinary voter. Blair has only got credibility with those who cannot see the political wilderness beckoning
February 21, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Hitch said...
I just loved the way the big girls blouse did that sweet little eyes down to the right simpering look when being questioned by john Humphries , it was nauseating totaly unmanly.
Ive just realised who write The Hitch - it is Simon Heffer
February 21, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous
said...
'Blair set to bring home thousands of troops from Iraq'
No doubt he'll be fetching them home personally in his people carrier, a few at a time, as an eye-catching initiative. Then he'll send them all off to Afghanistan when no-one's looking.
Which nationality are the troops he's bringing home? This is Nulab y'know.....they'd even fuck that up.
February 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
After looking at the Beebs picture of her: I'd have to say I wouldn't. And I'm not at all fussy.
February 21, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous
said...
Well there's a surprise, the statement given by Blair today hardly matches the "withdrawal" headline trailed to the media last night. Never fear, Sky news is reporting that it is all the media's fault for getting excited and actually believing what they were briefed by No10. Adam Boulton does not understand why the blogsphere could possible accuse the government of playing politics with our soldiers, bless his cotton socks. I mean Tim Marshall was quite cross about the cynicism of viewers about the last terror raids, just remind how many were released without charge and has Liberty not done FOI question about Whitehall briefings that day! Any news of "others" being called into Scotland yard for tea and biccies in the near future, and do Labour have enough headline grabbing stories to cover that?
February 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
Lord Puttnam must be fucking furious.
February 21, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
Nick Robinson appears to have fallen for No.10's line 'Hook, Line & S(t)inker'. Still, there's an interesting article on his blog about a pancake race with his NuLab chums. Keep up the hot-shot reporting Nick! Twat.
How can we get him and the other 'newspeak' regurgitating goons over at the BBC sacked?
February 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous
said...
Perhaps Nick Robinson was using a metaphor. Since he strangely failed to mention the appalling New Labour figures in the ICM poll, Could he have been suggesting that "Blair Force One "had pancaked ?
February 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Nice of Toni to announce the troop reductions in Iraq to day. Happenstance or convenient to bury the bad news of Ruthie's re-arrest and questioning by Knacker of the Yard. Poor girl, i hope she's not being toooooo loyal and protective, as toni won't lift a finger for her, Cherie will see to that.
February 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
What really bothers me, is that the general public think El Gay Gordo has had no involvement with all of these dogdy dealings. Pity we can't string the lot of them up. *Sigh*
NB. I am not longer Drunken Tory thanks to my bloody lenten vows. Grrrrrrrr.
February 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mitch said -- "Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
yes we do. all the time. you twat.
February 21, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why should Lord Puttingham be fucking furious? Do I know her/him?
February 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
bbcinsider - please read the following example BBC stories about the July 21 suspects (which contain extremely serious allegations) and point out where their response to those charges are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265417.stm
POST THE QUOTES HERE. FOR US ALL TO SEE.
BTW, to find these stories I put 'July 21' in the BBC News search bar and picked 2 of the top 3. Very easy.
I repeat my claim. When reporting the cash for honours story the BBC will over and over again repeat that no-one has been charged, they all deny the allegations, etc. etc.
By contrast, when reporting a potentially murderous bombing campaign and making extremely serious allegations about those charged, including conspiracy to murder, the BBC don't report anything about what those charged have said in response.
February 21, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon 3:41: he is NuLab luvvie peer David Puttnam, friend of Ruth, who was wheeled out last time to denounce the Yates inquiry as "bullshit" and whinge about 06:30 visits. That would be the Govt refusing to comment on ongoing police investigations, then.
Twattish old ham.
February 21, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Any chance of Levy et al being remanded in custody to Belmarsh (with those two NOW journos)? They would have a lot to talk about over the porridge
February 21, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
MiffedPlod said...
Sorry Guido, not a re-arrest. When she was bailed the first time the PACE clock, as it is known, which measures out the 24 hour detention period, is suspended.
That isn't to say they can't or haven't arrested her on other matters.
Sigh, life was so easier pre PACE when she'd have been banged up for 6, maybe 7 days before someone even thought about interviewing the bitch.
February 21, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
Poor ol' Ruth. Her ol' man Denys is currently bible bashing at Yale I believe. Ideally placed to pull out all the stops with the Skull & Bones crew then.
Only problem is of course daughter Ruth's local problem probably meets with their approval. All part of the grand plan to get Cameron in next year.
Er can't help noticing that plod is doing everything possible to get to the bottom of this cover up. Everything possible that is except arresting the most obvious suspect: Ruth's boss and Blair's Chief of Spooks - sorry, I meant Chief of Staff.
Take SCREEN GRABS (ALT-Print Screen then paste into MS Paint) of any dodgy BBC pages.
They are NOT to be trusted and will stealth edit (no date stamp or audit trail) when guilty.
February 21, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
INTERVIEWED AGAIN !
Yes but why ?? It shows there is a lot of finger pointing going on.
At some point everybody will agree to disagree on the various issues.
When the wheel stops spinning then it will become clear what charges to throw at Tony Blair.
February 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mitch you can also do screen grabs by pressing print csreen/sysrq and pasting into a word doc
February 21, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
Poor girl, i hope she's not being toooooo loyal and protective
Well some of the publicity hasn't been very nice (except the dear old Beeb of course, we can count on them) but am I bovvered, no way. I'm just Singin' in the Rain, tweet tweet...
February 21, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
My point is the BBC overplays the denials in the cash for honours story, but downplays the denials when mere 'criminals' are involved. July 21 was an example for comparison.
Judging by the silence of the various BBC wank-twats who said this was impossible I'd say the case is proved.
February 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mitch - or you can simply print and/or save the printable version which has lots of nice little references & dates on it
February 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Meanwhile, in a dingy Westminster basement, persons A, B & C are quizzing the recently arrested person D -
'Is it safe?... Is it safe?'
' I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you something's safe or not, unless I know specifically what you're talking about.'
'Is it safe?'
'Tell me what the "it" refers to.'
'Is it safe?'
'Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it.'
'Is it safe?'
'No. It's not safe, it's... very dangerous, be careful.'
February 21, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mitch, one of those damn commie BBC infiltrators must have hacked into this site and altered your original post. It now reads: “Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing. Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty.”
This is obviously demonstrably and laughably untrue and makes you sound like a twat. As your recent post makes clear, you obviously meant to make the much more subtle point that the BBC ‘downplays’ this fact when reporting the 21/7 trials – which sounds a lot more nuanced, subjective and hard to substantiate. (I know exactly what you mean though – I’ve seen them whispering it in news reports and winking at the camera.)
Anyway, I thought I’d better alert you now. For the record, you should probably disown the original post, as you only look like a complete headcase otherwise.
February 21, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
Talking of sleaze, will you be doing an expose of Iain Dale's trusteeship of the Policy Exchange 'tory' think tank ? Nulabour style hypocrisy - but let us see if he is more amenable to answering questions than Brown's bovver boys ??
February 21, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
"I don't believe it!!"
Iain Dale, doing a film about the 'Sith' but without declaring his trusteeship of the Policy Exchange !
Priceless !!!
February 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Iain 'I didn't go to any of the meetings' Dale - ex-trustee of the Policy Exchange.
Getting too hot for you Mr Dale ??
Worried about a 'Guido' style expose?
Excellent work !!!
February 21, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Mr Dale, Michael Crick is in the reception here at 18 Doughty St.."
February 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
Complete the following sentence..
Iain Dale was a _______ of the Policy Exchange, a 'charity' think-tank...
February 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
Iain Dale,
He can dish it out with the best of them...
But can he take it ?
Can he fuck !!
February 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Spot the difference.
What do you call it when the Smith Institute won't respond to questions about their funding and charity status ??
And what do you call it when Iain Dale will not answer questions, or censors posts about his 'trusteeship' of the 'charity' Policy Exchange ??
Answer - the same thing - being obstructive.. !!! Even if he did put the announcement in small print, so he thinks we wouldn't be able to read it.
February 21, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
Iain Dale 'Attack Adverts'
Shit goes around..
Shit comes around..
February 21, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous
said...
Do take your medication, Mr Ireland. You'll feel a lot better.
February 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
But Iain Dale is quite nice whereas Gordon Brown is an utter bastard. The whole point about charities is that they should be run by nice people in order to do nice things. Utter bastards should stay well clear of them.
February 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think Iain Dale is quite nice really. He's certainly my kind of Conservative.
February 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
If you have concerns about Mr Dale and his trusteeship hadn't you better take it to the CC ,you have already brought this to peoples' attention a month ago in a very snidy way.
February 21, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
''In this country where charlatans thrive, you are whatever you claim to be.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6316781.stm
What a fantastic quote and so apt for Blair's Britain.
February 21, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
anon 6.45: Never mind Blair's Britain. That sums up Cameron's vision of his new Britain perfectly.
February 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
I'm a pretty straight kind of guy really as y'all know. I gave quite clear instructions to Persons B and C and thought, well that's the end of it. Can't be be arsed with whatever this silly little fluffhead D might be saying. What danger?
February 21, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
OK, script 2 -
'Now boys, listen up. We're going to a place called Monster Joe's Truck and Tow. I'll drive the tainted car. A, you ride with me. B, you follow in my Acura. We run across the path of any John Q. Laws, nobody does a fucking thing unless I do it first. What did I just say?'
'Nobody does a fucking thing unless... '
'Unless what?'
'Unless you do it first.'
'Spoken like a true prodigy. How about you, Lash LaRue? Can you keep your spurs from jingling and jangling?'
'Look, my gun went off, I don't know why, and now you're helping us out of the situation. I'm cool with it, all right?'
'Fair enough. Now I drive real fucking fast, so keep up. I get my car back any differently than when I gave it, Monster Joe's gonna be disposing of two bodies.'
February 21, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
well boy's when you've finished playing can you turn off the light's as mr Guido like to keep his carbon footprint low, pint time!
February 21, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon 5:43 - this can be cleared up very easily. Earlier I posted 2 BBC stories chosen randomly as I described. They both contain very, very serious allegations against a number or individuals.
Could you please cut and paste into here the parts of those stories that describe how those people responded to the allegations?
Let's be fair and say that if you can do that you've got a point, and if you can't I've got a point.
I believe there is a difference in how the BBC handles allegations against different people. Using these same BBC stories, please make your case.
February 21, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon NuLab Twat.......
OK, trying to smear Iain Dale
Why don't you NuLab Counts stop trying to spin (That means lie to ordinary people)
It does not work, Cunt Face
He was not the one holding 165 meetings at 11 Downing Street- and getting the Tax man to fund it!
crawl back into your little hole- theres a good boy
February 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Off topic totally, but I hit that doughty street button below this post by mistake, and it came up with some ad about "a world without America". Leaving aside the fact that "America" is bigger than the US, so a world without "America" would leave us without, say, ponchos, and maple syrup, there was a screen where loads of American achievements came up, and one of them was "liberation of the Falkland Islands". Since when did America liberate the Falklands?
February 21, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
Since when did America liberate the Falklands?
Straight after they toppled the Shah and Bill Khomeini from Idaho was elected Grand Sheriff in Teheran....and the Americans were flooding the world with Toyota Cressidas from their Ford factories in Dearborn
You see what you get with an American High School Education ? Now you know why Benjamin Einstein was from South Dakota
February 21, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Anonymous
said...
sick of spin - or should that be 'sick of Labour spin', because any other spin is A-OK. I fail to see how on the one hand 'smearing Iain Dale' is bad, but Iain Dale trying to smear other people is acceptable.
The old adage is 'If you can't take it, don't dish it out' - so keep the 'cunt face' stuff coming, because it is all water off a duck's back to me, sweetie pie..
February 21, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sorry to break up the party, but that 'World without America' thing was on Fox News - so it must all be true..
February 21, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Anonymous
said...
That deranged NuLab cunt Tim Ireland seems to have this thread almost entirely to himself.
Why don't you fuck off back to your psychiatrist Tim and get back on the lithium you demented, boring little arsewipe.
BTW I've got no time for Iain Dale either, while he's having his love affair with the neo-cons.
February 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
My god, I just looked at Ireland's site and he really has lost it. Very sad to see an on-line breakdown.
February 21, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Anonymous
said...
Ireland needs locking up for his own good, the poor sad, desperate bastard. I blame that Brownite prick Tom Watson for egging him on.
February 21, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
Much as I hate to disappoint you, I am not Tim Ireland - the genie really is out of the bottle now..
February 21, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
9.05: maybe not just for now, Tim, but keep taking the pills, and you'll be feeling yourself again shortly.
February 21, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Beware, little man... my patience grows thin and my Kung Fu is stronger than yours:"
The words of "Manic" as Tim likes to call himself.
Anyone out there able to section him?
February 21, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
Talking of feeling himself, I see that phoney action man and closet gay "the hitch" is still deleting posts that displease him on his sad excuse of a blog which, in reality, is just a sad bleating shop for his small coterie of gays-in-denial and armchair fascists.
The Hitch's latest crush is some little tosser who calls himself swift. Careful swift or you'll end up with a sore botty!!
Tim Ireland and the Hitch are just two cheeks of the same smelly arse. Don't waste your time on either of these deluded dickheads is the best policy IMO
February 21, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Tim Ireland Too said... Medical supplies urgently required.
A depo injection of largactil for poor deranged Tim. As for Hitch, I hear he prefers to take it in suppository form.
February 21, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
Good to see that Shagger Norris is still looking as loverly as ever..
Can you not imagine him with a mayoral harem, dressed in their togas, playing harps, spreading rose petals at his feet wherever he walks in City Hall...
Oh to be one of those lucky girls..
February 21, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
Lighten up for f*cks sake.
Guido the Italian Lover.
A virile, middle aged Italian gentlemen named Guido was relaxing at his favourite bar in Rome when he managed to attract a spectacular young blonde woman.
Things progressed to the point where he invited her back to his apartment and, after some small talk, they retired to his bedroom where he rattled her senseless.
After a pleasant interlude he asked with a smile, "So, you finish?"
She paused for a second, frowned, and replied, "No"
Surprised, Guido reached for her and the rattling resumed. This time she thrashed about wildly and there were screams of passion.
The sex finally ends and, again, Guido smiles and asks, "You finish?"
Again, after a short pause, she returns his smile, cuddles closer to him and softly says, "No."
Stunned, but damned If he was going to leave this woman unsatisfied, Guido reaches for the woman yet again Using the last of his strength, he barely manages it, but they end together screaming, bucking, clawing and ripping the bed sheets.
Exhausted, Guido falls onto his back, gasping. Barely able to turn his head, he looks into her eyes, smiles proudly and asked again, "You finish?"
Barely able to speak, the beautiful blond whispers in his ear,
"No, I Norwegian."
February 21, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
You should be on the stage.
It's leaving in five minutes.
February 21, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hirst why dont you just use your own name, we all know its you (+: BTW love the fact that you are angry and pouring vitriol all over your own sordid soloplistic wankfest of a blog. You are unhappy , and that make me and a lot of other people very happy (+:
February 21, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hmm...no, I think you'll find she is actually Swedish.
Very amusing story, if it is true, though...
February 21, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
Hitch, is it true youre a gay bachelor?
February 21, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Anonymous
said...
hitch 2
Bejasus - ukgaynews.org.uk - what a crap site.
I thought pooves were supposed to have good taste.
February 21, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
Have had a read of Tim Irelands blog for the first time to see if he really is care in the community material.
Sad to see that he is in fact more of an example of where the system sometimes breaks down.
Surely their is something someone can do to put this chap out of his missery. Its all quite upsetting to wittness.
Nice to see that this intelligence was the main item on the BBC 10 o'clock news. Not. In fact it was not mentioned at all. Just pathetic.
February 21, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Theres not much to choose between them. Tim Ireland's blog is the rantings of an obsessive loony while hitch's is the rantings of a racist bigot. And as for jailhouselawyer: the least said the better.
You are unhappy , and that make me and a lot of other people very happy (+:
Jesus Hitch, if a 10th rate hack can come up your drive unannounced and find you then what do you think a convicted axe-murderer with an unhealthy obsession with blogging and surveillance is going to do?
February 22, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous
said...
shut that door 9:58 "small coterie of gays-in-denial and armchair fascists"
One can assure you that one is only an armchair fascist during this spell of inclement weather. Come warmer days one will be returning to the sun-lounger by the pool with a few cold beers.
February 22, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
julian, it wouldnt worry me. I might be worried if he bumped into my mother , but not me.
February 22, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
mitch said... Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
Mitch - that's because while Blairs lot have been arrested, they haven't been charged and put before the court where you put your legal "plea". So they can deny, deny, deny. The bombers were arrested, charged and put before the Magistrates where they initially entered a "not guilty" plea.
It's called reporting restrictions, not "aarrgh, BBC bias again - they're all a bunch of liberal pinko Blair bitches".
Have a look at "McNae's Essential Law for Journalists" for a more in-depth explanation.
February 23, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
carl eve - so the anon BBC posters are (wrongly) telling me they do report the not guilty plea's, and you're saying they're not allowed to. How does that work then?
There's no reporting restrictions on reporting an accused's plea. I know, I've heard them do it. The BBC in this case don't.
Still no reply from our BBC 'insider' friends. But since when did the facts matter?
128 comments:
Well if Blair really is pulling troops back home from Iraq (as opposed to simply sending them instead to Afghanistan), then at least for once the diversionary announcement is worthwhile.
(Funny though, I didn't realise Gordon Brown was abroad today...)
Was it under caution?
Has she given a "No comment" interview.
Is Downing Street "furious".
Does Alastair Campbell still think it's just a policital Hoo-ha?
So it was smoke and mirrors ,kept thinking brilliant idea to bring our troops home ,but what am I missing..
When I heard Blair was going to make a statement about Iraq troops I knew it meant an imminent development in the Cash for Honours probe.
Political cynicism of the worst kind, and the sign of a dying regime. Will the media buy the tactic? Robinson is a shoo-in to go with the Blair lead, but hopefully the good political commentators will see through it.
didn't they manage to find her vibrator the last time?
Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
Trumpeter Lanfried rightly said ...
"Was it under caution?
Has she given a "No comment" interview.
Is Downing Street "furious".
Does Alastair Campbell still think it's just a policital Hoo-ha?"
To which I add:
Does she have the Prime Minister's "full support"?
Is this just another example of police "theatrics" [sic]?
Is she a "very decent and upright person who has been a loyal servant to the Labour Party and No. 10"?
Ad nauseam.
Heard she was looking at property in Ireland recently.
YES YES YES - THIS IS WHAT WE WANT !!
Cue Tiswas style throwing of buckets of water at the 'animals' in the No 10 cage !!!
Don't have time to fully read and appreciate this now so am off to have a dump and a nice hot bath and relax so I can come back and enjoy this news more fully over a nice hot cup of tea YES YES This is more like it, Guido, we don't to waste our time with cartoons, it's sleaze that we need....
Does having " the Prime Ministers full support" mean that she is all trussed up?
I'm actually relieved that it happened yesterday. Had Blair tried the Iraq withdrawal tactic ahead of her re-questioning (?re-arrest?) then it would have showed inside knowledge. This demonstrates that Yates still runs the agenda, albeit Blair is trying to run the media line.
Blair is a consumate and brilliant politician. He will present the Iraq withdrawal with immense gravitas, and make it sound momentous. In fact, when we probe a little deeper, we'll discover very little that we didn't already know. It's a classic smokescreen tactic to stop the news agenda once again focusing on the administration's sleaze.
Of course, Blair using Iraq to smokescreen his domestic sleaze is deliciously ironic. No more sleazy foreign agenda has been enacted by this country in decades.
When will we bit rid of this Machiavellian priest in charge?
Will nick robinson be wearing a 'Ruth Turner is INNOCENT' badge on the news today ?
The quote has changed slightly (and importantly?). Up until now the quotes were, "all deny any wrongdoing". Now it's "all deny wrongdoing".
Does that mean, "well officer, erm, I didn't want to say anything, but, er, now I'm up shit creek, er, it was all Tony and Levy's idea! They made me do it! It's a stich-up!"?
Singing like canaries.
SATURDAY, SATURDAY, SATURDAY IS TISWAS DAY ! Yes, It's all well and good to have a bit of Multi-coloured Swap Shop over there on Iain Dale, but as soon as Guido gets fired up on Tiswas - then 'This is what the kids want' !!
Who knows, we may even have actual 'would you accompany me to the station in the cuddly panda car'..!
The Evening Standard carrier this gem:
Detectives are focusing on the so-called Gang of Four they believe to be at the heart of the inquiry.
They are the Prime Minister, his chief of staff Jonathan Powell, Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy and key Downing Street aide Ruth Turner.
Significantly, all four are referred to as 'suspects' by sources close to the investigation.
11:06 - how can that be true? Mandelson told us last night that Blair was straight, actually. So there.
mitch - I didn't see the Mandy thing - was it on the telly ?
Perhaps he was referring to his sexuality, not anything else ?
Re 11:06 - how can that be true? Mandelson told us last night that Blair was straight, actually. So there.
Surely thats just a comment on sexual preferences from Mandy's perspective.
Guido. No, re-interview does not mean re-arrest. Yates's lads only need to re-arrest for a fresh offence. When you are on bail you just remain on bail until the case is disposed of one way or the other. Or, of course, until you are taken into CUSTODY.
"Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing. Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
Erm, yes they do. All the time. See fourth para in the latest BBC story. And every other story on the subject. It's standard journalistic practice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm
Don't get me wrong, I think the BBC have been somewhat cowed since the whole Hutton thing. But some of the criticism on this blog is way wide of the mark. We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument.
And no, I'm not Nick Robinson and don't work for the BBC or the Labour Party.
Ruth Turner has answered bail, been re-interviewed and rebailed "pending further enquiries" according to the Scotland Yard statement, which refers to her as "a woman known as D". Perhaps there are other suspects known as A, B and C? A mere speculation.
Its not really a 're-arrest' if she voluntarily agreed to answer further questions while she was reporting as part of her police bail conditions, just 'further questioning as a part of an ongoing investigation'.
As for the Evening Standard reports, I wouldn't even trust that rag to get the colour of the sky right, let alone any serious news.
@Anonymous 11:27am
The ICA are hosting a debate on "Is the BBC institutionally Biased" on Thursday. Why don't you pop along and see if you still think "the BBC offer the best political reporting in world" on Friday morning?
http://ica.org.uk/Is+the+BBC+institutionally+biased+12985.twl
Re 11.31
"...other suspects known as A,B and C.....".
Anthony Blair and Cherie?
Simply more idle speculation!
I have worked for the BBC quite a lot ... and I think it's biased. I'm a moderate of no party affiliation. The BBC is still in a state of shock from the Gilligan affair. He was a sloppy journalist, but Aunty has unfortunately gone completely the other way in its reaction.
It does make me 'larf' tho. When there's a decent news story the various media orgs send along a reporter or two. They occasionally even share (eg Ch 4/Sky - for obvious reasons). But the Beeb? You'll regularly see 6 or more journos to cover the story, and that's being kind to them. Sometimes it will run to double figures: all working for different news wings. The organisation is so unwieldy/old-fashioned that they're incapable of sharing with one another. And the only competetion you get is the bizarre one of the 6 (as it's known) being in competition with the 10. Such wastage only comes from a publically-funded organisation. Unfortunately, it extends into their inability to sift out stories properly and to apply proper critique. I'm afraid Nick really isn't very good.
Anyway, aside from the Beeb, this is clearly a significant story except that it is just a case of 'questionned again and we know no more'. For now. I am just beginning to think though that all hell is going to break loose. It's not Watergate, nor anything like it, but it could be about to get very dirty.
ABC is Anyone But Cherie
But it was the BBC who broadcast a less than flattering program last night, "Blair - The Inside Story."
Maybe we are seeing the beginning of "worms turning", "rats leaving a sinking ship", etc. etc.
But when are the pussywhipped, timerous, gutless Labour MP's going to pluck up enough courage, and do what is necessary, or are they resigned to going down as well?
Anon 11:27 - I've just done a quick trawl of the BBC and found these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm Details everyone arrested over July 21. Gives names and details of any charges but no mention of responses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265417.stm Outlines prosecution case which are obviously serious allegations. No mention of what accused have pleaded.
Maybe the "standard journalistic practices" were supended that day.
Is this another case of it's the woman wot takes the blame............surely sleaze is an equal opportunities patron.
It's not just cash for honours he has to divert attention from now. It is the embarrassment of the media analysing his response to road-pricing petition which falls due... strangely enough... today?
That's a topic the public cares about. Most people have never heard of Ruth.
I honestly think the thing will just fizzle out eventually...
I just loved the way the big girls blouse did that sweet little eyes down to the right simpering look when being questioned by john Humphries , it was nauseating totaly unmanly.
Just watching pmq's ,our teflon tone is good get's asked about a hospital which is not being used ,spin spin and guess what the question wasnt' answered.
i'm not astroturfing, but the police do seem to be dragging this out. they must know whether they can charge by now.
Best bit last night was Prescott telling us he's been at the centre of events forever and is really very important.
This is a bit off-topic but it is a very good one from Steve Bell, especially picture 6...
anon 12:41, I think the problem is that the police have got to make sure the file that goes to the CPS is copper-bottomed or heads really are going to roll. If it is indeed true that evidence has been withheld / concealed / destroyed, as the perversion arrest implies, they are naturally going to have to re-question people on the previously suppressed material.
Against this background it is pretty rich for Labour cronies to complain about the time the investigation is taking imho.
I'm listening to Bliar waffling away in Parliament on the radio. If anyone is watching his performance on TV, could you let me know if he has an onion wrapped in a hankerchief in his hand. I think he may use it to aid some 'faux' weeping in a minute.
I just hope Insp Knacker of the Yard finds enough to jail the whole lot of em! Imagine the No 10 team in chokey doing their own version of OZ (not the wizard of)!
Mitch - must have taken some frantic digging to find those links.
In the process, I’m sure you’ll have noticed that every single previous news story specified that the accused denied the charges - must have been quite frustrating for you. (You’ll recall your original post said that the BBC 'never' mentions that the accused deny the charges.)
But, to your credit, you dug deeper into the "background" section, which contains specific factual briefings on the progress of the police investigations and court proceedings. Other sections of the background info, like the one profiling the defendants, contain all the usual caveats about the suspects denying the charges.
Still, I will humbly throw the towel in – you have clearly uncovered evidence of massive institutional bias and contempt of court. I trust you will be taking this to the relevant authorities immediately.
anonymous [11.27] You say, of the BBC. "We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument."
I think you need to read Robin Aitken's new book.
Sorry Guido, not a re-arrest. When she was bailed the first time the PACE clock, as it is known, which measures out the 24 hour detention period, is suspended. It restarts when she answers bail as if she never left custody. She can then be questioned again under caution. (See the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Prectice for the full rules and regs.)
Once the 24 hours is up, she must be charged, released or the officer in the case must apply to a Superintendent for an extention up to 36 hours.
Depending on how long she has left on the PACE clock, she might be in play for another chat over tea and tiffin with Inspector Knacker.
Will Blair's legacy be 'the hand of history on his shoulder'
As you well know Guido, this all went away months ago, and there will be no arrests and it's all perfectly all right anyway. Not.
> "We still enjoy some of the best political reporting in the world {from Al BBC}. The only people who think it's unbalanced tend to be the ones on either extreme of the argument."
I bet the person who wrote that reads the Grauniad! I wonder how many people in jail the "B"BC is worth?
'Blair set to bring home thousands of troops from Iraq'. (The Times). Does Downing Street write the headlines for The Times nowadays?
Looking at Blair lying as usual on PMQ time flanked by Pinky and Perky - Brown and Prescott - made me want to throw up.
How has it come to this that we have THREE lying cheating scumbags running this country?
The sooner we replace these arseholes the better.
Anon said "But when are the pussywhipped, timerous, gutless Labour MP's going to pluck up enough courage, and do what is necessary, or are they resigned to going down as well?"
Frankly I think most of them were dazed by Blair's cleverness and charisma pre 1997 and have neither the wit or the sense to realise there is a direct relationship between the longer he reamins in power, and the more the public see and hear him .. and the slide of the Labour Party in the Opinion Polls.
I'm just an ordinary voter. Blair has only got credibility with those who cannot see the political wilderness beckoning
The Hitch said...
I just loved the way the big girls blouse did that sweet little eyes down to the right simpering look when being questioned by john Humphries , it was nauseating totaly unmanly.
Ive just realised who write The Hitch - it is Simon Heffer
'Blair set to bring home thousands of troops from Iraq'
No doubt he'll be fetching them home personally in his people carrier, a few at a time, as an eye-catching initiative. Then he'll send them all off to Afghanistan when no-one's looking.
Blair brings back troops from Iraq(?).
Blairs Wars
1997 BA V IRA
2003 BA V IRAq
2007 BA V IRAn
Which nationality are the troops he's bringing home? This is Nulab y'know.....they'd even fuck that up.
After looking at the Beebs picture of her: I'd have to say I wouldn't. And I'm not at all fussy.
Well there's a surprise, the statement given by Blair today hardly matches the "withdrawal" headline trailed to the media last night.
Never fear, Sky news is reporting that it is all the media's fault for getting excited and actually believing what they were briefed by No10.
Adam Boulton does not understand why the blogsphere could possible accuse the government of playing politics with our soldiers, bless his cotton socks. I mean Tim Marshall was quite cross about the cynicism of viewers about the last terror raids, just remind how many were released without charge and has Liberty not done FOI question about Whitehall briefings that day!
Any news of "others" being called into Scotland yard for tea and biccies in the near future, and do Labour have enough headline grabbing stories to cover that?
Lord Puttnam must be fucking furious.
Nick Robinson appears to have fallen for No.10's line 'Hook, Line & S(t)inker'. Still, there's an interesting article on his blog about a pancake race with his NuLab chums. Keep up the hot-shot reporting Nick! Twat.
How can we get him and the other 'newspeak' regurgitating goons over at the BBC sacked?
Perhaps Nick Robinson was using a metaphor. Since he strangely failed to mention the appalling New Labour figures in the ICM poll, Could he have been suggesting that "Blair Force One "had pancaked ?
Nice of Toni to announce the troop reductions in Iraq to day. Happenstance or convenient to bury the bad news of Ruthie's re-arrest and questioning by Knacker of the Yard.
Poor girl, i hope she's not being toooooo loyal and protective, as toni won't lift a finger for her, Cherie will see to that.
What really bothers me, is that the general public think El Gay Gordo has had no involvement with all of these dogdy dealings. Pity we can't string the lot of them up. *Sigh*
NB. I am not longer Drunken Tory thanks to my bloody lenten vows. Grrrrrrrr.
Mitch said -- "Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
yes we do. all the time. you twat.
Why should Lord Puttingham be fucking furious? Do I know her/him?
bbcinsider - please read the following example BBC stories about the July 21 suspects (which contain extremely serious allegations) and point out where their response to those charges are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265417.stm
POST THE QUOTES HERE. FOR US ALL TO SEE.
BTW, to find these stories I put 'July 21' in the BBC News search bar and picked 2 of the top 3. Very easy.
I repeat my claim. When reporting the cash for honours story the BBC will over and over again repeat that no-one has been charged, they all deny the allegations, etc. etc.
By contrast, when reporting a potentially murderous bombing campaign and making extremely serious allegations about those charged, including conspiracy to murder, the BBC don't report anything about what those charged have said in response.
Anon 3:41: he is NuLab luvvie peer David Puttnam, friend of Ruth, who was wheeled out last time to denounce the Yates inquiry as "bullshit" and whinge about 06:30 visits. That would be the Govt refusing to comment on ongoing police investigations, then.
Twattish old ham.
Any chance of Levy et al being remanded in custody to Belmarsh (with those two NOW journos)? They would have a lot to talk about over the porridge
MiffedPlod said...
Sorry Guido, not a re-arrest. When she was bailed the first time the PACE clock, as it is known, which measures out the 24 hour detention period, is suspended.
That isn't to say they can't or haven't arrested her on other matters.
Sigh, life was so easier pre PACE when she'd have been banged up for 6, maybe 7 days before someone even thought about interviewing the bitch.
Poor ol' Ruth. Her ol' man Denys is currently bible bashing at Yale I believe. Ideally placed to pull out all the stops with the Skull & Bones crew then.
Only problem is of course daughter Ruth's local problem probably meets with their approval. All part of the grand plan to get Cameron in next year.
Er can't help noticing that plod is doing everything possible to get to the bottom of this cover up. Everything possible that is except arresting the most obvious suspect: Ruth's boss and Blair's Chief of Spooks - sorry, I meant Chief of Staff.
Spook Buster
mitch
Take SCREEN GRABS (ALT-Print Screen then paste into MS Paint) of any dodgy BBC pages.
They are NOT to be trusted and will stealth edit (no date stamp or audit trail) when guilty.
INTERVIEWED AGAIN !
Yes but why ?? It shows there is a lot of finger pointing going on.
At some point everybody will agree to disagree on the various issues.
When the wheel stops spinning then it will become clear what charges to throw at Tony Blair.
Mitch you can also do screen grabs by pressing print csreen/sysrq and pasting into a word doc
Poor girl, i hope she's not being toooooo loyal and protective
Well some of the publicity hasn't been very nice (except the dear old Beeb of course, we can count on them) but am I bovvered, no way. I'm just Singin' in the Rain, tweet tweet...
My point is the BBC overplays the denials in the cash for honours story, but downplays the denials when mere 'criminals' are involved. July 21 was an example for comparison.
Judging by the silence of the various BBC wank-twats who said this was impossible I'd say the case is proved.
Mitch - or you can simply print and/or save the printable version which has lots of nice little references & dates on it
Meanwhile, in a dingy Westminster basement, persons A, B & C are quizzing the recently arrested person D -
'Is it safe?... Is it safe?'
' I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you something's safe or not, unless I know specifically what you're talking about.'
'Is it safe?'
'Tell me what the "it" refers to.'
'Is it safe?'
'Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it.'
'Is it safe?'
'No. It's not safe, it's... very dangerous, be careful.'
Mitch, one of those damn commie BBC infiltrators must have hacked into this site and altered your original post. It now reads: “Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing. Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty.”
This is obviously demonstrably and laughably untrue and makes you sound like a twat. As your recent post makes clear, you obviously meant to make the much more subtle point that the BBC ‘downplays’ this fact when reporting the 21/7 trials – which sounds a lot more nuanced, subjective and hard to substantiate. (I know exactly what you mean though – I’ve seen them whispering it in news reports and winking at the camera.)
Anyway, I thought I’d better alert you now. For the record, you should probably disown the original post, as you only look like a complete headcase otherwise.
Talking of sleaze, will you be doing an expose of Iain Dale's trusteeship of the Policy Exchange 'tory' think tank ? Nulabour style hypocrisy - but let us see if he is more amenable to answering questions than Brown's bovver boys ??
"I don't believe it!!"
Iain Dale, doing a film about the 'Sith' but without declaring his trusteeship of the Policy Exchange !
Priceless !!!
Iain 'I didn't go to any of the meetings' Dale - ex-trustee of the Policy Exchange.
Getting too hot for you Mr Dale ??
Worried about a 'Guido' style expose?
Excellent work !!!
"Mr Dale, Michael Crick is in the reception here at 18 Doughty St.."
Complete the following sentence..
Iain Dale was a _______ of the Policy Exchange, a 'charity' think-tank...
Iain Dale,
He can dish it out with the best of them...
But can he take it ?
Can he fuck !!
Spot the difference.
What do you call it when the Smith Institute won't respond to questions about their funding and charity status ??
And what do you call it when Iain Dale will not answer questions, or censors posts about his 'trusteeship' of the 'charity' Policy Exchange ??
Answer - the same thing - being obstructive.. !!! Even if he did put the announcement in small print, so he thinks we wouldn't be able to read it.
Iain Dale 'Attack Adverts'
Shit goes around..
Shit comes around..
Do take your medication, Mr Ireland. You'll feel a lot better.
But Iain Dale is quite nice whereas Gordon Brown is an utter bastard. The whole point about charities is that they should be run by nice people in order to do nice things. Utter bastards should stay well clear of them.
I think Iain Dale is quite nice really. He's certainly my kind of Conservative.
If you have concerns about Mr Dale and his trusteeship hadn't you better take it to the CC ,you have already brought this to peoples' attention a month ago in a very snidy way.
''In this country where charlatans thrive, you are whatever you claim to be.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6316781.stm
What a fantastic quote and so apt for Blair's Britain.
anon 6.45: Never mind Blair's Britain. That sums up Cameron's vision of his new Britain perfectly.
I'm a pretty straight kind of guy really as y'all know. I gave quite clear instructions to Persons B and C and thought, well that's the end of it. Can't be be arsed with whatever this silly little fluffhead D might be saying. What danger?
OK, script 2 -
'Now boys, listen up. We're going to a place called Monster Joe's Truck and Tow. I'll drive the tainted car. A, you ride with me. B, you follow in my Acura. We run across the path of any John Q. Laws, nobody does a fucking thing unless I do it first. What did I just say?'
'Nobody does a fucking thing unless... '
'Unless what?'
'Unless you do it first.'
'Spoken like a true prodigy. How about you, Lash LaRue? Can you keep your spurs from jingling and jangling?'
'Look, my gun went off, I don't know why, and now you're helping us out of the situation. I'm cool with it, all right?'
'Fair enough. Now I drive real fucking fast, so keep up. I get my car back any differently than when I gave it, Monster Joe's gonna be disposing of two bodies.'
well boy's when you've finished playing can you turn off the light's as mr Guido like to keep his carbon footprint low, pint time!
Anon 5:43 - this can be cleared up very easily. Earlier I posted 2 BBC stories chosen randomly as I described. They both contain very, very serious allegations against a number or individuals.
Could you please cut and paste into here the parts of those stories that describe how those people responded to the allegations?
Let's be fair and say that if you can do that you've got a point, and if you can't I've got a point.
I believe there is a difference in how the BBC handles allegations against different people. Using these same BBC stories, please make your case.
Anon NuLab Twat.......
OK, trying to smear Iain Dale
Why don't you NuLab Counts stop trying to spin (That means lie to ordinary people)
It does not work, Cunt Face
He was not the one holding 165 meetings at 11 Downing Street- and getting the Tax man to fund it!
crawl back into your little hole- theres a good boy
Off topic totally, but I hit that doughty street button below this post by mistake, and it came up with some ad about "a world without America". Leaving aside the fact that "America" is bigger than the US, so a world without "America" would leave us without, say, ponchos, and maple syrup, there was a screen where loads of American achievements came up, and one of them was "liberation of the Falkland Islands". Since when did America liberate the Falklands?
Since when did America liberate the Falklands?
Straight after they toppled the Shah and Bill Khomeini from Idaho was elected Grand Sheriff in Teheran....and the Americans were flooding the world with Toyota Cressidas from their Ford factories in Dearborn
You see what you get with an American High School Education ? Now you know why Benjamin Einstein was from South Dakota
sick of spin - or should that be 'sick of Labour spin', because any other spin is A-OK. I fail to see how on the one hand 'smearing Iain Dale' is bad, but Iain Dale trying to smear other people is acceptable.
The old adage is 'If you can't take it, don't dish it out' - so keep the 'cunt face' stuff coming, because it is all water off a duck's back to me, sweetie pie..
Sorry to break up the party, but that 'World without America' thing was on Fox News - so it must all be true..
That deranged NuLab cunt Tim Ireland seems to have this thread almost entirely to himself.
Why don't you fuck off back to your psychiatrist Tim and get back on the lithium you demented, boring little arsewipe.
BTW I've got no time for Iain Dale either, while he's having his love affair with the neo-cons.
My god, I just looked at Ireland's site and he really has lost it. Very sad to see an on-line breakdown.
Ireland needs locking up for his own good, the poor sad, desperate bastard. I blame that Brownite prick Tom Watson for egging him on.
Much as I hate to disappoint you, I am not Tim Ireland - the genie really is out of the bottle now..
9.05: maybe not just for now, Tim, but keep taking the pills, and you'll be feeling yourself again shortly.
"Beware, little man... my patience grows thin and my Kung Fu is stronger than yours:"
The words of "Manic" as Tim likes to call himself.
Anyone out there able to section him?
Talking of feeling himself, I see that phoney action man and closet gay "the hitch" is still deleting posts that displease him on his sad excuse of a blog which, in reality, is just a sad bleating shop for his small coterie of gays-in-denial and armchair fascists.
The Hitch's latest crush is some little tosser who calls himself swift. Careful swift or you'll end up with a sore botty!!
Why would that be re-arrest? Silly Guidy.
Medical supplies urgently required.
Tim Ireland and the Hitch are just two cheeks of the same smelly arse. Don't waste your time on either of these deluded dickheads is the best policy IMO
Tim Ireland Too said...
Medical supplies urgently required.
A depo injection of largactil for poor deranged Tim. As for Hitch, I hear he prefers to take it in suppository form.
Good to see that Shagger Norris is still looking as loverly as ever..
Can you not imagine him with a mayoral harem, dressed in their togas, playing harps, spreading rose petals at his feet wherever he walks in City Hall...
Oh to be one of those lucky girls..
Lighten up for f*cks sake.
Guido the Italian Lover.
A virile, middle aged Italian gentlemen named Guido was relaxing at his favourite bar in Rome when he managed to attract a spectacular young blonde woman.
Things progressed to the point where he invited her back to his apartment and, after some small talk, they retired to his bedroom where he rattled her senseless.
After a pleasant interlude he asked with a smile, "So, you finish?"
She paused for a second, frowned, and replied, "No"
Surprised, Guido reached for her and the rattling resumed. This time she thrashed about wildly and there were screams of passion.
The sex finally ends and, again, Guido smiles and asks, "You finish?"
Again, after a short pause, she returns his smile, cuddles closer to him and softly says, "No."
Stunned, but damned If he was going to leave this woman unsatisfied, Guido reaches for the woman yet again Using the last of his strength, he barely manages it, but they end together screaming, bucking, clawing and ripping the bed sheets.
Exhausted, Guido falls onto his back, gasping. Barely able to turn his head, he looks into her eyes, smiles proudly and asked again, "You finish?"
Barely able to speak, the beautiful blond whispers in his ear,
"No, I Norwegian."
You should be on the stage.
It's leaving in five minutes.
Hirst why dont you just use your own name, we all know its you (+:
BTW love the fact that you are angry and pouring vitriol all over your own sordid soloplistic wankfest of a blog.
You are unhappy , and that make me and a lot of other people very happy (+:
Hmm...no, I think you'll find she is actually Swedish.
Very amusing story, if it is true, though...
Hitch, is it true youre a gay bachelor?
hitch 2
Bejasus - ukgaynews.org.uk - what a crap site.
I thought pooves were supposed to have good taste.
Have had a read of Tim Irelands blog for the first time to see if he really is care in the community material.
Sad to see that he is in fact more of an example of where the system sometimes breaks down.
Surely their is something someone can do to put this chap out of his missery. Its all quite upsetting to wittness.
Nice to see that this intelligence was the main item on the BBC 10 o'clock news. Not. In fact it was not mentioned at all. Just pathetic.
Theres not much to choose between them. Tim Ireland's blog is the rantings of an obsessive loony while hitch's is the rantings of a racist bigot. And as for jailhouselawyer: the least said the better.
Take your pick, they're all shite.
So Ruth,
Do you feel lucky?
"out of his missery. Its all quite upsetting to wittness."
Perhaps its unfair singling Garypowell out, but FOR FUCKS SAKE LEARN TO SPELL YOU SILLY MAN. And I'm a diagnosed dyslexic, what's your excuse?
I am too. And it is unfair. However I could not give a flying fuck.
You are unhappy , and that make me and a lot of other people very happy (+:
Jesus Hitch, if a 10th rate hack can come up your drive unannounced and find you then what do you think a convicted axe-murderer with an unhealthy obsession with blogging and surveillance is going to do?
shut that door 9:58
"small coterie of gays-in-denial and armchair fascists"
One can assure you that one is only an armchair fascist during this spell of inclement weather. Come warmer days one will be returning to the sun-lounger by the pool with a few cold beers.
julian, it wouldnt worry me.
I might be worried if he bumped into my mother , but not me.
mitch said...
Usefully the BBC are reminding us that all involved deny any wrongdoing.
Strange that, because when they report the 21 July bombing trial for example they never say "all the accused have pleaded not guilty".
Mitch - that's because while Blairs lot have been arrested, they haven't been charged and put before the court where you put your legal "plea". So they can deny, deny, deny.
The bombers were arrested, charged and put before the Magistrates where they initially entered a "not guilty" plea.
It's called reporting restrictions, not "aarrgh, BBC bias again - they're all a bunch of liberal pinko Blair bitches".
Have a look at "McNae's Essential Law for Journalists" for a more in-depth explanation.
carl eve - so the anon BBC posters are (wrongly) telling me they do report the not guilty plea's, and you're saying they're not allowed to. How does that work then?
There's no reporting restrictions on reporting an accused's plea. I know, I've heard them do it. The BBC in this case don't.
Still no reply from our BBC 'insider' friends. But since when did the facts matter?
Whats it all about