Demitri_C Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 54 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The 'original point' is not being served by the video though. There is no reason for me to assume that a man who has been convicted of a crime of honesty (mortgage fraud) is honestly presenting his argument. There is no reason for me to believe that he is being honest about anything; dishonesty is an even bigger part of his character than racism is. If he is being misrepresented by the BBC in some meaningful way, then no he doesn't 'deserve' that, in the sense that nobody 'deserves' to be lied about in the media (though he's hardly a sympathetic victim). However, he is the absolute least likely person to persuade me of that case, and I'm certainly not going to pay him or promote his content (which is what accessing his video is). It's not really persuading I think more presenting what they did with evidence. Whether we like Tommy robinson or not what they did was wrong and broke the law. Believe me I share your opinion on him as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 19, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2019 2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: not going to pay him or promote his content (which is what accessing his video is Not any more. YT stopped monetising his clicks a short while back, thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 19, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: It's not really persuading I think more presenting what they did with evidence. Whether we like Tommy robinson or not what they did was wrong and broke the law. Believe me I share your opinion on him as a person. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 26 minutes ago, bickster said: Is that Jacob Rees-Mogg in the middle? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 19, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2019 19 minutes ago, StanBalaban said: Is that Jacob Rees-Mogg in the middle? Spotted that myself, it's an uncanny resemblance. He is the undead! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: what they did was wrong and broke the law what did they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Apologies for the quoting error, but another example of the standard of guests on a BBC discussion show - see thread: 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 20, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 Just plain lying now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 That's a very odd comment by Kuenssberg. She obviously knows that committee places are allocated according to party groups. Why would she think an exception should be made for these people? Why does she think it appropriate to suggest that being depressed is the likely reaction to replacing these two? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 20, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, peterms said: That's a very odd comment by Kuenssberg. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, peterms said: That's a very odd comment by Kuenssberg. She obviously knows that committee places are allocated according to party groups. Why would she think an exception should be made for these people? Why does she think it appropriate to suggest that being depressed is the likely reaction to replacing these two? She doesn't. She hasn't said that. ..if you are one of the people who was hoping @TheIndGroup might start to change the culture round here.. Blandy: "If you are a Bluenose, you will be depressed to see Villa win." Person on messageboard: ....Why does he think it appropriate to suggest that being depressed is the likely reaction to Villa winning? She's bang on the money if you are one of the people who was hoping...etc.. Further, to exapnd, perhaps on the perspective of if you are one of the people who was hoping...etc - .places are allocated based on party representation size at the election, but which which then changes over a parliament with by election results, defections, whip suspensions etc. Committees don't tend to be re-constituted on the fly as the balance changes. if you are one of the people who was hoping...etc. then people doing a decent job in a committe role might be thought to be best left where they are to complete their work. They remain of the same skills and outlook as when they were placed onto the committee. Kicking them off because their former party has a grudge against them as individuals looks, if you are one of the people who was hoping...etc. "depressing". Or TLDR: No bias there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 30 minutes ago, blandy said: She doesn't. She hasn't said that. ..if you are one of the people who was hoping @TheIndGroup might start to change the culture round here.. Blandy: "If you are a Bluenose, you will be depressed to see Villa win." Your analogy is with an event which could go either way. This was an administrative tidying up to reflect the fact that Labour places were occupied by people who are no longer Labour. A better analogy might be "If you are one of the people who was hoping that Ronaldo might continue to appear on the Madrid team sheet despite having been transferred to Juventus...", or perhaps "If you are one of those people who thought you could still use the firm's season ticket after you left and set up on your own...". She is affecting to believe they should have continued to occupy those Labour places, when she knows full well they shouldn't, and that there is something odd or remarkable about them being replaced. If she doesn't intend to suggest that an exception should be made for them, what on earth is the possible aim of her comment? It's disingenuous, and it is intended to imply that there's some sort of improper or underhanded manipulation going on here - why else could surprise or disappointment be a possible reaction? If her comment is not disingenuous but sincere, it suggests she doesn't understand some of the very basics that she is employed to report on. She may not be the brightest, but I don't believe she's that stupid. 30 minutes ago, blandy said: Further, to exapnd, perhaps on the perspective of if you are one of the people who was hoping...etc - .places are allocated based on party representation size at the election, but which which then changes over a parliament with by election results, defections, whip suspensions etc. Committees don't tend to be re-constituted on the fly as the balance changes. The committee hasn't been reconstituted because the party balance has slightly changed. People who were occupying Labour places have been removed because they no longer represent Labour. The party balance remains as it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, peterms said: She is affecting to believe they should have continued to occupy those Labour places You are affecting to believe she is saying something she simply didn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 47 minutes ago, blandy said: You are affecting to believe she is saying something she simply didn't say. Oh, come on. Their replacement was inevitable. To suggest that someone might be depressed by them being replaced - well if it doesn't imply suggesting they might have been allowed to continue to occupy LP places, then what do you think it means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 19/03/2019 at 13:50, VILLAMARV said: Sometimes with the BBC I see a headline that I feel I can answer in either one word or one sentence. Todays offering From the we don't do adverts channel..... Quote McDonald's vegan McNuggets: Do people want to eat them? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47636206 No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 hours ago, peterms said: Why would she think an exception should be made for these people? Why does she think it appropriate to suggest that being depressed is the likely reaction to replacing these two? 33 minutes ago, peterms said: Oh, come on. Their replacement was inevitable. To suggest that someone might be depressed by them being replaced - well if it doesn't imply suggesting they might have been allowed to continue to occupy LP places, then what do you think it means? Thee are 2 different things here. Firstly, your original comment, She has not said anything about "thinking exceptions should be made". All she said was people who liked the TIG idea would be depressed that Labour had moved to kick the TIG MPs off their committee roles. Second point: Their replacement is/was not "inevitable". Labour moved to have some TIG MPs removed, but not others. They seem to dare not move against Luciana Berger, for example - Pregnant/maternity leave, Jewish etc. - they dare not go there. Labour didn't have to move to remove any of the MPs it was a choice. A choice they were entitled, but not required, to make (they chose not to with Berger). That Labour chose to do so will disappoint people who hoped TIG would bring about a change of culture. That's all LK said, and she's bang on. It will. It might be a forlorn hope the TIG likers have, but they will be disapppointed. This is not a biased "BBC (or LK) issue". This is valid, politically neutral comment having things read into it that are not there, and for which there is no evidence at all of bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, blandy said: Firstly, your original comment, She has not said anything about "thinking exceptions should be made". All she said was people who liked the TIG idea would be depressed that Labour had moved to kick the TIG MPs off their committee roles. Do you not see that the whole premise of her comment is that it might be assumed that they could continue to occupy places belonging to a party they don't represent? And that it is obvious to anyone that any party would not allow this, except perhaps with a relatively uncontentious committee where someone had an acknowledged expertise not easily replaced, which is hardly the case here. So their replacement is entirely unsurprising, and the fabricated outrage about it (see for example the Standard) is just another dishonest and cynical sham. She is playing to this by implying that it's somehow surprising or exceptional, and that people may be expected to react accordingly. It's like the comments about Brexiters wanting access to the gym equipment after quitting the club; not going to happen, don't act surprised, don't whine about it, you chose this. 1 hour ago, blandy said: They seem to dare not move against Luciana Berger, for example - Pregnant/maternity leave, Jewish etc. - they dare not go there. Labour didn't have to move to remove any of the MPs it was a choice. A choice they were entitled, but not required, to make (they chose not to with Berger) According to Berger, the LP advertised a vacancy on the committee she sits on (presumably her place) the day before she gave birth. The comment on the proximity to her delivery is I suppose meant to suggest even more extreme unreasonableness. She says that no-one came forward for the place. I would expect the party officers to return to this once they are less occupied with bigger issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, peterms said: Do you not see that the whole premise of her comment is that it might be assumed that they could continue to occupy places belonging to a party they don't represent No, I don't. Labour isn't wrong or out of process to do it. They are, I said quite entitled to do it. TIG people will be disappointed Labour did it, if they were hoping (they'd be daft to, but still...) for a less partisan, less party first type of politics. If she'd made the comment about TIG MPs, then I'd agree with you. But, quite the opposite, she said "..if you are one of the people who was hoping @TheIndGroup might start to change the culture round here..." She hasn't criticised Labour for doing it. Not remotely. The (stretching) criticism I would read into the tweet, if any - is that the current system/culture is a bit poor or that the TIG MPs have not changed the culture. But I think (agree with that or not) that is fair comment, and not "bias". Whatever their, ahem "merits" MPs of two different parties came together, decided to work together to oppose Brexit, mainly, as a start. Meanwhile their two former parties are behaving like utter effwits. The contrast is stark from the perspective of anyone "who was hoping" for more collaboration and consensus. TIG have changed not much, apart from spooking May and Corbyn into being less bell endy towards their own MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, blandy said: If she'd made the comment about TIG MPs, then I'd agree with you. But, quite the opposite, she said "..if you are one of the people who was hoping @TheIndGroup might start to change the culture round here..." I wonder how to make sense of her comment, if it's not insinuating Labour should not have removed them. Does she mean that the Tiggers have come up against the way committee places are allocated, previously a mystery to them, and their ability to change the political culture is impaired as a result? Is she criticising them for naivete? Does she mean that a small band with no clear political views and no recognised place in the HoC can't do very much? I prefer the more obvious interpretation that she is having a dig at the LP. 5 minutes ago, blandy said: ...is that the current system/culture is a bit poor or that the TIG MPs have not changed the culture. It would be more interesting, though she couldn't do it on twitter, to explore what a change of political culture might mean, how it might differ from the nonsense of 30 years ago ("breaking the mould of British politics...") as the SDP crashed and burned. Looks like Groundhog Day to me, on a more modest scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts