Read this: Cabinet minister John Whittingdale had relationship with sex worker
Summary: The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, has faced calls to withdraw from the regulation of the press following the disclosure that he had a relationship with a prostitute. Whittingdale, who is divorced, was forced to explain on Tuesday night how he had a six-month relationship with a woman whom he did not realise worked in a brothel. - www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.comCabinet minister John Whittingdale had r…Transcriptions done by Google Cloud Platform.
Lots more recommendations to read at Trends - ukfree.tv.
Summaries are done by Clipped-Your articles and documents summarized.
Wednesday, 13 April 2016
More here - The Real Whittingdale Scandal: Cover up by the Press
| link to this comment |
Briantist's: mapB's Freeview map terrainB's terrain plot wavesB's frequency data B's Freeview Detailed Coverage
M
MikeB11:26 PM
Brian Butterworth: So Whittingdale's story is spiked by 4 newspapers - newspapers that he has a fair amount of power over. But that's not a scandal, according to the Telegraph. They are printing the version coming out of the government that its the BBC to blame, for finally revealing the story BBC 'pursuing agenda' over John Whittingdale prostitute claims, Cabinet Minister says , even though it was apparetly well-known all over Westminster. The reason - of course is because the BBC is at war with the government. Frankly, if they were arguing about the licence fee that much, why didn't the BBC threaten to run it, unless they got a better deal?
I'm amazed that anyone should believe that blatant misdirection, but I'm sure all the usual suspects (ie - all the papers that didn't run the story originally) will back it up.
At some point, Whittingdale will fall - if only because once he knew that the actual profession of the lady in question, and that it was known to the papers, not telling at least the whips, never mind the PM, was opening up himself, and the government, to a huge potential scandal, Its not been a good week for David Cameron. I'm just surprised that the Telegraph hasn't blamed the BBC for the Panama story as well, although the Barclay Brothers are mentioned, so I'm sure they will!
| link to this comment |
MikeB's: mapM's Freeview map terrainM's terrain plot wavesM's frequency data M's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Thursday, 14 April 2016
MikeB: The interview with James Cusick yesterday suggested that the "Match.com" part of John's Story doesn't hold up. So, we will see what happens. BBC Radio 4 - The Media Show, Whittingdale press cover-up?, Diversity at the BBC debate, TV drama rivalry
Looks like the Cameron government is holed below the water.
| link to this comment |
Briantist's: mapB's Freeview map terrainB's terrain plot wavesB's frequency data B's Freeview Detailed Coverage
L
LindaB9:56 AM
Trowbridge
How can a relationship between a single man and a single woman be newsworthy? The only issue may be about whether the couple represent a security risk to Government information.
| link to this comment |
LindaB's: mapL's Freeview map terrainL's terrain plot wavesL's frequency data L's Freeview Detailed Coverage
M
MikeB10:35 AM
LindaB: Normally, I'd agree. In fact I have no particular problem who he wants to date, and as long as he's not open to blackmail (and hence a security risk), its up to him.
However, this story is a bit like the famous example from Sherlock Holmes - why didn't the dog bark in the night? Or rather, why did 4 newspapers, including a tabloid, keep quite about it?
A former editor of various newspapers (including the Times and the Independent) was on Today this morning ( who sounded just a bit breezy in defending the newspaper industry), and made the case that the story appeared just after Levenson, and therefore the papers didn't feel that the story was right for the time. Fair enough, although they havn't generally been that picky, even post Levenson. Put it this way, if a Labour MP had had such a relationship, would a tabloid have published it? The answer is probably yes.
However, if, as Brian points out, there are aspects of the story which are not correct, then you do have to wonder as to the real version of events, and who is telling the truth.
What probably troubles the government chief whip is that Whittingdale never mentioned a word, once he knew the story was in circulation. Thats not good if you were head of the committee whose responsible for looking over the media - its a clear conflict of interest. And its even worse once you become the Minister, part of whose remit is to regulate the press. Think of it in these terms - an MP on the committee overseeing banks ends up with several very large and potentially embarrassing outstanding loans (unknown to everyone, including Party officals) , held by a number of large banks, who could publicise or even call them in at any time. Then he gets made the minister responsible overseeing those very same banks. You can see the issue. As one Labour MP put it, it was like a Sword of Damocles over his head.
The problem cuts both ways. Was a there a quid pro quo to avoid more meaningful regulation of the press? Or did the press put pressure on him? Either way, he doesn't come out well.
And of course its a landmine just waiting to to be stepped on - and considering the months the government has had (Panama Papers, Brexit, IDS, poor economic forcasts, etc), no government needs this.
The real brass neck is of the government and certain parts of the press in blaming the BBC. I can understand exactly why the government seeks to deflect the story, but the Telegraph story is a disgrace. The story had been floating around the net for weeks - Byline had it out 12 days before the BBC finally spoke about it. At some point, it was going to come out, but of course you have to wonder why nobody wanted to. I don't think it was privacy issues.
The Telegraph/government drums up fake outrage at the BBC, for actually reporting something that had become an important story by that point, and alleging that the BBC had an agenda (as if the Teelgraph did not!). It also helps deflect from the story of the Barclay Brothers off shore holdings, which has got a mention or two recently. The laughable thing is that the Telegraph story floats the theory that the BBC want Whittingdale replaced with someone nicer. looking at the current crop, I'm stuggling to think of who that would actually be. If the BBC had wanted to put pressure on him, why didn't they just let him know they were not going to say anything, as long as the Charter renewal went smoothly?
Whittingdale had issues even before this - his attitude to Brexit had caused friction. The government is not strong at the moment, and there is probably more bad news to come. And if parts of the story are untrue (how he met her), then thats lying. And as Nixon found out, the coverup is often far more damaging that the crime itself.
| link to this comment |
What really bothers me is that I have met John Wittingdale and I found him to be a quite reasonable person. He's not really politically someone I warm to, but for the whole time he chaired the Select Committee he made very reasonable suggestions and made life hard for anyone who was performing urine-extraction on the public.
And then he gets to be Secretary of State and his judgement is suddenly blown! He pauses the Leveson requirements on the papers and comes up with plans for him to appoint people at the BBC, whereas before he had very much championed their independence.
I known all political careers end in failure, and therefore all politicians are looking for the corporate way out after, but... this all seems more fishy than usual.
| link to this comment |
Briantist's: mapB's Freeview map terrainB's terrain plot wavesB's frequency data B's Freeview Detailed Coverage
M
MikeB8:29 PM
Brian Butterworth: He always struck me as somewhat conflicted. His years on the Select Committee, I suspect, led him to respect many aspects of the BBC, and he possibly recognised that the best way to continue with quality public broadcasting was to keep much of the current remit and resources of the BBC. At least he had some idea about broadcasting, unlike (as became most evident), Jeremy Hunt.
But he's also a long standing free market ideologue, perhaps to the point of zealotry. So, rather like those computers that Kirk used to come across and eventually confuse to the point where they'd blow themselves up, he's tried to argue nonsensical ideological get out of jail ideas.
The idea that there should be a voluntary licence fee is one example (so they are still paying for it, but they are not forced to..), the idea that the BBC should stump up for court reporters, thus letting the local press off the hook is another.
The one the other week about top slicing the licence fee to pay other broadcasters to make decent childrens programmes takes the biscuit. The fact that other broadcasters should be making dcent kids programmes because its part of their public broadcasting obligation and because it might make good business sense is evidently a lost cause. Apparently BBC money (which is used to make decent kids programmes) should be used to bribe people to make the sort of programmes they should be making anyway - which sounds a lot like interfering in the market - which is something he doesn't like.
Getting back to his career - yes, you do have to wonder what happened over press regulation, etc. I suspect he's now toast. It sounds like there is more to come out, if not from the lady herself, from others. And he didn't tell the whips - and thats fatal. He might not go now, but I'd be surprised if he's not a backbencher within months. And he only has himself to blame.
So whose next for the job?
| link to this comment |
L
LindaB10:20 PM
Trowbridge
All this about a story that is over 4 years old! Tabloids like to dig up old stories and sensationalise them, as in this case. The House of Commons Standards committee as well as the Security services have looked at this matter some years ago when it first became known. They decided there was no risk and no story.
| link to this comment |
LindaB's: mapL's Freeview map terrainL's terrain plot wavesL's frequency data L's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Friday, 15 April 2016
M
MikeB5:38 PM
LindaB: But if you read the Byline article, you'll see the problem isn't about the 'scandal'/story itself - its how the various players reacted to it.
4 newspapers backed off publishing anything about it - why? If the journalist who wrote the story is right, then Whittingdale was basically beholden to the press. You don't have to be all that cynical to think that potentially went far beyond the normal mutual back scratching/favours owed between politicians and the media.
If Whittingdale did stop crucial parts of Levenson moving forward (having been very keen to push ahead with it while on the Select Committee), then you have to ask what made him change? The same goes for regulation of the BBC - why did he change direction? Was there pressure?
So potentially you have a case where newspapers have an amazing 'asset' in the senior minister responsible for press regulation - that's a huge and undemocratic conflict of interest. And I'm no happier about large parts of the press hushing up the conduct of a senior minister, because he also holds power over them. Either way, we should all be worried.
| link to this comment |
MikeB's: mapM's Freeview map terrainM's terrain plot wavesM's frequency data M's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Sunday, 17 April 2016
M
MikeB10:58 AM
Brian Butterworth: Interesting poll from 38 Degrees - Hands off our cherished BBC, say older voters | Media | The Guardian . Since the over 60's are the only demographic which the Tories had a majority of in 2015, thats a big warning to them. Could you write an article laying out what might happen to Charter renewal if Whittingdale stays/goes?
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please