Another anti-Trump Darroch claim !!

[Drummond]

It's becoming, I think, rather more obvious that the former UK ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, was heavily biased against President Trump. His accusations against Trump's Administration being 'inept' is proving to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Here's the latest, originating as a news story from the Mail on Sunday, but covered here by the BBC (it's currently their lead story on the domestic BBC News channel, and even being relayed on BBC-1):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484


Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal to spite Barack Obama, according to a leaked memo written by the UK's former ambassador to the US.

Sir Kim Darroch described the move as an act of "diplomatic vandalism", according to the Mail on Sunday.

It says the memo was written after the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appealed to the US in 2018 to stick with the nuclear deal.

Under that agreement Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities.

It would also allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

However, President Trump did not think that the deal went far enough.

The newspaper reports that after Mr Johnson returned to the UK from the US, Sir Kim wrote that President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" because the pact had been agreed by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

'APPEARED TO BE'. Not 'definitely was'.

It's surely completely clear by now. Darroch was working to disseminate his prejudices and biases by selling them, he hoped completely privately, as official, 'objective' reports. Seems to me that he was making an effort to poison UK-US relations, perhaps as a reaction to Trump not bending to Boris Johnson's views on the Iran deal.

'Sadly' for him, he's been found out, 'outed' by the Mail on Sunday.

What disturbs me is that the UK Government must've known the full range of Darroch's attacks when they defended him with their 'high praise'. But that praise has been unstinting.

Iran will be delighted, since it paints them as an innocent victim of Trump's so-called 'spite'. They'll claim that their trustworthiness within the parameters of the deal is inferrable, whereas the US, by contrast, has become an 'aggressor power' ....

... and all because we've a sick, jaundiced excuse for a 'diplomat' in Sir Kim !!

[Noir]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?

[Gunny]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?I expect the President of the Untied States to not enter into any such one-sided deal with despots that are the mainframe exporters and suppliers of terrorism, warfare and unrest in the Middle East.

I fully expect stupid, baseless, class-less public accusations and insults to come from the Democratic Party, not the representative of a foreign nation and closest ally just because some leftwingnut wants to jump on the Hate Trump train.

I'd have killed the deal first thing in office too. Not to spite Obama; rather, to fix his fuck-up. It is not in the best interest of the United States, nor the rest of the World that we just "slow down" Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Spiting Obama was just a bonus to fixing the fuck-up.

You lefty Brits need to keep your damned mouths shut until you fix your own damned mess. Don't you have an enslavement to Europe you're trying to get out of walking backwards out the "in" door?

[Drummond]

I expect the President of the Untied States to not enter into any such one-sided deal with despots that are the mainframe exporters and suppliers of terrorism, warfare and unrest in the Middle East.

I fully expect stupid, baseless, class-less public accusations and insults to come from the Democratic Party, not the representative of a foreign nation and closest ally just because some leftwingnut wants to jump on the Hate Trump train.

I'd have killed the deal first thing in office too. Not to spite Obama; rather, to fix his fuck-up. It is not in the best interest of the United States, nor the rest of the World that we just "slow down" Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Spiting Obama was just a bonus to fixing the fuck-up.

You lefty Brits need to keep your damned mouths shut until you fix your own damned mess. Don't you have an enslavement to Europe you're trying to get out of walking backwards out the "in" door?:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?

Gunny's given you a great answer, Noir.

I'd also say to you that your concept of a British Ambassador's role is a very strange one .. far removed from the parameters the role demands.

Darroch's role was essentially a Civil Service role. By what right did he inject his own political beliefs and biases into his job of objective reporting on the US ? If, repeat, IF, the British Government has any active view of American foreign policy, then it is THEIRS to hold to, and to initiate responses to it. Darroch was always meant to be our diplomatic representative, but in the process, he was meant also to exercise political neutrality to the point where he automatically recognised the American Government's right to create, follow, and implement, ITS policies as IT felt fit to !!

Darroch's arrogance in reporting in such a way as to loftily judge for himself the worth and the motivations of a man whose Government he had no jurisdiction over WHATSOEVER, and especially as he had no role, standing, or means of establishing motivations driving anyone in that Government ... is arrogant judgmentality that's off-the-scale.

Trump and his Administration have a right to govern as they choose (yes, Noir, really !) ... and they're not answerable to biases held by an arrogantly opinionated foreign Ambassador. Darroch should have done his job, and kept as neutral as his purview demanded ... not abused his position, as he clearly did.

[Noir]

Gunny's given you a great answer, Noir.

I'd also say to you that your concept of a British Ambassador's role is a very strange one .. far removed from the parameters the role demands.

Darroch's role was essentially a Civil Service role. By what right did he inject his own political beliefs and biases into his job of objective reporting on the US ? If, repeat, IF, the British Government has any active view of American foreign policy, then it is THEIRS to hold to, and to initiate responses to it. Darroch was always meant to be our diplomatic representative, but in the process, he was meant also to exercise political neutrality to the point where he automatically recognised the American Government's right to create, follow, and implement, ITS policies as IT felt fit to !!

Darroch's arrogance in reporting in such a way as to loftily judge for himself the worth and the motivations of a man whose Government he had no jurisdiction over WHATSOEVER, and especially as he had no role, standing, or means of establishing motivations driving anyone in that Government ... is arrogant judgmentality that's off-the-scale.

Trump and his Administration have a right to govern as they choose (yes, Noir, really !) ... and they're not answerable to biases held by an arrogantly opinionated foreign Ambassador. Darroch should have done his job, and kept as neutral as his purview demanded ... not abused his position, as he clearly did.

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

[Drummond]

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dannoch wasn't there to represent ME.

What nonsense is this ?

Check out the role of a foreign ambassador. When you've done your research, THEN come back with your opinion(s), if any.

Until then, I assert: foreign Ambassadors aren't in the jobs they are, to manufacture political policies FOR the Governments they represent. The more an Ambassador injects subjective bias into his / her reporting, the greater the potential likelihood that Governmental policy will be influenced by those efforts.

This takes things in precisely the wrong direction. Policy-making should be home-grown, not invented either wholly or in part by Ambassadors !

[Gunny]

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.You going to cry "racism" next? :rolleyes: It's about the same level as your comment.

[Noir]

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dannoch wasn't there to represent ME.

What nonsense is this ?

Check out the role of a foreign ambassador. When you've done your research, THEN come back with your opinion(s), if any.

Until then, I assert: foreign Ambassadors aren't in the jobs they are, to manufacture political policies FOR the Governments they represent. The more an Ambassador injects subjective bias into his / her reporting, the greater the potential likelihood that Governmental policy will be influenced by those efforts.

This takes things in precisely the wrong direction. Policy-making should be home-grown, not invented either wholly or in part by Ambassadors !

Presumably then you see the problem as being much bigger than Dannoch? After all everyone who reads his reports, and did not take issue with them, is at fault, no?

[Drummond]

Presumably then you see the problem as being much bigger than Darroch? After all everyone who reads his reports, and did not take issue with them, is at fault, no?

The issue is more major than the way you've painted it, Noir. Darroch actually has strong SUPPORT.

I take it that you followed Alan Duncan's own commentary on this matter ? He's rounding on everybody who fails to give Darroch outright support. He's attacked Boris Johnson. He's attacked Nigel Farage. Duncan's gunning for everyone not agreeing with HIM !

I'm sure that Alan Duncan has access to Darroch's reports, and was familiar with them. Yet, there he was, claiming he 'threw something at the radio', in response to what he was hearing from Nigel Farage at the time:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1150739/trump-memo-leak-sir-alan-duncan-nigel-farage-news-latest-today-kim-darroch-us-ambassador


FOREIGN Office minister Sir Alan Duncan jokingly revealed he “threw something” at the radio during Nigel Farage’s Today Programme appearance on Monday morning.

Nigel Farage lashed out at the UK’s ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, after a series of scathing memos were leaked. Sir Alan Duncan told the Commons he “threw something” at the radio as Mr Farage’s appeared on the Today Programme, before “switching it off”. During urgent questions in the Commons, Labour MP Madeleine Moon said: “Sir Kim Darroch has always been someone who gave honest and frank reports, no matter which party he represented.

“Whenever delegations go to the US, it is vital that the briefings they have are honest and impartial, and they always have been.

“On the positive that happened this morning, is that during my journey to the station so many people I spoke to tuned in to Radio 4.

“And the minute they brought on Nigel Farage to make his comment, they immediately turned off because they felt his opinion on Sir Kim was so appalling.”

Sir Duncan replied: “I’d rather like to echo everything the honourable lady has just said.

“I also heard him on the radio and after throwing something at it I then switched it off.

'HONEST AND IMPARTIAL.'

This is surely a joke. A sick joke.

[Noir]

The issue is more major than the way you've painted it, Noir. Darroch actually has strong SUPPORT.

I take it that you followed Alan Duncan's own commentary on this matter ? He's rounding on everybody who fails to give Darroch outright support. He's attacked Boris Johnson. He's attacked Nigel Farage. Duncan's gunning for everyone not agreeing with HIM !

I'm sure that Alan Duncan has access to Darroch's reports, and was familiar with them. Yet, there he was, claiming he 'threw something at the radio', in response to what he was hearing from Nigel Farage at the time:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1150739/trump-memo-leak-sir-alan-duncan-nigel-farage-news-latest-today-kim-darroch-us-ambassador




'HONEST AND IMPARTIAL.'

This is surely a joke. A sick joke.

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

[Drummond]

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

I've no idea. Of course, I'm assuming it'd help if I knew who 'Datrochs' actually is .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway: back to the plot !

Noir, it's at times like this when I wonder if you're genuinely British. Are you seriously unaware of the details of Boris Johnson's (note the actual spelling !) career ?

He's done more than just be a London Mayor, you know (... you DO know ... don't you ?). More recently, he was a Foreign Secretary of ours ! So .... YES .... I think it possible that Johnson had access to Sir Kim's abusive 'missives' !!

Whether this helped determine the extent of non-support Johnson is said to have offered Darroch ... that's speculation. Perhaps.

Not that it's really relevant. I was addressing the wholehearted support Alan Duncan has expressed, and Duncan's intolerance of anybody not seeing this as HE does.

[Elessar]

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

When exactly are you going to help fix the mess your ilk have caused the UK?

Instead you waltz in here and tell us how to right our ship of state!

You must be a reject from UK boards.

[Drummond]

I've no idea. Of course, I'm assuming it'd help if I knew who 'Datrochs' actually is .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway: back to the plot !

Noir, it's at times like this when I wonder if you're genuinely British. Are you seriously unaware of the details of Boris Johnson's (note the actual spelling !) career ?

He's done more than just be a London Mayor, you know (... you DO know ... don't you ?). More recently, he was a Foreign Secretary of ours ! So .... YES .... I think it possible that Johnson had access to Sir Kim's abusive 'missives' !!

Whether this helped determine the extent of non-support Johnson is said to have offered Darroch ... that's speculation. Perhaps.

Not that it's really relevant. I was addressing the wholehearted support Alan Duncan has expressed, and Duncan's intolerance of anybody not seeing this as HE does.

An addition to my post quote above, Noir.

I've been watching the latest BBC News broadcast on this issue. The report confirms that at the time Darroch sent his 'Trump scuppered the Iranian deal to spite Obama' allegation, Boris WAS THE FOREIGN SECRETARY. They further CONFIRM that Boris would've seen Darroch's assertion himself.

So, there's your answer, Noir.

I think it's becoming clear that Boris Johnson failed to give the extent of support to Darroch that his Conservative Party leadership competitor, Jeremy Hunt has done ... because he knew that Darroch was behaving as an opinionated maverick in his post, and was therefore unfit to continue.

[Drummond]

When exactly are you going to help fix the mess your ilk have caused the UK?

Instead you waltz in here and tell us how to right our ship of state!

You must be a reject from UK boards.

The annoying thing of it is that it IS Noir's ilk who hold the key to fixing the dysfunctional chaos we've got in our Parliament.

When Article 50 (the official means by which we began the process of withdrawing from the EU) was invoked, cross-Party support was given to that. This followed, of course, the 2016 Brexit Referendum result, the outcome of which each Party pledged to respect.

Noir's ilk in the Labour Party have been throwing spanners at the EU withdrawal process ever since, now taken to the extreme of a fundamental policy shift. They're now pro-Remain (staying within the EU), instead. They've reneged on everything.

Our mainstream Socialists offer nothing constructive. They act to sabotage at every turn. They even want a Referendum re-run, to overturn (they hope) the unwanted outcome of the first one. Why ? Because the People made a decision not to THEIR liking.

Hope for constructive thinking or conduct from the Left, and you'll be waiting forever. So it is, also, with political systems and decisions which aren't even their own to meddle with.

But, meddle, they will. Leftie arrogance knows no bounds.

[Noir]

An addition to my post quote above, Noir.

I've been watching the latest BBC News broadcast on this issue. The report confirms that at the time Darroch sent his 'Trump scuppered the Iranian deal to spite Obama' allegation, Boris WAS THE FOREIGN SECRETARY. They further CONFIRM that Boris would've seen Darroch's assertion himself.

So, there's your answer, Noir.

I think it's becoming clear that Boris Johnson failed to give the extent of support to Darroch that his Conservative Party leadership competitor, Jeremy Hunt has done ... because he knew that Darroch was behaving as an opinionated maverick in his post, and was therefore unfit to continue.

And during his tome as foreign secretary Boris did what about this ‘opinionated maverick’ who was ‘unfit to continue’?

[Gunny]

And during his tome as foreign secretary Boris did what about this ‘opinionated maverick’ who was ‘unfit to continue’?Insinuating Johnson is to blame for Darroch's behavior. Classic left.

[Noir]

Insinuating Johnson is to blame for Darroch's behavior. Classic left.

’To blame for’?No.
’Aware of’? Yes.

Which seems pretty relevant.

[STTAB]

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

I wouldn't say arrogant, but I will say this, any person who has an opinion that is different than mine on ANY subject is wrong on that subject. PERIOD

[Gunny]

’To blame for’?No.
’Aware of’? Yes.

Which seems pretty relevant.Why? I am "aware" of the Democrat Party's all out attempt to abuse the authority of the House of Representatives to impeach the President because they don't like him for winning. Doesn't make me responsible for its behavior.

You Brits are usually reserved, especially when it comes to ruffling feathers. Seems to me this Darroch character spent too much time reading the New Your Times and Washington Post while he was here. He allowed his personal prejudice to influence his commentary. Only the left gets away with that crap.

I don't see that Johnson has anything to do with what came out of Darroch's mouth. I certainly don't see the need for the call to arms in his defense.

[Noir]

Why? I am "aware" of the Democrat Party's all out attempt to abuse the authority of the House of Representatives to impeach the President because they don't like him for winning. Doesn't make me responsible for its behavior.

You Brits are usually reserved, especially when it comes to ruffling feathers. Seems to me this Darroch character spent too much time reading the New Your Times and Washington Post while he was here. He allowed his personal prejudice to influence his commentary. Only the left gets away with that crap.

I don't see that Johnson has anything to do with what came out of Darroch's mouth. I certainly don't see the need for the call to arms in his defense.

Boris read the reports that (according to Drummonds narrative) showed that Darroch was ‘unfit to continue’ as an ambassador, and he continued as ambassador. It’s that simple.

[Drummond]

And during his tome as foreign secretary Boris did what about this ‘opinionated maverick’ who was ‘unfit to continue’?

... 'TOME' ... ?

Anyway: do either of us know ? CAN either of us know ?

For example: do you know for a fact that, (a) Boris read Darroch's reports, but (b) did nothing at all about them ? What if, for example, Boris issued a warning to Darroch to moderate his reports in future, making them objective and not subjectively biased and vitriolic in nature ?

Do you know he DIDN'T ? Do you know if Darroch received that warning, but was so biased against Trump that he saw fit to ignore it ?

You may come to whatever assumptions you choose to. So may I. But neither of us knows what the full truth is. Dreaming up versions of it is a counterproductive exercise.

Perhaps, in Alan Duncan, he had a boss who was far more willing to give latitude than Johnson was.

Perhaps.

But neither of us knows. We have no actual knowledge, no insights, on this subject.

You'd be wise to presume ... NOTHING. But I've a funny feeling that such wisdom will not be your guide, Noir. After all, you'll have your agenda to pursue.

[Drummond]

I wouldn't say arrogant, but I will say this, any person who has an opinion that is different than mine on ANY subject is wrong on that subject. PERIOD:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You are Sir Kim Darroch .. and I claim my five pounds !!:rolleyes::laugh:

[STTAB]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You are Sir Kim Darroch .. and I claim my five pounds !!:rolleyes::laugh:

LOL, it's true though. I am almost always right. In fact, I've only been wrong once in my life, what happened was I thought I had made mistake, but it turned out I hadn't.

[Noir]

... 'TOME' ... ?

Anyway: do either of us know ? CAN either of us know ?

For example: do you know for a fact that, (a) Boris read Darroch's reports, but (b) did nothing at all about them ? What if, for example, Boris issued a warning to Darroch to moderate his reports in future, making them objective and not subjectively biased and vitriolic in nature ?

Do you know he DIDN'T ? Do you know if Darroch received that warning, but was so biased against Trump that he saw fit to ignore it ?

You may come to whatever assumptions you choose to. So may I. But neither of us knows what the full truth is. Dreaming up versions of it is a counterproductive exercise.

Perhaps, in Alan Duncan, he had a boss who was far more willing to give latitude than Johnson was.

Perhaps.

But neither of us knows. We have no actual knowledge, no insights, on this subject.

You'd be wise to presume ... NOTHING. But I've a funny feeling that such wisdom will not be your guide, Noir. After all, you'll have your agenda to pursue.

We do know that Boris has said he fully supports Darroch, regrets his resignation, and has described him as a “victim”.

[Gunny]

We do know that Boris has said he fully supports Darroch, regrets his resignation, and has described him as a “victim”.Sounds like Boris understands the diplomacy his colleague does not. Bite the bullet on your personal views and play diplomat.

[STTAB]

We do know that Boris has said he fully supports Darroch, regrets his resignation, and has described him as a “victim”.

What the hell did you think he was going to say?

[Drummond]

We do know that Boris has said he fully supports Darroch, regrets his resignation, and has described him as a “victim”.

Gunny and STTAB have both given you good answers.

Noir ... can you really be this naive ? OR, are you casting around for any excuse to attack Boris Johnson ?

Boris is involved in a competition for the Conservative Party leadership, and of course, with that, to win the Prime Minister's job !! Now, do you seriously think, with stakes that high, Boris won't word his public responses to questions with at least SOME degree of care ?

Granted that Boris isn't the most tactful politician out there. But if he ever had any need to exercise caution and judgment over any and all responses he gives, it'd be right now !!

You must know of the political climate that Boris Johnson is fighting his corner in ... one where Kim Darroch enjoys widespread support (though I can't see why). Jeremy Hunt clearly thinks it serves his leadership prospects to offer unreserved support for Darroch. The likes of Alan Duncan will pounce on anyone giving any less than that. In this climate, Noir, Boris wants to get, maintain, even build upon, his level of support to win the leadership contest.

With all this going on, YOU, Noir, expect Boris to have the duty to royally put his foot in his mouth, and argue AGAINST his support-base ?? Seriously ??

Here's a challenge, Noir.

You are anti-Conservative (.. obviously ..). But, you're singling out Boris for criticism. WHY ONLY HIM ?

So, let's see you attack Jeremy Hunt, too. Post something disparaging about him. Give it a go.

Or is only Boris in your sights ? If so ... precisely, WHY ?

[STTAB]

Gunny and STTAB have both given you good answers.

Noir ... can you really be this naive ? OR, are you casting around for any excuse to attack Boris Johnson ?

Boris is involved in a competition for the Conservative Party leadership, and of course, with that, to win the Prime Minister's job !! Now, do you seriously think, with stakes that high, Boris won't word his public responses to questions with at least SOME degree of care ?

Granted that Boris isn't the most tactful politician out there. But if he ever had any need to exercise caution and judgment over any and all responses he gives, it'd be right now !!

You must know of the political climate that Boris Johnson is fighting his corner in ... one where Kim Darroch enjoys widespread support (though I can't see why). Jeremy Hunt clearly thinks it serves his leadership prospects to offer unreserved support for Darroch. The likes of Alan Duncan will pounce on anyone giving any less than that. In this climate, Noir, Boris wants to get, maintain, even build upon, his level of support to win the leadership contest.

With all this going on, YOU, Noir, expect Boris to have the duty to royally put his foot in his mouth, and argue AGAINST his support-base ?? Seriously ??

Here's a challenge, Noir.

You are anti-Conservative (.. obviously ..). But, you're singling out Boris for criticism. WHY ONLY HIM ?

So, let's see you attack Jeremy Hunt, too. Post something disparaging about him. Give it a go.

Or is only Boris in your sights ? If so ... precisely, WHY ?


Yeah right, on this obviously right leaning board you see members like Gunny, Kath, even Jim, and myself almost daily say something along the lines of Trump is an asshole for __________________ but you will rarely and I mean rarely ever see a left leaning poster on ANY message board say anything negative about a liberal politician, no matter what they have done.

[Drummond]

Yeah right, on this obviously right leaning board you see members like Gunny, Kath, even Jim, and myself almost daily say something along the lines of Trump is an asshole for __________________ but you will rarely and I mean rarely ever see a left leaning poster on ANY message board say anything negative about a liberal politician, no matter what they have done.

Well, naturally. The true Conservative mindset is grounded in realism, objectivity ... and, of course, is guided by a strong sense of right v wrong.

The Left wing mindset is all about control, propaganda, about only seeing, and arguing for, what best serves their efforts to gain and exercise the control they want.

Conservatives are about individualism. An individual has real worth to them. Socialists are the polar opposite ... theirs is a 'hive mind' approach. See 'big pictures', and only that. Individuals are sacrificed on the altar of their agendas if they oppose that picture.

Trump certainly does (in spades !) .. so, attacks on him are unrelenting. Are those attacks based on truth, on reputability ? A Leftie won't care. The attacks continue until the opposition is dealt with.

You'll never see any Left winger want to say or do anything that erodes a propagandist stance. Even if truth intervenes, they prefer not to see it, if it's inconvenient truth. It's like a tapestry that's got one loose thread. Tug on that thread, and maybe the whole thing will unravel.

I regard Left wing thought, since it's not grounded on seeing or respecting realism not fitting their preferred worldview, as actual insanity. I fail to see how it doesn't qualify as that.

[Noir]

What the hell did you think he was going to say?

If he through Darroch was wrong in what he said, and/or shouldn’t of said it, then I would of expected Boris to say that.


With all this going on, YOU, Noir, expect Boris to have the duty to royally put his foot in his mouth, and argue AGAINST his support-base ?? Seriously ??

I expect Boris (and indeed anyone) to represent their position on the matter truthfully, regardless of what they are expected to believe or what their support-base argue for or against.


Here's a challenge, Noir.

You are anti-Conservative (.. obviously ..). But, you're singling out Boris for criticism. WHY ONLY HIM ?

So, let's see you attack Jeremy Hunt, too. Post something disparaging about him. Give it a go.

Or is only Boris in your sights ? If so ... precisely, WHY ?

Boris is almost certainly going to be our next Prime Minister and was the Foreign Secretary during the Darroch documents discussed through the thread, why waste breath on Hunt?

[STTAB]

If he through Darroch was wrong in what he said, and/or shouldn’t of said it, then I would of expected Boris to say that.



I expect Boris (and indeed anyone) to represent their position on the matter truthfully, regardless of what they are expected to believe or what their support-base argue for or against.



Boris is almost certainly going to be our next Prime Minister and was the Foreign Secretary during the Darroch documents discussed through the thread, why waste breath on Hunt?


So let me get this straight, you expect Boris to kick a guy who on his way out the door anyway? What would that have accomplished?

[Noir]

So let me get this straight, you expect Boris to kick a guy who on his way out the door anyway? What would that have accomplished?

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

[STTAB]

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

Noir, there is a reason they call them DIPLOMATS . The guy is probably going to be the next leader of England, starting your tenure out on bad terms with the US President probably isn't a wise choice.

[Drummond]

Why the narrative?
I expected Boris to represent his position honestly, I don’t think that should be a controversial statement.

One would not expect a politician deserving of high office to blatantly lie .. I agree (at least, it's far from ideal if it happened !!).

But there are shades to this. Precious little in the world of high-power politics is totally black v white.

Where Darroch has been concerned .. a certain weighing of what it was or was not wise to say, should've certainly played a part.

On the one hand, Darroch gave vent to his prejudices and converted it into vitriol, submitting that in his reporting as though it was somehow 'objective commentary'. In so doing, he completely subverted the diplomatic role he was there to fulfill ... one as a figure who was supposed to be aiding a 'special relationship' between the UK and US, one based on friendship, cooperation, and pursuing and representing shared values !

On the other - and I'm still struggling to understand WHY - Darroch commands considerable support here, even despite all he's been up to.

Boris, as a future Prime Ministerial 'hopeful', has to correctly weigh all of that so that he can emerge as our future PM in the best possible way ! He has to maintain his level of support amongst all those Conservatives who'll simultaneously want to support him in the forthcoming vote, but by the same token, who also choose to be supportive of Darroch. Boris has that tightrope to walk, Noir, whether or not you approve of him walking it.

Once PM .... he has his, and therefore OUR, future relations with Donald Trump to take into account.

Now, Noir, what would you prefer ? Do you want Boris to do a GOOD, or a BAD, job with that ?

Try to separate out your natural Leftie prejudices from an objective consideration of all this, Noir. I'm sure you have certain non-constructive wishes on this score (?). But, reality is what it is, not what you prefer it to be. Boris Johnson has the task of helping to shape, as future PM, the quality of our relationship with the US. Me, I'd rather he did a good job.

Will that require proper diplomacy ... say, on Boris's part ? And / or on the part of Darroch's replacement ?

Noir ... who are you to want our people to do any less than implement their very best efforts to pursue the best relations we can ?

Think on that before you respond with any of your less-than-helpful thinking ... please .. ! .....

[Noir]

One would not expect a politician deserving of high office to blatantly lie .. I agree (at least, it's far from ideal if it happened !!).

But there are shades to this. Precious little in the world of high-power politics is totally black v white.

Where Darroch has been concerned .. a certain weighing of what it was or was not wise to say, should've certainly played a part.

On the one hand, Darroch gave vent to his prejudices and converted it into vitriol, submitting that in his reporting as though it was somehow 'objective commentary'. In so doing, he completely subverted the diplomatic role he was there to fulfill ... one as a figure who was supposed to be aiding a 'special relationship' between the UK and US, one based on friendship, cooperation, and pursuing and representing shared values !

On the other - and I'm still struggling to understand WHY - Darroch commands considerable support here, even despite all he's been up to.

Boris, as a future Prime Ministerial 'hopeful', has to correctly weigh all of that so that he can emerge as our future PM in the best possible way ! He has to maintain his level of support amongst all those Conservatives who'll simultaneously want to support him in the forthcoming vote, but by the same token, who also choose to be supportive of Darroch. Boris has that tightrope to walk, Noir, whether or not you approve of him walking it.

Once PM .... he has his, and therefore OUR, future relations with Donald Trump to take into account.

Now, Noir, what would you prefer ? Do you want Boris to do a GOOD, or a BAD, job with that ?

Try to separate out your natural Leftie prejudices from an objective consideration of all this, Noir. I'm sure you have certain non-constructive wishes on this score (?). But, reality is what it is, not what you prefer it to be. Boris Johnson has the task of helping to shape, as future PM, the quality of our relationship with the US. Me, I'd rather he did a good job.

Will that require proper diplomacy ... say, on Boris's part ? And / or on the part of Darroch's replacement ?

Noir ... who are you to want our people to do any less than implement their very best efforts to pursue the best relations we can ?

Think on that before you respond with any of your less-than-helpful thinking ... please .. ! .....

Bringing this right back to basics - and as briefly as you like - did Boris support Darroch?

[Drummond]

Bringing this right back to basics - and as briefly as you like - did Boris support Darroch?

My brief answer, is ... YES. HE DID.

His support fell just short of being as unequivocal as that offered by Jeremy Hunt, though. Hunt was clear ... he'd have left Darroch in-post, for months longer, until he was due to retire.

Boris didn't go that far, refusing to match any such supportive commitment. What he did was to give support to the principle that what Darroch had communicated to our Government should never have become public; that civil servants have the absolute right to expect protection from such an eventuality.

Boris also said he'd spoken privately to Darroch and been sympathetic to him over the way matters had progressed. Note that Darroch only ever received a secondhand account of what Boris had said about him and the comments ... and Andrew Neil tried to insist, in his hostile interview, that this wasn't the case. Boris corrected him on that --- Neil didn't show a willingness to believe him.

Of course not. Neil had his BBC-serving hostile agenda to advance.

[Noir]

My brief answer, is ... YES. HE DID.

Okay, why do you think Boris supported Darroch given the statements Darroch was making about the trump administration?

[Drummond]

Okay, why do you think Boris supported Darroch given the statements Darroch was making about the trump administration?

Read my previous post again. Try to understand its message.

Boris gave support. You asked me about that, and I answered you. But I've also made clear that it fell short of the full extent of support given by Hunt.

Ask yourself why that was.

For myself, I believe that Boris felt Sir Kim had gone too far. Boris himself, as you SHOULD know, has his own history of making comments he's later had to acknowledge were unwise to make (didn't he once find himself being ordered to go to Liverpool to publicly apologise for one of them ?). My belief is that Boris sympathised with Darroch because he felt he'd made something of a comparable gaffe ... maybe he identified, possibly too closely, with the position Darroch had put himself in ?

[Drummond]

For anybody hoping that this thread was finished with ... my apologies ! Maybe it will be, very shortly (?).

But for right now .. I thought this might be of interest.

Nigel Farage. He was the founder of UKIP, a Party founded to fight for Brexit. He led it for quite a while.

Ultimately, Farage left it. He thought his political activities within the UK were all but finished. Instead, because the March Brexit deadline passed without our leaving, he founded the Brexit Party. That Party trounced both major Parties in our MEP elections, just weeks after it was formed !!

Farage has another string to his bow .. he hosts his own phone-in programme on London Broadcasting (LBC) radio.

Here's a clip of him on one of his programmes, dated at the time the Darroch scandal first took off, even before Trump's reaction was known. In the press, Farage took a strong anti-Darroch line, wanting Darroch sacked. Nigel's comments here are noteworthy, because if he's telling the truth, he's reporting on Darroch's own deliberate refusal to be politically neutral.

If that's true, Darroch's troublemaking intentions, his biases, are a proven FACT.

So ... try playing this ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEClSrmDW8