Brexit...

[Matt]

Side observation: interesting to see how many data partners they sell to that are Russian companies too. I'm sure that's not just the Mail and Express, but found it interesting that they're all happy to express outrage over Russia but also happy to sell UK civilian data to Russian companies at the same time. 

[Bailey]

11 hours ago, RPG said:

There are two separate issues here I think:

1) Did Johnson behave inappropriately? Absolutely.

2) Did MSM give the story more air time than they otherwise would have and present a less than impartial narrative because it was Johnson? Absolutely.

As far as I am concerned, Johnson created the circus with the MSM and has done so for a long time. If that was his downfall, then he played a big part in creating it.

[MikeO]

14 minutes ago, RPG said:

I think you are putting the cart before the horse a bit there. Johnson certainly went into bat against the BBC because of the BBC left wing bias. That's one of the things that I can say I support Johnson 100% on. The BBC (I believe) then conducted its own, visceral agenda against Johnson.

You really have your tin foil hat on on this don't you. I'd love to see you post one single link that backs up your opinion, go for it.

Others hold a totally alternative view, citing, “Tory cronyism at the heart of the BBC”.

https://news.sky.com/story/emily-maitlis-refers-to-tory-cronyism-at-heart-of-the-bbc-in-edinburgh-tv-festival-lecture-12680676

The left think the BBC is biased to the right, the right are certain it's biased to the left; that suggests to me that they're doing their job very effectively.

[MikeO]

Here's a piece from the Daily Mail as an example of his support in the media for comparison, this is what you call (right wing) bias....

What a peculiarly Tory and British drama it is. Boris Johnson, without question the most extraordinary politician of his generation, has the attributes to be a truly great prime minister. 

But with the trickle of letters from Conservative MPs — ministers and backbenchers alike — publicly expressing an irretrievable loss of confidence in him becoming a flood, the clock seemed to be running inexorably down on his time in Downing Street. 

Yet Mr Johnson is nothing if not a fighter. He's clinging onto No10 with everything he has. 

Having shaken up Britain for the better, he won't give up power lightly, arguing that he has a direct mandate from 14 million voters. 

Even a Cabinet delegation urging him to quit was dismissed with a flea in its ear (and a P45 in Michael Gove's hand). Instead, the PM is digging in, drawing up a tax-cutting economic policy with new Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, and vowing to deliver for families struggling with soaring bills.

With the chaos engulfing him, is this the miracle that can save the master escapologist? 

His downfall would not only be a personal catastrophe, it would have a baleful effect on the entire country. 

With his trademark optimism and buccaneering spirit, Mr Johnson set out a One Nation vision for transforming Britain's fortunes. 

What does it say about the febrile, politically deranged place Britain has become in 2022, where a leader with a thumping majority is the victim of a putsch from within his own side? 

And equally, how absurd that the holder of the highest office in the land risks being toppled by events that are, compared with the seismic forces currently convulsing the world, essentially trivial? 

Yes, the PM has made mistakes, misjudgments and misdemeanours. But let's be honest, they have hardly been Watergate. 

This sorry episode has all the hallmarks of one of Mr Johnson's beloved classical Greek tragedies. 

In that dramatic form, the hero always means well and the play usually begins with a string of successes. But because of shortcomings in his own character, he is eventually brought down — often by those he once regarded as friends. 

There are distinct echoes of this in Mr Johnson's betrayal. But there is one crucial difference.

Instead of resulting in catharsis, this drama is almost guaranteed to end in bitter tears of acrimony and recrimination. 

One of the 'friends' trying to deliver the fatal blow was, of course, former Health Secretary Sajid Javid. 

In a toe-curlingly pompous piece of attention-seeking, he tried to mirror Geoffrey Howe's devastating resignation statement in 1990 which helped to topple Margaret Thatcher. 

So elevated was Javid's moral high horse that he must have been suffering vertigo. 

In reality, this was a transparent bid to portray himself as a leadership contender — a squeaky-clean alternative to a compromised PM. 

It was nauseating sanctimony from a man who so patently wears his ambition on his sleeve.

In his peroration, he insisted: 'I'm not one of life's quitters.' 

Pull the other one, Mr Javid! Twice he has flounced out of a Cabinet post in a huff — this time, disgracefully, as post-Covid NHS waiting lists hit record levels. 

And speaking of dereliction of duty, what kind of Chancellor was his fellow Cabinet conspirator Rishi Sunak to effectively down tools during the worst cost-of-living crisis for a generation? 

The truth is, Mr Johnson stands head and shoulders above almost all his would-be assassins. 

Compared with the mountains he has scaled, their combined achievements are little more than molehills. 

Just 31 months ago, he landed the Conservatives their biggest landslide for three decades after persuading millions of traditional Labour voters that he was their man. 

In doing so, he vanquished Corbynism — saving the country from mutating into a nightmarish socialist dystopia. Then, in the teeth of opposition from almost the whole Remain-dominated British Establishment, Mr Johnson fulfilled the explicit will of the British people by delivering Brexit.

If that weren't enough, he triumphantly guided the country through the worst pandemic in a century — despite damn nearly dying of Covid. And liberated from the sclerotic EU, the PM masterminded our own world-beating jabs programme, allowing us to be first in the world to lift lockdown and re-ignite our economy. 

 

[Bailey]

6 hours ago, RPG said:

I think you are putting the cart before the horse a bit there. Johnson certainly went into bat against the BBC because of the BBC left wing bias. That's one of the things that I can say I support Johnson 100% on. The BBC (I believe) then conducted its own, visceral agenda against Johnson.

I dont think I am. 

Johnson's whole political career has been media driven rather than a genuine desire to improve the livelihoods of those he serves. 

He is more interested in being a celebrity than a serious politician.

He will be on celebrity big brother or a similar show by the end of the decade.

[Formby]

The MSM also savaged Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn, not elected PMs but all leaders of the opposition, so I don't think the treatment of Johnson is particularly exceptional. What is exceptional is that a man so unfit for office was elected to office. His hubris did for him. For the record, I am neither of the left, nor the right (nor the centre!). 

[Palfy]

46 minutes ago, Formby said:

The MSM also savaged Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn, not elected PMs but all leaders of the opposition, so I don't think the treatment of Johnson is particularly exceptional. What is exceptional is that a man so unfit for office was elected to office. His hubris did for him. For the record, I am neither of the left, nor the right (nor the centre!). 

Exactly, considering what a clown he was he got off very lightly when you look at others you mentioned. I know I’m a Labour supporter but without showing any bias for me Brown would have made one of the best PM in years but the world banking crisis put a block to that, yet as an elder statesman he makes more sense and reasoning when he speaks than the whole Tory party combined. 

[Bailey]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

Much of what you say about Johnson, I agree with. But that was not the point I was making. The point is that the MSM attacked Johnson in a manner that, I suggest, they would not have gone after any other PM of any other party. The reason (in the case of the BBC) is because of Johnson's declared intention to threaten the licence fee, bolstered by the BBC's own left wing leanings.

No I don't think they would have gone at another PM in the same way BUT that he was treated that way and deservedly so because of how he had built his career up to that point. 

I also disagree about the BBC. It is supporters of both sides say when they need an excuse for something. There are plenty of problems with the BBC but I don't think intentional bias is one of them. 

[Formby]

3 hours ago, RPG said:

I think the poor treatment of Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn was mainly (not entirely, to be fair) confined to their professional lives. With Johnson they went after him personally and privately and that, for me, is the big (and unacceptable) difference.

In the end, it comes down to who runs the country - the elected government or the MSM?

Gone are the days when conviction politicans had a say in the running of the country. Far too much regard is paid to what the media say. Policy is shaped by opinion polls.    

Johnson demeaned the highest public office in the land. He invited personal and private opprobrium by letting his character become more important than the job.   

[Matt]

4 hours ago, RPG said:

So, MSM runs the country? As soon as the MSM has a personality clash  with the PM they can mobilise, harass him and ultimately force him out of office. I'm not defending Johnson but in legal analogy, he didn't get a fair trial. Next time we are unhappy with a UK policy or interest rates or inflation or wars etc, let's have a demonstration in Fleet Street or outside the BBC HQ shall we as they must really be responsible?

It is getting (wrong, has already got) ridiculous now. The power and influence of MSM is out of all proportion to the job they are supposed to do (report the news not make the news or intentionally seek to influence people) and we are heading down a very slippery slope to a very unfortunate outcome if this state of affairs continues. I support freedom of the press but with freedom comes responsibility and I see very little of that as MSM chases headlines and viewing numbers rather than facts. The number of loaded questions that the BBC in particular asks now is crazy, assuming a point of view from the person being interviewed in the actual question - eg: 'How angry are you with the latest government policy on ....?' It is a very pernicious, sly and yes, clever, way of inflicting MSM view points on people's sub consciousness and, if left unchecked, will be bad for all of us in the long run.

We should all fight back against subliminally (and even openly now) being told what to think. Unfortunately, most people don't even realise how they are now being played and influenced.

I am a great believer in the adage that we get the society we deserve. It might be worth the population considering the current state of UK society and reflecting on that - in the hope that we haven't yet gone past 'critical mass' and we don't already have the lunatics (MSM, incompetent politicians of all flavours, overly represented minority groups and big companies) running the asylum (country).

Rant over.

I would largely agree with most of that, except your focus with the BBC. MSM consists of many entities, the beeb is just one, and one you seem to have a personal issue with. 

[Formby]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

I am a great believer in the adage that we get the society we deserve. It might be worth the population considering the current state of UK society and reflecting on that - in the hope that we haven't yet gone past 'critical mass' and we don't already have the lunatics (MSM, incompetent politicians of all flavours, overly represented minority groups and big companies) running the asylum (country).

Out of interest, is there a country anywhere you could point to where the balance between a free press and government is not tilted? Or a country you feel the UK should aspire to be like?

I haven't watched anything on the BBC for years (what is there to watch??) - although I do sometimes listen to Today on R4. Does social media not play a greater part in influencing public opinion?   

[Formby]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

I don't think there is any country with a totally free press that isn't tilted to a degree. But it's the question of degree isn't it. A certain bit of give and take is healthy as it stimulates discussion and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a homogenous society where we were all thinking and acting the same way. But, again, it's a question of degree. I think UK MSM abuses its freedoms and abdicates its responsibilities more than any other nations' free press establishments with the possible exception of USA.

You may be right but I think the rottweiler elements of the MSM are actually less rabid than they used to be. The BBC faces an existential threat from social media platforms and online news outlets so it has had to adapt - in my opinion, unsuccessfully. I am not sure how many people nowadays accept its output as being completely unbiased / reliable. C4, Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox all play to their demographics. The good news is that it has never been easier to fact check and build up a picture of what is / isn't true (if you actually believe there is anything called truth, rather than perception!).

[Matt]

16 minutes ago, Formby said:

You may be right but I think the rottweiler elements of the MSM are actually less rabid than they used to be. The BBC faces an existential threat from social media platforms and online news outlets so it has had to adapt - in my opinion, unsuccessfully. I am not sure how many people nowadays accept its output as being completely unbiased / reliable. C4, Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox all play to their demographics. The good news is that it has never been easier to fact check and build up a picture of what is / isn't true (if you actually believe there is anything called truth, rather than perception!).

Therein lies the problem; being bothered enough to fact check 

[Formby]

20 minutes ago, RPG said:

 Who checks the fact checkers or do we just accept their decision as gospel??

We get more fact checkers to check the fact checkers. 

[Formby]

43 minutes ago, Matt said:

Therein lies the problem; being bothered enough to fact check 

You could always ask Bailey? He's very good with stats.  

[Matt]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

That just highlighted the problem nicely. Perception is truth (to the individual with the perception) unless or until a contrary truth is incontrovertibly proven. And even now, some of the 'fact checking' sites look a bit suspicious. Who checks the fact checkers or do we just accept their decision as gospel??

This is also true and why ultimately social media is infinitely more dangerous than any established media (excluding 60+ here as social media is predominantly youth and their parents at the moment, and pensioners have lives with TV or paper news all their lives), because that latter part is irrelevant on social media and any numpty with a grudge or a commitment to scientifically unproven theory can gather traction. See Trump, Wakefield, flat earthers, Farage...

[Palfy]

Let’s be honest we never needed social media to tell us that Boris was a clown he was very good at displaying that with his own words and actions. 

[Palfy]

6 hours ago, RPG said:

True, but a surprisingly effective clown. I can't see any of Starmer, Truss or Sunak being as effective for UK in the role.

The biggest comparison I can find to Johnson is Trump enough said on that. Truss again like Johnson makes statements and promises, then when they got shot down does a complete U-turn and then lies about her initial statement, ringing any bells. Sunak wouldn’t be my choice of PM if I had a choice but on this occasion I would rather him than Truss. Starmer isn't in your normal mould of a PM he’s not a screamer or shouter, he doesn’t broadcast wild assertions or lies, for me he is a calm thoughtful intelligent man who would be more concerned with doing a good job than raising his own profile for personal gains, also he could raise the standing of this country on the world stage once again, by engaging in intelligent and sensible dialogue with other leaders on the world stage, something Johnson was clearly unable to do, but he was a master at embarrassing the country. For Starmer epitomises the saying there is more than one way to skin a cat. And for the record these are my views and personal opinions you may not agree with them that is entirely your choice, but please don’t try to disprove them, unless you have factual evidence to prove otherwise, and to save you time before you start looking you haven’t got it and won’t find it. 

[Matt]

Opinions can be disproven if they're based on nonsense and evidence to the contrary is provided. Once disproven, the holder no longer has an opinion, they're just wilfully ignorant and stubborn. 

I'm deliberately not quoting people here, just replying to that last bit on its on

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

chequered and questionable history as DPP (which would constantly be used as a stick to beat him with) and with him escaping a similar legal slap on the wrist over C-19 SOP violations as Johnson by the skin of his teeth

Evidence to both of these accusations please? you stated them as fact and not opinions, I’m not going to question your opinions on Starmer as you did mine because they are what they are just opinions. 

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, RPG said:

No, I stated they were chequered and questionable. Those are my opinions but do I have to say Jimmy Saville to get the message (my opinion) across? Or Ian Tomlinson?

Jimmy Saville was proven a complete lie fabricated by Johnson in the commons purely to try and divert the microscope from himself, he was asked countless times to apologise for the remarks from cross party MP’s but refused and then just completely avoided the question for weeks, staying tight lipped and red faced because once again he had been caught lying, you keep your opinions of Johnson imo you are very similar characters and very much suited to each other, even after Starmer was found innocent of the accusations aimed at him by Johnson over Saville and breaching Covid rules you still believing them to be true, Starmer before the enquiry into breaking Covid rules over an alleged party that Johnson accused him of in the commons to try and diminish his own failings of parties, stood up and said if I am found guilty of breaking the rules I will immediately resign, then asked Johnson would he do the same, again no response because he was a liar who new he was going to be found guilty. 

[Formby]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

That said, I think Truss is the next PM and I hope she does a better job than I think she will. I would have little confidence in either Truss, Sunak or Starmer as PM and I do worry about the next few years for the UK.

Why in all the strands of the multiverse do we have to live in the only one that has Johnson and then Truss as our PM? And that I also support Everton?  

[MikeO]

3 hours ago, RPG said:

As soon as an independent report is referenced via the Express or Mail it is shot down by one side of the debate, not on its merits or lack of merits but because of who published the independent 'evidence.'

Look closer at the merits.

Report in the Fail said, "Ministers have opened up a fresh front with the BBC over accusations of its editorial bias by launching a major review focused on its compliance with ‘impartiality requirements’.
A mid-term review being announced later this week is expected to reignite tensions between the Government and the Corporation over claims that its output is too skewed towards a Left-wing, so-called ‘Islingtonian’ world view."

It was referencing a review that was "expected to examine" whether the BBC "abuses its dominant market position to the detriment of commercial rivals."

No sign of an "independent report" there then, just some Fail speculation of something they were expecting. If such a review consequently materialised maybe you could link it, would clear up any confusion.

The "independent" source in the Express article is the Campaign for Common Sense, the mouthpiece of insignificant right wing Tory Mark Lehain; zero credibility or independence can be granted (his youtube channel has a massive 262 subscribers). The organisation doesn't even have the recognition of a Wikipedia page.

[Matt]

3 hours ago, RPG said:

Might be an exercise in semantics but I would say the correct term is 'disagreed with' rather than 'disproven' as it clarifies the debate as ongoing and one of opinion rather than closed and one of fact.

People can always hold their opinion. 'Nonsense' is a subjective term and what might be nonsense to one side of the debate may be considered important to the other side. It doesn't make either side right or wrong or prove anything though imho. One has only to consider people's 'opinions' (total faith with no scientific evidence) on religion in general to see that.

As we have already seen in previous posts, even 'evidence' is rarely compelling for the 'other' side. As soon as an independent report is referenced via the Express or Mail it is shot down by one side of the debate, not on its merits or lack of merits but because of who published the independent 'evidence.'

No, I mean disproven. Flat Earthers for example. I don't disagree with their opinion, it has no merit, no substance, no evidence to counter the actual evidence. The debate isn't ongoing, the delusion is. 

[MikeO]

14 minutes ago, RPG said:

How about BBC's own Gary Lineker being savaged for bias by another BBC reporter?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1660925/gary-lineker-bbc-match-of-the-day-presenter-bias-journalist-neil-henderson-twitter-update

Classic deflection, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

But in answer, how was he "savaged" (are you a taboid headline writer in your spare time?)?

He was challenged in a tweet, later deleted for whatever reason, to which he responded, "Only in news and current affairs. Surely you know this?"

I suspect the reason the original tweet was removed was because the tweet by Lineker was found to be correct.

[MikeO]

Just now, RPG said:

I believe not as there is a feeling within rank and file BBC presenters that Lineker is given far more leeway by the BBC than other presenters.

At the end of the day, some people will follow the evidence to wherever it may lead and others will be selective in the evidence they use, and try to discredit or 'poo poo' any evidence that doesn't fit their desired agenda or narrative. To a certain extent it is just human nature but it can hinder progress as it makes meaningful debate a futile exercise.

But, as I pointed out, your links provide no evidence at all, so there's nothing to 'poopoo'.

[MikeO]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1384098/bbc-news-bbc-question-time-richard-sharp-bbc-chair-appointment-bbc-bias

Again, deflection, you're making no attempt whatsoever to address my points as per usual. Don't know why I bother, so I'll stop.

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

Now who has given opinions presented as fact Palfy? 

You are entitled to them Palfy and I don't want this to get personal so I will refrain from responding to your unnecessary personal attack and leave it there. But I have to say that I do stick to my opinions, and your apparent 'hot under the collar' response serves to both reinforce my considered opinion and to conclude that there is no benefit to the debate to be achieved until some counting to ten has been done.  ✌

There was an inquiry on Saville and party accusations and Starmer was found to be innocent on both accounts, yet in your opinion he isn’t, that’s the Johnson in you coming out. 
It wasn’t a personal attack on you for me it was a well judged opinion, I’m not angry upset or hot under the collar, so stop trying to riddle out of the fundamental question where is the evidence that hasn’t been disproven that in your opinion Starmer is guilty of the 2 accusations you aimed at him, and when you’ve shown that then maybe we can move on. 

[Palfy]

52 minutes ago, RPG said:

Quote: Johnson imo you are very similar characters and very much suited to each other,  Unquote

Why do you find that offensive I would have thought very much the contrary, you have always championed him for years and even compared him to a Churchillian in character, I would have thought you’d be blowing your trumpet with pride that I compared him to you, must admit very confused by your hostility to being likened to one of your heroes. 

[MikeO]

42 minutes ago, RPG said:

I look forward to a simple answer to a simple question and not more attempted deflection.

You couldn't make it up; physician, heal thyself.