Politicians spend 95%+ of a campaign doing micro-managed propaganda. Absolutely correct interviewers grill them on their weak points.

Well if they continue down the path the AN interview took then they will be increasing grilling empty chairs.

Grilling is good but there has to be some juice left in the steak.

The AN interview was so brutal because of Racist Grandpa.

"Labour hasn't taken anti-Semitism seriously enough. As leader I take full responsibility. There is a culture within Labour that says it's a conspiracy. It isn't. We got it wrong. I unreservedly apologise to Britain's Jews. We must, and will do better"

"The WASPI money will of course come out of general taxation. Here is how we will pay for it. I understand people don't like paying more tax so let me say why I think it's so important"

That's a brutal ~10 minute segment cut down to three minutes which will get positive headlines, and a brutal ~4 minute segment replaced with a segment where Racist Grandpa is actually honest for once, and not a shifty clownshow.



Is Eddie Mair being unfair? No. He's grilling a scumbag on scummy things he's done.



Answers the questions and disarm Paxman or Neil or whoever!

Well you seem happy with the product which would be nice for you if it wasn't disappearing off the shelves fast.

I'd rather we ended up better informed but whatever.

If politicians are asked a simple and pertinent question ("how will you pay for policy x?") they should be allowed to reply with a five minute promo which does not address how they will pay for policy x?

I'd like to see scrutiny of both what their offering and of how they're going to do it/pay for it. Focus on what is planned for the first few months or first year would be an excellent approach but they're are others.

Or lets repeatedly ask questions everyone knows the answer to and that they are never going to answer. On the bright side, nothing at all is lost when it becomes an empty chair

A personal favourite

It isn't the fault of the interviewer when whichever bullshit artist he has sat in front of him cannot or will not answer. They are always happy to tell you what they are offering, they don't need a grilling to tell you that.

You can't blame the victim for joining isis. People need to take a hard look in the mirror if they think they aren't the cause of young men like this running in to the arms of an austere religious scholar

I'm not blaming the interview for anything about the interviewee. And I'd much rather see well informed hard hitting people like Andrew Neil doing the interviews.

This isn't an entirely new problem - Thatcher used to chose to get interviewed by Jimmy Young, for example.

We are made of sterner stuff than Juan Valdez and his North American far-right crybaby cohorts, being used to living with domestic terrorism since the 1970s.

Mistake are inevitable when it comes to determining parole because you can't get it right every time. It's risk assessment.

Risk assessment? The guy was a convicted Islamic terrorist. Probably about as high on the risk scale as you can get.

Actually Khan was never run past the Parole Board or given any risk assessment, he was just released automatically when half his term was up. The grave underfunding and rundown of the entire criminal justice system since 2010 means there aren't proper measures in place to assess such dangerous offenders (though they could have got it all wrong even in an ideal world because that kind of person's irrational hate-based behaviour just doesn't make any sense).

And now the queen dies

So someone tells me.

If anyone wants an accurate idea of how sentencing/release stuff worked for the London Bridge attacker this seems to be a very good summary of most of the relevant aspects:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/...early-release/


Oh and based on a quick look at twitter the Queen stuff appears to be a single source and probably fake but I guess we'll know in the morning.

Queen probably not dead and Johnson nowhere near the scene anyway.

What do you suggest? Lifelong internment?

Amazing.

And, entertainingly, the Prime Minister has tweeted the Secret Barrister's blog on the subject as if it were his own work, a ploy which the Secret Barrister has described as 'weapons-grade shithousery'.



Thread:- https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/...76439250087936



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...grade-21001907

This, from the Chief Executive of Fishmongers' Hall, is the best description yet given of the response to the attack in which Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones lost their lives.

Incidentally, the Chatty Chimp tweet above describes the Secret Barrister as a 'he', which I believe is incorrect.

Considering the reality that these people are ticking time bombs that can't be rehabilitated. Yeah.

What do you suggest?