Guido’s scoop on Rachel Reeves changing her LinkedIn from posing as an “economist” at the Bank of Scotland to merely working in “retail banking” at Halifax continues to make grim reading for the the Chancellor. Reeves is now facing mounting questions after being economical with the truth about her career credentials. So much her lofty promises of “integrity” and “transparency”…
The mainstream media, including The Telegraph, The Sun, The Mail, The Express, andGB News, have all followed the story. The Times headlined with “Pressure grows on Rachel Reeves to explain ‘fake claims’ on CV“, as Tory voices accuse her of “brazen lies.” Meanwhile, Reeves also fudged the numbers on her Bank of England tenure in an interview with Stylist, boasting of working there for a “decade,” despite working there for just six years. Pressure on the first female Chancellor to be forced to change her story on her “economic expertise” doesn’t look set to go away any time soon. You’re either in front of Guido, or you are behind…
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”