This despite the potential for MPs plural to use Parliamentary privilege to name the now suspended yet still well-known presenter, thus not only shifting the story focus back onto the BBC, but also demonstrating the willingness of the Useful Idiot brigade to pay fealty to Rupert Murdoch in the vain hope that he will throw them a biscuit when they deservedly lose their seats.
Such a move may provoke a little momentary interest, but the tide has turned, and the list of questions that the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, and those on the thirteenth floor, will have to answer grows ever longer. Mic Wright has nine of those questions HERE. Including the revelation that the young person in question is, or was, a sex worker. Estranged from their Mum.
Mic’s last question is where those wanting to know what’s really going on should focus their enquiries: “How large is the apology to the young person and the presenter going to be? And how much time and money will it take to get?” And for those ready to blame social media for the shitshow, he added “The Sun made this happen. The Sun created the environment of speculation. It’s not the public that did it. It’s the media that did it”. Quite.
And, in the spirit of honest debate, I have a few questions to add to those Mic raises. Like, oh I dunno, why would a concerned parent go running to the one newspaper with the worst reputation for publishing falsehood and misinformation? Following on from that one, is the concerned parent someone with no connection to the press? Let’s consider the Sun’s latest.
Just by coincidence, you understand, the talking point that the Murdoch empire has been pushing ever since lawyers acting on behalf of the young person involved described the Sun’s story as “rubbish” and “totally wrong”, is what comes to mind for the concerned parent who is acting in good faith and has no connection with the press, other than to get their story out there.
What the Sun misses, but won’t for very long, is that the lawyers concerned may have offered to fire off a letter pro bono with the increasingly sure and certain knowledge that they will be at the front of the queue to take News UK for a significant sum of money, plus costs, when this story, with the certainty of night following day, unravels and the Murdoch press has its arse sued off.
Another question enters as the Sun claims to have sworn affidavits from both the young person’s Mum, and Step-Dad, and has added “We have seen evidence that supports their concerns”, why aren’t they redacting any identifying details from said evidence and publishing a sample or two? Just to show they aren’t bluffing. Why are the Murdoch goons so coy?
We’ve been told that there are bank statements which back up allegations that there were £35,000 worth of payments. Shouldn’t be too difficult to redact one of those. But no: all we get is “DAD: BBC ARE LIARS”. And “how come they can afford a lawyer?” And Tory MPs wanting to identify the BBC presenter. So the Murdoch mafiosi can get everyone to Look Over There.
This is not about the BBC. It’s about News UK. Who are in big trouble.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
1 comment:
If this turns bad for the Scum you can be sure Murdoch and his brats won't be on the end of any penalties. It will be some lowly M25 Uriah Heep propaganda clerk, if anyone.
Meanwhile, BBC TV "News" outperformed itself yesterday when it "interviewed" MacFilth on the saga. All from the usual cringing female who called him "Kelvin" throughout. Thus yet again demonstrating utter incestuous media corruption inside the M25 ghetto.
Post a Comment