This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm seeing bias in the reporting of the election today and it's quite subtle but it is pro Conservative and anti Labour.
A glance at the BBC News page and you get "May: I'm ready for Brexit, Corbyn isn't", "Corbyn struggles over childcare cost" and "Jeremy Corbyn's Woman's Hour stumble". On a BBC Politics feed on Facebook is the video titled "Watch LIVE: Theresa May launches a new attack on Jeremy Corbyn, saying he's 'not prepared to govern'". Is this all the establishments response to last nights perceived Corbyn win on the debate on Channel 4?
So much for impartiality; it makes me resent paying my license fee (which is due tomorrow) as the BBC isn't doing its job of being an impartial broadcaster. It's upsetting as I always had the BBC as my homepage. Who's pulling the strings and corrupting the British Broadcasting Corporation?
A glance at the BBC News page and you get "May: I'm ready for Brexit, Corbyn isn't", "Corbyn struggles over childcare cost" and "Jeremy Corbyn's Woman's Hour stumble". On a BBC Politics feed on Facebook is the video titled "Watch LIVE: Theresa May launches a new attack on Jeremy Corbyn, saying he's 'not prepared to govern'". Is this all the establishments response to last nights perceived Corbyn win on the debate on Channel 4?
So much for impartiality; it makes me resent paying my license fee (which is due tomorrow) as the BBC isn't doing its job of being an impartial broadcaster. It's upsetting as I always had the BBC as my homepage. Who's pulling the strings and corrupting the British Broadcasting Corporation?
48
10
In reply to broken spectre:
I've noticed a change of late. Yet in the past the Tories always accused the BBC of left wing bias. So what's happened? Have all the Trots and reds-under-the-bed been pensioned off or something?
> I'm seeing bias in the reporting of the election today and it's quite subtle but it is pro Conservative and anti Labour.
I've noticed a change of late. Yet in the past the Tories always accused the BBC of left wing bias. So what's happened? Have all the Trots and reds-under-the-bed been pensioned off or something?
6
In reply to Pekkie:
I failed to switch off the radio before Woman's Hour and the full horror of the female BBC entrapment of Corbyn was heard - which the BBC then feasted on this evening on the PM programme and the main BBC News.
They just seem to want to shut everyone down apart from the Theresekampfwagen
I failed to switch off the radio before Woman's Hour and the full horror of the female BBC entrapment of Corbyn was heard - which the BBC then feasted on this evening on the PM programme and the main BBC News.
They just seem to want to shut everyone down apart from the Theresekampfwagen
14
4
14
12
In reply to broken spectre:
Isnt that just the headlines today? May was in trouble most of the last two weeks over various uturns.
Isnt that just the headlines today? May was in trouble most of the last two weeks over various uturns.
12
1
In reply to Pekkie:
An early example of fake news.
> in the past the Tories always accused the BBC of left wing bias.
An early example of fake news.
19
11
In reply to wercat:
I didn't listen to it but it hardly seems like entrapment to ask him a pretty obvious question about a policy he was launching today, and why he was on the show.
I didn't listen to it but it hardly seems like entrapment to ask him a pretty obvious question about a policy he was launching today, and why he was on the show.
11
1
In reply to MG:
Once again I have been rightly enlightened by the UKC collective, thanks MG, I think you are right.
Once again I have been rightly enlightened by the UKC collective, thanks MG, I think you are right.
2
3
2
In reply to CasWebb:
the way in which it was asked and not let go of seemed more important to the interviewer than the policy itself - I suspect they were more interested in scoring an interviewer point than discussing Labour intentions. As per usual
the way in which it was asked and not let go of seemed more important to the interviewer than the policy itself - I suspect they were more interested in scoring an interviewer point than discussing Labour intentions. As per usual
13
3
In reply to broken spectre:
I think there's a theory that the BBC tend to favour the sitting government.
I think there's a theory that the BBC tend to favour the sitting government.
3
2
In reply to Pekkie:
Basically, yes. The BBC represents the liberal consensus. Forty years ago Corbyn would have been the darling of that consensus but time moves on and that generation has left the BBC. Now, economically, he is outside that envelope.
> I've noticed a change of late. Yet in the past the Tories always accused the BBC of left wing bias. So what's happened? Have all the Trots and reds-under-the-bed been pensioned off or something?
Basically, yes. The BBC represents the liberal consensus. Forty years ago Corbyn would have been the darling of that consensus but time moves on and that generation has left the BBC. Now, economically, he is outside that envelope.
2
2
In reply to broken spectre:
I've noticed a change recently toward JC, slightly less attackes from non-news programmes.
I tend to see or hear an open shit sandwich of news on JC at present i.e. they give you some favourable news, quickly followed by some criticism. I suppose they'd class this as their need to make things balanced.
If you look at who's at the top of the BBC and the top of the news desks, and how they got there, it's hardly surprising there's some bias.
I've noticed a change recently toward JC, slightly less attackes from non-news programmes.
I tend to see or hear an open shit sandwich of news on JC at present i.e. they give you some favourable news, quickly followed by some criticism. I suppose they'd class this as their need to make things balanced.
If you look at who's at the top of the BBC and the top of the news desks, and how they got there, it's hardly surprising there's some bias.
5
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
As I recall, Alastair Campbell didn't seem convinced of that!
> I think there's a theory that the BBC tend to favour the sitting government.
As I recall, Alastair Campbell didn't seem convinced of that!
2
1
In reply to wercat:
But you'd think a competant team would have learnt its lesson by now. I know he's not the sharpest tool in the box but surley the Dawn Butler car crash, the Dianne Abbot car crash and the Angela Rayner car crash can't have escaped Corbyn's attention?
Going on to national radio to trumpet a very expensive policy and not consider he might be asked just how expensive doesn't look like a man on top of his game. This isn't like the sneaky "how much is a pint of milk" question to someone who might reasonably not have bought a pint of milk in years.
> the way in which it was asked and not let go of seemed more important to the interviewer than the policy itself - I suspect they were more interested in scoring an interviewer point than discussing Labour intentions. As per usual >
But you'd think a competant team would have learnt its lesson by now. I know he's not the sharpest tool in the box but surley the Dawn Butler car crash, the Dianne Abbot car crash and the Angela Rayner car crash can't have escaped Corbyn's attention?
Going on to national radio to trumpet a very expensive policy and not consider he might be asked just how expensive doesn't look like a man on top of his game. This isn't like the sneaky "how much is a pint of milk" question to someone who might reasonably not have bought a pint of milk in years.
10
1
In reply to broken spectre:
I'm quite convinced and Labour f*ck ups get much more air time and repeats, than any Tory one's this clip would have had a bit more air time if it was made by Labour.
youtube.com/watch?v=6wTPckw2m1Y&
Michael Fallon shooting his foot completely off.
I'm quite convinced and Labour f*ck ups get much more air time and repeats, than any Tory one's this clip would have had a bit more air time if it was made by Labour.
youtube.com/watch?v=6wTPckw2m1Y&
Michael Fallon shooting his foot completely off.
5
2
In reply to broken spectre:
I haven't seen anything on the BBC about the Tory candidate standing in Jo Cox's seat saying nobody had been shot yet.
The Tories do get off lightly, especially for lying.
I haven't seen anything on the BBC about the Tory candidate standing in Jo Cox's seat saying nobody had been shot yet.
The Tories do get off lightly, especially for lying.
10
4
In reply to wercat:
In fairness, reporters have been doing that in every interview I've seen. Maybe, just maybe, if politicians answered the question the interviewers wouldn't keep repeating it.
In fairness, reporters have been doing that in every interview I've seen. Maybe, just maybe, if politicians answered the question the interviewers wouldn't keep repeating it.
4
In reply to krikoman:
Where exactly in that interview does he 'shoot his foot off'? He has a brief awkward moment when it becomes apparent that the interviewer has deliberately tricked him into thinking he was quoting Corbyn when he was actually quoting Boris but he handles it remarkably calmly like a man in control. Can he really be expected to have memorised everything his loose canon colleague has ever said? Its hardly in the same league as not having a clue about how much your own policy that you are actively promoting will cost.
Its not getting more air time because its a minor scrape in a car park not a car crash and would be an ideal tutorial to Abbot and co. as to how to remain calm and composed under pressure.
> I'm quite convinced and Labour f*ck ups get much more air time and repeats, than any Tory one's this clip would have had a bit more air time if it was made by Labour.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTPckw2m1YMichael Fallon shooting his foot completely off. >
Where exactly in that interview does he 'shoot his foot off'? He has a brief awkward moment when it becomes apparent that the interviewer has deliberately tricked him into thinking he was quoting Corbyn when he was actually quoting Boris but he handles it remarkably calmly like a man in control. Can he really be expected to have memorised everything his loose canon colleague has ever said? Its hardly in the same league as not having a clue about how much your own policy that you are actively promoting will cost.
Its not getting more air time because its a minor scrape in a car park not a car crash and would be an ideal tutorial to Abbot and co. as to how to remain calm and composed under pressure.
7
6
In reply to CasWebb:
That's what I thought. If there's a time you're going to remember the cost of a policy it ought to be on the day you're launching it and going on air to talk about it.
> I didn't listen to it but it hardly seems like entrapment to ask him a pretty obvious question about a policy he was launching today, and why he was on the show.
That's what I thought. If there's a time you're going to remember the cost of a policy it ought to be on the day you're launching it and going on air to talk about it.
Post edited at 21:17
5
In reply to CasWebb:
A little bit disappointing when they could be the main opposition in theory. It's healthier for democracy to have a robust one.
A little bit disappointing when they could be the main opposition in theory. It's healthier for democracy to have a robust one.
Post edited at 22:04
3
In reply to pec:
Well, because he either believes in the statement or he doesn't, once he's made aware it's Boris, he tries to change his mind. Let's not forget Boris is our Foreign Minister and he didn't make a mistake when he said these things, he didn't forget the figures, he actually said the words. Both Fallon and May have been lambasting JC saying this is what he said, trying to tie him into being "friends" with terrorists, when in reality he said no such thing, he condemned all terrorism and blamed the perpetrators themselves.
And yet, it's been widely reports JC DID say these things, and even when the truth is staring you in the face you are quite happy to make excuses for it.
> Where exactly in that interview does he 'shoot his foot off'?
Well, because he either believes in the statement or he doesn't, once he's made aware it's Boris, he tries to change his mind. Let's not forget Boris is our Foreign Minister and he didn't make a mistake when he said these things, he didn't forget the figures, he actually said the words. Both Fallon and May have been lambasting JC saying this is what he said, trying to tie him into being "friends" with terrorists, when in reality he said no such thing, he condemned all terrorism and blamed the perpetrators themselves.
And yet, it's been widely reports JC DID say these things, and even when the truth is staring you in the face you are quite happy to make excuses for it.
5
3
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Or that, a Tory councillor was once a MEMBER of the IRA, not just someone who spoke to them.
> I haven't seen anything on the BBC about the Tory candidate standing in Jo Cox's seat saying nobody had been shot yet. The Tories do get off lightly, especially for lying.
Or that, a Tory councillor was once a MEMBER of the IRA, not just someone who spoke to them.
1
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I wouldn't trust corkscrew Campell to sell me a war though....
> As I recall, Alastair Campbell didn't seem convinced of that!
I wouldn't trust corkscrew Campell to sell me a war though....
3
In reply to krikoman:
This one?
"This morning the Cabinet member for Children's' Services and Adult Learning, Councillor Gatland, informed the Leader of the Council that during the early 1970s she had been an active member of the Provisional IRA, operating under a different surname," he wrote. "She immediately offered her resignation from the Cabinet which the Leader accepted. I understand that she has also had the Conservative Whip removed."
She decided to cut herself off from the IRA after 20 bombs were detonated in Belfast in July 1972, killing 11 people and injuring more than 100, according to the book. "Almost for the first time, I wondered about the crippled and the widowed and the lives that had been changed forever," she wrote. She is believed to have been court-martialled and sentenced to death by the IRA as a result.
> Or that, a Tory councillor was once a MEMBER of the IRA, not just someone who spoke to them.
This one?
"This morning the Cabinet member for Children's' Services and Adult Learning, Councillor Gatland, informed the Leader of the Council that during the early 1970s she had been an active member of the Provisional IRA, operating under a different surname," he wrote. "She immediately offered her resignation from the Cabinet which the Leader accepted. I understand that she has also had the Conservative Whip removed."
She decided to cut herself off from the IRA after 20 bombs were detonated in Belfast in July 1972, killing 11 people and injuring more than 100, according to the book. "Almost for the first time, I wondered about the crippled and the widowed and the lives that had been changed forever," she wrote. She is believed to have been court-martialled and sentenced to death by the IRA as a result.
2
In reply to CasWebb:
I'm not a Corbyn fan, but the Woman's hour interviewer, pounced at the chance when there was a hesitation from Corbyn, and then proceeded to appear to delight in telling the nation that he was now logging on to his iPad.
For sure he did not have the figure to hand, but most telling was that the BBC were not in the least interested in the figure ( as they never did report it) they were only interested in the fact that he did not have it at the moment asked, and they had engineered a scoop.
> I didn't listen to it but it hardly seems like entrapment to ask him a pretty obvious question about a policy he was launching today, and why he was on the show.
I'm not a Corbyn fan, but the Woman's hour interviewer, pounced at the chance when there was a hesitation from Corbyn, and then proceeded to appear to delight in telling the nation that he was now logging on to his iPad.
For sure he did not have the figure to hand, but most telling was that the BBC were not in the least interested in the figure ( as they never did report it) they were only interested in the fact that he did not have it at the moment asked, and they had engineered a scoop.
10
2
In reply to krikoman:
So your point is? That people should have to suffer for their choices of 45 years ago, even if in realising that choice was wrong and in trying to correct it, they risk their own life?
> yes, that one.
So your point is? That people should have to suffer for their choices of 45 years ago, even if in realising that choice was wrong and in trying to correct it, they risk their own life?
1
1
In reply to Jim C:
That seems to be the way political interviews go on all sides now. I'm not sure why some politicians don't say, "that's too complicated for me to be certain of from memory so my staff will get me the full figures in 10 minutes and I'm happy to go back to this point, or listeners can look at our website for a costing breakdown."
That seems to be the way political interviews go on all sides now. I'm not sure why some politicians don't say, "that's too complicated for me to be certain of from memory so my staff will get me the full figures in 10 minutes and I'm happy to go back to this point, or listeners can look at our website for a costing breakdown."
2
1
In reply to TobyA:
As I recall Corbyn DID politely and calmly say that the figure would be available shortly, but the interviewer did not accept that, and could have gone on to another point, and returned to that, but she seemed to relish the opportunity to TRY to fluster him, and make an issue of it. But after the DA train crash, he should have been ready to be asked the question.
> That seems to be the way political interviews go on all sides now. I'm not sure why some politicians don't say, "that's too complicated for me to be certain of from memory so my staff will get me the full figures in 10 minutes and I'm happy to go back to this point, or listeners can look at our website for a costing breakdown."
As I recall Corbyn DID politely and calmly say that the figure would be available shortly, but the interviewer did not accept that, and could have gone on to another point, and returned to that, but she seemed to relish the opportunity to TRY to fluster him, and make an issue of it. But after the DA train crash, he should have been ready to be asked the question.
Post edited at 09:19
3
1
In reply to Jim C:
Cue it being the BBC's second-top story all of yesterday and mentioned in each one of their live election updates, be it relevant or not to whatever was referred to in that update. I have been fighting the BBC's corner for a long time against those who have accused it of bias, but I'm beginning to smell a rat. This is what happens when you riddle your news staff with former Times and Telegraph journalists.
Cue it being the BBC's second-top story all of yesterday and mentioned in each one of their live election updates, be it relevant or not to whatever was referred to in that update. I have been fighting the BBC's corner for a long time against those who have accused it of bias, but I'm beginning to smell a rat. This is what happens when you riddle your news staff with former Times and Telegraph journalists.
3
3
In reply to TobyA:
My point is, there's been no reporting of this, and yet JCs meeting with the IRA and Hamas, have him painted as an undercover operator just about.
I'm all for people making changes in their lives, I'm also, all for a fair and honest media.
But if you don't see the dichotomy between the two examples, then how do we start to have a fairer ,caring society?
The original question was about BBC bias, so while we've heard plenty about the "traitor" Jeremy Corbyn, we've heard nothing about Mz. Gatland's past.
The word hypocrisy comes to mind. I don't think you'll find evidence of JC ever wishing someone was dead, or the more dead people the better.
So, that's my point.
> So your point is? That people should have to suffer for their choices of 45 years ago, even if in realising that choice was wrong and in trying to correct it, they risk their own life?
My point is, there's been no reporting of this, and yet JCs meeting with the IRA and Hamas, have him painted as an undercover operator just about.
I'm all for people making changes in their lives, I'm also, all for a fair and honest media.
But if you don't see the dichotomy between the two examples, then how do we start to have a fairer ,caring society?
The original question was about BBC bias, so while we've heard plenty about the "traitor" Jeremy Corbyn, we've heard nothing about Mz. Gatland's past.
The word hypocrisy comes to mind. I don't think you'll find evidence of JC ever wishing someone was dead, or the more dead people the better.
So, that's my point.
3
2
In reply to krikoman:
The story about Gatland's past coming to light is a decade old. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/07/ira-northern-ireland-conse... No one beyond Croyden really seemed to care back then, it's just being rehashed now in silly bit of Momentum whataboutery - kind of stupid whatboutery at that too - Gatland went into hiding in the 70s because leaving the IRA was dangerous. Showing the Tories have a local councilor now who used to be in the IRA shows what exactly? That the Tory party must 45 years later support the bombing in Manchester now? Huh?
Is that the point? Corbyn (and McDonnell and Abbott) long saw Northern Ireland and as an anti-imperial struggle which would be resolved by the UK leaving. Maybe they're right, I don't know - but I don't know why they don't just say their views supporting Irish nationalism are exactly that - they don't have anything to do with their views on Jihadi violence now. Corbyn now saying he just wanted peace in NI simply isn't true; he perhaps did but he thought that would result from NI becoming part of Ireland not the UK.
> The original question was about BBC bias, so while we've heard plenty about the "traitor" Jeremy Corbyn, we've heard nothing about Mz. Gatland's past.
The story about Gatland's past coming to light is a decade old. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/07/ira-northern-ireland-conse... No one beyond Croyden really seemed to care back then, it's just being rehashed now in silly bit of Momentum whataboutery - kind of stupid whatboutery at that too - Gatland went into hiding in the 70s because leaving the IRA was dangerous. Showing the Tories have a local councilor now who used to be in the IRA shows what exactly? That the Tory party must 45 years later support the bombing in Manchester now? Huh?
> The word hypocrisy comes to mind. I don't think you'll find evidence of JC ever wishing someone was dead,
Is that the point? Corbyn (and McDonnell and Abbott) long saw Northern Ireland and as an anti-imperial struggle which would be resolved by the UK leaving. Maybe they're right, I don't know - but I don't know why they don't just say their views supporting Irish nationalism are exactly that - they don't have anything to do with their views on Jihadi violence now. Corbyn now saying he just wanted peace in NI simply isn't true; he perhaps did but he thought that would result from NI becoming part of Ireland not the UK.
4
In reply to TobyA:
Except that they do. Corbyn is basically parroting the same narrative about the jihadis as he did about the IRA, albeit in a toned down form: that the UK is an imperialistic power and that it should therefore take responsibility for the blowback from those imperialistic activities.
He is,as you point out, also a barefaced liar in his feeble claim to have been facilitating the peace process.
> Maybe they're right, I don't know - but I don't know why they don't just say their views supporting Irish nationalism are exactly that - they don't have anything to do with their views on Jihadi violence now.
>Except that they do. Corbyn is basically parroting the same narrative about the jihadis as he did about the IRA, albeit in a toned down form: that the UK is an imperialistic power and that it should therefore take responsibility for the blowback from those imperialistic activities.
He is,as you point out, also a barefaced liar in his feeble claim to have been facilitating the peace process.
Post edited at 13:54
7
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
Find me a quote where he says the UK should "take responsibility" would you? I've not heard him or read him saying that. He did says that UK foreign policy has helped lead to radicalisation, but only the Daily Mail and its fellow travelers go from that to saying therefore he thinks we deserved or were _responsible_ for Manchester.
I presume Tory and UKIP voters are on Facebook too, and must have these sort of shit memes whining and making idiotic or false equivalences just like the pro-Corbyn crowd does (although demographically, perhaps less Tory voters are on FB and, besides, they have the vast majority of the UK printed press playing the same role), I just don't see them in my FB feed - echo chambers and all that. But the Tory line of trying to say Corbyn supports or is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism is about as facile and pathetic as the Corbynistas' attempt to whitewash St. Jezzer of his long standing sympathy for the Republican movement, including those who would fight for it.
> and that it should therefore take responsibility for the blowback from those imperialistic activities.
Find me a quote where he says the UK should "take responsibility" would you? I've not heard him or read him saying that. He did says that UK foreign policy has helped lead to radicalisation, but only the Daily Mail and its fellow travelers go from that to saying therefore he thinks we deserved or were _responsible_ for Manchester.
I presume Tory and UKIP voters are on Facebook too, and must have these sort of shit memes whining and making idiotic or false equivalences just like the pro-Corbyn crowd does (although demographically, perhaps less Tory voters are on FB and, besides, they have the vast majority of the UK printed press playing the same role), I just don't see them in my FB feed - echo chambers and all that. But the Tory line of trying to say Corbyn supports or is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism is about as facile and pathetic as the Corbynistas' attempt to whitewash St. Jezzer of his long standing sympathy for the Republican movement, including those who would fight for it.
5
1
In reply to TobyA:
"Take responsibility" in the sense of , was one of the causes ie. "leads to radicalisation, which in turn leads to violence.
Even he is not dumb or nasty enough to think that jihadi bombings are justified or to pursue his dictum that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" in this case, but his core principle, that western imperialism is the enemy, remains.
Which reminds me, Corbyn's rise came soon after Bruce Hooker's disappearance......
> Find me a quote where he says the UK should "take responsibility" would you?
>"Take responsibility" in the sense of , was one of the causes ie. "leads to radicalisation, which in turn leads to violence.
Even he is not dumb or nasty enough to think that jihadi bombings are justified or to pursue his dictum that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" in this case, but his core principle, that western imperialism is the enemy, remains.
Which reminds me, Corbyn's rise came soon after Bruce Hooker's disappearance......
Post edited at 14:14
6
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
I do find it interesting how you interpret someone's words is affected by how you perceive them.
I'm not Corbyn fan, I am warming to him over these past weeks though, but got a very different message than you from what he's said. I don't think he said we should take responsibility but acknowledge the mess we've made in the middle east.
> > Except that they do. Corbyn is basically parroting the same narrative about the jihadis as he did about the IRA, albeit in a toned down form: that the UK is an imperialistic power and that it should therefore take responsibility for the blowback from those imperialistic activities. He is,as you point out, also a barefaced liar in his feeble claim to have been facilitating the peace process.
I do find it interesting how you interpret someone's words is affected by how you perceive them.
I'm not Corbyn fan, I am warming to him over these past weeks though, but got a very different message than you from what he's said. I don't think he said we should take responsibility but acknowledge the mess we've made in the middle east.
8
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Did you read the 1994 early day motion Corbyn had signed along with the likes of Abbot, Livingstone etc? It condemned the killings by the IRA but went on to say the violence resulted from the UK's military occupation of NI, going back to '21, and would not stop until Britain withdrew. As far as I'm aware he has never said anything that direct about the UK's responsibility for Jihadi violence.
Did you read the 1994 early day motion Corbyn had signed along with the likes of Abbot, Livingstone etc? It condemned the killings by the IRA but went on to say the violence resulted from the UK's military occupation of NI, going back to '21, and would not stop until Britain withdrew. As far as I'm aware he has never said anything that direct about the UK's responsibility for Jihadi violence.
2
2
In reply to galpinos:
I think the manifesto looks great, but I don't think I've warmed to Corbyn. The debate has never got on to foreign policy issues, which is more my 'thing' in many ways, but that is where the weirdness is. MacDonnell speaking at the Mayday rally with the Syrian flag behind for example - he's a bright man, he knew what that would look like.
Edit: my local labour MP is standing again and seems like a good egg, will happily vote for her - but I'm pretty tribal in UK elections anyway!
> I'm not Corbyn fan, I am warming to him over these past weeks though,
I think the manifesto looks great, but I don't think I've warmed to Corbyn. The debate has never got on to foreign policy issues, which is more my 'thing' in many ways, but that is where the weirdness is. MacDonnell speaking at the Mayday rally with the Syrian flag behind for example - he's a bright man, he knew what that would look like.
Edit: my local labour MP is standing again and seems like a good egg, will happily vote for her - but I'm pretty tribal in UK elections anyway!
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to TobyA:
It doesn't really show anything, to be honest, and I agree with most of what you've written, had it not been a mantra chanted by the majority of the media that Corbyn, "is a terrorist sympathiser" it's not really about whataboutery. It's more about honesty, and taking quotes out of context, his (JCs) "welcome our friends...." doesn't mean that he agrees with their actions, thoughts or methods, but perhaps a way of relaxing people and getting the best out of a meeting.
Considering merely meeting with an enemy it tantamount to being a traitor, and yet all governments do it, all war eventually end up with the protagonists meeting, that's how diplomacy works!! The thatcher government met with the IRA, that's the way a peace process begins.
It's unfortunate about Gatland, but it's difficult to fight against the constant tide of shite flung at Corbyn when everyone looks the other way because it suits them.
> The story about Gatland's past coming to light is a decade old. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/07/ira-northern-ireland-conse... No one beyond Croyden really seemed to care back then, it's just being rehashed now in silly bit of Momentum whataboutery - kind of stupid whatboutery at that too - Gatland went into hiding in the 70s because leaving the IRA was dangerous. Showing the Tories have a local councilor now who used to be in the IRA shows what exactly?
It doesn't really show anything, to be honest, and I agree with most of what you've written, had it not been a mantra chanted by the majority of the media that Corbyn, "is a terrorist sympathiser" it's not really about whataboutery. It's more about honesty, and taking quotes out of context, his (JCs) "welcome our friends...." doesn't mean that he agrees with their actions, thoughts or methods, but perhaps a way of relaxing people and getting the best out of a meeting.
Considering merely meeting with an enemy it tantamount to being a traitor, and yet all governments do it, all war eventually end up with the protagonists meeting, that's how diplomacy works!! The thatcher government met with the IRA, that's the way a peace process begins.
It's unfortunate about Gatland, but it's difficult to fight against the constant tide of shite flung at Corbyn when everyone looks the other way because it suits them.
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Or that war, creates more war and it's very difficult to bomb people into peace, and while we (the west) speak out about human rights abuses and despot regimes, we are quite happy to support and do business with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.
How was peace in Ireland achieved, was it by bombing the Catholics with precision bombing?
> >... to pursue his dictum that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" in this case, but his core principle, that western imperialism is the enemy, remains.
Or that war, creates more war and it's very difficult to bomb people into peace, and while we (the west) speak out about human rights abuses and despot regimes, we are quite happy to support and do business with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.
How was peace in Ireland achieved, was it by bombing the Catholics with precision bombing?
5
1
In reply to TobyA:
Maybe warming to him was the wrong word, I was quite critical of him in the past but I like the manifesto and have preferred him to May when he's been on the stump/being interviewed. He's got a long way to go before I'd put him on the list of people I'd want to be Prime Minister but neither May nor Farron are on that list either, it's a somewhat blank piece of paper at the moment!
My choices are Labour (current* MP and whip who voted against Brexit) and Lib Dem (previous MP and currently the only non Labour Councillor in Manchester) so need to do some thinking.
*well, obviously not current but you get my drift......
Maybe warming to him was the wrong word, I was quite critical of him in the past but I like the manifesto and have preferred him to May when he's been on the stump/being interviewed. He's got a long way to go before I'd put him on the list of people I'd want to be Prime Minister but neither May nor Farron are on that list either, it's a somewhat blank piece of paper at the moment!
My choices are Labour (current* MP and whip who voted against Brexit) and Lib Dem (previous MP and currently the only non Labour Councillor in Manchester) so need to do some thinking.
*well, obviously not current but you get my drift......
1
In reply to krikoman:
Listen, when Corbyn demonstrates his active role in talking to loyalist paramilitaries, honouring their dead, and then bringing them to the table to make peace with the IRA, I'll acknowledge his role in bringing peace.
in the meantime I'll believe that truth, that he wanted to bring peace by helping the IRA to defeat the the British and the protestant community and is now lying about it.
> How was peace in Ireland achieved, was it by bombing the Catholics with precision bombing?
>Listen, when Corbyn demonstrates his active role in talking to loyalist paramilitaries, honouring their dead, and then bringing them to the table to make peace with the IRA, I'll acknowledge his role in bringing peace.
in the meantime I'll believe that truth, that he wanted to bring peace by helping the IRA to defeat the the British and the protestant community and is now lying about it.
5
6
In reply to TobyA:
No,I wouldn't suggest that he has.
> Did you read the 1994 early day motion Corbyn had signed along with the likes of Abbot, Livingstone etc? It condemned the killings by the IRA but went on to say the violence resulted from the UK's military occupation of NI, going back to '21, and would not stop until Britain withdrew. As far as I'm aware he has never said anything that direct about the UK's responsibility for Jihadi violence.
No,I wouldn't suggest that he has.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I didn't say JC was the bringer of peace in Ireland, but talking to people is the mechanism for peace, simply ignoring them doesn't usually achieve much, except more deaths.
I didn't say JC was the bringer of peace in Ireland, but talking to people is the mechanism for peace, simply ignoring them doesn't usually achieve much, except more deaths.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
I believe he did talk to Loyalists including ex-paramilitaries such as David Ervine who was jailed for explosives but later became a unionist politician.
Not sure he was very pivotal in the peace process though - I think it was naive...
Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.
> > Listen, when Corbyn demonstrates his active role in talking to loyalist paramilitaries, honouring their dead, and then bringing them to the table to make peace with the IRA, I'll acknowledge his role in bringing peace.
I believe he did talk to Loyalists including ex-paramilitaries such as David Ervine who was jailed for explosives but later became a unionist politician.
Not sure he was very pivotal in the peace process though - I think it was naive...
Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.
2
In reply to Malarkey:
Except the agents of the governments had the power to negotiate. Corbyn seems to have just been a private citizen in that respect. His talks, if fed into government policy making channels - although Corbyn in the late 80s briefing MI5 seems unlikely, might have helped the UK govt understand Republican thinking more, but I don't see how his discussions could have done much more than that.
> Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.
Except the agents of the governments had the power to negotiate. Corbyn seems to have just been a private citizen in that respect. His talks, if fed into government policy making channels - although Corbyn in the late 80s briefing MI5 seems unlikely, might have helped the UK govt understand Republican thinking more, but I don't see how his discussions could have done much more than that.
In reply to TobyA:
I totally agree. I think sticking his oar in unwise. I just don't accept he is some sort of traitor.
...indeed I find it somewhat redolent of the hypocrisy that Michael Fallon got caught out on - criticising Corbyn for excusing terrorism then being told it was Boris Johnson's words.
I totally agree. I think sticking his oar in unwise. I just don't accept he is some sort of traitor.
...indeed I find it somewhat redolent of the hypocrisy that Michael Fallon got caught out on - criticising Corbyn for excusing terrorism then being told it was Boris Johnson's words.
Post edited at 17:44
4
1
In reply to Malarkey:
>Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.
No he wasn't. Corbyn was supporting the IRA cause. The governments were trying to negotiate a compromise peace settlement.
>Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.
>
No he wasn't. Corbyn was supporting the IRA cause. The governments were trying to negotiate a compromise peace settlement.
Post edited at 18:03
1
3
In reply to john arran:
<pedant>
This isn't fake news. This is standard, common or garden, political spin. Fake news is when someone invents a news story to get a reaction. An early example of fake news would be the faked sasquatch fotos or most of whats in the National Enquirer.
</pedant>
> in the past the Tories always accused the BBC of left wing bias.
> An early example of fake news.
<pedant>
This isn't fake news. This is standard, common or garden, political spin. Fake news is when someone invents a news story to get a reaction. An early example of fake news would be the faked sasquatch fotos or most of whats in the National Enquirer.
</pedant>
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
...... Says it all......standard misreprentation.
> > "Take responsibility" in the sense of ,
...... Says it all......standard misreprentation.
1
In reply to Jim C:
But the interviewer told him the figures on air and he confirmed them, so they obviously were interested because she'd taken the time to do the homework.
But the interviewer told him the figures on air and he confirmed them, so they obviously were interested because she'd taken the time to do the homework.
1
In reply to abr1966:
Bollocks, just slightly ambiguous and so misunderstood and then clarified. Stop being a wally.
> ...... Says it all......standard misreprentation.
Bollocks, just slightly ambiguous and so misunderstood and then clarified. Stop being a wally.
1
In reply to broken spectre:
You're right.
One particularly bad example. The initial "analysis" of Labour's manifesto. It just said tax more, spend more. It didn't mention that additional tax would be targetted at the rich. Sure, some of the tax increases wn't just be on the rich (corporation tax for example), but overall tax will be more progressive - that's a key part of their manifesto and reading the article it was just like tax would go up for everyone the same. Really, really bias. I've actually complained about if.
You're right.
One particularly bad example. The initial "analysis" of Labour's manifesto. It just said tax more, spend more. It didn't mention that additional tax would be targetted at the rich. Sure, some of the tax increases wn't just be on the rich (corporation tax for example), but overall tax will be more progressive - that's a key part of their manifesto and reading the article it was just like tax would go up for everyone the same. Really, really bias. I've actually complained about if.
In reply to broken spectre:
Additional one: they cut away from Corbyn's face while he was finishing his statement. He's speaking to the camera and making his pitch to the country ffs. Didn't do it for anyone else.
Any Tory voters opinion here?
Additional one: they cut away from Corbyn's face while he was finishing his statement. He's speaking to the camera and making his pitch to the country ffs. Didn't do it for anyone else.
Any Tory voters opinion here?
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
think there is a kind of agreed deference to government
> I think there's a theory that the BBC tend to favour the sitting government.
think there is a kind of agreed deference to government
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
or an even earlier example, though strictly "faked news":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident - that's a memory feat for me as I think we learned it in history in 1971! Now, where did I leave my car?
or an even earlier example, though strictly "faked news":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident - that's a memory feat for me as I think we learned it in history in 1971! Now, where did I leave my car?
In reply to edwardgrundy:
that was the one where they had headlines exaggeratiing the amount of tax someone just over the transition thresholds would pay, Hugely. "More or Less" claimed they had to withdraw the original report, by which time it had hit home
that was the one where they had headlines exaggeratiing the amount of tax someone just over the transition thresholds would pay, Hugely. "More or Less" claimed they had to withdraw the original report, by which time it had hit home
In reply to Postmanpat:
We should take responsibility for it. That doesn't excuse individuals or groups that do horrible stuff. If we've done wrong or foolish things we should take responsibility.
Nazi Germany's a great example. Allied policy post WW1 directly lead to the Nazi's and WW2. We (Britain) should take some responsibility for that. In no way does that excuse Nazi's or make what we did anywhere even close to as bad. It was still a mistake and we should still take responsibility for it. (All too long in the past now - just an example)
> Except that they do. Corbyn is basically parroting the same narrative about the jihadis as he did about the IRA, albeit in a toned down form: that the UK is an imperialistic power and that it should therefore take responsibility for the blowback from those imperialistic activities. He is,as you point out, also a barefaced liar in his feeble claim to have been facilitating the peace process.
We should take responsibility for it. That doesn't excuse individuals or groups that do horrible stuff. If we've done wrong or foolish things we should take responsibility.
Nazi Germany's a great example. Allied policy post WW1 directly lead to the Nazi's and WW2. We (Britain) should take some responsibility for that. In no way does that excuse Nazi's or make what we did anywhere even close to as bad. It was still a mistake and we should still take responsibility for it. (All too long in the past now - just an example)
1
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Look North had a panel tonight.
It contained UKIP, who have no MPs. But not the Greens, who have one.
He was a chump.
Look North had a panel tonight.
It contained UKIP, who have no MPs. But not the Greens, who have one.
He was a chump.
1
1
In reply to wercat:
Different one actually. Calling it 'analysis' was a joke. Just literally a few paras saying what I mentioned above. Laura Kuenssberg lady that actually had a bias against Corbyn complaint upheld against her - which means it must have been pretty blatant.
Different one actually. Calling it 'analysis' was a joke. Just literally a few paras saying what I mentioned above. Laura Kuenssberg lady that actually had a bias against Corbyn complaint upheld against her - which means it must have been pretty blatant.
1
1
In reply to broken spectre:
Another one. Presenter lady asked question assuming more borrowing is bad for economy. Not what basic economics tells you when interest rates are as low as they are. It should at least be common knowledge for people in her kind of job that this is a mainstream view.
Another one. Presenter lady asked question assuming more borrowing is bad for economy. Not what basic economics tells you when interest rates are as low as they are. It should at least be common knowledge for people in her kind of job that this is a mainstream view.
4
In reply to broken spectre:
Radio 4 has been painful listening this last few weeks.
Their keenness to try and harass Labour and Lib Dem interviewees has been shameless, and when coupled with their sycophantic cosying with Tory speakers it makes for grim listening. I have not heard the woman's hour referred to above, but John Humphries has been pretty bad, can't remember the example for the labour grilling, but the following day there was a Tory speaker being interviewed on the merits of free school breakfasts, and a jolly time was had by all, seems like a great idea etc..(even if it might cost 3 times as much more, but this seemed insignificant in the interview and how could they really be expected to put a coat on it yet as it will be so popular etc etc.)
Put it this way, I've never voted before, but this time I think that Labour deserve my vote simply to even the score a little. There a a few other very good reasons too, but you might have to read outside of the mainstream to find them.
Andy
Radio 4 has been painful listening this last few weeks.
Their keenness to try and harass Labour and Lib Dem interviewees has been shameless, and when coupled with their sycophantic cosying with Tory speakers it makes for grim listening. I have not heard the woman's hour referred to above, but John Humphries has been pretty bad, can't remember the example for the labour grilling, but the following day there was a Tory speaker being interviewed on the merits of free school breakfasts, and a jolly time was had by all, seems like a great idea etc..(even if it might cost 3 times as much more, but this seemed insignificant in the interview and how could they really be expected to put a coat on it yet as it will be so popular etc etc.)
Put it this way, I've never voted before, but this time I think that Labour deserve my vote simply to even the score a little. There a a few other very good reasons too, but you might have to read outside of the mainstream to find them.
Andy
4
3
In reply to Andrew Wilson:
Funny, I listen to Today going to work most days and PM coming home again. I really don't recognise your description.
And if it's relevant, I've voted solely Labour in every UK election I've voted in for 25 years, and was a party member for a number of years.
Funny, I listen to Today going to work most days and PM coming home again. I really don't recognise your description.
And if it's relevant, I've voted solely Labour in every UK election I've voted in for 25 years, and was a party member for a number of years.
2
2
In reply to broken spectre:
The only thing that UKIP, Labour, Conservative etc have in common is that they all accuse the BBC of Bias.
Just read most of the national newspapers for a real dose of bias.
The only thing that UKIP, Labour, Conservative etc have in common is that they all accuse the BBC of Bias.
Just read most of the national newspapers for a real dose of bias.
5
3
In reply to TobyA:
I think it's pretty bad. Often just the unspoken assumptions. Humphries and Nick Robinson are pretty bad for this. If you know their political views you can see where these assumptions are coming from.
To be fair, Naughtie called Jeremy Hunt by his proper name once and you can tell he doesn't like the tories.
I think it's pretty bad. Often just the unspoken assumptions. Humphries and Nick Robinson are pretty bad for this. If you know their political views you can see where these assumptions are coming from.
To be fair, Naughtie called Jeremy Hunt by his proper name once and you can tell he doesn't like the tories.
1
1
In reply to jasonC abroad:
But that's the point, the paper have a bias and are allowed to, it's how they target their readers.
The BBC is SUPPOSED to be unbiased, since it's supposed to serve the nation, not it viewers / listeners.
> The only thing that UKIP, Labour, Conservative etc have in common is that they all accuse the BBC of Bias.Just read most of the national newspapers for a real dose of bias.
But that's the point, the paper have a bias and are allowed to, it's how they target their readers.
The BBC is SUPPOSED to be unbiased, since it's supposed to serve the nation, not it viewers / listeners.
3
1
In reply to broken spectre:
How do we explain the clear bias of the audience at last night's debate? There seemed to be a large (judging by the pictures, disproportionate ) anti Tory element, as there usually is on Question Time.
Is the BBC just incompetent in trying to get a balanced audience?
How do we explain the clear bias of the audience at last night's debate? There seemed to be a large (judging by the pictures, disproportionate ) anti Tory element, as there usually is on Question Time.
Is the BBC just incompetent in trying to get a balanced audience?
3
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
This is true. The audience seemed fervently communist! It must be difficult to vet the opinions of a prospective audience I suppose..
This is true. The audience seemed fervently communist! It must be difficult to vet the opinions of a prospective audience I suppose..
1
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Good question. I genuinely don't think it will be deliberately picking less tories and then pretending it was neutral
Good question. I genuinely don't think it will be deliberately picking less tories and then pretending it was neutral
In reply to edwardgrundy:
I read somewhere that for Newsnight they outsource the audience selection. They might want to have another look at that contract.
> Good question. I genuinely don't think it will be deliberately picking less tories and then pretending it was neutral
I read somewhere that for Newsnight they outsource the audience selection. They might want to have another look at that contract.
Post edited at 21:55
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yeah, it's a polling company that does it. I expect there's other factors as well. Probably more tory voters that apply for this kind of thing are less vocal. Interested in plicitics, vote tory but not strongly supporting them. Probably more left wing activist types that lie on their application.
Yeah, it's a polling company that does it. I expect there's other factors as well. Probably more tory voters that apply for this kind of thing are less vocal. Interested in plicitics, vote tory but not strongly supporting them. Probably more left wing activist types that lie on their application.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
What percentage of people voted Tory at the last election? 20-something percent?
What percentage of people voted Tory at the last election? 20-something percent?
3
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Probably, but that doesn't mean that 80% are vociferously anti Tory. About the same voted Labour.
> What percentage of people voted Tory at the last election? 20-something percent?
Probably, but that doesn't mean that 80% are vociferously anti Tory. About the same voted Labour.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
37%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
> What percentage of people voted Tory at the last election? 20-something percent? >
37%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
2
In reply to pec:
37% of a 66% turnout. Total electorate was 46.4 million, of whom 11.3 million voted Tory = 24% of the total electorate.
37% of a 66% turnout. Total electorate was 46.4 million, of whom 11.3 million voted Tory = 24% of the total electorate.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
Just a moderately intelligent audience, sick of lies and incompetence and rather than rabidly anti Tory.
There were plenty of cold dead hand of my daily mail types baying for e.u. blood in that audience.
D
> How do we explain the clear bias of the audience at last night's debate? There seemed to be a large (judging by the pictures, disproportionate ) anti Tory element, as there usually is on Question Time. Is the BBC just incompetent in trying to get a balanced audience?
Just a moderately intelligent audience, sick of lies and incompetence and rather than rabidly anti Tory.
There were plenty of cold dead hand of my daily mail types baying for e.u. blood in that audience.
D
3
In reply to Dauphin:
Here's an article on how the audience was selected, complete with methodology.
You can argue about whether it's perfect, but I don't think you can say that the BBC didn't go out of their way to try and make it fair.
http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may...
Here's an article on how the audience was selected, complete with methodology.
You can argue about whether it's perfect, but I don't think you can say that the BBC didn't go out of their way to try and make it fair.
http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may...
4
In reply to mullermn:
So, it probably wasn't a biased audience but it just sounded like it because the Tories are doing shit? Seems reasonable.
So, it probably wasn't a biased audience but it just sounded like it because the Tories are doing shit? Seems reasonable.
7
In reply to Postmanpat:
The evidence suggests that it just didn't fit with your own bias.
> How do we explain the clear bias of the audience at last night's debate? There seemed to be a large (judging by the pictures, disproportionate ) anti Tory element, as there usually is on Question Time. Is the BBC just incompetent in trying to get a balanced audience?
The evidence suggests that it just didn't fit with your own bias.
8
In reply to broken spectre:
yes, i noticed bias that day when may's cruel joke was sidelined- imagine if it had been the other way around..
youtube.com/watch?v=7RFQeWe61bk&
yes, i noticed bias that day when may's cruel joke was sidelined- imagine if it had been the other way around..
youtube.com/watch?v=7RFQeWe61bk&
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
You weren't watching then. It was on the front page of the BBC website when I saw the report.
> I haven't seen anything on the BBC about the Tory candidate standing in Jo Cox's seat saying nobody had been shot yet. The Tories do get off lightly, especially for lying.
You weren't watching then. It was on the front page of the BBC website when I saw the report.
In reply to krikoman:
Genuine question: how are you served by the BBC if you don't view or listen to their output?
Edit: typo.
> ....The BBC is SUPPOSED to be unbiased, since it's supposed to serve the nation, not it viewers / listeners.
Genuine question: how are you served by the BBC if you don't view or listen to their output?
Edit: typo.
Post edited at 17:28
In reply to Fraser:
But the BBC website, is not the BBC news is it?
I, like most people get their news from the TV or the radio.
> You weren't watching then. It was on the front page of the BBC website when I saw the report.
But the BBC website, is not the BBC news is it?
I, like most people get their news from the TV or the radio.
In reply to Fraser:
You're not, but the service is there whether you use it or not.
If you meant "you" in the general sense. If you meant "you" in the personal sense meaning me, then I do listen and watch.
> Genuine question: how are you served by the BBC if you don't view or listen to their output?Edit: typo.
You're not, but the service is there whether you use it or not.
If you meant "you" in the general sense. If you meant "you" in the personal sense meaning me, then I do listen and watch.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Bravo!
> So, it probably wasn't a biased audience but it just sounded like it because the Tories are doing shit? Seems reasonable.
Bravo!
In reply to krikoman:
Touché, almost. YN didn't mention BBC News in his comment, just "the BBC". And it was the BBC News site (app, actually) it was on. I haven't see the tv news for several days now, only the online content. Was nothing at all mentioned regarding that gaff, in any of the programmes? If so, that is pretty poor.
Re your second query: yes, I had meant "you" in the general sense.
> But the BBC website, is not the BBC news is it? I, like most people get their news from the TV or the radio.
Touché, almost. YN didn't mention BBC News in his comment, just "the BBC". And it was the BBC News site (app, actually) it was on. I haven't see the tv news for several days now, only the online content. Was nothing at all mentioned regarding that gaff, in any of the programmes? If so, that is pretty poor.
Re your second query: yes, I had meant "you" in the general sense.
In reply to broken spectre:
Did anyone else see Question Time on Friday in its entirety and then compare the content with the BBC bulletin summary of it immediately following? Unbelievable misrepresentation.
The actual programme might just as well have not been broadcast as I'm sure the totally spun BBC News summary of it had much greater reach.
Did anyone else see Question Time on Friday in its entirety and then compare the content with the BBC bulletin summary of it immediately following? Unbelievable misrepresentation.
The actual programme might just as well have not been broadcast as I'm sure the totally spun BBC News summary of it had much greater reach.
Post edited at 11:08
4
In reply to broken spectre:
I see the BBC has been showing a picture of JC photoshopped into a picture of Osama.
@ 8:30 it your interested http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08tn16n/daily-politics-05062017
Also seems they can ignore that Boris voted in the same way a Jeremy at the time, but this isn't mentioned.
How can this be balanced reporting?
I see the BBC has been showing a picture of JC photoshopped into a picture of Osama.
@ 8:30 it your interested http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08tn16n/daily-politics-05062017
Also seems they can ignore that Boris voted in the same way a Jeremy at the time, but this isn't mentioned.
How can this be balanced reporting?
1
In reply to krikoman:
I rarely listen to the BBC news but did listen a little to Radio 4 on Sunday morning. When I first started to listen there was someone who, from the way she spoke, I assumed was from a right wing think tank or maybe a journalist from the Times or similar. Turns out it was Laura Kuenssberg who until now I'd never knowingly heard or seen. I struggle to see how she can keep her job with such partial reporting
I rarely listen to the BBC news but did listen a little to Radio 4 on Sunday morning. When I first started to listen there was someone who, from the way she spoke, I assumed was from a right wing think tank or maybe a journalist from the Times or similar. Turns out it was Laura Kuenssberg who until now I'd never knowingly heard or seen. I struggle to see how she can keep her job with such partial reporting
4
In reply to broken spectre:
The rightward shift in public sensibility is down to a form of relativity, orchestrated it seems by a cynical media with a pre-ordained agenda. An agenda that is in thrall to its own paymasters rather than to voters.
If people are persuaded by a biased media to stand on the right, then all else (including the centre ground), will appear to them to be on the left. The somewhat elusive gift of impartiality will tell you that Corbyn is actually a centrist - and a calm, astute, collaborative statesman able to hold his own in debate.
Corbyn's sudden rise in popularity of late, is not down to anything he himself has changed or improved upon. It is more a result of the UK media being forced, pre-election, into giving him the unaccustomed airtime he should have been given a long time ago.
The oligarch-owned UK media is toxic mix of selective editing, disinformation, lies, opinion-forming and ad hominem attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. These seem to me to be clear indicators of heavy bias, designed to deflect political allegiance into an electoral fait accompli.
As far as the BBC goes, there appears to be an overwhelming rightist allegiance in political commentators and debate show hosts. Laura Kuenssberg, Andrew Neil, David Dimbleby, Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, James Landale et al are all tory supporters. So too is Jeremy Paxman, freely admitting to being a "One Nation Tory", and who was wheeled out to grill Jeremy Corbyn. The cynical among us would say they were deliberate tory "plants" placed to skew opinion - but I couldn't possibly comment...
The rightward shift in public sensibility is down to a form of relativity, orchestrated it seems by a cynical media with a pre-ordained agenda. An agenda that is in thrall to its own paymasters rather than to voters.
If people are persuaded by a biased media to stand on the right, then all else (including the centre ground), will appear to them to be on the left. The somewhat elusive gift of impartiality will tell you that Corbyn is actually a centrist - and a calm, astute, collaborative statesman able to hold his own in debate.
Corbyn's sudden rise in popularity of late, is not down to anything he himself has changed or improved upon. It is more a result of the UK media being forced, pre-election, into giving him the unaccustomed airtime he should have been given a long time ago.
The oligarch-owned UK media is toxic mix of selective editing, disinformation, lies, opinion-forming and ad hominem attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. These seem to me to be clear indicators of heavy bias, designed to deflect political allegiance into an electoral fait accompli.
As far as the BBC goes, there appears to be an overwhelming rightist allegiance in political commentators and debate show hosts. Laura Kuenssberg, Andrew Neil, David Dimbleby, Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, James Landale et al are all tory supporters. So too is Jeremy Paxman, freely admitting to being a "One Nation Tory", and who was wheeled out to grill Jeremy Corbyn. The cynical among us would say they were deliberate tory "plants" placed to skew opinion - but I couldn't possibly comment...
11
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Simply not true.
Negotiated settlements involve having the guts and foresight to actually talk to people who you intensely dislike, and with whom you (initially) have little in common - but also where common ground might just be possible. So it was with the IRA.
> >Corbyn was supporting the IRA cause.
Simply not true.
Negotiated settlements involve having the guts and foresight to actually talk to people who you intensely dislike, and with whom you (initially) have little in common - but also where common ground might just be possible. So it was with the IRA.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
https://gandhifoundation.org/2014/01/09/the-gandhi-foundation-international...
> >Regardless he was doing publicly what Thatcher, Major and then the Blair government did privately.No he wasn't. Corbyn was supporting the IRA cause. The governments were trying to negotiate a compromise peace settlement.
https://gandhifoundation.org/2014/01/09/the-gandhi-foundation-international...
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
Perhaps note that is nothing to do with the Mahatma Gandhi organisation in India. It is a small UK body. In fact it looks rather like a group of Corbyn's mates from wiki.
Perhaps note that is nothing to do with the Mahatma Gandhi organisation in India. It is a small UK body. In fact it looks rather like a group of Corbyn's mates from wiki.
1
1
In reply to Doug:
I caught Andrew Marr using the term "Remoaner" quite gratitously in the middle of one of his "analyses" which jarred somewhat. The same week on R4 Today, just before 9am there was a Brexit item and one of the speakers used the same term without any such offence being said to the exit side and there was no questioning or challenge by anyone. Any sense of Impartiality in the BBC disappeared some time ago I think and I have to take their politicla reporting with a huge pinch of "chemical Ali".
I think it's clear we have not been told any truth about Corbyn or Farron on the BBC (except for our own Border News where he gets a very good press as a local MP) for years so I'm taking an increasing interest. (And I'm not historically a labour supporter)
(another example - during a parliamentary Brexit debate I watched on the BBC Parliament channel I watched the BBC web summary and it omitted a lot of fairly decent speeches, including an excellent SNP one, mainly on the remain side. )
I caught Andrew Marr using the term "Remoaner" quite gratitously in the middle of one of his "analyses" which jarred somewhat. The same week on R4 Today, just before 9am there was a Brexit item and one of the speakers used the same term without any such offence being said to the exit side and there was no questioning or challenge by anyone. Any sense of Impartiality in the BBC disappeared some time ago I think and I have to take their politicla reporting with a huge pinch of "chemical Ali".
I think it's clear we have not been told any truth about Corbyn or Farron on the BBC (except for our own Border News where he gets a very good press as a local MP) for years so I'm taking an increasing interest. (And I'm not historically a labour supporter)
(another example - during a parliamentary Brexit debate I watched on the BBC Parliament channel I watched the BBC web summary and it omitted a lot of fairly decent speeches, including an excellent SNP one, mainly on the remain side. )
Post edited at 18:03
In reply to AllanMac:
Corbyn had a lot a lot in common with the IRA: he supported their ends and accepted their means. Guts and foresight were not required to meet them but would have been required by him to meet and empathise with the loyalist paramilitary or even the IRA's many innocent victims.
Instead he voted against the 1985 Anglo irish agreement and his chum McDonnell was opposing the peace process until 1998. Do you want to buy a bridge by any chance?
> Simply not true. Negotiated settlements involve having the guts and foresight to actually talk to people who you intensely dislike, and with whom you (initially) have little in common - but also where common ground might just be possible. So it was with the IRA.
Corbyn had a lot a lot in common with the IRA: he supported their ends and accepted their means. Guts and foresight were not required to meet them but would have been required by him to meet and empathise with the loyalist paramilitary or even the IRA's many innocent victims.
Instead he voted against the 1985 Anglo irish agreement and his chum McDonnell was opposing the peace process until 1998. Do you want to buy a bridge by any chance?
4
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
Interesting. Corbyn had this to say of the agreement "We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason."
I wonder what he now thinks.
Interesting. Corbyn had this to say of the agreement "We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason."
I wonder what he now thinks.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not sure he accepted their means. But agree to disagree...
Either way, what's wrong with supporting their ends?
I'm not sure he accepted their means. But agree to disagree...
Either way, what's wrong with supporting their ends?
1
In reply to edwardgrundy:
The idea that Ireland should be united is a reasonable point of view, but that he shared it with the IRA, along with their overall narrative of British imperialism, rather contradicts the implication that he "had little in common with them".
> Either way, what's wrong with supporting their ends?
>
>
The idea that Ireland should be united is a reasonable point of view, but that he shared it with the IRA, along with their overall narrative of British imperialism, rather contradicts the implication that he "had little in common with them".
Post edited at 20:49
1
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well, I think Irleand should be united and think British imperialism has a lot to answer for. If someone suggested that this meant I supported the IRA I think it'd be pretty reasonable and restrained to say I've nothing in common with the IRA. They'd be a pedant to quibble with this... Similarly I would't object if you said you've nothing in common with fellow eurosceptics in the EDL.
Well, I think Irleand should be united and think British imperialism has a lot to answer for. If someone suggested that this meant I supported the IRA I think it'd be pretty reasonable and restrained to say I've nothing in common with the IRA. They'd be a pedant to quibble with this... Similarly I would't object if you said you've nothing in common with fellow eurosceptics in the EDL.
5
1
In reply to edwardgrundy:
So you have something crucial in common with the IRA that you don't, for example, share with the UDF. So did Corbyn and In the context of the post I replied to this is obviously relevant.
Whether you support(ed) the IRA I have no idea but I'm guessing not.
> Well, I think Irleand should be united and think British imperialism has a lot to answer for. If someone suggested that this meant I supported the IRA I think it'd be pretty reasonable and restrained to say I've nothing in common with the IRA.
>So you have something crucial in common with the IRA that you don't, for example, share with the UDF. So did Corbyn and In the context of the post I replied to this is obviously relevant.
Whether you support(ed) the IRA I have no idea but I'm guessing not.
Post edited at 21:03
1
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
I find that kind of offensive. I wouldn't say a unionist harking back to the days of empire shares something crucial with the UDF.
I don't think it is relevant to the debate that he supported a united Ireland. If it were something nasty that Corbyn agreed with a group on - for example, if he agreed with Hamas on sharia law or something - I would find his speaking them and sharing their view relevant. But it's not. So I don't. I guess that's where we'll need to agree to disagree.
He seems pretty consistent to me in supporting groups he sees as oppressed, and supporting peace and human kindness.
Speaking to the IRA seems much less morally questionable than lots of things the British state does.
I find that kind of offensive. I wouldn't say a unionist harking back to the days of empire shares something crucial with the UDF.
I don't think it is relevant to the debate that he supported a united Ireland. If it were something nasty that Corbyn agreed with a group on - for example, if he agreed with Hamas on sharia law or something - I would find his speaking them and sharing their view relevant. But it's not. So I don't. I guess that's where we'll need to agree to disagree.
He seems pretty consistent to me in supporting groups he sees as oppressed, and supporting peace and human kindness.
Speaking to the IRA seems much less morally questionable than lots of things the British state does.
9
In reply to edwardgrundy:
You shouldn't be offended. It's just a statement of fact. If one shares a key opinion with someone the one shares something in common with them. Hence Corbyn had something crucial in common with the IRA which made if very easy for him to talk to (and empathise with) them.
He seems pretty consistent in supporting groups, regardless that they were often characterised by their violent activities, that he viewed as opposing the British imperialist State. As our potential Home Secretary put it ""Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed."
On on.
> I find that kind of offensive. I wouldn't say a unionist harking back to the days of empire shares something crucial with the UDF.I don't think it is relevant to the debate that he supported a united Ireland.
>You shouldn't be offended. It's just a statement of fact. If one shares a key opinion with someone the one shares something in common with them. Hence Corbyn had something crucial in common with the IRA which made if very easy for him to talk to (and empathise with) them.
He seems pretty consistent in supporting groups, regardless that they were often characterised by their violent activities, that he viewed as opposing the British imperialist State. As our potential Home Secretary put it ""Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed."
On on.
2
3
In reply to AllanMac:
So tell me, when was Corbyn in a position to negotiate a settlement with the IRA?
> Simply not true. Negotiated settlements involve having the guts and foresight to actually talk to people who you intensely dislike, and with whom you (initially) have little in common - but also where common ground might just be possible. So it was with the IRA.
So tell me, when was Corbyn in a position to negotiate a settlement with the IRA?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry but in the context of a debate about whether one supports the horrible things that terrorists do, I don't think it's crucial and I think it's offensive to suggest it's someting crucial that you have in common. I'm sure there are some nasty people that you share views with - so long as the views you share aren't nasty I don't think it's relevant to that debate that you share the non nasty view with them.
Sorry but in the context of a debate about whether one supports the horrible things that terrorists do, I don't think it's crucial and I think it's offensive to suggest it's someting crucial that you have in common. I'm sure there are some nasty people that you share views with - so long as the views you share aren't nasty I don't think it's relevant to that debate that you share the non nasty view with them.
Post edited at 23:18
3
In reply to edwardgrundy:
You seem to be completely and wilfully ignoring the context of the point being made, which was in response to AllanMac's implied suggestion that Corbyn had little option n common with the IRA and would therefore need "guts and foresight" to talk to them.
If you cant see the relevance I can't be bothered to explain it again. Goodnight x
You seem to be completely and wilfully ignoring the context of the point being made, which was in response to AllanMac's implied suggestion that Corbyn had little option n common with the IRA and would therefore need "guts and foresight" to talk to them.
If you cant see the relevance I can't be bothered to explain it again. Goodnight x
1
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
I've been trying to explain why I don't see the relevance *in that context*. You disagree but I don't really get the willfully ignoring thing...
Happy nae cheese x
> You seem to be completely and wilfully ignoring the context of the point being made, which was in response to AllanMac's implied suggestion that Corbyn had little option n common with the IRA
I've been trying to explain why I don't see the relevance *in that context*. You disagree but I don't really get the willfully ignoring thing...
Happy nae cheese x
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
Perhaps what Corbyn had in common with them was a sympathy for the idea of a united Ireland? The huge irony right now – surely one of the most objectively funny things in British political history? – is that this very Conservative government might be instrumental, through their reckless hard Brexit policy and the horrendous new problems it throws up regarding the Irish border, in resurrecting this very unification project.
> > You shouldn't be offended. It's just a statement of fact. If one shares a key opinion with someone the one shares something in common with them. Hence Corbyn had something crucial in common with the IRA which made if very easy for him to talk to (and empathise with) them.
Perhaps what Corbyn had in common with them was a sympathy for the idea of a united Ireland? The huge irony right now – surely one of the most objectively funny things in British political history? – is that this very Conservative government might be instrumental, through their reckless hard Brexit policy and the horrendous new problems it throws up regarding the Irish border, in resurrecting this very unification project.
4
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Which is what I said!
> Perhaps what Corbyn had in common with them was a sympathy for the idea of a united Ireland?
>Which is what I said!
In reply to Big Ger:
What's that got to do with it? What about the Oslo agreement, what have Norway got to do with Palestine or Israel? Yet it was quite possibly the closest they've been to peace in 70 years!
Doesn't it take all sorts of efforts, by many people who may not be in a position to negotiate anything, to bring about peace or at least facilitate the option of negotiations.
> So tell me, when was Corbyn in a position to negotiate a settlement with the IRA?
What's that got to do with it? What about the Oslo agreement, what have Norway got to do with Palestine or Israel? Yet it was quite possibly the closest they've been to peace in 70 years!
Doesn't it take all sorts of efforts, by many people who may not be in a position to negotiate anything, to bring about peace or at least facilitate the option of negotiations.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Dear god, when someone claims of Corbyn;
Is it too much to ask
Corbyn was never a negotiator, he was an IRA supporter.
> What's that got to do with it?
Dear god, when someone claims of Corbyn;
> Negotiated settlements involve having the guts and foresight to actually talk to people who you intensely dislike, and with whom you (initially) have little in common - but also where common ground might just be possible. So it was with the IRA.
Is it too much to ask
> So tell me, when was Corbyn in a position to negotiate a settlement with the IRA?
Corbyn was never a negotiator, he was an IRA supporter.
1
1
In reply to MG:
Yes they look like a proper lots of leftie bastards.
https://gandhifoundation.org/contact/
It's pretty obvious they're not promoting any sort of violence or cosying up to terrorists though. The award was before he was being accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and yet, this doesn't count because it fits the current narrative some people WANT to believe about JC.
> Perhaps note that is nothing to do with the Mahatma Gandhi organisation in India. It is a small UK body. In fact it looks rather like a group of Corbyn's mates from wiki.
Yes they look like a proper lots of leftie bastards.
https://gandhifoundation.org/contact/
It's pretty obvious they're not promoting any sort of violence or cosying up to terrorists though. The award was before he was being accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and yet, this doesn't count because it fits the current narrative some people WANT to believe about JC.
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm a bit confused by your stance here. You sound extremely disapproving of Corbyn, and yet - forgive me if I'm wrong - I think you told us a few days ago that you've voted (postally) for him ??
I'm a bit confused by your stance here. You sound extremely disapproving of Corbyn, and yet - forgive me if I'm wrong - I think you told us a few days ago that you've voted (postally) for him ??
In reply to Big Ger:
No it's not too much to ask, but that doesn't make him a terrorist which is what the implication is of MOST of what people are getting at when he talked to the IRA.
the statement you used to question his role as negotiator doesn't say he's a negotiator, it states "negotiated settlements" it doesn't necessarily mean JC was the one to sort this out, just you need SOMEONE to talk to the people involved. Which is the real issue, that he talked to the IRA, which is the reason people are calling him a terrorist sympathiser. But Thatcher ended up talking to them too!
> Dear god, when someone claims of Corbyn;
Is it too much to askNo it's not too much to ask, but that doesn't make him a terrorist which is what the implication is of MOST of what people are getting at when he talked to the IRA.
the statement you used to question his role as negotiator doesn't say he's a negotiator, it states "negotiated settlements" it doesn't necessarily mean JC was the one to sort this out, just you need SOMEONE to talk to the people involved. Which is the real issue, that he talked to the IRA, which is the reason people are calling him a terrorist sympathiser. But Thatcher ended up talking to them too!
In reply to broken spectre:
Anyhow back to the OP I've noticed lately when we get reports of rallies as the various leader travel the country, we get wide angle shots of TM and her supporters and very tight shots of people at a JC rally.
TM tends to be indoors, while JC have to be outside because of the number of people who turn up. compare this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/gallery/jeremy-corbyn-held-campaign-r...
with what was shown on the BBC news and it's pretty obvious.
Anyhow back to the OP I've noticed lately when we get reports of rallies as the various leader travel the country, we get wide angle shots of TM and her supporters and very tight shots of people at a JC rally.
TM tends to be indoors, while JC have to be outside because of the number of people who turn up. compare this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/gallery/jeremy-corbyn-held-campaign-r...
with what was shown on the BBC news and it's pretty obvious.
In reply to Big Ger:
Partisan cynicism is very strong on this one, as one would expect so close to an election. I know this to be true because I'm very tempted to indulge in it myself. But at the same time I realise that the aggressive stone-throwing resulting from it is a terrible waste of energy and resources, and ends up with deeper divisions with little possibility of meaningful debate, and will only serve to escalate hostilities.
This is illustrative of the point I'm attempting to get across - that a deeper understanding of 'those who oppose' is absolutely essential, if compromise and peace are the ultimate goals. Fighting war with war is both impotent and absurd.
Also the temptation to take the opposition's actions and comments completely out of context is powerful, using it as a hammer to drive home barbs of ideological point-scoring. The classic one recently, was Trump's selectively edited and distorted version of Sadiq Khan's speech on policing.
As far as the NI peace process is concerned, both Corbyn and McDonnell were subjected to that kind of bias from the likes of The Sun's selective reporting, completely missing the point that they were both actually seeking an understanding of the internal dynamic within republicanism. McDonnell's widely reported Bloody Sunday Commemoration speech excerpt: "We must honour IRA members..." was an exemplar of selective reporting, disguised to mask the understanding he was attempting to seek, within a longer, more prescient (and unreported) speech:
"...Along with others, I am hoping to create the kinds of formulations through which the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries and the British army can all depart the scene without a sense of abiding grievance. No side will move if movement is portrayed as humiliating surrender. That effort has now been distorted into an alleged expression of support for the slaughter of innocent children..."
Partisan cynicism is very strong on this one, as one would expect so close to an election. I know this to be true because I'm very tempted to indulge in it myself. But at the same time I realise that the aggressive stone-throwing resulting from it is a terrible waste of energy and resources, and ends up with deeper divisions with little possibility of meaningful debate, and will only serve to escalate hostilities.
This is illustrative of the point I'm attempting to get across - that a deeper understanding of 'those who oppose' is absolutely essential, if compromise and peace are the ultimate goals. Fighting war with war is both impotent and absurd.
Also the temptation to take the opposition's actions and comments completely out of context is powerful, using it as a hammer to drive home barbs of ideological point-scoring. The classic one recently, was Trump's selectively edited and distorted version of Sadiq Khan's speech on policing.
As far as the NI peace process is concerned, both Corbyn and McDonnell were subjected to that kind of bias from the likes of The Sun's selective reporting, completely missing the point that they were both actually seeking an understanding of the internal dynamic within republicanism. McDonnell's widely reported Bloody Sunday Commemoration speech excerpt: "We must honour IRA members..." was an exemplar of selective reporting, disguised to mask the understanding he was attempting to seek, within a longer, more prescient (and unreported) speech:
"...Along with others, I am hoping to create the kinds of formulations through which the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries and the British army can all depart the scene without a sense of abiding grievance. No side will move if movement is portrayed as humiliating surrender. That effort has now been distorted into an alleged expression of support for the slaughter of innocent children..."
2
In reply to broken spectre:
One of the few certainties in life, along with death and taxes, is that the BBC will at some point get accused of bias by people from some end of the political spectrum upset that their current darling is not being shown in a favourable enough light.
Usually it's the Mail and their ilk whining about coverage of the Royal Family not being sufficiently deferential, but yes now apparently any coverage that doesn't show Corbyn as a combination of Martin Luther King and Valcalav Havel counts as 'bias'.
Well for those who don't think the BBC's coverage has shown Corbyn's halo to be sufficiently bright, here's some footage of Andrew Neil giving Theresa May a savaging over her pitiful understanding of Human Rights Law.
youtube.com/watch?v=XYlrCHL4tEw&
One of the few certainties in life, along with death and taxes, is that the BBC will at some point get accused of bias by people from some end of the political spectrum upset that their current darling is not being shown in a favourable enough light.
Usually it's the Mail and their ilk whining about coverage of the Royal Family not being sufficiently deferential, but yes now apparently any coverage that doesn't show Corbyn as a combination of Martin Luther King and Valcalav Havel counts as 'bias'.
Well for those who don't think the BBC's coverage has shown Corbyn's halo to be sufficiently bright, here's some footage of Andrew Neil giving Theresa May a savaging over her pitiful understanding of Human Rights Law.
youtube.com/watch?v=XYlrCHL4tEw&
In reply to AllanMac:
Unfortunately, a lot of people, including my mother, believe the media, out of context quotations, as facts.
This is the oppositions "best" weapon against JC, but it very sad that many people are basing their vote on a lie and obfuscation. It's always been a battle for JC to get a fair hearing in the media, that fact he's come so far in so little time in the election is testament to how, once he DOES get a chance to present Labours policies, he come across as someone both capable and of integrity, with policies that look like they can work.
Compare this the the Tory manifesto and there are NO figure with which you can make a decision.
Unfortunately, a lot of people, including my mother, believe the media, out of context quotations, as facts.
This is the oppositions "best" weapon against JC, but it very sad that many people are basing their vote on a lie and obfuscation. It's always been a battle for JC to get a fair hearing in the media, that fact he's come so far in so little time in the election is testament to how, once he DOES get a chance to present Labours policies, he come across as someone both capable and of integrity, with policies that look like they can work.
Compare this the the Tory manifesto and there are NO figure with which you can make a decision.
2
In reply to planetmarshall:
How old is that clip though, and it's not relevant, apart from the fact she's not as good on facts as we're told, to this election as it's not being shown, now.
> .............., here's some footage of Andrew Neil giving Theresa May a savaging over her pitiful understanding of Human Rights Law.
How old is that clip though, and it's not relevant, apart from the fact she's not as good on facts as we're told, to this election as it's not being shown, now.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Since our ridiculous political system effectively forces you to vote for the party you dislike least out of two options, disliking Corbyn and/or Labour and voting for them anyway isn't automatically a contradiction.
I may be in the same boat myself, and I imagine so are many others.
> I'm a bit confused by your stance here. You sound extremely disapproving of Corbyn, and yet - forgive me if I'm wrong - I think you told us a few days ago that you've voted (postally) for him ??
Since our ridiculous political system effectively forces you to vote for the party you dislike least out of two options, disliking Corbyn and/or Labour and voting for them anyway isn't automatically a contradiction.
I may be in the same boat myself, and I imagine so are many others.
Post edited at 11:30
In reply to krikoman:
It's relevant as she is claiming, currently, that Human Rights Law is an obstacle to combatting terrorism. The judiciary tells us that this is not the case, existing law is perfectly adequate but there are not the resources to apply it.
Unfortunately critical thinking is in short supply so long as people prefer to have their opinions fed to them by The Mail or The Canary.
> How old is that clip though, and it's not relevant, apart from the fact she's not as good on facts as we're told, to this election as it's not being shown, now.
It's relevant as she is claiming, currently, that Human Rights Law is an obstacle to combatting terrorism. The judiciary tells us that this is not the case, existing law is perfectly adequate but there are not the resources to apply it.
Unfortunately critical thinking is in short supply so long as people prefer to have their opinions fed to them by The Mail or The Canary.
In reply to planetmarshall:
The original clip is 5 years old (4th October 2011), she's been trying to get rid of the Human Rights Act, since at least then.
If that clip once again make the news then I'd agree it is relevant, I just don't think it will.
youtube.com/watch?v=1JFVAk_yJt4&
The original clip is 5 years old (4th October 2011), she's been trying to get rid of the Human Rights Act, since at least then.
If that clip once again make the news then I'd agree it is relevant, I just don't think it will.
youtube.com/watch?v=1JFVAk_yJt4&
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...