Daily reckoning website

I have just been informedĀ about this website. I have nothing to do with it, and have not authorised it to publish any of my material. People going to it should know it is in no way backed or supported by me.

12 Comments

  1. Sir Joe Soap
    November 8, 2017

    A name more appropriate for Mrs May, or perhaps “chickens home to roost” would be even better.

    When you take on this role, as I’m sure she did in good faith, you either have to be completely laid back as per D Cameron/B Johnson, or extremely intellectually focussed, as per Thatcher, Brown (………) or Blair (well meaning but mistaken).

    This could admittedly have gone either way. She could have been the even-handed but forceful, managerially competent, workaholic, focussed PM that the country needed.
    Now the game is up. Heir to Major probably sums it up. No direction, no conservative principles, no managerial competence, not great judgement.

    Nice, but we don’t need nice in this job.

    1. James Matthews
      November 8, 2017

      Blair “well meaning”? An obvious charlatan without roots, learning or belief in any culture, driven partly by greed, but mostly by vanity, who did more irreversible harm to the United Kingdom than any Prime Minister (so far).

      You are far too kind.

    2. Mitchel
      November 9, 2017

      Heir to Major?Ethel the Unready more like.

  2. Oscar wilde
    November 8, 2017

    It’s not got any of my Comments under your name there so whats the point!

  3. acorn
    November 8, 2017

    “Brexiteer MP urges investors to ditch the UK in favour of the European Central Bank.”

    “PROMINENT Brexiteer John Redwood has advised investors to avoid the UK and take their pounds elsewhere.”

    JR, as far as your local vote is concerned the “Bracknell News” appears to have decided it is not exactly going to do you any favours.

    Reply Complete misrepresentation of what I wrote.

  4. alan jutson
    November 8, 2017

    Not seen it, but thanks for the info.

  5. Chris S
    November 8, 2017

    It does seem to imply that you’re one of their regular contributors, doesn’t it ?

    In a way it’s flattering, I suppose, but at least you aren’t syndicated onto their US edition.

  6. David Murfin
    November 9, 2017

    “I have not authorised it to publish any of my material. ”
    I haven’t seen what material of yours they have published, but I wonder about breach of copyright? Fair dealing allows the publication of extracts for review and comment, but not whole articles.

  7. MikeP
    November 9, 2017

    As you say you haven’t authorised them to reproduce your blog articles on their website, have you asked them to remove the footnotes saying you have? Your views seem to be almost all they’ve got to publish.

  8. nigel seymour
    November 9, 2017

    I can live with PP getting relieved of her position. Papers now report that she will be trying to shaft TM and join the anti-brexit group. We all know who they are and most were sacked. They now huddle in there sad little back bench corner to the right of the speaker. The EU, understandably, are making capital on the perceived downfall of TM and Gov.

    “TERRORS FOR CHILDREN, NOT FOR ME!!!!!! – Sir Thomas More

  9. Dennis Zoff
    November 9, 2017

    Good afternoon JR

    I have just read the “The Daily Reckoning UK” Some interesting articles, but mainly just a regurgitation of previous reviews from other publications. Your purported views are very prominent?

    If indeed they are mispresenting your material, I would have concerns. Not everybody is posting on your site….very many will not be aware you are disassociating yourself from these articles?

    Reply Of course not,I stand by my articles on this site. I am just pointing out I have nothing to do with this other site that reposts them

    1. Dennis Zoff
      November 9, 2017

      JR?

      ….and I am agreeing with you, but also pointing out that if your articles are being misrepresented on another site without your prior knowledge, and are seen by individuals that are not privy to this site (and therefore do not see your denouncement) they may believe what is written on this alternative site is true, perhaps to your detriment?

      Either I am misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me?

      Perhaps this part of my original comment could have been written with more clarity?

      “very many will not be aware you are disassociating yourself from an alternative site that has published your articles incorrectly?”

      Replyi am also taking it up with the site

Comments are closed.