I have seen a lot of young people talk as if they was an independent “Jew free” state of Palestine operating until those awful Jews showed up after the war and colonised it.
There is a level of ignorance that is honestly perplexing, because it used to be in the news all the time; bombings, hijackings, assassinations, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, various summits and deals, on and on. As I say I think 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT seems to have completely filled that particular box of general knowledge for anyone below 35.
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
They quote £7,000 for installation on average (inc labour), and £365* typical saving if out until 4pm.
So that's £52 per £1000 invested, which is rather different to your £190.
If you have a way of getting a solar system for £1k I'd love to see it.
* And that's in London, lower elsewhere, presumably as elsewhere is further North.
I know London is out on the fringes of the UK, more so than Wick or Belfast, but there is life within North Island south of London: Lizard Point is as far as one can get.
To get a solar system for £1000 you buy the panels secondhand or ex-bankruptcy via ebay, and install it yourself on eg a shed or woodstore. It depends if it is grid-connected or not.
When I get around to it I will be getting a car port which just consists of a frame, and solar panels as the roof.
That I would be a lot happier with than monkeying about with a roof several decades old. MY large shed isn't grid connected but if it does become so then panels would be worth looking into.
When you put power in, be sure to install a couple of spare plastic ducts with drawstrings.
Just in case you may need a second or third run, data and so on.
(Make sure you know how big any cables may end up, and bear in mind that grid connected can include a lot of extra gubbins, isolation stuff to avoid shocking engineers repairing the grid, and paperwork.)
I recently did this and had a long conversation with my electrician where we were speculating about likely future needs for high end car chargers (detached garage/workshop) to make an assumption on amps. I had not considered solar on its roof. Good idea. Wish I had thought about that. Make a virtue of the accessibility.
My son and daughter in law got married this year after 12 years of dating. They are both adamant about not having children. Its not to do with tax incentives or anything.
For them its two things
a) There life style would change due to the costs of rearing a child b) They don't think its fair to have children who will end up paying huge amount of tax to fund the spending excesses of today c) They don't regard it as their duty to provide arse wipers for millenials
Er, isn’t that three things?
And (this is meant with the greatest respect) I do suspect that those three might be filtered through their father and father - in- laws somewhat curmudgeonly worldview, rather than being neutrally reported!
On a more serious philosophical note, I think 2 is bonkers. Paying tax is, in my view, quite a few rungs above not existing at all on the great ladder of human existence.
Not filtered at all through my world view. They say tomorrows children will end up paying for todays profligacy. I think they are right but there choice not to have children isn't something I have pushed in the least. It was a conversation they started as they thought I might be sad to not be a grandfather. I did not push them that way in the least it is their choice it was the reasons they listed
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
Preliminary US Intelligence assessments say 100 to 300 deaths:
The US intelligence community assesses that there likely were between 100 to 300 people killed in the blast at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza, and there was “only light structural damage at the hospital,” according to an unclassified intelligence assessment obtained by CNN that adds more detail to the initial assessment released Wednesday finding Israel was not responsible for the strike.
I'm still wondering how they are getting 100 - 300 killed. You'd need a pretty powerful bomb for that. No real building damage, no crater in the ground.
I can picture a few hundred in a crowd trying to get into a hospital. And I can picture a rocket motor + payload + fuel killing them quite easily.
I think to assess the likely scale of an explosive projectile going through an open air crowd you need to go away from war and think of things like the Rammstein Air Show crash or the Le Man's disaster and see what death tolls make sense.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
Preliminary US Intelligence assessments say 100 to 300 deaths:
The US intelligence community assesses that there likely were between 100 to 300 people killed in the blast at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza, and there was “only light structural damage at the hospital,” according to an unclassified intelligence assessment obtained by CNN that adds more detail to the initial assessment released Wednesday finding Israel was not responsible for the strike.
I'm still wondering how they are getting 100 - 300 killed. You'd need a pretty powerful bomb for that. No real building damage, no crater in the ground.
I can picture a few hundred in a crowd trying to get into a hospital. And I can picture a rocket motor + payload + fuel killing them quite easily.
I think to assess the likely scale of an explosive projectile going through an open air crowd you need to go away from war and think of things like the Rammstein Air Show crash or the Le Man's disaster and see what death tolls make sense.
At the Ramstein disaster, the aircraft hit the runway rather than the crowd, and still killed 70 odd people.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
I have seen a lot of young people talk as if they was an independent “Jew free” state of Palestine operating until those awful Jews showed up after the war and colonised it.
There is a level of ignorance that is honestly perplexing, because it used to be in the news all the time; bombings, hijackings, assassinations, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, various summits and deals, on and on. As I say I think 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT seems to have completely filled that particular box of general knowledge for anyone below 35.
I think its more than just that.
Ariel Sharon did a wonderful job at getting a unilateral semi-stable 'peace' compared to what existed when we were younger.
By withdrawing from Gaza etc, and more importantly by building the wall that kept terrorists largely out of Israel, there has been a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea rather than a major conflict on the boil.
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
"Alex Salmond powers through storm to cast imaginary ballot in non-existent independence referendum The former SNP leader aimed to make a point that nothing was supposed to stop Nicola Sturgeon.
"While Mr Salmond determined to show up for the photo stunt today, much of Scotland was hunkered down as Storm Babet battered regions including the north-east.
He said: “October 19th 2023 was designated by the SNP last year as referendum day. But instead of a celebration of democracy to take the country forward, the SNP have abdicated any claim to leadership of the national movement.”
"Alex Salmond powers through storm to cast imaginary ballot in non-existent independence referendum The former SNP leader aimed to make a point that nothing was supposed to stop Nicola Sturgeon.
"While Mr Salmond determined to show up for the photo stunt today, much of Scotland was hunkered down as Storm Babet battered regions including the north-east.
He said: “October 19th 2023 was designated by the SNP last year as referendum day. But instead of a celebration of democracy to take the country forward, the SNP have abdicated any claim to leadership of the national movement.”
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
We saw it with COVID, we are seeing it now.
You had restricted points of view and no doubt most of those points of view had already got together before hand and agreed the points they were pushing. I am glad we don't need to rely on what a few conglomerates decide is the truth they can fuck off
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
We saw it with COVID, we are seeing it now.
You had restricted points of view and no doubt most of those points of view had already got together before hand and agreed the points they were pushing. I am glad we don't need to rely on what a few conglomerates decide is the truth they can fuck off
It wasn't just that, it was how often they absolutely f##ked reporting of factual data.
Another day, another Iranian proxy group. This time missiles shot down by the US. Not sure we’re getting out of this without a confrontation with Iran.
This does seem like a time when military experience would be helpful in a president.
(I have no idea what political skills Austin has, if any.)
A good leader isn't one who has expertise in a particular area. When you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It's an intelligent person who can take, but critically assess advice.
I'm reminded of the story of Sunak laying out his own spreadsheets. It's meant to make him look good, but it makes him look narrow and unable to delegate effectively.
Austin might have a lot of strings to his bow, to be fair. But selecting him due to a focus on a particular area worries me slightly. Where is he on macroeconomic policy, or the environment, or transport?
I've been doing some calculations for Tamworth and atm I think it's likely to be Labour 2,000 votes ahead in the town and the Tories 2,000 ahead in the rural areas. So impossible to call.
A second recount likely at 4am? Get the coffee on Andy J it's going to be a long night 😂
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
Don't get me started on the Hamas approach on LTNs.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
Here's a sour conclusion about vaccines: If a disease is spread by person-to-person contact, then often your best individual strategy is to have everyone you are in contact with vaccinated, but skip the vaccination yourself (assuming there are possible bad effects from it, as there almost are).
That's assuming pure self interest, but if you care about the people who you come in contact with even a little, you will usually want to be vaccinated.
I wonder if the Democrats will suffer from the pro-Palestinian slant on TikTok and Reels. Anedoctally I’ve just seen someone who would otherwise be a Democrat voter saying they won’t vote for them over it.
I have seen a lot of young people talk as if they was an independent “Jew free” state of Palestine operating until those awful Jews showed up after the war and colonised it.
There is a level of ignorance that is honestly perplexing, because it used to be in the news all the time; bombings, hijackings, assassinations, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, various summits and deals, on and on. As I say I think 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT seems to have completely filled that particular box of general knowledge for anyone below 35.
Agree. Through to 2005 or so, the soap opera of the peace deal following the Oslo Accords was on the news a lot, and then it died. I think the world suffered more than we can know from Sharon dying (he really seemed intent on doing a Nixon/China thing), Arafat having no vision, and foolishly allowing free elections in Gaza.
2005 or so again dates to pre Sharon's West Bank Wall and unilateral peacemaking.
Its a shame Sharon died, as he was doing a really good job, much better than Netanyahu.
I wonder if the Democrats will suffer from the pro-Palestinian slant on TikTok and Reels. Anedoctally I’ve just seen someone who would otherwise be a Democrat voter saying they won’t vote for them over it.
Idea for a TikTok video. Show a Hamas member the usual content of a Hamas supporting TikToker, and film the reaction as the Hamas chap says they should be put to death.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
Linking in to the above discussion about basic knowledge, I don’t think many grasp that the government in Gaza IS Hamas, not the Palestinian authority. Sometimes the BBC and Sky should just go back to basics.
They also still behave as if Hamas was [insert credible government here, bit trickier than I thought tbh] rather than a bunch of terrorists. The population of Gaza are not exactly on a social security list. 80% of them were not maintained by Hamas at all but by various UN agencies, with considerable EU funding. I am pretty damn sure they wouldn't even know how many people live in Gaza, let alone be able to give accurate figures for death or injuries.
It would be amusing if, in the end, Hamas falls because the locals want someone who can empty the bins.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
Erhhh...lead page on the BBC.
Over 3,700 people killed in Gaza - health officials We've had some updated figures from the health ministry in Gaza, who say at least 3,785 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October.
Among those killed, 1,524 were children, 1,000 were women, and 120 were elderly, they say.
A total of 12,493 have been injured, the health officials added.
Then there is one line statement that the 500 claim for the hospital incident is disputed, but the others are reported without qualification. It doesn't even clarify that Hamas are the ones who run the health ministry.
I have seen a lot of young people talk as if they was an independent “Jew free” state of Palestine operating until those awful Jews showed up after the war and colonised it.
There is a level of ignorance that is honestly perplexing, because it used to be in the news all the time; bombings, hijackings, assassinations, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, various summits and deals, on and on. As I say I think 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT seems to have completely filled that particular box of general knowledge for anyone below 35.
Agree. Through to 2005 or so, the soap opera of the peace deal following the Oslo Accords was on the news a lot, and then it died. I think the world suffered more than we can know from Sharon dying (he really seemed intent on doing a Nixon/China thing), Arafat having no vision, and foolishly allowing free elections in Gaza.
2005 or so again dates to pre Sharon's West Bank Wall and unilateral peacemaking.
Its a shame Sharon died, as he was doing a really good job, much better than Netanyahu.
We will never know, but some say Sharon was shopping up to dismantle more settlements and really push for peace in a Nixon/China way. But we will never know.
Re US politics, it does actually sadden me that I think Biden is too old to run again. I think he has, on the whole, been a decent president. And I think he commands international respect. A lot of people do him a disservice on that front.
Let’s use a practical example of his visit to Israel yesterday. He got a practical result in the agreement on the border. But during his news conference with Netanyahu he started to talk about his previous conversation with a former “secretary of state”, and he seized up, and forgot where it was going, and had to abandon the train of thought. Because he clearly could not remember what he was going to say.
That is the sadness about Joe Biden. As a diplomat, he is tremendously experienced, well respected, and still commands some authority and presence of mind to get results. But he is in unmistakeable decline, and he isn’t the right person to lead for another 4 years. It is a shame he did not become president in 2016.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
The BBC is being held to a ludicrously high standard and at the same time is being subjected to massive exaggeration and distortion. It is imperfect; perhaps in the context of the Middle East it could be described as the least imperfect actor on the entire scene. Are there any better candidates for that remarkable accolade?
Re US politics, it does actually sadden me that I think Biden is too old to run again. I think he has, on the whole, been a decent president. And I think he commands international respect. A lot of people do him a disservice on that front.
Let’s use a practical example of his visit to Israel yesterday. He got a practical result in the agreement on the border. But during his news conference with Netanyahu he started to talk about his previous conversation with a former “secretary of state”, and he seized up, and forgot where it was going, and had to abandon the train of thought. Because he clearly could not remember what he was going to say.
That is the sadness about Joe Biden. As a diplomat, he is tremendously experienced, well respected, and still commands some authority and presence of mind to get results. But he is in unmistakeable decline, and he isn’t the right person to lead for another 4 years. It is a shame he did not become president in 2016.
I generally agree with this. Not perfect by any means, but if only he were a little younger and that attack did not resonate.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
I think TSE's pollster may be projecting some of his own personal feelings on to other people. I'd certainly like to see the data reflecting the levees bursting with vengeful voters out to get Sunak for not banning gas boilers because there's been some rain. I find it likelier that they won't vote for him because he's shite.
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
We should go back, but unfortunately we can't. Choice is awful - people make bad choices. Most people don't want to watch serious content. They certainly don't want to pay for it. They want cheap, undemanding entertainment. This leaves them ill-informed and gullible, easy pray for populists, propagandists and peddlers of conspiracy theories. Sorry if this comes across as an elitist view.
Having followed a lot of coverage of these dreadful events, I have yet to notice a single word of criticism from anyone actually physically within Gaza of any aspect of governance, politics, administration or of any individual or group within Gaza itself. This is true both of journalists and of all others. Should I draw the obvious conclusions?
NYT - Jordan Reverses Himself and Will Push for a Third Speaker Vote
Hours after saying he would endorse empowering an interim speaker, the hard-right Republican from Ohio reversed himself and said he would pursue another vote in his bid for speaker.
In a day of whiplash and uncertainty on Capitol Hill, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio said Thursday he would push for another vote to become speaker, even in the face of a growing bloc of Republican opposition.
Just hours after the hard-right Republican said he would hit pause on his candidacy and support elevating the interim speaker, Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, to temporarily lead the House, Mr. Jordan reversed course yet again and said he would move forward with his bid to win the post. It was not immediately clear when another vote could be scheduled.
His decision came after a furious backlash from rank-and-file Republicans including many of his far-right supporters, who said empowering Mr. McHenry — a stand-in appointed to his post after the ouster of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy — would effectively cede control of the House floor to Democrats and set a bad precedent.
It was the latest abrupt turn in a Republican speaker drama that has played out for more than two weeks, underscoring the depth of the party’s divisions and disarray. Unable to unite behind a candidate to lead them, the G.O.P. now can’t even agree on a temporary solution to allow the paralyzed House to function while they sort out their differences.
SSI - no word re: when the next performance is scheduled, for Donald Trump's Rabid Flying Squirrel Circus.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
The BBC is being held to a ludicrously high standard and at the same time is being subjected to massive exaggeration and distortion. It is imperfect; perhaps in the context of the Middle East it could be described as the least imperfect actor on the entire scene. Are there any better candidates for that remarkable accolade?
It is well aware of the Middle East sensitivities on our own streets. One might have thought as the national broadcaster it could have grasped this point.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
The BBC is being held to a ludicrously high standard and at the same time is being subjected to massive exaggeration and distortion. It is imperfect; perhaps in the context of the Middle East it could be described as the least imperfect actor on the entire scene. Are there any better candidates for that remarkable accolade?
It is well aware of the Middle East sensitivities on our own streets. One might have thought as the national broadcaster it could have grasped this point.
Apparently not.
All true but my point still stands. Both here and in the Middle East the BBC is surrounded by sub optimal actors. I suggest it is among the least sub optimal (and actually is very good).
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
But, the voters don't want wear the hair shirt, either.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
But, the voters don't want wear the hair shirt, either.
The voters are hypocrites but right now an overwhelming number of voters (including plenty of people who voted Tory in 2019) blame the government for plenty of ills, this is just another example.
I wonder if the Democrats will suffer from the pro-Palestinian slant on TikTok and Reels. Anedoctally I’ve just seen someone who would otherwise be a Democrat voter saying they won’t vote for them over it.
I think it's a minor problem (but minor could matter in a very close election) for both the Democrats and Labour. If you think that Western nations are the Great Satan, you see Israel as last white colony.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Some voters perhaps but not all. There is a sensible message to go out and its not net zero. UK Net zero solves nothing China USA India will wipe out any of our inconsequential efforts. Our priorities are to future proof the UK, protect bio diversity and eliminate single use plastics. I could add an energy policy which leaves us self sufficient and no/low pollution.
This conflict is very refreshing in the sense that the truth is being contested and knowledge is sought after. I think it's because on the one side you have Israel, an established part of the Western alliance and a country with a lot of soft power and supporters in the West, and then on the other you have the Palestinian cause, which has a great deal of support in the ascendant liberal woke blobocracy. There isn't a solidified narrative, which there was in Syria and there certainly is in Ukraine. A Russian hospital massacre was a Russian hospital massacre in those days, and you weren't to question it, casualties or no casualties.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
"The Palestinian ministry of health says six people have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military in Nur Shams refugee in the occupied West Bank - the military says it used an aircraft to strike a "terrorist squad"
"Hamas say 400,000 of the 1.1 million people who call northern Gaza home headed south down the Salah al-Din Road in the last 48 hours, following Israel's order to leave."
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
"The Palestinian ministry of health says six people have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military in Nur Shams refugee in the occupied West Bank - the military says it used an aircraft to strike a "terrorist squad"
"Hamas say 400,000 of the 1.1 million people who call northern Gaza home headed south down the Salah al-Din Road in the last 48 hours, following Israel's order to leave."
How hard did you try? This took under a minute.
The Kuwaiti government kicked 400,000 Palestinians out of their country in 1991 something to do with asking Saddam Hussein to kill their hosts.
Leon loves to go on about all da yuff are a load of thickies...I think it is more that although all the worlds knowledge is available at your fingertips and you can now even chat with a bot that will inform you of this stuff, the saturation of "noise" is what a lot of people fill their time with and thus much more ignorant of things that "back in the day" were widely known.
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
I've said before, many times, we used to live in a world of 3/4/5 TV channels, current affairs got peak time slots (Panorama and World in Action), newspapers were profitable, serious, and well staffed, and speech radio was Radio 4 or the World Service. You almost couldn't avoid serious informed news reporting. We have vastly more choices now, but the average quality is woeful.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
We should go back, but unfortunately we can't. Choice is awful - people make bad choices. Most people don't want to watch serious content. They certainly don't want to pay for it. They want cheap, undemanding entertainment. This leaves them ill-informed and gullible, easy pray for populists, propagandists and peddlers of conspiracy theories. Sorry if this comes across as an elitist view.
Though the curious thing is that, for a while at least, it was possible to have both- popular seriousness done properly. The glory days of News at Ten, say. Or when Radio Yourtown had a fully staffed newsroom. Or early Channel 4- a commercial station that could run a non commercial schedule.
But it did depend on mass media making big profits, and their being regulated into recycling a large chunk of those profits into unprofitable shows.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
Yes. No one seems to want to understand that we’re doing ok.
I've been idly looking at the profit margins of various luxury goods companies in a, so far futile, attempt to find a luxury goods* company with a higher profit margin than Games Workshop (>40% in their most recent quarter) and this evening, after yet another perfume ad, I alighted on the latest results for L'Oreal. A very healthy profit margin of ~20%, but what stood out is that they spend almost one-third of their revenue on advertising and promotion. A third! It's more than they spend on the products that they sell themselves. ~€32.3bn in revenue created by ~€10.6bn in advertising spend.
* Besides the obvious, like a diamond or gold miner.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
Yes. No one seems to want to understand that we’re doing ok.
The telling statistic is that when I was born, in 1967, 55% of the world lived in absolute poverty (itself, a big improvement on 100 years previously). Now, the proportion is 8%.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
The BBC is being held to a ludicrously high standard and at the same time is being subjected to massive exaggeration and distortion. It is imperfect; perhaps in the context of the Middle East it could be described as the least imperfect actor on the entire scene. Are there any better candidates for that remarkable accolade?
Sorry this is total bollocks, when people question the licence fee we are constantly told the bbc is world class and totally impartial. When it is shown they are biassed slithey toads then we are told they are being held to an impossibly high standards. Pick one or the other but dont whinge when people point out the bbc are mostly staffed by people who can be described by words that rhyme with punts
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
I do, we are a lucky generation. Every so often I read Hans Rosling and remind myself how lucky I am.
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
"The Palestinian ministry of health says six people have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military in Nur Shams refugee in the occupied West Bank - the military says it used an aircraft to strike a "terrorist squad"
"Hamas say 400,000 of the 1.1 million people who call northern Gaza home headed south down the Salah al-Din Road in the last 48 hours, following Israel's order to leave."
So it turns out that somewhere between 10 and 50 died or were injured during the hospital incident and independent European intelligence sources confirm that it was a rocket launched from within Gaza that failed and broke up near the hospital and then the debris which included the payload landed in the car park and exploded.
Every single media outlet that ran with the Hamas version of 500 dead in an Israeli air strike on a hospital needs to put out a front page retraction immediately. Israel should sue and force them into it so they learn their lesson and stop parroting Hamas.
If that is confirmed, news source should say that, and correct their past reporting. Reporting in wars is often difficult and numerous early reports turn out to be wrong. I think it would be ludicrous to imagine that Israel could sue over this or that front page retractions are always necessary.
I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. That does not appear to have been the case. I’ve not seen any front page retractions over that. I don’t think there needs to be, although I think some media sources should at least correct their earlier reporting.At the same ratio of reporting,
I think media sources should reflect on their mistakes over reporting the hospital incident. Learning from what happened and not doing it again is more important than front page retractions.
"I saw a lot of media sources reporting that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies."
- That was never the claim from any Israeli sources, it was 40 babies had been killed in one Kibbutz, including ones that had been beheaded, burned alive, etc.
Did any UK media organisations run a front page saying 40 beheadings? I don't think they did? It was mostly that is what became the claim on twitter, which was then used to dispute that Israel was telling the truth when they revealed photos of some of the dead babies, as in see, not all beheaded.
It’s a claim many here have repeated. Reviewing UK reporting, claims made often stopped just short. For example:
So that answer for UK, is no, then...they repeated exactly what the Israeli official said. And then of course with the conspiracy theory in full swing on social media, they showed the receipts. And you quickly descend into the well here is one with its throat slit, that isn't quite beheading, so not all of them were....
Certainly some US outlets did say 40 were beheaded. But what are you expecting from them?
I don’t know if any babies were beheaded. Regardless, Hamas definitely killed babies and what has been solidly confirmed is more atrocity than it bears thinking about.
I don’t know what happened outside the Anglican hospital, but it probably wasn’t an Israeli bomb. Regardless, Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, a tragic loss of life.
I think much of the media do a great job, most of the time, but the Republican Senator who said, “The first casualty, when war comes, is truth” was right. I don’t understand those who think the most important thing to do in any crisis is to criticise the BBC’s reporting of it.
I'm not sure I even believe the 'thousands of civilians killed' in Gaza now. Clearly there have been many casualties, but where do the precise numbers come from? The same source as the 500?
Edit: Not that it should particularly be a numbers game, but still...
And yet every update of every fanciful figure is reported as fact by the BBC. Things really have to change.
That is not true. I have just reviewed multiple BBC articles on the conflict: not one quotes a figure from the Gaza Health Ministry or other source in an unqualified manner.
"The Palestinian ministry of health says six people have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military in Nur Shams refugee in the occupied West Bank - the military says it used an aircraft to strike a "terrorist squad"
"Hamas say 400,000 of the 1.1 million people who call northern Gaza home headed south down the Salah al-Din Road in the last 48 hours, following Israel's order to leave."
How hard did you try? This took under a minute.
There is a point on both sides here, but anyway, to me when the BBC begin with 'Hamas say....' it is obvious that the BBC is not asserting the reliability of the following sentence; this compares with how, for example, they might quote the sayings of the OBR.
I once saw a pianist in concert doing a concerto, followed by the piano solo of Rhapsody in Blue after the interval. He changed from dinner jacket to roughly that suit for the latter. No tie, though.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
You keep doing bad things because you can't stop others doing bad things? Hmm.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
Yes. No one seems to want to understand that we’re doing ok.
Thats because you spent years scaring the shit out of people and wont challenge the ultra shit scarers when they are wrong.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
You keep doing bad things because you can't stop others doing bad things? Hmm.
Speak for yourself. The UK has done most of the good things.
I normally don't get very excited by weather but we are now getting a clearer impression of what a red warning feels like. And its not very nice.
I was speaking to a pollster earlier and they reckon it is events like this which really batters the reputation of Sunak and the Tories.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Right so he'll be stopping expansion of coal power stations in India or China. He might as well sit in front of the North and give orders to the waves like a Canute.
We have the wrong green crap
That's not how the voters see it.
Even if there is polling to show that (I’ve not seen any but it might be there), politicians (I’m looking at Starmer) need to actually lead. A section of the public have become neo-religious nutters who think if they flagellate themselves they can reverse the apocalypse. And bizarrely, that is the right word because many of them seem to think climate change will destroy life on earth despite none of the models showing that even in the worst case 3/4 degree increase scenarios, where technology doesn’t advance and we all go back to burning coal.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
It's peculiar.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
Yes. No one seems to want to understand that we’re doing ok.
The telling statistic is that when I was born, in 1967, 55% of the world lived in absolute poverty (itself, a big improvement on 100 years previously). Now, the proportion is 8%.
One of the issues is that if they accepted that improvement, they would also have to see that it was driven by democracy, open markets, and technology. The spreading of westernised civilisation, in fact. But that can’t be right as all those things are imperialist….
Comments
TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Netflix....why would you be searching out information about complex historical geo-political topics when you can just swipe again and get another bit of fast food style entertainment.
Also, easy come, easy go, in the sense of when it was hard to find out new information, that process of finding it means it is likely to stick, now if just whizzes by with the thought I can always look it up again if needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
This does seem like a time when military experience would be helpful in a president.
(I have no idea what political skills Austin has, if any.)
Ariel Sharon did a wonderful job at getting a unilateral semi-stable 'peace' compared to what existed when we were younger.
By withdrawing from Gaza etc, and more importantly by building the wall that kept terrorists largely out of Israel, there has been a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea rather than a major conflict on the boil.
Until now.
I'm not saying we should go back, but we've certainly lost something important as times has passed.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html
It's an intelligent person who can take, but critically assess advice.
I'm reminded of the story of Sunak laying out his own spreadsheets. It's meant to make him look good, but it makes him look narrow and unable to delegate effectively.
Austin might have a lot of strings to his bow, to be fair. But selecting him due to a focus on a particular area worries me slightly. Where is he on macroeconomic policy, or the environment, or transport?
I wonder if Nick Clegg could be parachuted in...
That's assuming pure self interest, but if you care about the people who you come in contact with even a little, you will usually want to be vaccinated.
https://kyivindependent.com/axios-pentagon-to-send-israel-shells-initially-earmarked-for-ukraine/
Its a shame Sharon died, as he was doing a really good job, much better than Netanyahu.
The voters see extreme weather like this as evidence of climate change and Rishi telling us he is abolishing non existent green crap looks bad.
Over 3,700 people killed in Gaza - health officials
We've had some updated figures from the health ministry in Gaza, who say at least 3,785 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October.
Among those killed, 1,524 were children, 1,000 were women, and 120 were elderly, they say.
A total of 12,493 have been injured, the health officials added.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67141589/page/2
Then there is one line statement that the 500 claim for the hospital incident is disputed, but the others are reported without qualification. It doesn't even clarify that Hamas are the ones who run the health ministry.
Lab drifting - now 2.7.
Con fairly stable at 1.9.
Let’s use a practical example of his visit to Israel yesterday. He got a practical result in the agreement on the border. But during his news conference with Netanyahu he started to talk about his previous conversation with a former “secretary of state”, and he seized up, and forgot where it was going, and had to abandon the train of thought. Because he clearly could not remember what he was going to say.
That is the sadness about Joe Biden. As a diplomat, he is tremendously experienced, well respected, and still commands some authority and presence of mind to get results. But he is in unmistakeable decline, and he isn’t the right person to lead for another 4 years. It is a shame he did not become president in 2016.
https://twitter.com/reformparty_uk/status/1714971740793672161
Nobody backing Con.
We have the wrong green crap
Or because you have the shoes to go with it?
Hours after saying he would endorse empowering an interim speaker, the hard-right Republican from Ohio reversed himself and said he would pursue another vote in his bid for speaker.
In a day of whiplash and uncertainty on Capitol Hill, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio said Thursday he would push for another vote to become speaker, even in the face of a growing bloc of Republican opposition.
Just hours after the hard-right Republican said he would hit pause on his candidacy and support elevating the interim speaker, Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, to temporarily lead the House, Mr. Jordan reversed course yet again and said he would move forward with his bid to win the post. It was not immediately clear when another vote could be scheduled.
His decision came after a furious backlash from rank-and-file Republicans including many of his far-right supporters, who said empowering Mr. McHenry — a stand-in appointed to his post after the ouster of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy — would effectively cede control of the House floor to Democrats and set a bad precedent.
It was the latest abrupt turn in a Republican speaker drama that has played out for more than two weeks, underscoring the depth of the party’s divisions and disarray. Unable to unite behind a candidate to lead them, the G.O.P. now can’t even agree on a temporary solution to allow the paralyzed House to function while they sort out their differences.
SSI - no word re: when the next performance is scheduled, for Donald Trump's Rabid Flying Squirrel Circus.
Apparently not.
We have some friends near Inverarity so in the Red area.
It's very Reichsmarshall Goering.
Prediction:
Lab 43.9%
Con 43.7%
Reform 5.0%
LD 4.1%
Green 1.8%
UKIP 0.5%
Longman 0.4%
OMRLP 0.4%
Britain First 0.2%
Turnout: 39.2%
At the night event under the disco lights my suit looked orange.
Orange Order orange.
"Hamas say 400,000 of the 1.1 million people who call northern Gaza home headed south down the Salah al-Din Road in the last 48 hours, following Israel's order to leave."
How hard did you try? This took under a minute.
I despair. I’ve worked on some of the science here and I used to spend my days trying to convince people climate change was an issue and dispelling nonsense like the “hockey stick” graph. Now, because I will not get behind apocalyptic non-scientific forecasts or accept that whether the U.K. bans petrol in 2030 or 2035 will make the slightest difference, I get called the “denier”.
The world has been infantilised. People need to understand that a mix of declared policies and technology change means we’ve more or less fixed the problem. We’ve won. The global temperature will rise by 2-2.5 degrees and some islands will need to be relocated while some agriculture changes. But we’ve done it.
Starmer and his generation get to declare victory.
But it did depend on mass media making big profits, and their being regulated into recycling a large chunk of those profits into unprofitable shows.
Without the superstructure, it doesn't work.
For all of the world's horrors, by any objective measure, there has actually never been a better time to be alive. But, what proportion of the world's population believe that? I'd be surprised if it was even as high as 5%.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1715103448285188391
https://x.com/potus/status/1715091192965165484
Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israel.
The need for humanitarian assistance in Gaza.
Russia’s ongoing brutal war against Ukraine.
We are at a global inflection point that is bigger than party or politics.
Thanks!
* Besides the obvious, like a diamond or gold miner.
On TV anyway, in Atlanta. The seersucker being a quasi-revered Southern Institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factfulness:_Ten_Reasons_We're_Wrong_About_the_World_–_and_Why_Things_Are_Better_Than_You_Think
We need to move on to the next set of priorities.