To think this what the Russel Brand story is meant to bury?

[madamreign]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66839314

It's not half as salacious, possibly a bit dry and dull to most people.

But it's fucking constitutional dynamite

RB's tour started on the day that the documentary and article was released which I suspect could be the reason for that specific release date.

Nonsense. The Johnson story is a BBC story one, from Laura Kuenssberg's State of Chaos documentary, which hasn't been sent out to newspaper reviewers to preview because they wanted to keep the content exclusive until transmission. How exactly is Murdoch to know what was in the doc, considering he and the BBC hate each other and would NEVER work together?

Honestly, this thread is batshit.

So people think 'they' (?) interviewed 4 victims of rape and made a documentary to cover up 2020 Boris? That is madness

Most people won't care about the BJ story. Most people didn't care about his actions and voted him in

Its.not so much negating the fact RB was being investigated its the timing. Pressure could of been applied to release it now to distravr from something instead of next mo th or month after.

Could it be the BJ news or Keir Starmer reportedly wanting to sign us back up to the EU..would of thought that would of made the headlines judging by how many think brexit is a disaster especially here on mumsnet.

This won't be the last time other news is used to buy news they don't want people to focus on.

True. The conspiracy comes in when people take a concept and apply it without evidence and very little thought process.

Ah right, nobody should report any sex crimes to the police then - that'll show 'em!

I think it would have been released anyway but I think its the timing of the release that's in issue I try not to think about it too deeply or I will be fashioning a tin hat rambling about youtube and the "truth"

I think it's coincidence, not deliberate.

But, whilst the RB thing is horrendous for the people concerned, its truly sad that far more media time is devoted to that than to BJs behaviour. And I don't think that's coincidental.

Thinking the government is able to control when big stories about non-government or non-security matters are published is a conspiracy theory.

You need to be careful with your mind. Conspiracy theorists tend to go only one way - down the rabbit hole.

That's not what OP is saying. Read the thread title.

Everyone knows the government release things on big story days. It's the framing that THIS story was SUPPOSED to bury something. Implying it's fabricated or exaggerated. Rather than just convenient.

I heard both stories, obviously. The Palace one is telling us that the Queen was displeased with the PM - weren't we all. Okay I know it was bigger that that, but to me the Russell Brand thing is far, far bigger, bigger than the PM story, Russell Brand even. Its institutionalised rape, assault, grooming and mistreatment of women under the knowledge of trusted institutions like the BBC. Its telling women and girls that nothing has really changed since Jimmy Savile.

I’d agree with the burying it story.
IF
it wasn’t for the fact there’s a “Boris was a twat” every week.

I think the fact that people can't even agree which story this was meant to bury demonstrates that this theory is bollocks.

I mean I addressed the specific poster that made the comment but okay.

Not trying to be smug, just trying to not look like a reactionary twat.

That documentary didn’t take 4 years to make. It was interview with 4 women, not a mission to mars. It was released at this time to cover up other stuff.

@MrsTerryPratchett

I haven't implied that the RB was fabricated.

You’d think that kind of tactic would be a little more involved than ‘covering up stuff’.

Which begs the question, why are ‘they’ telling us at all if they have such a hold over the media?

Sounds about right.

That’s my belief too. Those of us old enough to remember 11 September 2001 will recall someone in the UK being vilified for saying (emailing?) that it would be a good day to
to deal with anything that they didn’t want to be noticed. They didn’t plan 9/11 of course, just aimed to take advantage of the horror. It’s politics.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/09/uk.past

(edited to add link)

Going to repeat this for the hard of reading.

The Johnson story is a BBC story one taken from Laura Kuenssberg's State of Chaos documentary, which hasn't been sent out to newspaper reviewers to preview because they wanted to keep the content exclusive until transmission. Murdoch and his minions wouldn't know what was in the doc because it's been kept locked down – much less have time to decide which one of the many allegations made against Johnson throughout the series (I think it's a six-parter) they would need to bury.

Plus, Murdoch's apparently turned on Johnson now and doesn't want him to be PM again.

Plus, Murdoch's apparently turned on Johnson now and doesn't want him to be PM again

who’s he throwing his weight behind now? Beelzebub himself?

There is nothing new in the BJ story. There is only Laura Kuenssberg's new gossip show on the subject. This idea of releasing news to bury news has come up so often in the Brand threads . If it was the govt that had released news about Brand it would be plausible, but as it stands, it is a laughable conspiracy theory.

Channel 4 is not in the govt's pocket. That's why they had a go at destroying it by selling it off. And the news-burying theory doesn't even work as an explanation of the Times running the story. At most it might help to explain why they released it this week rather than next week or last week. But that isn't exactly huge potatoes.

By rights, RB should be a story on page 8 or whatever and being primarily a police matter.

The fact that the Tory party almost destabilised the State, should be front page news for weeks.

I doubt it. The public have reached maximum saturation regarding Boris Johnson exposés. I don't think many people are shocked or care much.