About me
Archive
About me

Lazy Labour lies again

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 14 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 14 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 14 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

Not content with lying and being corrected, John Reid has now been caught by FactCheck telling lies that’s he’s already been told are lies:

Mr Reid devoted a sizeable part of Labour’s morning press conference on Saturday to explain how he thinks the Tories’ scheme of paying money towards private operations works and in the process repeated two claims already rejected by FactCheck.

And yet he has the audacity to attack the Conservatives over a single set of adverts placed in local papers which they have now admitted were misleading, apologised for, and promised not to publish again. And, actually, I didn’t find the Conservative ad so misleading, since it said quite clearly at the bottom of the page the hospital trusts which were included in the figures, but that’s another argument altogether.

The story here is that Mr Reid has told some lies repeatedly, then been corrected, and now has gone ahead and told them all over again, learning nothing from the fact that he’s lied in the first place. Or perhaps he was too lazy to bother coming up with any new lies, and so just recycled the same old untruths. Who could possibly want him to head up the health service?

This 507th post was filed under: Election 2005.

Some recently published posts

Knowledge and understanding / April 2019, 7 minutes long

‘Inappropriate’ A&E attendances / April 2019, 3 minutes long

Cruise ships and me / April 2019, 6 minutes long

Some thoughts on print newspapers / April 2019, 5 minutes long

What I’ve been reading this month / April 2019, 4 minutes long

Some random old posts

The art of translation / January 2019, 5 minutes long

Cheating / March 2006, 4 minutes long

That ‘awful man’ gets argumentative / August 2005, 2 minutes long

2D: Abdication / May 2013, 2 minutes long

NatWest’s awful charter: Revisited / April 2011, 5 minutes long

Campbell thinks it’s all over… / April 2005, Less than a minute long


Comments and responses

No comments or responses to this post have been published yet.

Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.