Brexit: The fallout

17,365 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, AnswerToLife42 said:

Will there be British peas this year?

 

Probably - as they are harvested by a machine called a "Pea Viner".  Not a lot of people know that (I didn't).

https://peas.org/the-harvesting-process/

 

There is even the Great British Pea Week media event held near Sleaford in Lincolnshire.

 

Going for a Pea...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, alexunterwegs said:

 

I hope and think you're wrong there.  The BBC has built up a worldwide reputation for serious news coverage over a long period of time.

I always turn to the BBC if I want serious and balanced news coverage about Britain and elsewhere. 

Well the BBC were certainly not 'balanced' during the Scottish Independence referendum debate. Very pro government and they toe the party line. I used to always trust the BBC but no more. @murphaph is correct when he mentions it's government funded so if it rocks the boat too much, it can expect repercussions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jonny said:

Well the BBC were certainly not 'balanced' during the Scottish Independence referendum debate. Very pro government and they toe the party line. I used to always trust the BBC but no more. @murphaph is correct when he mentions it's government funded so if it rocks the boat too much, it can expect repercussions.

 

OK, there is probably not a broadcaster in the world which is beyond criticism, but  when you judge it by the standards of Fox News in the US, it is relatively balanced. Also the fact that it gets criticised from both sides of the political spectrum. If there is a political panel they are usually careful to pick a wide spectrum of views. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonny said:

Well the BBC were certainly not 'balanced' during the Scottish Independence referendum debate. Very pro government and they toe the party line. I used to always trust the BBC but no more. @murphaph is correct when he mentions it's government funded so if it rocks the boat too much, it can expect repercussions.

I am out of touch - haven‘t watched TV in the UK since 1989 but does BBC Scotland behave „ differently „ to the rest of the BBC re Scottish political issues?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HEM said:

 

However the BBC has a long history of leaning to the left side of the spectrum.

 

I remember at least one Andrew Neil interview where he was so blatantly pro-Brexit he'd have made Nigel Farage blush. Not surprisingly he's the big name for GB News.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC is not bad as in bias.

Right wingers complain it is left leaning and left wingers say it is right leaning.

People see bias in many things whether it is there or not.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with keleth‘s comment here. At the moment, whose interest is it in to defund the BBC?

Mind you, in these times of austerity, does anyone think Gary Lineker is really worth THAT amount of salary? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keleth said:

The BBC is not bad as in bias.

Right wingers complain it is left leaning and left wingers say it is right leaning.

People see bias in many things whether it is there or not.

The bias is there depending on one‘s personal views. Main thing: have a variety of views.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which means not really take a stand for or against anything. And why the apostrophy abuse?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry, forgot about you taking a stand against fat people. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, john g. said:

The bias is there depending on one‘s personal views. Main thing: have a variety of views.

Depends John, that certain camps never existed in Europe in the 40s and that no one was killed in them is a view some people hold.

Should we give that kind of stuff airtime on a variety of talk/political shows? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Elljay said:

Which means not really take a stand for or against anything. 

Fence sitter extraordinaire is johng,always "there`s good on both sides" argument.

5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Depends John, that certain camps never existed in Europe in the 40s and that no one was killed in them is a view some people hold.

Should we give that kind of stuff airtime on a variety of talk/political shows? 

Holocaust deniers should not get airtime because it is an undeniable fact that the holocaust happened.You may as well give airtime to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that the sky is a shade of mauvey russet.

However peoples views should be allowed to be aired if they can find somewhere to air them as long as they don`t constitute hate speech.

To me personally someone saying they don`t like blacks,homosexuals,women etc etc is not hate speech,hate speech comes when they say those they don`t like should be treated differently to others.

We have a few renown trolls on this thread but most of them don`t tend to go to the level of hate speech.Only J2 as far as I`m concerned is in the hate speech territory.

 

I don`t like cancel culture taken to extremes but if someone has far right or far left views they have to understand that people have the right to protest those views and also that companies have the right to deny them access to their platforms to espouse those views.

Someone being kicked off of Twitter or losing an acting role or whatever is not their free speech being repressed that is actually showing how companies have to right the employ or allow access to whoever they want.Don`t get me wrong I don`t for a minute believe most companies do this for  moral reasons but merely they know if they employ these people or give them access then they`re going to lose customers.

Governments denying free speech is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keleth said:

Fence sitter extraordinaire is johng,always "there`s good on both sides" argument.

Holocaust deniers should not get airtime because it is an undeniable fact that the holocaust happened.You may as well give airtime to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that the sky is a shade of mauvey russet.

However peoples views should be allowed to be aired if they can find somewhere to air them as long as they don`t constitute hate speech.

To me personally someone saying they don`t like blacks,homosexuals,women etc etc is not hate speech,hate speech comes when they say those they don`t like should be treated differently to others.

We have a few renown trolls on this thread but most of them don`t tend to go to the level of hate speech.Only J2 as far as I`m concerned is in the hate speech territory.

 

I don`t like cancel culture taken to extremes but if someone has far right or far left views they have to understand that people have the right to protest those views and also that companies have the right to deny them access to their platforms to espouse those views.

Someone being kicked off of Twitter or losing an acting role or whatever is not their free speech being repressed that is actually showing how companies have to right the employ or allow access to whoever they want.Don`t get me wrong I don`t for a minute believe most companies do this for  moral reasons but merely they know if they employ these people or give them access then they`re going to lose customers.

Governments denying free speech is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

 

I've seen holocaust deniers , Flat earthers on UK TV, the colour f the sky, not yet :lol:

The holocaust deniers either don't say it directly or the discussion is about if you should be abale to deny it happened.

 

This is the problem what 'what is allowed', who decides, what is the criteria?

What effect does having someone on that says all woman should do as they are told and stay in the kitchen? It is a view and I guess one held by some people. At first you may get the odd person involved in equality to come on and discuss it, but eventually you run out of those people, he ones that can actually debate and discuss. Then you are left with the same motivated people pushing 'women in the kitchen' but the people opposite them are just useless. So the woman in the kitchen starts to seem stronger to some people, it stars to make sense.

Good example of this is a show called 'the big questions' hosted by Nicky Campbell. If you watch them you will see the same right wing people coming out with stuff and after a while, some very not great at discussing people going up against them.

They had a little phase of having Douglas Murray on and usually he was arguing with a woman who really was just not up to the job. made Murray look intelligent and the whole thing gave him and his views an air of legitimacy they would not otherwise have had.

Women in the kitchen is just a silly example, if you put a holocaust denier on you really have to have someone who knows their stuff to go against them. Even if you find one, and another and another and another some people will start to listen to the denier at some point, even more so if what is being presented against them is complicated.. This isn't really about facts, it is about getting something out there. Pick any topic the right may push, refugees, higher instance if single mothers in a given community, single mothers being given preference for housing etc.

All this becomes a problem because the goal of most shows is not to provide an informed debate, it is to entertain and get viewers.

Also you may notice that when it comes to certain people on certain topic, there can (always seems) to be a lack of good counter argument. Ferage has been on question time a lot but rarely was he ever on with someone who could really call him out on what he was saying. I think the closest I saw was Eddy Izzard, it got so bad that Nigel started trying to ignore him (because Nigel can talk, but he can't hold his own in a real discussion)

 

I don't like cancel culture much (although everyone has the right to ignore unpleasant people) and cancel culture is basically saying 'I have a right to be heard'. No, you don't. None of us do. The mods here could take a knife to the forum and delete anything they didn't like. If that Fox actor is being ignored because people think he's an idiot, that's not cancel culture, that just means he isn't interesting enough to listen to.

When you look at it, cancel culture is just an extension of the free speech argument. Free speech as in 'freedom for being called out on what I am saying'. Every time someone  says 'we need an honest and open discussion' he actually means 'stop people from pointing out hole in my argument and just let me say what I want to say and let that do the rounds'.

 

Anyone can still say what they want today, and people can call the out on it (if it is illegal, the authorities call them out). People can also ignore them, that's life.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keleth said:

Fence sitter extraordinaire is johng,always "there`s good on both sides" argument.

Holocaust deniers should not get airtime because it is an undeniable fact that the holocaust happened.You may as well give airtime to someone who believes the Earth is flat or that the sky is a shade of mauvey russet.

However peoples views should be allowed to be aired if they can find somewhere to air them as long as they don`t constitute hate speech.

To me personally someone saying they don`t like blacks,homosexuals,women etc etc is not hate speech,hate speech comes when they say those they don`t like should be treated differently to others.

We have a few renown trolls on this thread but most of them don`t tend to go to the level of hate speech.Only J2 as far as I`m concerned is in the hate speech territory.

 

I don`t like cancel culture taken to extremes but if someone has far right or far left views they have to understand that people have the right to protest those views and also that companies have the right to deny them access to their platforms to espouse those views.

Someone being kicked off of Twitter or losing an acting role or whatever is not their free speech being repressed that is actually showing how companies have to right the employ or allow access to whoever they want.Don`t get me wrong I don`t for a minute believe most companies do this for  moral reasons but merely they know if they employ these people or give them access then they`re going to lose customers.

Governments denying free speech is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

 

I don't mind your calling me a fence sitter - even an extraordinaire one :) -. I DO believe, as I get older, that two views are never enough if they are extreme. There are nuances to every argument. This is the point I probably fail to make clear enough. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Elljay said:

Which means not really take a stand for or against anything. And why the apostrophy abuse?

If it is important in my view, I take a stance but often with nuances. Life is not black and white.

Apostrophe abuse?😂

It took a while- then I realised it was because I switch the chosen language on my SmartPhone from English to German sometimes and didn‘t yesterday.

Life is too short ( sometimes- but with nuances😂)...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Elljay said:

Oh, sorry, forgot about you taking a stand against fat people. 

Ah, you are referring, I think , to the thread last year when I stated obesity in children is often child abuse by ignorant parents? All in the context of a thread I had stumbled upon.

I stand by that.


Not my fault, either , if scientists are saying obesity can be a factor in the effectiveness of Covid vaccines. 

 

Why should obesity amongst children be healthy under any circumstances?

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/500436

 

This is not the same as saying obese people are always/ necessarily to blame. I know there are genetic factors and illnesses and all the rest of it. And the food industry bla bla. And sedentary life styles bla bla bla.

And , for example , the DOCTOR in our village who gets into the car, drives 50 metres to the rubbish container, opens the car window, chucks the rubbish bag into the container, closes the car window and drives back home. Sometimes, people ARE their own worst enemies.

 

I am no different.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, cb6dba said:

They had a little phase of having Douglas Murray on and usually he was arguing with a woman who really was just not up to the job. made Murray look intelligent and the whole thing gave him and his views an air of legitimacy they would not otherwise have had.

 

In those days, he was an author that most people had not heard of, who represented xenophobic organisations that most people had not heard of nor had any interest in, peddling rhetoric no different from that of Nick Griffin or that un-dynamic duo of Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen but with an Oxford-educated accent and debating technique.

 

Somehow, instead of people just seeing him as an Oxbridge Nick Griffin, his stock has risen since being a regular on The Big Questions and he gets wheeled out (or these days joining via zoom) in Australia and the US as the most important critical thinker of today.  I was quite shocked to hear Peter Hitchens recently mention Murray as one of the only people who had the influence to make the UK completely reject lockdown.  How on Earth has Murray managed to build up a such a reputation and following, and also not be seen for the Xenophobe that he is?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2021, 20:48:06, murphaph said:

Ironically I'd put more faith in Murdoch's Sky News than the BBC these days.

 

Not the Australian Sky News I hope. Some of their stuff is if anything closer to Newsmax and OANN than Fox. Rowan Dean is terrible, he manages to take the worst of Hannity and Carlson and coat it with a sarcasm that makes things seem more believable rather than some wacky wannabe-Maverick ranting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mackle said:

 

In those days, he was an author that most people had not heard of, who represented xenophobic organisations that most people had not heard of nor had any interest in, peddling rhetoric no different from that of Nick Griffin or that un-dynamic duo of Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen but with an Oxford-educated accent and debating technique.

 

Somehow, instead of people just seeing him as an Oxbridge Nick Griffin, his stock has risen since being a regular on The Big Questions and he gets wheeled out (or these days joining via zoom) in Australia and the US as the most important critical thinker of today.  I was quite shocked to hear Peter Hitchens recently mention Murray as one of the only people who had the influence to make the UK completely reject lockdown.  How on Earth has Murray managed to build up a such a reputation and following, and also not be seen for the Xenophobe that he is?

Media time on such programs.

Someone being there a lot and talking in a nice way builds trust. This is the entire reason cancel culture gets mentioned.

If they do not get airtime, they cannot build up trust and a profile with the public. This is why the 'all views are valid' is BS. The problem is who decides which are valid and get airtime and if you let such views on, who do you get to go up against them.

With Murray it was always the nicely spoken feminist woman who although nice and made good points, was never his equal in presentation or use of words.

 

I think I only saw him on the show once with a person opposite who could speak and work through arguments. Murray spent most of the program quiet. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

With Murray it was always the nicely spoken feminist woman who although nice and made good points, was never his equal in presentation or use of words

 

I guess this touches on a good point, sometimes it's the person giving the opposing view that makes the difference - for example I know a lot of people get riled up by seeing Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones, and so have the inclination to side with whoever they are debating against.

 

A few years ago both Ian Duncan Smith and Owen Jones were on the same edition of Question Time shortly after the tragic death of David Clapson. Jones said things that on the face of it should have absolutely skewered IDS, but instead IDS just smugly said something along the lines of "But people like you Owen have to realise that this is what the hard working tax payers of this country want!" and got a standing ovation from a suddenly frenzied audience (I don't really remember QT audiences being raucous until Brexit brought out such a polarising divide in opinion).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now