http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair?CMP=twt_gu
QuoteIt must have seemed a good idea at the time. A 15-minute light grilling on the morning BBC sofa with whichever stand-in presenter the corporation had dredged up to fill the void left by Andrew Marr, still recovering from a stroke. Nothing that an old hand like Boris Johnson need fear.
Tousle the hair a little, some self-deprecation and a bit of a plug for the BBC TV documentary on Monday to remind the Tory backbenchers that if the ball ever popped out of the scrum, he would be on hand to take it, almost accidentally, over the line. A spot of liberal differentiation from his school chum David Cameron on the benefits of migrants might provide with him an entry to the likely story of the day, the prime minister's imminent speech on migrants and access to social housing. But after the 15 minutes of chilling inquisition by the softly spoken Eddie Mair, Johnson's reputation had taken a severe pounding. Indeed, it was probably the worst interview the mayor has ever conducted.
It was inevitably described as a car crash, but in the case of Johnson, it was more of a bicycle crash: spokes all over the road, wheels mangled and a reputation badly dented.
After the opening exchanges – "Good morning, how are you?"; "Very, very good, thank you" – Johnson went downhill at an alarming pace until by the interview's close, admitting he had "sandpapered" quotes as a Times journalist, failing to deny he lied to the party leader at the time, Michael Howard, about an extramarital affair and conceding that he had humoured an old friend when he asked for a phone number in the knowledge that the friend intended to beat up the owner of it.
By the interview's close, "You're a nasty piece of work, aren't you?" was one of Mair's more generous reflections on Johnson's integrity.
Doubtless Johnson had been lulled into a false sense of security by the opening minutes in which he was able to hint, without providing incontrovertible proof, that he thought Cameron was misunderstanding the importance of migrants to the London economy.
He also gently put the boot into his predecessor as mayor for failing to plan the London Olympics' stadium properly. He came across as the charming, talented politician that he is.
But then Mair took the interview on an unexpected turn, and asked Johnson why he had agreed to be interviewed for the Michael Cockerell documentary. Johnson flannelled before, saying he had not seen the programme. Suddenly Mair's tone changed lethally: "But this happened in your life, so you know about this. The Times let you go after you made up a quote. Why did you make up a quote?"
It is impossible to describe the menacing politeness of tone in which Mair specialises, or his ability to pause mid-sentence to maximise the impact. Johnson asked plaintively: "Are you sure your viewers wouldn't want to hear more about housing in London?" It was, he added, a long and lamentable story, to which Mair replied: "OK. But you made a quote up."
Johnson was cornered. "Well, what happened was that ... I ascribed events that were supposed to have taken place before the death of Piers Gaveston to events that actually took place after the death of Piers Gaveston," he said.
"Yes. You made something up," Mair replied. Johnson said: "Well, I mean, I mildly sandpapered something somebody said, and yes it's very embarrassing and I'm very sorry about it."
With this admission trousered, Mair continued: "Let me ask you about a barefaced lie. When you were in Michael Howard's team, you denied to him you were having an affair. It turned out you were and he sacked you for that. Why did you lie to your party leader?"
Johnson squirmed. "Well, I mean again, I'm ... with great respect ... on that, I never had any conversation with Michael Howard about that matter and, you know, I don't propose ..."
Mair interrupted: "You did lie to him."
Johnson: "Well, you know, I don't propose to go into all that again."
Mair: "I don't blame you."
Johnson: "No, well why should I? I've been through, you know, that question a lot with the, well, watch the documentary. Why don't we talk about something else?"
Unfortunately for Johnson, Mair was willing to change the subject.
Referring to the documentary, Mair explained: "The programme includes your reaction as you listen to a phonecall in which your friend Darius Guppy asks you to supply the address of a journalist ... so that he can have him physically assaulted. The words 'beaten up' and 'broken ribs' are said to you ..."
Johnson replied after snorting about an old story being dragged up. "Yes, it was certainly true that he was in a bit of a state and I did humour him in a long phone conversation, from which absolutely nothing eventuated and ... you know, there you go. But I think if any of us had our phone conversations bugged, they might, you know, people say all sorts of fantastical things whilst they're talking to their friends."
Mair proceeded to inform, in passing, a dazed Johnson that even convicted fraudster Conrad Black does not quite trust him, before asking him to show some honesty by openly admitting that his ambition is to be prime minister rather than trading in obfuscatory metaphors such as rugby balls emerging from a ruck or saying it is not going to happen.
Mair: "You're not going to land on the moon either. But do you want to be prime minister. Say it."
Johnson obfuscated, presumably hoping for something to eventuate, before saying he wanted to do all he could to help Cameron be re-elected – "and in those circumstances it is completely nonsensical for me to indulge, you know, this increasingly hysterical ..."
Mair: "You could end it all just by saying what you know to be true. What should viewers make of your inability to give a straight answer to a straight question?"
By now most viewers are hiding behind their sofa, or telling their gawking children to look away, or ringing the BBC begging them to show the test card.
With the clock running down, Johnson desperately tries to mount a recovery, saying he disputes Mair's interpretations. Then he resorts to the old standby: "What viewers want to know is ..."
He said: "They don't care about phone conversations with my friends 20 years ago, they don't care about some ludicrous, so-called made-up quote, and what's the third accusation? I can't remember ..."
"Lying to Michael Howard," Mair reminds him, before Johnson finally collapses in a heap, his lights, pannier bag and reputation strewn across the bicycle lane.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00397%2F124601634_kjhkjh_397932c.jpg&hash=3af5467331097e1d95e1b12a3e5adea48eb09ae3)
That's awesome :lol:
on the BBC? :lol:
well something like THAT would never happen in toda's Hungarian state TV, that's for sure
The full interview. Unfortunately can't watch at work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21916721
Shame.
This day was going to come eventually but I wish it would have waited till he had made something more of himself.
QuoteJohnson was cornered. "Well, what happened was that ... I ascribed events that were supposed to have taken place before the death of Piers Gaveston to events that actually took place after the death of Piers Gaveston," he said.
Is this some Oxbridge saying, or is he talking literally, and if so, which Piers Gaveston? I mean, this can't be a misquote about something from the middle ages, right? :unsure:
I'm disappointed, nowhere near as crushing as billed, it will be forgotten in a few weeks.
Here you go Marti :
"After graduating in 1987, Mr Johnson became a trainee reporter with the Times newspaper but was sacked within a year for falsifying a quotation from his godfather Colin Lucas.
He described the episode in an interview with the Independent in 2002 as his "biggest cock-up", saying he had needed a historian's quote for a story and had rung Sir Colin - who later became vice-chancellor of Oxford University - and had misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation.
"It was a complete nightmare of a disaster, and to make it even worse, that very week Colin was trying to become master of Balliol College. He later succeeded - but not that time. Of all the mistakes I've made, I think that takes the biscuit," he told the newspaper. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6901161.stm
That's hardly a huge issue, is it? :huh:
I believe Sir Colin had to endure some ridicule at formal meals in Oxford colleges, as some historians took what BJ said as gospel :lol:
The two men fell out for a while but are now reconciled.
Poor guy, is he gonna claim he was duped into this interview like that Freedom of Press Muslim Hating Lars Hedegaard that was torn apart on Danish TV a week ago?
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 06:29:39 AM
That's hardly a huge issue, is it? :huh:
Yeah. Reporter is the one job more scummy and dishonest than politician, so at least Johnson is moving up in the world.
So what was up with the interviewer that he decided to go so far a field?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 06:34:20 AM
I believe Sir Colin had to endure some ridicule at formal meals in Oxford colleges, as some historians took what BJ said as gospel :lol:
To reiterate: that hardly seems like a huge issue. :P
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 06:29:39 AM
That's hardly a huge issue, is it? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2013, 06:10:55 AM
I'm disappointed, nowhere near as crushing as billed, it will be forgotten in a few weeks.
Yeah, me too, didn't really get too crazy, was pretty typical politician tying himself in knots stuff.
Misquotes and speeding tickets. If these are your political scandals then either your politicians are pretty good or your journalists suck :D
Isn't it quite common in many British circles to equate being a douchebag with good journalism?
Seems like this interviewer could have just said "i don't like this guy" and saved everyone a lot of time.
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Yeah. Reporter is the one job more scummy and dishonest than politician, so at least Johnson is moving up in the world.
:ultra:
It's a whole other matter when your "misquotes" are, in fact, libellous.
Anyway, Boris described the interview as "splendid" and will no doubt come out the other end with even more fans, and potential PM voters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21926377 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21926377)
I'd rather trust a used car salesman than a reporter.
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
It's a whole other matter when your "misquotes" are, in fact, libellous.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Yeah. Reporter is the one job more scummy and dishonest than politician, so at least Johnson is moving up in the world.
:ultra:
Sorry, B. At least you're not a lawyer though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 09:57:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
It's a whole other matter when your "misquotes" are, in fact, libellous.
Please elaborate.
He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.
Is it really necessary to save one letter by using "BoJo", when if you say "Boris" everyone will know who you mean? How awful.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
Is it really necessary to save one letter by using "BoJo", when if you say "Boris" everyone will know who you mean? How awful.
Rocky and Bullwinkle? Boris Yeltsin?
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 09:57:55 AM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
It's a whole other matter when your "misquotes" are, in fact, libellous.
Please elaborate.
He "misquoted him in a way that had jeopardised his academic reputation." I'd say that was pretty defamatory.
It looked more like a typical example of Boris' laziness to me. He wanted to make a point in a newspaper article so he invented a quote and gave it as his godfather's comment. Unfortunately for Boris he got his facts muddled (probably from not paying sufficient attention in a history lesson 35 years ago) and (at least temporarily) annoyed a close friend of his family's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 09:44:09 AM
Isn't it quite common in many British circles to equate being a douchebag with good journalism?
Have you watched it? He seems fair enough in his questioning and polite throughout. Although Eddie Mair is, with Andrew Neil, one of my favourite interviewers.
The thing is Boris went on to this show to promote a forthcoming hour-long BBC documentary (which was broadly very positive) about his 'irresistible rise'. He didn't go on with any big policy announcements, or the Olympics to talk about so the only subject left was the bumps on his unstoppable rise and other interesting moments from the documentary. He was on the show the day before a documentary about his life and political career, but discussing that's a hatchet job :mellow:
The problem for Boris isn't these issues, as many Tory journalists have said none of them are necessarily serious. The problem is the way he handled them. Boris's style is affable flannel and most journalists let him get away with it because he's reasonably entertaining and funny about it. If any other Labour or Tory pol said as little as Boris they'd be eviscerated by the journalists and a national joke (in a different way). I think what Mair did is expose that as flim-flam rather than a joke - which will worry other Tories. If Boris can't handle these questions, then how serious is he? Is there a there there?
The lethal lines seemed on whether he wanted to be PM and whether he could give a straight answer to a simple question:
'Permission to obfuscate.'
'Oh, please don't.'
Edit: And it's worth saying if Boris keeps on teasing - such as cooperating with this documentary - about his being a potential post-Cameron leader, then he deserves to be treated as a leadership candidate, not a political comedian.
As I kinda said earlier, Eddie Mair seems despicable. Here in a sensible country, he'd find his list of potential interviewees drying up.
Also I thought this piece by Benedict Brogan (a long-time Cameron loyalist) rather interesting:
QuotePity our poor PM – the Tories are now in a post-Dave state of mind
By Benedict Brogan Politics Last updated: March 25th, 2013
From Tuesday's Daily Telegraph
"Why can't you just say the words? You want to be Prime Minister. Say it." Boris Johnson looked about him like a cornered animal. Eddie Mair smiled. The interview reached its culmination, one of those exquisite moments when a bloodthirsty audience wills the inquisitor to make the victim squeal just a little bit more. The Circus Maximus was never this much fun. The Mayor of London was being slowly, methodically eviscerated on live television, and we all lapped it up, because he was being asked a question to which we know the answer.
Politics involves no end of deception and dissembling, but one of the greatest examples is the public denial of ambition. Boris wants to be prime minister so bad he might just blow up one day. His mouth opened. It closed. "Go on, spit it out," we shouted silently at the screen. Just. Say. It. He didn't, of course. He gargled. He lunged in another direction. He told us what he preferred to say, which was the predictable guff about wanting his friend Dave to win the next election.
But why are we asking that particular question? Why the perverse pleasure? We have a Prime Minister who shows no sign of wanting to jack it in. There's a Leader of the Opposition who seems keen as mustard to have a go. In other words, there's an incumbent, and a willing substitute. You might think that we are more than adequately provided for in the ambition department. Yet we continue to cast around for a likely candidate, someone who will fire the national attention. For months we have been holding a rolling audition for a role that is not vacant, in the hope that it might produce a collective gasp of recognition. "Do you want to be prime minister?" We sound slightly desperate. It was the Boris moment on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning that revealed just how far advanced we are down the road to replacing Mr Cameron.
The reason why becomes plainer by the day. He has been Conservative leader for seven and a half years; Prime Minister for nearly three. Yet an aura of end days hangs over him. His party operates as if he is already a lame duck. A verdict on the Cameron years is setting like concrete around his feet. His premiership is marked by disappointments, changes of direction, a falling out with his MPs and his party, and an overarching sense of promise unfulfilled.
His central task, the very reason for the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, was austerity to heal the public finances. Yet the economy remains stalled, the debt only grows, and the big decisions about the future shape and size of the state are avoided. At a time when circumstance demands ambition in the national interest, Mr Cameron has too often defaulted to calculation in his own self-interest. Defence and infrastructure have been sacrificed to protect spending on pensioners and Third World countries. Energy costs are being deliberately driven upwards at a time when they are falling elsewhere, to satisfy a fashion for green poses that he actually abandoned ages ago.
His judgment has been erratic: sometimes inspired, as when he took on Brussels in the European budget negotiations; sometimes woeful, as when he entangled himself with Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks. He combines an effortless ease under pressure with a casual insensitivity to the needs of his MPs. He is teased for being chillaxed when others are stressed, but he doesn't take well to being contradicted.
A few weeks ago it was fashionable to predict a Conservative defeat in 2015. Now Tory MPs and commentators have gone one worse: they admit, grudgingly, that Labour's inadequacies and the calculated political blandishments of last week's Budget might just get Mr Cameron over the line and back into No 10; but – and this is truly embarrassing – they say it will hardly be worth it because the Prime Minister makes so little difference. When his own side begins to think even winning won't be enough to save him, he's in trouble.
The threat of plots against him has dissipated in recent weeks, in part because even the most irreconcilable MPs accept that defenestrating a prime minister in the middle of an economic crisis would be not just bad for the party, but for the nation. Mentally, though, Tories behave as if Mr Cameron has already been ushered into the departure lounge. Those with ambition are willingly taking part in the beauty contest that has been underway for months. If we added up every MP who has at some point urged a friend to let it be known – "quietly, you understand" – that if the circumstances were right... then we would reach 20 without too much difficulty. The Conservative conversation is no longer about Mr Cameron, but about who will succeed him in a leadership contest now predicated on defeat in 2015, and whether that person will be the one to put Britain back on its feet.
So far, no one has captured the collective Westminster imagination. Theresa May briefly came close with her sally in a thoughtful speech to the party's spring forum that addressed some of the big questions with which the Tories must grapple. Her record of mostly success at the Home Office has won her admirers among those who hanker after a modern-day Iron Lady. She has been criticised for being insufficiently entertaining over lunch with journalists – a badge of honour, some might say – though the more telling complaint is that, like Mr Cameron, her thing is efficient management rather than big ideas. We know no more: Mrs May retreated after No 10 voiced its displeasure and Michael Gove singled out her special advisers in Cabinet for disloyalty.
Of all the would-be leaders, she seems most ready for an appearance with Eddie Mair and a chance to answer that question. The Education Secretary is the other great Cabinet hope, and he in fairness has answered the question repeatedly, with charming protestations of his unsuitability which only serve to encourage those who think he would be the most suited indeed. Behind Mrs May and Mr Gove is a lengthening queue of current and former Cabinet ministers who would love it if somebody – anybody – could trouble to ask them if they too would like to be prime minister.
And beyond them are the men and women of the vast 2010 intake, the most interesting and relentlessly ambitious bunch of politicians Westminster has produced in a long time. Plenty of MPs will tell you this is Mr Cameron's most significant achievement: to facilitate the election of a new generation of Tories from whose ranks will come the one who will carry out the work of rebuilding that he failed to deliver.
We are rightly preoccupied by the terrifying circumstances we face as a nation. We are afraid and tired. But politics has never been more fluid. We are grilling the politicians who presume to lead us, and challenging them to come clean about their ambitions. The task of repairing the country demands resilience, imagination, steel and the ability to give a straight answer when asked. Mr Cameron, we should point out, has at times exhibited all those qualities. But he has been eroded by events and poor choices. Unless he can win back his party's attention, the search for his successor will only intensify.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:08:01 PM
As I kinda said earlier, Eddie Mair seems despicable. Here in a sensible country, he'd find his list of potential interviewees drying up.
How is that sensible? That gives all the power to politicians.
Edit: Also to give an idea of why I love Eddie Mair, these are some clips of him hosting Newsnight after a scandal about Newsnight failing to report the Jimmy Savile story - I think 10-15 seconds is probably one of my favourite moments in news reporting :lol: :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zImwBY_Vio
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2013, 09:10:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:08:01 PM
As I kinda said earlier, Eddie Mair seems despicable. Here in a sensible country, he'd find his list of potential interviewees drying up.
How is that sensible? That gives all the power to politicians.
I think it just adds more subtlety to the interactions. Besides it isn't as if a journalist pointedly beating up a politician teaches us much other than that a journalist can uncover the inconsistencies that are part of political life. On the flipside when you have a Couric who shreds a Palin, that shows something as the questions are set up to be answerable.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:16:10 PM
I think it just adds more subtlety to the interactions.
The subtle tang of fear, if a journalist goes in too hard then their sources freeze up and they're fucked. I mean I don't think this sort of thing is good for journalism:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/06/opinion/fleischer-quote-approval
The NYT article he links to is also a disgrace.
QuoteBesides it isn't as if a journalist pointedly beating up a politician teaches us much other than that a journalist can uncover the inconsistencies that are part of political life.
Mair didn't uncover them. They're featured in the documentary about Boris that Boris is on the show trying to plug. It's a bit like a celebrity reporter chatting with Robert Downey Jr about his autobiography, but not mentioning the drugs.
And as I say I think Mair did expose something which is that Boris doesn't answer questions. He plays an anti-politician who's rather bluff and up-front, but really he's just a witty one with a good education. He's as evasive as Hazel Blears, with Latin.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2013, 09:04:27 PM
Have you watched it? He seems fair enough in his questioning and polite throughout.
"Your a nasty piece of business, aren't you?" Is that a good example of fair questioning and being polite throughout?
You think politicians should put up with douchebag interviewers because if they're serious politicians they'll have to deal with douchebag interviewers. It's a circular argument.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 09:30:55 PM
"Your a nasty piece of business, aren't you?" Is that a good example of fair questioning and being polite throughout?
That's the one line I think he crosses. But even then he's very polite.
QuoteYou think politicians should put up with douchebag interviewers because if they're serious politicians they'll have to deal with douchebag interviewers. It's a circular argument.
Where do I make that argument?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2013, 09:34:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 09:30:55 PM
"Your a nasty piece of business, aren't you?" Is that a good example of fair questioning and being polite throughout?
That's the one line I think he crosses. But even then he's very polite.
Words and tone have to match to be polite, it isn't an either/or proposition.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2013, 09:38:50 PMWords and tone have to match to be polite, it isn't an either/or proposition.
Nonsense. You can very politely tell someone to fuck off :lol:
Actually I thought Mair was more effective because he was so polite rather than going for the sort of selfish aggression of Paxman.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2013, 09:43:02 PM
Nonsense. You can very politely tell someone to fuck off :lol:
No as then unfortunately it isn't really polite.
I mean there are polite ways to do so, but nothing with the apparent showy gaudiness that you like. ;)
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:55:45 PM
I mean there are polite ways to do so, but nothing with the apparent showy gaudiness that you like. ;)
:lol: Perhaps.
But then Mair isn't showy - Paxman and Humphreys are showy. As I say he's a bit more smiling assassin in his style, which I like.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:55:45 PM
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?
Quote from: katmai on March 25, 2013, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:55:45 PM
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? :angry:
A unique snowflake?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
The subtle tang of fear, if a journalist goes in too hard then their sources freeze up and they're fucked. I mean I don't think this sort of thing is good for journalism:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/06/opinion/fleischer-quote-approval
The NYT article he links to is also a disgrace.
It's unfortunately widespread among German politicians that they won't authorize a written interview without reading/editing it before publication. Other areas (business, celebrities) try to do the same. It's a shame that so many journalists play along.
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 09:19:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 06:29:39 AM
That's hardly a huge issue, is it? :huh:
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 ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
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? :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
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? :D
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/
QuoteThe 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. :wacko:
Edward II, still bringing scandal upon England 700 years later.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
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? :D
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/
QuoteThe 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. :wacko:
Mr. Gaveston should sue. :lol:
The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 25, 2013, 10:13:30 PMHe's homosexual, isn't that gaudiness mandatory?
Then what am I? :angry:
You can be pretty gaudy. If you like I'll point it out in the future :)
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 25, 2013, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 09:55:45 PM
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? :angry:
Rainbow Brite?
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Brazen on March 25, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
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? :D
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/
QuoteThe 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. :wacko:
Mr. Gaveston should sue. :lol:
The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. :lol:
Ossum. I totes need to emi to Blighty and whittle the whoopsie on a brown noggin. Or some other bullshit rhyming slang.
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 09:19:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 06:29:39 AM
That's hardly a huge issue, is it? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:29:38 PMMr. Gaveston should sue. :lol:
The "defamation" here is that the scholar is quoted as saying something historically stupid by the rookie? Colour me unhorrified. :lol:
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. :P
Over here, if all politicians were as "evil" as BoJo, we would experience a marked improvement.
Quote from: Gups on March 27, 2013, 02:45:48 AM
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?
Quote from: Gups on March 27, 2013, 02:45:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 09:19:25 AM
...
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. :contract:
Quote from: Gups on March 27, 2013, 02:45:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 27, 2013, 09:51:56 AM
Quote from: Gups on March 27, 2013, 02:45:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2013, 09:19:25 AM
...
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. :contract:
I remembered 1950 right after I posted that but couldn't be bothered to edit.
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 07:36:30 AMWho cares about the popular vote?
Usually the people who win it but fail to carry the election.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2013, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 27, 2013, 07:36:30 AMWho cares about the popular vote?
Usually the people who win it but fail to carry the election.
Eh Labor still got less than 50% in 1951. Besides it is not a national election but by constituencies so the meaning of the popular vote is a little weird. I mean there could be people who might vote for Churchill to be PM but just disliked the local Tory candidate so voted Labor instead...and vice versa.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2013, 11:24:51 AMEh Labor still got less than 50% in 1951. Besides it is not a national election but by constituencies so the meaning of the popular vote is a little weird. I mean there could be people who might vote for Churchill to be PM but just disliked the local Tory candidate so voted Labor instead...and vice versa.
Uh... okay?
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2013, 12:11:40 PM
Uh... okay?
So I think the meaning of the popular vote is a little different when it is not a national election but a series of small elections with local factors. I mean we do not even keep these kind of records for our Congressional Elections, but granted they would be even more meaningless since there are so many uncontested seats.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2013, 11:24:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2013, 11:20:58 AM
Eh Labor still got less than 50% in 1951. Besides it is not a national election but by constituencies so the meaning of the popular vote is a little weird. I mean there could be people who might vote for Churchill to be PM but just disliked the local Tory candidate so voted Labor instead...and vice versa.
Works the other way round here Valmy. People vote for a party not for the local candidate (who may swing 2-5% at most). Of course, in those days it wasn't just about who was leader either althgouh the Troy campaign in 1945 was heavily focussed on Churchill.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2013, 12:14:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2013, 12:11:40 PM
Uh... okay?
So I think the meaning of the popular vote is a little different when it is not a national election but a series of small elections with local factors. I mean we do not even keep these kind of records for our Congressional Elections, but granted they would be even more meaningless since there are so many uncontested seats.
Sure. No argument from me. I was making a way more general comment :)
Interviewer comes across as a retarded douche.
Quote from: Gups on March 27, 2013, 12:24:22 PM
Works the other way round here Valmy. People vote for a party not for the local candidate (who may swing 2-5% at most). Of course, in those days it wasn't just about who was leader either althgouh the Troy campaign in 1945 was heavily focussed on Churchill.
Wow so what is the point of having a constituency or a representative? Seems like even having local elections he would be more beholden to the party rather than his constituents which sort of goes against the point of having a system like this. Or...perhaps not. 2-5% can be pretty signficiant.
Quotethe Troy campaign in 1945
:wacko:
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2013, 02:24:51 PM
Quotethe Troy campaign in 1945
:wacko:
The Trojans were simply not ready for Shermans. :menace:
Ze Shermans are coming!