We Are Not Amused II

Following on from my earlier article ("We Are Not Amused")about the now infamous speech of John Humphrys, it seems that there is a little more to this than reaches the eye.

You see, there is always a reason as to why some stories are published in the media and others aren't.

In this case, the story was first printed in the Times.

Now you would assume that this would have nothing to do with Nanny.

It seems, and why am I surprised, that Nanny indeed may have had a hand in this.

The Times article was written by Tom Baldwin, a political journalist with close links to Nanny's spin machine and her best chum a certain Mr A. Campbell.

The story also contain criticism of Humphrys from Tim Allan, who was one of Nanny's spin doctors. In fact Allan was Campbell's deputy at the Downing Street communications department.

My word, is it possible that The Times has been used by Nanny in some form of covert attack on John Humphrys; surely the media is not so easily manipulated by Nanny in this way?

The embarrassment of the Times is further compounded by the following revelation from Mark Rayner, who runs Richmond Events, the company that organised the corporate event at which Humphrys spoke.

Rayner said that the only existing video of the speech had been given to Allan.

He accused Allan, who now runs his own PR company, of reneging on a commitment he gave to use the video "exclusively and confidentially" to confirm a remark by Humphrys about politicians that had been included in a Richmond Events brochure.

Quote:

"I'm very annoyed about the way the information was obtained from us and subsequently used,".

It seems that Rayner has referred requests to the Times that it should not reproduce it, to the paper's legal department.

In a further embarrassing revelation, it seems that Baldwin had tried to persuade the Times to "splash" the story on Saturday; in order to ensure that it made the maximum impact.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, Nanny is a vicious old witch who uses all her powers and friends to wage personal vendettas against those that she dislikes.

It is a matter of great shame to the Times that they allowed themselves to be duped in this manner.

It really makes you wonder what other lies and distortions Nanny is feeding us, via the supposedly "independent" (and I use that word with a wry smile on face) media.