View Full Version : BBC bias again?
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
[
9]
10
11
12
cabbageandribs1875
12-03-2023, 03:03 PM
i don't agree with this...
https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/335023360_207432101969352_2484777319204200098_n.jp g?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=XmNm1A-BMzAAX_3N0Qo&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfC8UptJfMIDgSk7kcpeFzWu3sWFrlFsr9UT8B6XDpkB gw&oe=6412D26C
should be sacked
cabbageandribs1875
12-03-2023, 03:40 PM
Why? He's a Tory who gave a large donation to the Tory Party and gave a very large loan to the then PM, he's Kow-Tow to the pressure from his Tory peers and forced Lineker off air, which in turn has seen the BBC look like complete idiots with all presenters/pundits and teams refusing to work. He should be nowhere near that position in the BBC which is meant to be impartial.
i did say he should have ben sacked instead of being allowed to resign, resignation looks better on his CV
and not just for this event, he should have either been sacked or stepped down a few weeks back after what happened with the bare-faced Liar Johnson
i did say he should have ben sacked instead of being allowed to resign, resignation looks better on his CV
and not just for this event, he should have either been sacked or stepped down a few weeks back after what happened with the bare-faced Liar Johnson
Ah sorry, I thought you didn't agree with him leaving, it was him resigning that you disagree with, that makes it a different post, apologies, I'll delete it.
cabbageandribs1875
12-03-2023, 03:44 PM
Ah sorry, I thought you didn't agree with him leaving, it was him resigning that you disagree with, that makes it a different post, apologies, I'll delete it.
nah, no need to :greengrin
Fiona Bruce "standing down" as an ambassador for the domestic abuse charity Refuge, after describing Stanley Johnson punching his wife and breaking her nose as a "one off". There is literature out there in which his wife describes physical abuse happening many times. The "one off" must have been a made up in her head thing.
https://twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/1635275850508795906?t=42MPIKV7DBAguePUdlf14Q&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Bostonhibby
13-03-2023, 03:18 PM
Fiona Bruce "standing down" as an ambassador for the domestic abuse charity Refuge, after describing Stanley Johnson punching his wife and breaking her nose as a "one off". There is literature out there in which his wife describes physical abuse happening many times. The "one off" must have been a made up in her head thing.
https://twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/1635275850508795906?t=42MPIKV7DBAguePUdlf14Q&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkNasties attempting a bit of media management for fellow nasties, impartially done obviously. Assuming nothing in her BBC contact re justifying men breaking women's noses?
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
He's here!
13-03-2023, 03:23 PM
Fiona Bruce "standing down" as an ambassador for the domestic abuse charity Refuge, after describing Stanley Johnson punching his wife and breaking her nose as a "one off". There is literature out there in which his wife describes physical abuse happening many times. The "one off" must have been a made up in her head thing.
https://twitter.com/RefugeCharity/status/1635275850508795906?t=42MPIKV7DBAguePUdlf14Q&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
"While we know the words were not Fiona’s own and were words she was legally obliged to read out, this does not lessen their impact and we cannot lose sight of that."
The sensitivities around this are clear and I can see why she would feel pressured into standing down. However, the context (acknowledged by Refuge) hardly damns her for ever more as an apologist for domestic violence.
archie
13-03-2023, 03:24 PM
Nasties attempting a bit of media management for fellow nasties, impartially done obviously. Assuming nothing in her BBC contact re justifying men breaking women's noses?
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
She didn't justify it.
Bostonhibby
13-03-2023, 03:25 PM
She didn't justify it.Being the mouthpiece for it's justification was enough for me though I respect your right to see it any way you want.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
DaveF
13-03-2023, 03:26 PM
She didn't justify it.
True.
She just downplayed it as a one off. Move along now...
archie
13-03-2023, 03:31 PM
True.
She just downplayed it as a one off. Move along now...
No. She was dealing (poorly in my view) with an issue being raised about an individual that could have had serious implications https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/13/fiona-bruce-to-step-down-as-refuge-ambassador-over-stanley-johnson-comments
"While we know the words were not Fiona’s own and were words she was legally obliged to read out, this does not lessen their impact and we cannot lose sight of that."
The sensitivities around this are clear and I can see why she would feel pressured into standing down. However, the context (acknowledged by Refuge) hardly damns her for ever more as an apologist for domestic violence.But she has stepped down. If the purpose was to damn her evermore you might have a point, but you don't.
She played her part in downplaying the actions of a serial domestic abuser.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
13-03-2023, 03:41 PM
But she has stepped down. If the purpose was to damn her evermore you might have a point, but you don't.
She played her part in downplaying the actions of a serial domestic abuser.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
So she acknowledged what had happened and that the poor woman received a broken nose. But she shut down speculation that could have been actionable. I don't think she did it correctly, but it really is spinning to say she downplayed it.
So she acknowledged what had happened and that the poor woman received a broken nose. But she shut down speculation that could have been actionable. I don't think she did it correctly, but it really is spinning to say she downplayed it.By saying it was a one off she downplayed it. Johnsons wife has described being attacked by him regularly. Their quick fact-check, if they did one at all, was rubbish.
Dunno how anyone can support what she said, it's clearly wrong and even the "it was only a one off statement" is a weird one, seemingly designed to take the heat of the old wife beating ****.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Bostonhibby
13-03-2023, 03:55 PM
By saying it was a one off she downplayed it. Johnsons wife has described being attacked by him regularly. Their quick fact-check, if they did one at all, was rubbish.
Dunno how anyone can support what she said, it's clearly wrong and even the "it was only a one off statement" is a weird one, seemingly designed to take the heat of the old wife beating ****.
Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkRepresenting the charity she was seemingly so passionate about, and on my reading of the words actually used in the discussion at the time it's difficult to see why she didn't either stay silent or actually condemn the deed, irrespective of any legal or contractual situation that might exist.
Stanley seems a big enough bully to look out for himself?
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
archie
13-03-2023, 03:57 PM
By saying it was a one off she downplayed it. Johnsons wife has described being attacked by him regularly. Their quick fact-check, if they did one at all, was rubbish.
Dunno how anyone can support what she said, it's clearly wrong and even the "it was only a one off statement" is a weird one, seemingly designed to take the heat of the old wife beating ****.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
You are interpreting that it was to take heat off of Stanley Johnson. She hardly did that as she confirmed that he had broken his wife's nose! In my view she was trying to shut down speculation. It is right that such behaviour tends to be part of a pattern. But it is impossible to establish this beyond doubt in an individual case. He denies it and his wife is dead. Is it likely that he did it more than once? Yes. Is it right that a discussion programme allows a feeding frenzy on disputed action, with no right of reply? No.
You are interpreting that it was to take heat off of Stanley Johnson. She hardly did that as she confirmed that he had broken his wife's nose! In my view she was trying to shut down speculation. It is right that such behaviour tends to be part of a pattern. But it is impossible to establish this beyond doubt in an individual case. He denies it and his wife is dead. Is it likely that he did it more than once? Yes. Is it right that a discussion programme allows a feeding frenzy on disputed action, with no right of reply? No.A one off statement on Question Time. No need to say anything at all, but she did.
Why caveat the, factual, statement at all.
You're making up a scenario, ie further speculation, which would have had almost zero chance of developing.
Speculation on what?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Smartie
13-03-2023, 04:18 PM
I actually have a bit of sympathy for her, although her role is a prominent one where your words carry weight.
It was probably / possibly an off the cuff comment and one that she bitterly regrets and doesn't even believe. I don't for one minute believe that Fiona Bruce will be any sort of an apologist for domestic violence otherwise she wouldn't have held the position with the charity in the first place.
Regrettably she can't go saying stuff like that on Question Time and hold that position though, so it's only right that she's stood down.
I'm just glad I'm not in a position where I can get caught out by a slip of the tongue or a twattish comment in a challenging environment, which a tv political debate must be.
archie
13-03-2023, 04:21 PM
A one off statement on Question Time. No need to say anything at all, but she did.
Why caveat the, factual, statement at all.
You're making up a scenario, ie further speculation, which would have had almost zero chance of developing.
Speculation on what?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I'm not making up a scenario. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown brought it up and Fiona Bruce shut it down, and in doing so confirmed what was in the public domain. She didn't let Johnson off as you suggest. She was right to do so in my opinion. But she was wrong in her phrasing. I guess you are desperate to paint the BBC as protecting Stanley Johnson, but they really didn't.
I'm not making up a scenario. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown brought it up and Fiona Bruce shut it down, and in doing so confirmed what was in the public domain. She didn't let Johnson off as you suggest. She was right to do so in my opinion. But she was wrong in her phrasing. I guess you are desperate to paint the BBC as protecting Stanley Johnson, but they really didn't.
Protecting no. Downplaying yes.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
grunt
13-03-2023, 04:48 PM
... it really is spinning to say she downplayed it."He attacked his wife, broke her nose so she had to go to hospital. But he only did it the once." That looks downplayed to me.
State of play re the actual bias at the BBC with no mention of Bruce or Lineker.
https://twitter.com/Cakeislovely/status/1635274926679814145?t=12kNVPDssI52d05KrVvpdg&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Mibbes Aye
13-03-2023, 06:04 PM
"He attacked his wife, broke her nose so she had to go to hospital. But he only did it the once." That looks downplayed to me.
If this is going to be trial by social media then at least quote her accurately. She didn’t say what you are purporting there, despite your quotation marks. Accuracy is important in these matters.
For what it’s worth I think what she said came across as clumsy and crass even. I don’t know her but I would be surprised if she condones violence against women. I also think that there is a bit of media hysteria around this that doesn’t help anyone.
He's here!
13-03-2023, 08:17 PM
Representing the charity she was seemingly so passionate about, and on my reading of the words actually used in the discussion at the time it's difficult to see why she didn't either stay silent or actually condemn the deed, irrespective of any legal or contractual situation that might exist.
Stanley seems a big enough bully to look out for himself?
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
It's not a question of whether a legal obligation 'might' exist. As confirmed by both Refuge and the BBC it did. These weren't her personal opinions, yet she's being scapegoated as though they are.
He's here!
13-03-2023, 08:21 PM
"He attacked his wife, broke her nose so she had to go to hospital. But he only did it the once." That looks downplayed to me.
And that's certainly spinning it to claim that was her quote.
grunt
13-03-2023, 09:48 PM
If this is going to be trial by social media then at least quote her accurately. She didn’t say what you are purporting there, despite your quotation marks. Accuracy is important in these matters.
Where did I say this was an exact quote? It's obviously not.
grunt
13-03-2023, 09:49 PM
Where did I say this was an exact quote? It's obviously not.
Where did I say this is an exact quote? It's obviously not.
Mibbes Aye
13-03-2023, 09:52 PM
Where did I say this was an exact quote? It's obviously not.
Archie said she didn't downplay it. You replied with a version of what she said in quotes, saying it did look downplayed.
It's your words, I'm not making this up!
marinello59
14-03-2023, 04:25 AM
Food for thought for those rushing to condemn Bruce here.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/stanley-johnson-question-time-fiona-bruce-2205823?ito=copy-link_share_article-top
QT has been one of the tory flagship programmes for years.
Tory supporters, even councillors, purporting to be 'ordinary' members of the public.
'Ordinary' members of the public pushing tory rhetoric without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
Panelists, mostly the tory ones, with very questionable facts without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
You'd be as well having a tory whip in the chair.
JimBHibees
14-03-2023, 06:03 AM
QT has been one of the tory flagship programmes for years.
Tory supporters, even councillors, purporting to be 'ordinary' members of the public.
'Ordinary' members of the public pushing tory rhetoric without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
Panelists, mostly the tory ones, with very questionable facts without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
You'd be as well having a tory whip in the chair.
Yep used to watch that and enjoyed it when Dimbleby was on. Haven't watched it in years particularly around the time they had Farage on every week.
Mibbes Aye
14-03-2023, 12:46 PM
QT has been one of the tory flagship programmes for years.
Tory supporters, even councillors, purporting to be 'ordinary' members of the public.
'Ordinary' members of the public pushing tory rhetoric without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
Panelists, mostly the tory ones, with very questionable facts without Fiona Bruce feeling the need to step in.
You'd be as well having a tory whip in the chair.
I have gone through phases of watching QT for decades now I guess. Current audiences are starting to behave like the ones we got in the period c.1995-97. If you recall, they could put just about any Tory on, in any part of the country and they were getting booed as soon as they opened their mouth. And woe betide them if it was a urban venue or a northern venue or even a Midlands venue.
We are not quite at those levels yet but we are still potentially a fair bit away from the next GE. Perhaps more worryingly for the Tories, there have been audiences in recent months in shire seats openly mocking or laughing at the Tory who has been put up, as they engage in the verbal contortions required to blame A+E times on small boats, or Partygate on Putin. The only thing worse for them than being booed is being ridiculed, especially in their 'safe' places.
Ozyhibby
14-03-2023, 12:57 PM
Three debates held so far and I would say all three broadcasters have done pretty well and encouraged a high standard of debate. Wonder how the BBC will get on tonight?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
cabbageandribs1875
14-03-2023, 07:34 PM
lol suck it up mogg ya goathttps://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/334098578_883105049570569_1924716371837486259_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=a_fToxTXuIgAX8TvxEe&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDOAh25CH5ovsTOGraX0wwEmAKIKKuOeAfmj3Qbojv6 Iw&oe=64157F21
grunt
15-03-2023, 07:14 AM
A clip of the relevant part of the extraordinary exchange with the Ofcom chair, mentioned by John Nicolson, in which she said she was not aware of the much-publicised Fiona Bruce response to the Stanley Johnson 'broken nose' claim.
How can the Ofcom chair not know of this?
https://twitter.com/LittleGravitas/status/1635684198093582337?s=20
grunt
15-03-2023, 07:27 AM
BBC whistleblower says their headlines are “determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”Management “appeared to be worried about losing access to politicians and briefings from No 10 if they crossed the Downing Street operation.”
https://t.co/6yJGVY1wqK
grunt
15-03-2023, 08:52 AM
In an email, a senior editor congratulated correspondents for staying away from the subject of Jennifer Arcuri after the American tech entrepreneur gave an interview to a newspaper in October 2020 appearing to confirm an affair (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/jennifer-arcuri-admits-to-boris-johnson-affair) with Johnson, following allegations that he used his position as London mayor to secure favourable treatment for her.
The message to political correspondents from 17 October 2020 said:
[XXX] did a wonderful job last night keeping us away from this story [Jennifer Acuri, Johnson's lover, who received public money]. I’d like to continue that distance. It’s not a story we should be doing at this stage. Please call me if you’re asked to.
grunt
15-03-2023, 11:06 AM
The Radio Scotland phone-in has ex-Tory MSP Mary Scanlon on but the presenter fails to mention she *is* an ex-Tory MSP.
heretoday
15-03-2023, 09:59 PM
Poor old BBC. They get it from all sides, and that's just on this website!
More power to them. Otherwise we'd be stuck with ads all the time like STV or commercial radio. Bloody awful.
Ozyhibby
15-03-2023, 10:14 PM
Poor old BBC. They get it from all sides, and that's just on this website!
More power to them. Otherwise we'd be stuck with ads all the time like STV or commercial radio. Bloody awful.
STV, ITV, Sky etc all have better news services than the BBC these days. Ads or not.
Amazingly they don’t seem to be run by the Tory party.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
cabbageandribs1875
16-03-2023, 08:19 PM
it's not on the impartial Conservative & Unionist BBC site so i doubt this took place :agree: or maybe they just missed it ?
(1) Central Bylines on Twitter: "Wow, look at this aerial footage at just how huge this protest by doctors, civil servants, teachers, university workers and many more was. #EnoughIsEnough https://t.co/JeXgWmie8a" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/CentralBylines/status/1636146913241100293)
I haven’t watched Question Time for many years as I thought it was biased and had far too much UKIP representation.
I saw a clip of it on BBC showing a straw poll in the audience where NOBODY thought Bumblecunt was telling the truth.
The presenter stated that the way QT audiences are constructed meant they would have more Boris Johnson voters than any other party. Can this be explained away?
Mibbes Aye
24-03-2023, 03:52 PM
I haven’t watched Question Time for many years as I thought it was biased and had far too much UKIP representation.
I saw a clip of it on BBC showing a straw poll in the audience where NOBODY thought Bumblecunt was telling the truth.
The presenter stated that the way QT audiences are constructed meant they would have more Boris Johnson voters than any other party. Can this be explained away?
I didn’t see QT last night but I’m aware this line has led to no end of frenzy on Twitter.
From what I read, her line was clearly being misrepresented and responded to inaccurately. I don’t really use Twitter so I don’t know if it is normal for people just to twist someone else’s words to suit their own agenda or pre-set beliefs :greengrin
Anyway,, my understanding is she said what you have described above. And that is entirely consistent with my understanding of QT, which is that the vast majority of the time, they try to balance the audience to the way the constituency they are in voted at the previous GE.
In this case they were in Newcastle-under-Lyme and at the last GE the Tories had more votes than everyone else combined.
I think I’ve realised why I have littl interest in Twitter :greengrin
grunt
25-03-2023, 08:57 AM
I think I’ve realised why I have littl interest in Twitter :greengrin
You never know, you might learn something.
Mibbes Aye
25-03-2023, 12:29 PM
You never know, you might learn something.
If it’s how to behave like a headless chicken or jump onto spurious arguments or logical fallacies, then I can probably just stick to the main board any time we lose a match.
Glory Lurker
25-03-2023, 09:57 PM
The BBC website was running a main page story today about the Queen's pall bearers being chosen for a gong.
Not remotely news. Not even a bit.
Unless you are forcing an agenda.
Glory Lurker
01-04-2023, 10:57 PM
Finding the articles about channel delays being down to bad weather very funny. Come on, man, out with it!
marinello59
02-04-2023, 05:03 AM
Finding the articles about channel delays being down to bad weather very funny. Come on, man, out with it!
Sky and the BBC both pointed at Brexit as the reason whilst saying the weather didn’t help. Seems fair enough.
JimBHibees
02-04-2023, 08:24 AM
Sky and the BBC both pointed at Brexit as the reason whilst saying the weather didn’t help. Seems fair enough.
Watched BBC bteakfast yesterday admittedly for a short time but never mentioned brexit in connection with the delays. Mentioned a few factors including problems with French border control. Seemed to actually show two families in their cars who were incredibly unbothered by the delays with oh it is ok we are on holidays anyway type comment which seemed a little unreflective of reality I assume :greengrin
archie
02-04-2023, 08:29 AM
Watched BBC bteakfast yesterday admittedly for a short time but never mentioned brexit in connection with the delays. Mentioned a few factors including problems with French border control. Seemed to actually show two families in their cars who were incredibly unbothered by the delays with oh it is ok we are on holidays anyway type comment which seemed a little unreflective of reality I assume :greengrin
Yeah - they're not mentioning any of these issues https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65151700
JimBHibees
02-04-2023, 08:49 AM
Yeah - they're not mentioning any of these issues https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65151700
Absolutely have deliberately deferred from mentioning it as a factor in the shambles we have in this country. I watched a small segment of the BBC news yesterday and no mention which has fitted with my perception of their coverage since brexit. The fact it is now run by Tories further supports that view. Their coverage is beyond parody
archie
02-04-2023, 09:19 AM
Absolutely have deliberately deferred from mentioning it as a factor in the shambles we have in this country. I watched a small segment of the BBC news yesterday and no mention which has fitted with my perception of their coverage since brexit. The fact it is now run by Tories further supports that view. Their coverage is beyond parody
This is interesting. Of course Brexit is the root cause. But there are also political choices made by governments. I have travelled a bit in Europe recently. Getting into France and Holland was a difficult process. Getting into Spain and Portugal was a breeze. Returning to the UK was also a breeze, for me and the person I was travelling with who has an EU passport. So as we go forward I would be asking the UK government to engage with EU nations on this. But I wouldn't absolve some EU nations for choices they have made as well.
hibsbollah
03-04-2023, 06:09 AM
This is interesting. Of course Brexit is the root cause. But there are also political choices made by governments. I have travelled a bit in Europe recently. Getting into France and Holland was a difficult process. Getting into Spain and Portugal was a breeze. Returning to the UK was also a breeze, for me and the person I was travelling with who has an EU passport. So as we go forward I would be asking the UK government to engage with EU nations on this. But I wouldn't absolve some EU nations for choices they have made as well.
The fact you had to wait variable times at different locales should lead you to conclude, not unreasonably, that there are multiple factors that can sometimes delay travel, for everyone. It should not lead to conclude that there is only one reason for the chaos getting into France at Dover, or the 30 minute standing shuffling wait I now have in Marseille airport compared to the walk through I used to have, and that happens now every time I do it. That’s all on Brexit.
This is interesting. Of course Brexit is the root cause. But there are also political choices made by governments. I have travelled a bit in Europe recently. Getting into France and Holland was a difficult process. Getting into Spain and Portugal was a breeze. Returning to the UK was also a breeze, for me and the person I was travelling with who has an EU passport. So as we go forward I would be asking the UK government to engage with EU nations on this. But I wouldn't absolve some EU nations for choices they have made as well.
What choices have the EU nations taken that would apportion blame to them?
The UK chose to have a hard border. What's happening here from an EU perspective is what happens at hard borders.
archie
03-04-2023, 07:27 AM
The fact you had to wait variable times at different locales should lead you to conclude, not unreasonably, that there are multiple factors that can sometimes delay travel, for everyone. It should not lead to conclude that there is only one reason for the chaos getting into France at Dover, or the 30 minute standing shuffling wait I now have in Marseille airport compared to the walk through I used to have, and that happens now every time I do it. That’s all on Brexit.
I'm not saying that Brexit isn't the cause. That would be silly. But surely you acknowledge the choices that individual European governments make will be a factor.
archie
03-04-2023, 07:30 AM
What choices have the EU nations taken that would apportion blame to them?
The UK chose to have a hard border. What's happening here from an EU perspective is what happens at hard borders.
Individual states determine how they manage their border https://www.portugal.com/news/portugal-becomes-first-eu-country-to-implement-fast-track-system-for-uk-citizens/
The UK allows EU passport holders to use e gates.
Individual states determine how they manage their border https://www.portugal.com/news/portugal-becomes-first-eu-country-to-implement-fast-track-system-for-uk-citizens/
The UK allows EU passport holders to use e gates.The UK allows that as we won't employ enough staff to have full passport checks.
We voted to have a hard border. 3rd nation passport holders are treated as such.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 07:35 AM
The UK allows that as we won't employ enough staff to have full passport checks.
We voted to have a hard border. 3rd nation passport holders are treated as such.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
And yet there is variation across Europe on how UK passport holders are treated.
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 08:15 AM
And yet there is variation across Europe on how UK passport holders are treated.
Can we put this down as a brexit bonus. 😂
archie
03-04-2023, 08:17 AM
What choices have the EU nations taken that would apportion blame to them?
The UK chose to have a hard border. What's happening here from an EU perspective is what happens at hard borders.
This is a case that has arisen because of Brexit, but surely you would agree that the Swedish government has choices here? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/03/swedish-police-moving-ahead-plan-deport-uk-woman-alzheimers
hibsbollah
03-04-2023, 08:25 AM
I'm not saying that Brexit isn't the cause. That would be silly. But surely you acknowledge the choices that individual European governments make will be a factor.
I think the word you used was ‘absolve’, as in I wouldn’t give Euro governments absolution from blame. That’s an interesting word. These countries would snort in derision at the idea that a non EU state like the UK has the entitlement to grant absolution to a member state who is trying to control THEIR own borders by whatever methods they chose, perhaps controlling the distribution of digital information, the spread of pests and diseases like xylella which is currently ravaging the olive crop in southern Europe, or even the monitoring of criminal activity.
It keeps going back to the fundamentals; leave the collective, lose the benefits that were implicit to that collective. I would imagine if, say,Holland were making it less onerous for Brits to get to Eindhoven than through Dover, for example, it would significantly increase the risk of diseases entering the very lucrative Dutch horticulture industry. Why on earth would they be negotiating with Britain to make life easier unless there was a quid pro quo ?
archie
03-04-2023, 08:27 AM
Can we put this down as a brexit bonus. 😂
Brexit was clearly wrong.
hibsbollah
03-04-2023, 08:32 AM
And yet there is variation across Europe on how UK passport holders are treated.
Are any of these variations resulting in an easier system than what was in place prior to what we enjoyed under Brexit?
I think you have to think of it as the same experience as someone from Gambia or Myanmar travelling through Europe. You are going to be subject to a variance of behaviour regimes at passport control (while under the same basic regime) as you pass through eu countries. And you are going to find it impossible to sell your Ghanaian products you’ve brought with you if you are a businessman. That’s the practicality, and the Ghanaian government aren’t going to be able to influence matters much. I do think it’s a bit silly the Labour Party claiming that these issues are only happening because the Tories are bad negotiators, and rapier like Keith and Rachel would sort it and Do Brexit Better. But if it gets votes, I suppose…
archie
03-04-2023, 08:33 AM
I think the word you used was ‘absolve’, as in I wouldn’t give Euro governments absolution from blame. That’s an interesting word. These countries would snort in derision at the idea that a non EU state like the UK has the entitlement to grant absolution to a member state who is trying to control THEIR own borders by whatever methods they chose, perhaps controlling the distribution of digital information, the spread of pests and diseases like xylella which is currently ravaging the olive crop in southern Europe, or even the monitoring of criminal activity.
It keeps going back to the fundamentals; leave the collective, lose the benefits that were implicit to that collective. I would imagine if, say,Holland were making it less onerous for Brits to get to Eindhoven than through Dover, for example, it would significantly increase the risk of diseases entering the very lucrative Dutch horticulture industry. Why on earth would they be negotiating with Britain to make life easier unless there was a quid pro quo ?
Of course there is a quid pro quo. Portugal and Spain have a heavy reliance on UK tourists and so want to reassure UK citizens. And it's entirely up to a country how it controls its borders. But the narrative about Brexit meaning that EU countries have to act in a certain way isn't right, as demonstrated by the variation in approach across EU countries.
I completely agree with you that if you leave the collective you can't expect the benefits of the collective.
archie
03-04-2023, 08:35 AM
Are any of these variations resulting in an easier system than what was in place prior to what we enjoyed under Brexit?
I think you have to think of it as the same experience as someone from Gambia or Myanmar travelling through Europe. You are going to be subject to a variance of behaviour regimes at passport control (while under the same basic regime) as you pass through eu countries. And you are going to find it impossible to sell your Ghanaian products you’ve brought with you if you are a businessman. That’s the practicality, and the Ghanaian government aren’t going to be able to influence matters.
I notice no difference in Spain and Portugal. France and Netherlands is different.
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 08:43 AM
Brexit was clearly wrong.
Not for the tory or labour parties it seems. Make Brexit work is the starmer 3 word slogan.
When something is wrong, you normally try and fix it, not double down on it.
This is a case that has arisen because of Brexit, but surely you would agree that the Swedish government has choices here? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/03/swedish-police-moving-ahead-plan-deport-uk-woman-alzheimers
As usual you're looking to deflect. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but you had better get your head round we are now no longer a member of the EU and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE for any of the benefits of being a member.
It was a tory choice to have a Brexit referendum, it was the tories alone that negotiated on behalf of the UK for the Brexit we have.
I suppose its a typically ignorant and arrogant British attitude that Johnny Foreigner should bow tow and disregard their own laws and customs when it inconveniences a Brit abroad.
Tell me. What is your opinion of the perceived problem of foreigners coming over here for medical holidays using the NHS?
And yet there is variation across Europe on how UK passport holders are treated.Which is none of our business.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 09:43 AM
As usual you're looking to deflect. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse but you had better get your head round we are now no longer a member of the EU and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE for any of the benefits of being a member.
It was a tory choice to have a Brexit referendum, it was the tories alone that negotiated on behalf of the UK for the Brexit we have.
I suppose its a typically ignorant and arrogant British attitude that Johnny Foreigner should bow tow and disregard their own laws and customs when it inconveniences a Brit abroad.
Tell me. What is your opinion of the perceived problem of foreigners coming over here for medical holidays using the NHS?
There's nothing deflecting about it. Brexit caused an issue. But the Swedish case is down to Sweden's decisions. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that. Had the role been reversed and it was the British Government doing it they would rightly be castigated here. I think trying to reduce the case of an old lady who has severe dementia to arrogant British people asking the Swedes to kow tow to avoid inconvenience is pretty heartless TBH.
I don't know enought about the medical holidays question you raise to comment on it.
archie
03-04-2023, 09:46 AM
Which is none of our business.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
So how I go through a pasport control is nothing to do with me? If Scotland voted for independence you would argue that any passport controls that rUK put on would implement would be nothing to do with me as well?
archie
03-04-2023, 09:50 AM
Not for the tory or labour parties it seems. Make Brexit work is the starmer 3 word slogan.
When something is wrong, you normally try and fix it, not double down on it.
Labour isn't in power BTW. Yet we had opportunities to mitigate the worse effects and didn't take them. TheSNP chose not to support motions in the UK Parliament that would have kept us in the customs union and single market. Why was that?
So how I go through a pasport control is nothing to do with me?
Yes. It's nothing to do with you how other countries choose to monitor their borders.
What business is it of yours?
If Scotland voted for independence you would argue that any passport controls that rUK put on would implement would be nothing to do with me as well?
Would I argue that? Thanks for making my mind up (again) archie.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 10:29 AM
Yes. It's nothing to do with you how other countries choose to monitor their borders.
What business is it of yours?
Would I argue that? Thanks for making my mind up (again) archie.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's the logical conclusion derived from your view on it being none of our business what countries do after we leave. To quote hibsbollah, who summed it up nicely: 'It keeps going back to the fundamentals; leave the collective, lose the benefits that were implicit to that collective.' I'd be interested to know how I am misunderstanding your point.
It's the logical conclusion derived from your view on it being none of our business what countries do after we leave. To quote hibsbollah, who summed it up nicely: 'It keeps going back to the fundamentals; leave the collective, lose the benefits that were implicit to that collective.' I'd be interested to know how I am misunderstanding your point.Not getting your drift here st all and finding any conversation with you littered with strange questions.
See u later archie. Try and have a linear conversation sometime, I don't have the time for the labyrinthine style you employ.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 10:47 AM
Not getting your drift here st all and finding any conversation with you littered with strange questions.
See u later archie. Try and have a linear conversation sometime, I don't have the time for the labyrinthine style you employ.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Sorry I thought it was clear. You argue because we left the EU it's none of our business how they manage their passport control. I think that's an odd take, but there you go. By your logic if Scotland left the UK it would be none of our business how rUK managed its passport control in relation to Scotland. I think that would be an odd take as well.
Sorry I thought it was clear. You argue because we left the EU it's none of our business how they manage their passport control. I think that's an odd take, but there you go. By your logic if Scotland left the UK it would be none of our business how rUK managed its passport control in relation to Scotland. I think that would be an odd take as well.
What is odd about it? We don't get a vote in these countries ( or in rUK if we were independent ).
While we were in the EU we had a reciprocal agreement democratically voted for among EU members which left many borders open. We voted to leave those arrangements behind.
Our borders are now our business. Their borders are now their business.
What have the rules surrounding other countries borders got to do with us?
Nothing is the answer.
If we wish to enter those countries we are obliged to stick to the rules they apply to their border.
How is that in any way odd?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
WeeRussell
03-04-2023, 11:32 AM
What is odd about it? We don't get a vote in these countries ( or in rUK if we were independent ).
While we were in the EU we had a reciprocal agreement democratically voted for among EU members which left many borders open. We voted to leave those arrangements behind.
Our borders are now our business. Their borders are now their business.
What have the rules surrounding other countries borders got to do with us?
Nothing is the answer.
If we wish to enter those countries we are obliged to stick to the rules they apply to their border.
How is that in any way odd?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Cakes and eating them springs to mind.
The team GB empire arrogance knows no bounds.
archie
03-04-2023, 11:57 AM
What is odd about it? We don't get a vote in these countries ( or in rUK if we were independent ).
While we were in the EU we had a reciprocal agreement democratically voted for among EU members which left many borders open. We voted to leave those arrangements behind.
Our borders are now our business. Their borders are now their business.
What have the rules surrounding other countries borders got to do with us?
Nothing is the answer.
If we wish to enter those countries we are obliged to stick to the rules they apply to their border.
How is that in any way odd?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Because borders are two way flows. You suggested my argument wasn't linear. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. Using your logic: if A = leaving a union or state then B = the leaving state as having no business in the border controls that the original union/state has. So in the case of the EU and UK A must lead to B. Equally, by your logic, in the case of independence leading to rUK and Scotland then A must lead to B. I think that is flawed because clearly border arrangements with rUK would be Scotland's business.
archie
03-04-2023, 11:58 AM
Cakes and eating them springs to mind.
The team GB empire arrogance knows no bounds.
Yeah, but I didn't want Brexit. I guess it's whether you want to be stuck looking backwards or try to move forward.
WeeRussell
03-04-2023, 12:01 PM
Yeah, but I didn't want Brexit. I guess it's whether you want to be stuck looking backwards or try to move forward.
I didn’t want the No vote for Scottish independence. Doesn’t mean I can assume the benefits of being independent while we’re still stuck in the union.
Because borders are two way flows. You suggested my argument wasn't linear. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. Using your logic: if A = leaving a union or state then B = the leaving state as having no business in the border controls that the original union/state has. So in the case of the EU and UK A must lead to B. Equally, by your logic, in the case of independence leading to rUK and Scotland then A must lead to B. I think that is flawed because clearly border arrangements with rUK would be Scotland's business.So we UK/Scotland or any EU country apply the rules that suits.
What's "odd"?
What say, do you reckon the UK should have in the way Germany applies their border rules?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 12:03 PM
Labour isn't in power BTW. Yet we had opportunities to mitigate the worse effects and didn't take them. TheSNP chose not to support motions in the UK Parliament that would have kept us in the customs union and single market. Why was that?
I know it was rather frenzied around the voting system at Westminster at the time, but are you really telling me you didn't know the SNP didn't want to stay in the customs Union and the single market?
The amendments to motions from both the British labour party and the ERG were a sight to behold at the time.
Theirs loads of info on the Scottish government position on the Scot Gov website.
Unambiguous position. No deflection needed.
There's nothing deflecting about it. Brexit caused an issue. But the Swedish case is down to Sweden's decisions. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that. Had the role been reversed and it was the British Government doing it they would rightly be castigated here. I think trying to reduce the case of an old lady who has severe dementia to arrogant British people asking the Swedes to kow tow to avoid inconvenience is pretty heartless TBH.
I don't know enought about the medical holidays question you raise to comment on it.
Do you not think its the family's fault for failing to take steps to ensure the old woman was settled legally in Sweden? It's not as if Brexit and its consequences sneaked up on us unannounced.
As for the UK. I recall EU citizens were threatened with deportation despite having applied for settled status because the government couldn't/wouldn't process their applications timeously. No appeals just apply again, under different rules, when you're back to your EU country.
archie
03-04-2023, 03:46 PM
So we UK/Scotland or any EU country apply the rules that suits.
What's "odd"?
What say, do you reckon the UK should have in the way Germany applies their border rules?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
There are notions of bilateral agreements as borders are two way flows.. And clearly some European countries do reach different arrangements. So European countries are making political choices. If Scotland was independent I think it would be my business what border controls rUK applied. You would just accept whatever. Maybe we just have to disagree on that.
archie
03-04-2023, 03:51 PM
Do you not think its the family's fault for failing to take steps to ensure the old woman was settled legally in Sweden? It's not as if Brexit and its consequences sneaked up on us unannounced.
As for the UK. I recall EU citizens were threatened with deportation despite having applied for settled status because the government couldn't/wouldn't process their applications timeously. No appeals just apply again, under different rules, when you're back to your EU country.
I don't blame the family. Her mental state is such that she can't apply for documents that would be required. I have no insight into how guardianship would work in Sweden. The upshot is that this old lady may well be deported. While the situation has its roots in Brexit, that is a choice the Swedish government is making. You seemed disapproving of the apparent approach of the UK government to EU citizens. If the case is as you describe it then I would agree. I also think the Swedish case is wrong. Don't you?
JeMeSouviens
03-04-2023, 03:54 PM
There are notions of bilateral agreements as borders are two way flows.. And clearly some European countries do reach different arrangements. So European countries are making political choices. If Scotland was independent I think it would be my business what border controls rUK applied. You would just accept whatever. Maybe we just have to disagree on that.
They're 2 way but the 2 ways are independent of one another. In the iScot->rUK direction you'd have an interest but ultimately no say, Shirley? I mean you could ask and negotiate but in the absence of a treaty to say otherwise, as per covid times, if a country imposes unilateral border controls, they're exactly that.
archie
03-04-2023, 04:04 PM
I know it was rather frenzied around the voting system at Westminster at the time, but are you really telling me you didn't know the SNP didn't want to stay in the customs Union and the single market?
The amendments to motions from both the British labour party and the ERG were a sight to behold at the time.
Theirs loads of info on the Scottish government position on the Scot Gov website.
Unambiguous position. No deflection needed.
Well it's very odd. SNP said they supported a soft Brexit then voted against it. So maybe a wee bit cynical?
grunt
03-04-2023, 04:05 PM
What does any of this have to do with BBC bias?
Ozyhibby
03-04-2023, 04:06 PM
Well it's very odd. SNP said they supported a soft Brexit then voted against it. So maybe a wee bit cynical?
SNP voted against Brexit as per the wishes of the Scottish people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 04:07 PM
SNP voted against Brexit as per the wishes of the Scottish people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But they said they wanted to stay in the single market and customs union and then voted against it.
Ozyhibby
03-04-2023, 04:12 PM
But they said they wanted to stay in the single market and customs union and then voted against it.
Was it still Brexit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are notions of bilateral agreements as borders are two way flows.. And clearly some European countries do reach different arrangements. So European countries are making political choices. If Scotland was independent I think it would be my business what border controls rUK applied. You would just accept whatever. Maybe we just have to disagree on that.....but you would have zero power as what a new UK would want or accept, that would be their business, as in none of yours. You cpuld complain, vent, tell people what you wish but if you weren't part of that country, none of your business.
Am I using the wrong phrase for you here archie? Your intransigence in understanding that what another country does with its borders is their business is strange bordering on the odd.
In a two way thing agreements can be made, but not demanded.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I don't blame the family. Her mental state is such that she can't apply for documents that would be required. I have no insight into how guardianship would work in Sweden. The upshot is that this old lady may well be deported. While the situation has its roots in Brexit, that is a choice the Swedish government is making. You seemed disapproving of the apparent approach of the UK government to EU citizens. If the case is as you describe it then I would agree. I also think the Swedish case is wrong. Don't you?
Nah, I still think it's her families responsibility to make sure the old dear was legal. As I said they had plenty time to get it done. They are the ones who were negligent.
Harsh, but the Swedish are applying their laws for people from 3rd countries. Why should Sweden bend its laws in the face of UK government intransigence on so many (all) Brexit issues?
Ozyhibby
03-04-2023, 04:20 PM
Nah, I still think it's her families responsibility to make sure the old dear was legal. As I said they had plenty time to get it done. They are the ones who were negligent.
Harsh, but the Swedish are applying their laws for people from 3rd countries. Why should Sweden bend its laws in the face of UK government intransigence on so many (all) Brexit issues?
Yeh, but we need to blame foreigners. It’s how the UK works these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 04:57 PM
Nah, I still think it's her families responsibility to make sure the old dear was legal. As I said they had plenty time to get it done. They are the ones who were negligent.
Harsh, but the Swedish are applying their laws for people from 3rd countries. Why should Sweden bend its laws in the face of UK government intransigence on so many (all) Brexit issues?
So you are fine with it. OK then.
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 05:05 PM
Well it's very odd. SNP said they supported a soft Brexit then voted against it. So maybe a wee bit cynical?
You might want to answer the question.
So you are fine with it. OK then.Aren't you inventing someone' standpoint here?
Why do you constantly do this, you complain when you think someone is rude or harsh but you don't half come across as a troll sometimes.
Nowhere does he say he's fine with it. Being resigned to the law doesn't mean he's fine.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 05:11 PM
Aren't you inventing someone' standpoint here?
Why do you constantly do this, you complain when you think someone is rude or harsh but you don't half come across as a troll sometimes.
Nowhere does he say he's fine with it. Being resigned to the law doesn't mean he's fine.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's (in my view) a reasonable assessment of Jack's position. He blames the family and has no criticism of the Swedish government.
archie
03-04-2023, 05:12 PM
You might want to answer the question.
What question?
JeMeSouviens
03-04-2023, 05:15 PM
But they said they wanted to stay in the single market and customs union and then voted against it.
God, not this again. They were indicative votes to try and gauge support in the commons for a way forward. The SNP voted against a CU-only-with-no-SM because they wanted CU-with-SM (or Norway 2.0 as it was referred to at the time). They did vote for that.
Even if they had voted in favour of CU only:
- adding govt ministers, who abstained on the indicative votes would have been enough to vote it down anyway
- but even if they hadn't ... it would have required May's govt to take that forward. She said she absolutely wouldn't.
I know it's a nice Lab soundbite, but please stop it.
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 05:15 PM
What question?
This from the post I responded to.
I know it was rather frenzied around the voting system at Westminster at the time, but are you really telling me you didn't know the SNP didn't want to stay in the customs Union and the single market?
It's (in my view) a reasonable assessment of Jack's position. He blames the family and has no criticism of the Swedish government.Did you ask him?
I'm finding you every bit more unreasonable every day, archie.
You do know trolling is banned yes?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 05:25 PM
This from the post I responded to.
I know it was rather frenzied around the voting system at Westminster at the time, but are you really telling me you didn't know the SNP didn't want to stay in the customs Union and the single market?
I took my cue from the Scottish Government paper 'Scotland's place in Europe ' https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-place-europe/#:~:text=Published%2020%20December%202016&text=Scotland's%20Place%20in%20Europe%20sets,resul t%20of%20the%20EU%20Referendum.
This was a key statement from FM 'Firstly, we argue that the UK as a whole should remain within the European Single
Market – through the European Economic Area – and within the EU Customs Union.'
So I don't think my view is wrong at all.
archie
03-04-2023, 05:28 PM
God, not this again. They were indicative votes to try and gauge support in the commons for a way forward. The SNP voted against a CU-only-with-no-SM because they wanted CU-with-SM (or Norway 2.0 as it was referred to at the time). They did vote for that.
Even if they had voted in favour of CU only:
- adding govt ministers, who abstained on the indicative votes would have been enough to vote it down anyway
- but even if they hadn't ... it would have required May's govt to take that forward. She said she absolutely wouldn't.
I know it's a nice Lab soundbite, but please stop it.
You absolutely don't know what would have happened. It was a very febrile time. The SNP position appeared to shift.
Aren't you inventing someone' standpoint here?
Why do you constantly do this, you complain when you think someone is rude or harsh but you don't half come across as a troll sometimes.
Nowhere does he say he's fine with it. Being resigned to the law doesn't mean he's fine.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
We lost James310, we need someone to take his place and ask all these questions without giving answers.
ronaldo7
03-04-2023, 05:29 PM
I took my cue from the Scottish Government paper 'Scotland's place in Europe ' https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-place-europe/#:~:text=Published%2020%20December%202016&text=Scotland's%20Place%20in%20Europe%20sets,resul t%20of%20the%20EU%20Referendum.
This was a key statement from FM 'Firstly, we argue that the UK as a whole should remain within the European Single
Market – through the European Economic Area – and within the EU Customs Union.'
So I don't think my view is wrong at all.
Nice of you to selectively quote from the paper to suit your narrative. It's not like you. 😂
How about this bit.
Secondly, we consider how Scotland could remain a member of the European Single Market and retain some key benefits of EU membership even if the rest of the UK decides to leave.
I'll bow out of this now as it's got naff all to do with Bbc bias
We lost James310, we need someone to take his place and ask all these questions without giving answers.James was blunt. Oblique, opaque trite queationing pesh is so 00's.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
James was blunt. Oblique, opaque trite queationing pesh is so 00's.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Both are trolling as far as I'm concerned.
Both are trolling as far as I'm concerned.Agreed.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 05:41 PM
Did you ask him?
I'm finding you every bit more unreasonable every day, archie.
You do know trolling is banned yes?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I did as it happens. You can see the exchanges. I don't think it's unreasonable to challenge things I think are wrong. If that's difficult for you then don't engage.
I couldn't agree less with you about my views being trolling. I'm sure the admins would have a view on that.
I make my points, I don't swear and I evidence as much as possible. I challenge but I don't deride people. TBH that's not always afforded to me. There's daft stuff like today, with claims I'm 'a staunch tory'. I had some sectarian stuff a few weeks back that I pushed back on.
But to summarise. I don't think I'm trolling at all. If you want to invoke the admins feel free.
archie
03-04-2023, 05:44 PM
Nice of you to selectively quote from the paper to suit your narrative. It's not like you. 😂
How about this bit.
Secondly, we consider how Scotland could remain a member of the European Single Market and retain some key benefits of EU membership even if the rest of the UK decides to leave.
I'll bow out of this now as it's got naff all to do with Bbc bias
It's the relevant quote. I also posted the link to the full document. So hardly being selective.
archie
03-04-2023, 05:45 PM
We lost James310, we need someone to take his place and ask all these questions without giving answers.
Try asking some questions then
I did as it happens. You can see the exchanges. I don't think it's unreasonable to challenge things I think are wrong. If that's difficult for you then don't engage.
I couldn't agree less with you about my views being trolling. I'm sure the admins would have a view on that.
I make my points, I don't swear and I evidence as much as possible. I challenge but I don't deride people. TBH that's not always afforded to me. There's daft stuff like today, with claims I'm 'a staunch tory'. I had some sectarian stuff a few weeks back that I pushed back on.
But to summarise. I don't think I'm trolling at all. If you want to invoke the admins feel free.You do put words in other mouths though archie. You do seem to carry on the most obvious points with an obliquely weird pov.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Mibbes Aye
03-04-2023, 06:12 PM
We lost James310, we need someone to take his place and ask all these questions without giving answers.
James was blunt. Oblique, opaque trite queationing pesh is so 00's.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Both are trolling as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Which one’s Francie and which of you is Josie? Or are you Waldorf and Statler?
You better watch you mind all yer auld man’s claithes the pair of ye. Yill be the talk of the steamie :rolleyes: :greengrin
JeMeSouviens
03-04-2023, 06:15 PM
You absolutely don't know what would have happened. It was a very febrile time. The SNP position appeared to shift.
No, it didn't. Febrile doesn't give you the right to just make stuff up.
Anyway, I didn't say what would have happened. I reported (accurately) what people voted for, how those votes stacked up and what the PM said. All that is on the record.
As opposed to your assertion they voted against staying in the SM & CU, which isn't.
archie
03-04-2023, 06:20 PM
You do put words in other mouths though archie. You do seem to carry on the most obvious points with an obliquely weird pov.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I don't make up things. I draw conclusions from what people say. I don't accept your characterisation of my point of view being weird.. It might seem strange to you when the prevailing groupthink on here is challenged.
archie
03-04-2023, 06:21 PM
No, it didn't. Febrile doesn't give you the right to just make stuff up.
Anyway, I didn't say what would have happened. I reported (accurately) what people voted for, how those votes stacked up and what the PM said. All that is on the record.
As opposed to your assertion they voted against staying in the SM & CU, which isn't.
I didn't make anything up. Did they abstain or didn't they?
I don't make up things. I draw conclusions from what people say. I don't accept your characterisation of my point of view being weird.. It might seem strange to you when the prevailing groupthink on here is challenged.More insults. Bye.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
archie
03-04-2023, 06:27 PM
I don't make up things. I draw conclusions from what people say. I don't accept your characterisation of my point of view being weird.. It might seem strange to you when the prevailing groupthink on here is challenged.
A perspective from Iain MacWhirter https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20216150.iain-macwhirter-snp-partly-blame-brexit-bourach/
archie
03-04-2023, 06:28 PM
More insults. Bye.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
OK - but you called me a troll with a weird pov!
archie
03-04-2023, 06:45 PM
More insults. Bye.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
No one is under any obligation to engage with anyone on this board.
hibsbollah
03-04-2023, 06:46 PM
No one is under any obligation to engage with anyone on this board.
This sounds very much like you’re conferring an absolution.
archie
03-04-2023, 07:04 PM
This sounds very much like you’re conferring an absolution.
Could be you're over thinking it! No doctrine of infallibility here.
WeeRussell
03-04-2023, 07:17 PM
No one is under any obligation to engage with anyone on this board.
I predict nobody will be under the obligation to see any of your posts by May. Just a prediction.
archie
03-04-2023, 07:19 PM
I predict nobody will be under the obligation to see any of your posts by May. Just a prediction.
Yo ho ho.
hibsbollah
03-04-2023, 07:19 PM
It’s been at least two pages since BBC bias was mentioned. A nice digression is fine from time to time but I think we’ve exhausted this wee vennel.
archie
03-04-2023, 07:21 PM
It’s been at least two pages since BBC bias was mentioned. A nice digression is fine from time to time but I think we’ve exhausted this wee vennel.
It wandered from that to Brexit. Fair point. But sometimes there's just a roll.
Glory Lurker
03-04-2023, 07:54 PM
The BBC is shan.
JeMeSouviens
03-04-2023, 09:39 PM
I didn't make anything up. Did they abstain or didn't they?
You said they voted against SM & CU. Now you’ve rowed back to abstained. Presumably you can now go one step further back to acknowledge that was only on CU-only and they did in fact vote in favour of SM&CU (Norway 2.0).
In your own time …
archie
03-04-2023, 09:48 PM
You said they voted against SM & CU. Now you’ve rowed back to abstained. Presumably you can now go one step further back to acknowledge that was only on CU-only and they did in fact vote in favour of SM&CU (Norway 2.0).
In your own time …
To clarify. They abstained which meant the vote was lost. The vote was on the CU. There is debate as to whether the single market was implicit. So over to you, did they abstain on the CU vote and did that mean the vote was lost?
So you are fine with it. OK then.
I'm OK with countries making their own laws and applying them.
You either go there and accept them or you don't go.
JeMeSouviens
04-04-2023, 07:25 AM
To clarify. They abstained which meant the vote was lost. The vote was on the CU. There is debate as to whether the single market was implicit. So over to you, did they abstain on the CU vote and did that mean the vote was lost?
They abstained on the indicative vote for a CU only. There was zero debate as to whether the single market was implicit. Please direct me to a single source that says otherwise.
Now, how did they vote on the indicative vote for “Norway 2.0”, the option consisting of CU and SM?
archie
04-04-2023, 08:05 AM
They abstained on the indicative vote for a CU only. There was zero debate as to whether the single market was implicit. Please direct me to a single source that says otherwise.
Now, how did they vote on the indicative vote for “Norway 2.0”, the option consisting of CU and SM?
This is a good summary of voting. I note it says that the Norway 2.0 was a 'temporary customs union' https://theferret.scot/ffs-explains-scottish-mps-and-the-brexit-votes/
JeMeSouviens
04-04-2023, 08:54 AM
This is a good summary of voting. I note it says that the Norway 2.0 was a 'temporary customs union' https://theferret.scot/ffs-explains-scottish-mps-and-the-brexit-votes/
So no source and no answer?
archie
04-04-2023, 09:55 AM
So no source and no answer?
I'll fess up. I can't find the source of the implicit quote. I suspect the quote was because the Ken Clarke motion had Custom Union 'as a minimum'. You can see from Hansard that Clarke made clear that voting for the CU vote did not impact on the Norway 2.0 vote because it would have been subsumed had the 2.0 vote gone ahead. The SNP objection to Clarke's motion appears to be that it didn't have freedom of movement. I get that. But the fact is the SNP could have voted for Clarke's motion and still had a go at Norway 2.0. They chose not to. Whether that was tactics or principle I just don't know. But had they voted for Clarke's motion, as a minimum we would have been in a customs union. Whether that was worth it I'll leave others to decide.
Currently we are in nothing.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-04-01/debates/196307A6-6E12-45F9-A50D-B8FD8018C9A1/EUWithdrawalAndFutureRelationship(Motions)
Ozyhibby
04-04-2023, 10:08 AM
I'll fess up. I can't find the source of the implicit quote. I suspect the quote was because the Ken Clarke motion had Custom Union 'as a minimum'. You can see from Hansard that Clarke made clear that voting for the CU vote did not impact on the Norway 2.0 vote because it would have been subsumed had the 2.0 vote gone ahead. The SNP objection to Clarke's motion appears to be that it didn't have freedom of movement. I get that. But the fact is the SNP could have voted for Clarke's motion and still had a go at Norway 2.0. They chose not to. Whether that was tactics or principle I just don't know. But had they voted for Clarke's motion, as a minimum we would have been in a customs union. Whether that was worth it I'll leave others to decide.
Currently we are in nothing.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-04-01/debates/196307A6-6E12-45F9-A50D-B8FD8018C9A1/EUWithdrawalAndFutureRelationship(Motions)
We wouldn’t have been. Had Clarke’s motion won, the govt would have collapsed before they proceeded with it. Same with all the other amendments. We would have went to the polls and the Tories would win. And we’d be where we are now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
grunt
04-04-2023, 10:09 AM
But the fact is the SNP could have voted for Clarke's motion and still had a go at Norway 2.0. They chose not to. Whether that was tactics or principle I just don't know.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-01/debates/A95D849C-AB26-4DCF-9A35-CF7A02DAE11F/EUWithdrawalAndFutureRelationship(Votes)#
Thank you, Mr Speaker.I acknowledge that I am disappointed that we have not won tonight in respect of revoking article 50, having a people’s vote or having a single market and customs union, but the reality is that two of the votes were won by a very small number. We need to try to see where we can find consensus and work together.
Fundamentally for those of us who represent seats in Scotland, we voted to remain in the European Union. Tonight, a vast majority of Scottish MPs voted to revoke article 50. A vast majority of Scottish MPs voted for a people’s vote. A vast majority of Scottish MPs voted to stay in the single market and customs union. It is crystal clear to us from Scotland that our votes in this House are disrespected, and it is becoming increasingly clear to the people of Scotland that, if we want to secure our future as a European nation, we are going to have to take our own responsibilities. The case is this: sovereignty rests with the people of Scotland, not with this House. The day is coming when we will determine our own future, and it will be as an independent country.
archie
04-04-2023, 10:13 AM
We wouldn’t have been. Had Clarke’s motion won, the govt would have collapsed before they proceeded with it. Same with all the other amendments. We would have went to the polls and the Tories would win. And we’d be where we are now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't know that.
archie
04-04-2023, 10:14 AM
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-04-01/debates/A95D849C-AB26-4DCF-9A35-CF7A02DAE11F/EUWithdrawalAndFutureRelationship(Votes)#
So are you suggesting they didn't support it because they wanted leverage for a referendum?
Ozyhibby
04-04-2023, 10:33 AM
You don't know that.
I do know that because that’s what happened. When the govt couldn’t get what they wanted through, the collapsed themselves and went to the polls. And won a landslide.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JeMeSouviens
04-04-2023, 10:39 AM
I'll fess up. I can't find the source of the implicit quote. I suspect the quote was because the Ken Clarke motion had Custom Union 'as a minimum'. You can see from Hansard that Clarke made clear that voting for the CU vote did not impact on the Norway 2.0 vote because it would have been subsumed had the 2.0 vote gone ahead. The SNP objection to Clarke's motion appears to be that it didn't have freedom of movement. I get that. But the fact is the SNP could have voted for Clarke's motion and still had a go at Norway 2.0. They chose not to. Whether that was tactics or principle I just don't know. But had they voted for Clarke's motion, as a minimum we would have been in a customs union. Whether that was worth it I'll leave others to decide.
Currently we are in nothing.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-04-01/debates/196307A6-6E12-45F9-A50D-B8FD8018C9A1/EUWithdrawalAndFutureRelationship(Motions)
To quote yourself, "you don't know that". They were only indicative votes, nothing binding, no legislation created etc. Had that vote passed there were still a hell of a lot of steps to get to UK membership of a CU. Not least having a govt prepared to negotiate such a deal with the EU.
JeMeSouviens
04-04-2023, 10:43 AM
I do know that because that’s what happened. When the govt couldn’t get what they wanted through, the collapsed themselves and went to the polls. And won a landslide.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All the unprincicpled SNP's fault, apparently, because <checks notes> they voted for what they said they were going to vote for. :rolleyes:
archie
04-04-2023, 11:08 AM
To quote yourself, "you don't know that". They were only indicative votes, nothing binding, no legislation created etc. Had that vote passed there were still a hell of a lot of steps to get to UK membership of a CU. Not least having a govt prepared to negotiate such a deal with the EU.
I don't. And you are right. There would have been a hell of a lot of steps to get there. But losing the vote shut that down.
archie
04-04-2023, 11:12 AM
All the unprincicpled SNP's fault, apparently, because <checks notes> they voted for what they said they were going to vote for. :rolleyes:
I guess there's a discussion about what former FM meant by this:
Firstly, we argue that the UK as a whole should remain within the European Single Market - through the European Economic Area - and within the EU Customs Union.
Secondly, we consider how Scotland could remain a member of the European Single Market and retain some key benefits of EU membership even if the rest of the UK decides to leave.
Did it mean the single market and customs union? Could one of these have been a result for Scotland? And as Clarke made clear, voting for the customs union motion didn't invalidate a vote for Norway 2.0. But we'll never know.
I guess there's a discussion about what former FM meant by this:
Firstly, we argue that the UK as a whole should remain within the European Single Market - through the European Economic Area - and within the EU Customs Union.
Secondly, we consider how Scotland could remain a member of the European Single Market and retain some key benefits of EU membership even if the rest of the UK decides to leave.
Did it mean the single market and customs union? Could one of these have been a result for Scotland? And as Clarke made clear, voting for the customs union motion didn't invalidate a vote for Norway 2.0. But we'll never know.
It won't be much of a discussion. The tories wouldn't discuss anything Brexit with anyone outside their own party.
archie
04-04-2023, 12:40 PM
It won't be much of a discussion. The tories wouldn't discuss anything Brexit with anyone outside their own party.
Which is why the votes were so important.
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1652078858319929346?t=O4nudSQ-Ke5C8Lz_RDgITQ&s=19
BBC host practices free speech.
A paper that advocates free speech says BBC host must be silenced.
Free speech for who?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Just Alf
29-04-2023, 03:08 PM
Which is why the votes were so important.And the vote was a fairly narrow win for Brexit... so as folks are trying to say, it would have been better to have a cross party forum working on the brexit agreement.
That way it would likely have been a softer exit which would more reflect the wider electoral decision rather than a hard Brexit very few voted for.
TrumpIsAPeado
29-04-2023, 03:39 PM
And the vote was a fairly narrow win for Brexit... so as folks are trying to say, it would have been better to have a cross party forum working on the brexit agreement.
That way it would likely have been a softer exit which would more reflect the wider electoral decision rather than a hard Brexit very few voted for.
With the tories all in on a hard brexit, Starmer claiming that he'll "make it work" and the Liberal Democrats vanishing into another realm, it's as if a hard brexit was on the agenda all along.
Just Alf
29-04-2023, 03:45 PM
With the tories all in on a hard brexit, Starmer claiming that he'll "make it work" and the Liberal Democrats vanishing into another realm, it's as if a hard brexit was on the agenda all along.Yup, makes a mockery of everything that was said in the campaign about easy deals and we'd be financially better off etc etc.
With the info we already have on Russian interference via Facebook and twitter campaigning it's a shame the Tories blocked the release of the report on Russian interference in uk politics... wonder what they have to hide?
TrumpIsAPeado
29-04-2023, 04:07 PM
Yup, makes a mockery of everything that was said in the campaign about easy deals and we'd be financially better off etc etc.
With the info we already have on Russian interference via Facebook and twitter campaigning it's a shame the Tories blocked the release of the report on Russian interference in uk politics... wonder what they have to hide?
A whole lot of AI algorithms over social media. Generating posts, responses to posts and reactions to posts. All designed to influence public opinion. They won't release the reports, because they're just as guilty of doing it in other countries as well.
And the vote was a fairly narrow win for Brexit... so as folks are trying to say, it would have been better to have a cross party forum working on the brexit agreement.
That way it would likely have been a softer exit which would more reflect the wider electoral decision rather than a hard Brexit very few voted for.
I agree but I can't remember that being on the cards at any time. The protagonists, even now, seem to be intent on breaking away from any law which has the letters 'e' or 'u' in them. They are the flank of Tories who the thatch kept in a tiny corner of parliamentary party as even she knew they were loony, racist cranks.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
ronaldo7
30-04-2023, 11:19 AM
Anyone see the Labour revolt in Rutherglen on the news this morning?
I'd have thought with the transparency issues leading the news bulletins, this would be covered.
archie
30-04-2023, 11:21 AM
Anyone see the Labour revolt in Rutherglen on the news this morning?
I'd have thought with the transparency issues leading the news bulletins, this would be covered.
It does seem to be a big feature in parties https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/03/19/why-the-snp-mps-and-msps-are-silent-2/
ronaldo7
30-04-2023, 11:47 AM
It does seem to be a big feature in parties https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/03/19/why-the-snp-mps-and-msps-are-silent-2/
Surely you could have posted this on the SNP thread?
I've asked about the Rutherglen cover up.
Just Alf
30-04-2023, 03:10 PM
Surely you could have posted this on the SNP thread?
I've asked about the Rutherglen cover up.Not.clicked it.but the link will take you to the bbc surely? Which would be fair comment on their bias.
If it not then it's another case.of what aboutery and thread derailment. (Can't be though as it's always SNP supporters that do the what aboutery thing apparently)
ronaldo7
30-04-2023, 03:31 PM
Not.clicked it.but the link will take you to the bbc surely? Which would be fair comment on their bias.
If it not then it's another case.of what aboutery and thread derailment. (Can't be though as it's always SNP supporters that do the what aboutery thing apparently)
I think it's some Alba guy with links to Salvo and Scottish liberation.
That's some leap, even for Labour supporting posters. 😂
archie
30-04-2023, 05:33 PM
Surely you could have posted this on the SNP thread?
I've asked about the Rutherglen cover up.
It's pretty material wouldn't you say? Or is your interest only when it appears to be a Labour issue?
archie
30-04-2023, 05:34 PM
Not.clicked it.but the link will take you to the bbc surely? Which would be fair comment on their bias.
If it not then it's another case.of what aboutery and thread derailment. (Can't be though as it's always SNP supporters that do the what aboutery thing apparently)
It's not whataboutery- it's about hypocrisy. That's not the same thing.
archie
30-04-2023, 05:35 PM
I think it's some Alba guy with links to Salvo and Scottish liberation.
That's some leap, even for Labour supporting posters. 😂
Is he wrong? He was an SNP activist.
ronaldo7
30-04-2023, 05:58 PM
It's pretty material wouldn't you say? Or is your interest only when it appears to be a Labour issue?
I specifically asked if anyone had seen the Rutherglen revolt on the news. You can see that in my post. You've somehow shoehorned a story from an Alba, salvo bloke about something completely different.
The reason I asked is, I wondered if the BBC would cover it with Fiona stalker in the studio interviewing her wife, Leah, a Labour candidate in the area.
Maybe not though.
That's us back on track with the thread subject.
archie
30-04-2023, 06:07 PM
I specifically asked if anyone had seen the Rutherglen revolt on the news. You can see that in my post. You've somehow shoehorned a story from an Alba, salvo bloke about something completely different.
The reason I asked is, I wondered if the BBC would cover it with Fiona stalker in the studio interviewing her wife, Leah, a Labour candidate in the area.
Maybe not though.
OK. Your outrage only applies when it is Labour. Did the BBC cover this https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/mep-alyn-smith-confirmed-snp-20396357
ronaldo7
30-04-2023, 06:12 PM
OK. Your outrage only applies when it is Labour. Did the BBC cover this https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/mep-alyn-smith-confirmed-snp-20396357
You're coming across as rather angry now. Accusing me of things which are untrue.
Best we leave this here as I can't open your link on my phone.
Bye 👋
archie
30-04-2023, 06:13 PM
You're coming across as rather angry now. Accusing me of things which are untrue.
Best we leave this here as I can't open your link on my phone.
Bye 👋Not angry at all. Just puzzled why your outrage appears to limited to allegations about the Labour Party.
ronaldo7
01-05-2023, 08:39 AM
Not angry at all. Just puzzled why your outrage appears to limited to allegations about the Labour Party.
I've explained why I asked the question I did. If you've not got an answer to that then fine, but please don't opine that I only have time for the Labour cover ups, I've commented plenty on the Tories.
I know you might have difficulty discerning between the two but that's not my problem.
Now...I wonder if bbc Scotland have covered the Rutherglen cover up.
Think of the transparency.
archie
01-05-2023, 09:54 AM
I've explained why I asked the question I did. If you've not got an answer to that then fine, but please don't opine that I only have time for the Labour cover ups, I've commented plenty on the Tories.
I know you might have difficulty discerning between the two but that's not my problem.
Now...I wonder if bbc Scotland have covered the Rutherglen cover up.
Think of the transparency.
Indeed - comments on Labour and Tories. BTW https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65436301.amp
ronaldo7
01-05-2023, 12:21 PM
Indeed - comments on Labour and Tories. BTW https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65436301.amp
I asked about news bulletins, but it's a start.
archie
01-05-2023, 12:37 PM
I asked about news bulletins, but it's a start.
So the BBC did cover it.
ronaldo7
01-05-2023, 12:44 PM
So the BBC did cover it.
Did they? Never saw it on my tv, but if you say so. 🙈
archie
01-05-2023, 12:48 PM
Did they? Never saw it on my tv, but if you say so. ��
OK. The complaint was the BBC wouldn't cover it. It's on their web site. Now it's they didn't cover it in a Ronaldo7 approved way!
ronaldo7
01-05-2023, 12:54 PM
OK. The complaint was the BBC wouldn't cover it. It's on their web site. Now it's they didn't cover it in a Ronaldo7 approved way!
This was my question. "Anyone see the Labour revolt in Rutherglen on the news this morning?"
No complaint was made. You're making stuff up.
archie
01-05-2023, 12:59 PM
This was my question. "Anyone see the Labour revolt in Rutherglen on the news this morning?"
No complaint was made. You're making stuff up.
No. You set up a straw man that transparency would require that the BBC would cover it on a specific bulletin. Given you posted in the BBC bias thread it's quite clear to were pushing the suggestion that not covering as you suggested was due to bias. I was simply pointing out that the BBC covered it on the Scottish news web site.
ronaldo7
01-05-2023, 05:39 PM
No. You set up a straw man that transparency would require that the BBC would cover it on a specific bulletin. Given you posted in the BBC bias thread it's quite clear to were pushing the suggestion that not covering as you suggested was due to bias. I was simply pointing out that the BBC covered it on the Scottish news web site.
I suppose I better as a few words to my 😂
I asked a simple question, which you couldn't/ didn't answer but tried to deviate from the thread content.
Labour in Rutherglen are at war, the BBC bias is in clear view to those who are prepared to take off the glasses and put the brush away.
Transparency works both ways.
Mibbes Aye
01-05-2023, 06:26 PM
I suppose I better as a few words to my 😂
I asked a simple question, which you couldn't/ didn't answer but tried to deviate from the thread content.
Labour in Rutherglen are at war, the BBC bias is in clear view to those who are prepared to take off the glasses and put the brush away.
Transparency works both ways.
People in Ukraine are at war. Rutherglen and Hamilton West is a spat involving some local members, the CLP office holders and the SEC.
Bristolhibby
01-05-2023, 11:33 PM
People in Ukraine are at war. Rutherglen and Hamilton West is a spat involving some local members, the CLP office holders and the SEC.
That’s a figure of speech.
“LABOUR PARTY CIVIL WAR”.
We all know they aren’t actually at war.
J
grunt
15-05-2023, 11:24 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65588142
Another SNPbad ferry story. The headline fails to mention the sailing was cancelled due to fog.
marinello59
15-05-2023, 12:17 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65588142
Another SNPbad ferry story. The headline fails to mention the sailing was cancelled due to fog.
It’s mentioned in the very first line of the story. The shambolic service we are providing to our islanders at the moment should be highlighted at every opportunity though. It’s simply unacceptable and still nobody is to blame.
Ozyhibby
15-05-2023, 12:27 PM
It’s mentioned in the very first line of the story. The shambolic service we are providing to our islanders at the moment should be highlighted at every opportunity though. It’s simply unacceptable and still nobody is to blame.
Nobody is to blame?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
grunt
15-05-2023, 01:29 PM
The headline fails to mention the sailing was cancelled due to fog.
It’s mentioned in the very first line of the story.So I was right?
The shambolic service we are providing to our islanders at the moment should be highlighted at every opportunity though. It’s simply unacceptable and still nobody is to blame.Bizarre comment. Who should be blamed for the fog, do you think?
marinello59
15-05-2023, 04:30 PM
So I was right?
Bizarre comment. Who should be blamed for the fog, do you think?
Maybe I should have been clearer. I meant the standards of service over a long period now. This is not an SNP bad story. It’s about our islanders receiving a sub standard service which is disrupting their lives.
Mibbes Aye
15-05-2023, 05:29 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65588142
Another SNPbad ferry story. The headline fails to mention the sailing was cancelled due to fog.
I don’t think it says anything “SNPbad” as you put it. If you meant SG, then all it says is that they are spending money to try and patch up services - it doesn’t mention anything about appalling contract management or dodgy procurement on the part of ministers. “SNPintheclear” would be my reading.
Although perhaps there is a very subtle dig, because the SNP let Lorna Slater loose with a ministerial portfolio :greengrin
I hadn’t seen the story about her trip to Rum, so thanks for that. If it’s good enough for Rishi to use public money to travel privately, then its good enough for Lorna obviously, let alone the additional carbon footprint!
cabbageandribs1875
13-06-2023, 10:31 PM
well i for one am shocked
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347293350_1597043200803904_5016008883101850719_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oLOoii2LEG8AX9jPG-d&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDcnCXI9fqWXqzgnTJw_564lsYeBh8XZOGM_BFvf8ne Uw&oe=648D5E31
Ozyhibby
13-06-2023, 10:38 PM
well i for one am shocked
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347293350_1597043200803904_5016008883101850719_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oLOoii2LEG8AX9jPG-d&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDcnCXI9fqWXqzgnTJw_564lsYeBh8XZOGM_BFvf8ne Uw&oe=648D5E31
Doesn’t surprise at all. It’s lucky less and less people bother with traditional news outlets these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
marinello59
13-06-2023, 10:42 PM
well i for one am shocked
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347293350_1597043200803904_5016008883101850719_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oLOoii2LEG8AX9jPG-d&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDcnCXI9fqWXqzgnTJw_564lsYeBh8XZOGM_BFvf8ne Uw&oe=648D5E31
Political parties are not subject to freedom of information laws. Given that this unidentified source has got that wrong has the lack of FOI requests to the Westminster Government been fact checked?
greenginger
13-06-2023, 10:49 PM
U
well i for one am shocked
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347293350_1597043200803904_5016008883101850719_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oLOoii2LEG8AX9jPG-d&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDcnCXI9fqWXqzgnTJw_564lsYeBh8XZOGM_BFvf8ne Uw&oe=648D5E31
Not it surprised with the number of FOI request to the Scottish Government.
They’re a match for Hanoi when it comes to secrecy :greengrin
Mibbes Aye
13-06-2023, 11:42 PM
well i for one am shocked
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347293350_1597043200803904_5016008883101850719_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oLOoii2LEG8AX9jPG-d&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDcnCXI9fqWXqzgnTJw_564lsYeBh8XZOGM_BFvf8ne Uw&oe=648D5E31
Doesn’t surprise at all. It’s lucky less and less people bother with traditional news outlets these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So is this what fake, fake news looks like?
And has it become fake, fake, fake news because you have shared and commented on it, as if it was genuine?
We are through the looking glass now folks :faf:
JimBHibees
14-06-2023, 05:47 AM
Wouldn't surprise about the BBC clearly working to the Ukestablishment agenda. No scrutiny of Uk government or Brexit bad or ppe corruption. Every last negative about Scot gov SNP and there are no doubt justifiable stories dragged out to the nth degree.
The West of Scotland uni research re their coverage in 2014 was spot on.
Hibrandenburg
14-06-2023, 06:20 AM
Wouldn't surprise about the BBC clearly working to the Ukestablishment agenda. No scrutiny of Uk government or Brexit bad or ppe corruption. Every last negative about Scot gov SNP and there are no doubt justifiable stories dragged out to the nth degree.
The West of Scotland uni research re their coverage in 2014 was spot on.
Anyone who thinks that the BBC are completely impartial is kidding themselves.
marinello59
14-06-2023, 06:57 AM
Anyone who thinks that the BBC are completely impartial is kidding themselves.
I don’t think anybody thinks they are completely impartial. SNP supporters as demonstrated here certainly don’t. The Tories hate the BBC because of its left wing bias and Labour don’t think they get a fair crack of the whip either. They’re pleasing nobody by the looks of it. :greengrin
TrumpIsAPeado
14-06-2023, 08:38 AM
I don’t think anybody thinks they are completely impartial. SNP supporters as demonstrated here certainly don’t. The Tories hate the BBC because of its left wing bias and Labour don’t think they get a fair crack of the whip either. They’re pleasing nobody by the looks of it. :greengrin
Well if the BBC really do have some left wing bias, then Labour would feel that way under Keir Starmer.
Ozyhibby
15-06-2023, 04:14 PM
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/newsdesk-chiefs-set-to-be-axed-as-46-journalists-at-risk-of-redundancy/
Not the BBC but media in general. How long can the Scotsman and Evening news survive?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lapsedhibee
15-06-2023, 10:31 PM
Shoutout to Victoria Derbyshire on Newsnight tonight for refusing to swallow any of Brendan Clarke Smith's BS. Refreshing.
grunt
16-06-2023, 08:52 AM
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/newsdesk-chiefs-set-to-be-axed-as-46-journalists-at-risk-of-redundancy/
Not the BBC but media in general. How long can the Scotsman and Evening news survive?
EEN one of the papers listed in that article as expecting to lose news desk editor(s).
Let's face it, if the EEN disappeared, would be in any way worse off?
grunt
16-06-2023, 08:53 AM
BBC QT
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyspSd4WYAYMMMy?format=jpg&name=small
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 09:09 AM
EEN one of the papers listed in that article as expecting to lose news desk editor(s).
Let's face it, if the EEN disappeared, would be in any way worse off?
Haven’t bought the Scotsman in years. Level of journalism is dreadful. I won’t miss it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
grunt
16-06-2023, 10:48 AM
Shoutout to Victoria Derbyshire on Newsnight tonight for refusing to swallow any of Brendan Clarke Smith's BS. Refreshing.
Worth watching this (edited) summary. Happy to say well done to BBC Newsnight. Somewhat late, but welcome nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/mikoh123/status/1669478216111620097?s=20
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 11:54 AM
Worth watching this (edited) summary. Happy to say well done to BBC Newsnight. Somewhat late, but welcome nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/mikoh123/status/1669478216111620097?s=20
It’s a sad state of affairs when it’s so rare that a BBC journalist does their job properly that everyone is sharing it on social media the day after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keith_M
16-06-2023, 12:06 PM
EEN one of the papers listed in that article as expecting to lose news desk editor(s).
Let's face it, if the EEN disappeared, would be in any way worse off?
It's one of the few places I can read online articles about Hibs/Hearts/(FC-)Edinburgh(-City). etc.
Mibbes Aye
16-06-2023, 12:15 PM
It’s a sad state of affairs when it’s so rare that a BBC journalist does their job properly that everyone is sharing it on social media the day after.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought the much-maligned Fiona Bruce was good trying to pin down the very sinister David TC Davies and the rather smug and generally loathesome Guto Hari on QT last night.
Best momenst were (Lord) Blunkett rolling back the years and excoriating the Tories. Lots of support from the audience in a region that is fullof two-way marginals.
He's here!
16-06-2023, 12:17 PM
EEN one of the papers listed in that article as expecting to lose news desk editor(s).
Let's face it, if the EEN disappeared, would be in any way worse off?
If you saw what passes for the Scotsman/Evening News office these days you'd be amazed they still manage to produce a paper at all. They've gone from the halcyon days of their landmark multi-storey offices on North Bridge, with presses rolling and roaring in the basement, to a supposedly state-of-the art HQ at Holyrood which quickly proved to big for them as the advent of the internet saw jobs culled on an increasingly rapid basis. They then ended up renting some space at Orchard Brae House and now I believe they have a small premises in George Street manned by a handful of staff. Circulation must be negligible, although while I've never especially warmed to the Scotsman I think the EN still provides a fairly decent local news service for those who still buy it. In saying that, their online version is nothing more than clickbait 'see these amazing pictures of 1980s Edinburgh' stuff.
I used to love newspapers but when even an 'older' reader like myself hasn't bought one in years you know they have an increasingly limited shelf life.
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 12:22 PM
If you saw what passes for the Scotsman/Evening News office these days you'd be amazed they still manage to produce a paper at all. They've gone from the halcyon days of their landmark multi-storey offices on North Bridge, with presses rolling and roaring in the basement, to a supposedly state-of-the art HQ at Holyrood which quickly proved to big for them as the advent of the internet saw jobs culled on an increasingly rapid basis. They then ended up renting some space at Orchard Brae House and now I believe they have a small premises in George Street manned by a handful of staff. Circulation must be negligible, although while I've never especially warmed to the Scotsman I think the EN still provides a fairly decent local news service for those who still buy it. In saying that, their online version is nothing more than clickbait 'see these amazing pictures of 1980s Edinburgh' stuff.
I used to love newspapers but when even an 'older' reader like myself hasn't bought one in years you know they have an increasingly limited shelf life.
Can’t even bring myself to click on the links anymore. It must be soul destroying for the journos still there when the editor asks for ‘10 pubs in Edinburgh that are no longer there’ with a photo and 50 words about each. [emoji23]
It must be like working in the newspaper in the Ricky Gervais comedy After Life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hibrandenburg
16-06-2023, 12:28 PM
I thought the much-maligned Fiona Bruce was good trying to pin down the very sinister David TC Davies and the rather smug and generally loathesome Guto Hari on QT last night.
Best momenst were (Lord) Blunkett rolling back the years and excoriating the Tories. Lots of support from the audience in a region that is fullof two-way marginals.
Blunkett was good last night, really showed the gulf in class between yesteryear's politicians and the lightweight charlatans than are at present sat in government.
archie
16-06-2023, 01:12 PM
Can’t even bring myself to click on the links anymore. It must be soul destroying for the journos still there when the editor asks for ‘10 pubs in Edinburgh that are no longer there’ with a photo and 50 words about each. [emoji23]
It must be like working in the newspaper in the Ricky Gervais comedy After Life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you buy or subscribe to any newspapers?
Stick
16-06-2023, 01:48 PM
Do you buy or subscribe to any newspapers?
I would love to find a newspaper that gives (reasonably) unbiased reports. Over the years have tried numerous, but can’t find any that I can trust. Now tend to rotate on line for a flavour of what’s being said, but do even that, less and less. Still buy the local weekly, simply because it is local, but even that’s quite poor.
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 01:57 PM
Do you buy or subscribe to any newspapers?
The National.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 02:02 PM
I would love to find a newspaper that gives (reasonably) unbiased reports. Over the years have tried numerous, but can’t find any that I can trust. Now tend to rotate on line for a flavour of what’s being said, but do even that, less and less. Still buy the local weekly, simply because it is local, but even that’s quite poor.
I read mostly free stuff online now. I switch around a lot and very little is not biased in some respect or other. I enjoy Sky news on TV but avoid the BBC. For newspapers, the guardian because it’s free. Sometimes the Herald. BBC online stuff, again because it’s free.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Berwickhibby
16-06-2023, 02:05 PM
The National.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:faf: :faf: only good for arsewipe
TrumpIsAPeado
16-06-2023, 02:09 PM
:faf: :faf: only good for arsewipe
Presumably this is your flavour?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FysicNzX0AAYgNg.jpg
WeeRussell
16-06-2023, 03:23 PM
Blunkett was good last night, really showed the gulf in class between yesteryear's politicians and the lightweight charlatans than are at present sat in government.
I liked and sort of defended Fiona Bruce for a fair while, and was a regular watcher of QT, but kind of had enough of both now I think.
Her attempt to turn around Stephen Flynn’s “chickens coming home to roost” bit just came across really odd and desperate and to me let her mask slip a little. Almost like something you’d read from someone on one of the anti-SNP threads on here.
Mibbes Aye
16-06-2023, 03:48 PM
The National.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He said newspapers.
Ozyhibby
16-06-2023, 03:54 PM
He said newspapers.
Not really wanting to defend the National as I was joking but let’s face it, they are all comics these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mibbes Aye
16-06-2023, 04:06 PM
Not really wanting to defend the National as I was joking but let’s face it, they are all comics these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They certainly are. The Telegraph has really shifted in the last few years from being Tory but heavyweight, to a cross between the Daily MAil and GB News.
The Guardian is readable on its day but you literally have to wash the sanctimony out of your eyes afterwards.
I tend to treat it as a salad buffet now. If you like red onion have some red onion. Take a bit of lettuce, some cucumber and some tomatoes. Then some days you might want some coleslaw with it, or think to yourself "I've not had radish" in a while.
At the end of it all, you have something resembling a balance. I agree with you on Sky News, I switched to them primarily a few years back, a much better product.
grunt
02-07-2023, 08:26 AM
What rubbish is this from Kuenssberg? Who in their right mind "hates" the NHS?
This woman should be so far away from our national broadcaster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66068224
Ozyhibby
02-07-2023, 09:38 AM
What rubbish is this from Kuenssberg? Who in their right mind "hates" the NHS?
This woman should be so far away from our national broadcaster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66068224
To be fair, if you are waiting for care that you need then it might change your view. Right now, the NHS is struggling and the govt won’t fund its recovery from the pandemic. That’s all four countries experiencing that. It’s especially important with cancer care as it is so time sensitive. So many people are being forced to go private which is what the uk govt wants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
grunt
02-07-2023, 10:09 AM
To be fair, if you are waiting for care that you need then it might change your view. Right now, the NHS is struggling and the govt won’t fund its recovery from the pandemic. That’s all four countries experiencing that. It’s especially important with cancer care as it is so time sensitive. So many people are being forced to go private which is what the uk govt wants.
I'd suggest that's not hating the NHS. It's hating what the ******* Tories have done to it. Different thing entirely.
marinello59
02-07-2023, 10:36 AM
What rubbish is this from Kuenssberg? Who in their right mind "hates" the NHS?
This woman should be so far away from our national broadcaster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66068224[/QUOTE
She doesn’t really say that, it’s a bit more nuanced. She says a love-hate relationship which if you or your family members aren't getting the treatment they need because the service is struggling is fair enough.
She says this.[QUOTE] And yet we still love it. A whopping 90% of the public agrees the service should be free and available to everyone.
The rest of the article highlights some basic truths. Real change is needed but that would need brave leadership and we don’t have that at Westminster or Holyrood.
neil7908
05-07-2023, 02:28 PM
What rubbish is this from Kuenssberg? Who in their right mind "hates" the NHS?
This woman should be so far away from our national broadcaster.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66068224
This. Hate is a ridiculous word to describe people's feelings towards the NHS. Frustration maybe, but I've literally never heard anyone use that word.
We are getting the inevitable push for privatisation. Blair has also been out calling for this as well. When the supposed impartial BBC and a former Labour leader are pushing this agenda, what hope do we have left?
Mibbes Aye
05-07-2023, 05:22 PM
This. Hate is a ridiculous word to describe people's feelings towards the NHS. Frustration maybe, but I've literally never heard anyone use that word.
We are getting the inevitable push for privatisation. Blair has also been out calling for this as well. When the supposed impartial BBC and a former Labour leader are pushing this agenda, what hope do we have left?
It seems that this line is being pushed by the media. I suspect most people haven't actually read the document they are citing - have you?
The Tony Blair Institute published a paper the other day, which is essentially a refresh of a paper from June 2022, both with "Fit for the Future" in their title.
The paper states unambiguously that free healthcare at the point of need, funded from general taxation is at the centre of what we need to be doing.
The papers main focus is on tapping the potential of tech and AI. For example, creating a personal account using an app that contains all your medical history and is controlled by you. Anyone with any experience of working across health care or even using health care knows fine well that a person's health records are held on a whole bunch of different systems, some still on paper! The different IT systems don't speak to each other, especially the gaps between primary care and secondary care.
The paper also calls for more localism, breaking up the centralised structure into 42 regions - that's roughly the same as the number of territorial police forces in England.
It does talk about the use of private healthcare but that reads as much about bringing those providers under a public umbrella as anything else. And let's not forget that every government and every health minister, Tory, SNP and Lbour has signed off on using private providers to try and meet targets. It is hardwired into service delivery and has been for a long time. That's notwithstanding that the GPs only came on board at the creation of the NHS if they got to keep their private status and have 'gatekeeping' powers around hospital admissions.
The NHS is dealing with a mssive increase in demand through our ageing population, whilst carrying 110,000 vacancies and little or no capital expenditure. It really is on a precipice. There are some good arguments to address this, in the paper.
But the media coverage and the commentariat don't want to dwell on the detail, that's too difficult. Far easier to shout accusations of privatisation around.
Ozyhibby
05-07-2023, 05:44 PM
It seems that this line is being pushed by the media. I suspect most people haven't actually read the document they are citing - have you?
The Tony Blair Institute published a paper the other day, which is essentially a refresh of a paper from June 2022, both with "Fit for the Futre" in their title.
The paper states unambiguously that free healthcare at the point of need, funded from general taxation is at the centre of what we need to be doing.
The papers main focus is on tapping the potential of tech and AI. For example, creating a personal account using an app that contains all your medical history and is controlled by you. Anyone with any experience of working across health care or even using health care knows fine well that a person's health records are held on a whole bunch of different systems, some still on paper! The different IT systems don't speak to each other, especially the gaps between primary care and secondary care.
The paper also calls for more localism, breaking up the centralised structure into 42 regions - that's roughly the same as the number of territorial police forces in England.
It does talk about the use of private healthcare but that reads as much about bringing those providers under a public umbrella as anything else. And let's not forget that every government and every health minister, Tory, SNP and Lbour has signed off on using private providers to try and meet targets. It is hardwired into service delivery and has been for a long time. That's notwithstanding that the GPs only came on board at the creation of the NHS if they got to keep their private status and have 'gatekeeping' powers around hospital admissions.
The NHS is dealing with a mssive increase in demand through our ageing population, whilst carrying 110,000 vacancies and little or no capital expenditure. It really is on a precipice. There are some good arguments to address this, in the paper.
But the media coverage and the commentariat don't want to dwell on the detail, that's too difficult. Far easier to shout accusations of privatisation around.
You forgot to add that it’s all the SNP’s fault.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mibbes Aye
05-07-2023, 05:47 PM
You forgot to add that it’s all the SNP’s fault.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are talking about stuff way above the comprehension levels of Humza and Shona here. They get a pass this time.
Ozyhibby
05-07-2023, 05:49 PM
We are talking about stuff way above the comprehension levels of Humza and Shona here. They get a pass this time.
I’m sure the massive intellect of Wes Streeting has it in hand.[emoji849][emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mibbes Aye
05-07-2023, 05:53 PM
I’m sure the massive intellect of Wes Streeting has it in hand.[emoji849][emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like totally :agree:
(Bear in mind, it's a good paper but it's not official party policy - yet)
Moulin Yarns
05-07-2023, 06:09 PM
"Fit for the Futre"
😂😂😂😂😂
Well done Tony Blair or Maybes Aye 🤔😉
Smartie
05-07-2023, 06:10 PM
It seems that this line is being pushed by the media. I suspect most people haven't actually read the document they are citing - have you?
The Tony Blair Institute published a paper the other day, which is essentially a refresh of a paper from June 2022, both with "Fit for the Futre" in their title.
The paper states unambiguously that free healthcare at the point of need, funded from general taxation is at the centre of what we need to be doing.
The papers main focus is on tapping the potential of tech and AI. For example, creating a personal account using an app that contains all your medical history and is controlled by you. Anyone with any experience of working across health care or even using health care knows fine well that a person's health records are held on a whole bunch of different systems, some still on paper! The different IT systems don't speak to each other, especially the gaps between primary care and secondary care.
The paper also calls for more localism, breaking up the centralised structure into 42 regions - that's roughly the same as the number of territorial police forces in England.
It does talk about the use of private healthcare but that reads as much about bringing those providers under a public umbrella as anything else. And let's not forget that every government and every health minister, Tory, SNP and Lbour has signed off on using private providers to try and meet targets. It is hardwired into service delivery and has been for a long time. That's notwithstanding that the GPs only came on board at the creation of the NHS if they got to keep their private status and have 'gatekeeping' powers around hospital admissions.
The NHS is dealing with a mssive increase in demand through our ageing population, whilst carrying 110,000 vacancies and little or no capital expenditure. It really is on a precipice. There are some good arguments to address this, in the paper.
But the media coverage and the commentariat don't want to dwell on the detail, that's too difficult. Far easier to shout accusations of privatisation around.
I'm a bit lukewarm about this. In my opinion what we need to be doing more than anything is to create a more equal society, skewering the vile levels of inequality we tolerate in the 2023 United Kingdom. Quite how we do that is another story...
The great problem with "private healthcare" is that it can leave the poorest behind and no society should want that. In a situation where "everyone can afford it" there are actually systems of healthcare that can in many ways be better than universal, state funded healthcare.
It doesn't help that we struggle to have an adult conversation as a nation about this without it becoming a petty and pointless argument.
I can't help but think we'll only ever truly tackle this in absolute adversity - the aftermath of a war, the worst "financial correction" any of us have ever known, a natural disaster or similar. The subject has become so toxic that it will just continue with a paper here and a paper there, a succession of stealth cuts and a worsening service that people feel they should be grateful for and the reality being that - as it is right now, if we're being perfectly honest - good healthcare will only exist for those who are willing and able to pay for it.
Mibbes Aye
05-07-2023, 06:48 PM
I'm a bit lukewarm about this. In my opinion what we need to be doing more than anything is to create a more equal society, skewering the vile levels of inequality we tolerate in the 2023 United Kingdom. Quite how we do that is another story...
The great problem with "private healthcare" is that it can leave the poorest behind and no society should want that. In a situation where "everyone can afford it" there are actually systems of healthcare that can in many ways be better than universal, state funded healthcare.
It doesn't help that we struggle to have an adult conversation as a nation about this without it becoming a petty and pointless argument.
I can't help but think we'll only ever truly tackle this in absolute adversity - the aftermath of a war, the worst "financial correction" any of us have ever known, a natural disaster or similar. The subject has become so toxic that it will just continue with a paper here and a paper there, a succession of stealth cuts and a worsening service that people feel they should be grateful for and the reality being that - as it is right now, if we're being perfectly honest - good healthcare will only exist for those who are willing and able to pay for it.
Absolutely. Dare talk about 'reform', let alone 'working across public, private and the third sector' and you may as well put on a t-shirt saying "I'm a neo-Lib thatcheirite Reaganiste who hates the poor", with a big luminous target on the back.
The conversation is too abstract to my mind. If people thought of government and health care as their household and their food shop - you need both to survive - then you know that you need a certain amount of food to feed a certain number of people, within a certain budget.
I think everyone can relate to the increases in food prices, while wages have lagged far behind. Inflation means you get less of what you could have done before. Now imagine an extra mouth to feed. And maybe a hit on your finances - your work reducing your hours and therefore your pay, or having to reduce your hours to care for an elderly parent or whatever.
In that sense the NHS is like a household - if your supply, your money, can't meet the demands then you have to think of different ways of addressing the problem.
I agree about it taking genuine full-on adversity to shift the debate - Covid could have sparked that, and the undercurrents of it are still permeating through social care in particular, but it needs broken down into the problem it is by people who aren't standing for election and aren't beholden to any sectional interest.
Mibbes Aye
05-07-2023, 06:55 PM
I'm a bit lukewarm about this. In my opinion what we need to be doing more than anything is to create a more equal society, skewering the vile levels of inequality we tolerate in the 2023 United Kingdom. Quite how we do that is another story...
The great problem with "private healthcare" is that it can leave the poorest behind and no society should want that. In a situation where "everyone can afford it" there are actually systems of healthcare that can in many ways be better than universal, state funded healthcare.
It doesn't help that we struggle to have an adult conversation as a nation about this without it becoming a petty and pointless argument.
I can't help but think we'll only ever truly tackle this in absolute adversity - the aftermath of a war, the worst "financial correction" any of us have ever known, a natural disaster or similar. The subject has become so toxic that it will just continue with a paper here and a paper there, a succession of stealth cuts and a worsening service that people feel they should be grateful for and the reality being that - as it is right now, if we're being perfectly honest - good healthcare will only exist for those who are willing and able to pay for it.
I'm curious about this one because I instinctively react to what appear as grotesque differences in our social fabric.
But it raises a question about what equality means to different people and whether it is equality or the elimination of relative priority that is important.
So - would people be happy that person A earned squillions, paying all appropriate taxes, as long as person Z's income was at a defined level that felt it offered security.
Or - would people rather we closed the differential, through taxation I assume, whereby you don't have a situation in a comany, say, where person A earns 1000 times as much as person Z. That equalising exists a little bit already, but not widespread I believe.
Maybe both are doable together, I've only just started thinking about it. Maybe there's another option too.....
Glory Lurker
05-07-2023, 08:31 PM
The BBC are biased.
marinello59
05-07-2023, 09:14 PM
The BBC are biased.
Definitely. The SNP, Tories and Labour all think they are biased against them. :greengrin
NORTHERNHIBBY
06-07-2023, 12:54 AM
The BBC are biased.
The BBC are anti-establishment. It all depends on what your interpretation of "establishment " is.
lapsedhibee
06-07-2023, 05:44 AM
The BBC are anti-establishment.
This could make sense in a world where the royal family is an anti-establishment organisation.
Since90+2
06-07-2023, 05:50 AM
This could make sense in a world where the royal family is an anti-establishment organisation.
👍
Hibrandenburg
06-07-2023, 06:00 AM
Definitely. The SNP, Tories and Labour all think they are biased against them. :greengrin
They are definitely biased in the case of the Union. It's perfectly conceivable that they can show favour or bias for or against individual Labour or Tory policies/actions, but they will and have never criticised their stand on the Union. Preservation of the Union is Preservation of the BBC.
cabbageandribs1875
08-07-2023, 06:22 AM
wonder who it is Sky News on Twitter: "Household name BBC presenter 'paid teenager for sexually explicit photos' https://t.co/1gaiEdXAyX" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1677549096200986625)
cabbageandribs1875
08-07-2023, 08:34 PM
we see you BBC in Scotland...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0cJkAqWIAUlTuP?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0cJkA4WAAAprlz?format=jpg&name=large
Ozyhibby
10-07-2023, 10:45 AM
Number of BBC license holders in Scotland below 2 million for first time in decades. Lost 300k since 2014. I guess the Scottish public are voting with their feet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ozyhibby
12-07-2023, 01:35 PM
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1679049823238881282?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
Turn out only talking to half the population can have a negative effect on viewing figures. Shame.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
cabbageandribs1875
12-07-2023, 03:11 PM
did anyone notice if the BBC reported this ? Mmm Boris Johnson fails to hand over mobile with Covid WhatsApps before inquiry deadline | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-whatsapps-b2372638.html)
grunt
12-07-2023, 04:54 PM
did anyone notice if the BBC reported this ? Mmm Boris Johnson fails to hand over mobile with Covid WhatsApps before inquiry deadline | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-whatsapps-b2372638.html)
Course they did.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66165003
grunt
12-07-2023, 07:05 PM
did anyone notice if the BBC reported this ? Mmm Boris Johnson fails to hand over mobile with Covid WhatsApps before inquiry deadline | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-whatsapps-b2372638.html)
Deadline for producing evidence Monday 4pm.
Story reported by BBC Wednesday 7pm.
Why the two day delay in reporting?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66165001
The wording of the BBC article has just been brought to my attention ...
WhatsApp messages sent to and by Boris Johnson before May 2021 have still not been handed over to the Covid inquiry, because they are stuck on his phone.
lapsedhibee
12-07-2023, 07:21 PM
WhatsApp messages sent to and by Boris Johnson before May 2021 have still not been handed over to the Covid inquiry, because they are stuck on his phone.
Kuenssbergesque.
Ozyhibby
13-07-2023, 07:11 AM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230713/7536d7e9a8b1b9424c817ef56ac10f04.jpg
Three corrections having to be made in a month, all for misleading claims made against the SNP. It won’t be missed when it’s gone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
archie
13-07-2023, 07:39 AM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230713/7536d7e9a8b1b9424c817ef56ac10f04.jpg
Three corrections having to be made in a month, all for misleading claims made against the SNP. It won’t be missed when it’s gone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Speak for yourself.
grunt
13-07-2023, 08:18 AM
Speak for yourself.
I'm guessing you mean that you will miss BBC Scotland News.
How can you possibly defend them for this? It's clearly not an error, it's a blatant lie. It's a complete inversion of the truth.
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.
archie
13-07-2023, 09:01 AM
I'm guessing you mean that you will miss BBC Scotland News.
How can you possibly defend them for this? It's clearly not an error, it's a blatant lie. It's a complete inversion of the truth.
No. I think the principle of having a public service broadcaster without advertising is more vital than ever. Do I think they are faultless? Of course not. Do I think the BBC is beyond criticism? Of course not. Do I think throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of perceived mistakes or perceived bias is a mistake? I certainly do. This whole MSM thing is really Trumpish. It's driven by a need to delegitimise criticism of a particular political position. The only source of truth can be the party. 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?
I guess you line up with the Murdoch's and other media conglomerates desperate to destroy the BBC. They fear the impacts on their influence and the impact on their profits. Is that really the side you want to be on?
Ozyhibby
13-07-2023, 09:08 AM
No. I think the principle of having a public service broadcaster without advertising is more vital than ever. Do I think they are faultless? Of course not. Do I think the BBC is beyond criticism? Of course not. Do I think throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of perceived mistakes or perceived bias is a mistake? I certainly do. This whole MSM thing is really Trumpish. It's driven by a need to delegitimise criticism of a particular political position. The only source of truth can be the party. 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?
I guess you line up with the Murdoch's and other media conglomerates desperate to destroy the BBC. They fear the impacts on their influence and the impact on their profits. Is that really the side you want to be on?
It’s not a question of taking sides. If the BBC is going to campaign actively against my political beliefs then I’m not going to bother to defend it.
If it was impartial I would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
archie
13-07-2023, 09:14 AM
It’s not a question of taking sides. If the BBC is going to campaign actively against my political beliefs then I’m not going to bother to defend it.
If it was impartial I would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I suspect you have a hair trigger for any criticism of the party and the cause. Proponents of both sides of the constitutional debate claim that the BBC is biased against them. Critiquing the Scottish Government is not, in itself, an indication of bias.
He's here!
13-07-2023, 09:21 AM
It’s not a question of taking sides. If the BBC is going to campaign actively against my political beliefs then I’m not going to bother to defend it.
If it was impartial I would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Ozyhibby
13-07-2023, 09:31 AM
But I suspect you have a hair trigger for any criticism of the party and the cause. Proponents of both sides of the constitutional debate claim that the BBC is biased against them. Critiquing the Scottish Government is not, in itself, an indication of bias.
Yes, I’m always hearing complaints about the BBC’s pro Indy bias. [emoji849] The mistakes and corrections only go one way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
archie
13-07-2023, 09:39 AM
Yes, I’m always hearing complaints about the BBC’s pro Indy bias. [emoji849] The mistakes and corrections only go one way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Ozyhibby
13-07-2023, 09:40 AM
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
Nothing about Indy in there?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.