Now, to be honest I could not care less who or indeed what Francois Hollande sleeps with. Firstly, he is not President of my country and second, it’s what he is doing to the French economy so vigorously that is the real concern. BUT his liaisons with a french actress and the hypocrisy involved is surely an issue worth some coverage? No. Or so BBC correspondent Hugh Schofield informs us….
A long half-hour of less-than-riveting talk about the economy finally ended, and the first question came from the French press. As expected, it asked the president to clarify the position following the allegations about his affair with the actress Julie Gayet. His answer was concise and not especially revealing. Yes, he was passing a difficult moment in his private life. And yes, there would be a decision about the status of Valerie Trierweiler in advance of his planned visit to Washington next month. But for the rest, this was a private matter – and therefore he was not ready to say any more. The French press accepts this. It is perhaps to its credit that it agrees that private matters should remain just that.
However, when it comes to similar affairs involving Conservatives, the BBC never flinched from reporting suchlike. Privacy for the left, but not les autres…
According to Labour Hollande had the right policies and we should have followed them, has the BBC forgotten that?
As for cheating on his girlfriend, how can his mind be on the job when he’s so often on the job himself? Or does he see President of France as a part-time job. I think if the French economy was booming he’d be indulged, but he seems as profligate with his favours as he is with French taxes.
Just think, Alan. If the BBC had their way about what was news and what was best kept quiet, Andrew Marr and Jeremy Clarkson wouldn’t have had to take out those super injunctions. And the BBC probably could have gotten away with Savilegate as well. So there probably is a vested interest in making sure the gatekeepers are powerful and strict.
Just think, Alan
Are you forgetting who you’re replying to? Or is this a clue that the suggestion that someone (I think it was Albaman) came up with that “Alan” is an alias for Vance’s more lurid fantasies isn’t all that far from the truth?
Occam’s razor suggests it’s more likely Preiser is just being fast and loose with accuracy, as per usual. But at least he’s still as amusing as ever.
A bit like the Beeboid sockpuppets that turn up on threads, and have suspiciously similar Likes to their name?
Just because some people do it, doesn’t automatically prove that everyone does
The ‘scores on the doors’ for Aunties disciples were 6’s all round last night. Disciplinary action will have to be taken against the three idlers who’ve yet to carry out their instructions tonight.
Morning update: and WE ARE up to six ‘likes’ !
🙂
A bit like the Beeboid sockpuppets that turn up on threads, and have suspiciously similar Likes to their name?
Funny, isn’t it – when somebody posts a comment that disagrees with Vance, Alan, Preiser, or their numerous brown-nosing hangers-on, they’re automatically accused of sock puppeting, of faking likes, etc.
And yet, there are so “many” commenters on Biased BBC who adopt such similar writing styles to one another. But because they reinforce this site’s inherent prejudice, their little witterings are taken as read.
If every commenter on Biased BBC were forced to use their real names, I’m guessing that there are a sizeable lot that would end up revealed as the same person. I’m guessing that Vance et al know this, but turn a blind eye – whether it’s because they indulge too, or just that they enjoy the look of far more people seemingly agreeing with them than actually do, would be purely conjecture, of course.
As usual your comments are unintelligeble. Your comments have nothing to do with the subject but lamely trying to have a dig at David Vance and David Prieser. Leave off the Cocaine you might come up with an intelligent answer. As a leftard Guardianista you have no chance of doing that. As usual any criticism of left wing insane politics is met with deranged drivel.
everybody troll scott the pathetic trolls website blog. I wonder if hes man enough (or should that be queen enough?) not delete the comments. What a sad pathetic leftist scumbag you are matthewman. Youre just a bitter and twisted little fart. Just because you got bullied at school doesnt mean you can take it out on the rest of the world
http://matthewman.net
Nobody’s interested, Scott. You have no valid contributions, you and the BBC’s news department fit each other like a glove.
Or the News Quiz’s Simon Hoggart. Oh, sorry. They did keep that one quiet
It was Private Eye that exposed that one
Quite bizarre. The BBC would not take that attitude if It was a British minister.
I seem to recall they were all over Hollande . What are they going to do about Marie le Pen?
Hollande is a disaster for the French economy. The Parisian Metropolitan Left media who inveigled to get him elected, by relentless smearing of Sarkozy (and Carla) are squirming in their boots. When your money has been on the wrong horse, it’s hard to admit it. But your pockets are empty just the same.
Of course if it was Nick Clegg or David Cameron, they would give them the right of “privacy” of course.
Methinks Scott has been at the vino!
Nice to see that Dysgwr_Cymraeg’s contributions are as vapid as ever. And it was ever thus.
Redundant last sentence, Scotty: no gold star for you.
Nothing like posting an utterly vapid comment to complain that how others are posting vapid comments. Again – learn to contribute like an adult or piss off back to Cracked or the Evening Standard. You have nothing to say and only a few ways to say it.
learn to contribute like an adult
Oh, the irony…
Vance’s logic is, as ever, askew here. The BBC have reported Hollande’s affair – and the reporting of it – with some frequency now that it has been reported elsewhere. With Major, they reported (as in the article linked to) on the fallout once Edwina Currie had publicly revealed details of the affair.
Somehow he thinks that this proves some sort of point. Unless that point is “David Vance can’t form a coherent argument”, it fails.
Yes the BBC is giving this salacious story top billing, but along with the BBC’s ‘analysis’ by Hugh Schofield
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25736136
“[Hollande] was not ready to say any more.The French press accepts this. It is perhaps to its credit that it agrees that private matters should remain just that. ”
So the BBC reckons its to the credit of the French press that it keeps quiet about Hollande screwing his second girlfriend. I suppose that’s reasonable as the BBC keeps quiet about how Hollande is screwing the French economy with his (and Labour’s) plan A.
According to the BBC “France is still looking weak” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25736590. “Looking weak” is one way to put it, but don’t they read the Guardian? “France is now seen as the sick man of Europe” – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/france-sick-man-europe-economy
It wasn’t meant to be like this “Ed Miliband says tide turning on austerity after Hollande talks” , July 2012 – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18966541
scott … been at the chamomile tea again?
or just wrong week?
As do your trolling attempts, Scott. Ad hominem nonsense from someone who wants attention so badly they’ll include a photograph (probably of someone else) on a website that they claim to have no time or respect for yet is constantly visiting and posting on.
He must have been paying her a lot of money, otherwise why would an attractive woman screw a short arsed little twat like him?
Are you talking about Scott or Hollande?
It would be wise to let Scott make his posts without any reply. He is in a bad place at the moment.
http://matthewman.net/2013/11/13/im-feeling-now-update/#more-3721
I hope you get the help you need old chap.
Thanks OT.
Though I hardly find Scott amenable, he’s worth more than that and it’s frightening to see him so low. Take care of yourself, Scott: I really hope things get better for you very soon.
Oh, they’re better for me already, I just haven’t updated my blog recently because I’ve been too busy doing other things.
Still, nice to see some commenters’ true colours show – both positive and negative.
Your definition of true colours is to make your mind up beforehand then warp the evidence to suit your beliefs.
Are those ‘true colours’ shades of red?
Scott,
if that is how low you feel I hope that writing it down helps you feel better. Depression can affect anyone. If you live in London I’ve found it a great place just to walk around when I’ve visited. So much beauty and history.
regards
” I bought a bottle of Scotch, and some razor blades. I was going to run myself a hot bath, get steaming drunk, gen in the bath and cut my wrists.”
dont forget to cut upwards not across
Does David Vance think the BBC is a French broadcaster?
Neither is it an American one but that hasn’t stopped the BBC constantly interfering in U.S politics !
‘Now, to be honest I could not care less who or indeed what Francois Hollande sleeps with. ‘
And yet, and yet:
‘Trierweiler is his girlfriend so whilst he may be unfaithful to her, he is certainly not adulterous. Like so many former French Presidents, he cares little for his partner and sleeps around. That is the French way. It’s unpleasant but not surprising. What IS surprising is that any woman could be attracted to this odd little Socialist!’
http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=48077
?? derrrrrr!! oh I get it he puts up a post on a personal web site and you use it to defend tax state multi-billion £ media corporation covering up for one of it’ s fave foreign presidents!
ok got it ! my confusion i forgot your are a asshat !
Ah oui, I cheat on my wife, I then cheat on the girlfriend who I cheated on my wife with, mais bien sur that dit rien about me. And bien sur les Francais inconnu can trust moi.
The reason why these dalliances are so serious when committed by politicians, and more so when they are senior ones is a matter of trust, and character.
If a politician can cheat on someone who is supposed to be his lifelong partner – someone he has taken vows to be faithful to, then how can he be trusted to look after the interests of the country he is in office to serve.
If this affair has gone on in secret then it begs the question as to what other squalid activity might be going on out of sight of the voters.
If there are children involved then the situation is even worse as a man prepared to betray his kids will betray anything if he feels it will benefit him and is not fit to be in any position of responsibility.
There are also questions of judgement and self control.
This doesn’t just apply to Hollande or French politicians, it applies to all of them where ever they are, and which ever gender.
On a personal level I don’t care who the President of France plays hide the saucisson with. I don’t usually care when politicians or celebrities do it in this country either. The only time it matters to me is when they profit by hypocritically playing up the family man image or pontificate about family values whilst having a bit of crumpet on the side.
The thing I do find revealing about this story is how supine the French press are. It matters who the French first lady is. She has an office and civil servants and taxpayers money lavished on her. The head of state looks ridiculous. He runs off on the back of a moped for a bit of how’s your father – that is not a good look. Her upstairs is hiding out in hospital so he can’t dump her. It’s high farce.
The French newspapers ought to be ripping the piss.
This is what our newspapers will be like if Levenson, Miliband and the BBC get their way.
The private life of a public figure always conjures some interesting debates, if predictable stances.
If he’s ‘home team’ it’s ‘nothing to see here; move along, we all have our foibles..’, but if ‘the other side’ it can be interesting what gets deployed across the broadcast, online and print media estates.
In an ideal world personal is personal and professional is professional, and ne’er twains to meet.
But it does then get complex pretty soon, especially in politics, as those who govern do rather presume to pontificate and even meddle with what folk get up to behind closed doors. A lot.
Which leads to multiples of standards, which leads to exposures, which leads to problems next voting round, and hence can result in cover-ups.
These, in turn, offer opportunities for pressure to be applied, and often by those not interested in the public good either (Sherlock refers – hope the new bunker metal detectors are well calibrated in case anyone feels Hugh’s expose went too far and as the BBC seems cool on resolution by extreme prejudice with errant media types…).
Hence, on balance, be it Mr. Clinton or Monsieur Hollande, it may behove Slik Willies everywhere and serve their countries better not to get in sticky places in the first place, or risk the consequences being found by less scrupulous folk at the dry cleaners before being taken there.
By coincidence I just read this:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/outrage-is-new-identity-politics.html?
‘The internet through the desktop, the television set and the mobile device is capable of duplicating the mediums we knew, but it also ushers in unlimited competition’
Of course, in one unique case, in one country, there are those rather uniquely avoiding that already and working to ensure they dominate even more across the entire message-generating estate, to ensure propaganda goes out unchecked and censorship is in place in case it is required.
Poor historical precedents abound.
A blistering read this!
Thanks GW.
As for Hollande…like Clinton, Blunkett, Mandelson, Prescott, Scotland, Abbott, Hain and Gore…among others…well their cause is true, the means of hushing up, dampening down and silencing the mockers, the naysayers is always for the RIGHT reasons…and there will never be an apology from the zealots, outriders of the Revolution.As Sultan Knish says…the “Red Guards” of white privilege(but using everybody else as sandbags or ballast).
With the Left-the means always justify their ends, the culture of faux outrage and offence is all by their rules, their standards…for that day, and as they like!
Compare Russell Brand calling Oxford students a load of “Harry Potter pouffes”.
The NUS/Pink Lobby are either quiet, or hushed…you tell me.
In any event-his offence is nothing as was Andrew Mitchells.
For Russell in one of theirs…Mitchell is to be destroyed by them…for the CAUSE deserves nothing less.
And no comedy iether-Hollande is not having a “Legeuavuer” at the BBC…he`s not Arthur(On the Buses) in a purple helmet riding Merckels side car..and not a Clouseau either!
Not at all-serious statesman, Milibands muse…so no jokes allowed whatsoever at the BBC!
Not even cartoons from Steve Bell-too busy shitting on Sharons grave as ever eh?
Heard Peter Hain on Midweek today.
I`ve no problem with his emoting and backstory…no reason to doubt that he and his family were viciously targeted by B.O.S.S at that time…and no reason to doubt that Libby Purvis was another ex-colonial with family reasons to hate the South African regime at that time.
My problem is his classic Labour double standards…why does he point out the Pass Laws as outrageous when we have even worse courts now with draconian secret stupidities and evil like the “Court of Protection” “superinjunctions” and farcical ASBOs/reporting restrictions on things like how Labour gets its money, uses its unions to fix results for Miliband, ID cards that Blunkett, Johnson and Jacqui Smith very nearly enforced on us all…and many other abuses of State power that HE and his erstwhile “f888in` Party” left us with-and will bring back tomorrow if we let them.
South Africa and Israel are as nothing compared to this creeping NuNazanu tendency of Labour re FoI, free speech etc…even Botha didn`t attempt hate crimes, thought infringements like Labour does-and did since 1997.
Yet he sneers at the wrong`uns that attempted the same when he was growing up back home…and reckons that when HE does it, it`ll be virtuous and a “tidying up exercise”-like the Lisbon Treaty was, as he described it at the time.
In other words-hypocrite!…and Libby didn`t call him out for it…he`s Labour royalty these days you know!