I disagree with pretty much all that comes out of Angela Rayner’s mouth. However, I don’t think that the ‘Basic Instinct’ article in the Sunday Mail was justified. It was a spiteful piece and fuels the allegations that we are riddled with misogyny.
However… The idea that this article warrants the author and the editor being summoned before parliament is sinister.
The Commons Speaker was facing a backlash last night after The Mail on Sunday rejected his bid to summon its editor.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle had announced he would call in the paper’s editor and political editor over claims that Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner had used her legs to distract Boris Johnson at Prime Minister’s Questions.
But his move sparked a freedom of speech row and warnings that a Speaker should never be involved in deciding what the Press was allowed to print. David Dillon, who edits The Mail on Sunday, rejected the demand for a meeting, saying journalists should ‘not take instruction from officials of the House of Commons, however august they may be’.
The whole point of a free press is that it is free, no matter how vile it might be. We, the people, decide whether we want it to continue by funding it or not as the case may be. If they make libellous claims, then the law is in place for redress – the only caveat here being that the little people don’t have the same resources as the rich and famous and I’d like to see more balance here. The scum of the press can ruin our lives and there is nothing that we can do about it if we cannot afford to sue them.
So, the Mail published an unpleasant article about a parliamentarian. It wasn’t libellous so therefore it should stand on its own merit. The speaker has no business summoning anyone to explain themselves, for that is not his role. We are not living in the Soviet Union. Free speech includes the freedom to be offensive. That’s how it works. So, on this occasion, I side with the scum of the press.
The 42-year-old donned a trouser suit for the interview, saying she did not want to be ‘judged for what I wear’.
That, unfortunately, is a cross we all have to bear.
Does parliament have the authority to summon people to answer to them for perceived slights? If not the answer is to flatly refuse. A little while ago some group of MPs were presuming to lecture supermarket chiefs over the issue of food waste. It was obvious from what they were saying that they hadn’t a clue and, if I were one of the bosses in question I would have ripped them all a new one in response.
The Mail has refused to go to the meeting.
Good.
And rightly so. I deplore their article, but they are not answerable to parliament for what they write.
Wilkes and liberty come to mind?
Says someone not knowing full facts and jumping on outrage bus
Rayner wrote in her blog about how she modelled herself on Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. She also spoke on stage saying same
When story broke she laughed about it, then Labour saw the opportunity to attack Boris and Conservatives
Oh and btw Sunday Mail is a Scottish left wing rag
I haven’t jumped on any bus, nor am I outraged and I’m fully aware of the facts. It was a non story that didn’t need to be written.
Looks like Mr. Speaker has realised that by the Daily Mail’s refusal to attend his “dressing down” he’s shown himself to be weak and ineffectual. 🙂
He’s now trying to dress up the meeting as “an appeal to the press to take the feelings of his Members into consideration”. Yeah, right. If you believe that one I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
The press has no obligation towards the feelings of the dishonourable members whatsoever.
Agreed. Old fool should mind his own business.
Oh, Rayner story suddenly vanishes from BBC, C4 etc news
Anying to to do with Dan Wooton and others on GB News telling full story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqhn_TMS8Cs
C4 News seemed to have a gaping hole in headline slot. Lead story: 15 mins about air polution – really? That’s top story? Rayner, Partygate, Ukraine, Covid, Gas up another 20%, Starmer less important?
@LR
You are very much on outrage bus
I don’t think that the ‘Basic Instinct’ article in the Sunday Mail [sic] was justified. It was a spiteful piece
Okay, let’s put this nonsense to bed once and for all. I read the original piece and formed an opinion. Over the next day or so, more information came to light. None of it changed my opinion on the original piece. I had no plans to comment and indeed, beyond one line that you have latched onto, I have not. What I have commented upon is the behaviour of the speaker. While I disliked the original article, I stand by their right to write and publish it if they so wish, without being threatened by parliament or hauled in for a dressing down.
What does irritate me is being told what I think and feel. For the record, I was not remotely outraged – it takes a great deal more than a shoddy MoS article to achieve that. Nor have I jumped on an outrage bus. I am perfectly capable of forming an independent opinion, which is what I did. And being cognisant of the subsequent facts, my original assessment stands. That you have formed a different opinion is fine and I wouldn’t dream of telling you what you think or feel having reached that opinion, so please do me the courtesy of returning that favour.
As for it going out of the news, this was last Sunday. It is now Friday morning. This story is now wrapping chips.
The “Crossing the Line”outrage bus engine spitefuly catastrophicaly backfires
Not wearing knickers?
GB News
Rayner can now be accurately described as a Slut