22
Zack Polanski says he was wrong to call himself a Red Cross spokesperson
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
22 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
5492 readers
82 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Zack Polanski faced an absolute battering for retweeting a pretty tame tweet, including being told by the PM that he's not fit to lead a political party. In the same week Nigel Farage said he'd only send immigrants to green voting areas if he gets in. Which is worse, and which got more attention? Why?
Not only are you indulging in whataboutery, you can't even focus on what your man's done wrong this week. I think if you felt his behaviour was actually defensible, you'd defend it, rather than trying to change the subject.
The subject is that the attacks on this politician are ramping up this week. My comment was germane to the context.
I think his behaviour is defensible. It is a single word that was incorrect, there's zero tangible effect, it was ~~two~~ four years ago, and he has admitted he was wrong, apologised and taken it down.
If other politicians were as straight as he is, we wouldn't be in this mess.
As straight as he is? He's been caught out lying on multiple occasions.
There's no reason to believe they're 'ramping up' beyond paranoia. He did some things that were both unusual for a politician and that people wildly disapproved of this week. When should the press have reported that news? His latest lies were discovered this week. Again, when should the press have reported them, such that it would meet with your approval?
They should've reported it four years ago, when it happened, maybe?
Which other occasions?
Before he was party leader? They should've reported on the activities of some guy in case he eventually became leader?
The other occasions of his lying were the hypnoboobs thing and his subsequent false claims (that it was a sting and that he disavowed it immediately, both false).
Ok, so then when he became party leader?
The 'hypnoboob' thing wasn't in any way a lie now was it. And again, it's of zero consequence. I think you're gasping at straws here, especially if you compare his record to literally any other party leader. Who's your guy?
Because they didn't know about it! They have to research and check this stuff and that takes time.
Suspiciously exactly the amount of time it takes before he's involved in a high profile election? I'm minded not to believe in coincidences like this when there's a much more likely explanation.
Journalist doing their job is the most likely explanation.
No, the explanation of the timing of the piece, not its existence.