Laura Kuenssberg really quite skillfully deploys the deceptive arts here, in a truly desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
She presents the No.10 defense and a long document as evidence, but studiously omits the actual accusation which the No.10 response is aimed at.
She presents the No.10 defense and a long document as evidence, but studiously omits the actual accusation which the No.10 response is aimed at.
Here
is the detail of accusation BTW.
With this in one's hands, it is easy to see from Laura's link that the accusations are 100% proved in evidence. Black and white. Bang to rights.
But the clever way Laura presented it - just the No. 10 side, and...
is the detail of accusation BTW.
With this in one's hands, it is easy to see from Laura's link that the accusations are 100% proved in evidence. Black and white. Bang to rights.
But the clever way Laura presented it - just the No. 10 side, and...
... just a link to a long document that most people will not bother to read, and WITHOUT the detail of the accusation, an unwary reader might think "Oh! there is nothing to it" or "Oh! Starmer was selectively quoting (whatever the quote was)"
Credit where credit is due: Laura..
Credit where credit is due: Laura..
..has done the very best she could do - from an incredibly difficult position - to defend the PM, muddy the waters and mislead the readers.
Any PR agency would be proud; any client delighted.
Except... I am her client. I pay her wages, not Boris. And I am disgusted by her.
Any PR agency would be proud; any client delighted.
Except... I am her client. I pay her wages, not Boris. And I am disgusted by her.
