BoJo torn apart in BBC morning programme

[Malthus]

That's hardly a huge issue, is it? 

Yeah.  Reporter is the one job more scummy and dishonest than politician, so at least Johnson is moving up in the world.

The whole thing does seem to me like a really scrapping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel character assassination attempt.

I don't have any reason to like (or dislike) Boris, but his "crimes" seems to be rather minor. If anything, this illustrates the modern media's ridiculous tendency to expect politicians to be crystal clear paragons of virtue, with no moral failings whatsoever.

If today's media were present in the past, Churchill and Bismarck would have never won any elections.

Bismark wasn't notable for winning elections.    Aside from a brief spell as member of the Landtag as a young man, he never ran in any, from what I recall ...

[Malthus]

He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.

It's odd that despite having so much else in common there is such a vast gulf in the way that British and American people see libel and defamation.

As I see it there is absoltuely nothing defamatory about the statement, execept as to Edward II, who has rather more serious issues to complaint about.

What exactly was the quote in issue? 

[garbon]

He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.

It's odd that despite having so much else in common there is such a vast gulf in the way that British and American people see libel and defamation.

As I see it there is absoltuely nothing defamatory about the statement, execept as to Edward II, who has rather more serious issues to complaint about.

What exactly was the quote in issue? 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/26/boris-johnson-i-was-wrong-to-make-up-a-quote-about-king-edward-ii-and-his-gay-lover-piers-gaveston/

The Guardian documents that as a 23-year-old Times trainee Mr Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace.

He quoted Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed rumoured to have been the king's lover – but was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.

Heavy stuff. 

[Valmy]

Edward II, still bringing scandal upon England 700 years later.

[Malthus]

He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.

It's odd that despite having so much else in common there is such a vast gulf in the way that British and American people see libel and defamation.

As I see it there is absoltuely nothing defamatory about the statement, execept as to Edward II, who has rather more serious issues to complaint about.

What exactly was the quote in issue? 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/26/boris-johnson-i-was-wrong-to-make-up-a-quote-about-king-edward-ii-and-his-gay-lover-piers-gaveston/

The Guardian documents that as a 23-year-old Times trainee Mr Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace.

He quoted Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed rumoured to have been the king's lover – but was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.

Heavy stuff. 

Mr. Gaveston should sue. 

The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. 

[Jacob]

He's homosexual, isn't that gaudiness mandatory?

Then what am I?

You can be pretty gaudy. If you like I'll point it out in the future

[Neil]

I mean there are polite ways to do so, but nothing with the apparent showy gaudiness that you like.

He's homosexual, isn't that gaudiness mandatory?

Then what am I?

Rainbow Brite?

[Scipio]

He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.

It's odd that despite having so much else in common there is such a vast gulf in the way that British and American people see libel and defamation.

As I see it there is absoltuely nothing defamatory about the statement, execept as to Edward II, who has rather more serious issues to complaint about.

What exactly was the quote in issue? 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/26/boris-johnson-i-was-wrong-to-make-up-a-quote-about-king-edward-ii-and-his-gay-lover-piers-gaveston/

The Guardian documents that as a 23-year-old Times trainee Mr Johnson wrote a May 1988 article about archaeologists' discovery of Edward II's 14th-century palace.

He quoted Colin Lucas, giving the colourful detail that the monarch "enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston" at the palace. Gaveston was indeed rumoured to have been the king's lover – but was also beheaded in 1312, a dozen years before the palace was built.

Heavy stuff. 

Mr. Gaveston should sue. 

The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. 

Ossum.  I totes need to emi to Blighty and whittle the whoopsie on a brown noggin.  Or some other bullshit rhyming slang.

[Gups]

That's hardly a huge issue, is it? 

Yeah.  Reporter is the one job more scummy and dishonest than politician, so at least Johnson is moving up in the world.

The whole thing does seem to me like a really scrapping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel character assassination attempt.

I don't have any reason to like (or dislike) Boris, but his "crimes" seems to be rather minor. If anything, this illustrates the modern media's ridiculous tendency to expect politicians to be crystal clear paragons of virtue, with no moral failings whatsoever.

If today's media were present in the past, Churchill and Bismarck would have never won any elections.

Bismark wasn't notable for winning elections.    Aside from a brief spell as member of the Landtag as a young man, he never ran in any, from what I recall ...

Nor was Churchill. He lost the popular vote in both the elections in which he led the Tories into.

[Martinus]

Mr. Gaveston should sue. 

The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. 

Seriously.

Likewise, the accusation that he lied about not having an affair is hardly a big thing - most people would have lied about it. That's why it's an affair.

Over here, if all politicians were as "evil" as BoJo, we would experience a marked improvement.

[Neil]

Nor was Churchill. He lost the popular vote in both the elections in which he led the Tories into.

Who cares about the popular vote?

[Agelastus]

...

If today's media were present in the past, Churchill and Bismarck would have never won any elections.

Bismark wasn't notable for winning elections.    Aside from a brief spell as member of the Landtag as a young man, he never ran in any, from what I recall ...

Nor was Churchill. He lost the popular vote in both the elections in which he led the Tories into.

All three elections, Gups, all three. 

[Valmy]

Nor was Churchill. He lost the popular vote in both the elections in which he led the Tories into.

That is a little different.  Churchill did not have much of a problem getting elected himself.

[Gups]

...

If today's media were present in the past, Churchill and Bismarck would have never won any elections.

Bismark wasn't notable for winning elections.    Aside from a brief spell as member of the Landtag as a young man, he never ran in any, from what I recall ...

Nor was Churchill. He lost the popular vote in both the elections in which he led the Tories into.

All three elections, Gups, all three. 

I remembered 1950 right after I posted that but couldn't be bothered to edit.

[Jacob]

Who cares about the popular vote?

Usually the people who win it but fail to carry the election.