Another Leak ???

[gulliver1]

P/M said he would rather see bodies ( pile high), than impose another lock down.
Boris lost his temper following a meeting at no 10.
No more **** Lockdowns let the bodies pile high in their thousands . Oh dear.

[gulliver1]

Boris's problem is , no matter how high the pile . Dominic knows where they are.

[ynnafymmi]

Bojo and Cummings,Nicholas Sturgeon and Alec Salmond.None of this quartet are innocent.All of them know where the bodies are.(Outside your mummys chip shop perhaps,Gully?)

[Peter Pedant]

I am sure that is classical
at least he didnt say I see the Tiber foaming with blood

bella horrida bella
et tiberim multo spumantem sanguine cerno...

[webbo3]

From the Mail article
\\Boris Johnson said he would rather see ‘bodies pile high in their thousands’ than order a third lockdown, it was claimed last night.//

It was claimed...

[Peter Pedant]

// it was claimed last night.//

It was claimed...

o no - - - please, there was a barking thread last night all about if Miss X who nevva lies said it, it was the gospel truth and if it were Jenny wren or TTT, you cd ignore it

and I brilliantly asked ( posed even ) if if a liar said the second world war occurred, that would make it unoccur?

shades of schrodingers cat there - - he purred

[gulliver1]

Does anyone think that Boris would really say this.?

[Peter Pedant]

o god yeah
buffoon - - - classicist - - politician

[drmorgans]

He is prone to hyperbole, and playing to the crowd, and putting his size 10s in his gob

[Peter Pedant]

after Trump a politican can say almost anything
( expansion of hoo-sit's window - winterton I think) - the set of acceptable political discourse

[jourdain2]

Like drmorgans I can imagine Boris, carried away on a wave of verbosity and using hyperbole rhetorically. I enjoy listening to him getting carried away actually. It doesn't mean that he is, in reality. prepared to let bodies pile up in the streets and people should be able to tell the difference.

[gulliver1]

12.02 Agree with you P/P since Trump has gone Boris's speeches are worth listening to, with all the bumbling and stumbling and muttering and no one telling him what to say

[lankeela]

Hmm Labour accusing Boris of something that really does not matter in the grand scheme of things, can only mean one thing - local elections on the horizon. They obviously subscribe to the 'throw enough *** and some of it will stick' theory.

[drmorgans]

To be fair some of the brown stuff is coming from a spurned former insider with (allegedly) dodgy eyesight

[Ellipsis]

> The story is now on bbc.co.uk, in a minor way:
> This means that it's much less likely to be "fake news"
>> Why?

If you'd like to give a link to the Daily Mail's published editorial standards, we can compare them to the BBC's.

[naomi24]

But the BBC doesn’t abide by its claimed editorial standards … as indicated.

[Ellipsis]

Yes it does. They have a source, they don't have to name the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_protection

[naomi24]

Yes, I know. Empty words. How very convenient.

[Ellipsis]

You haven't come across the idea of journalists protecting their sources before? Which elements of the following do you disagree with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_protection
Journalists rely on source protection to gather and reveal information in the public interest from confidential sources. Such sources may require anonymity to protect them from physical, economic or professional reprisals in response to their revelations. There is a strong tradition of legal source protection internationally, in recognition of the function that confidential sources play in facilitating 'watchdog' or 'accountability' journalism. While professional journalistic practice entails multi-sourcing, verification and corroboration, confidential sources are a key component of this practice. Without confidential sources, many acts of investigative story-telling—from Watergate to the major 2014 investigative journalism project Offshore Leaks undertaken by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)—may never have surfaced.

[naomi24]

I’ve come across BBC bias before. That’s enough for me to know you can’t believe everything you read - or hear. If you haven’t noticed I suggest you pay closer attention.

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, in relation to this particular allegation, which part of their Editorial Standards did the BBC break, specifically?