She should be fired. No excuses. Poor journalism, even by her weak standards.

But yes, I do believe it. The BBC is weak at controlling its people.

An odd explanation, as Katie Razz could have mentioned it last night when she was tweeting Maitlis had not been asked to step down. Seems a face saving exercise for Maitlis and the BBC.

Oh and is Maitlis is a poor journalist Laura K is truly crap. I dont think Laura K is that biased she is just piss poor at her job. The questioning on Monday of Cummings proves that again and she was shown up by the journalist from Telegraph. She repeats the same inane questions again and again and her reports wander all over the place.

I quite like Maitlis. Not sure this has helped the government just keeps the story going.

The BBC made her the story, everyone knew full well she could not be on last night after being publically rebuked.

Bolloxks she asked for the night off. But she was one step ahead of the pack and good for her.

Dux you’re a fvcking disgrace but you know that. 

She's a disgrace.

Overly aggressive, partisan, frequently gets the wrong end of the stick, more concerned with pompous monologues than in seeking the truth.

Easily the worst "journalist" in mainstream broadcasting. 

What's more, she's provided ammunition to the anti-media mob who support Cummings. 

Bring back Kirsty Wark.

I like Katie Razzall...

Like special advisors, journalists should never become the story.

Kirsty Wark and her hubby are massive shillers of the public purse, have grifted millions off the taxpayer 

I also like K8ie Razzall. Understated, probing, more interested in the story than herself.

Agree that Laura K is also terrible. Adds nothing of value.

Maitlis was trying to counter government gas lighting - everyone knows Cummings broke the rules she was entirely right to say so - good luck to Cummings suing her for libel

Cummings won’t be suing anyone 

Cummings suing her for libel would be idiocy.

I bet dux is just as concerned at Andrew Neil's partisan monologues.  

Andrew Neil's monologues also annoy me, but I do find him a much more impartial interviewer.

Police now confirmed he did break rules - the bbc need to put out an apology to Maitlis now

No they don't. She prejudged the result, a cardinal sin for a proper journalist.

Agree that Laura K is also terrible. Adds nothing of value.

It's hardly her fault that the government she is a spokesperson for so rarely has anything of worth to say.

Only the courts can adjudicate on whether he broke the law or not.. private prosecution surely 

Not sure that is true scousey - isn’t it like a speeding ticket? doesn’t need court to decide 

 isn’t it like a speeding ticket?

no

hth

I am not sure, but am now pretty confident it must be as my starting position is that everything you say is wrong.   so yes it does help thanks

speeding is a strict liability offence, this isn't. 

Police can issue FPN but you don’t have to accept it (assuming you have a few grand you don’t mind shoving at the likes of that freeman wanker). It’s not a decisive determination of guilt unless you accept it.

any bar to a PP here? 

Does she annoy you? Good. Every reason to suppose she’ll be back very soon, smirk in place, eviscerating the gobshites you’re so desperate to protect 

‘She and the BBC clearly think the public are fucking thick and will not see through the laughably transparent...’

Seems to be a lot of that school of thought around at the moment

I think its catching Fence, Dom been on the move again.

Heh, just spent 2 minutes looking into it, as I knew would be the case, Wibble is wrong, the fixed penalty notice scheme for cornovirus offences and speeding working in almost exactly the same way - you get a fixed penalty notice and you can either pay it and you wont be prosecuted or get a criminal record or not pay it and be prosecuted for the crime in front of the magistrates.

Don’t be a twat. Male interviewers have gone in for this style for years. Did you bleat then? 

But if the police won’t issue, no reason why a private individual couldn’t lay an information, presumably?

its dead easy to do. And could be a lot of fun. At least, what lawyers think of as fun. Got to get your amusement where you can find it these days.

 strict liability you tit, nothing to do with 

heh wibble gives up on himself...

Classic whine from male with woman problem - is there any criticism of a woman I could make that you wouldn’t object to? 
well actually no, in your case, there probably isn’t. But that’s because you have a problem, not because I do 

Cheesetoast and 3 dux hankering after the good old days of the 60s when journalists knew their place and Frost hadn't done Nixon up like a kipper.

Actually you probably preferred the 50s did you guys?

Yeah, when women only did cookery programmes 

Who are we, by god, that we should be nice?

Holding objectionable opinions beneath a thin veneer of civility, and criticising anyone who objects to your opinions on the grounds that they are being rude, is bad enough in real life.

Doing that on rof is just missing the point.

SO we all think she was forced not to be on - then lied about it? 

Don't worry, I understand the very narrow nature of your views.

I don't think that a reductio ad absurdum is the same thing as a straw man.

I think you are grossly over-estimating the capacity of anything you might have to say to upset me, cheeser. Probably not the first time you’ve overrated your capabilities I imagine 

Scousey, in case you are wondering, you are coming over as a rather nasty person here.