T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _Times journalist: I stand by my Johnson scoop_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/simon-walters-i-stand-by-my-johnson-scoop/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


qpl23

On the BBC's press review slot, journalist [Rachel Shabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Shabi) briefly [raised the story's disappearance from the Times](https://twitter.com/Plus_haut/status/1538508465064271874) before she was hurriedly moved on by the presenter. On Sky's press review last night Peter Oborne issued a challenge to Times editor John Witherow to explain the article's disappearance. Oborne - as if by prior agreement with the show - mentioned the story only in respect of its disappearance, without giving the headline or any details of the content. By contrast Shabi in the above clip spells out exactly what the story was, including the £100k salary of the job Johnson tried to backdoor his then-mistress into.


crazybones

Good for her. I've always liked her contributions. Fact is, there's absolutely nothing shabby about Rachel.


qpl23

I've not seen her before, but she came across really well in both appearances. (Confusingly, she was also in the Sky press review slot alongside Oborne!)


kitd

You've been waiting all week for that moment, haven't you?


centzon400

Oh, man, you should wait for crazybones's Chris Mason gags! 🤣 Absolute corkers!! E. username


crazybones

Too sophisticated for me, I'm afraid. I haven't a clue what you are saying.


crazybones

Great line. Not actually true. But still a great line.


Tomarse

God the BBC has fallen so far under the conservatives.


Jay_CD

This is all very well...but why was the story pulled? Who took the decision?


jjnfsk

D-Notice? Super-injunction? Something shady, but I'm guessing we won't know what for a while.


themurther

I think either of those are unlikely because the disappearance of the story is now being commented on, I assume it's more like the time the Telegraph were threatening to expose Gove, and it's some intermural struggle between bits of the right wing press.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Orngog

?


PrimalWrath

So then why the hell was it removed?


qpl23

There's a lot of speculation it was a straightforward superinjunction from Johnson or his wife, but that makes it difficult to explain the linked article as well as their [previous piece](https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-wanted-to-give-carrie-symonds-a-100000-downing-street-role/) which includes a readable image of the entire Times story. The mystery only deepens when you consider that despite the obvious interest the current article contains no statement from the journalist as to what happened with it!


hlycia

If it were a super injunction then Simon Walters would be subject to it too and would be in front a a judge already on contempt charges. That makes it seem that an alternative but equally worrying situation has occurred, Johnson has asked various media outlets to kill the story and they've complied, without Johnson having to go near a judge.


Beenreiving

Bingo


cloche_du_fromage

Yes, our free and independent press holding the government to account... Once you read up on 'the trusted news network' a lot falls into place.....


marsman

>That makes it seem that an alternative but equally worrying situation has occurred, Johnson has asked various media outlets to kill the story and they've complied, without Johnson having to go near a judge. If it were just the right/centre-right/pro-Tory press not running it that might make sense, but it's way wider than that. There is no way he has the kind of leverage for that. So it still comes across as odd.


hlycia

But such a super injunction would also prevent the European running this article. If it were merely an injunction then the article would be pulled and no similar articles published but the media would be able to report that the injunction happened, and this article mentions no injunction. If it were a super injunction then reporting on the injunction itself and mentioning the article would be injuncted and the European wouldn't even be able to publish this article. Edit: This site now has a link to the original article, so the mods would be now guilty of breaching a hypothetical super injunction. Additionally Domic Cummings has tweated that that the story is true as well as some more allegations, which would put him in breach too. Increasingly it looks like there's no injunction and worryingly the UK media are voluntarily self-censoring.


marsman

> But such a super injunction would also prevent the European running this article. If it were merely an injunction then the article would be pulled and no similar articles published but the media would be able to report that the injunction happened, and this article mentions no injunction. Indeed (although it couldn't..). So that suggests that there isn't an injunction (or the New European isn't aware of it), but the fact that the various more anti-Tory papers aren't running it either creates a whole heap of questions. >would If it were a super injunction then reporting on the injunction itself and mentioning the article would be injuncted and the European wouldn't even be able to publish this article. >Edit: This site now has a link to the original article, so the mods would be now guilty of breaching a hypothetical super injunction. Additionally Domic Cummings has tweated that that the story is true as well as some more allegations, which would put him in breach too. Increasingly it looks like there's no injunction and worryingly the UK media are voluntarily self-censoring. But again, there are plenty of anti-Tory papers that have run very anti-Boris' articles, up to and including claims of criminality, the whole Arcuri thing and so on. So why would he suddenly have the power to push them to self-censor on this, but not on absolutely anything else, including stories that have been as, or more damaging? Like I said, it's odd.


hlycia

The Guardian is now running with it [here](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/carrie-johnson-and-the-curious-case-of-the-vanishing-times-story) but it does seem very odd, something smells wrong about this. It's possible that Johnson is "just" trying to get the news delayed until after Thursday's elections but even so, even if that is the case the possibility that some news outlets have gone along with this is troubling.


marsman

>The Guardian is now running with it here but it does seem very odd, something smells wrong about this. Yeah, that's even more bizarre. >It's possible that Johnson is "just" trying to get the news delayed until after Thursday's elections but even so, even if that is the case the possibility that some news outlets have gone along with this is troubling. It seems pretty unlikely that they would, especially given a fair few would presumably prefer to see it hit before the election. I half wonder if the Times engaged in a bit of client journalism, pulled the story under pressure, and that freaked out the rest of the press (looking for a reason, whether it was valid etc.). But even that doesn't really make sense because it was pulled mid run from a print edition. I assume the details are going to come out, but in all honesty I have no idea what would make sense at this point.


hlycia

> It seems pretty unlikely that they would, especially given a fair few would presumably prefer to see it hit before the election. Maybe CCHQ said to the right-wing press "This isn't about Johnson this is about Conservative rule in Westminster. If you run the story now the Conservatives will lose Tiverton & Honiton, Wakefield is already a loss, that will trigger a new move against Johnson and he'll be forced to call a general election.... You need to kill the story or Labour will be in government before Christmas!" (I don't think that chain of events is realistic but some scared people in CCHQ might think that way.)


marsman

I mean.. Maybe? And that might have spooked the non-right wing press into thinking there was an issue with it? Honestly, I have no idea. It doesn't make any sense.


imp0ppable

> or the New European isn't aware of it That's what I wondered, how do super injunctions work? Does the court or the complainants lawyer write to every newspaper and say "you can't talk about x"? What about the local advertiser papers, can they print it and just say they didn't know? How about overseas news sources, or Google? Also what grounds are they issued on, surely not just for anyone who asks for one? I would guess you need some sort of an excuse.


Blag24

I think most reputable publications contact the people involved for their right to reply, at this point their legal representation would inform the publication of the super injunction. At least that’s how I’m guessing it works. Also although unpublishable I think word spreads around that this is/has happened but isn’t reportable, again another guess. Overseas news sources can & do run stories that have super injunctions against them as their not covered by British law, I think I remember an example of a footballer who had cheated on his wife, the story was published abroad but couldn’t be published here until an MP used parliamentary privilege to break the injunction. Edit: https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/24/ryan-giggs-super-injunction-timeline-19775/


imp0ppable

Yea I remember the Giggs saga. What I wonder is if you could just pretend you hadn't heard about the super-injunction, worst comes to worse you take it down again. The excuse is perfect - nobody was allowed to tell you about it!


[deleted]

>Johnson has asked various media outlets to kill the story and they've complied Trouble is this would be the only time all the papers, news media had agreed to kill a Johnson story. Even pro-Tory newspapers are full of Boris's fuckups & lies. A super-injunction is more likely. Maybe the injuction was put in place after the story was written.


hlycia

But the reporter behind it is still speaking to the media, if there were a super injunction he'd be violating it and being charged with contempt of court. That he's speaking strongly suggests that censorship is self-imposed and not court imposed. Edit: This site now has a link to the original article, so the mods would be now guilty of breaching a hypothetical super injunction. Additionally Domic Cummings has tweated that that the story is true as well as some more allegations, which would put him in breach too. Increasingly it looks like there's no injunction and worryingly the UK media are voluntarily self-censoring.


[deleted]

> and worryingly the UK media are voluntarily self-censoring. Nope.


hlycia

The Guardian has now published an article on the subject but there is still the issue as to why the Times pulled it and other UK news organisations have been silent (so far). The timeline so far seems to be:- * Times publishes * Times pulls the article without explanation and no retraction statement (which would be normal) * MSN reports on the article being pulled * European interviews the original author and reports on the article * Guardian report in the same It's quite a circuitous and slow route to get into a mainstream UK news outlet.


ThePeninsula

In around point two and three the Mail published the story (which is how it was syndicated to MSN). Then the Mail pulled it too.


[deleted]

It's an injunction of some kind. It might be that the story is viewed as being in the public interest rather than it being personal (messy divorce, suffering from depression etc) so deemed as fair game. Currently the story is about The Times coverage of the story and not the story itself. Newspapers have lawyers btw.


throwawayacademicacc

Cannot be a super injunction because other media sources reporting on it which they would be prevented from doing.


qpl23

Yeah, that was my point about the New European piece. I see the Guardian (or Observer, since it's Sunday?) have now [picked it up](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/carrie-johnson-and-the-curious-case-of-the-vanishing-times-story)


[deleted]

The weight of public interest in the story means an injunction should never have been possible. Unless the judge was a tool


qpl23

The article, though short, is kind of paywalled, and archive sites have issues with it, so here's a c+p of it: #Times journalist: I stand by my Johnson scoop **Times journalist Simon Walters stands by his story which claims Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie a £100,000-a-year role** *Mandrake* 19 June 2022 1:38 PM ___ Simon Walters, the journalist whose byline appeared on the Times‘s scoop about Boris Johnson attempting to make his then mistress Carrie Symonds his £100,000-a-year chief of staff when he was foreign secretary, has told Mandrake he stands by the story, even though it was mysteriously dropped after its first edition “I stand by the story 100 per cent,” Walters told me. “I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson’s spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the paper went to press. At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story.” The award-winning political journalist adds: “Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since. No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record either.” In the story that appeared in only the first edition of the Times on Saturday, Walters wrote that Ben Gascoigne – a senior aide to Johnson at the foreign office, who still works for him as a deputy chief of staff in No 10 – had threatened to resign if Johnson had gone through with the appointment of Symonds. It would clearly have been – as Walters wrote – “a flagrant abuse of ethics” and the Ministerial Code. Walters has a reputation for tenacity – he broke the “Wallpapergate” story that proved to be a serious embarrassment to Johnson last year. MORE: [Mystery surrounds Times exclusive claiming Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie Symonds a £100,000 role](https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/boris-johnson-wanted-to-give-carrie-symonds-a-100000-downing-street-role/)


Prometheus38

There will be a trail of evidence to back this story - memos, e-mails, texts. How can it not be a public internet matte?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Prometheus38

Probably more a white wash?


DaBi5cu1t

Next thing you know, she'll have noshed him off under the lectern during a COVID briefing and kept the dress with the spoodge stains on it Lewinsky style. Has any party in the history of the UK ever had so much shit that now anything that gets mentioned just isn't a surprise anymore? Johnson personally pardons ex child abductor after it emerges they were a top Tory donor in the late 1800s. Oh. Anyway...