Anything Political

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

It rhymes with joke 

[Beekay 5,149]

Wished I never walked through this door.

Towd ya I know nowt about politics.

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

Direct your grey matter towards more worthy and rewarding subjects, Beekay. Quantum physics, for instance.  Schrodinger placed two politicians in a box and closed the lid. Unless we take a look, how do we know they're still there?  Who cares?

[Beekay 5,149]

What the bloody hell on God's own Earth is Quantum physics??

Have I just stepped into the Twilight Zone. That's what happens with a limited vocabulary and even more limited education.

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

It's a lot more interesting than politics, Beekay. You ask @colly0410

[philmayfield 6,138]

I wouldn’t worry about it BK. I took physics at A level and I don’t recall it cropping up on the syllabus. As long as you understand Ohm’s Law and Newton’s laws of motion you’ll get by.

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

Not forgetting Parkinson's Law, of course! 

[philmayfield 6,138]

Sod’s Law can also be applicable!

[woody 552]

Can be applied to any situation.

[Beekay 5,149]

2 hours ago, philmayfield said:

I wouldn’t worry about it BK. I took physics at A level and I don’t recall it cropping up on the syllabus. As long as you understand Ohm’s Law and Newton’s laws of motion you’ll get by.

The only law I know about is the one I used to steer clear of during my early years and also when I'd got me driving licence.

[philmayfield 6,138]

I've never had any brushes with the law BK having always lead a godly, righteous and a sober life. When I was a member of the judiciary, as a tax commissioner, my records were checked and there was not a stain on my character! I must be an incredibly boring person.  Perhaps I should get out more or become a vicar.

[trogg 2,016]

Not forgetting Pythagoras theorem, thats important as well. lol

[philmayfield 6,138]

That's one of the many things you were taught at school but never ever came across in real life. A bit like quadratic equations.

[trogg 2,016]

Quadratic equations what a complete waste of time they were, I cannot think where they have benefitted my life in the slightest.

[IAN FINN 808]

Q.E.D. trogg at school it stood for Quite Enough Done. I can not remember what the original Greek or Latin was.

[philmayfield 6,138]

 Quod erat demonstrandum. 'That which was to be demonstrated'. My Latin obviously wasn't wasted!

[Beekay 5,149]

Just as I said! Baffling me wiv big words and science. I knew I went to the wrong school. All we were taught was 'Survival of the Fittest.

[MargieH 7,600]

Well you must be fit BK because you are still Surviving!

[trogg 2,016]

Beekay you are like me ,all these big words but we have both learnt enough words to be able to get through life, what more do we want or need.

[mary1947 2,082]

Doe's any member know the  address of the trail center where Boris went so we can all join.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 7/17/2021 at 6:14 AM, catfan said:

The BBC is absolutely not political you say.

That's the best laugh I have had in years. The Gaurdian newspaper a Tory supporter ?

This gets better.

 

Not really sure why I'm bothering to respond to that CF.  I did not say that the Guardian is a Tory paper and I most definitely did not say the the BBC is 'not political'.

 

I'll say it again.  the BBC is culturally and socially liberal. It does not promote or condone racism, homophobia etc.  I'm sorry if that bothers you.

However, at present, the BBC is not reporting what is being done by the Tories, apart from the obvious and constant series of gaffs, cock ups and U turns over Covid. It is not reporting on the anti democratic and gerrymandering activities of the Tories. They are seeking to abolish rights that were hard won a century or more ago, and to emasculate both Parliament and the Judiciary.  And all because Johnson is still smarting at being called out for the self interested liar he is, when he tried to use a minority position in Parliament to force his warped and petty views on this country.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

On 7/17/2021 at 11:19 AM, Brew said:

Laura Kuenssberg smirked! - seriously you're offering that as evidence Col?

 

Below the belt Jim.  You know that misrepresents what I said..

 

On 7/17/2021 at 11:19 AM, Brew said:

The BBC is biased in the opposite direction to the disgruntled and malcontents personal persuasion. Those with a left wing view will cherry pick articles they can twist to show bias towards the right, right wingers do the opposite.

 

Jim..that is is a familiar argument with some merit in some cases.  For e.g., there are still major Tory politicians who regularly claim the BBC is a hotbed of Marxism.  There is I think currently rather less overt allegation of bias by the the left.  Neither really pick up on the point I'm trying to make.

 

My point is that the BBC is failing to report very significant political activity by the Govt. I'm not getting hacked off so much by what they say, as what they are NOT saying.

 

This has gone on for years, but is currently the worst I can recall.  That was why I was so hacked off with Kuennsberg the other night.  She wasted about 10 minutes of a 30 minute news broadcast on the Starmer story.  What was the point?  But more importantly...why not spend that ten minutes on far more important stuff, such as Johnson's very dangerous anti-democratic/gerrymandering etc.. legislation which..as I'm getting sick of saying..was proposed in the Tory Manifesto.. because.. despite his attempts to portray himself as an amiable chap..he is still smarting from being put in his place by the Judiciary after he lied to the Queen and tried to prorogue Parliament.  The man is a tinpot Dictator and the UK population is currently sleepwalking into a near fascist state, while the BBC remains silent.

 

[Brew 5,418]

The BBC Political team is led by a number of people with known Tory associations.

 

Despite the implication we don’t know for sure if that ‘number’ represent a majority or how much influence they have.

 

The BBC is absolutely not politically biased to the left. 

 

In your opinion Col. I’ve shown that studies and reports are conflicting and I offer that it can safely be inferred they are as neutral as is possible. Despite Pete Sissons claiming "a left wing bias is written in the BBC's DNA

 

 "It is currently so terrified of the Tories that it barely challenges them on anything, instead just parroting the Govt. line, without serious analysis.

This evening, Laura Kuenssberg could barely keep that smirk off her face as she made an overlong report about Starmer trying to drum up support amongst disenchanted Labour voters,"

 

No challenges? Pure conjecture unless you can show evidence.

 

Kuenssberg is not on top of your most liked journalist we know but her ‘smirking’ may be seen  by most as simply a pleasant smile, not evidence of a right wing vamp – I don’t think my comment was below the belt at all. Do you not think if Starmer did his job there would be no disenchanted voters for her to talk about.

You complain her piece was overly long and yet a short breath later complain there is no serious analysis.

I suspect a report becomes overly long when we don’t agree with it, erudite and insightful when we do.

 

while she and the rest of the BBC are totally silent about the anti democratic and gerrymandering legislation Johnson and his band of crooks are forcing through Parliament.

 

The anti-protest bill has been widely reported with coverage of the marches, televised parliamentary debates etc. but if there is nothing to report and our glorious opposition are saying nothing what do you want the BBC to do? If it's topical it will be mentioned.

 

The BBC reports the news, they do not and should not create it. If we do not protest and the politicos raise no objections it’s not in the remit of the BBC to do it for us. That's what we supposedly elected our MPs for.

 

[DJ360 6,730]

Right.  Let's step back a bit eh?

 

I posted into this thread a couple of days ago to respond to Mike (Catfan's) allegation that the Main Stream Media is 'biased to the left'.

 

I don't think I have to argue this.  It is patently obvious that most of the media is NOT politically biased to the left.  The BBC isn't exactly fawning over Starmer et. al., and the likes of the Daily Mail and co are simply lyiing rags which twist every last thing into hysteria.

 

For what it's worth, I should explain here.. yet again.. that I am politically a democrat first and a socialist second.  My socialism is stronger than my association with any party, and the jury is very much out as to whether I can remain a Labour supporter as things are.  But the Tories have anticipated this and are already putting in place legislation which could make it ver4y difficult for any 'anti Tory coalition' to operate.

 

This country has voted in a Govt. which is at least as far to the right as Thatcher was.  The far right has been emboldened by this as all can see and this translates into everything from increasing racially motivated attacks, online abuse of black footballers, and of course the very questionable behaviour and policies of Priti Patel.. a politician with a history of failure and removal from office. Add in that the 'Tommy Robinson's' of this world, plus assorted far right rabble parties, now at least temporarily satisfied by Brexit and a far right Tory Govt... have all gone a bit quiet.  They are of course popping up on that other far left biased mainstream organ  'GB News' ..so at least humour isn't completely absent from politics...

 

So, moving on from whether the 'MSN' in general is left wing biased.  It isn't.  It is that simple.

 

So moving on again.  Is the MSM 'right wing biased'.  It's a simple question with a simple answer.  Does it end up supporting Johnson et.al.?

What do you think?

 

Moving on to the BBC.

 

First off. I'm mostly concerned with the main news. 1:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. These are the main news progs that get watched.  Arguing that there is deeper analysis of political news when most are in bed, or on BBC R4 which hardly anyone listens to.. isn't much of a defence.

 

 

 

It is not speculation to say that the core of its political staff have Tory associations and very possibly , sympathies.

 

Laura Kuennsberg has form.  She was found to have deliberately edited an interview with Jememy Corbyn to put him in a bad light.  Whatever your views of Corbyn..that is not the action of an unbiased reporter.  She can come over as quite charming and 'matey', on the late night thing she does.. but I'm not convinced.

[Brew 5,418]

 

I posted into this thread a couple of days ago to respond to Mike (Catfan's) allegation that the Main Stream Media is 'biased to the left'.

 

Difficult to say just what main stream media is, how it’s accessed and who defines it

 

But the Tories have anticipated this and are already putting in place legislation which could make it ver4y difficult for any 'anti Tory coalition' to operate.

 

Every government has organised and shaped things to their own advantage, nothing new there.

 

It’s stretching things a little to go from Boris to a rise in racism but I grant the sock puppet that is Patel should be fired sooner rather than later.

 

 

So, moving on from whether the 'MSN' in general is left wing biased.  It isn't.  It is that simple.

 

Is it that simple really? From whose perspective?

 

So moving on again.  Is the MSM 'right wing biased'.  It's a simple question with a simple answer.  Does it end up supporting Johnson et.al.?

What do you think?

 

What do I think? I think the simple question is an over simplification of an unanswerable and undefinable conundrum.  It depends on what exactly the term means. Do we include Facebook, Twitter and TikTok as MSM or restrict ourselves to the press and TV?

Are we to stick rigidly with our own inclinations and presumptions or may we take the views of others as equally valid?

 

First off. I'm mostly concerned with the main news. 1:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. These are the main news progs that get watched.  Arguing that there is deeper analysis of political news when most are in bed, or on BBC R4 which hardly anyone listens to.. isn't much of a defence.

 

But the news reports on just that, news, topical current affairs. It has thirty minutes to deal with not only national but global events. The ‘news’ is not and never was designed to deliver the depth of analysis you seem to be asking for and which is provided elsewhere. Who would provide it without causing howls of protest about political bias?

If people are not interested or can’t be arsed to watch Newsnight or listen to the World at One etc., whose fault is that?

 

It is not speculation to say that the core of its political staff have Tory associations and very possibly , sympathies.

 

Almost by definition it is…

 

Laura Kuennsberg has form.  She can come over as quite charming and 'matey', on the late night thing she does.. but I'm not convinced.

 

I agree she comes across as right wing but her recent interview with Cummings has me leaning more towards her having a strong self-centred bias than a political one.