Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence

RT @leftfootfwd: Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence: http://is.gd/4YT6Y <— Stalinists!

RT @leftfootfwd Boris adviser’s secret plans to crush Assembly’s independence: http://is.gd/4YT6Y

He is the Chief Executive and not an advisor. Why don’t the posts on the site ever portray stories accurately?

The chief exec of the GLA, brought in by Boris at great expense (see Tory Troll’s piece for more). I would suggest that not only does he advise the Mayor but that he has a great deal of influence over him.

I thought this blog was supposed to be evidence-based. I don’t see the Assembly mentioned in any of the quotes included in the story, only the Authority. Where’s the evidence?

Indeed, how would the Mayor or his Chief Executive enforce such an alleged desire as it would require legislative change?

Shamik Das – Is this blog evidence based or not?

The statements you have printed are simply not truthful and honest. Have you checked the story for validity before posting them – it seems not.

You should be ashamed of yourself printing stories based on dubious speculation and not evidence – especially since you claim this blog is evidence based.

What about some truth from this blog for a change instead of misinformation.

There are plenty enough stories on Labour you can print such as the MP’s due to charged over expenses, Harriet Harman leaving the scene of a crime and on and on.

Truth please Shamik or find another job – this is a good site being devalued by your comments – or let me guess you won’t print this post.

And your evidence for such unfounded vitriol is…

Shamik Das – Your story is speculative, biased, untruthful and not evidence based.

That opinion is factual and not vitriolic and your “story” about Boris Johnson is the evidence for that.

“Speculative, biased, untruthful and not evidence based” – seems to describe some of your comments. The facts are plain to see; are you implying there were no leaked documents or that they weren’t genuine? The Mayor, via the extremely well paid Mr Boland is looking to neuter the Assembly.

He wants to “review draft scrutiny reports before their publication” … how exactly will this help the Assembly hold “the Mayor of London to account”?

Shamik Das – Why shouldn’t he review documents before they get published?

He is the Boss – he has that right. Boris won – a majority of Londoners prefer him to Ken Livingston. It’s over in London and the South East for Labour – now you get over it.

You lot blew it when you treated the voters like fools and in the General Election bloodbath due next year you will get what you deserve. This blog will be finished in six months when supporting Labour will as popular as Swine Flu.

But that still doesn’t give you the right to claim to be evidence based when this “story” is just that – a “story” – a figment of your imagination.

Shamik – What a disgrace you’ve made of this blog. You have the leader of the house, that Countess Toff Harriet Harman leaving the scene of a crime, six Labour MP’s, the governing party of this country, stealing tax payers money, soldiers being killed in Afganistan because Brown won’t equip them properly and then that idiot Bob Ainsworth smearing character of a dead soldier, this useless government borrowing as much taxpayers money as they can before being rumbled next year, the worst Queens speech on record and you go on about Boris Johnson?

Get a grip on reality Shamik – if this job is to much for you to cope with then move over and let someone else take over. You are not helping the Labour parties cause with this rubbish. Get a real job – this is over your head.

That’s it, just go off on a tangent and ignore the actual post. And yet again, someone accusing others of insulting and smearing people while doing the exact same thing. The Boris stooges are clearly rattled.

Shamik – You say: His justification for this is:

(a). “It would provide the Chief Executive with direct oversight and input into the quality of scrutiny reports.”

(b). “The Chief Executive would be aware of reports before their publication, and would be able to anticipate any potential issues of conflict or controversy”

Why shouldn’t the CEO do this? What’s the point of him being the CEO if not?

Are you seriously suggesting that Brown and his cronies haven’t spent the last 12 years doing exactly that and worse by spinning? WMD anyone?

Why don’t you answer some of the stuff Arnold B Smith asks – to me it seems far more important than this “story” and who is he insulting and smearing?

Nothing he posted seems untrue – is it a smear because you don’t like it?

Blogs are supposed to be about open and honest discussion, challenging different views and putting forward opinions for healthy debate.

That is the way Will Straw portrayed LFF to Sky News – has your mission statement changed?

To me this is unimportant it is a non story, just a means of filling space on the site but obviously others feel differently.

With these sorts of stories though I suspect Guido Fawkes won’t be shaking in his boots!