Jump to content

UK Politics: Rwanda Rehash


Maltaran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, mormont said:

I don't think that's the main concern about this story, but YMMV. In any case the answer is given in the linked article.

Well the reason given to reveal it is because they arbitrarily decided it was in the public interest. 
 

It’s not. 
 

A private joke that someone makes in confidence means literally nothing, and reporting stuff like this is utterly pathetic. I doubt that reporter gets near another politician for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I think that the remarks are the very definition of 'in the public interest': they pertain to how seriously the Home Secretary is actually taking the policy he was promoting at the time and suggest that privately he does not take it as seriously as he claims to in public. They also need to be viewed in the light of his stumbling dishonesty after making nasty remarks about a fellow MP's constituency, suggesting that Cleverly shows a pattern of poor judgement and speaking without thinking.

No court in the land would entertain for a moment the idea that this disclosure was not in the public interest. But YMMV, as I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly if people cannot understand that it’s possible to make jokes in private and that might not reflect what they do in their work then.. well some people can’t be helped.

Someone making jokes about killing someone doesn’t make them a murderer. Jokes are jokes. People make inappropriate jokes all the time, it’s a part of life. Some people need to grow up and stop acting like perpetually offended snowflakes.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly if people cannot understand that it’s possible to make jokes in private and that might not reflect what they do in their work then.. well some people can’t be helped.

Someone making jokes about killing someone doesn’t make them a murderer. Jokes are jokes. People make inappropriate jokes all the time, it’s a part of life. Some people need to grow up and stop acting like perpetually offended snowflakes.
 

 

 

Making dark jokes genuinely in private to close friends is one thing (though even there it can reflect on you, lets not bullshit). Making them to a roomful of people you don't know on the grounds they're not supposed to report it can still make you both an idiot and an arsehole. 

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Someone making jokes about killing someone doesn’t make them a murderer.

 

No-one said the joke makes him a date rapist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if a pub owner or a director of a security firm had made that kind of remark in private, it would be legitimate news.

I think that grown-ups recognise that you have to accept responsibility for the things that you say, privately and publicly, because you chose to say them, and that includes poorly judged attempts at humour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

 

The whole point is that it was a 'private' joke in a conversation in a room full of people, most of whom were not close friends or most likely friends at all. 

He wasn’t standing on stage telling the joke. He was talking to people in a conversation. That’s private. It was supposed to be off the record. 
 

Now obviously there is a relationship issue here where politicians end up knowing journalists and cultivating relationships with them, and maybe Cleverly just assumed the rules of journalism applied here and he could let his guard down and talk to someone as if he was a human being for a few minutes.
 

Now we find that actually no, that is not allowed. It’s more valuable to a journalist to burn their relationships and just reveal every off hand comment someone said to them in the hope of getting a few clicks. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

OK. I think that the remarks are the very definition of 'in the public interest': they pertain to how seriously the Home Secretary is actually taking the policy he was promoting at the time and suggest that privately he does not take it as seriously as he claims to in public. They also need to be viewed in the light of his stumbling dishonesty after making nasty remarks about a fellow MP's constituency, suggesting that Cleverly shows a pattern of poor judgement and speaking without thinking.

No court in the land would entertain for a moment the idea that this disclosure was not in the public interest. But YMMV, as I say.

+ the string of displayed behavior by MPs (first and foremost) of his party. How many by-election over sexual conduct did the Tories produce in this parliament?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First rule of being a public personality is, nothing it private, except when it's actually in private. A private function is not a private space. Learn the difference, and you will be less likely to end up on the front page of a newspaper with embarrassing shit being written about you, unless someone is actually illegally invading your privacy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You do understand the concept of 'off the record' right?

 

Nice goalpost move.

But to answer that: do you understand that people might have issues with requiring omerta from journalists over a male politician with the ultimate responsibility for law enforcement making jokes in a large crowd about date rape drugging women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A wilding said:

Nice goalpost move.

What? How is it a goalpost move? He was literally talking off record to a journalist. 
 

19 minutes ago, A wilding said:

But to answer that: do you understand that people might have issues with requiring omerta from journalists over a male politician with the ultimate responsibility for law enforcement making jokes in a large crowd about date rape drugging women?

If Cleverly had revealed plans to invade France and unleash horde of lizard people on the population, there would be just cause for over ruling the norms of journalistic integrity.

Cleverly making a cack handed joke about keeping his wife mildly sedated so she didn’t realise there were better men out there, is hardly Frankie Boyle levels of outrageousness.
 

It certainly isn’t some sort of huge reveal or big win for the papers. It is barely newsworthy, and for journalists to break standard practices over something like this is bonkers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...