WeeGord
Well-known member
Look, I'm out. You're clearly looking for an argument, and I'm not going to oblige you. You're trying to twist this into something it's not, craic on with it.
This Lindsay Hoyle business
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Press regulator finds Jewish Chronicle guilty of multiple breaches of Editors’ Code
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has found the Jewish Chronicle – the source of numerous allegations of antisemitism against the Labour Party – guilty on four counts of publishing untrue statements about a Corbyn supporter on Merseyside.
"The “significantly misleading claims” published by journalist Lee Harpin and the Jewish Chronicle included the accusation that veteran activist Audrey White and others had ‘bullied’ local MP Louise Ellman by acting as “a group of militants who repeatedly interrupted the MP” during a constituency meeting; as well as claims that Audrey had “lied about her age” to re-join the Labour Party; was previously “expelled from the Labour Party” and a “former member of the Socialist Party.”"
"“The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting).”"
"The Jewish Chronicle has been obliged to publish an adjudication summary from the IPSO committee which investigated Audrey White’s complaints. It concludes: The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. The Committee’s concerns have been drawn to the attention of IPSO’s Standards department."
"Audrey White, who was nominated as one of BBC Radio 4’s ‘100 most influential women of the century’ (for defending women from sexual abuse in the workplace) was targeted by the Jewish Chronicle with a litany of lies and falsehoods reported by Lee Harpin – an ex-News of the World journalist arrested in connection with the phone-hacking scandal."
"Harpin penned four separate articles containing incendiary and unsubstantiated claims discrediting the 68-year-old pensioner and Labour activist from Liverpool, Riverside. IPSO’s committee stated that “the publication’s (Jewish Chronicle) conduct during IPSO’s investigation was also unacceptable” and has been escalated to IPSO’s Standards Department.Evidence provided to IPSO, including a recording, exposed these reportings to be patently false and “significantly misleading.”
The Jewish Chronicle also reported that Audrey had made a “false claim” that a local Labour Councillor was under police investigation for taunting a disabled Corbyn-supporting pensioner who suffers from cancer. Evidence from Merseyside Police’s Hate Crime Unit provided to the Press Standards Investigation concluded that it was “not false to make this claim” and that the publication had provided a “serious and misleading impression of Audrey’s conduct towards Labour politicians.”
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has found the Jewish Chronicle – the source of numerous allegations of antisemitism against the Labour Party – guilty on four counts of publishing untrue statements about a Corbyn supporter on Merseyside.
"The “significantly misleading claims” published by journalist Lee Harpin and the Jewish Chronicle included the accusation that veteran activist Audrey White and others had ‘bullied’ local MP Louise Ellman by acting as “a group of militants who repeatedly interrupted the MP” during a constituency meeting; as well as claims that Audrey had “lied about her age” to re-join the Labour Party; was previously “expelled from the Labour Party” and a “former member of the Socialist Party.”"
"“The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting).”"
"The Jewish Chronicle has been obliged to publish an adjudication summary from the IPSO committee which investigated Audrey White’s complaints. It concludes: The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. The Committee’s concerns have been drawn to the attention of IPSO’s Standards department."
"Audrey White, who was nominated as one of BBC Radio 4’s ‘100 most influential women of the century’ (for defending women from sexual abuse in the workplace) was targeted by the Jewish Chronicle with a litany of lies and falsehoods reported by Lee Harpin – an ex-News of the World journalist arrested in connection with the phone-hacking scandal."
"Harpin penned four separate articles containing incendiary and unsubstantiated claims discrediting the 68-year-old pensioner and Labour activist from Liverpool, Riverside. IPSO’s committee stated that “the publication’s (Jewish Chronicle) conduct during IPSO’s investigation was also unacceptable” and has been escalated to IPSO’s Standards Department.Evidence provided to IPSO, including a recording, exposed these reportings to be patently false and “significantly misleading.”
The Jewish Chronicle also reported that Audrey had made a “false claim” that a local Labour Councillor was under police investigation for taunting a disabled Corbyn-supporting pensioner who suffers from cancer. Evidence from Merseyside Police’s Hate Crime Unit provided to the Press Standards Investigation concluded that it was “not false to make this claim” and that the publication had provided a “serious and misleading impression of Audrey’s conduct towards Labour politicians.”
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Only joking about worrying about you, it’s just that you don’t seem to post much on other political threads knocking the Conservative Party, for example the one about the appalling racist behaviour of Lee Anderson, but any opportunity to try to run down Sir Kier and Labour and you are in there frothing at the mouth!
Anyone would think you were, er, ….a Tory.
Cheers.No, I don't think so. Not if you've been on here a while. I don't think I've ever posted anything praising the tories or advocating their policies. I argued in favour of the Labour Party on here many times, while I was a member 2011-2020.
How come you struggle so much with the concept of someone not being a tory and simultaneously not being happy with the current Labour Party? That's absolutely bizarre to me.
Surely you think Starmer as a leader is different to Corbyn, yes? And that the party is offering something different now to what it was? And whatever you'd prefer to call that change - pragmatism, being electable, triangulating, being in the centre, whatever - you must understand that some people actually bought in to the package of policies that were on offer before right? The ones Starmer campaigned for leadership on. It really shouldn't be this hard to grasp.
Just had a scroll through the Lee Anderson thread and couldn't see your comments saying he's bad? What's that all about? Are you a closet Andersonite or something?
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
So after 9 pages it looks like Starmer never bullied Hoyle and it was maybe the Tories that did. Who’d have thunk it?
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
All journalists have agendas, like a lot of posters including yourself on here do, but that does not mean that Harpin is not telling the truth on this occasion but like all news of whatever political colour it must come with a health warning.
Fair comment, I should have posted something.
Scrote
Well-known member
The only evidence for the Tories speaking to Hoyle is from after the fact.
The lack of evidence for Starmer pressuring Hoyle is overshadowed by the ever-changing information as to what actually happened. There's nothing been released so far that looks like it couldn't have been released immediately so why all the cloak-and-dagger if there's nothing to hide?
Starmer being duplicitous. Who’d have thunk it?
Well that's the opposite of the point I was making. In my view it's not a fair comment at all. Of course you're not an Andersonite just for not commenting on a particular thread. It'd be daft for anyone to think you were. You don't have some obligation to make sure you never miss a tory related thread just to demonstrate your credentials.I think the "tory shill" comments that get thrown around on these threads are pitiful tbh. I've been pretty consistent in how I've described my political leanings on here for... I don't know how long? 15+ years? I'd appreciate a bit of benefit of the doubt from other posters.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Not really. It’s just others political point scoring. The story (as I thought) has now moved on and it seems 30p Lee has taken over the spotlight.
No damage to Labour or Starmer in the polls. Tories embroiled in yet another shiiiiiitttteeeshow and Sunak looking weaker by the day. They are trying to smear Raynor but that doesn’t seem to be working either.
The above aside you do wonder why Sunak just doesn’t call and election and draw a line on all this carry on. It would be for the good of the country more than anything. Just let people have their say. If they want Tories or Reform then fair enough. If they want Lee Anderson then let them say so at the ballot box. It’s all getting very boring now!
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I think that most on this thread are just giving their opinion of events in a way that they think is the most likely to be true, and for me the most likely explanation, and the one that seems the least convoluted is that it was Labour what done it.
Firstly, Labour have until the day before the debate, shown no interest in voting for a ceasefire let alone calling for one and have whipped their members to abstain in the past. In contrast the SNP have been consistent in their approach.
Secondly, Labour were the party were most likely facing a rebellion of MP's who were prepared to vote for the SNP motion.
Thirdly, Hoyle's explanation that he wanted the broadest possible debate holds no water whatsoever because he was actually warned that if he accepted Labour's late entry along with the Tory one then the SNP would lose theirs. His second explanation (he shouldn't have needed a second one) that he did it for the safety of the safety of the MP's in the house holds even less water. Nobody has yet given an explanation of how this safety move actually worked, and as far as I can see, the protesters got the version of the motion that they would have least wanted.
Lastly, we know for a fact that Starmer went to the speaker personally to urge him to accept his amendment. Where is the line between urge and pressurise? I don't know.
Firstly, Labour have until the day before the debate, shown no interest in voting for a ceasefire let alone calling for one and have whipped their members to abstain in the past. In contrast the SNP have been consistent in their approach.
Secondly, Labour were the party were most likely facing a rebellion of MP's who were prepared to vote for the SNP motion.
Thirdly, Hoyle's explanation that he wanted the broadest possible debate holds no water whatsoever because he was actually warned that if he accepted Labour's late entry along with the Tory one then the SNP would lose theirs. His second explanation (he shouldn't have needed a second one) that he did it for the safety of the safety of the MP's in the house holds even less water. Nobody has yet given an explanation of how this safety move actually worked, and as far as I can see, the protesters got the version of the motion that they would have least wanted.
Lastly, we know for a fact that Starmer went to the speaker personally to urge him to accept his amendment. Where is the line between urge and pressurise? I don't know.
1finny
Well-known member
Opinions are great
Facts
1. The Tories pulled their bill
2. Had they not done so the speaker does not have to decide between Labour and SNP
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Fact, the speaker selected both amendments, according to all of the media.
Scrote
Well-known member
That's a misunderstanding of the process again, though.
The motion was proposed by the SNP.
The amendment, by convention, is tabled by the government - essentially to guarantee a result (due to majority) that removes anything contentious.
Labour were allowed to table an amendment that the speaker chose to call before the more traditional Tory amendment. That killed the Tory amendment by containing exactly the same changes.
The problem, going forward, is that a precedent has now been set whereby the Tories can usurp SNP & LibDem Opposition day votes in a similar way when Labour take office. Do we really think that's a good idea?
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
The Greens are even trying it on at local level. Fortunately Lambeth Labour is having none of it 
1finny
Well-known member
Agree to a lot of that but I have this from Sky News which was highlighted on R4 as the key point
'Then came a curve ball from the Tory Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, who decided to pull the government's amendment from the floor.
She announced her party would "play no further part" in proceedings in protest at the actions of Sir Lindsay - something she claimed "undermined the confidence" of MPs in the House's procedures'
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
I think what is forgotten in all of this is how duplicitous the SNP is. It originally planned to use the opposition day debate to call on Labour and the Conservatives to commit to the £28 billion-a-year public investment programme. Just another attempt to embarrass Labour.
WeeGord
Well-known member
They're saintly don't you know, there's no way they'd indulge in party politics. It's only Labour and that second coming of the Anti-Christ Keir Starmer who would do that.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Or in other words:
‘Despite the evidence I will continue to believe, as usual, that Starmer is the epitome of all evil and it is my opinion that again it is all his and Labour’s fault!!’
You're better than this WG. Stop it.