Tuesday 1st November 2016
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Tuesday 1st November 2016
Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
StephenDolan wrote:Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?
That doesn't seem fair to me.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Good morfternoon.
Rather a sloppily strange headline when the opening sentence of the article actually says this -Mark Carney's 2019 departure welcomed by City as UK factory data due – business live
(Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... -england-dThe pound got an immediate lift last night when the Bank of England announced that governor Carney would serve an extra year. (Guardian)
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 8:29 am
- Location: Being rained on in west Wales
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Morning.
I'm trying to find a more reputable link than the Mail but they are reporting that Bank of England figures show credit card debt increased by 8.4% in the last year ''racking up credit card debt at the fastest pace since the financial crash''. Charities are warning of the possible consequences as households take on unsustainable amounts of debt.
I'm trying to find a more reputable link than the Mail but they are reporting that Bank of England figures show credit card debt increased by 8.4% in the last year ''racking up credit card debt at the fastest pace since the financial crash''. Charities are warning of the possible consequences as households take on unsustainable amounts of debt.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Since I mentioned this vote, yesterday, here's the outcome -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-mps-voteKeith Vaz to serve on justice committee despite Tory MP’s move to stop him
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Another barrister resigns from the icsa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37830816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The reason this isn't going to work is that they have set the remit far to wide because that was what the victims groups have demanded. it can't function as a result.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37830816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The reason this isn't going to work is that they have set the remit far to wide because that was what the victims groups have demanded. it can't function as a result.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?
That doesn't seem fair to me.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Unless it's badly worded or I'm just missing something, isn't this (my bold) the key bit, though?SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?
That doesn't seem fair to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendmentThe Hollins provision is similar to section 40 of the 2013 Crime and Courts Act, which proposes that the government can force publishers who are not signed up to a regulatory regime recognised by the royal charter-backed press recognition panel to pay both sides’ costs in libel and privacy cases – even if they win. (Guardian - my emphasis)
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Yes. But that is because that regulatory regime is supposed to be the conduit through which you bring such complaints.PorFavor wrote:Unless it's badly worded or I'm just missing something, isn't this (my bold) the key bit, though?SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?
That doesn't seem fair to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendmentThe Hollins provision is similar to section 40 of the 2013 Crime and Courts Act, which proposes that the government can force publishers who are not signed up to a regulatory regime recognised by the royal charter-backed press recognition panel to pay both sides’ costs in libel and privacy cases – even if they win. (Guardian - my emphasis)
Nobody is suggesting that should apply to phone hacking, are they?
(As it happens I think there are good reasons why every newspaper has refused to sign up to this, including the Graun and FT, and if it were challenged that costs regime fall foul of Art 10).
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Exactly. It's presumably not something plucked out of the air on a whim.Willow904 wrote:If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Nope, but it gets a refresher into the public consciousness of what was said wrt to the setting up of Leveson part 1, part 2 etc.Willow904 wrote:If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Good-morning, everyone.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15789
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Some have noticed his term will now expire not long before the next Canadian GE is due......StephenDolan wrote:Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Morfternoon all...
...and firstly, an apology for my post about the Yemen vote the other day - it seemed to stir up a bit of a hornets' nest, which was not the intention...I had also read the list of MPs involved and can't believe(TM) the likes of Yasmin Qureshi and Paul Flynn would have 'rebelled' in that way and on this subject (and should have made that clear in my comment)...so I did wonder, in my naive way, whether, just perhaps, the Whips Office had somehow arranged it...as the ensuing kerfuffle would strengthen them with the PLP and make it more difficult for 'rebel' MPs. (Not to forget the pro-Saudi contribution of some MPs though (ie Woodcock)).
I agree with Oborne (Again )
...and firstly, an apology for my post about the Yemen vote the other day - it seemed to stir up a bit of a hornets' nest, which was not the intention...I had also read the list of MPs involved and can't believe(TM) the likes of Yasmin Qureshi and Paul Flynn would have 'rebelled' in that way and on this subject (and should have made that clear in my comment)...so I did wonder, in my naive way, whether, just perhaps, the Whips Office had somehow arranged it...as the ensuing kerfuffle would strengthen them with the PLP and make it more difficult for 'rebel' MPs. (Not to forget the pro-Saudi contribution of some MPs though (ie Woodcock)).
I agree with Oborne (Again )
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- AngryAsWell
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Japan Demands Talks With U.K. Government Over Brexit Strategy
Ambassador to London says his country is ‘major stakeholder’
Tells David Davis Japan should have ‘impact’ on talks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ambassador to London says his country is ‘major stakeholder’
Tells David Davis Japan should have ‘impact’ on talks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Quite...if only there was some way to highlight this and 'yet another Government defeat'...how many is that now? (I miss OhSo and her lists!)...and without an 'opposition' as well...I look forward to the media reporting it in full...or then again, maybe notStephenDolan wrote:Nope, but it gets a refresher into the public consciousness of what was said wrt to the setting up of Leveson part 1, part 2 etc.Willow904 wrote:If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15789
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.
There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?
There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
- AngryAsWell
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
$17bn investment bank pulled every penny out of Britain because of Brexit
'We started selling off our UK holdings to absolute zero maybe a month before the vote.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 90356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
'We started selling off our UK holdings to absolute zero maybe a month before the vote.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 90356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- First Secretary of State
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:15 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
By this stuff, do you mean Leveson or government problems in general? If the former I can't see how it happens given the resistance across the newspaper range. BBC takes their lead from that consensus so they're not going to go it alone. As to the government in general, unfortunately pass. Looking forward to hearing any good ideas from you and all!AnatolyKasparov wrote:Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.
There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
...and yet...all of this is still true (and (again!) apologies, this time for the 'kool aid' reference in the title - I know that's quite a sensitive subject in itself)...StephenDolan wrote:Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.
Then there is Carney’s Goldman Sachs connection: he served the firm for 13 years in New York, London, Tokyo, and Toronto. Yes, things could be worse: he might have been a don in the Sicilian Mafia or a bagman for the Colombian drug cartel. But for anyone who knows how the world really works, a career of rising “success” in an outfit like the latter-day Goldman Sachs does not smell right. For nearly three decades now, Goldman Sachs has brazenly thumbed its nose at its previous reputation for probity: in plain language its ethos lately has been that anything goes, provided only you stay out of jail.
Then there is Carney’s Bilderberg connection. Founded in the Netherlands in the 1950s, the Bilderberg Group is ostensibly merely a top careerist’s mutual aid society –nothing more than the Freemasons on steroids. Carney is officially acknowledged to have attended the most recent Bilderberg meeting, which is interesting as the British finance minister George Osborne, who appointed him to the Bank of England job, is an avid Bilderberger.*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingl ... fb053843d1
Goldman-Sachs and the globalist bankers haven't gone away...and on this, in some small measure, I am in fact a 'Brexiter' in that, anything that shakes the control of the banks over the national interest and questions the political focus on money and only money (with no reference to history, facts, evidence or reality) is a good thing.
...and while I'm on Broke-sh1t/Remoaner-ing, I'd like to register my annoyance at the subtle but total acceptance of the geographical view of the vote - i.e. this area is remain and this area is leave - 'tis but bullsh1t (IMHO) - if I vote Remain but 52% in my area vote Leave, there are still Remainers in my area (48%, just of those that voted)...so in no way can it be considered a 'Leave' 'area'....so I see it as (purposefully) divisive.
* It has to be said that this years Bilderberg attendee list was remarkably 'vanilla', with very few of the recent 'high profile' attendees (no Gidiot or Ballroom Balls, for example)
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Ha - make me king/emperor/president/omnipotent being for the day and I'll immediately replace James (Murkydochian) Harding with Richard Sambrook as BBC Head of News, with a remit to return to the fully independent and non-commercially-focussed attitude to news gathering...but as that is very unlikely to happen, I think it's very difficult - as individuals (or even collectives who are attempting to raise issues) it is impossible to take on the might of the 'media'...for example, the Risk Register attached to the 2012 Health & Social Care Bill - massive public outcry, a direct order from the Information Tribunal to HMG to release it and yet...AnatolyKasparov wrote:Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.
There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?
The risk assessment of the NHS overhaul in England will not be published after ministers vetoed demands to release it.
The cabinet decided that releasing the document listing possible risks to services could harm the quality of future advice from civil servants.
Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham accused the government of a "cover-up of epic proportions".
An Information Tribunal had ruled in March that the risk register should be published.
The risk register is a written document drawn up by policymakers that lists the threat to the delivery of services from any changes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17989929
...and they can ignore it all, safe in the knowledge that the truth will not be told - how much/many of todays' NHS crises were forseen by that Risk Register?....and yet, here we are, 4 years on and still they give massive chunks of the NHS to their family and friends.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Willow904 wrote:If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?
it isn't though is it? This is extra-Leveson?
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (+3)
LAB: 28% (-)
UKIP: 12% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
GRN: 4 (-1)
(via BMG / 19 - 24 Oct)
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/westminste ... ober-2016/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(edit to add link)
CON: 42% (+3)
LAB: 28% (-)
UKIP: 12% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
GRN: 4 (-1)
(via BMG / 19 - 24 Oct)
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/westminste ... ober-2016/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(edit to add link)
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
ICM more positive as sees Labour cut Tory lead by 1%
Conservatives: 43% (no change)
Labour: 27% (up 1)
Ukip: 12% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 5% (down 1)
28-30 October
Quite interesting graph of this overtime
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is interesting is although Labour is slowly deflating from the low 30s to the high 20s, the big change overtime is to the Tories as they pick up the old Ukip vote.
Historically, catastrophically bad of course.
Conservatives: 43% (no change)
Labour: 27% (up 1)
Ukip: 12% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 5% (down 1)
28-30 October
Quite interesting graph of this overtime
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is interesting is although Labour is slowly deflating from the low 30s to the high 20s, the big change overtime is to the Tories as they pick up the old Ukip vote.
Historically, catastrophically bad of course.
Last edited by SpinningHugo on Tue 01 Nov, 2016 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
...and while I'm at it....a reminder of what 'we the people' are up against....from 2 years ago...
Central Government has more than 1,500 comms staff - 'and it's still impossible to get answers until after deadline'
Guardian and Spectator writer Nick Cohen said the revelation was a sign that current leaders are "as determined as the last government to propagandise".
He said: "Even when it is cutting essential public services, it will not cut the number of press officers back to a reasonable and affordable level.
"We will soon be at the point when there are more PRs in Whitehall than there are journalists scrutinising Whitehall. Indeed we may already have passed it. Honest debate and accountable government are the first victims of our shift into manufactured political reality."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/central-g ... wers-until
Central Government has more than 1,500 comms staff - 'and it's still impossible to get answers until after deadline'
Guardian and Spectator writer Nick Cohen said the revelation was a sign that current leaders are "as determined as the last government to propagandise".
He said: "Even when it is cutting essential public services, it will not cut the number of press officers back to a reasonable and affordable level.
"We will soon be at the point when there are more PRs in Whitehall than there are journalists scrutinising Whitehall. Indeed we may already have passed it. Honest debate and accountable government are the first victims of our shift into manufactured political reality."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/central-g ... wers-until
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
If I remember correctly*, this only applies to publishers who haven't registered with Impress. In other words, only those that don't want to be properly regulated rather than going through the likes of IPSO. So, if they want to carry on with the sham that is 'self-regulation' then this is the price for doing so.Womble44 wrote:Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.
Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Morning all.
As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?
That doesn't seem fair to me.
Anyone who signs up to Impress would in all likelihood never get to court anyway because everything will likely be resolved by arbitration. Of course, anyone who signs up with Impress is far less likely to be publishing the kind of bullshit that will need regulation via the courts anyway.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all if my * is right.
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
What you are seeing in the media against this clause is desperate attempts to stop themselves from being properly regulated so that they can carry on at will with libel, lies and lewdness with nothing more than the risk of a gentle rap on the knuckles from their cartel of press peers.
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15789
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Donald Trump's companies destroyed emails in defiance of court orders - The Independent
https://apple.news/Az-63uaVTTmmWRsNVUSxISg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actual 'criminal' activity as opposed to supposed or imagined.
https://apple.news/Az-63uaVTTmmWRsNVUSxISg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actual 'criminal' activity as opposed to supposed or imagined.
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?
You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."
This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.
(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).
You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.
In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.
If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Weak pound boosts UK manufacturing but import costs rise steeply - the guardian
https://apple.news/Avo6QzwJuRe-w4px8EY4NHw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://apple.news/Avo6QzwJuRe-w4px8EY4NHw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Painless.PMI survey reveals manufacturers raised prices of goods at the fastest rate for five years and suggests higher inflation is on way
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Tory government incompetence earns public contempt from Japan in no uncertain terms. It frightens me how little current UK government seem to care for the UK's international reputation. UK government receives Japan's unabridged censure. 'You're not leading and apparently don't care', says Japan, openly disgusted with Tory government. The loss of respect publicly broadcast is damaging to the nation.AngryAsWell wrote:Japan Demands Talks With U.K. Government Over Brexit Strategy
Ambassador to London says his country is ‘major stakeholder’
Tells David Davis Japan should have ‘impact’ on talks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.
- Lonewolfie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Fri 29 Aug, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
How the BBC betrayed the NHS: an exclusive report on two years of censorship and distortionSpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?
You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."
This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.
(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).
You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.
In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.
If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.
In the two years building up to the government’s NHS reform bill, the BBC appears to have categorically failed to uphold its remit of impartiality, parroting government spin as uncontested fact, whilst reporting only a narrow, shallow view of opposition to the bill. In addition, key news appears to have been censored. The following in-depth investigation provides a shocking testimony of the extent to which the BBC abandoned the NHS.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/o ... d-distorti
...so was it all reported truthfully?...and there's absolutely no 'behind the scenes' stuff in politics...and was the general consensus that the H & SC Bill (the largest reorganisation in the history of the NHS) was a 'good' thing? (As above - the current state of the NHS might point to a different answer)
ttfn
Last edited by Lonewolfie on Tue 01 Nov, 2016 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proud to be 1 of the 76% - Solidarity...because PODEMOS
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
I did say the other week how monumentally pissed off the Japanese were with this government, didn't I. More than likely it isn't limited to the Japanese.
The Nissan thing is another sham too. They're going to make their new models in Sunderland *before* Brexit is completed. Once the reality of Brexit hits - either full freedom of movement and the single market or no freedom of movement and no single market access - Nissan will either (a) have what they want as the least worst option with the former or (b) will leave if it's the latter. By the time it happens, those new models will be old models that are being phased out while, between now and then, Nissan plants in Europe will be invested in to enable them to fill the gap that winding down Sunderland will create.
The Nissan thing is another sham too. They're going to make their new models in Sunderland *before* Brexit is completed. Once the reality of Brexit hits - either full freedom of movement and the single market or no freedom of movement and no single market access - Nissan will either (a) have what they want as the least worst option with the former or (b) will leave if it's the latter. By the time it happens, those new models will be old models that are being phased out while, between now and then, Nissan plants in Europe will be invested in to enable them to fill the gap that winding down Sunderland will create.
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15789
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
The piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.SpinningHugo wrote:A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.
That does not offer Labour a viable future.
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
- JonnyT1234
- Home Secretary
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Another education U-turn? This is dangerous driving from Theresa May - the guardian
https://apple.news/AthC15PBMQYidGGGBbJoKEA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Rayner writing in the graun
https://apple.news/AthC15PBMQYidGGGBbJoKEA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Rayner writing in the graun
The Tories managed a remarkable feat last week by announcing two U-turns in one written statement. They waited until the end of the week, when MPs had started to head home to their constituencies, before sneaking out a written statement on the new education bill, adding at the end that they did not “require wider education legislation in this session”.
Donald Trump: Making America Hate Again
- AngryAsWell
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Jeremy Hunt admits his £10bn for the NHS involves other cuts to UK health budgets
Under pressure in the Commons, the Health Secretary acknowledged there was no '£10bn increase in the department of health’s budget' overall
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89696.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Health Secretary was forced to make the concession after five senior MPs – including two Conservatives – accused him of misleading the public about the extra funding being put in.
Led by the Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chairman of the Commons health select committee, the five wrote to the Chancellor, urging ministers to abandon the “incorrect” £10 billion claim.
Under pressure in the Commons, the Health Secretary acknowledged there was no '£10bn increase in the department of health’s budget' overall
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89696.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Health Secretary was forced to make the concession after five senior MPs – including two Conservatives – accused him of misleading the public about the extra funding being put in.
Led by the Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chairman of the Commons health select committee, the five wrote to the Chancellor, urging ministers to abandon the “incorrect” £10 billion claim.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.SpinningHugo wrote:A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.
That does not offer Labour a viable future.
ie the prognosis of failure at the start is right, but the author has no viable suggestion of how to avoid it.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
The weather isn't conscious and neither is gravity. Those forces don't make choices. What are they doing in your post?SpinningHugo wrote:And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."
This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.
(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).
You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.
In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.
If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.
People want to know the truth, we're born curious and stay that way unless love of learning is destroyed. People can only know what they're taught. Hoarded resources spent advertising and transmitting information a few with access to billions choose, not what most people decide they want to see. You're blaming many individuals for something they've not created or can stop in isolation. Regular people looking over their Facebook pages and Internet websites already live fragmented, busy lives without time, money and/or inclination for taking over mainstream media, if it's possible at all. Most individuals don't have capacity, resources or enough information choosing alterations to society, government or work on their own. Some individuals have more power than others, persuading greater numbers of people, using technological innovations influencing many, not just a few.
I can't emphasise enough how wrong and futile it is blaming individuals for choices not wholly within their power to make. Without understanding this reality, there's less likelihood of successful endeavour. Individual people choosing what's seen and heard and media giving people what they want isn't accurate. I can only urge you to give my effort here some thought. I've not written it well but I hope some sense is made from it.
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 15789
- Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Anyway, looking like some more "interesting" stuff might be coming out about Trump. Just as he was gaining in the polls again......
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 27400
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
- Location: Three quarters way to hell
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ls-tooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NHS teaching trust to go into special measures after inadequate rating
NHS teaching trust to go into special measures after inadequate rating
-
- Prime Minister
- Posts: 27400
- Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
- Location: Three quarters way to hell
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7017431.bl ... 9h.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cutting the cap
Cutting the cap
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
(cJA edit)JonnyT1234 wrote:I did say the other week how monumentally pissed off the Japanese were with this government, didn't I. More than likely it isn't limited to the Japanese.
I agree with you, others are likely alarmed. Japanese businesses' explicit official communications with Tory government indicate particular outrage. Japan communicating this way isn't typical.
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
On newspaper regulation, defamation and costs... - a lot of this has been said above but I think there is a consequence that hasn't been mentioned
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is brought into force so far as costs is concerned as soon as the regulatory body 'is first recognised as an approved regulator', which has now happened so far as IMPRESS is concerned...
So, as has been said, there is an expectation that aggrieved parties from the public will go through IMPRESS's systems of arbitration rather than issue a libel action.
S40ss2&3...
You can read the IMPRESS code here.
IMPRESS can impose financial sanctions, but any funds raised go to ... IMPRESS. Who have to hold them ringfenced and use them to fund future investigations.
Which means that the right to legal redress for defamation against the press, and in particular the right to financial compensation for defamation, has effectively been curtailed.
Bit of tidy up editing, sorry.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is brought into force so far as costs is concerned as soon as the regulatory body 'is first recognised as an approved regulator', which has now happened so far as IMPRESS is concerned...
So, as has been said, there is an expectation that aggrieved parties from the public will go through IMPRESS's systems of arbitration rather than issue a libel action.
S40ss2&3...
andIf the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced ... the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.
Which retains powers for the courts to award costs if they feel they must but, clearly, only in exceptional circumstances...If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced... the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
You can read the IMPRESS code here.
IMPRESS can impose financial sanctions, but any funds raised go to ... IMPRESS. Who have to hold them ringfenced and use them to fund future investigations.
Which means that the right to legal redress for defamation against the press, and in particular the right to financial compensation for defamation, has effectively been curtailed.
Bit of tidy up editing, sorry.
Last edited by adam on Tue 01 Nov, 2016 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I still believe in a town called Hope
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
I see the member for the 18th century described Max Mosley as a degenerate libertine in parliament today. He's a satirical character right? There'll be Borat style movie by the end of the decade, mark my words
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
Your assessment is accurate and your question a good one to ponder. I regret I don't have any ideas at this time.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.
There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?
Re: Tuesday 1st November 2016
I have to agree about social media, personally I feel I've probably over-stepped what's considered acceptable in discussions here for my views on certain issues, as some topics seem to be 'off the table'.SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?
You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."
This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.
(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).
You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.
In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.
If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.
I know for a fact I disagree on the causes of Labour's problems with you (I'm very much of the view that the PLP have actively sabotaged the party in very short-sighted and unnecessary way, and it would have been easier to handle the problems a biased media present if MPs weren't leaking poison to them from the start), but I'd rather read that than feel uncomfortable raising topics.