In the interests of balance, I promised to post a link to an analysis of GBNews from a source that isn't particularly friendly towards liberal or 'metropolitan' media.
In the interests of balance, I promised to post a link to an analysis of GBNews from a source that isn't particularly friendly towards liberal or 'metropolitan' media.
I don't think it is saying that literally, but using the term figuratively to refer to what the author regards as a metropolitan liberal elite. The sort of people the author considers most likely to object to GBNews.
I took it as a fairly tongue-in-cheek reference.
The point I'm making though, is that even an analysis like this one, which hardly promotes a liberal or leftward leaning agenda, finds cause for concern with GBNews.
Yes, the author feels that some criticism is over-the-top and unbalanced and finds plus-points to celebrate in the GBNews approach but overall he damns with faint praise.
GBNews is narrow, parochial and populist.
Of course, we all knew that already but it's good to see it confirmed by someone who isn't one of the liberal-elite lizard-men who live within the M25.
The irony of course is that his Xitter bio says he's in London. He obviously makes enough to live in London even though, as a freelancer, he could presumably work from anywhere. Almost like it's him who's the metropolitan elitist.
Sure. Which reinforces my point about it possibly being a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Whether it is intended to be ironic or otherwise, the point is that the author is not at all well-disposed to liberal / left-leaning media and yet he too finds fault with GBNews.
Tongue in cheek maybe, but it reinforces this idea that people have that there is this bunch of lefties in cities who don't understand anything outside those cities - especially London.
It's bollocks. All these right-wing buggers are city dwellers and form the true 'elite' - they have the mouthpieces and the money.
Sure, but that's not the point I'm making, nor is it the main thrust of the argument in the Article article. Ha! See what I did there ...
I'm not saying I agree with the article in the Article or take everything in it as Holy Writ. I don't care whether the writer lives in Hampstead and craps on a gold-plated lavatory seat. Or whether they live in a croft somewhere or a yurt in the New Forest or a leaky flat in the West Midlands.
The point is that this is someone who is not 'woke' or part of the lizard-man liberal elite which purportedly rules the world and which is clamping down on freedom of speech, and yet who finds fault with Telford's beloved and infallible GBNews.
That.is.the.point.
For the purposes of this discussion, that is the point.
Telford still won't accept it of course because he believes that GBNews bulletins descend from heaven engraved on tablets of stone.
Are you claiming to be unable to understand metaphor ?
You surely know by now that @Telford will feign whatever naivety, stupidity or obtuseness is needed to avoid actually debating anything or responding meaningfully to any question.
Are you claiming to be unable to understand metaphor ?
You surely know by now that @Telford will feign whatever naivety, stupidity or obtuseness is needed to avoid actually debating anything or responding meaningfully to any question.
It's been at least 6 months since Telford had his own Hell thread.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Are you claiming to be unable to understand metaphor ?
You surely know by now that @Telford will feign whatever naivety, stupidity or obtuseness is needed to avoid actually debating anything or responding meaningfully to any question.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
Hmmm...
Do you remember the riots in the summer?
There does seem to be a genuine head of steam brewing with tenant farmers, who tend to be tenants of just the sort of people who bought farmland as a tax shelter. And are now worried that they are going to be caught up in land/estate disposal. They (most of them) absolutely won't have the cash to take advantage of land sales, even if the price comes down. It's just introducing more instability to an already unstable market.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
Hmmm...
Do you remember the riots in the summer?
Nobody was charged with rioting. As for the farmers, just wait and see
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
Hmmm...
Do you remember the riots in the summer?
Nobody was charged with rioting. As for the farmers, just wait and see
My evidence, @Telford is the tone of your posts and the way you refuse to engage properly with anything anyone says which contradicts your sweeping assumptions.
You are an engaging Shipmate, not only on the Bad Jokes thread and it's good to have you around. We need a range of views on the Ship.
But when you are deliberately obtuse or either pretend to get the wrong end of the stick or appear to take things literally which are clearly metaphorical, then it has the opposite effect to what you intend.
So, for instance, on the Purgatory version of this thread you dismiss the OBR out of hand even though they are aligning themselves with the kind of objections you've expressed about this budget.
You dismiss any criticism or concern about GBNews as being 'woke' or left-wing, when, as I have demonstrated, not all voices of concern about its partiality and lack of balance come from the leftward end of the spectrum.
Given your professional background I'd have thought you'd be used to weighing and assessing evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand simply because it doesn't accord with how you see things.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
Hmmm...
Do you remember the riots in the summer?
Nobody was charged with rioting. As for the farmers, just wait and see
My evidence, @Telford is the tone of your posts and the way you refuse to engage properly with anything anyone says which contradicts your sweeping assumptions.
I appear to be an engaging shipmate who refuses to engage. Now that's what I call a sweeping assumption. You are dismissing everything I have ever posted
You are an engaging Shipmate, not only on the Bad Jokes thread and it's good to have you around. We need a range of views on the Ship.
We also need not to always dismiss some of this range of views.
But when you are deliberately obtuse or either pretend to get the wrong end of the stick or appear to take things literally which are clearly metaphorical, then it has the opposite effect to what you intend.
My intention is often sarcasm and you fail to identify it
You dismiss any criticism or concern about GBNews as being 'woke' or left-wing, when, as I have demonstrated, not all voices of concern about its partiality and lack of balance come from the leftward end of the spectrum.
I am still waiting for your examples from programmes an d/or news bulletins
Given your professional background I'd have thought you'd be used to weighing and assessing evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand simply because it doesn't accord with how you see things.
Back in the mid 70s I charged a man with forging the Prime Ministers signature. He pleaded guilty and spent time in The Chokey. Did I get it right ?
@Telford we tend to run a pretty stringent Ship, especially on matters of politics. Where facts are available we tend to want reference to them. That's just the way our particularly online culture has developed.
Contrary views in these matters aren't so much dismissed as countered
So in the Purg Budget thread, you asserted there were 100K civil servants completely unnecessary as they were recruited for Covid.
I posted actual data showing that the numbers attributable to Covid cannot be ascertained in detail but definitely can't be 100K.
You totally ignored my actual data and eventually told us your information was from Greasy Smug. That is Argument from Authority - a logical fallacy. It won't fly here, especially when it flies in the face of actual data.
That is where you tend to come a cropper here. You will get your arse handed to you on a plate if you try to pitch unevidenced assertion and logical fallacy against actual evidence.
Turning to sarcasm - we all use that. However, you use it to avoid addressing points presented to you. And that annoys people. We do recognise it - that's why we refer to "pretending not to understand". When you use sarcasm in this way, it is performative stupidity
Oh @Telford, let's take this step by step. Why? I don't know really but I feel the need to ensure that I am always fair to you.
Ok, so my complaint was that the changes to inheritance tax around farms are being inaccurately reported. Feel free to challenge that premise but I've covered the details over on the other thread. My point being that such inaccurate reporting itself causes significant harm.
If it's not true, we will not see the farmers protesting.
This implies that people are not affected by being so misinformed. I pointed you to the advent of rioting over the summer. Again, let's be explicit here: there were various factors but the proximal cause was a belief that the vile crime committed in Southport was perputated by an immigrant. Something that is not true. It is a clear example of how misinformation causes harm.
Which as I noted, happens to be inaccurate but is also facile or disingenuous, if you prefer.
There were people charged with rioting specifically but even if not you know better than most that people who riot are often charged with different public order offences. It is not inaccurate to describe an event as a 'riot' even if that specific charge is not brought.
But even then, it's a silly thing to post. The riots were triggered by inaccurate information circulating in various forms of media, ergo it supports my point that inaccurate information can be harmful. So even if we do discuss the specific offences involved, you are not responding to my point in good faith but trying to divert from my point. That harms both the discussion and your credibility.
My use of the word 'usual' shows that I am not taking your post entirely on its own merits and believe this is a repeated behaviour for you. I believe I can call on a lot of witnesses on these boards to support that.
@Gamma Gamaliel is trying very hard to help you. I've not been on the bad jokes thread but on the cricket thread you and I have had very productive discussions, often with differences in viewpoint. The point being that people do enjoy discussions with you when they are productive.
The issue is not that people disagree with you, it's the fact that you won't engage. When challenged you either ignore it, shift your position or try to divert on to another topic.
It's not all about me, but I can speak for myself, so I offer you a counterpoint. On a thread recently, I got something wrong. @betjemaniac called me on it. I checked. He was right, I was wrong so I said so. It's annoying as I had chosen an example that thus undermined my point but there you go.
The problem is not that you hold a different view, it's that your arguments are built on sand and you never properly engage when challenged.
I am dismissing what you say. You often make valid points. I counter rather than dismiss those things where I find myself in disagreement. I hope I do it in a friendly way. Yes, I use sarcasm a lot on these boards and it can and does misfire at times.
The article in The Article has some positive things to say about GBNews. I think there's 'room' for a station that takes the particular stand-point that GBNews does. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or endorse it.
I'm not a hard-left type, I'm sure many of the more left-wing posters here find my observations annoyingly wishy-washy at times.
Equally, I get irritated by some of the things they post. I've crossed swords with them amicably a number of times.
It's not that I am constantly dismissing your views. It's just that when I counter them in some way or issue a caveat you either respond sarcastically or dismiss any source that I or other Shipmates might cite as being 'woke' or 'politically correct' or flawed in some way.
Yet somehow your own chosen media is beyond reproach. Why? Because you happen to agree with it.
That's what I am contesting. You are perfectly entitled to hold those views but your only defence seems to be, 'I like it, so there.'
Can you provide an objective definition of soft-left or centrist? 😉
I'm not 'against' what we might call the 'hard left' per se, but I don't see how or why they should be given a free pass on broad-brush generalisations than anyone else.
To be fair, people like your good self, @chrisstiles are exemplary when it comes to citing sources and chapter and verse. I couldn't hold a candle to you in that respect and wouldn't attempt to either.
With all due respect to @Arethosemyfeet I find some of his posts just as sweeping as he finds mine. We probably cancel one another out ...
That said, there are points he raises that often strike a chord with me and which I'd fully applaud.
I am dismissing what you say. You often make valid points. I counter rather than dismiss those things where I find myself in disagreement. I hope I do it in a friendly way. Yes, I use sarcasm a lot on these boards and it can and does misfire at times.
The article in The Article has some positive things to say about GBNews. I think there's 'room' for a station that takes the particular stand-point that GBNews does. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or endorse it.
The problem is that, because you have never seen anything on the channel, you have to reply on the biased views of others.
I would be interested in your personal observations and criticisms.
Can you provide an objective definition of soft-left or centrist? 😉
The soft-left have a committent to a shift in the balance of wealth and power that is more than merely theoretical, but in practice will accept more modest goals when political constraints dictate - they would be at least as left as European social democrats and within the Labour Party are represented by the Compass group of MPs. It's probably the largest tendency within the membership, and were those that Starmer's ten pledges were intended to appeal to.
Centrism is more of a floating signifier but it seems to take shape as a form of vulgar pragmatism, which in theory prides itself on having a hard headed committent to 'what works' but doesn't really understand questions of either structure or power.
The problem is that, because you have never seen anything on the channel, you have to reply on the biased views of others.
We assume that your reports of what it says give a fair impression. That impression corresponds to what other sources say about it.
And I have seen some of GBN.
Care to elaborate ?
Nope.
Of course not.
Tell you what, I'll respond at length when you respond to my last lengthy post which showed you far more courtesy and respect than you have ever shown.
@Telford, you are right that I haven't seen GBNews but by the same token I have cut it some slack by providing links to analysis of the channel from a source that is critical of liberal news media yet which nevertheless finds some fault with its coverage.
Ok, there is a distinction to be made between its news bulletins which tend to draw second-hand from other sources by all accounts - because it doesn't have the resources to put reporters in the field - and its editorial and comment pieces.
I accepted that distinction a good while back when discussing GBNews and I have acknowledged that there is a place for a station which takes its particular stance - just as there is for more liberal ones like Channel 4 - which I won't call 'left leaning' as some of the more leftwing posters here won't accept that it is. Fair enough.
The beef I've had with you isn't that you watch GBNews, that's entirely your prerogative, but that you seem to want to insist that it's news coverage is completely impartial. It isn't and it can't be.
Any more than any other news outlet is completely impartial either. The Article article indicates that it is heavy on news about the Royal family and issues directly affecting the UK and has far less coverage of international affairs.
That is an editorial decision on its part. It knows and understands its demographic ie people like you. Therefore it will tailor its news coverage towards items it knows its audience are interested in, such as the royal family and so on.
All media outlets do the same.
I don't see what's so contentious about my saying that about GBNews.
@chrisstiles - pragmatic, yes, but that doesn't imply a lack of principle.
The beef I've had with you isn't that you watch GBNews, that's entirely your prerogative, but that you seem to want to insist that it's news coverage is completely impartial. It isn't and it can't be.
I apologise that I have given this impression. I am saying that the new bulletins are sufficiently impartial. No different to Sky, ITV or BBC. I don't watch Channel 4 news.
Any more than any other news outlet is completely impartial either. The Article article indicates that it is heavy on news about the Royal family and issues directly affecting the UK and has far less coverage of international affairs.
Hence the name GB News.
GB News is a discussion channel. Each presenter has a left wing guest. I have read that these guests are not left wing enough or they lack the ability to represent the left. Never the less, I often see aggresive verbal confrontations which are won by the left wing guest or the climate protestor. They always get a chance to state their case.
What is probably missing is a left wing presenter.
Sure. I get where you are coming from and yes, I think there is room for a discussion channel of that kind, but I think you are naive in expecting GBNews to be sufficiently impartial editorially to employ a left-wing presenter.
Also, and I'll get it into trouble with some of the more left-wing posyers here for saying this, but any prospective left-wing candidate would be unlikely to accept such an offer even if it were made, either on the grounds that it would go against their principles or because they'd be excoriated by the left in general.
The left can be quite Puritanical in many respects and 'guilt-by-association' can be as common among them as it can be among evangelicals.
Worse, in fact. Look at the attacks on Corbyn for talking to members of Hamas and Hezbollah, or making appearances on Press TV (I have issues with the latter, but then I am a little bit liberal at times ). Then again liberals will take just about any opportunity to attack the left and make up a "principle" to justify it afterwards.
Comments
See: https://www.thearticle.com/gb-news-an-analysis
The Article piece is quite critical of liberal-leaning mainstream media, but doesn't let GBNews off the hook either.
According to that article everyone on the left lives within the M25 - a bizarre concept I've come across before.
I took it as a fairly tongue-in-cheek reference.
The point I'm making though, is that even an analysis like this one, which hardly promotes a liberal or leftward leaning agenda, finds cause for concern with GBNews.
Yes, the author feels that some criticism is over-the-top and unbalanced and finds plus-points to celebrate in the GBNews approach but overall he damns with faint praise.
GBNews is narrow, parochial and populist.
Of course, we all knew that already but it's good to see it confirmed by someone who isn't one of the liberal-elite lizard-men who live within the M25.
Whether it is intended to be ironic or otherwise, the point is that the author is not at all well-disposed to liberal / left-leaning media and yet he too finds fault with GBNews.
It's bollocks. All these right-wing buggers are city dwellers and form the true 'elite' - they have the mouthpieces and the money.
I'm not saying I agree with the article in the Article or take everything in it as Holy Writ. I don't care whether the writer lives in Hampstead and craps on a gold-plated lavatory seat. Or whether they live in a croft somewhere or a yurt in the New Forest or a leaky flat in the West Midlands.
The point is that this is someone who is not 'woke' or part of the lizard-man liberal elite which purportedly rules the world and which is clamping down on freedom of speech, and yet who finds fault with Telford's beloved and infallible GBNews.
That.is.the.point.
For the purposes of this discussion, that is the point.
Telford still won't accept it of course because he believes that GBNews bulletins descend from heaven engraved on tablets of stone.
http://forums.shipoffools.com/profile/comments/Telford
It's pretty conclusive.
You surely know by now that @Telford will feign whatever naivety, stupidity or obtuseness is needed to avoid actually debating anything or responding meaningfully to any question.
It's been at least 6 months since Telford had his own Hell thread.
In the budget, Reeves changed the rules on Inheritance Tax Exemption for farms. I have read a few things written by tax experts which provide strong evidence that the VAST majority of farms will still be exempt.
The media is reporting that it's going to kill off family farms.
As far as I can tell, this is not remotely true.
However, I've been chatting to a old friend today via FB who is really worried that this really is just another thing making lives really hard for farmers.
This is why the crapness of our media matters so much. They don't care about facts, they care only about attacking the government. But the anxiety for those caught up in it is huge.
AFZ
I am quite happy with relevant metaphors
I totally reject your insults
Then what do you think tablets of stone are - petrified paracetamol ?
Really? So you are totally confident that farmers will listen to tax experts over the media sources (which is basically all of them at this point) who are misrepresenting what's happening?
Hmmm...
Do you remember the riots in the summer?
There does seem to be a genuine head of steam brewing with tenant farmers, who tend to be tenants of just the sort of people who bought farmland as a tax shelter. And are now worried that they are going to be caught up in land/estate disposal. They (most of them) absolutely won't have the cash to take advantage of land sales, even if the price comes down. It's just introducing more instability to an already unstable market.
Nobody was charged with rioting. As for the farmers, just wait and see
That's not true https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ygen5x54ko
Oh yes, the usual inaccurate and facile response.
You are an engaging Shipmate, not only on the Bad Jokes thread and it's good to have you around. We need a range of views on the Ship.
But when you are deliberately obtuse or either pretend to get the wrong end of the stick or appear to take things literally which are clearly metaphorical, then it has the opposite effect to what you intend.
So, for instance, on the Purgatory version of this thread you dismiss the OBR out of hand even though they are aligning themselves with the kind of objections you've expressed about this budget.
You dismiss any criticism or concern about GBNews as being 'woke' or left-wing, when, as I have demonstrated, not all voices of concern about its partiality and lack of balance come from the leftward end of the spectrum.
Given your professional background I'd have thought you'd be used to weighing and assessing evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand simply because it doesn't accord with how you see things.
That just leaves the second sentence then
Contrary views in these matters aren't so much dismissed as countered
So in the Purg Budget thread, you asserted there were 100K civil servants completely unnecessary as they were recruited for Covid.
I posted actual data showing that the numbers attributable to Covid cannot be ascertained in detail but definitely can't be 100K.
You totally ignored my actual data and eventually told us your information was from Greasy Smug. That is Argument from Authority - a logical fallacy. It won't fly here, especially when it flies in the face of actual data.
That is where you tend to come a cropper here. You will get your arse handed to you on a plate if you try to pitch unevidenced assertion and logical fallacy against actual evidence.
Turning to sarcasm - we all use that. However, you use it to avoid addressing points presented to you. And that annoys people. We do recognise it - that's why we refer to "pretending not to understand". When you use sarcasm in this way, it is performative stupidity
Ok, so my complaint was that the changes to inheritance tax around farms are being inaccurately reported. Feel free to challenge that premise but I've covered the details over on the other thread. My point being that such inaccurate reporting itself causes significant harm.
You responded:
This implies that people are not affected by being so misinformed. I pointed you to the advent of rioting over the summer. Again, let's be explicit here: there were various factors but the proximal cause was a belief that the vile crime committed in Southport was perputated by an immigrant. Something that is not true. It is a clear example of how misinformation causes harm.
You replied:
Which as I noted, happens to be inaccurate but is also facile or disingenuous, if you prefer.
There were people charged with rioting specifically but even if not you know better than most that people who riot are often charged with different public order offences. It is not inaccurate to describe an event as a 'riot' even if that specific charge is not brought.
But even then, it's a silly thing to post. The riots were triggered by inaccurate information circulating in various forms of media, ergo it supports my point that inaccurate information can be harmful. So even if we do discuss the specific offences involved, you are not responding to my point in good faith but trying to divert from my point. That harms both the discussion and your credibility.
My use of the word 'usual' shows that I am not taking your post entirely on its own merits and believe this is a repeated behaviour for you. I believe I can call on a lot of witnesses on these boards to support that.
@Gamma Gamaliel is trying very hard to help you. I've not been on the bad jokes thread but on the cricket thread you and I have had very productive discussions, often with differences in viewpoint. The point being that people do enjoy discussions with you when they are productive.
The issue is not that people disagree with you, it's the fact that you won't engage. When challenged you either ignore it, shift your position or try to divert on to another topic.
It's not all about me, but I can speak for myself, so I offer you a counterpoint. On a thread recently, I got something wrong. @betjemaniac called me on it. I checked. He was right, I was wrong so I said so. It's annoying as I had chosen an example that thus undermined my point but there you go.
The problem is not that you hold a different view, it's that your arguments are built on sand and you never properly engage when challenged.
AFZ
I am dismissing what you say. You often make valid points. I counter rather than dismiss those things where I find myself in disagreement. I hope I do it in a friendly way. Yes, I use sarcasm a lot on these boards and it can and does misfire at times.
The article in The Article has some positive things to say about GBNews. I think there's 'room' for a station that takes the particular stand-point that GBNews does. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or endorse it.
I'm not a hard-left type, I'm sure many of the more left-wing posters here find my observations annoyingly wishy-washy at times.
Equally, I get irritated by some of the things they post. I've crossed swords with them amicably a number of times.
It's not that I am constantly dismissing your views. It's just that when I counter them in some way or issue a caveat you either respond sarcastically or dismiss any source that I or other Shipmates might cite as being 'woke' or 'politically correct' or flawed in some way.
Yet somehow your own chosen media is beyond reproach. Why? Because you happen to agree with it.
That's what I am contesting. You are perfectly entitled to hold those views but your only defence seems to be, 'I like it, so there.'
It's not that your centrism is wishy-washy that's annoying it's that it's often based on false premises and confirmation bias.
Nope. I am driven by data and wisdom like unto that of Solomon.
Can you provide an objective definition of 'hard left' ?
I'm not 'against' what we might call the 'hard left' per se, but I don't see how or why they should be given a free pass on broad-brush generalisations than anyone else.
To be fair, people like your good self, @chrisstiles are exemplary when it comes to citing sources and chapter and verse. I couldn't hold a candle to you in that respect and wouldn't attempt to either.
With all due respect to @Arethosemyfeet I find some of his posts just as sweeping as he finds mine. We probably cancel one another out ...
That said, there are points he raises that often strike a chord with me and which I'd fully applaud.
I would be interested in your personal observations and criticisms.
And I have seen some of GBN.
The soft-left have a committent to a shift in the balance of wealth and power that is more than merely theoretical, but in practice will accept more modest goals when political constraints dictate - they would be at least as left as European social democrats and within the Labour Party are represented by the Compass group of MPs. It's probably the largest tendency within the membership, and were those that Starmer's ten pledges were intended to appeal to.
Centrism is more of a floating signifier but it seems to take shape as a form of vulgar pragmatism, which in theory prides itself on having a hard headed committent to 'what works' but doesn't really understand questions of either structure or power.
Care to elaborate ?
Nope.
Tell you what, I'll respond at length when you respond to my last lengthy post which showed you far more courtesy and respect than you have ever shown.
Ok, there is a distinction to be made between its news bulletins which tend to draw second-hand from other sources by all accounts - because it doesn't have the resources to put reporters in the field - and its editorial and comment pieces.
I accepted that distinction a good while back when discussing GBNews and I have acknowledged that there is a place for a station which takes its particular stance - just as there is for more liberal ones like Channel 4 - which I won't call 'left leaning' as some of the more leftwing posters here won't accept that it is. Fair enough.
The beef I've had with you isn't that you watch GBNews, that's entirely your prerogative, but that you seem to want to insist that it's news coverage is completely impartial. It isn't and it can't be.
Any more than any other news outlet is completely impartial either. The Article article indicates that it is heavy on news about the Royal family and issues directly affecting the UK and has far less coverage of international affairs.
That is an editorial decision on its part. It knows and understands its demographic ie people like you. Therefore it will tailor its news coverage towards items it knows its audience are interested in, such as the royal family and so on.
All media outlets do the same.
I don't see what's so contentious about my saying that about GBNews.
@chrisstiles - pragmatic, yes, but that doesn't imply a lack of principle.
GB News is a discussion channel. Each presenter has a left wing guest. I have read that these guests are not left wing enough or they lack the ability to represent the left. Never the less, I often see aggresive verbal confrontations which are won by the left wing guest or the climate protestor. They always get a chance to state their case.
What is probably missing is a left wing presenter.
Also, and I'll get it into trouble with some of the more left-wing posyers here for saying this, but any prospective left-wing candidate would be unlikely to accept such an offer even if it were made, either on the grounds that it would go against their principles or because they'd be excoriated by the left in general.
The left can be quite Puritanical in many respects and 'guilt-by-association' can be as common among them as it can be among evangelicals.
Liberals the same, no doubt.
Worse, in fact. Look at the attacks on Corbyn for talking to members of Hamas and Hezbollah, or making appearances on Press TV (I have issues with the latter, but then I am a little bit liberal at times