The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[RoboFox]

1 hour ago, ttfn said:

Watching Mick Lynch calmly and clearly set out why the strikes are happening to under-prepared presenters and whichever no-name sycophant has been rolled out by the government really puts into perspective the complete lack of knowledge, communication and competence in Westminster. 
 

For once the person with the facts on their side is holding the whip hand and it makes such a change from the last 5+years of those with the power obfuscating and outright lying to poison the well for everyone.

My Twitter timeline is absolutely full of Mick Lynch gold. 

 

Absolutely cleaning house in every clip. 

 

He lets the other person just go on, as they wait to be interrupted as media training said they would; but it doesn't come. Then he demolishes their argument while they try in vain to interrupt, looking foolish.

 

Lynch vs Gullis (aka young Mark Francois) 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

3 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

If you knew someone that spoke to you like the Mail talks to its readers you'd all be praying that they didn't come down the pub with you, and if he did, when he eventually got his jaw broken by a random stranger you'd all be 'oh no how awful' while internally punching the air and thinking 'at last'.

 

I grew up in a household where the Daily Mail was pretty much the only printed news media and I'm sure that one of the reasons why I'm a bit more left leaning than my family (so in their eyes, a full on Communist) is that I stumbled across other media that didn't feel like it was furiously shouting at me, and that in itself made it seem a lot more convincing

My grandmother always got the mail, the only good part was the scratch cards although I don't know if they actually printed any winning ones. 

[Dunge]

Not sure whether this will be an unpopular opinion, but…

 

Despite the bar being so low as to be almost touching the floor, the Mail is now somehow a worse paper than it was under Paul Dacre.

[Fazzer 7]

Any predictions as to how long the recession will go on for?

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

You need to put that figure in context. There are around 67 million of us and it’s still lower than cancer deaths over the same period. Would it have been any lower under labour? We’ll never know but  I doubt it. 

Sadly it's in an old closed thread but I've been pretty explicit on here before about how ****ing horrifically they handled it. They weren't prepared when it's government policy to be ready for something so likely as a pandemic, they spaffed billions of taxpayer's money up the wall on dodgy PPE, did dodgy deals with mates, failed to support the entertainment industry and self employed, went into every lockdown weeks too late which meant they had to go on longer, released vulnerable elderly people into care homes allowing the virus to spread and didn't support the homes, refused to feed starving children until Marcus Rashford forced a u-turn, didn't close the ****ing borders until ELEVEN MONTHS into the pandemic, he mocked Starmer in October 2020 for calling for an emergency circuit breaker lockdown for 2 weeks and then when things got out of hand we had to lock down for a full month in the November - then he ****ed up Christmas AND we were locked down until April 2021.

 

I could go on, but the idea that they got the "big calls right" is what I took issue with mainly as it's utterly untrue and actually quite offensive. 

 

Whether Starmer would have lowered that figure is difficult to answer - but consider my last sentence in that paragraph about a circuit breaker lockdown and the following graph:

 

 

This government's failures are directly responsible for the high number of deaths. This isn't even about hindsight as their own policy states they should have been better prepared for it.

[HighPeakFox]

Whether Labour would have done better is an utter irrelevance. 

 

The only question is, could the elected Government have done much, much better? The answer is, or should be, unequivocally yes. Anything else is just pitiful deflection. It's a bit like playing down what Hitler did to the Jews because antisemitism was rife elsewhere in Europe at the time. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

My grandmother always got the mail, the only good part was the scratch cards although I don't know if they actually printed any winning ones. 

My Gran, who is 101 bought the Daily Mail every day (and has only stopped because she pretty much cannot see now) because her Dad (or Grandad) bought the very first copy in 1890 something and the family had bought it ever since.

 

My mum has helpfully taken over her subscription meaning that I think that's about a century and a quarter of my family being furiously told to be furious about something or other.

 

A great tradition that although I'm sure worthy of continuing for now is on borrowed time because I'm sure as shit not carrying it on 

[kingkisnorbo]

20 hours ago, adam said:

Here's one 

Why do tory’s fetishise the war and everything to do with it so much? 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Dunge said:

Not sure whether this will be an unpopular opinion, but…

 

Despite the bar being so low as to be almost touching the floor, the Mail is now somehow a worse paper than it was under Paul Dacre.

Personally I think that the culpability is also shared by the press regulator.

 

Are they really doing their jobs when the Mail can print what it does with next to no libel/other repercussions for doing so?

[Dunge]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I think that the culpability is also shared by the press regulator.

 

Are they really doing their jobs when the Mail can print what it does with next to no libel/other repercussions for doing so?

But what should the press regulator do? (Remembering that whatever rule you apply has to work both ways.)

 

In the case of the headline shown above, for instance, is there actually a case for libel? It’s propaganda of course, and certainly trying to lead people to a particular conclusion and narrative that is misrepresentative of the situation. But even that’s just an opinion. Where do you draw the line?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

But what should the press regulator do? (Remembering that whatever rule you apply has to work both ways.)

 

In the case of the headline shown above, for instance, is there actually a case for libel? It’s propaganda of course, and certainly trying to lead people to a particular conclusion and narrative that is misrepresentative of the situation. But even that’s just an opinion. Where do you draw the line?

TBH I was thinking more in terms of generalities rather than this specific headline. I'd argue that past headlines they have printed have been, if not outright libellous, blatantly untrue or so far removed from context it doesn't make much difference.

 

At the very least, the rule regarding printing retractions on the same page and to the same size as the original incorrect article should be adhered to as it doesn't seem to be right now.

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I was thinking more in terms of generalities rather than this specific headline. I'd argue that past headlines they have printed have been, if not outright libellous, blatantly untrue or so far removed from context it doesn't make much difference.

 

At the very least, the rule regarding printing retractions on the same page and to the same size as the original incorrect article should be adhered to as it doesn't seem to be right now.

Fair.

 

And don’t get me wrong, I’d happily see them print a full-page retraction of pretty much every Covid headline they ever wrote. To be so wrong so consistently was actually quite impressive.

[Voll Blau]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I think that the culpability is also shared by the press regulator.

 

Are they really doing their jobs when the Mail can print what it does with next to no libel/other repercussions for doing so?

It's not for IPSO to govern whether something is libellous, though. That's for those affected to do so if they feel they've been defamed and want to sue.

 

IPSO can, and frequently do, rule against the Mail and other national newspapers on points of accuracy. Again though, if those being written about don't want to make a complaint in the first place then there's nothing they can do about it.

[Bellend Sebastian]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I think that the culpability is also shared by the press regulator.

 

Are they really doing their jobs when the Mail can print what it does with next to no libel/other repercussions for doing so?

Do we really have a press regulator in the proper sense? The papers weren't forced to sign up to IMPRESS, which complies with the Leveson Inquiry recommendations, and instead set up IPSO which is basically them marking their own homework although it claims to be independent 

[RoboFox]

Embarrassing. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

It's not for IPSO to govern whether something is libellous, though. That's for those affected to do so if they feel they've been defamed and want to sue.

 

IPSO can, and frequently do, rule against the Mail and other national newspapers on points of accuracy. Again though, if those being written about don't want to make a complaint in the first place then there's nothing they can do about it.

I'll take your word for that, but honestly judging by the fact they can do it again and again it doesn't seem to actually be effective in policing such behaviour and one wouldn't really know that they are.

 

6 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Do we really have a press regulator in the proper sense? The papers weren't forced to sign up to IMPRESS, which complies with the Leveson Inquiry recommendations, and instead set up IPSO which is basically them marking their own homework although it claims to be independent 

It does seem to be a rather toothless tiger.

Edited 22 June 2022 by leicsmac

[Voll Blau]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll take your word for that, but honestly judging by the fact they can do it again and again it doesn't seem to actually be effective in policing such behaviour and one wouldn't really know that they are.

 

It does seem to be a rather toothless tiger.

It's all publicly available here:

 

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/

 

They can only police what people complain to them about, though? Leading politicians of all colours often don't want to get involved in taking on papers unless it's something really serious that's said about them - and if it's that serious, i.e. defamatory, then they'll just take them to court instead of spending their time complaining to the press regulator.

[Dames]

I see the Tories are reverting to the old classics of veterans and nuclear bombs in a last ditch defence to get people mad. 
 

The war hungry people in this country are dying out, those attack lines are wearing very thin now. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

It's all publicly available here:

 

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/

 

They can only police what people complain to them about, though? Leading politicians of all colours often don't want to get involved in taking on papers unless it's something really serious that's said about them - and if it's that serious, i.e. defamatory, then they'll just take them to court instead of spending their time complaining to the press regulator.

Yep, as per above, I don't doubt what you say.

 

However I stand by my assertion that it is obviously ineffective at preventing misinformation being disseminated among the public and is therefore suffering from a critical failure in purpose IMO.

 

1 minute ago, Dames said:

I see the Tories are reverting to the old classics of veterans and nuclear bombs in a last ditch defence to get people mad. 
 

The war hungry people in this country are dying out, those attack lines are wearing very thin now. 

I wouldn't be overly sure about that.

 

Jingoism and antipathy towards the "other" is easy to cultivate in any age - it's why it's been used so often by those who power-monger.

[Finnaldo]

29 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Embarrassing. 

 

 

Genuinely embarrassing. I get Piers will say virtually any twaddle for views and clicks  but this makes him look a whole new level of pathetic and inept. 

[Corky]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

180,000 people are ****ing dead you ****. 
 

 

Good to see the Tories "getting on with what the public want".

 

Tweeting "But Labour" is the new delivering, it appears.

 

 

[CosbehFox]

I love how Nads puts 'Rwanda' like as if its been a success!

 

We've the solicitors of the government trying to push changes through the British Courts to cancel a verdict by a higher court FFS

[Unabomber]

3 hours ago, RoboFox said:

Embarrassing. 

 

 

Why has Piers posted himself getting embarrassed on his own page? I assumed it was someone mocking his pathetic questioning! Same with that earlier Kay Burley clip. 

[Soar Fox]

Just watched the Piers Morgan, Mick Lynch interview. Great to see Lynch perfectly calm and not rising to the obvious baiting Morgan was trying to get out of him. Morgan ends up embarrassing himself yet again and you can tell he’s disappointed he hasn’t managed to get lynch wound up. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Mick Lynch for labour leader