Herald’s compromised ferret doesn’t bite the hand that feeds it

The formerly edgy, radical, people’s fact-checker, The Ferret, is comfortably in the lap of the Herald and seems not to have bitten Tom Gordon, Brian Taylor or Lord Dunlop yet. Brian Macwhirter has of course got his protective gear on.

In a biting investigation, one of three by the media mustelid dominating the Herald today, we read:

Ten of Scotland’s major newspapers are owned by just three men: Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere and Frederick Barclay. They are all billionaires who, personally or through their businesses, have used the law to avoid paying tax. An analysis by The Ferret reveals that all but one of Scotland’s national newspapers, the Sunday Post, are owned in other countries.

Only the Sunday Post? Jings, crivvens, help ma boab! Just as well the Ferret has joined them.

Wait! No, they’re in cahoots with the Herald. Who owns the Herald? Let’s read on and see.

No, can’t see it. Ten paragraphs down, seventeen..aah, there it is London-based Newsquest Media Group. HQ in the US, CE, Paul Bascobert.

So, little furry friend, what do we think of them or him?

Nothing reported. Run out of space? I see.

Let’s see what I can find.

I ferreted around for a bit and could find no obvious scandal but what does this from their Annual Report and Financial Statements mean?

No tax paid?

What does this do for the Herald? Lend them credibility? Make them appear to be people’s watchdogs, sorry ferrets, and not establishment poodles? Convinced?

What does this do for the Ferret? Horribly compromise them in a classic case of what Marx called, ‘repressive tolerance?’

The Herald can now claim: ‘See, we give space to honest critical voices’ but we’re keeping the lying conservative ones too.

I give money monthly to the Canary, based in England but a real fact-checker, crowd-funded only:

Independent Media | Campaigning Journalism

11 thoughts on “Herald’s compromised ferret doesn’t bite the hand that feeds it

  1. Newsquest make are a printing company. Printing documents for private education worldwide.

    Government contracts for printing propaganda.


  2. The Ferret -Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

    Do we need a Ferret 2 to verify the ”facts” from Ferret 1 ?

    It is getting so we don’t know whose ”facts” to trust . FFS , next they will be saying that Jackie Baillie is a lying cnut !


  3. John,Have you seen this one.

    ‘Bloody disgrace’: Ruth Davidson furious after all Scots Tory MPs vote for Boris Johnson’s international aid cuts

    Will someone ask what Dross thinks of this seeing she got him his job

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If not so serious one would have to laugh at the irony associated with Ms (is she a baroness yet?) Davidson’s remarks!

      It was a ‘serious’, important debate in the Commons yesterday on the issue of the international aid budget. Many Tory MPs from English constituencies spoke as did SNP and Scottish Lib Dem members in opposition to the cut to the aid budget.

      I looked at the Hansard record of the debate hoping to better understand the Scottish Tories’ position that Ruth Davidson seems to deplore so much. But the record shows that the Scottish Tories had nothing to say, choosing to remain silent during the debate and follow their real leader, Boris Johnson, into the voting lobby.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Staying with yesterday’s debate in the Commons on the aid budget, Chris Law the SNP MP for Dundee West made a fine speech but received a telling off from the Speaker for part of it.

        Law stated: “The Chancellor chose to take money away from preventing famine and malnutrition, conflict prevention, and protecting our planet and marginalised communities from the devastating effects of climate change. Instead—I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place—he chose to spend the money on enhanced cyberweapons, AI-enabled drones and, the biggest folly of all, increased stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, after he delivered a windfall for the defence budget—in the very same month the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was announced.”

        “If that is not an act of national shame, let us look at the icing on the cake. The Prime Minister, who is no longer in his place—he should be embarrassed when I read this—believes that spending upwards of £200 million on a shiny brand new royal yacht, Britannia 2.0, is more important than using lifesaving aid to deliver a more just, peaceful and secure world. That is despite the fact of the royal family’s complete displeasure. Mr Speaker, how un-British could that be?”

        Then came Mr Speaker ‘s rebuke: “Order. Normally, we do not bring the royal family into our debates. They are OUTSIDE our debates. Those are the rules of the House.” (my emphasis)

        Liked by 3 people

      2. And finally from me on international aid, we seem to have another example of the deceitfulness of the present Westminster government. And on this occasion it is being exposed by no less than a former Tory Prime Minister on the floor of the Commons!

        The Chancellor said in the debate: ‘There is no question about our commitment to overseas aid. The only question is when we return to the 0.7% target. The motion puts beyond all doubt that we will do so once two clear objective tests have been met: our national debt is falling and we are no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending. Those tests are in line with the approach set out in our manifesto and at the Budget. They are practical and realistic.’

        However, this was Theresa May’s view of the Chancellor’s remarks::
        “.. the two tests have only been met in one calendar year in the past 20 years.’

        She added: “I certainly doubt whether the tests will ever be met in five years’ time. Meeting them depends not only on a significant recovery in the economy—the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting trend growth of less than 2%—but on the Government reining in their inclination to continue to increase public spending. We are told that there will be dire consequences for tax and public spending if this motion is defeated. We have borrowed £400 billion—where are the dire warnings about that? It seems that £4 billion is really bad news; £400 billion—who cares?’

        Time and again we are presented with the clearest of evidence that Tories should not be trusted. To those in Scotland hoping for constitutional reform short of full independence, the notion that the Tories could be ‘trusted’ in negotiation is a delusion.

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.