BBC bias again?

[archie]

Nothing about Indy in there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting you would see pro SNP as 'nothing to do with indy'.

[Ozyhibby]

Interesting you would see pro SNP as 'nothing to do with indy'.

Was there anything about Indy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20220716/281487870072852
Did you actually read this before posting? It stinks of retired-pro-unionist-lawyer-with-long-term-anti-SNP-anti-independence-views complains about the SNP. It is so ridiculous it is laughable. If you really think that supports your opinion then I'd suggest you need to take a holiday.

[grunt]

On your example, you can't comprehend that it might be a mistake. It has to be a deliberate lie, no doubt part of a wider conspiracy. Do you really believe that?
Explain to me how a professional news organisation can report something the complete opposite of what the evidence shows. Yes, I think it's a deliberate lie.

[archie]

Did you actually read this before posting? It stinks of retired-pro-unionist-lawyer-with-long-term-anti-SNP-anti-independence-views complains about the SNP. It is so ridiculous it is laughable. If you really think that supports your opinion then I'd suggest you need to take a holiday.

Instead of the ad hominum against the retired BBC lawyer and me, why not address the points?

[archie]

Explain to me how a professional news organisation can report something the complete opposite of what the evidence shows. Yes, I think it's a deliberate lie.

Evidence?

[archie]

Nothing about Indy in there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By your rationale there was nothing about independence in your earlier post.

[Moulin Yarns]

A few SG-related snippets picked out by the National (or flagged up to the National by some independence-minded conspiracy theorist) from the BBC's 'clarifications and corrections' is hardly evidence of an active campaign against your political beliefs. A scan through the many other corrections on there shows mistakes (and that's all they are) are made pretty regularly in all areas of the BBC's output - as they will be in many media organisations.

My problem with the clarification and correction methods of broadcast media is that it's only published on the Internet, not broadcast in the same way on a news broadcast. At least the Guardian and Observer print theirs in the same place everytime so you know where to find it. Mind you, there would be less space for whatever news they are broadcasting 😂

[JeMeSouviens]

Never happens:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23147718.bbc-uphold-complaint-pro-snp-bias/

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20220716/281487870072852

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20230116/281771338301704

So your response to 3 examples where they were forced to apologise and correct is 1 example where they ran an opinion piece too close to an election, 1 rant by an extremely pro-Union commentator and 1 use of the phrase "our leader" in reference to NS?

Pomegranates and guavas I would suggest.

[archie]

So your response to 3 examples where they were forced to apologise and correct is 1 example where they ran an opinion piece too close to an election, 1 rant by an extremely pro-Union commentator and 1 use of the phrase "our leader" in reference to NS?

Pomegranates and guavas I would suggest.

The fact you describe it as a rant is telling. Any view on the substantive points? Would you be OK with the BBC describing Sunak as 'our leader'? If they did this place would go into meltdown. Derek Batemen is lauded for his views on working at the BBC - why are his views valid>

[grunt]

Explain to me how a professional news organisation can report something the complete opposite of what the evidence shows. Yes, I think it's a deliberate lie.


Evidence?
Evidence below:

In reporting that the Scottish Government had decided that a herbicide previously used to control bracken on farms in Scotland will not be authorised for use this season, we stated that this was because the risks “don’t outweigh the benefits”. In fact, the decision was made because the risks do outweigh the benefits. We apologise for the error.

[He's here!]

Nothing about Indy in there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was anti-indy in the mistakes/corrections you posted?

[archie]

Evidence below:

That's just repeating the apology.

[grunt]

Yet another BBC Scotland simple mistake?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F06VIPMWYAMAMF3?format=jpg&name=medium

[archie]

Yet another BBC Scotland simple mistake?


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F06VIPMWYAMAMF3?format=jpg&name=medium

So what are you saying? Do you know anything about the processes that led to the change? wWas it misleading briefing from the Scottish Government? Was it a mistake? Was it a belief that it amounts to the same thing? Was it picked up by internal fact checking? I don't know and neither do you.

[JeMeSouviens]

The fact you describe it as a rant is telling. Any view on the substantive points? Would you be OK with the BBC describing Sunak as 'our leader'? If they did this place would go into meltdown. Derek Batemen is lauded for his views on working at the BBC - why are his views valid>

Have the BeebScot been forced to apologise and correct pro-Scotgov/SNP or anti-Ukgov/Tory statements? Find some of those and you have evidence to substantiate your point. The above is tangential whataboutery.

[grunt]

So what are you saying? Do you know anything about the processes that led to the change? wWas it misleading briefing from the Scottish Government? Was it a mistake? Was it a belief that it amounts to the same thing? Was it picked up by internal fact checking? I don't know and neither do you.
Wow, so many questions! And your first suggestion is an attempt to blame the SG for "misleading" the BBC. LOL.

Again, slowly for those at the back, the BBC is a public service broadcaster, probably the primary source of news in the country. It should not be making these mistakes. The fact that they are making them, and they're always against the SG, tells me this is intentional bias.

You may have your own views.

[archie]

Wow, so many questions! And your first suggestion is an attempt to blame the SG for "misleading" the BBC. LOL.

Again, slowly for those at the back, the BBC is a public service broadcaster, probably the primary source of news in the country. It should not be making these mistakes. The fact that they are making them, and they're always against the SG, tells me this is intentional bias.

You may have your own views.

You don't need to take it slowly form, but thanks. It wasn't an attempt to blame the Scottish Government but a potential scenario. Your claim of institutional bias is still questionable, but a roll back from deliberate lying.

[archie]

Wow, so many questions! And your first suggestion is an attempt to blame the SG for "misleading" the BBC. LOL.

Again, slowly for those at the back, the BBC is a public service broadcaster, probably the primary source of news in the country. It should not be making these mistakes. The fact that they are making them, and they're always against the SG, tells me this is intentional bias.

You may have your own views.

You don't need to take it slowly for me, but thanks. It wasn't an attempt to blame the Scottish Government but a potential scenario. Your claim of institutional bias is still questionable, but a roll back from deliberate lying.

[archie]

Have the BeebScot been forced to apologise and correct pro-Scotgov/SNP or anti-Ukgov/Tory statements? Find some of those and you have evidence to substantiate your point. The above is tangential whataboutery.

It absolutely isn't whataboutery. It's looking at a principle and applying it equally. The issue of referring to the former FM as 'our leader' appeared to be dismissed as an issue. It's legitimate to question whether there would be the same lofty dismissal had it been Sunak referred to in those terms. That's questioning the principle. Whataboutery would be along the lines of 'the former FM has been arrested' getting the response 'what about Michelle Mone'.

[JeMeSouviens]

It absolutely isn't whataboutery. It's looking at a principle and applying it equally. The issue of referring to the former FM as 'our leader' appeared to be dismissed as an issue. It's legitimate to question whether there would be the same lofty dismissal had it been Sunak referred to in those terms. That's questioning the principle. Whataboutery would be along the lines of 'the former FM has been arrested' getting the response 'what about Michelle Mone'.

Come back with similar examples where BeebScot has published apologies/corrections for anti-Ukgov/Tory factual errors and I'll believe you're applying it equally.

[archie]

Come back with similar examples where BeebScot has published apologies/corrections for anti-Ukgov/Tory factual errors and I'll believe you're applying it equally.

You can see all apologies here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications

[He's here!]

Wow, so many questions! And your first suggestion is an attempt to blame the SG for "misleading" the BBC. LOL.

Again, slowly for those at the back, the BBC is a public service broadcaster, probably the primary source of news in the country. It should not be making these mistakes. The fact that they are making them, and they're always against the SG, tells me this is intentional bias.

You may have your own views.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications

Not the case at all.

[He's here!]

Come back with similar examples where BeebScot has published apologies/corrections for anti-Ukgov/Tory factual errors and I'll believe you're applying it equally.

In what way were the examples posted earlier 'anti-Scottish government'? They were just a select handful of mistakes from among many across all aspects of BBC reporting. Mistakes get made, there's nothing more sinister than that.

[JeMeSouviens]

You can see all apologies here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications

So you can't be bothered (or couldn't find anything) but you want me to? :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

In what way were the examples posted earlier 'anti-Scottish government'? They were just a select handful of mistakes from among many across all aspects of BBC reporting. Mistakes get made, there's nothing more sinister than that.

Seriously? If you can't work that out for yourself there's little point in me attempting to explain it.

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications

Not the case at all.
I was (obviously) talking about BBC Scotland. But you knew that, right?

[He's here!]

I was (obviously) talking about BBC Scotland. But you knew that, right?

No, I didn't know that.

[He's here!]

Seriously? If you can't work that out for yourself there's little point in me attempting to explain it.

Reporter/editor makes error (subsequently corrected) in a story which relates to the Scottish government (who are quite naturally going to command a great deal more media attention than any opposition party, hence the higher likelihood of such mistakes sometimes being made) and this is evidence of an anti-Scottish government agenda by the BBC? The only thing to 'work out' here is why folk would actually believe that.

[archie]

Come back with similar examples where BeebScot has published apologies/corrections for anti-Ukgov/Tory factual errors and I'll believe you're applying it equally.

So quite a bit to unpack here. I'm struggling to understand the link between BBC Scotland apologising to the UK Government and me applying a principle equally. I don't work for the BBC. I do, however, care about public service broadcasting.

Your framing is interesting as it's BBC Scotland apologising to UKG that you are concerned with, rather than the BBC as a whole. I've no idea if BBC Scotland have apologised to UKG.A cursory internet search throws up examples of the BBC as a whole issuing apologies and clarification to UKG. You may see that as evidence of bias, but an at least equally plausible view it that it is hardly surprising given BBC Scotland will have a focus on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

[Hiber-nation]

Reporter/editor makes error (subsequently corrected) in a story which relates to the Scottish government (who are quite naturally going to command a great deal more media attention than any opposition party, hence the higher likelihood of such mistakes sometimes being made) and this is evidence of an anti-Scottish government agenda by the BBC? The only thing to 'work out' here is why folk would actually believe that.

My ex-colleague's mate used to work for BBC Scotland and as we all know there is definitely an anti-SNP agenda. He said it was a case of just "not crossing the line" but keeping the pro-union stance going by conveniently ignoring any SNP success stories and focussing continually on the negative. And hoping no-one would notice....

[archie]

So you can't be bothered (or couldn't find anything) but you want me to? :rolleyes:

I thought posting the link was helpful. Generally if you want to make a case you present the evidence.

[archie]

I was (obviously) talking about BBC Scotland. But you knew that, right?

The BBC Scotland clarifications are included in this list.

[grunt]

Reporter/editor makes error (subsequently corrected) in a story which relates to the Scottish government (who are quite naturally going to command a great deal more media attention than any opposition party, hence the higher likelihood of such mistakes sometimes being made) and this is evidence of an anti-Scottish government agenda by the BBC? The only thing to 'work out' here is why folk would actually believe that.
It's just the latest in a long line of examples of anti-SG bias. So don't pretend this is all about the latest example.

[grunt]

The BBC Scotland clarifications are included in this list.
Yes I know. I also know that Ozy posted three anti-SG apologies from the last month. Plus the one I posted. That's 4 mistakes - that they've owned up to - in the last 4 or 5 weeks. All anti-SG. Coincidence, eh?

[archie]

Yes I know. I also know that Ozy posted three anti-SG apologies from the last month. Plus the one I posted. That's 4 mistakes - that they've owned up to - in the last 4 or 5 weeks. All anti-SG. Coincidence, eh?

Not really. The Scottish Government dominates the news in Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stfilansdream/status/1679486459001053184?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://twitter.com/stfilansdream/status/1679486459001053184?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And?

[He's here!]

It's just the latest in a long line of examples of anti-SG bias. So don't pretend this is all about the latest example.

I'm not. I just don't go along with conspiracy theories.

[He's here!]

My ex-colleague's mate used to work for BBC Scotland and as we all know there is definitely an anti-SNP agenda. He said it was a case of just "not crossing the line" but keeping the pro-union stance going by conveniently ignoring any SNP success stories and focussing continually on the negative. And hoping no-one would notice....

A colleague's mate who once worked for the BBC. Sounds like an irrefutable source.

[grunt]

A colleague's mate who once worked for the BBC. Sounds like an irrefutable source.

Completely agree! Someone who actually worked there is a far better source than for example The Herald, a newspaper with a unionist agenda. Glad you're beginning to see the light.

[grunt]

I'm not. I just don't go along with conspiracy theories.

It's hardly a theory. We've just shown you four examples of bias in the last month.

[grunt]

And?

You've just been presented with yet more evidence that BBC Scotland decided to ignore a positive SG story that broke yesterday and this is your response? You can perhaps see why some people might think you are trolling on here.

Or then, maybe you can't.

[archie]

It's hardly a theory. We've just shown you four examples of bias in the last month.

No. You have shown four examples of corrections. Not the same thing.

[archie]

You've just been presented with yet more evidence that BBC Scotland decided to ignore a positive SG story that broke yesterday and this is your response? You can perhaps see why some people might think you are trolling on here.

Or then, maybe you can't.

You really think that's a killer story? Really? And what's with the passive aggressive stuff about trolling? If you think I'm trolling then point me to it.

[Hiber-nation]

A colleague's mate who once worked for the BBC. Sounds like an irrefutable source.

Well he told me personally and he thought it was all hilarious as he was a Labour man who was totally anti-indy.

So yes, an irrefutable source.

[xyz23jc]

Not really. The Scottish Government dominates the news in Scotland.

Only when it suits amigo, only when it suits! :wink::agree:

[archie]

Only when it suits amigo, only when it suits! :wink::agree:

?

[He's here!]

You've just been presented with yet more evidence that BBC Scotland decided to ignore a positive SG story that broke yesterday and this is your response? You can perhaps see why some people might think you are trolling on here.

Or then, maybe you can't.

Which positive story was ignored? If you're referring to the tweet OzHibby posted then that story was covered in some detail (arguably more than it merited) by none other than the BBC yesterday:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66176124

[He's here!]

Well he told me personally and he thought it was all hilarious as he was a Labour man who was totally anti-indy.

So yes, an irrefutable source.

I'm not questioning what he said. I just don't agree with his/your assertion that 'we all know there's an anti-SNP agenda' at the BBC. I for one don't know that and nor do I think it. I also can't take seriously a claim that the BBC operates a 'just between the staff' policy of ignoring positive SNP stories. That is clearly nonsense, although I guess when you bear in mind how many self-inflicted damaging stories the SNP have been serving up about themselves for many months now you might get the impression there's a negative news agenda around them!

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyone who thinks that the BBC who transmit worldwide to promote Britain and Britishness, don't have an agenda in the constitutional debate is kidding themselves.

[JeMeSouviens]

I thought posting the link was helpful. Generally if you want to make a case you present the evidence.

Interesting way to present a case: "if m'lud would mind searching through past case histories, there may or may not be a precedent that gets my client off".

Generally if you want to present evidence you actually look to see if there's any there.

[JeMeSouviens]

So quite a bit to unpack here. I'm struggling to understand the link between BBC Scotland apologising to the UK Government and me applying a principle equally. I don't work for the BBC. I do, however, care about public service broadcasting.

Your framing is interesting as it's BBC Scotland apologising to UKG that you are concerned with, rather than the BBC as a whole. I've no idea if BBC Scotland have apologised to UKG.A cursory internet search throws up examples of the BBC as a whole issuing apologies and clarification to UKG. You may see that as evidence of bias, but an at least equally plausible view it that it is hardly surprising given BBC Scotland will have a focus on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

There are none so blind ...

BBC Scotland has its own news department and Scotland has 2 governments*, you know. :wink:


* actually o/t, I'm not really sure the SNP's attempt to frame the Holyrood executive as a "government" really works. Clearly, it's a tier of local government, but calling it the "Scottish Government" just leaves them open to criticism for not fixing things that would be in the remit of an actual government.

[JeMeSouviens]

Anyone who thinks that the BBC who transmit worldwide to promote Britain and Britishness, don't have an agenda in the constitutional debate is kidding themselves.

:agree:

... and anyone who thinks its reasonable to maintain outright denial of it to people who actually watch and listent to their output must think we all button up the back. Tedious.

[grunt]

Looks like it's not just the BBC lying through its teeth ...
Here's another favourite of the pro-unionist advocates, The Herald caught out in a lie.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F084898XsAIPuJj?format=jpg&name=large

[He's here!]

Anyone who thinks that the BBC who transmit worldwide to promote Britain and Britishness, don't have an agenda in the constitutional debate is kidding themselves.

Not adopting a pro-independence stance does not equate to anti-SNP bias - nor an 'agenda' to 'promote Britishness'.

Folk can read what they want into news stories but the BBC failing to present a story from a perspective which meets with SNP supporters' approval - or issuing a handful of corrections for bona fide mistakes - doesn't make them anti-SG.

[grunt]

Not adopting a pro-independence stance does not equate to anti-SNP bias - nor an 'agenda' to 'promote Britishness'. Folk can read what they want into news stories but the BBC failing to present a story from a perspective which meets with SNP supporters' approval - or issuing a handful of corrections for bona fide mistakes - doesn't make them anti-SG.
It's not just the lack of perspective that is a concern, it's when they avoid reporting positive stories at all. There are more ways to show bias than putting a slant on a story, not reporting at all is far more effective.

[Rumble de Thump]

What is to be gained from pretending the BBC isn't biased against the SNP and the idea of Scottish independence? When it's so obvious and everyone is well aware of it gaslighting people seems completely pointless, but there must be a reason for it.

[Ozyhibby]

It's not just the lack of perspective that is a concern, it's when they avoid reporting positive stories at all. There are more ways to show bias than putting a slant on a story, not reporting at all is far more effective.

A favourite of BBC Scotland is to interview a member of the public who is deeply concerned by whatever it is the SG is doing. Usually it turns out this randomly chosen member of the public has been a council candidate or some other sort of office holder for one of the opposition parties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Tubs]

BBC has a lot more in common with Russia Today than many would like to admit.

[archie]

Interesting way to present a case: "if m'lud would mind searching through past case histories, there may or may not be a precedent that gets my client off".

Generally if you want to present evidence you actually look to see if there's any there.

Actually that's a great analogy. In your role as prosecutor of the BBC your entire case would be ' the BBC is biased and the defence has provided no evidence to back up this claim.'

[archie]

What is to be gained from pretending the BBC isn't biased against the SNP and the idea of Scottish independence? When it's so obvious and everyone is well aware of it gaslighting people seems completely pointless, but there must be a reason for it.

It not pretending. It's pushing back against attempts to delegitimise the media. Delegitimising the media is straight out of the Trump playbook.

[Ozyhibby]

It not pretending. It's pushing back against attempts to delegitimise the media. Delegitimising the media is straight out of the Trump playbook.

We need a Godwin’s law for Trump.

There is bias in most media. It’s fine to point it out. Especially if it’s the BBC and your compelled to pay for it by law. People realise this which is why Scotland has the least amount of license fee payers per head in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I googled "bbc douglas Ross standing down"

The top 3 results are different snp mps standing down, 4th is the national paper listing the mps standing down and 5th is the BBC about Douglas Ross calling for tactical voting.

Now, I know he is standing down, so why has the BBC not got the story, you would think that the leader of the party standing down would be fairly important, but it doesn't get the same coverage as any number of SNP mps standing down.

[archie]

We need a Godwin’s law for Trump.

There is bias in most media. It’s fine to point it out. Especially if it’s the BBC and your compelled to pay for it by law. People realise this which is why Scotland has the least amount of license fee payers per head in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not address the substantive point?

[Moulin Yarns]

I googled "bbc douglas Ross standing down"

The top 3 results are different snp mps standing down, 4th is the national paper listing the mps standing down and 5th is the BBC about Douglas Ross calling for tactical voting.

Now, I know he is standing down, so why has the BBC not got the story, you would think that the leader of the party standing down would be fairly important, but it doesn't get the same coverage as any number of SNP mps standing down.

I'll add, search for Douglas Ross on the BBC Scotland news page and the most recent story is about him receiving death threats on 29th April.

[archie]

I googled "bbc douglas Ross standing down"

The top 3 results are different snp mps standing down, 4th is the national paper listing the mps standing down and 5th is the BBC about Douglas Ross calling for tactical voting.

Now, I know he is standing down, so why has the BBC not got the story, you would think that the leader of the party standing down would be fairly important, but it doesn't get the same coverage as any number of SNP mps standing down.

He announced it in October 2021.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/thenewsagents/status/1679513514199896066?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

He announced it in October 2021.

Can't find the BBC report though?

[archie]

Can't find the BBC report though?

From nearly two years ago?

[JeMeSouviens]

It not pretending. It's pushing back against attempts to delegitimise the media. Delegitimising the media is straight out of the Trump playbook.

It's actually originally out of the Nazi playbook if you want to go full Godwin. "Lügenpresse". :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Actually that's a great analogy. In your role as prosecutor of the BBC your entire case would be ' the BBC is biased and the defence has provided no evidence to back up this claim.'

Eh? You were the one who claimed you were supplying evidence. If it didn't support your case, that's on you.

[JeMeSouviens]

Why not address the substantive point?

Mainly because it's unaddressable.

The Trump/Nazi thing is not to point out a string of verifiable falsehoods and then say, "I wonder if there just might be a connection between them?" It's to just flatly deny something happened. Nobody is doing that.

[Kato]

Does we require evidence that the BBC is capable of being partisan. After the reporting on the 2016 Cup Final every Hibs fan should know they are perfectly capable.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Does we require evidence that the BBC is capable of being partisan. After the reporting on the 2016 Cup Final every Hibs fan should know they are perfectly capable.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:agree:

(wish I'd thought of that)

[Moulin Yarns]

From nearly two years ago?

You would think that the specific search terms I used should have narrowed it down to find the result, assuming it exists.

[archie]

Eh? You were the one who claimed you were supplying evidence. If it didn't support your case, that's on you.

I pointed you towards the BBC's apologies and clarifications. I don't think there is an evidence base to back up your assertion that the SNP is anti Scottish Government. You seem to think that this can be established by reference to BBC Scotland apologies to the UK Government (or lack thereof). In my view that a deliberately narrow framing. But it really not incumbent on me to make your case.

[archie]

Does we require evidence that the BBC is capable of being partisan. After the reporting on the 2016 Cup Final every Hibs fan should know they are perfectly capable.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Of course they can. They got into bother over Live 8 coverage being too uncritical. You'll struggle to find a BBC programme majoring on why Russia was right to invade Ukraine. But the general point of all this drip drip drip of accusations is to deligitinise any BBC reporting of the Scottish Government and the SNP. It's not healthy

[archie]

You would think that the specific search terms I used should have narrowed it down to find the result, assuming it exists.

OK. What you are appearing to say here is that the BBC is deliberately concealing that Douglas Ross is standing down as an MP to focus on the Scottish Parliament. Do you really believe that?

[archie]

Mainly because it's unaddressable.

The Trump/Nazi thing is not to point out a string of verifiable falsehoods and then say, "I wonder if there just might be a connection between them?" It's to just flatly deny something happened. Nobody is doing that.
But they are. The drum beat of posts asserting that the BBC is biased followed by rolling eyes type comments such as 'none so blind', 'you're a troll' 'you won't see it's etc. etc. It is to suppress criticism.

[Hiber-nation]

A favourite of BBC Scotland is to interview a member of the public who is deeply concerned by whatever it is the SG is doing. Usually it turns out this randomly chosen member of the public has been a council candidate or some other sort of office holder for one of the opposition parties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep that is a BBC Scotland tactic, confirmed by the guy I was talking about earlier. I wasn't going to post it on here as he told me to keep schtum but it's such common knowledge so why not.

[grunt]

But they are. The drum beat of posts asserting that the BBC is biased followed by rolling eyes type comments such as 'none so blind', 'you're a troll' 'you won't see it's etc. etc. It is to suppress criticism.
I guess you're talking about me. I'm not trying to suppress criticism (really, I'm not), I'm just trying to get you to see what most everyone else on here and in my wider social circle sees every day: the BBC Scotland News organisation is anti-SNP, anti-SG, and strongly pro-union.

[Moulin Yarns]

OK. What you are appearing to say here is that the BBC is deliberately concealing that Douglas Ross is standing down as an MP to focus on the Scottish Parliament. Do you really believe that?

I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me that a very specific web search with clear terms including Douglas Ross, standing down, and bbc can't find anything matching the search, even on the BBC news website.

Happy to be proven wrong if you can point me in the right direction.

[Moulin Yarns]

OK. What you are appearing to say here is that the BBC is deliberately concealing that Douglas Ross is standing down as an MP to focus on the Scottish Parliament. Do you really believe that?

An aside to the BBC not reporting Douglas Ross standing down at the next Westminster election.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/douglas-ross-vows-to-fight-abolition-of-seat-as-boundary-unrest-grows-cwsmkfftf


Turns out he wouldn't have had a seat to defend anyway. 😂

[archie]

I guess you're talking about me. I'm not trying to suppress criticism (really, I'm not), I'm just trying to get you to see what most everyone else on here and in my wider social circle sees every day: the BBC Scotland News organisation is anti-SNP, anti-SG, and strongly pro-union.
I get that you feel that passionately.

[JeMeSouviens]

I get that you feel that passionately.

translation: you're just being over-emotional and therefore irrational, grunt

Patronising much? :rolleyes:

[Kato]

Of course they can. They got into bother over Live 8 coverage being too uncritical. You'll struggle to find a BBC programme majoring on why Russia was right to invade Ukraine. But the general point of all this drip drip drip of accusations is to deligitinise any BBC reporting of the Scottish Government and the SNP. It's not healthyUnhealthy. Yes.

Archie. Why do you think the BBC took an editorial line which vilified Hibs fans after the 2016 Cup final?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66204570?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=D5F086F4-2265-11EE-ADC0-0186FF7C7F44&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_format=link

Great example of the BBC trying to smear the FM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Unhealthy. Yes.

Archie. Why do you think the BBC took an editorial line which vilified Hibs fans after the 2016 Cup final?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Please enlighten me.

[archie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66204570?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=D5F086F4-2265-11EE-ADC0-0186FF7C7F44&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_format=link

Great example of the BBC trying to smear the FM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it? This has been all over the press. Do you think they should suppress it?

[archie]

translation: you're just being over-emotional and therefore irrational, grunt

Patronising much? :rolleyes:

Not my intention. Am I wrong?

[Ozyhibby]

Is it? This has been all over the press. Do you think they should suppress it?

Suppress what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66204570?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=D5F086F4-2265-11EE-ADC0-0186FF7C7F44&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_format=link

Great example of the BBC trying to smear the FM.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOfft, smoking gun.

Funnily enough, I contacted my local MP about my mums vaccine and I then received a phone call the very next day

She was also in the SNP

Serious stuff

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Offt, smoking gun.

Funnily enough, I contacted my local MP about my mums vaccine and I then received a phone call the very next day

She was also in the SNP

Serious stuff

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

But she didn't skip the line and get it ahead of when she was eligible I presume? This woman got priority treatment.

In saying that I read this story during the week and thought it unimportant enough to post

[grunt]

But she didn't skip the line and get it ahead of when she was eligible I presume? This woman got priority treatment. :confused:


By the time Mr Compston approached Mr Yousaf, everyone in Scotland aged over 40 had been offered a vaccine and invites were being sent to those aged between 30 and 39.

It was also the policy to vaccinate those temporarily residing in Scotland even if they were not UK nationals, so Ms Hampshire would have been entitled to a vaccine under the rules in place at the time.

[Stairway 2 7]

:confused:

Sorry I could be wrong. I'll try and find the report I read that said she got in from Canada an Amber country when she shouldn't have.

Edit it was this although I can't even remember what the rules meant then. Article implies jumping the queue. I didn't BBC Article it is much clearer and fairer. Well done BBC cleared it up that no wrongdoing probably happened.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/humza-yousaf-helped-martin-compston-get-covid-jab-appointment-for-co-star-tfqqbjdqg

[Callum_62]

But she didn't skip the line and get it ahead of when she was eligible I presume? This woman got priority treatment.

In saying that I read this story during the week and thought it unimportant enough to postIt's exactly what this article is trying to imply

Why not have that in the header, making it absolutely clear there's no wrong doing here

It's not well done at all, it's shoddy - tabloid like reporting

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry I could be wrong. I'll try and find the report I read that said she got in from Canada an Amber country when she shouldn't have.

Edit it was this although I can't even remember what the rules meant then. Article implies jumping the queue. I didn't BBC Article it is much clearer and fairer. Well done BBC cleared it up that no wrongdoing probably happened.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/humza-yousaf-helped-martin-compston-get-covid-jab-appointment-for-co-star-tfqqbjdqg

There is a lot of implying going on. Even on the BBC article. You have to read pretty far down to realise that nothing improper happened.
And if she arrived in the UK from a country she shouldn’t have, then that’s a matter for the UK govt?
It’s an attempt to smear. If the BBC wanted to be accurate they could have ran it with a more accurate headline such as ‘Times falsely accuse FM’ or ‘Tory and Labour falsely accuse FM of breaking ministerial code’. Or just not run the story at all seen as there was nothing there? That’s what a good media organisation would do. The editor would look at what the journalist had and send them packing because there was nothing there. They didn’t though. They want people to think the FM was dishing out favours to his mates.
And we’ll done to them. Lots of people won’t have read the full article and will now believe that’s exactly what he done. So mission accomplished for the BBC. This has been a good one for them, they won’t even have to issue a correction, they managed to squeeze it in at the bottom of a decently long article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Everyone is paranoid on this thread I usually try to keep out.

It's been a national story for days thanks to the times and all the politicians commenting. BBC has cleared it up more than anywhere I've seen.

Only political watchers will care though, most will think it's a non story, I did when I saw it on Thursday

[McD]

Everyone is paranoid on this thread I usually try to keep out.

It's been a national story for days thanks to the times and all the politicians commenting. BBC has cleared it up more than anywhere I've seen.

Only political watchers will care though, most will think it's a non story, I did when I saw it on Thursday


I don’t see an issue with this article. The headline doesn’t imply dodgy favours, it says he was asked for advice, which the article further explains happens from multiple people. It makes clear Compton doesn’t ask for a appt, but if the actress could attend a drop in centre, and also shares that she’s had difficulty in getting an answer and is being passed around different depts, surely that’s something the health minister would want to be made aware of in the handling of a global pandemic? I’d say the article makes it clear the HY handled the request impartially. As you said, it’s a non story.

you are right about the thread though

[archie]

Suppress what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The story.

[grunt]

It's been a national story for days thanks to the times and all the politicians commenting. BBC has cleared it up more than anywhere I've seen.
The last line of the article is an absolute classic of BBC Scotland innuendo.


Even the impression that an actor who supports a party or a cause may get some sort of special access is something Mr Yousaf may want to counter.Aye, where would that impression come from, the BBC article itself?

[Ozyhibby]

The story.

What is the story?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

What is the story?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's "bloke asks his pal, who works in a particular field, what he thinks someone with an issue in that field should do". It's a national scandal, and so it is.

[archie]

What is the story?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're being obtuse now. You said that the BBC report was 'A good example of the BBC trying to smear the FM'. The story has been all over the press. Would you want the BBC to not cover the story? What would your criteria be for the BBC reporting on the Scottish Government and the SNP?

[archie]

I think it's "bloke asks his pal, who works in a particular field, what he thinks someone with an issue in that field should do". It's a national scandal, and so it is.

I don't think it's much of a story tbh. But asking your pal who is the Cabinet Secretary for Health is a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree?

[Ozyhibby]

You're being obtuse now. You said that the BBC report was 'A good example of the BBC trying to smear the FM'. The story has been all over the press. Would you want the BBC to not cover the story? What would your criteria be for the BBC reporting on the Scottish Government and the SNP?

There is no story and you know it. It’s a smear campaign. Started by the Times, amplified by the BBC now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

There is no story and you know it. It’s a smear campaign. Started by the Times, amplified by the BBC now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've already said I don't think it's much of a story. But prominent nationalist contacts a Cabinet Secretary to sort something out for him isn't absolutely nothing.

[grunt]

I've already said I don't think it's much of a story. But prominent nationalist contacts a Cabinet Secretary to sort something out for him isn't absolutely nothing.
Yes it is. Especially when you compare it to the English Tory criminals "sorting out" PPE contracts for their mates and getting millions of pounds in return. Now THAT is a story.

[Ozyhibby]

I've already said I don't think it's much of a story. But prominent nationalist contacts a Cabinet Secretary to sort something out for him isn't absolutely nothing.

It is absolutely nothing. Less than that actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

There is no story and you know it. It’s a smear campaign. Started by the Times, amplified by the BBC now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The BBC's analysis beneath the story states: "The single most important question is whether Humza Yousaf breached the ministerial code in his response to Mr Compston. The BBC has seen no evidence that he did."

Which begs the question, why did they bother writing and publishing the story? It's obviously not because anything newsworthy has taken place.

[Ozyhibby]

The BBC's analysis beneath the story states: "The single most important question is whether Humza Yousaf breached the ministerial code in his response to Mr Compston. The BBC has seen no evidence that he did."

Which begs the question, why did they bother writing and publishing the story? It's obviously not because anything newsworthy has taken place.

They’ll do another story tomorrow implying something else terrible he could have done and then put a wee line down the bottom saying that he didn’t actually do it. It’s the BBC way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The BBC's analysis beneath the story states: "The single most important question is whether Humza Yousaf breached the ministerial code in his response to Mr Compston. The BBC has seen no evidence that he did."

Which begs the question, why did they bother writing and publishing the story? It's obviously not because anything newsworthy has taken place.

Because its all over the press for days and all opposition politicians have made comment. All the other papers and politicians have sided against for days, bbc have come in and disagreed and sided with the FM

QsnpAnon are going nuts

[Rumble de Thump]

Because its all over the press for days and all opposition politicians have made comment. All the other papers and politicians have sided against for days, bbc have come in and disagreed and sided with the FM

QsnpAnon are going nuts

It doesn't make sense. The BBC hasn't published a story about opposition politicians attacking the First Minister via The Times over absolutely nothing. It's just rehashed the story The Times published.

[grunt]

Because its all over the press for days and all opposition politicians have made comment. All the other papers and politicians have sided against for days, bbc have come in and disagreed and sided with the FM
You have to read past all the opposition politicians having their comment before you find, pretty much at the bottom of the article, the BBC quietly saying that there's nothing to see. Having just spent the whole article allowing opposition parties to say what they see in it.

Still, this is just yesterday's example. There will be more along shortly I'm sure.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm out it's been 80 pages of back and forth. I actually think BBC probably is union leaning but not massively, some presenters more so. Its viewer and reader numbers are plummeting like all old media, so I wouldn't worry about it too much

[Ozyhibby]

I'm out it's been 80 pages of back and forth. I actually think BBC probably is union leaning but not massively, some presenters more so. Its viewer and reader numbers are plummeting like all old media, so I wouldn't worry about it too much

Plummeting quicker in Scotland and that’s why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Plummeting quicker in Scotland and that’s why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that gets us back to where we started - not throw the public sector broadcasting baby out with the bathwater for political gain.

[He's here!]

translation: you're just being over-emotional and therefore irrational, grunt

Patronising much? :rolleyes:

Or just acknowledging a difference of opinion.

Telling posters what they really mean is what's patronising.

[Ozyhibby]

And that gets us back to where we started - not throw the public sector broadcasting baby out with the bathwater for political gain.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the benefit in defending it anymore. If it was neutral I would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the benefit in defending it anymore. If it was neutral I would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't agree with your casual approach to public service broadcasting. It's every media mogul's dream.

As for neutrality, this is a contested area. There is no definitive perspective on the issue. Different views have a right to be heard and the media has to be free to report on the governments of the day. What would a neutral position actually look like? On the independence issue is it just repeating SNP statements with no analysis?

[grunt]

And that gets us back to where we started - not throw the public sector broadcasting baby out with the bathwater for political gain.
Have you not been listening for the last 80 pages? It is currently being used for political gain, against the wishes of many on this board. What I want is for the BBC to be politically neutral. I want to keep the baby in the bath, I just want it to stop pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't agree with your casual approach to public service broadcasting. It's every media mogul's dream.

As for neutrality, this is a contested area. There is no definitive perspective on the issue. Different views have a right to be heard and the media has to be free to report on the governments of the day. What would a neutral position actually look like? On the independence issue is it just repeating SNP statements with no analysis?

It’s not public service broadcasting though if it’s just uk govt propaganda.
Get back to me if they ever give the late Ajax tanks the same level of attention as the late boats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

I don't think it's much of a story tbh. But asking your pal who is the Cabinet Secretary for Health is a wee bit different, wouldn't you agree?

Not even remotely. He's not allowed to ask his pal, who's in a position to know the answer? His pal.

No idea if they're pals, but Sarwar's totally into raising cases every week.

[archie]

Have you not been listening for the last 80 pages? It is currently being used for political gain, against the wishes of many on this board. What I want is for the BBC to be politically neutral. I want to keep the baby in the bath, I just want it to stop pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[archie]

Not even remotely. He's not allowed to ask his pal, who's in a position to know the answer? His pal.

No idea if they're pals, but Sarwar's totally into raising cases every week.

What position in government does Sarwar hold?

[Glory Lurker]

The BBC's analysis beneath the story states: "The single most important question is whether Humza Yousaf breached the ministerial code in his response to Mr Compston. The BBC has seen no evidence that he did."

Which begs the question, why did they bother writing and publishing the story? It's obviously not because anything newsworthy has taken place.

I was almost feeling sorry for them about this week's huge non-story, too.

[Glory Lurker]

What position in government does Sarwar hold?

He raises personal cases with the government every week. They might not even pals!

[archie]

He raises personal cases with the government every week. They might not even pals!

He does - but I can't see how that's the same as calling your pal the Cabinet Secretary.

[Ozyhibby]

He does - but I can't see how that's the same as calling your pal the Cabinet Secretary.

What did he ask his pal the cabinet Secretary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

What did he ask his pal the cabinet Secretary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok let's stop the dance. I think there is little in the story. You think it warrants a thundering denunciation of the BBC. Let's agree to disagree.

[Hibrandenburg]

It’s not public service broadcasting though if it’s just uk govt propaganda.
Get back to me if they ever give the late Ajax tanks the same level of attention as the late boats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It always has been. It was created by the British state as a public corporation to represent the British state. It has had MI5 vet its employees to ensure they are not subversive and has even had an MI5 special duties office integrated into the corporation.

As early as the general strike in the 1920 the BBC has actively worked on behalf of the state in internal affairs. There was zero airtime given to unions or even the leader of the opposition back then. The UK government considered taking over the BBC but decided they didn't need to because the organisation was such that they had every confidence that the BBC would stay onside without OVERT coercion.

Its well documented the the BBC used material from the state propaganda organ to advance key foreign policy objectives abroad, it's naive to think that wouldn't also be the case at home and indeed there's plenty of evidence to point to it being used in Northern Ireland.

The directorship of the BBC has almost exclusively been in the hands of members of the ruling classes, with positions in the BBC being granted to former government officials and also vice versa with former chairman being given positions in government and the House of Lords.

Anyone who thinks that the BBC are in anyway impartial have not looked at the history behind its creation and running, if anyone had any doubts about its role in maintaining the current status quo then surely at the very latest there must have been alarm bells ringing during the coverage of the late Queen Elizabeth's death. It's state television and always has been.

[archie]

It always has been. It was created by the British state as a public corporation to represent the British state. It has had MI5 vet its employees to ensure they are not subversive and has even had an MI5 special duties office integrated into the corporation.

As early as the general strike in the 1920 the BBC has actively worked on behalf of the state in internal affairs. There was zero airtime given to unions or even the leader of the opposition back then. The UK government considered taking over the BBC but decided they didn't need to because the organisation was such that they had every confidence that the BBC would stay onside without OVERT coercion.

Its well documented the the BBC used material from the state propaganda organ to advance key foreign policy objectives abroad, it's naive to think that wouldn't also be the case at home and indeed there's plenty of evidence to point to it being used in Northern Ireland.

The directorship of the BBC has almost exclusively been in the hands of members of the ruling classes, with positions in the BBC being granted to former government officials and also vice versa with former chairman being given positions in government and the House of Lords.

Anyone who thinks that the BBC are in anyway impartial have not looked at the history behind its creation and running, if anyone had any doubts about its role in maintaining the current status quo then surely at the very latest there must have been alarm bells ringing during the coverage of the late Queen Elizabeth's death. It's state television and always has been.

Oh well!

[Moulin Yarns]

He does - but I can't see how that's the same as calling your pal the Cabinet Secretary.

I hear you pal. 😉

[degenerated]

Not even remotely. He's not allowed to ask his pal, who's in a position to know the answer? His pal.

No idea if they're pals, but Sarwar's totally into raising cases every week.Did the BBC spend as much time reporting on the likes of Michelle mone phoning her pal Michael Gove in UK government about Covid matters and walking away with multi million pound contracts.

[archie]

Did the BBC spend as much time reporting on the likes of Michelle mone phoning her pal Michael Gove in UK government about Covid matters and walking away with multi million pound contracts.

As much time as what? Here's a good Roz Atkins piece https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63977886

[Ozyhibby]

Did the BBC spend as much time reporting on the likes of Michelle mone phoning her pal Michael Gove in UK government about Covid matters and walking away with multi million pound contracts.

No, that sort of stuff is all good with the beeb.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

No, that sort of stuff is all good with the beeb.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey completely missed her house getting turned over by the police.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/dmitryopines/status/1643353666848718849?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

https://twitter.com/dmitryopines/status/1643353666848718849?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A




Unsure what you're point is here Ozy, but surely the BBC aren't in the wrong here when it comes to the reporting/editorial slant on this story? They certainly aren't coming across as a UK Government propaganda mouthpiece, that's for sure.
This recently signed trade deal with the CPTPP isn't worth $11Billion to the UK economy, the whole GDP of the trade agreement is "only" around £13bil.
For the Trade secretary to say that this partnership will be bigger than the EU by 2050, yeah, you shouldn't be surprised to find that the GDP of trading blocs diminish when major players leave (Brexit).
The cherry on the cake for me is when Tory "sources" label the BBC as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. That's boorish behaviour, right up there with folk on social media referring to the council as clowncil 🤣

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1680936813408538624?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It is very strange the BBC are going with this story today when the Labour Party are in such a mess.
It’s not even mentioned by the BBC. They can’t protect Sarwar forever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveF]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1680936813408538624?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It is very strange the BBC are going with this story today when the Labour Party are in such a mess.
It’s not even mentioned by the BBC. They can’t protect Sarwar forever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing on the Scotland Politics page about it either.

[Kato]

Main headline tonight on the 6 O'clock News is pure Daily Express.

Headline: "Sensational treatment for Alzheimer's Disease"

Then during the article it's disclosed that the drug has yet to gain license, it only slows down the disease by 30%, its really really expensive.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Main headline tonight on the 6 O'clock News is pure Daily Express.

Headline: "Sensational treatment for Alzheimer's Disease"

Then during the article it's disclosed that the drug has yet to gain license, it only slows down the disease by 30%, its really really expensive.

Well that's something to be celebrated.

[Kato]

Well that's something to be celebrated.True. Not really criticising the fact it should be publicised. Not a main 6 O'clock News story. Just like the similar front page coverage given by the Daily Express to these stories, which deserve coverage but without the sensationalism.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1680936813408538624?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It is very strange the BBC are going with this story today when the Labour Party are in such a mess.
It’s not even mentioned by the BBC. They can’t protect Sarwar forever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was the lead story on the STV News at Six (well, a personal account of long Covid and the potential risk to vulnerable patients within the NHS).

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/long-covid-sufferer-backs-calls-for-return-of-masks-in-healthcare-settings

Watching the report and reading further on the individual, she seems to have had a traumatic few years. Suffering bouts of being bed bound due to having no energy to even talk, setting fire to her house (?) and generally being unable to care for herself.
As someone that's been visiting the GP & hospitals more than most recently, I really don't want to go back to wearing masks but after seeing a significant number of NHS staff still choosing to wear them who knows what's around the corner.

[archie]

Main headline tonight on the 6 O'clock News is pure Daily Express.

Headline: "Sensational treatment for Alzheimer's Disease"

Then during the article it's disclosed that the drug has yet to gain license, it only slows down the disease by 30%, its really really expensive.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Dear God! I'm naturally suspicious of expensive drug stories backed by drug companies, but this has the potential to give individuals and families a few more good years. Here's the Guardian on it https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/17/experts-urge-health-regulators-approve-dementia-drugs-donanemab-lecanemab

I don't know if you have ever known anyone with dementia. But let me tell you, anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless, but the hair trigger responses to anything you perceive to be anti-Scottish Government (either by design or by omission) is seriously clouding your judgement. The attack on health care workers with long covid this morning was utterly disgusting. Make your case by all means, but this can't be all you have got?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Dear God! I'm naturally suspicious of expensive drug stories backed by drug companies, but this has the potential to give individuals and families a few more good years. Here's the Guardian on it https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/17/experts-urge-health-regulators-approve-dementia-drugs-donanemab-lecanemab

I don't know if you have ever known anyone with dementia. But let me tell you, anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless, but the hair trigger responses to anything you perceive to be anti-Scottish Government (either by design or by omission) is seriously clouding your judgement. The attack on health care workers with long covid this morning was utterly disgusting. Make your case by all means, but this can't be all you have got?

Welcomed by millions, available to the wealthy few.

Having lost my granddad to dementia, having a father who is now showing signs of dementia and likely having the genetic markers for dementia myself, i'm all too familiar with the horrors this disease inflicts on people and the devastating impact it has on the individual and their families.

I wish more emphasis was placed on preventing the development of the disease in the first place though. But as with most things that make us unwell in this world, the focus is on money making treatments after the fact, rather than the prevention of it in the first place.

[archie]

Welcomed by millions, available to the wealthy few.

Having lost my granddad to dementia, having a father who is now showing signs of dementia and likely having the genetic markers for dementia myself, i'm all too familiar with the horrors this disease inflicts on people and the devastating impact it has on the individual and their families.

I wish more emphasis was placed on preventing the development of the disease in the first place though. But as with most things that make us unwell in this world, the focus is on money making treatments after the fact, rather than the prevention of it in the first place.

I shouldn't get drawn in, but how do you fight genetic markers?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I shouldn't get drawn in, but how do you fight genetic markers?

I would presume that it would involve some form of gene therapy to replace the genetic sequences responsible for the development of the disease later on in life. But there appears to be very little focus on identifying and manipulating these sequences.

[archie]

I would presume that it would involve some form of gene therapy to replace the genetic sequences responsible for the development of the disease later on in life. But there appears to be very little focus on identifying and manipulating these sequences.

There is no magic prevention bullet right now https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/dementia-risk-factors-and-prevention

But if the drugs provide some relief to people with dementia then I'm happy to support their use. Having seen at first hand how it destroys people I'm happy for drugs to be provided under the NHS. Even just one more good year would be worth it for millions of sufferers and their families.

[Stairway 2 7]

Welcomed by millions, available to the wealthy few.

Having lost my granddad to dementia, having a father who is now showing signs of dementia and likely having the genetic markers for dementia myself, i'm all too familiar with the horrors this disease inflicts on people and the devastating impact it has on the individual and their families.

I wish more emphasis was placed on preventing the development of the disease in the first place though. But as with most things that make us unwell in this world, the focus is on money making treatments after the fact, rather than the prevention of it in the first place.

Indeed it's tremendous news and just the start on a new path that will hopefully get even better results going forward. A lot of the credit goes to the team at the bioquarter little France

[archie]

Indeed it's tremendous news and just the start on a new path that will hopefully get even better results going forward. A lot of the credit goes to the team at the bioquarter little France

I agree! Why can't we just celebrate a breakthrough?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

There is no magic prevention bullet right now https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/dementia-risk-factors-and-prevention

But if the drugs provide some relief to people with dementia then I'm happy to support their use. Having seen at first hand how it destroys people I'm happy for drugs to be provided under the NHS. Even just one more good year would be worth it for millions of sufferers and their families.

I'm happy for drugs to be provided under the NHS also. However, they will only be provided if they are actually affordable for the tax payer to subsidize. Otherwise there's not really a great deal to celebrate here unfortunately.

[Smartie]

Dear God! I'm naturally suspicious of expensive drug stories backed by drug companies, but this has the potential to give individuals and families a few more good years. Here's the Guardian on it https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/17/experts-urge-health-regulators-approve-dementia-drugs-donanemab-lecanemab

I don't know if you have ever known anyone with dementia. But let me tell you, anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless, but the hair trigger responses to anything you perceive to be anti-Scottish Government (either by design or by omission) is seriously clouding your judgement. The attack on health care workers with long covid this morning was utterly disgusting. Make your case by all means, but this can't be all you have got?

I’m with you on this one.

Alzheimer’s is a vile disease that is touching the lives of more and more people. It is absolutely 100% a public interest story.

It’s a story that leads to an argument that could be taken to any number of places for further discussion. What sort of improvement in outcome should “the taxpayer” be expected to foot? When should it be the individual? What price health, what price a social contract?

Possible treatment emerging for a deeply unpleasant and currently untreatable disease is certainly news, and good news tbh.

[archie]

I'm happy for drugs to be provided under the NHS also. However, they will only be provided if they are actually affordable for the tax payer to subsidize. Otherwise there's not really a great deal to celebrate here unfortunately.

That's a political choice.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That's a political choice.

It's the choice of the pharmaceutical companies to provide these treatments at an affordable rate to the public purse. Greed often slows down the progress of treatment provisions. So as good as this breakthrough is, I won't be celebrating until regular people can actually benefit from it.

[archie]

I’m with you on this one.

Alzheimer’s is a vile disease that is touching the lives of more and more people. It is absolutely 100% a public interest story.

It’s a story that leads to an argument that could be taken to any number of places for further discussion. What sort of improvement in outcome should “the taxpayer” be expected to foot? When should it be the individual? What price health, what price a social contract?

Possible treatment emerging for a deeply unpleasant and currently untreatable disease is certainly news, and good news tbh.

I absolutely get that. Depending on the cost of the drugs there will be the rerun of the eternal debate - do you focus funding on people aged 65 and up or much younger people? Do you increase taxes? Should people getting the drug contribute? I would counter that by pointing to the savings in delaying people going into care. In any event, many people get rinsed by care homes until their money runs out. I'd rather get rinsed by drugs that let me be some version of myself at home for longer.

[archie]

It's the choice of the pharmaceutical companies to provide these treatments at an affordable rate to the public purse. Greed often slows down the progress of treatment provisions. So as good as this breakthrough is, I won't be celebrating until regular people can actually benefit from it.

OK - but if they don't? What then?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

OK - but if they don't? What then?

That's the point. That's why i'm not getting carried away with this news.

[archie]

That's the point. That's why i'm not getting carried away with this news.

So you think the goverment won't fund it?

[Smartie]

That's the point. That's why i'm not getting carried away with this news.

Can you not be cautiously optimistic without getting carried away?

I'm sure all of us here share your concerns re the Pharma industry and the state of healthcare funding in the UK 2023?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So you think the goverment won't fund it?

Government doesn't fund anything. It's the public that funds it. If the treatment isn't affordable, then the public simply isn't going to fund it. Not because we don't want to, but because we simply won't be able to.

[archie]

Government doesn't fund anything. It's the public that funds it. If the treatment isn't affordable, then the public simply isn't going to fund it. Not because we don't want to, but because we simply won't be able to.

Well government has a role here, surely?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well government has a role here, surely?

Well yes. But I feel like we're going off track here? If it's made affordable and accessible, then great. But until that happens, it's just a headline.

[archie]

Well yes. But I feel like we're going off track here? If it's made affordable and accessible, then great. But until that happens, it's just a headline.

Well as someone who values the NHS I think it is a really important discussion. As an aside, what's your view if people self funded to buy the drug?

[Kato]

Dear God! I'm naturally suspicious of expensive drug stories backed by drug companies, but this has the potential to give individuals and families a few more good years. Here's the Guardian on it https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/17/experts-urge-health-regulators-approve-dementia-drugs-donanemab-lecanemab

I don't know if you have ever known anyone with dementia. But let me tell you, anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless, but the hair trigger responses to anything you perceive to be anti-Scottish Government (either by design or by omission) is seriously clouding your judgement. The attack on health care workers with long covid this morning was utterly disgusting. Make your case by all means, but this can't be all you have got?

No need to get excited, archie.

The editorial involved put that story with a sensationalist headline, (followed by real world caveats) in the exact the same way the Daily Express run similar headlines with similar content every few months or so. "Speaks to the demographic" is the subtext of what I wrote, but you didnt seem to notice. Am talking about the mechanics of the editorial not the content in particular which i have zero problem with...stuff like...

"anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless"

...really has nothing to do with this conversation. If you can't see that, we'll that's a shame but I'm not going to get dragged into your sense of umbrage and sideways nonsense. You even dragged the Scottish Govt into it (like a wet double duvet in a tiny sauna) which wasnt even mentioned. Give it a rest.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well as someone who values the NHS I think it is a really important discussion. As an aside, what's your view if people self funded to buy the drug?

I'm personally against this, as I believe it creates a scenario where the treatment becomes a niche product that a small percentage of people can afford to pay a large premium on. Allowing people to pay for it privately will drive up the price, making it increasingly unaffordable on the NHS.

[RyeSloan]

I'm personally against this, as I believe it creates a scenario where the treatment becomes a niche product that a small percentage of people can afford to pay a large premium on. Allowing people to pay for it privately will drive up the price, making it increasingly unaffordable on the NHS.

You are possibly missing the slightly bigger picture here.

1) These drugs are a breakthrough in terms of proving the treatment path works. Never before has that been done so getting real world data that they are on the right path opens up future R&D possibilities for even more effective treatments. The cost argument is completely separate from the ‘does it work’ view.

2) Treatment for dementia is a global market so whether the NHS can afford it or not at the start is not overly relevant to the news of the efficacy of the treatment.

3) This is the second drug from a second pharma company that has been proven to work. That in itself sets up some type of competition between them and will drive the pricing.

4) Even if the NHS can’t afford it now these drugs will eventually come off patent so eventually everyone will benefit. I get the argument of immediacy but none the less having a proven treatment available for a previously untreatable disease is a huge step forward.

I’d suggest that actually the bigger issue here is effective and early diagnosis and that appears to be something the NHS is rather poor at for this and many other diseases. Improving early diagnosis improves outcomes and can be substantially more cost effective over the long term…maybe a different discussion for a different day right enough!

[Glory Lurker]

Good to see you back, Mr Sloan, even if we don't see eye to eye on this board!

[Stairway 2 7]

This is the first generation for the drugs. More companies will go down the same path with this drug technology. That 30% slowing will increase and the price will come down as more and more companies use similar technology and bring out more drugs.

This is absolutely fantastic news and I believe it will be the start of a suite of drugs that will combat the horrible disease eventually

A bit about it from the uk dementia research institute
https://ukdri.ac.uk/news-and-events/results-from-trial-of-new-alzheimers-drug-donanemab-presented-at-major-conference

[archie]

No need to get excited, archie.

The editorial involved put that story with a sensationalist headline, (followed by real world caveats) in the exact the same way the Daily Express run similar headlines with similar content every few months or so. "Speaks to the demographic" is the subtext of what I wrote, but you didnt seem to notice. Am talking about the mechanics of the editorial not the content in particular which i have zero problem with...stuff like...

"anything that provides some respite will be welcomed by millions. I genuinely don't think you guys are heartless"

...really has nothing to do with this conversation. If you can't see that, we'll that's a shame but I'm not going to get dragged into your sense of umbrage and sideways nonsense. You even dragged the Scottish Govt into it (like a wet double duvet in a tiny sauna) which wasnt even mentioned. Give it a rest.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Why can't you guys engage on the issues? Are you saying it's not a breakthrough? You suggested it was a daily Express type story, but it's much more than that. Given the outrage seemed to be that it was media bias behind the story. Also people seem to be irate that the anti-Labour stories of their choosing aren't being covered to their satisfaction. And I stand by view that the assault of the NHS staff with long covid was disgraceful.As for the cheap jibes, I'm sure you are very pleased with yourself. But it betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness that, in my view, will ultimately turn people off.

[WeeRussell]

Why can't you guys engage on the issues? Are you saying it's not a breakthrough? You suggested it was a daily Express type story, but it's much more than that. Given the outrage seemed to be that it was media bias behind the story. Also people seem to be irate that the anti-Labour stories of their choosing aren't being covered to their satisfaction. And I stand by view that the assault of the NHS staff with long covid was disgraceful.As for the cheap jibes, I'm sure you are very pleased with yourself. But it betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness that, in my view, will ultimately turn people off.

I’m lost now. Have you quoted the wrong post by accident?

[archie]

I’m lost now. Have you quoted the wrong post by accident?

Nope.

[Kato]

Why can't you guys engage on the issues? Are you saying it's not a breakthrough? You suggested it was a daily Express type story, but it's much more than that. Given the outrage seemed to be that it was media bias behind the story. Also people seem to be irate that the anti-Labour stories of their choosing aren't being covered to their satisfaction. And I stand by view that the assault of the NHS staff with long covid was disgraceful.As for the cheap jibes, I'm sure you are very pleased with yourself. But it betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness that, in my view, will ultimately turn people off.

I'm not outraged, just a passing post. There is plenty of discussion on the actual issue, which I'm finding informative. If anyone doesn't care for what I write they can ignore or pass.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

You are possibly missing the slightly bigger picture here.

1) These drugs are a breakthrough in terms of proving the treatment path works. Never before has that been done so getting real world data that they are on the right path opens up future R&D possibilities for even more effective treatments. The cost argument is completely separate from the ‘does it work’ view.

2) Treatment for dementia is a global market so whether the NHS can afford it or not at the start is not overly relevant to the news of the efficacy of the treatment.

3) This is the second drug from a second pharma company that has been proven to work. That in itself sets up some type of competition between them and will drive the pricing.

4) Even if the NHS can’t afford it now these drugs will eventually come off patent so eventually everyone will benefit. I get the argument of immediacy but none the less having a proven treatment available for a previously untreatable disease is a huge step forward.

I’d suggest that actually the bigger issue here is effective and early diagnosis and that appears to be something the NHS is rather poor at for this and many other diseases. Improving early diagnosis improves outcomes and can be substantially more cost effective over the long term…maybe a different discussion for a different day right enough!

Very interesting. What you see as the trajectory of a) drugs getting cheaper and b) alternatives Emerging? I accept the two aren't unrelated.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1681044216447639554?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Sarwar got full protection today on the BBC. Thank goodness for STV and Sky or you would not know it was happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Good to see you back, Mr Sloan, even if we don't see eye to eye on this board!

Aha thanks. Just a passing comment though, not sure I’ve the time or energy for a full come back here [emoji1787][emoji2957]

[RyeSloan]

Very interesting. What you see as the trajectory of a) drugs getting cheaper and b) alternatives Emerging? I accept the two aren't unrelated.

Probably for another thread but drugs pretty much work the same as any other product that can be protected for a while then copied and mass produced. Also in the drugs world the fewer patients a drug helps, the more it tends to cost so considering the size of the potential market here I’d expect costs to come down relatively quickly.

Also once a pathway is proven to be effective there is plenty of other companies, approaches and compounds that will be in the works that will benefit from that knowledge.

As it is $27k for a drug is not ridiculous when you think of the cost of the development. It’s a difficult equation to square as there has to be some payback (otherwise why would the companies bother) versus the afore mentioned ‘fairness’ and common good / access.

But my main point was that’s kind of a different argument to the news that finally the world seems to be on the path to developing treatments to such a devastating disease. That can only be unequivocal good news.

[archie]

Probably for another thread but drugs pretty much work the same as any other product that can be protected for a while then copied and mass produced. Also in the drugs world the fewer patients a drug helps, the more it tends to cost so considering the size of the potential market here I’d expect costs to come down relatively quickly.

Also once a pathway is proven to be effective there is plenty of other companies, approaches and compounds that will be in the works that will benefit from that knowledge.

As it is $27k for a drug is not ridiculous when you think of the cost of the development. It’s a difficult equation to square as there has to be some payback (otherwise why would the companies bother) versus the afore mentioned ‘fairness’ and common good / access.

But my main point was that’s kind of a different argument to the news that finally the world seems to be on the path to developing treatments to such a devastating disease. That can only be unequivocal good news.

Thank you. Very interesting.

[He's here!]

I agree! Why can't we just celebrate a breakthrough?

And in what way is the BBC showing bias by reporting a story that all other leading media outlets have also run with?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

And in what way is the BBC showing bias by reporting a story that all other leading media outlets have also run with?

They're not. The issue isn't what they're reporting. It's what they're actively choosing not to report on.

[degenerated]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1681044216447639554?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Sarwar got full protection today on the BBC. Thank goodness for STV and Sky or you would not know it was happening.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIt got a mention this morning on BBC breakfast Scottish news bit where they reported that Scottish Labour are opposed to the 2 child cap and sarwar would campaign to have it removed ASAP.

[Ozyhibby]

Wonder if the BBC will report on UK Labour having a totally different policy from Scottish Labour on gender recognition or will that get the blackout treatment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Wonder if the BBC will report on UK Labour having a totally different policy from Scottish Labour on gender recognition or will that get the blackout treatment?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI would be very surprised if it got a mention and they certainly won't be asking sarwar about it any time soon.

[Ozyhibby]

I would be very surprised if it got a mention and they certainly won't be asking sarwar about it any time soon.

True, they still haven’t asked him about Labour’s two child cap. They can’t protect him forever though. At some point he’s going to have to show himself to the Scottish people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

True, they still haven’t asked him about Labour’s two child cap.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey ignored that for a few days and then had Jackie Baillie on who said it would all be fixed at labours policy forum.
Now that Starmer is celebrating his victory in getting it through that hurdle it seems to be a topic to be avoided again at colonial quay.

[Rumble de Thump]

The BBC is notorious for arrogantly dismissing any complaints of obvious bias or innaccuracy in its news reporting. But Farage gets a groveling apology from the CEO of BBC News and the BBC Business Editor, along with a news story and headline being rewritten.

[He's here!]

The BBC is notorious for arrogantly dismissing any complaints of obvious bias or innaccuracy in its news reporting. But Farage gets a groveling apology from the CEO of BBC News and the BBC Business Editor, along with a news story and headline being rewritten.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464

They probably had little choice bearing in mind the grovelling apology he'd already received from NatWest (who have been left looking ridiculous over this whole saga). There's no bias being alleged against the BBC here. Their report was demonstrably factually inaccurate.

[grunt]

He should be in prison too.

[Kato]

The cow towing to faridge is laughable.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464

They probably had little choice bearing in mind the grovelling apology he'd already received from NatWest (who have been left looking ridiculous over this whole saga). There's no bias being alleged against the BBC here. Their report was demonstrably factually inaccurate.

It's the apology itself that leaves them looking ridiculous. All of those people who came out to criticise the bank for refusing services to somebody due to their views are the same kind of people who are quick to defend companies when they refuse services to people based on things like sexual orientation or ethnicity due to the owners religion or whatever.

[degenerated]

I suppose this was inevitable really. The collateral damage of BBC's infatuation with ferries.

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1683868245432889345?t=aCfMFiIHKEbgtmeeZE_5og&s=19

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1685603393279012865?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
Huge story for BBC Scotland who hate to see taxpayers money being wasted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

I suppose this was inevitable really. The collateral damage of BBC's infatuation with ferries.

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1683868245432889345?t=aCfMFiIHKEbgtmeeZE_5og&s=19

Should I blame the beeb for myself and others being unable to attend a family funeral a few months ago because the ferry service is so unreliable? Should I tell the relative who racked up a £700 pound hotel bill due to ferry delays a few weeks ago it’s the Beebs fault? Should I tell family members unable to visit an ailing relative because of the poor service it’s all down to media bias? I’ve travelled regularly on Cal Mac for over thirty years and am baffled as to how a once superb service has got to this level.

Sorry but it is just nonsense to blame the media but easy for central belt dwellers unaffected by the day to day failures to latch on to. The ferry story is not the cost of the two hulks in Ferguson’s yard, it’s the service levels that have slumped dramatically in recent years. I keep banging on about it here but precious few folk give a thought for the people affected by this , sadly the priority is protecting the politicians responsible.

[greenlex]

Should I blame the beeb for myself and others being unable to attend a family funeral a few months ago because the ferry service is so unreliable? Should I tell the relative who racked up a £700 pound hotel bill due to ferry delays a few weeks ago it’s the Beebs fault? Should I tell family members unable to visit an ailing relative because of the poor service it’s all down to media bias? I’ve travelled regularly on Cal Mac for over thirty years and am baffled as to how a once superb service has got to this level.

Sorry but it is just nonsense to blame the media but easy for central belt dwellers unaffected by the day to day failures to latch on to. The ferry story is not the cost of the two hulks in Ferguson’s yard, it’s the service levels that have slumped dramatically in recent years. I keep banging on about it here but precious few folk give a thought for the people affected by this , sadly the priority is protecting the politicians responsible.
There’s an argument the BBC banging on about it has caused a slump in visitors numbers with folk thinking the service is worse than it is. Whilst it’s maybe not what it once was it isn’t as bad as being made out by them or they are implying. This is having a huge effect on island businesses in what should be their peak period. There’s possibly just as bad a negative affect on islanders directly or indirectly by the incessant negative slant on it than the poorer service itself.

[marinello59]

There’s an argument the BBC banging on about it has caused a slump in visitors numbers with folk thinking the service is worse than it is. Whilst it’s maybe not what it once was it isn’t as bad as being made out by them or they are implying. This is having a huge effect on island businesses in what should be their peak period. There’s possibly just as bad a negative affect on islanders directly or indirectly by the incessant negative slant on it than the poorer service itself.

The demand to visit the islands has not dropped. The ability of Cal Mac to cope has.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The demand to visit the islands has not dropped. The ability of Cal Mac to cope has.

The demand hasn't dropped. But a belief in the ability to get there has, despite there still being options. This is down to the medias excessive one way coverage in regards to the Cal Mac ferries, while failing to inform it's viewers and listeners that there are still options for getting to the island.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/profjwr/status/1685651330042322944?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/profjwr/status/1685651330042322944?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a weird study. The only thing that can be taken from it is government pay the most towards it and they are youngest. How is how many routes relevant if Australia needs less routes for less islands.

Still no idea what routes are down the most, route satisfaction, ferry's on time, price of ferry. The obvious stuff. They may be better but you'll not find out from that transport Scotland funded study

[He's here!]

There’s an argument the BBC banging on about it has caused a slump in visitors numbers with folk thinking the service is worse than it is. Whilst it’s maybe not what it once was it isn’t as bad as being made out by them or they are implying. This is having a huge effect on island businesses in what should be their peak period. There’s possibly just as bad a negative affect on islanders directly or indirectly by the incessant negative slant on it than the poorer service itself.

The service is poorer but the BBC should be putting a positive slant on that?

[weecounty hibby]

The service is poorer but the BBC should be putting a positive slant on that?

Poorer than what? Something like 96% of ferries run on time. Try assessing that against trains, planes, busses or even taxis. I regularly go to Arran and have used Ardrossan and Claonaig routes. My wife and daughter are there just now as our in-laws have a house there. I have also used other Calmac ferries including the much maligned Corran ferry multiple times and have never had an issue. Yes it must be a pain in the arse for folk living on the islands as they are more likely to be impacted by that 4% but the ferries aren't as bad as the BBC, Tories and Labour would have you believe. It's a subject seized upon to make political capital. FFS Labour were actually criticising the FM for going to rural areas last week and they want us all to believe they give a **** about ferries to islands

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The service is poorer but the BBC should be putting a positive slant on that?

Nobody is saying that. What the BBC should be saying is that despite the difficulties regarding the Cal Mac ferries, there is still plenty of options available. They won't say that though, because they want people to believe that the impact of this is far greater than it actually is. This results in less people travelling to the island, despite there being options available to them. It's extremely poor from a public funded broadcaster that is supposed to present fair and balanced news. Something that it has been incapable of doing for a very long time.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think 90% of the press on ferries has been about the Ferguson disaster. Could be good news coming up though. Ferguson is hoping on getting a lifeline building some parts for the new royal navy frigates. Could use up to half of the yard

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ferguson-marine-banking-on-uk-frigate-work-to-fill-capacity/

[He's here!]

Nobody is saying that. What the BBC should be saying is that despite the difficulties regarding the Cal Mac ferries, there is still plenty of options available. They won't say that though, because they want people to believe that the impact of this is far greater than it actually is. This results in less people travelling to the island, despite there being options available to them. It's extremely poor from a public funded broadcaster that is supposed to present fair and balanced news. Something that it has been incapable of doing for a very long time.

You sincerely believe that?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You sincerely believe that?

I find it incredible that some people don't to be quite honest. Considering the BBC's track record when it comes to blatant disinformation and propaganda.

[He's here!]

Should I blame the beeb for myself and others being unable to attend a family funeral a few months ago because the ferry service is so unreliable? Should I tell the relative who racked up a £700 pound hotel bill due to ferry delays a few weeks ago it’s the Beebs fault? Should I tell family members unable to visit an ailing relative because of the poor service it’s all down to media bias? I’ve travelled regularly on Cal Mac for over thirty years and am baffled as to how a once superb service has got to this level.

Sorry but it is just nonsense to blame the media but easy for central belt dwellers unaffected by the day to day failures to latch on to. The ferry story is not the cost of the two hulks in Ferguson’s yard, it’s the service levels that have slumped dramatically in recent years. I keep banging on about it here but precious few folk give a thought for the people affected by this , sadly the priority is protecting the politicians responsible.

I agree the priority (from those of a mindset that the SG should be immune from criticism) is protecting the politicians responsible, but I don't think you can separate the Ferguson's fiasco with the knock-on effect it's had on the ageing fleet, over half of whose major vessels are now at the end, or approaching the end, of their operational lives. As this article explains, the vessel replacement plan launched by the SG in 2012 foundered in part due to the Ferguson shambles. Of course there must be a presumption of bias in the article due to the fact it's from the BBC :wink:

The problem with CalMac's ageing ferries - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61161932)

[greenlex]

I agree the priority (from those of a mindset that the SG should be immune from criticism) is protecting the politicians responsible, but I don't think you can separate the Ferguson's fiasco with the knock-on effect it's had on the ageing fleet, over half of whose major vessels are now at the end, or approaching the end, of their operational lives. As this article explains, the vessel replacement plan launched by the SG in 2012 foundered in part due to the Ferguson shambles. Of course there must be a presumption of bias in the article due to the fact it's from the BBC :wink:

The problem with CalMac's ageing ferries - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61161932)
I don’t think anyone is denying anything. Where is the balanced reporting of other public transport issues throughout the country? There’s some communities in West Lothian for example that have a much reduced bus service and in some cases withdrawn altogether. Not running at 96% but withdrawn at a companies whim. What about the reliability of the train service? They report industrial action but the day to day cancellations are appalling. They don’t do it because the political implications are less. It’s the ferries that seem to get it and we know why. Yes the government are certainly culpable but the reporting is absolutely bias for political reasons.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230731/935526a96129e94910f6fa8b00a46b25.jpg

An old classic from our impartial BBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230731/935526a96129e94910f6fa8b00a46b25.jpg

An old classic from our impartial BBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining." - 9 years ago

[weecounty hibby]

"Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining." - 9 years ago

It worked, job done!! Along with not getting pensions paid this was a great propaganda piece by the UK government's main propaganda arm

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1686316409406586880?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Not the BBC but it’s what the Scottish public have to put up with in a media hostile to the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Wait till they start telling us the wind is going to run out. :rolleyes:

[degenerated]

Wait till they start telling us the wind is going to run out. :rolleyes:They already have, nearly 2 years ago

https://twitter.com/BBCGaryR/status/1447811733750521856?t=RUqX1qGvYreET5BHsO83ow&s=19

[JeMeSouviens]

They already have, nearly 2 years ago

https://twitter.com/BBCGaryR/status/1447811733750521856?t=RUqX1qGvYreET5BHsO83ow&s=19


Hadn't seen that. :greengrin

[degenerated]

Hadn't seen that. :greengrinIt was in response to a positive story about wind generated power in Scotland. BBC shortbread led with a story from the daily mail about wind running out

[Hiber-nation]

The BBC News app has been updated. There are now a grand total of 4 news items on the Scotland page. Nothing ever happens in Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1686349845689229312?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

BBC Scotland using a Labour peer to undermine heat pumps this morning coming unstuck when they got on a real expert at lunch time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

What's the plan for heat pumps in Scotlands tenements does anyone know. Most are like Swiss cheese and I believe heat pumps need descent insulation due to lower temperatures. Also the can be a little noisy so would you need neighbours permission or councils if a listed building. I know you need new larger radiators usually and space for a hot water tank.

[Ozyhibby]

What's the plan for heat pumps in Scotlands tenements does anyone know. Most are like Swiss cheese and I believe heat pumps need descent insulation due to lower temperatures. Also the can be a little noisy so would you need neighbours permission or councils if a listed building. I know you need new larger radiators usually and space for a hot water tank.

We should exempt tenements for a bit longer due to the unique challenge they pose. The trade off is the denser living is more eco friendly anyway so they are already doing their bit. We should encourage them to be upgraded so they retain heat a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

What's the plan for heat pumps in Scotlands tenements does anyone know. Most are like Swiss cheese and I believe heat pumps need descent insulation due to lower temperatures. Also the can be a little noisy so would you need neighbours permission or councils if a listed building. I know you need new larger radiators usually and space for a hot water tank.
We should exempt tenements for a bit longer due to the unique challenge they pose. The trade off is the denser living is more eco friendly anyway so they are already doing their bit. We should encourage them to be upgraded so they retain heat a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI had a top floor flat in Roseburn and we almost never had the heating on due to the warmth generated in the flats below! :-)

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She won't be invited back on anytime soon. Funny how quick Sackur was to move the subject on after being skelped in the face with the facts of the matter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEzKsmKekhw

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1686629745243332608?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

No questions for Baillie at all on Labour’s two child cap? BBC Scotland is going into full campaign mode for Rutherglen by-election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

What's the plan for heat pumps in Scotlands tenements does anyone know. Most are like Swiss cheese and I believe heat pumps need descent insulation due to lower temperatures. Also the can be a little noisy so would you need neighbours permission or councils if a listed building. I know you need new larger radiators usually and space for a hot water tank.

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.

[Smartie]

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.

Could that not be rephrased as the technology being useful as it can be used in some domestic situations in Scotland if not all?

Do you have an issue with green issues in general or is it just because the Green Party nailed their colours to the independence mast? Or certain individuals, like Harvie and Slater?

FWIW I have mixed feelings about the Green Party being pro-independence - I feel that their main raison d'etre should transcend the independence debate and take as many people as possible with them as of all the political parties, I think their cause is the most valid and genuine.

[degenerated]

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.In what way won't they work in "most" domestic situations in Scotland?

[Moulin Yarns]

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.

What evidence do you have?


One of the key benefits of ground and water source heat pumps is the consistency of temperature. The seasonal performance factors of ground and water heat pumps — an efficiency measurement — is often better than their equivalent air source heat pump. Ground and water heat pumps are good choices for areas that regularly experience very cold air temperatures.

Underground temperatures are constant year-round (typically around 10-13°C). The earth's geothermal warmth provides a ground source heat pump with all the heat it needs to work, no matter how cold the air temperature outside.

Watercourses, such as a river, stream or loch offer similar, stable annual temperatures (7-12°C).

[Ozyhibby]

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.

That is complete nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230802/7b4ba1185b5ba200cc4fd49f10031b34.jpg
Can’t be done in Scotland though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

The heat pump technology is flawed full stop as they simply won't work in most domestic situations in Scotland. Another example of the Green tail wagging the yellow dog, with that bampot Harvie to the fore.

Show us the evidence for this or is it another example of just yet another thing unionists think Scotland are uniquely unable to do

[Stairway 2 7]

I've read it pretty much won't be economical to work in tenements and flats, over 30k minimum and needs good insulation and windows fitted. That's 35% of homes in Glasgow and around the same in Edinburgh, I think it will be less in most other places. Scandinavia isn't a good comparison as there isn't a large amount of century old flats

It should work in most other homes no problem though if insulated well.

It will be a great help to reduce co2, the problem is who pays. The 7,500 from scot gov may only cover a third if you need boiler and new radiators. That's fine if your looking for a new boiler or new builds. If your not who's going to volunteer to get themselves into debt.

The 7,500 is also manageable as so little grants. We'll need cuts elsewhere if that's to scale up to millions

[weecounty hibby]

I just did a quick Google search and there is nothing to suggest that heat pumps won't work in Scotland. Efficiency may be lowered due to lower outside temps but they DO work. That is air source. Ground and water source will also work. Installation is expensive though but as more and more are built and technology moves on the costs will hopefully come down

[nonshinyfinish]

I've read it pretty much won't be economical to work in tenements and flats, over 30k minimum and needs good insulation and windows fitted. That's 35% of homes in Glasgow and around the same in Edinburgh, I think it will be less in most other places. Scandinavia isn't a good comparison as there isn't a large amount of century old flats

It should work in most other homes no problem though if insulated well.

It will be a great help to reduce co2, the problem is who pays. The 7,500 from scot gov may only cover a third if you need boiler and new radiators. That's fine if your looking for a new boiler or new builds. If your not who's going to volunteer to get themselves into debt.

The 7,500 is also manageable as so little grants. We'll need cuts elsewhere if that's to scale up to millions

The bit in bold – where are you getting a total cost of £22.5k from? We got a heat pump, a new water cylinder, three new radiators and a relatively complex path for the pipework from the heat pump but the cost was nowhere near that. Or are you still talking about cases where new insulation, windows etc are needed?

[Stairway 2 7]

The bit in bold – where are you getting a total cost of £22.5k from? We got a heat pump, a new water cylinder, three new radiators and a relatively complex path for the pipework from the heat pump but the cost was nowhere near that. Or are you still talking about cases where new insulation, windows etc are needed?

Yeah sorry that is with windows and sealing the house, worst case, I think that should be very few houses nowadays but unsure. Can get for around 10k I think for basic change. I reckon it will come down to the same as fitting a gas boiler when it gets fully rolled out.

It's who pays. If we were independent we could borrow but it will have to come from cuts elsewhere just now, which is fine as its important and needs done. It should be from now for new builds and perhaps in all new boilers that aren't in tenements

[Stairway 2 7]

I just did a quick Google search and there is nothing to suggest that heat pumps won't work in Scotland. Efficiency may be lowered due to lower outside temps but they DO work. That is air source. Ground and water source will also work. Installation is expensive though but as more and more are built and technology moves on the costs will hopefully come down

It will definitely work in Scotland anyone saying they won't has an agenda. We need to stop fossil fuels so we have no choice really

[weecounty hibby]

It will definitely work in Scotland anyone saying they won't has an agenda. We need to stop fossil fuels so we have no choice really

👍

[nonshinyfinish]

Yeah sorry that is with windows and sealing the house, worst case, I think that should be very few houses nowadays but unsure. Can get for around 10k I think for basic change. I reckon it will come down to the same as fitting a gas boiler when it gets fully rolled out.

It's who pays. If we were independent we could borrow but it will have to come from cuts elsewhere just now, which is fine as its important and needs done. It should be from now for new builds and perhaps in all new boilers that aren't in tenements

Ok, cheers for clarifying.

(Out of curiosity I did a quick calculation on the 'variable' bit of our installation for someone in similar situation – the number of new radiators needed – and for £22.5k we could have replaced another 48 or so 👀)

[Stairway 2 7]

Ok, cheers for clarifying.

(Out of curiosity I did a quick calculation on the 'variable' bit of our installation for someone in similar situation – the number of new radiators needed – and for £22.5k we could have replaced another 48 or so 👀)

Apparently in Scotland it ranges from 8k to 18k for air source, the average being 12k and ground source is between 14k and 44k the average 24k.

Your going to need a loan or money in most cases. This will drop surely. Double glazing and insulation is on top of that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Apparently in Scotland it ranges from 8k to 18k for air source, the average being 12k and ground source is between 14k and 44k the average 24k.

Your going to need a loan or money in most cases. This will drop surely. Double glazing and insulation is on top of that.

Complete ignoramus here.

Is there an idiot's guide to the pros and cons of each type of system?

[Ozyhibby]

Yeah sorry that is with windows and sealing the house, worst case, I think that should be very few houses nowadays but unsure. Can get for around 10k I think for basic change. I reckon it will come down to the same as fitting a gas boiler when it gets fully rolled out.

It's who pays. If we were independent we could borrow but it will have to come from cuts elsewhere just now, which is fine as its important and needs done. It should be from now for new builds and perhaps in all new boilers that aren't in tenements

Householders them selves will have to pay. When your boiler next packs in you’ll be gently nudged to go for a heat pump instead. It will work out cheaper over the lifetime of the pump. Combine with solar panels and you’ll be well ahead.
It’s not suitable for some homes but if we get the majority of homes fitted with them, there will be other solutions for the rest.
And if I was a spark or plumber I would be getting trained up on their instal right away. There is going to be some good money to be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Complete ignoramus here.

Is there an idiot's guide to the pros and cons of each type of system?

I think you get an air pump if you can in the uk and ground is basically if you can't. Ground source works better at extremely low temps below -15. Ground source is slightly more efficient but costs more up front. I'm unsure if it makes up that money

[He's here!]

I've read it pretty much won't be economical to work in tenements and flats, over 30k minimum and needs good insulation and windows fitted. That's 35% of homes in Glasgow and around the same in Edinburgh, I think it will be less in most other places. Scandinavia isn't a good comparison as there isn't a large amount of century old flats

It should work in most other homes no problem though if insulated well.

It will be a great help to reduce co2, the problem is who pays. The 7,500 from scot gov may only cover a third if you need boiler and new radiators. That's fine if your looking for a new boiler or new builds. If your not who's going to volunteer to get themselves into debt.

The 7,500 is also manageable as so little grants. We'll need cuts elsewhere if that's to scale up to millions

Your first paragraph is pretty much the crux of it. Electric boilers rather than impractical heat pumps are the obvious alternative. Harvie bangs on about heat pumps being 'carbon zero' but they actually run on electricity.

[Moulin Yarns]

Complete ignoramus here.

Is there an idiot's guide to the pros and cons of each type of system?

Bear in mind what thread this is 😉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66359093


For every unit of energy in you get 3 units out. Sounds like a no brainer. Also backs up the carbon zero claim, I guess.

[He's here!]

Could that not be rephrased as the technology being useful as it can be used in some domestic situations in Scotland if not all?

Do you have an issue with green issues in general or is it just because the Green Party nailed their colours to the independence mast? Or certain individuals, like Harvie and Slater?

FWIW I have mixed feelings about the Green Party being pro-independence - I feel that their main raison d'etre should transcend the independence debate and take as many people as possible with them as of all the political parties, I think their cause is the most valid and genuine.

When it comes to green issues I'm on board whenever possible/practicable. We haven't owned a car for years now and use a car club (electric vehicles) on the occasions when walking/public transport isn't feasible. Nor do we fly any more. That can narrow down holiday options but it's not a major deal. I've looked into heat pumps incidentally but, as others have pointed out, because we live in a old tenement it's a non-starter both practically and financially.

The Scottish Greens, tho, are a bunch of eejits, from their trans ideology obsession to putting an anti-road building agenda ahead of motorist safety on the A9 (while 'Limo Lorna' Slater racks up the miles in her ministerial vehicles and shows a tone deaf attitude to Scotland's ferry challenges by chartering a private boat...not to mention her hapless handling of the bottle deposit scheme. As for Harvie...I haven't the time to even get started on him).

[Stairway 2 7]

Bear in mind what thread this is 😉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66359093


For every unit of energy in you get 3 units out. Sounds like a no brainer. Also backs up the carbon zero claim, I guess.

It's only carbon zero if the electricity going in is renewable. Some days it'll be mainly from burning gas, other days completely renewable. We're a while off just now but I'm sure we'll get there. Obviously we'll need to increase renewables a large amount as electric consumption will rise. Some massive projects happening in England and Scotland

[Ozyhibby]

Your first paragraph is pretty much the crux of it. Electric boilers rather than impractical heat pumps are the obvious alternative. Harvie bangs on about heat pumps being 'carbon zero' but they actually run on electricity.

Electric boilers may be the solution that is used in tenements. They are more expensive to run though.
I know Labour and the BBC have been running a campaign against heat pumps for last few days but it’s an absolute proven technology that will work in the vast majority of Scottish homes. Not every single one, but most of them.
And yes, they run on electricity, the cleanest source of power we have just now and it’s getting cleaner all the time. We need to really ramp up supply which means lots and lots of wind and solar installation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Just read 39% of Scots live in flats, 64% in Edinburgh. Still a good number that can be fitted. Although the push should be transport, 36% of our co2 in Scotland

[Ozyhibby]

Just read 39% of Scots live in flats, 64% in Edinburgh. Still a good number that can be fitted. Although the push should be transport, 36% of our co2 in Scotland

I think we have to push hard on both. We don’t have time to do either or.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nonshinyfinish]

Complete ignoramus here.

Is there an idiot's guide to the pros and cons of each type of system?

The short version is that ground source is likely to be more efficient overall, but it's more expensive/disruptive to install, because there's a load of digging to install the pipes that collect heat from the ground. You also need sufficient space – our garden isn't big enough even if we wanted a ground source heat pump (in theory you can use a smaller area and go deeper, but this will increase the cost again).

An air source heat pump is cheaper and simpler to install. Because its efficiency is dependent on the temperature of the air, it will vary more – it will be more efficient in warm weather than ground source, but less efficient in cold weather. The balance depends on the local climate, but as above ground source typically comes out ahead.

Air source is the default and should be fine for most people in the UK, provided they have space for it and good enough insulation as Stairway described above. Broadly speaking it's easy enough for houses but retrofitting flats and tenements (particularly old ones) will be challenging.

See: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/air-source-heat-pumps-vs-ground-source-heat-pumps/

[lapsedhibee]

Electric boilers may be the solution that is used in tenements. They are more expensive to run though.
I know Labour and the BBC have been running a campaign against heat pumps for last few days but it’s an absolute proven technology that will work in the vast majority of Scottish homes. Not every single one, but most of them.
And yes, they run on electricity, the cleanest source of power we have just now and it’s getting cleaner all the time. We need to really ramp up supply which means lots and lots of wind and solar installation.



Just read 39% of Scots live in flats, 64% in Edinburgh. Still a good number that can be fitted. Although the push should be transport, 36% of our co2 in Scotland

Nothing to stop air source heat pumps being used in flats.

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/08/08/new-heat-pumps-for-old-apartments/#:~:text=This%20week%2C%20New%20York%20officials%2 0announced%20the%20state,window-sized%20electric%20heat%20pumps%20in%20city%20owne d%20apartments.