This is from Angela Raynor’s i’s Paul Waugh.
. @ AngelaRayner is accused today of being “a little insincere in her outrage” at what Tory MPs said about her. But why can’t she mock the original false accusation against her and be outraged.
– Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) April 27, 2022
And this is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.
It won’t be the first time a woman has laughed or even joked when a group of men say deeply inappropriate things about her. It happens all the time. Especially on the terrace.
– Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) April 27, 2022
Raynor says he wants Johnson to tell PMQ what he’s going to do with “sneaky sexism” at the Tories party
Angela Raynor tweeted this morning about the revelations in today’s post (see 9:27 a.m.) about her previous remarks about a meme comparing her to PMQ with Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. She says the Mail ignored her objections to the presentation.
She also says she wants Boris Johnson to explain to PMQ what he will do about the “disgusting sexism” in his party.
I told @mattforde in January that the sexist movie parody is misogyny for me and still is.
As women, we sometimes try to erase the sexism we face, but it doesn’t do us any good.
– Angela Rayner @ (@AngelaRayner) April 27, 2022
The post office today hints that I am somehow happy to be subjected to sexist insults.
I do not.
They are humiliating and deeply hurtful.
– Angela Rayner @ (@AngelaRayner) April 27, 2022
“She really loves him” is a typical excuse known to many women.
But it cannot be the responsibility of women to call him every time.
I don’t need anyone to explain sexism to me – I experience it every day.
– Angela Rayner @ (@AngelaRayner) April 27, 2022
Boris Johnson has given assurances that he will unleash the “horrors of the earth” on Tory MPs who spread this vile sexism.
I hope to hear what he will do today.
– Angela Rayner @ (@AngelaRayner) April 27, 2022
Peers give way to municipalities for police and health bills, but fight over nationality and borders bill
MEPs and colleagues are taking part in a parliamentary ping pong this week on a bunch of bills that are very close to receiving royal approval, but that can’t clear parliament until the two houses resolve unresolved differences. The process is called “ping-pong” because at this point the bills move back and forth between the two houses – sometimes on the same day – until one side pulls away. Last night, peers sat almost until midnight, dealing with unpaid bills.
Usually, lords eventually give way to the elected chamber, and last night colleagues gave up their fight to drop a provision in the law on police, crime, convictions and courts, giving police new powers to limit protests based on noise. This is from PA Media.
Powers to suppress loud protests will become law after colleagues end their opposition in Westminster.
The House of Lords voted 180 to 113, with a majority of 67, against Labor’s move to remove controversial restrictions on marches.
The upper house also rejected the opposition’s proposal to eliminate noise for demonstrations by 169 to 113, a majority of 56.
This comes after the Commons supported restoring restrictions on the police, crime, sentencing and court bill for a third time.
The legislation contains a wide range of measures aimed at reviewing the criminal justice system.
Peers also backed away from the remaining hurdle in the health and welfare bill. PA reports:
The planned £ 86,000 care spending limit is expected to be introduced after colleagues gave in to a request to rethink the government, amid fears it was unfair to poorer people.
The House of Lords voted 196 to 160, with a majority of 36, against a renewed Labor move to amend the proposed reform to send it back to the Municipalities for further consideration.
A new offer in the upper house to improve the planning of the workforce in health and social care in England also failed.
Colleagues were rejected by 204 to 169, with a majority of 35, forcing ministers to publish a staffing report every three years to address the shortage.
Both issues were key areas of contention during the adoption of the Health and Care through the Lords bill.
But peers are still arguing over key aspects of the nationality and borders bill. PA says:
Challenging peers have fallen on their heels, inflicting further damage on the government’s controversial asylum and immigration reforms.
The House of Lords continues to oppose, although Tory-dominated municipalities reject previous changes made by the unelected chamber to the leading bill on nationality and borders.
Peers reiterated its support for steps aimed at preventing asylum seekers from being treated differently depending on how they arrived in the UK, and renewed its call for applicants to be allowed to work if their application is not decided after six months.
The lords also supported measures to ensure that the asylum provisions in the bill are in line with the UK’s international commitments to refugees.
The government’s recent setbacks mean a continuation of the legislative battle between the two chambers over a bill known as parliamentary ping-pong until the end of the parliamentary session.
However, the Conservatives’ front bench has tried to secure further significant changes to the bill, including a new offer to repeal a broad provision that makes it a crime to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission and move to impose strict offshore asylum conditions.
Updated at 10.03 BST
The spokesman said he wanted to meet with the editor, not to jeopardize press freedom, but simply to ask, “we’re all a little better.”
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the mayor, insisted that his decision to invite the editor of the Mail on Sunday to a meeting to discuss Angela Raynor’s article was not a threat to press freedom. In a statement last night, after David Dylan, editor, said he would not be present, Hoyle said:
I am a strong believer and defender of freedom of the press, so when an MP asked me to remove a sketch author’s pass last week for something he wrote, I said no.
I firmly believe in the obligation of reporters to cover parliament, but I would also ask – nothing more – for the feelings of all MPs and their families to be taken into account and the impact on their safety when writing articles. I would just ask that we all be a little kinder.
Updated at 09.43 BST
Raab refuses to criticize Mail on Sunday editor for refusing to meet with Commons chairman over Angela Raynor’s story
Good morning. In his classic book on journalism, My Trade, Andrew Marr says of journalism that “outside of organized crime, it is the most powerful and enjoyable of the anti-professions.” One of the characteristics of anti-professions is that they do not like to be led by officials, and we saw a good example of this this morning in the statement by Mail on Sunday editor David Dylan that he will not attend a meeting with the mayor, sir Lindsay Hoyle to discuss her article on Angela Raynor, widely condemned as a sexist.
My colleague Tom Ambrose wrote our story about the neglect of the Mail on Sunday to the speaker. The Daily Mail said it was his own spray.
It was not clear what Hoyle intended to say to Dylan at the meeting, which was originally scheduled for today. At least one MP called for Glen Owen, political editor of the Mail on Sunday, to have his parliamentary omission removed, but Hoyle did not indicate any plans to impose the sanction (which would provoke mass protests from other journalists). However, Hoyle’s statement on Monday suggested that what he meant was not a cozy conversation about journalistic standards, but something similar to what Whitehall sometimes calls a coffee-free interview.
In a statement in today’s Mail explaining his decision to decline Hoyle’s invitation, Dylan described it as a matter of freedom of the press. He says:
Britain is rightly proud of its free press. This freedom will not continue if journalists have to accept instructions from employees of the House of Commons, no matter how good they are, what they can report and what they cannot. I’m afraid Glenn Owen and I must decline your invitation.
Dylan offers two other reasons to stay away. He said Hoyle’s comment to lawmakers on Monday suggested he had already made a decision on the substance of the article without hearing the newspaper’s side. And he says new evidence has emerged to show that Raynor herself was the source of the story, because she joked about the idea of using tactics of basic instinct in PMQs in a conversation with Tory MPs on the municipal terrace. Dylan says:
After an investigation by the Conservative Party, three other MPs who were part of the group on the terrace of the House of Commons, one of whom was a woman, came out to confirm the story of Angela Raynor’s remarks given to us by the MP, who was the source of the story. last sunday.
The original story suggested that Raynor herself had discussed the comparison with Tori (it quotes an unnamed Tori who says: “[Rayner] admits so much when enjoying drinks with us at [Commons] terrace ”), but this was not explicit. Today, the Mail also says that when recording a January interview with comedian Matt Forde about his Political Party podcast, Raynor discussed a meme suggesting she used tactics of basic instinct in PMQ. Raynor said in an interview that she was “tired” of the comparison – but she also clearly saw the funny side.
(What Raynor may have said to the deputies on the terrace of the municipalities remains unclear, but it seems likely that the story is a good example of how …
Add Comment