Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[navyblueshorts]

You made a quite ridiculous assertion that if you abolish the BBC licence fee by the same rational I should/will soon  be arguing against NI or any taxation. Utterly preposterous.

Please tell me what you think are the benefits of the BBC that you think I can't get by means of a source that does not require  taxation on pain of a criminal conviction for non payment.

How does an enforced licence fee mean your society is enlightened? I live in a more enlightened society than the UK and it doesn't need this sort of enforced subscription.

Never mind. I don't have the patience. You're not open to changes in your existing views, so what would be the point?

[super_realist]

I'm curious why you can't give me evidence  the BBC is something we should be forced to pay for. What does it do as a broadcaster that anyone can't get from other sources? What unique  benefit is it to society that requires legally we all pay for it?

I USED to be in favour of the BBC when it was a good platform that made good prpgrammes but it is now a sneering, condescending, biased, largely left wing, hectoring, hypocritical channel. How could I be in favour of that? Have you got a good reason or you just hiding behind "well if you aren't open minded"
Give me your BEST reason why people should be forced to have a tax on live TV and pay for this outdated and bloated corporation.

Yes, I can think of some benefits of the BBC, but I don't see why the BBC should have authority over ALL live broadcasts resulting in a mandatory payment to the BBC, legally enforced for watching OTHER channels live broadcasts. Can you?
A BBC licence should ONLY apply to watching BBC. Why do I have to pay the BBC to watch someone else's live broadcast? Explain that.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm curious why you can't give me evidence  the BBC is something we should be forced to pay for. What does it do as a broadcaster that anyone can't get from other sources? What unique  benefit is it to society that requires legally we all pay for it?

I USED to be in favour of the BBC when it was a good platform that made good prpgrammes but it is now a sneering, condescending, biased, largely left wing, hectoring, hypocritical channel. How could I be in favour of that? Have you got a good reason or you just hiding behind "well if you aren't open minded"
Give me your BEST reason why people should be forced to have a tax on live TV and pay for this outdated and bloated corporation.

Yes, I can think of some benefits of the BBC,  but I don't see why the BBC should have authority over ALL live broadcasts resulting in a mandatory payment to the BBC, legally enforced for watching OTHER channels live broadcasts. Can you?
A BBC licence should ONLY apply to watching BBC. Why do I have to pay the BBC to watch someone else's live broadcast? Explain that.

OK.

Taking your last point first. I never said I agreed w/ the fact that, say, watching ITV 'live' should require a licence fee to support the BBC. I also never said I don't agree that the licence fee and its rationale shouldn't be looked at in the context of things now. No problem w/ that, and probably overdue.

I suggest your opinion that it is now "a sneering, condescending, biased, largely left wing, hectoring, hypocritical channel" has at least something to do w/ you and your own biases these days - you don't agree w/ something they put out ergo they're "sneering, condescending, biased, largely left wing, hectoring, hypocritical"? No; you don't get the casting vote. Suspect there's many who're happy w/ its output. However, the fact both the left and the right are often criticising the BBC suggests they aren't all that far off where they should be. It still makes plenty of good programmes - just because you don't like them, that proves what, exactly? As I mentioned before, I think the more historically recent political threats from both political persuasions has a lot to do with any deterioration of the BBC. Maybe you should be focussing your fire on the politicians who don't like how they're portrayed at times?

Do you think that on a subscription basis and/or reliance on advertising, you could guarantee production of programming that would cater for all minority interests? World Service? Local radio? Etc. The BBC isn't just BBC1 etc, as I'm sure you're aware. You and I can disagree (I'm sure we will), but I happen to think that a publicly funded broadcaster has a lot going for it. I'd rather it was part of general taxation than, basically, a fee for owning a TV.

[super_realist]

Jesus, the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
It used to be when I was in favour of it, now it is insufferable.
You shouldn't be in favour of the BBC political position regardless of what side you are on. That's the point. A national broadcaster we all pay for has a responsibility and a duty to have no views on politics and represent all sides fairly.

If the BBC is so good, why isn't it confident enough to go down a subscription route? If it's programming is so valuable wouldn't people be falling over themselves to pay it. I think 15 years ago they would have, but it is so bad now that I don't think it would, but it should not be my responsibility to keep such an outdated institution going.

I didn't ask for tje casting vote, I simply stated why we shouldn't be legally bound to pay for it. Only those who want to consume it should pay for it.
Rather telling you skipped my request for the best example of what use it is to society.

If other countries survive without such an archaic system, why can't Britain? I can't think of one truly worthwhile piece of output they give these day. Used to love some of its output, 5 live was a staple for me until it started telling us each weather event was all down to human induced climate change

[McLaren]

Anyone interested in who wins SNP leadership contest later today?

[JAS]

Jesus, the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
It used to be when I was in favour of it, now it is insufferable.
You shouldn't be in favour of the BBC political position regardless of what side you are on. That's the point. A national broadcaster we all pay for has a responsibility and a duty to have no views on politics and represent all sides fairly.

If the BBC is so good, why isn't it confident enough to go down a subscription route? If it's programming is so valuable wouldn't people be falling over themselves to pay it. I think 15 years ago they would have, but it is so bad now that I don't think it would, but it should not be my responsibility to keep such an outdated institution going.

I didn't ask for tje casting vote, I simply stated why we shouldn't be legally bound to pay for it. Only those who want to consume it should pay for it.
Rather telling you skipped my request for the best example of what use it is to society.

If other countries survive without such an archaic system, why can't Britain? I can't think of one truly worthwhile piece of output they give these day. Used to love some of its output, 5 live was a staple for me until it started telling us each weather event was all down to human induced climate change

You actually think as in really really think and truly believe the BBC is left wing biased??

[Duty281]

Jesus, the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
It used to be when I was in favour of it, now it is insufferable.
You shouldn't be in favour of the BBC political position regardless of what side you are on. That's the point. A national broadcaster we all pay for has a responsibility and a duty to have no views on politics and represent all sides fairly.

If the BBC is so good, why isn't it confident enough to go down a subscription route? If it's programming is so valuable wouldn't people be falling over themselves to pay it. I think 15 years ago they would have, but it is so bad now that I don't think it would, but it should not be my responsibility to keep such an outdated institution going.

I didn't ask for tje casting vote, I simply stated why we shouldn't be legally bound to pay for it. Only those who want to consume it should pay for it.
Rather telling you skipped my request for the best example of what use it is to society.

If other countries survive without such an archaic system, why can't Britain? I can't think of one truly worthwhile piece of output they give these day. Used to love some of its output, 5 live was a staple for me until it started telling us each weather event was all down to human induced climate change

You actually think as in really really think and truly believe the BBC is left wing biased??

And such a view always comes as a surprise to those who believe the opposite.

[JAS]

Richard Sharp (BBC chairman) Former boss of the current UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.
Director General Tim Davie unsuccessfully stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in the Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council elections in 1993 and 1994

Laura Kuennesburg, like many BBC political reporters and backroom staff is a Conservative, Nick Robinson is a another good example Fiona Bruce, Jo Coburn and the entire Newsnight parade make it a rigged game.

...Of course they're left wing biased Super!!
Jesus the Tories keep spinning Poopie like that and so many people without question just lap it up without ever doing the most basic research.

...but Gary Lineker shockingly seems to have a bit of a Social conscience so the whole organisation he works for must therefore be ridiculously left wing

[super_realist]

Jesus, the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
It used to be when I was in favour of it, now it is insufferable.
You shouldn't be in favour of the BBC political position regardless of what side you are on. That's the point. A national broadcaster we all pay for has a responsibility and a duty to have no views on politics and represent all sides fairly.

If the BBC is so good, why isn't it confident enough to go down a subscription route? If it's programming is so valuable wouldn't people be falling over themselves to pay it. I think 15 years ago they would have, but it is so bad now that I don't think it would, but it should not be my responsibility to keep such an outdated institution going.

I didn't ask for tje casting vote, I simply stated why we shouldn't be legally bound to pay for it. Only those who want to consume it should pay for it.
Rather telling you skipped my request for the best example of what use it is to society.

If other countries survive without such an archaic system, why can't Britain? I can't think of one truly worthwhile piece of output they give these day. Used to love some of its output, 5 live was a staple for me until it started telling us each weather event was all down to human induced climate change

You actually think as in really really think and truly believe the BBC is left wing biased??

Yes, it has had to apologise for it on several occasions.

[super_realist]

Anyone interested in who wins SNP leadership contest later today?

Watch your tax go to 45% Mac. Surprised to see he's only 37, makes Scotty Scheffler look youthful.

He's tanked in every job he's had so should mean Scotch independence is over for a while.

[navyblueshorts]

Jesus, the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
It used to be when I was in favour of it, now it is insufferable.
You shouldn't be in favour of the BBC political position regardless of what side you are on. That's the point. A national broadcaster we all pay for has a responsibility and a duty to have no views on politics and represent all sides fairly.

If the BBC is so good, why isn't it confident enough to go down a subscription route? If it's programming is so valuable wouldn't people be falling over themselves to pay it. I think 15 years ago they would have, but it is so bad now that I don't think it would, but it should not be my responsibility to keep such an outdated institution going.

I didn't ask for tje casting vote, I simply stated why we shouldn't be legally bound to pay for it. Only those who want to consume it should pay for it.
Rather telling you skipped my request for the best example of what use it is to society.

If other countries survive without such an archaic system, why can't Britain? I can't think of one truly worthwhile piece of output they give these day. Used to love some of its output, 5 live was a staple for me until it started telling us each weather event was all down to human induced climate change

You actually think as in really really think and truly believe the BBC is left wing biased??

Yes, he does.

S_R: I didn't skip anything; I just didn't deign to answer you. You've made up your mind, which is therefore the only correct point of view to hold. Relax; enjoy your more enlightened society...

[super_realist]

It's not my mind that is made up, it's the BBC demonstrating it repeatedly

[JAS]

It's not my mind that is made up, it's the BBC demonstrating it repeatedly

Aye, the BBC pretends to be left wing like I pretend to be a Tory.

Meanwhile...Scottish football is in a terrible state eh?

[McLaren]

Super

Just for clarity in what direction do you think the BBC has lost it's impartiality?

And is this across all types of programming or just news based ones?

Could you please share some instances where you have perceived that the BBC has not maintained impartiality?

[super_realist]

Super

Just for clarity in what direction do you think the BBC has lost it's impartiality?

And is this across all types of programming or just news based ones?

Could you please share some instances where you have perceived that the BBC has not maintained impartiality?

Have you never watched Question Time? Audience and panel are largely left wing.
Newsreaders being suspended or apologising for left wing bias(Stayt, Muncheti and  one who said "can I show my delight at Boris resigning), people claiming Fiona Bruce is biased for doing her legally enforced responsibility in regards to Stanley Johnson and I don't recall her ever actually being right wing

Emily Maitliss having to offer an apology for left wing bias, cowtowing to Linekers biased tweets. It's clear anti brexit bias.

One look at the website and it's pandering to woke ideology and disproportional stories about climate, racism, transgenderism etc is another example. ALL comedy and panel shows are mostly  left wing comedians.

Perhaps you could give examples of right wing output. Five Live has become a left wing mouthpiece too and it insists on being uninformed about climate as every weather instance is human induced climate change , eg it blamed a warm February period one year on climate change to them when it was actually the Foehn effect, nothing to do with climate change.
The constant lecturing from nature shows instead of actually just presenting a nature show, the sort of programming like Shamima Begun "I'm not a monster" etc.
Inconsistent coverage of different types of protest based on political bent of protest.

Now I might not disagree with some of their output, but they have a duty to be impartial

The failure to criticise Sturgeon and Drakeford for an equally bad response to covid. The refusal to entertain any ideas which were not communist party lockdown policy followed by the UK

Would love to know what examples you had on regards to right wing bias on OUTPUT. For you JAS someone working for the BBC lending BJ money isn't an example of the BBC being right wing, it's an example of a Director being a right winger, hasn't made output right wing. I think your problem is that you see every less left than Corbyn as being right wing, despite conversely being a rapid champagne socialist and massive capitalist.

[super_realist]

It's not my mind that is made up, it's the BBC demonstrating it repeatedly

Aye, the BBC pretends to be left wing like I pretend to be a Tory.

Meanwhile...Scottish football is in a terrible state eh?

Only 1( one) player who started the match actually plays in Scotland, and only one other briefly made an appearance, so in the sixteen players who took part, only two play in Scotland. Tells me all I need to know about how bad Scottish football is.

Also, that is by far the worst Spanish team in 30 years

[JAS]

Super

Just for clarity in what direction do you think the BBC has lost it's impartiality?

And is this across all types of programming or just news based ones?

Could you please share some instances where you have perceived that the BBC has not maintained impartiality?

Have you never watched Question Time? Audience and panel are largely left wing.
Newsreaders being suspended or apologising for left wing bias(Stayt, Muncheti and  one who said "can I show my delight at Boris resigning), people claiming Fiona Bruce is biased for doing her legally enforced responsibility in regards to Stanley Johnson and I don't recall her ever actually being right wing

Emily Maitliss having to offer an apology for left wing bias, cowtowing to Linekers biased tweets. It's clear anti brexit bias.

One look at the website and it's pandering to woke ideology and disproportional stories about climate, racism, transgenderism etc is another example. ALL comedy and panel shows are mostly  left wing comedians.

Perhaps you could give examples of right wing output. Five Live has become a left wing mouthpiece too and it insists on being uninformed about climate as every weather instance is human induced climate change , eg it blamed a warm February period one year on climate change to them when it was actually the Foehn effect, nothing to do with climate change.
The constant lecturing from nature shows instead of actually just presenting a nature show, the sort of programming like Shamima Begun "I'm not a monster" etc.
Inconsistent coverage of different types of protest based on political bent of protest.

Now I might not disagree with some of their output, but they have a duty to be impartial

The failure to criticise Sturgeon and Drakeford for an equally bad response to covid. The refusal to entertain any ideas which were not communist party lockdown policy followed by the UK

Would love to know what examples you had on regards to right wing bias on OUTPUT. For you JAS someone working for the BBC lending BJ money isn't an example of the BBC being right wing, it's an example of a Director being a right winger, hasn't made output right wing. I think your problem is that you see every less left than Corbyn as being right wing, despite conversely being a rapid champagne socialist and massive capitalist.

Brilliant :-)
Got a busy morning, I'll respond properly later

[JAS]

Super

Just for clarity in what direction do you think the BBC has lost it's impartiality?

And is this across all types of programming or just news based ones?

Could you please share some instances where you have perceived that the BBC has not maintained impartiality?

Have you never watched Question Time? Audience and panel are largely left wing.

No they're not they're made up according to the last election voting statistics from the location they are in

Newsreaders being suspended or apologising for left wing bias(Stayt, Muncheti and  one who said "can I show my delight at Boris resigning),

I don't think joy at a pathological liar being forced to resign was confined to people on the left, there were decent Tories who were glad to see the back of him.

people claiming Fiona Bruce is biased for doing her legally enforced responsibility in regards to Stanley Johnson and I don't recall her ever actually being right wing.

According to her she is a Conservative with a small c, her other half is the CEO of and advertising company that does adverts for the Tories. Frankly I couldn't care less where she is on the political spectrum as long as she presents even handedly but she's CERTAINLY not left wing

Emily Maitliss having to offer an apology for left wing bias, cowtowing to Linekers biased tweets.  

Agreeing with somebody's view on one issue does NOT determine your wing position. Christ I'd like to see that Wayne Cousins hung, that does NOT make me a raving right winger (to be fair crime and punishment in general is probably the one issue where I may be construed as slightly right of centre)

It's clear anti brexit bias.

the single most polarising issue of our time and it's not clear at all, reflecting public opinion that was 52/48 split is always going to result in claim and counterclaim of bias from each side

One look at the website and it's pandering to woke ideology and disproportional stories about climate, racism, transgenderism etc is another example.  

Ok I'm going to take this one on head on, have you looked up the dictionary definition of woke? If so wtf is wrong with being woke?? I'd rather die and  people say "yep he was a good bloke who cared about others" than die a selfish uncaring I am a twonk of the highest order who those close to me couldn't wait to see the back of. So yeah, happy to be woke (but obviously not overly stupidly woke)

ALL comedy and panel shows are mostly  left wing comedians.

Maybe it's just too easy to rip the pish out of the Tories incompetent behaviour in office?? A never ending stream of comedy gold  

Perhaps you could give examples of right wing output. Five Live has become a left wing mouthpiece too and it insists on being uninformed about climate as every weather instance is human induced climate change , eg it blamed a warm February period one year on climate change to them when it was actually the Foehn effect, nothing to do with climate change.

This one could run and run, point me at a Glacier in the Alps or anywhere else for that matter that's expanding year on year, climate records are being broken consistently this century. That is not to say the world is heading for catastrophe in the next 20 years but there are signals that we need to start thinking harder about what we're doing.

The constant lecturing from nature shows instead of actually just presenting a nature show, the sort of programming like Shamima Begun "I'm not a monster" etc.

are those 2 sentences part of the same point?

Inconsistent coverage of different types of protest based on political bent of protest.

The majority of reporting by all channels not just the BBC tends to be anti protest/ anti strike. It's ALWAYS a one sided argument that gets put across "by striking/protesting you are stopping people getting to work, ambulances etc" but they NEVER level the same accusation at Govt ministers not prepared to negotiate" There are 2 sides to every story

Now I might not disagree with some of their output, but they have a duty to be impartial

The failure to criticise Sturgeon and Drakeford for an equally bad response to covid. The refusal to entertain any ideas which were not communist party lockdown policy followed by the UK

lol Communist party lockdown, I'm sure the pathological liar mentioned earlier would love being associated with that one :-p  

Would love to know what examples you had on regards to right wing bias on OUTPUT. For you JAS someone working for the BBC lending BJ money isn't an example of the BBC being right wing, it's an example of a Director being a right winger, hasn't made output right wing.

It wasn't just facilitating a loan, he is an actual party donor You don't donate £400k to the Tories whilst allowing the organisation you run to be overtly left wing, the very idea is for the birds ffs!!

I think your problem is that you see every less left than Corbyn as being right wing, despite conversely being a rapid champagne socialist and massive capitalist.

You clearly saved the best and most ridiculous for last 1. I don't have a problem 2. I agreed with a lot (but not all) of what Corbyn was trying to say, I've already stated that I'm probably to the right of centre (not just Corbyn) on crime and punishment and probably defence 3. I'd say more of a slow beer Socialist 4. Kindly explain why you think I'm a massive capitalist and for a bonus point explain why the hell that has any relevance to this discussion

[/quote]

[super_realist]

A glacier expanding JAS would mean that it was getting colder, not warmer. Glaciers retreat and shrink in warm weather.

My point about BBC weather reporting is that they assert EVERY weather event to be a result of the human induced element of climate change, which is clearly bad journalism and at worst highly misleading and highly sensationalist.
No wonder there's idiotic kids weeping and wailing they "are going to die due to climate change" when the state broadcaster is filling their minds with that crap.

You know what is meant by modern woke ideology so stop being a Socialist Worker definition pedant, I'm talking about the sorts of thing such as apologising for "misgendering" violent trans criminals for instance, not being a decent person. We don't live in a word of dictionary definitions, we live in a world where words have different meanings and usage and what people mean by woke is very different from how it is defined in dictionaries. Another example would be police in Rochdale etc not apprehending r*** gangs for year of being levelled racist or islamophobic.

The UK lockdown response to Covid WAS based on the CCP model quickly following what moronic Italy did as the first affected European country  and NOT the previously planned WHO response/plan that actually was used by Sweden. In fact Sweden was the only European country that didn't follow the same policy of the CCP. The BBC completely failed to ask any pressing questions on the scientific efficacy on these restrictions and was incredibly weak and didn't even offer or entertain any skeptical views on the issue.

[JuliusHMarx]

It's true JAS. EVERY weather event! Except this one - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65150138. Oh, and this one - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65072195
But apart from that, it's EVERY single one!

[McLaren]

Super

I sense that you don't conform to the mainstream scientific consensus on matters relating to climate change. For clarity would you set out what you think about the causes of climate change, degree of human contribution and what should be done to tackle climate change?

[JuliusHMarx]

In today's BBC article, it says "Not all droughts are caused by climate change..." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65129735
But we know, of course, that the BBC says EVERY single weather event etc etc.

[JAS]

A glacier expanding JAS would mean that it was getting colder, not warmer. Glaciers retreat and shrink in warm weather.

Yes I know that and that was exactly my point to you. Maybe if I'd said show me a glacier that's not shrinking then, you have understood better?

My point about BBC weather reporting is that they assert EVERY weather event to be a result of the human induced element of climate change, which is clearly bad journalism and at worst highly misleading and highly sensationalist.
No wonder there's idiotic kids weeping and wailing they "are going to die due to climate change" when the state broadcaster is filling their minds with that crap.

You know what is meant by modern woke ideology so stop being a Socialist Worker definition pedant, I'm talking about the sorts of thing such as apologising for "misgendering" violent trans criminals for instance, not being a decent person. We don't live in a word of dictionary definitions, we live in a world where words have different meanings and usage and what people mean by woke is very different from how it is defined in dictionaries. Another example would be police in Rochdale etc not apprehending r*** gangs for year of being levelled racist or islamophobic.

This is effing hilarious. Can we now add dictionary denier to your impressive list of traits?? Fascism starts when mistruths and blatant lies are allowed to slide unchecked. The hijacking of the word woke to be a derogatory term is NOT right, simple as, and clinging to such a justification panders to the likes of jingoistic Trumpism. You'll be be saying injecting bleach is a good way to treat Covid next. Not sure weaving Rochdale and the terrible events there helps the point you were trying to make. That was an example of basic incompetence on a grand scale and a failure on so many levels (just like Saville was). I do get though that it's a favoured topic that the intolerant right love to raise (that's the same intolerant right from which which, if you cared to research you'd also find a plethora of child abusers). Really puzzling how the supposedly ridiculously biased left wing BBC don't home in on that.

The UK lockdown response to Covid WAS based on the CCP model quickly following what moronic Italy did as the first affected European country  and NOT the previously planned WHO response/plan that actually was used by Sweden. In fact Sweden was the only European country that didn't follow the same policy of the CCP. The BBC completely failed to ask any pressing questions on the scientific efficacy on these restrictions and was incredibly weak and didn't even offer or entertain any skeptical views on the issue.

Yet all through the pandemic you frequently said you cant compare different countries due to different demographics. Also, I don't recall the BBC journos questions to be any more or less pressing/skeptical than the Sky or ITV reps. You've got a bee in your bonnet about the BBC, we all get that and there are some aspects about them that I find irritating too but I don't think ranting about them on here will make the slightest bit of difference.

[navyblueshorts]

...You've got a bee in your bonnet about the BBC, we all get that and there are some aspects about them that I find irritating too but I don't think ranting about them on here will make the slightest bit of difference.

I suspect S_R is also ignoring the fact he's presuming his views haven't changed over time (i.e. shifted right politically) or have remained as they were (i.e. societal norms have shifted from what he knew/liked). He liked a certain type of output from a period some time ago. The BBC has to move and change (they did used to broadcast the Black and Minstrel show...), but maybe S_R hasn't, so he still hankers after the output from a while back and everything current is "hectoring" and "leftist"? You know the sort of thing? "Back in my day...." or "During the War...".

Part of the problem seems to be that he's right. Fact. If you know what I mean...

[navyblueshorts]

Elsewhere, Sturgeon's husband is in the trouble it would seem. Oops!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823

[McLaren]

Elsewhere, Sturgeon's husband is in the trouble it would seem. Oops!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823

This is what should happen to those that abuse positions of power. But can someone explain how in the same country, and to tie in with the current topic of conversation in this thread, you can get away with selling the chairmanship of the public broadcaster for £800k?

[JAS]

Elsewhere, Sturgeon's husband is in the trouble it would seem. Oops!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823

This is what should happen to those that abuse positions of power. But can someone explain how in the same country, and to tie in with the current topic of conversation in this thread, you can get away with selling the chairmanship of the public broadcaster for £800k?

I'm sure it came with strings....like...give us an easy ride whilst at the same time try and disguise your organisation as woke lefty to irritate certain cantankerous types.

Also, or more realistically the £800k would have been the tip of the iceberg, old establishment types all stick together and cover each other. People like Sturgeon/Murrell don't have that kind of far reaching power.

I have no idea what detail will come out but something clearly smells. Oddly the biggest beneficiary if it is going to lead to a slump in SNP support at the polls will be Starmer.

[navyblueshorts]

Elsewhere, Sturgeon's husband is in the trouble it would seem. Oops!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823

This is what should happen to those that abuse positions of power. But can someone explain how in the same country, and to tie in with the current topic of conversation in this thread, you can get away with selling the chairmanship of the public broadcaster for £800k?

I'm sure it came with strings....like...give us an easy ride whilst at the same time try and disguise your organisation as woke lefty to irritate certain cantankerous types.

Also, or more realistically the £800k would have been the tip of the iceberg, old establishment types all stick together and cover each other. People like Sturgeon/Murrell don't have that kind of far reaching power.

I have no idea what detail will come out but something clearly smells. Oddly the biggest beneficiary if it is going to lead to a slump in SNP support at the polls will be Starmer.

Why don't you, Mac, wait for any police investigation into Boris and whateverhisnameis at the BBC? You're assuming Boris getting an £800k loan was repaid by an award of a top job at the BBC based on your politics. Maybe, maybe not. Does smell a bit, though.

[super_realist]

Super

I sense that you don't conform to the mainstream scientific consensus on matters relating to climate change. For clarity would you set out what you think about the causes of climate change, degree of human contribution and what should be done to tackle climate change?

Mac, I don't disagree that an element of climate change is subject to a human contribution. I do conform to  scientific consensus, I don't conform to media hysteria. That's fair enough isn't it?

It is not true however to assert, imply or claim that all climate change is human induced as the media very much like to portray  That's the issue and the mainstream media is obsessed with climate change to the point where it's whipped into a frenzy and frightening gullible children

For the vast majority of people, especially those in the western, developed world it certainly isn't what I'd call a crisis.
All the hand wringing about "we could be the last generation" or "it's extinction level climate change" isn't scientific at all. IPCC predictions have also always failed, so I think it's about time they modified how they make predictions.

Given that I'm the only geoscientist on this board perhaps I see it easier to pick out the nonsense from media led hysteria.

I don't know the % of human influence, but what I do know is that the degree to which certain CO2 sources are demonised over others is inconsistent and not actually addressing the main causes of CO2, whilst net zero is a pretty laughable policy, especially in the UK in regards to current energy supplies, infrastructure and energy transition.

I'd also suggest a King Canute approach to climate is not productive and that reducing emissions over time and using to technology and science to deal and cope with the effects of climate change would be a far better use of resources than forlornly trying to turn back to some sort of arbitrary climate utopia

[JuliusHMarx]

Surely complaining that the BBC treat EVERY weather event as being the result of human induced climate change is another nonsensical form of hysteria and frenzy?

[navyblueshorts]

...It is not true however to assert, imply or claim that all climate change is human induced as the media very much like to portray  That's the issue and the mainstream media is obsessed with climate change to the point where it's whipped into a frenzy and frightening gullible children...

While I don't agree fully with this, I do see a problem with continual doom messaging etc and constant media coverage. So much coverage makes it just the 'norm', and therefore just part of the everyday noise for many people. The doom mongering part etc just turns many people off after a while, and they tune out.

[JAS]

I see the IMF wading in and being quoted as saying "You cant give Health workers restorative pay rises - it will stoke inflation" What exactly were the same IMF saying 2 years ago to big oil companies and Utility Companies...and pretty much every other big corporation. We're AT double digit inflation NOW, where the f*** were they when restraint was required elsewhere. Just like where were they in 2007 just before the banking system strangled the world economy. So at least twice they've been asleep at the wheel. Should we, or government for that matter really take them seriously??

[navyblueshorts]

I see the IMF wading in and being quoted as saying "You cant give Health workers restorative pay rises - it will stoke inflation" What exactly were the same IMF saying 2 years ago to big oil companies and Utility Companies...and pretty much every other big corporation. We're AT double digit inflation NOW, where the f*** were they when restraint was required elsewhere. Just like where were they  in 2007 just before the banking system strangled the world economy. So at least twice they've been asleep at the wheel. Should we, or government for that matter really take them seriously??

Hear what you're saying. Maybe put it to the voters, JAS? Have to wonder why the 'left' can't make a good case for this? Let's see how willing we all are to fund inflation busting pay rises for everyone in the public sector. Year-on-year. Plus superannuation. When economy looking perpetually weak. When mainly private companies raise the UK wealth that'll fund those pay increases...

Not that I think Rees-Mogg is anything other than an arse, but think he might have a point re. public sector pensions that pay in the future cf. pay rises in the now. Want a large pay rise? Maybe don't have such a good pension arrangement in retirement. One or the other. Before you have a go at me, I'm in the public sector...

[JAS]

I see the IMF wading in and being quoted as saying "You cant give Health workers restorative pay rises - it will stoke inflation" What exactly were the same IMF saying 2 years ago to big oil companies and Utility Companies...and pretty much every other big corporation. We're AT double digit inflation NOW, where the f*** were they when restraint was required elsewhere. Just like where were they  in 2007 just before the banking system strangled the world economy. So at least twice they've been asleep at the wheel. Should we, or government for that matter really take them seriously??

Hear what you're saying. Maybe put it to the voters, JAS? Have to wonder why the 'left' can't make a good case for this? Let's see how willing we all are to fund inflation busting pay rises for everyone in the public sector. Year-on-year. Plus superannuation. When economy looking perpetually weak. When mainly private companies raise the UK wealth that'll fund those pay increases...

Not that I think Rees-Mogg is anything other than an arse, but think he might have a point re. public sector pensions that pay in the future cf. pay rises in the now. Want a large pay rise? Maybe don't have such a good pension arrangement in retirement. One or the other. Before you have a go at me, I'm in the public sector...

Don't think there's any need or case for having a go at you Navy, I too had a 4 year spell in the public sector before I changed jobs last Sept. I like debate, I don't particularly like being in an echo chamber, alternative views help colour a subject, they can also help you see both sides and/or encourage one to research deeper to back up their own view.

It was more a general point I was making re the IMF butting in as 'alleged experts' in government policy, moreover a government spokesperson citing the IMF comment as some sort of justification for their current damaging stance. Of course the IMF also stated last week that Britain would see the slowest economic growth in the G20 this coming year. Again, this could be utter guesswork pish as well but the main difference here is that no government spokesperson elected to highlight that particular statement...no surprise there!!

It's just one of the things I find utterly detestable i.e. the way the vested interests of big business and establishment try to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses dressing it up as prudent management of the countries finances when actually the true story of the past 15 years is that the majority of the people in this country are worse off as a result. That tells me we need to think differently about what prudent management of the countries finances actually means and who is it for as in who is it really for. At the end of the day it's hard to argue against wanting progressive prosperity for the hardworking majority and if I'm honest NOBODY is offering that.

[JAS]

Crikey we really are in a tumbleweed phase. Abbot then...should she stay or should she go?

[navyblueshorts]

Crikey we really are in a tumbleweed phase. Abbot then...should she stay or should she go?

No real debate here - she should quit. Will she? Not so sure.

What an idiot. Labour are far better off w/o her, Corbyn etc. Still, they're helping Starmer quite nicely by falling on their own swords in some of the most idiotic fashion possible.

[McLaren]

I haven't had a chance to catch up on the Abbot thing, what happened?

[navyblueshorts]

I haven't had a chance to catch up on the Abbot thing, what happened?

Go read the news? She said yet another stupid thing, in print, and has had the Whip withdrawn...

[McLaren]

No wonder it's tumbleweed with friendly responses like that. I was trying to initiate a conversation.

[navyblueshorts]

No wonder it's tumbleweed with friendly responses like that. I was trying to initiate a conversation.

My pleasure, but you came online to post a query as to what had happened, rather than simply do similar and check the InterWeb re. Abbott? You're not that thin-skinned.

[super_realist]

Tumbleweed

[Duty281]

Give us a provocative starting point then!

[super_realist]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

[westisbest]

Where you living now super, Sweden was it?

[navyblueshorts]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

[super_realist]

Where you living now super, Sweden was it?

Norway.

[JAS]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

…feel free to add…and a media obsessed with trivial celebrity Poopie

[super_realist]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

…feel free to add…and a media obsessed with trivial celebrity Poopie

Yes, and a country which now has an American political choice of who is the "least worst" option.

[JAS]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

…feel free to add…and a media obsessed with trivial celebrity Poopie

Yes, and a country which now has an American political choice of who is the "least worst" option.

What do you mean "now" have? When was the last time we didn't have a leader that wasn't the least worst option?

[JAS]

So are Spurs going to go for Ange or not...and should they?

[Sponsored content]