• Journalists told that meetings were in online diary
  • But dinner at Murdoch’s home was not disclosed
  • Details then hidden in obscure area of City Hall website

With the mainstream media following Scrapbook’s scoop on Boris Johnson’s undeclared meeting with Rupert Murdoch, a news report puts a hole in one of the excuses offered by Team Boris: that the engagement was declared on the City Hall website — albeit hidden in a section in which people would not look for this information and is not searchable by Google.

When BBC London political editor Tim Donovan asked for the meetings, he was told that they were available in the mayor’s diary — but they were not.

“when we asked last July for the full details of all the meetings he had with the Murdochs, his office said that his diary was published online. His diary at the time did not reveal this meeting with Mr Murdoch.”

At some point between last July (page archive) and this week, the scanned document was placed on the websiteostensibly in response to a freedom of information request.

The hoped and prayed that no one would notice.

  1. Great scoop. The only reason this was disclosed under FOI is because they have to by law, whereas there’s no law that says they have to tell the truth to journalists.

  2. This matter first came to light over a year ago. So secret was it you had to go to Boris’s town hall website look at his expenses to find it there.

    A bigger question is this ; This information was in the public domain over a year ago so why didn’t you use it during the Mayors election?

    Could it be you didn’t want Livingstone to be elected?

  3. Page not searchable by Google? Rubbish. Page is there clear as day and easily findable. This place is going right down the pan if you really think this is some sort of incredible scoop and write juvenile drivel about when documents are published with zero facts.

  4. I would like to extend a warm welcome to all the mouth-breathing commenters sent here by Guido Fawkes.


    1: Read Guido Fawkes article about Political Scrapbook
    2: Go to Political Scrapbook comment section
    3: Regurgitate whatever you have just read on Guido

    @Curbishley: It wasn’t in his expenses, it was in the FOI disclosure section — where no one would be looking for this kind of information because it is supposed to be disclosed elsewhere.

    @Animal: Try and get the contents of the PDF to appear in a Google search and I’ll give you £50.

  5. Laurence, the section as the article states (actually it is a page) is easily searchable.

    The pdf is a scannd document – not the only one in the FoI page as you will soon see along with there being no standard methodology of documenting pdf files.

    Your problem if you don’t know the difference between a section (page) and a document. By the way, if you decide to make one of your fabled updates, then do say you have been re-wording your article, there’s a good chap.

    Not interested in your £50 – give it to the Macmillan fund, it will match my monthly donation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.