The BBC didn’t.
They’re quite a big deal over here, you may have heard of them.
So the fact is the entire UK media didn’t call him acting PM.
Because he isn’t.
Another reason why the BBC has the reputation of one of the most credible news sources in the world.
If you take foreign news media (non British) with a good faith assumption, there really wasn’t an attempt to blatantly deceive.
There is a difference between de jure and de facto.
Clearly, Raab was NOT de jure Acting Prime Minister.
But he was deputized by Johnson to do certain tasks and thus could reasonably be perceived as de facto Acting Prime Minister, particularly by news media and lay people of foreign (non British) nationality.
I don’t think the foreign (non British) press was attempting to deceive. Merely the good faith mistakes of people unfamiliar with the nuances of British Government.
Sometimes in the United States, we get good faith misunderstandings of the status of certain Federal Judges who have announced their retirement.
Retirement can be both a legal and a colloquial term.
Most United States Federal Judges NEVER legally retire. They remain Federal Judges until their deaths. But at some point, most take inactive senior status, meaning they no longer perform any duties and retire in the colloquial sense.
We should be mindful that people can take things in the de jure sense, de facto sense or in a colloquial sense, with no intention to deceive.
Like I said, it’s mostly semantics.
Johnson has been discharge anyway, so it’s all moot now.
