British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
What is gong on in GB right now? All of a sudden my social media feed is filled with all these stabbings. Is it like pit bull attacks in the US, where they are always going on but the media normally keeps it in the background, but occasionally it gets amplified and all over the place?
What is gong on in GB right now? All of a sudden my social media feed is filled with all these stabbings. Is it like pit bull attacks in the US, where they are always going on but the media normally keeps it in the background, but occasionally it gets amplified and all over the place?
A combination of social media algorithms and bad faith actors amplifying everything.
Longish read but very interesting
Declassified Media Ltd
I'd thought the Grauniad's shift in stance over the years from radical-friendly to middle lib was merely part of Overton but having read this I'm cancelling my subscription.
The people believe all the parties to be ****, and the people are right. A very dangerous situation.
agreed very dangerous. Especially when the peopel are correct to think both main parties are ****
much more dangerous than a **** party in power with a good party as the opposition.
The fascist regime
Nottingham Magistrates' Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric.
Now some "real experts" will come and explain it's absolutely proper to sanction "anti-establishment rhetoric". Not fascist at all.
Or that the guy is "only" arrested and being tried because of racism, in which cash WHY does the BBC write about "anti-establishment rhetoric" and WHY is that a matter for the court?
The fascist regime
Nottingham Magistrates' Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric.
Now some "real experts" will come and explain it's absolutely proper to sanction "anti-establishment rhetoric". Not fascist at all.
Or that the guy is "only" arrested and being tried because of racism, in which cash WHY does the BBC write about "anti-establishment rhetoric" and WHY is that a matter for the court?
best not dig any further hey? just go with bbc reporting?
Given that (if i understand the law correctly) it is actually a crime to answer yes at any of these 4 questions, it's incredible how many people answered yes.
And i suppose it means the actual number of people who think that is higher
Disappointing lack of detail in that poll. Broken down by geographic area, rural vs urban, age etc would offer great insight.
Disappointing lack of detail in that poll. Broken down by geographic area, rural vs urban, age etc would offer great insight.
There is this
Here for the whole data, dunno how granular they are have to download and check
I've run a few calculations and it's a pretty disturbing set of results not as dimensionally asymmetric as I hoped. Perhaps it's a rogue poll from this new polling company.
The source of the problem remains...
There is this
Here for the whole data, dunno how granular they are have to download and check
'Strongly agree' and 'Agree' are doing rather badly there, even among Reform UK voters.
That's state media writing as if "writing anti-establishment rethoric" was a crime. That's fascism.
I don't know what you mean with "dig any further", the reporting itself with that frame is the fascist act.
The bbc is (broadly) neutral not media of those in charge
The crime isnt what was reported on, but, what was stated in court.
You've made assumptions on the crime & the way courts work that favour your interpretation anr world view.
If a journalist wanted to rile up ppl like you they'd report it similar to this, and, spread it far and wide
I see only bad reporting
No that's quite wrong and has been for a long time. The BBC is very pro-government now, a far cry from the days when a newsreader turned to the camera and said the BBC had political impartiality written into its charter (in response to the Thatcher government complaining about coverage of the Falklands War).
That impartiality went south under Blair and his crew of media manipulators and is little more than a mouthpiece for nationalism now.
No that's quite wrong and has been for a long time. The BBC is very pro-government now, a far cry from the days when a newsreader turned to the camera and said the BBC had political impartiality written into its charter (in response to the Thatcher government complaining about coverage of the Falklands War).
That impartiality went south under Blair and his crew of media manipulators and is little more than a mouthpiece for nationalism now.
Im more sympathetic than you are i think
I dont see it as a deliberate act, more that the bbcs definition of impartial is neutral meaning it sees the swathe of right wing media folk and has to equate them with lefties. Plus it then hired too many big wig right wing journos
But i see that more as organisational incompetence than anything else (like i see this reporting that's got lucioms knickers in a twist.)
so 2% think that attacking refugee homes is necessary but not justified, and 4% think that xenophobic acts of violence are defensible but not justified? i mean ... as long as they know, i guess 
Im more sympathetic than you are i think
I dont see it as a deliberate act, more that the bbcs definition of impartial is neutral meaning it sees the swathe of right wing media folk and has to equate them with lefties. Plus it then hired too many big wig right wing journos
But i see that more as organisational incompetence than anything else (like i see this reporting that's got lucioms knickers in a twist.)
That's very charitable. Possibly too charitable when you consider the BBC Chairman helped organise a £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson before moving into that job, and he had been Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs.
That's very charitable. Possibly too charitable when you consider the BBC Chairman helped organise a £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson before moving into that job, and he had been Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs.
Not as charitable as that loan heyyooooo
On a serious note tho.... i dont think the bbc is effective enough to be as corrupt as you think
