PompeyVillan Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Perhaps we should revoke the state pension for 20 years or so, so that we can pay for the Brexit the gammon faces want? Then when most of the Brexiteers are dead, the people who didn't want Brexit but will have to suffer it anyway can try to steer the country back to normality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 8 hours ago, bickster said: Just makes me think these stupid sods have got to suffer a few years of Hard Brexit to realise what a catastrophically stupid mistake they made. Ha. Yeah right. They will either be dead or blaming somebody else for their mistakes as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 6 hours ago, blandy said: Thing is Marv, "euthanising thickies" is a bit Hitlery...a bit illegal ...and the sort of thing only an unscrupulous bounder of the most dubious kidney would actually even contemplate. "Cuts that's the only way you could increase the average intelligence But you're right about education and information being key. The difficulty, I guess is twofold. Firstly in a free society, how do you stop the likes of the Daily Heil and other outlets spouting rubbish about all kinds to scare the bejesus out of people? and secondly, how do you explain in easily digestible terms why the EU (or any other thing) is on balance "good" while at the same time there's this storm of nonsense pouring out of the media. And also, to be fair, the EU doesn't exactly help itself - it's massively flawed in many aspects, which makes arguing the massive benefits in other areas a harder task. Surely there should be some sort of independent governing body, same sort of way that apply to lawyers and doctors. Only publications and writers that adhere to the guidelines get to call themselves news and journalists and those that print spin and bullshit don't get that seal of approval. Have to do something to make it easy for people to know who they can trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 43 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Surely there should be some sort of independent governing body, same sort of way that apply to lawyers and doctors. Only publications and writers that adhere to the guidelines get to call themselves news and journalists and those that print spin and bullshit don't get that seal of approval. Have to do something to make it easy for people to know who they can trust. Seal of approval from whom? Guidelines written by whom? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 49 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Surely there should be some sort of independent governing body, same sort of way that apply to lawyers and doctors. Only publications and writers that adhere to the guidelines get to call themselves news and journalists and those that print spin and bullshit don't get that seal of approval. Have to do something to make it easy for people to know who they can trust. I think the problem is that a lot of what is printed in newspapers is just opinion and we don't want to stop people being able to voice that. The likes of the Daily Mail can only take partial blame here though. We all have access to it and thankfully a lot of us will read their bile and immediately see it for what it is or question it and seek further information. The fools that read the hateful bile and choose to believe it without question have to take a lot of responsibility here. The quickest way to get rid of the likes of the Daily Mail or to change it is to stop reading/buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 16, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2017 8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said: I think the problem is that a lot of what is printed in newspapers is just opinion and we don't want to stop people being able to voice that. The likes of the Daily Mail can only take partial blame here though. We all have access to it and thankfully a lot of us will read their bile and immediately see it for what it is or question it and seek further information. The fools that read the hateful bile and choose to believe it without question have to take a lot of responsibility here. The quickest way to get rid of the likes of the Daily Mail or to change it is to stop reading/buying it. And supporting Stop Funding Hate, removing their advertisers and partners will reduce their strength quite quickly 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 26 minutes ago, markavfc40 said: I think the problem is that a lot of what is printed in newspapers is just opinion and we don't want to stop people being able to voice that. The likes of the Daily Mail can only take partial blame here though. We all have access to it and thankfully a lot of us will read their bile and immediately see it for what it is or question it and seek further information. The fools that read the hateful bile and choose to believe it without question have to take a lot of responsibility here. The quickest way to get rid of the likes of the Daily Mail or to change it is to stop reading/buying it. I think sharing opinion is fine but i think it would help to have that seal of approval for reporting trusted news and information. I think it would help stop the spread of fake news and twisted information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 16, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2017 The Ministry of Truth approves. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 40 minutes ago, snowychap said: Seal of approval from whom? Guidelines written by whom? Guess that's the key point. Trusted, respected people in the industry i would think. Not sure how it works for law and medical sectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Guess that's the key point. Trusted, respected people in the industry i would think. Not sure how it works for law and medical sectors. So, IPSO? Quote The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was established on Monday 8 September 2014[1] following the windup of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which had been the main industry regulator of the press in the United Kingdom since 1990. IPSO is the largest independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK and exists to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice[2] has been breached. The Editors' Code deals with issues such as accuracy, invasion of privacy, intrusion into grief or shock and harassment. IPSO is able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 1 minute ago, snowychap said: So, IPSO? Thanks for sharing that. Wasn't fully aware what the situation was. I just feel more needs to be done in the world we live in now. It seems too easy for lies and misinformation to be spread to manipulate the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Thanks for sharing that. Wasn't fully aware what the situation was. I just feel more needs to be done in the world we live in now. It seems too easy for lies and misinformation to be spread to manipulate the public. I don't claim that IPSO satisfies your requirements or even that it's something I supported or think effective and worthwhile but it is the main industry regulator. I don't think there's much that can be done or even should be done. In order to live in a relatively free society we require a largely free press (obviously there are limits and transgressing some of those might, for instance, see a former editor go to prison). Unfortunately, one of the prices of that freedom is that, in order to allow parts of the press to step up to the plate and hold the powerful to account, we have to accept the whole heap of shit that we get with it (often from the same titles). We need to remember, for example, that the Torygraph have brought us both the MPs' expenses stuff as well as the 'mutineers' bollocks. As crap as a great deal of journalists can be (punching up, punching down and simply writing crap), a country with a heavily restricted and regulated press would be a worse place to live in. Edited December 16, 2017 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Only printing officially approved truths would certainly have put a stop to all this troublesome (Hillsborough)* stuff many many years ago. * (insert your fave cause here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Immigrant. Refugee immigrant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, markavfc40 said: The quickest way to get rid of the likes of the Daily Mail or to change it is to stop reading it. We could start with VT’s left brigade seeing as they seem to always be quoting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: We could start with VT’s left brigade seeing as they seem to always be quoting it I actually agree to a certain extent. Highlighting their headlines is just promoting them and I am guilty of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 29 minutes ago, markavfc40 said: I actually agree to a certain extent. Highlighting their headlines is just promoting them and I am guilty of that. which is sorta exactly what they want to an extent ... I don't really have any issue with anything the media (or people) say or write ..my issue is when people blindly accept it and don't think for themselves 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 On 13/07/2017 at 14:18, darrenm said: I said before the referendum that I was voting remain because I believe the EU protects us against a government which sees our human rights as an inconvenience to multinationals and corporates who want to fully exploit us. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/13/great-repeal-bill-human-rights-clause-sets-up-brexit-clash-with-labour sigh Sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Not a surprise. The Tories have always opposed the WTD. They've made it pretty toothless by enforcing an opt out; a lot of employers just make it part of the paperwork every new hire has to sign before they start. It's not an effective right if your employer can make you sign it away. Us leaving is probably a victory for those in the EU trying to fight for employee's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 being at work for more hours will make us much more productive... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts