First non Labour Councillor on Newham Council for over a decade
One of the many Socialists expelled from Labour wins against SKS puppet.
He says he was "falsely accused" of liking an antisemitic cartoon in 2018 and standing up for Jo Bird the Socialist Jew when she was accused of being a Socialist i mean Anti Semite and expelled.
My Party came 3rd with a very decent 21%
Britain Elects @BritainElects · 1h Boleyn (Newham) council by-election result:
I am sure Sir Keir will be terrified at the small swing in Newham from overwhelmingly Labour to slightly less Labour as Corbynites like you have a tantrum and vote Independent or Green
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
It is a Tory trope that the BBC hates them, but George Osborne's wedding was attended by Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, oh, and of course, Thea Rogers.
Another example of the insidious nature of the interaction between media and politics. At the top, they’re mostly all ‘elites’ who know each other well, and hang out with each other outside of work.
How well do we expect the media, to hold their friends to account?
Local by election yesterday in a Lib Dem target area:- Chippenham (Wiltshire) Town Council Byelection Sheldon Ward result: Churchman (Con)127 (17.6%) Clarke (Ind) 112 (16.6%) Ward (LD) 481 (66.8%) I suppose this is the other side of the story as against Dinnington.
Ignore my other posts that you shouldn't read too much into single local by-elections. LD landslide at the next GE.
The BBC does try to be politically balanced, but it is naturally on the more wokish, Metropolitan side. Like an elephant balancing on a wire, it can tip sometimes. As has been said, climate change is one such subject.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist. Someone designed to come across badly to the audience, as opposed to the balanced view of someone advocating increase in technology vs someone more in favour of restrictions.
The 43% of 2019 Tory voters who want Boris back as an MP cannot be ignored by Rishi however, he needs them voting Tory next year not Reform or staying home.
Note also while voters overall think Sunak has been a better PM than Johnson by 26% to 21%, 2019 Conservative voters think Johnson was a better PM than Sunak by 35% to 23%. Johnson also has the problem now he has stepped down as MP for Uxbridge he would have to get on the CCHQ approved candidates list to stand as a Tory candidate again and again and that may not happen with Rishi as leader. Corbyn of course blocked from being a Labour candidate by Starmer too and ready to stand as an Indepedent in Islington North
Yes they can be ignored.
Now where have I put that PIN and my security detail?
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
Headteachers have suggested a new strategy for dealing with absence.
'If somebody were to visit Gillian Keegan's place down in Chichester,' commented an anonymous official of the NAHT, 'they might find where she's left her brain this morning.'
Other teachers expressed reservations. 'First of all, we've never seen any evidence she has a brain,' commented a Head of Physics. 'But even if she does, we're so short of microscopes I don't want the Head taking one of them away from Year 9 to go look for it.'
The DfE made no comment, other than to reiterate they approve of OFSTED when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, and that their own absence problem had been solved by some lackey buying a new corkscrew from the local Tesco Express.
Britain Elects @BritainElects · 1h Dinnington (Rotherham) council by-election result:
CON: 42.7% (+10.5) i make that 1063 LAB: 32.9% (+10.3) i make that 819 LDEM: 10.5% (+2.5) IND: 7.9% (-3.2) REF: 2.4% (+2.4) GRN: 2.4% (-6.6) YRK: 1.1% (+1.1)
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
I suspect the BBC likes to be patriotically supportive of the Government of the day and sometimes this offends the Opposition of the day.
My biggest beef with the BBC is it's balancing or equalising for example Patrick Minford's view as equal to the million economists who say his analysis is tosh.
Making out Beergate to he as egregious as Partygate was another fail in the interests of "balance"
The most absurd is the one I always bang on about "Boris and the curious case of the Cenotaph".
Edwards was the most egregious proponent when it came to throwing in an absurdity to ensure non -partisanship.
Or, for example, equating Nigel Lawson's view on climate change as equal to the thousands of climate scientists who said he was talking complete bollocks.
Headteachers have suggested a new strategy for dealing with absence.
'If somebody were to visit Gillian Keegan's place down in Chichester,' commented an anonymous official of the NAHT, 'they might find where she's left her brain this morning.'
Other teachers expressed reservations. 'First of all, we've never seen any evidence she has a brain,' commented a Head of Physics. 'But even if she does, we're so short of microscopes I don't want the Head taking one of them away from Year 9 to go look for it.'
The DfE made no comment, other than to reiterate they approve of OFSTED when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, and that their own absence problem had been solved by some lackey buying a new corkscrew from the local Tesco Express.
That’s bullshit. You are claiming a state school has working microscopes for Year 9?
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
Interviews with non-combatants on both sides, not selected to "make the story", would be interesting. Al Jazeera had a go at interviewing people in Russian-occupied Donbas (IIRC the general view was "Russia OK but wish the war would stop"), but of course many people will be hesitant to say anything against the currently controlling power. Austrian-based Tom Cooper has a reasonable shot at dispassionate military analysis, although he is very firmly pro-Ukraine and IMO tediously sarcastic about everyone: https://substack.com/app?utm_source=email . Simply telling us what both sides are reporting from the front (as Cooper does) is a good start - we tend only to report Ukrainian claims, even when they're implausible and Western intelligence dismisses them ("Russians have placed objects that might be bombs to blow up the nuclear plant and irradiate themselves"). But because the front is so deadlocked it doesn't make a good story.
I mean, did she not even think of the implications of 'heads pick up children in their homes?'
Watch the interview. It is very good. She didn't say that.
The interviewer said that some heads were already doing this and she, recognising the problem, defended them "we all have to play our part". I thought it was a good interview. I liked the interviewer.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
Interviews with non-combatants on both sides, not selected to "make the story", would be interesting. Al Jazeera had a go at interviewing people in Russian-occupied Donbas (IIRC the general view was "Russia OK but wish the war would stop"), but of course many people will be hesitant to say anything against the currently controlling power. Austrian-based Tom Cooper has a reasonable shot at dispassionate military analysis, although he is very firmly pro-Ukraine and IMO tediously sarcastic about everyone: https://substack.com/app?utm_source=email . Simply telling us what both sides are reporting from the front (as Cooper does) is a good start - we tend only to report Ukrainian claims, even when they're implausible and Western intelligence dismisses them ("Russians have placed objects that might be bombs to blow up the nuclear plant and irradiate themselves"). But because the front is so deadlocked it doesn't make a good story.
Why do you think the Russians blowing up the ZNPP as 'implausible' ? Did you think them blowing up the dam was 'implausible' two months ago?
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
Interviews with non-combatants on both sides, not selected to "make the story", would be interesting. Al Jazeera had a go at interviewing people in Russian-occupied Donbas (IIRC the general view was "Russia OK but wish the war would stop"), but of course many people will be hesitant to say anything against the currently controlling power. Austrian-based Tom Cooper has a reasonable shot at dispassionate military analysis, although he is very firmly pro-Ukraine and IMO tediously sarcastic about everyone: https://substack.com/app?utm_source=email . Simply telling us what both sides are reporting from the front (as Cooper does) is a good start - we tend only to report Ukrainian claims, even when they're implausible and Western intelligence dismisses them ("Russians have placed objects that might be bombs to blow up the nuclear plant and irradiate themselves"). But because the front is so deadlocked it doesn't make a good story.
Why do you think the Russians blowing up the ZNPP as 'implausible' ? Did you think them blowing up the dam was 'implausible' two months ago?
One thing has become clear - that large chunks of the Russian leadership believe in a fair chunk of their own propaganda.
One piece of which is that the Ukrainians are Nazis who are trying to make nuclear and biological weapons.
In this context, destroying a nuclear power plant is a tough, but necessary thing, if they are about to lose control of it to the Jewish Nazi NATO forces.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
There is a phenomenon of "scientific reticence" on climate change, where climatologists consistently underestimate it.
In what way was Lloyd George the last Liberal to hold government office before Nick Clegg in 2010?
Is that a trick question because Nick Clegg is a Tory? Come to think of it, so was Lloyd George.
The irony is, your second sentence is close to the truth - probably closer than you realise.
Which Lloyd George? The Home Secretary to Winston Churchill?
We have a winner!
And even if you believe that he was a Conservative in 1954 (he always described himself as a Liberal) he was also Minister for Fuel and Power from 1942-45 and the only minister holding the Liberal whip in Churchill's wartime coalition not to lose his seat in 1945.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
Question is, why is that so?
Is climate orthodoxy getting all the money for broadly political reasons?
Or is it that climate orthodoxy is, in rough terms, turning out to be right? The consensus predictions from 1990 are broadly matching the outcomes.
A bit like Fred Hoyle's opposition to big bang cosmology. A serious scientist and, in the early days, he had a point. His challenges kept mainstream cosmologists honest. But as evidence kept coming in, his position became increasingly untenable.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
There is a phenomenon of "scientific reticence" on climate change, where climatologists consistently underestimate it.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
There is a phenomenon of "scientific reticence" on climate change, where climatologists consistently underestimate it.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
And speaking of Plato, I love people who revere 5th century Athens as a shining beacon of democracy, for the many not the few, and all that. Standard democratic tactic: party A: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads should be put to death. Party B: we oppose this motion. Party A: amendment: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads, and all those opposing this motion, should be put to death. And this was legitimate and happened: see Pericles' decree on ships in 431 and the trial after Arginusae in 406. Bunch of savages.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
And speaking of Plato, I love people who revere 5th century Athens as a shining beacon of democracy, for the many not the few, and all that. Standard democratic tactic: party A: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads should be put to death. Party B: we oppose this motion. Party A: amendment: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads, and all those opposing this motion, should be put to death. And this was legitimate and happened: see Pericles' decree on ships in 431 and the trial after Arginusae in 406. Bunch of savages.
Yup
Add in those who think that the Roman Senate was something to do with democracy. It wasn’t. Membership was by wealth only.
I only know of 'podule' wrt Acorn computers - a term for hardware expansion cards. Is there another meaning?
The word "podule" came up when @Leon used it when describing a holiday he took. I contend that this places him, as it's a term usually used by British fifty-sixty somethings.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
And speaking of Plato, I love people who revere 5th century Athens as a shining beacon of democracy, for the many not the few, and all that. Standard democratic tactic: party A: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads should be put to death. Party B: we oppose this motion. Party A: amendment: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads, and all those opposing this motion, should be put to death. And this was legitimate and happened: see Pericles' decree on ships in 431 and the trial after Arginusae in 406. Bunch of savages.
Yup
Add in those who think that the Roman Senate was something to do with democracy. It wasn’t. Membership was by wealth only.
They were an early example of a Network Rail announcement.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
There is a phenomenon of "scientific reticence" on climate change, where climatologists consistently underestimate it.
In what way was Lloyd George the last Liberal to hold government office before Nick Clegg in 2010?
Is that a trick question because Nick Clegg is a Tory? Come to think of it, so was Lloyd George.
The irony is, your second sentence is close to the truth - probably closer than you realise.
Which Lloyd George? The Home Secretary to Winston Churchill?
We have a winner!
And even if you believe that he was a Conservative in 1954 (he always described himself as a Liberal) he was also Minister for Fuel and Power from 1942-45 and the only minister holding the Liberal whip in Churchill's wartime coalition not to lose his seat in 1945.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
And speaking of Plato, I love people who revere 5th century Athens as a shining beacon of democracy, for the many not the few, and all that. Standard democratic tactic: party A: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads should be put to death. Party B: we oppose this motion. Party A: amendment: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads, and all those opposing this motion, should be put to death. And this was legitimate and happened: see Pericles' decree on ships in 431 and the trial after Arginusae in 406. Bunch of savages.
Yup
Add in those who think that the Roman Senate was something to do with democracy. It wasn’t. Membership was by wealth only.
They were an early example of a Network Rail announcement.
I only know of 'podule' wrt Acorn computers - a term for hardware expansion cards. Is there another meaning?
The word "podule" came up when @Leon used it when describing a holiday he took. I contend that this places him, as it's a term usually used by British fifty-sixty somethings.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
I understand that some of you like playing with their organs. Please find below a rather breathless and worryingly overenthusiastic fifteen-minute video essay on how the organ is the future of music.
I have just been reading this paper from the 'International journal of Environment and Climate Change'. It suggests that achieving net zero may only be part of the picture in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and that there is a bigger problem with a decline in marine biodiversity. The writers appear to be connected to Edinburgh University. The paper concludes with the following 'recommendations':
"We must continue with carbon mitigation, but as a matter of urgency, we must eliminate the dumping of all toxic forever lipophilic chemicals, as well as plastic and black carbon soot, into the environment. All wastewaters must be treated, we must not pollute our environment, we must DO NO HARM to nature on land and to marine life in the Oceans. We must start doing some GOOD and transition from destructive farming and unsustainable fishing practices to rewilding and regenerate ecosystems on land and in the oceans. We should also give serious consideration to changing sea water chemistry by increasing calcium and alkalinity concentrations, which we consider to be a no-risk strategy.."
I go along with the consensus of opinion about climate change and what we need to do about it. But I find the subject very difficult because everything I read seems to be driven by a 'we need to this now and anyone who disagrees is evil' activism, exemplified by the quote above. If the science is being driven by activism and a politicised narrative of right and wrong, then it seems less likely that we will ultimately know what interventions are good and what are harmful, which can only occur when there is free enquiry unconstrained by politics.
In what way was Lloyd George the last Liberal to hold government office before Nick Clegg in 2010?
Is that a trick question because Nick Clegg is a Tory? Come to think of it, so was Lloyd George.
The irony is, your second sentence is close to the truth - probably closer than you realise.
Which Lloyd George? The Home Secretary to Winston Churchill?
We have a winner!
And even if you believe that he was a Conservative in 1954 (he always described himself as a Liberal) he was also Minister for Fuel and Power from 1942-45 and the only minister holding the Liberal whip in Churchill's wartime coalition not to lose his seat in 1945.
He did not describe himself as a 'National Liberal.' Wikipedia does because it's edited by idiots. In just the same way as it says Richard III didn't kill his nephews, Catherine Nixey's work is dissed only by Christians, Harry Truman was a millionaire or periodically claims that most historians think Jesus never existed.
Gwilym Lloyd George called himself 'a Liberal supporting the National Government.' In 1951 he was elected in Newcastle upon Tyne North as a Liberal but without the support of the Liberal party, and ironically opposed by a Conservative who had been disowned by the national Conservative party. In various indices of MPs of the time he was described as a 'Liberal and Conservative' but he wouldn't have recognised that label.
This was somewhat more complicated as until 1970 party affiliation wasn't on the ballot paper so could be rather more fluid than it is now.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.
I only know of 'podule' wrt Acorn computers - a term for hardware expansion cards. Is there another meaning?
The word "podule" came up when @Leon used it when describing a holiday he took. I contend that this places him, as it's a term usually used by British fifty-sixty somethings.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
Ah, thanks. From memory, and it might be wrong, we didn't use 'pod' internally - but I was there near the end, not the beginning. I thought it meant 'Peripheral Module', as opposed to 'Module', which was the OS's software organisation. I do recall someone using 'Sodule' for 'Software module' - although he meant Sod-you-all...
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
My father (professional philosopher) found teaching on the nature of truth, impartiality etc to be excellent fun.
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty - one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor - A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
And speaking of Plato, I love people who revere 5th century Athens as a shining beacon of democracy, for the many not the few, and all that. Standard democratic tactic: party A: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads should be put to death. Party B: we oppose this motion. Party A: amendment: we propose a law that anyone adding fruit to cheesy flatbreads, and all those opposing this motion, should be put to death. And this was legitimate and happened: see Pericles' decree on ships in 431 and the trial after Arginusae in 406. Bunch of savages.
The Athenians did a lot to discredit the entire notion of democracy, for centuries to come.
Mr. F, the vote to execute almost the entire military leadership (except the smartest ones who refused to go home) after they won a naval victory for failing to properly attend to the dead amid a storm was not necessarily democratic Athens' finest hour.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.
Theory ranges from near certainty to wildly improbable. The current rough consensus on climate change is closer to the former than the latter.
I have just been reading this paper from the 'International journal of Environment and Climate Change'. It suggests that achieving net zero may only be part of the picture in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and that there is a bigger problem with a decline in marine biodiversity. The writers appear to be connected to Edinburgh University. The paper concludes with the following 'recommendations':
"We must continue with carbon mitigation, but as a matter of urgency, we must eliminate the dumping of all toxic forever lipophilic chemicals, as well as plastic and black carbon soot, into the environment. All wastewaters must be treated, we must not pollute our environment, we must DO NO HARM to nature on land and to marine life in the Oceans. We must start doing some GOOD and transition from destructive farming and unsustainable fishing practices to rewilding and regenerate ecosystems on land and in the oceans. We should also give serious consideration to changing sea water chemistry by increasing calcium and alkalinity concentrations, which we consider to be a no-risk strategy.."
I go along with the consensus of opinion about climate change and what we need to do about it. But I find the subject very difficult because everything I read seems to be driven by a 'we need to this now and anyone who disagrees is evil' activism, exemplified by the quote above. If the science is being driven by activism and a politicised narrative of right and wrong, then it seems less likely that we will ultimately know what interventions are good and what are harmful, which can only occur when there is free enquiry unconstrained by politics.
They're obviously right. It's like driving a car without maintaining it. You are bound to have a catastrophic failure whether it's the brakes or the wheel bearings or the lub or the cooling system which goes first. Overfocusing on climate change is like paying no attention to any of your readouts except the fuel gauge. We are doomed.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.
There can always be arguments even about facts. Some of them based on better grounds than others.
For example, did Napoleon invade Spain in 1808, when he arrived in person to try and sort out the mess, or in 1807 when French armies began campaigning there on his orders?
On September 3rd, did Britain declare war or did it accept a state of war? Given Neville Chamberlain's rather strange broadcast on the subject you could argue it just sort of happened.
Even with the Holocaust, you can find endless arguments about whether it the victims of (say) Aktion T4 should be included in it or not.
Similarly, Richard III. He usurped the throne in July 1483, and later that same summer had his nephews (the rightful king and his heir) murdered. But you will always find people who say maybe he didn't really usurp the throne because it's possible Edward IV was married to somebody else and therefore Edward V wasn't really the king, and perhaps somebody else killed Edward V and the Duke of York.
Mr. F, the vote to execute almost the entire military leadership (except the smartest ones who refused to go home) after they won a naval victory for failing to properly attend to the dead amid a storm was not necessarily democratic Athens' finest hour.
Lovely irony, though, that 99% of those who go misty eyed when fraudulent prime ministers quote the praise of democracy in the funeral oration by Pericles the elder, are unaware that one of the generals executed in 406 was Pericles the younger.
The morning after the night before in Newham politics and two fascinating results to chew over.
Let's start with my home patch, Wall End, I predicted Labour would win big on a small turnout though that wasn't exactly rocket science. Labour's candidate scraped home with 61% of the vote with the Conservatives on 27%, the Liberal Democrats nicked third off the Greens with Reform last.
Compating this result to 2022 is complicated by the presence last year of Swarup Choudhury, an ally of Mirza (of whom more anon) who polled 957 votes but was the lone candidate in a 3-member Ward and enveryone had three votes so from where did Choudhury draw his votes? Did people just vote for him and for no one else or was there a vote split between him and other anti-Labour candidates so we had people voting for Choudhury and then for two Conservatives?
It's also worth noting the top Conservative polled 648 and the bottom 412 which is a huge difference.
Going back to 2018, Labour beat the Conservatives 78-18 so quite a swing last night but we've seen this before - in May 2021, the next door Ward, East Ham Central, had a by-election where the Conservative won over 30% of the vote - needless to say, come the full set of local elections the following year, normal service was resumed.
I'll offer a few other random thoughts a bit closer to the edge - the Conservative candidate was the only Hindu among the candidates and this is a strongly Tamil area - he was also a well-known local business man with plenty of contacts so the extent to which this was a personal vote rather than a Conservative vote is worth considering.
The Conservatives abandoned Boleyn yesterday (as the result suggests) and put all their effort into the seat which explains why from nothing the Ward was full of Conservative workers and leaflets. I'd also argue (and we see this elsewhere) the core Conservative vote comes out and votes or has a good postal operation.
This might explain the Conservative showing (which, despite @NerysHughes's partisan blethering) wasn't double anything - 739 was probably the core plus some personal support for the candidate.
Labour can feel fairly content - the fall in actual numbers was slight and turnout can explain most of that.
The LDs have never stood in the Ward so a distant third was about the best they could have expected. It was a poor result for the Greens but they concentrated their effort in Boleyn while the local Reform candidate, who I though put out the best leaflet, lost ground on 2022.
I only know of 'podule' wrt Acorn computers - a term for hardware expansion cards. Is there another meaning?
The word "podule" came up when @Leon used it when describing a holiday he took. I contend that this places him, as it's a term usually used by British fifty-sixty somethings.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
Ah, thanks. From memory, and it might be wrong, we didn't use 'pod' internally - but I was there near the end, not the beginning. I thought it meant 'Peripheral Module', as opposed to 'Module', which was the OS's software organisation. I do recall someone using 'Sodule' for 'Software module' - although he meant Sod-you-all...
And to take it further down a rabbit hole that will interest no-one, I've just checked the 1991 edition of the Acorn Technical Publications Style Guide, and it says that the use of 'podule' was deprecated, and instead it should be 'expansion card'. Sadly, there is no definition of what it means.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
If you were wanting to do a study on how attempts at factual unbiased reporting is perceived by different groups it would be hard to imagine a worse or less representative way of doing it than in Israel dealing with issues in Gaza.
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that rela
Mr. F, the vote to execute almost the entire military leadership (except the smartest ones who refused to go home) after they won a naval victory for failing to properly attend to the dead amid a storm was not necessarily democratic Athens' finest hour.
Following the end of the war with Persia, I'm hard put to think of anything the Athenian Assembly got right.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.There can always be arguments even about facts. Some of them based on better grounds than others.
For example, did Napoleon invade Spain in 1808, when he arrived in person to try and sort out the mess, or in 1807 when French armies began campaigning there on his orders?
On September 3rd, did Britain declare war or did it accept a state of war? Given Neville Chamberlain's rather strange broadcast on the subject you could argue it just sort of happened.
Even with the Holocaust, you can find endless arguments about whether it the victims of (say) Aktion T4 should be included in it or not.
Similarly, Richard III. He usurped the throne in July 1483, and later that same summer had his nephews (the rightful king and his heir) murdered. But you will always find people who say maybe he didn't really usurp the throne because it's possible Edward IV was married to somebody else and therefore Edward V wasn't really the king, and perhaps somebody else killed Edward V and the Duke of York.
Well, as you pointed out, there are those who think that Elizabeth Woodville had magical powers, and Lady Margaret Beaufort murdered the Princes in the Tower.
As of 2019, 79 countries have legislation on blasphemy – defined as speech or actions deemed disrespectful towards sacred entities or individuals – many imposing the death penalty. Twelve northern states of Nigeria, including Sokoto, implement sharia law, under which blasphemy can be punishable by death. But public violence is often triggered before authorities become involved.
Nigeria’s population is religiously divided with a Christian majority in the south and Muslim majority in the north. People of both faiths have fallen victim to blasphemy killings in the north, which have received support from influential individuals, including Islamic preachers, businessmen and government officials...
I only know of 'podule' wrt Acorn computers - a term for hardware expansion cards. Is there another meaning?
The word "podule" came up when @Leon used it when describing a holiday he took. I contend that this places him, as it's a term usually used by British fifty-sixty somethings.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
Ah, thanks. From memory, and it might be wrong, we didn't use 'pod' internally - but I was there near the end, not the beginning. I thought it meant 'Peripheral Module', as opposed to 'Module', which was the OS's software organisation. I do recall someone using 'Sodule' for 'Software module' - although he meant Sod-you-all...
And to take it further down a rabbit hole that will interest no-one, I've just checked the 1991 edition of the Acorn Technical Publications Style Guide, and it says that the use of 'podule' was deprecated, and instead it should be 'expansion card'. Sadly, there is no definition of what it means.
I have just been reading this paper from the 'International journal of Environment and Climate Change'. It suggests that achieving net zero may only be part of the picture in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and that there is a bigger problem with a decline in marine biodiversity. The writers appear to be connected to Edinburgh University. The paper concludes with the following 'recommendations':
"We must continue with carbon mitigation, but as a matter of urgency, we must eliminate the dumping of all toxic forever lipophilic chemicals, as well as plastic and black carbon soot, into the environment. All wastewaters must be treated, we must not pollute our environment, we must DO NO HARM to nature on land and to marine life in the Oceans. We must start doing some GOOD and transition from destructive farming and unsustainable fishing practices to rewilding and regenerate ecosystems on land and in the oceans. We should also give serious consideration to changing sea water chemistry by increasing calcium and alkalinity concentrations, which we consider to be a no-risk strategy.."
I go along with the consensus of opinion about climate change and what we need to do about it. But I find the subject very difficult because everything I read seems to be driven by a 'we need to this now and anyone who disagrees is evil' activism, exemplified by the quote above. If the science is being driven by activism and a politicised narrative of right and wrong, then it seems less likely that we will ultimately know what interventions are good and what are harmful, which can only occur when there is free enquiry unconstrained by politics.
They're obviously right. It's like driving a car without maintaining it. You are bound to have a catastrophic failure whether it's the brakes or the wheel bearings or the lub or the cooling system which goes first. Overfocusing on climate change is like paying no attention to any of your readouts except the fuel gauge. We are doomed.
But alternatively, is this not just the recurring human predeliction to think that we are in mortal danger and the world is coming to an end. The natural and instinctive response to chaos.
It's probably a mix of its being a Red Wall seat, and Labour still suffering (rightly) from the record of the local council.
Even in May, there were places where the Conservatives pulled off good results (eg East Cambs., Slough, Torbay, Bedford, Leicester) due to local factors. That is a difference from 1994-96, were results were just appalling everywhere.
I wouldn't call Laughton-en-le-Morthern (nice church) or Anston (nice woodland) particularly Red Wall. They are turning into commuter villages. Dinnington itself still is a bit ex-mining though.
Comments
Can we have a SKSDS acronym please?
It is smart politics in a number of ways.
If people post local results we need to see the actual vote numbers.
Not surprising as he is to the right of Sunak.
How well do we expect the media, to hold their friends to account?
But it does try.
In what way was Lloyd George the last Liberal to hold government office before Nick Clegg in 2010?
Now where have I put that PIN and my security detail?
I mean, did she not even think of the implications of 'heads pick up children in their homes?'
Two more things; is there really such a thing as a 'fact' as opposed to value laden facts in any sort of reporting.
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
1152 Socialist Independent Candidate up from Zero
870 SKS Puppet down by more than 500
and I havent seen anyone extrapolating that to the whole country as that would be barmy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Liberal_Party_(UK,_1918)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_(UK,_1922)
Remember folks, we have up to 18 months of this to go.
Don't have nightmares.
What kind of socialist kept on promoting and trusting a Tory like Starmer.
'If somebody were to visit Gillian Keegan's place down in Chichester,' commented an anonymous official of the NAHT, 'they might find where she's left her brain this morning.'
Other teachers expressed reservations. 'First of all, we've never seen any evidence she has a brain,' commented a Head of Physics. 'But even if she does, we're so short of microscopes I don't want the Head taking one of them away from Year 9 to go look for it.'
The DfE made no comment, other than to reiterate they approve of OFSTED when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't, and that their own absence problem had been solved by some lackey buying a new corkscrew from the local Tesco Express.
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
1h
Dinnington (Rotherham) council by-election result:
CON: 42.7% (+10.5) i make that 1063
LAB: 32.9% (+10.3) i make that 819
LDEM: 10.5% (+2.5)
IND: 7.9% (-3.2)
REF: 2.4% (+2.4)
GRN: 2.4% (-6.6)
YRK: 1.1% (+1.1)
Votes cast: 2,490
Conservative HOLD.
Dont extrapolate to the rest of the country !!
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_72jEeaC_gE
Lab - 1659
C - 739
LD - 138
G - 123
Ref - 58
Turnout 25.1%
Boleyn
Ind - 1153
Lab - 871
G - 572
C - 69
Ref - 23
LD - 22
Turnout 27.7%
The lightbulb moments when people realise they aren’t Platonic Philosopher Kings - just human, with biases….
One of the amusements of the Title 9 stuff in the US, was the invention of “courts” by the universities. Which became a speed run through the history of legal procedure and defendants rights. Highlights included -
- One member of a panel declaring that everyone brought before the panel was guilty, because they wouldn’t have be accused unless guilty
- one Professor said he couldn’t be biased because he was a Professor
- A university had a form letter to send to all witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of someone accused of title 9 violations. The form letter stated that if they have evidence for the defence, that *when* the accused was convicted, they would be “convicted” as well and thrown out of the university.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41744344
But dont it would be barmy as our gracious host says
The interviewer said that some heads were already doing this and she, recognising the problem, defended them "we all have to play our part". I thought it was a good interview. I liked the interviewer.
For anyone who has ever wondered, an interesting (*) thread on why bricks are the size(s) they are:
https://twitter.com/oldenoughtosay/status/1679446295734370305
And some of it is to do with tax and the American war of independence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_tax
One piece of which is that the Ukrainians are Nazis who are trying to make nuclear and biological weapons.
In this context, destroying a nuclear power plant is a tough, but necessary thing, if they are about to lose control of it to the Jewish Nazi NATO forces.
"Not the Nine O'Clock News" episode 1980
https://youtu.be/ScNu_Sbx84Q?t=412
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
Science doesn't have sides, though people who live in a petro-state and have an interest in aviation may well do.
Warnings of ‘education arms race’ as independent school students twice as likely to reach the best higher education institutions
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/13/private-schools-gap-with-state-education-rises/ (£££)
Note that this might be exacerbated by the Covid-period exams based on teachers' estimates.
And even if you believe that he was a Conservative in 1954 (he always described himself as a Liberal) he was also Minister for Fuel and Power from 1942-45 and the only minister holding the Liberal whip in Churchill's wartime coalition not to lose his seat in 1945.
Is climate orthodoxy getting all the money for broadly political reasons?
Or is it that climate orthodoxy is, in rough terms, turning out to be right? The consensus predictions from 1990 are broadly matching the outcomes.
A bit like Fred Hoyle's opposition to big bang cosmology. A serious scientist and, in the early days, he had a point. His challenges kept mainstream cosmologists honest. But as evidence kept coming in, his position became increasingly untenable.
People don't like uncomfortable truths.
Add in those who think that the Roman Senate was something to do with democracy. It wasn’t. Membership was by wealth only.
The word "podule" is a mangling of the words "pod" and "module". IIUC it was first used in that Not The Nine OClock episode in 1980 and then repurposed by the ARM team in the early 80's for their thing. Being young British computer nerds in the 1980s they would have been busily quoting sketches as they worked.
https://youtu.be/ScNu_Sbx84Q?t=412
Senate, Say It, Sorted.
Senate, seedy, sneaky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-india-66199759
"Why The Organ Is The Future of Music": July 10, 2023, by "Inside the Score"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y3s0bg0l0c
It's a whole new world of overdetailed insanity, but some of you may like it.
I have just been reading this paper from the 'International journal of Environment and Climate Change'. It suggests that achieving net zero may only be part of the picture in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and that there is a bigger problem with a decline in marine biodiversity. The writers appear to be connected to Edinburgh University.
The paper concludes with the following 'recommendations':
"We must continue with carbon mitigation, but as a matter of urgency, we must eliminate the dumping of all toxic forever lipophilic chemicals, as well as plastic and black carbon soot, into the environment. All wastewaters must be treated, we must not pollute our environment, we must DO NO HARM to nature on land and to marine life in the Oceans. We must start doing some GOOD and transition from destructive farming and unsustainable fishing practices to rewilding and regenerate ecosystems on land and in the oceans. We should also give serious consideration to changing sea water chemistry by increasing calcium and alkalinity concentrations, which we consider to be a no-risk strategy.."
I go along with the consensus of opinion about climate change and what we need to do about it. But I find the subject very difficult because everything I read seems to be driven by a 'we need to this now and anyone who disagrees is evil' activism, exemplified by the quote above. If the science is being driven by activism and a politicised narrative of right and wrong, then it seems less likely that we will ultimately know what interventions are good and what are harmful, which can only occur when there is free enquiry unconstrained by politics.
Gwilym Lloyd George called himself 'a Liberal supporting the National Government.' In 1951 he was elected in Newcastle upon Tyne North as a Liberal but without the support of the Liberal party, and ironically opposed by a Conservative who had been disowned by the national Conservative party. In various indices of MPs of the time he was described as a 'Liberal and Conservative' but he wouldn't have recognised that label.
This was somewhat more complicated as until 1970 party affiliation wasn't on the ballot paper so could be rather more fluid than it is now.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.
The current rough consensus on climate change is closer to the former than the latter.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fZUvCTPhafU
This is my periodic reminder that the UK space programme currently consists of a Virgin plane that doesn't work and that Top Gear Robin Reliant.
(punches wall in irritation)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-66186870
For example, did Napoleon invade Spain in 1808, when he arrived in person to try and sort out the mess, or in 1807 when French armies began campaigning there on his orders?
On September 3rd, did Britain declare war or did it accept a state of war? Given Neville Chamberlain's rather strange broadcast on the subject you could argue it just sort of happened.
Even with the Holocaust, you can find endless arguments about whether it the victims of (say) Aktion T4 should be included in it or not.
Similarly, Richard III. He usurped the throne in July 1483, and later that same summer had his nephews (the rightful king and his heir) murdered. But you will always find people who say maybe he didn't really usurp the throne because it's possible Edward IV was married to somebody else and therefore Edward V wasn't really the king, and perhaps somebody else killed Edward V and the Duke of York.
The morning after the night before in Newham politics and two fascinating results to chew over.
Let's start with my home patch, Wall End, I predicted Labour would win big on a small turnout though that wasn't exactly rocket science. Labour's candidate scraped home with 61% of the vote with the Conservatives on 27%, the Liberal Democrats nicked third off the Greens with Reform last.
Compating this result to 2022 is complicated by the presence last year of Swarup Choudhury, an ally of Mirza (of whom more anon) who polled 957 votes but was the lone candidate in a 3-member Ward and enveryone had three votes so from where did Choudhury draw his votes? Did people just vote for him and for no one else or was there a vote split between him and other anti-Labour candidates so we had people voting for Choudhury and then for two Conservatives?
It's also worth noting the top Conservative polled 648 and the bottom 412 which is a huge difference.
Going back to 2018, Labour beat the Conservatives 78-18 so quite a swing last night but we've seen this before - in May 2021, the next door Ward, East Ham Central, had a by-election where the Conservative won over 30% of the vote - needless to say, come the full set of local elections the following year, normal service was resumed.
I'll offer a few other random thoughts a bit closer to the edge - the Conservative candidate was the only Hindu among the candidates and this is a strongly Tamil area - he was also a well-known local business man with plenty of contacts so the extent to which this was a personal vote rather than a Conservative vote is worth considering.
The Conservatives abandoned Boleyn yesterday (as the result suggests) and put all their effort into the seat which explains why from nothing the Ward was full of Conservative workers and leaflets. I'd also argue (and we see this elsewhere) the core Conservative vote comes out and votes or has a good postal operation.
This might explain the Conservative showing (which, despite @NerysHughes's partisan blethering) wasn't double anything - 739 was probably the core plus some personal support for the candidate.
Labour can feel fairly content - the fall in actual numbers was slight and turnout can explain most of that.
The LDs have never stood in the Ward so a distant third was about the best they could have expected. It was a poor result for the Greens but they concentrated their effort in Boleyn while the local Reform candidate, who I though put out the best leaflet, lost ground on 2022.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that rela Following the end of the war with Persia, I'm hard put to think of anything the Athenian Assembly got right.
We should be told !
Secondly, what would unbiased reporting of the Ukraine/Russia war be like, and does anyone try?
There certainly are historical facts. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808. The Holocaust happened. The UK decalared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939.
There are of course, any number of historical opinions, for which better or worse arguments can be put forward.
My understanding that scientists will say that relatively few things are facts, and that what laymen would call facts are are usually described as theories by scientists. Theory, being something that is almost certainly true.There can always be arguments even about facts. Some of them based on better grounds than others.
For example, did Napoleon invade Spain in 1808, when he arrived in person to try and sort out the mess, or in 1807 when French armies began campaigning there on his orders?
On September 3rd, did Britain declare war or did it accept a state of war? Given Neville Chamberlain's rather strange broadcast on the subject you could argue it just sort of happened.
Even with the Holocaust, you can find endless arguments about whether it the victims of (say) Aktion T4 should be included in it or not.
Similarly, Richard III. He usurped the throne in July 1483, and later that same summer had his nephews (the rightful king and his heir) murdered. But you will always find people who say maybe he didn't really usurp the throne because it's possible Edward IV was married to somebody else and therefore Edward V wasn't really the king, and perhaps somebody else killed Edward V and the Duke of York.
Well, as you pointed out, there are those who think that Elizabeth Woodville had magical powers, and Lady Margaret Beaufort murdered the Princes in the Tower.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jul/14/latest-blasphemy-killing-highlights-nigerias-problem-with-religious-extremism
...Police have promised to bring the perpetrators to justice but made no arrests at the scene. There is no public record of anyone being prosecuted or jailed in Nigeria for killings relating to blasphemy allegations despite estimates suggesting more than 13,200 Nigerians have had died in this way between 2011 and 2021.
As of 2019, 79 countries have legislation on blasphemy – defined as speech or actions deemed disrespectful towards sacred entities or individuals – many imposing the death penalty. Twelve northern states of Nigeria, including Sokoto, implement sharia law, under which blasphemy can be punishable by death. But public violence is often triggered before authorities become involved.
Nigeria’s population is religiously divided with a Christian majority in the south and Muslim majority in the north. People of both faiths have fallen victim to blasphemy killings in the north, which have received support from influential individuals, including Islamic preachers, businessmen and government officials...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/99cc31da-2186-11ee-9b6f-7186ba87ded7?shareToken=de77dfc7e0dd432b700ab1fe4a44cd52
300,000 feline coronavirus deaths in Cyprus. Which sounds a lot but if Cyprus is like other Greek Islands is a rounding error.