Westminster Politics

Fluctuation0161 said:
Even when confronted with lies and spin you try to find a way to make it fit your pre conceived narrative with excuses? Rather than confront the untruths.

Interesting and concerning.
Click to expand...
He gets his news from the The Beano, I wouldn’t hold it against him.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Even when confronted with lies and spin you try to find a way to make it fit your pre conceived narrative with excuses? Rather than confront the untruths.

Interesting and concerning.
Click to expand...
Hummm I think my views on the Immigration process for the UK are fairly well known (I think they are shambolic) having had signifignat difficulties with my wife despite her being 100% eligible but the home office being incompetent

My point... backed up by others is that he's playing politics and spinning a statistic that suits his narrative

Out of interest how many days of your life have you lost in home office interviews?.... how many tens of thousands have you had to spend on lawyers because of incompetent civil servants... how many weeks of you life have you lost having to fill in forms and deliver them in person ?

I mean you seem to have a strong opinion on immigration... what experience of it do you have

I mean I'm also tarred as an immigrunt as is my kid because he's got "slanty eyes" and all that ... but we are talking politics here and big picture my experience (though I hazard far more personal than yours on uk immigration) is not particularly relevant

In this example saj is playing a poor hand poorly but his message will ring true with the 38% of the electorate they need to hold and in that respect he's doing what is to be expected... he's spinning a statistic and he's just about getting away with it.
 
sun_tzu said:
Hummm I think my views on the Immigration process for the UK are fairly well known (I think they are shambolic) having had signifignat difficulties with my wife despite her being 100% eligible but the home office being incompetent

My point... backed up by others is that he's playing politics and spinning a statistic that suits his narrative

Out of interest how many days of your life have you lost in home office interviews?.... how many tens of thousands have you had to spend on lawyers because of incompetent civil servants... how many weeks of you life have you lost having to fill in forms and deliver them in person ?

I mean you seem to have a strong opinion on immigration... what experience of it do you have

I mean I'm also tarred as an immigrunt as is my kid because he's got "slanty eyes" and all that ... but we are talking politics here and big picture my experience (though I hazard far more personal than yours on uk immigration) is not particularly relevant

In this example saj is playing a poor hand poorly but his message will ring true with the 38% of the electorate they need to hold and in that respect he's doing what is to be expected... he's spinning a statistic and he's just about getting away with it.
Click to expand...
It's your reflex response I was commenting on more than the specifics of your view on this topic, immigration.

Always quick to defend the government, even when they are lying, by regurgitating lines from right wing media outlets without questioning. On many topics, not only immigration.
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...


I can't see them going too much further with restrictions it'll just be reaffirming mask wearing i think.

They'd rather risk lives than the political fall out of more restrictions.

We went to Bluewater at the weekend for a Santa visit and I'd say maybe 5% of people were wearing a mask, despite people knowing it'll soon be law. It was so busy too.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
@Brwned

Reporting like this is why I think the moaning about the BBC being biased is so overblown. Not exactly Fox News, is it? Even includes a damning contribution from Laura Kuessenberg.

Click to expand...


You’re being disingenuous again! Even the critics don’t think the BBC is comparable to Fox News, they respect the BBC as a news organisation while having issues with the general slant of their political reporting. And even when Fox News as an organisation had disappeared up Trump’s arse, you could find segments most weeks from folks like Chris Wallace that ridiculed the conspiracy theories and immorality. It wouldn’t be fair to pick out one of those segments to demonstrate how the Fox News lunacy was overblown.

The standard the BBC is held up against is the standard you stated yourself: they’re at the top tier of news organisations in terms of neutrality, balance, fair reporting. They have that standard because their funding sources demand representative coverage, and because over the decades it built up that reputation with good work.

When people are criticising the BBC against that standard they’re not saying it’s becoming the new Fox News. They’re just saying it’s not sticking to its charter, and given the BBC has real influence, that’s a legitimate concern for them.

For what it’s worth I think the BBC is mostly great, but Laura’s relationship with the PM has a corrosive effect on a good chunk of her reporting, and the political reporting clearly leans conservative (but then so does the country). They succeed at many things that other news organisations fail at, and the areas in which they fall down are fairly normal; the main one being they tend to support the people in power. Given that centre of power has been in the same place for most the last century, I think it’s reasonable that those not of that political persuasion feel aggrieved by that tendency / leaning.
 
What the feck does we do not investigate retrospectively mean?
All investigations are by definition retrospective. The Met is corrupt as feck.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
@Brwned

Reporting like this is why I think the moaning about the BBC being biased is so overblown. Not exactly Fox News, is it? Even includes a damning contribution from Laura Kuessenberg.

Click to expand...

This xmas party story is the "dead cat being thrown on the table" to distract.

Gives less coverage to the story by Monbiot earlier in the thread and also the dodgy contacts given out.
 
Pexbo said:
Click to expand...


How can it be up to the Met to decide this type of thing.
Answer. They are even more corrupt than our government.
If it was you or me, don't worry, they would definitely go after us.
No wonder so many people hold both the government and the police with contempt.
 
Adisa said:
What the feck does we do not investigate retrospectively mean?
All investigations are by definition retrospective. The Met is corrupt as feck.
Click to expand...

do we think The Met might have some pre-cogs in their basement?
 
"We do not investigate retrospectively", is another way of saying "No" to the question (that seemingly has not been asked officially) "are you going to investigate this...." rumour, claim, request, question?
Especially as all who are possibly concerned are likely to have, alibi's and/or become 'lawyer-ed up', or suddenly become struck dumb or suffer with temporary amnesia, or offer the standard 'no comment' in response to any questions.
 
Maticmaker said:
"We do not investigate retrospectively", is another way of saying "No" to the question (that seemingly has not been asked officially) "are you going to investigate this...." rumour, claim, request, question?
Especially as all who are possibly concerned are likely to have, alibi's and/or become 'lawyer-ed up', or suddenly become struck dumb or suffer with temporary amnesia, or offer the standard 'no comment' in response to any questions.
Click to expand...
Cressida Dick was asked on LBC the other morning whether they would investigate and she refused to answer. Not that it matters, even if they did investigate, any fine would just be paid out the public purse anyway. Wankers.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
This xmas party story is the "dead cat being thrown on the table" to distract.

Gives less coverage to the story by Monbiot earlier in the thread and also the dodgy contacts given out.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Other much more serious corruption stories have been aired but the simple truth is that voters generally don't understand the complexities and brush them off much more easily. The Xmas party story is incredibly simple and relatable and so has gained mass traction. Sad but true. Should be a lesson for the opposition.
 
Maticmaker said:
"We do not investigate retrospectively", is another way of saying "No" to the question (that seemingly has not been asked officially) "are you going to investigate this...." rumour, claim, request, question?
Especially as all who are possibly concerned are likely to have, alibi's and/or become 'lawyer-ed up', or suddenly become struck dumb or suffer with temporary amnesia, or offer the standard 'no comment' in response to any questions.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you investigate in any way other than retrospectively, anyway? The only other way is to investigate things before they've even happened which would mean you'd be making things u- oh, wait. Now I understand.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
How exactly do you investigate in any way other than retrospectively, anyway? The only other way is to investigate things before they've even happened which would mean you'd be making things u- oh, wait. Now I understand.
Click to expand...
I believe their approach is that if there is a breach of covid regulations ongoing (I.e. if somebody had reported the party at the time) they would have sent resource to investigate

They don't resource historic events of covid breaches with police time

That said I'm.pretty sure there are always officers close to the pm with records kept of who is at events with him and why so it really shouldn't take any investigation beyond looking at their own existing records?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.