I'm still slightly surprised both news channels were caught out on Saturday night by Amber Rudd throwing the towel in. It's not the first time there's been a resignation of this kind on a Saturday night. Like others it was linked to a Sunday newspaper article. The Sunday Times recorded an interview with her, probably in the afternoon. I find it hard to believe that that wasn't common knowledge amongst all the Westminster journalists, and therefore some sort of plan to be ready when she went public?
Still, there you go. Ever had a hospital stay over a weekend? 🙄
It's not like this was breaking, it was inevitable. Did Newsday cover it though as surely the International interest warranted it?
They covered the vote live at 00:30ish, but when all the interesting prorogation stuff was going on between 01:30-02:00 they were on Asia Buisness Report, Sport Today and the weather.
I only skimmed though on live rewind - they weren't ignoring UK politics, and I saw a fairly lengthy pol obit for John Bercow go out. All it would have taken was a few moments of live pictures from Parliament, a brief mention of what was going on, and a pointer for UK viewers to tune to BBC Parliament if they wanted to follow the whole thing. They didn't need to roll with it, but equally they didn't have to ignore it.
We're having it again this morning, I put on the TV about half an hour ago, we've just had the news the courts have declared BoJo's prorogation unlawful, and the BBC News Channel has... Victoria Derbyshire talking about some totally inconsequential human interest crap.
We're having it again this morning, I put on the TV about half an hour ago, we've just had the news the courts have declared BoJo's prorogation unlawful, and the BBC News Channel has... Victoria Derbyshire talking about some totally inconsequential human interest crap.
She mentioned the news after a VT then went to correspondent once available. Newsroom Live has been covering it extensively as they should.
Operation Yellowhammer also warrants more disecting than a couple of minutes on the bulletins. Really should be given similar coverage to the Panama Papers.
Operation Yellowhammer also warrants more disecting than a couple of minutes on the bulletins. Really should be given similar coverage to the Panama Papers.
Is it possible that it was all discussed before when it was initially leaked to reporters?
Operation Yellowhammer also warrants more disecting than a couple of minutes on the bulletins. Really should be given similar coverage to the Panama Papers.
The Panama Papers were 11.5 million documents going back many decades. The Yellowhammer document is 5 pages long.
Quite. Plus Yellowhammer was leaked a while back and the actual document offers no further incite. It's a flimsy "what if" document based on a worst case scenario so it's sensible to have some form of balance and perspective when reporting on it. Obviously Remainers are treating it as the Magna Carta.
I want to know why there's very little mention that this is the same document as was leaked, with the only differences are the redacted bit about fuel shortages and the title being changed from "base case" to "reasonable worst case".
Everyone complains that you can tell a politician is lying because their lips are moving, but if nobody ever publicly calls them out on their lies, nothing will change and people's trust in what is being reported will continental to decrease
I have seen it described more than once on the news this morning as the "worst case scenario" without any reference to the serious doubts about this, which is disappointing.