Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
You know you need a TV licence to watch or record any live broadcast or live on-demand programme (e.g. live sport) in the UK, not just the BBC? (Also for any iPlayer content).
Speaker Mike Johnson just swore Representative Adelita Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, into office. “Finally,” one Democrat called out as they all rose to watch her taking her oath.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
That's exactly what I think and, in fairness, I think @Cyclefree does too. We have an "Independent" report which seems not to be impartial. That does not mean its wrong or that the points it makes should be dismissed. There are substantive and real criticisms which need to be addressed for the sake of the BBC and its future. Play the ball, not the player. If the BBC lose their reputation for at least trying to tell the truth they will cease to exist. Its that fundamental to them.
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
I just cancelled it via my banking app instead. If I wasn't quite sure about doing it (after 2yrs of paying for nout) - the shady dark patterns made me double-down.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
Question for @Foxy if you have time and inclination to answer..
Please could you tell me, how high is a C-Reactive Protein level of 279 mg/dL?
High enough that you should be seeing someone not posting on here
Without wishing to worry anyone - if I was seeing that number, it would go straight to hospital. Right now.
Where are you getting it from?
That was what my reading was when I was in hospital just over three weeks ago. They gave me loads of antibiotics and I feel better, but I don't know if I'm well
When I went to hospital, it was because I had excruciating pain in my chest; I didn't think I felt otherwise unwell. The follow up from the hospital was to tell me to get a chest x-ray in eight weeks, but nothing about a follow-up blood test, which my Dad thought was insane
After many long phone calls, I finally managed today to get my doctors surgery to get my GP to look at the details and get me booked in for a blood test. They offered me their earliest appointment for a blood test - in nine days time; I'm hoping to go back to work a week today
After some slightly terse discussion about the practicalities of their earliest appointment, they've booked me in for 7:30am tomorrow
CRP generally comes down quickly after treatment, often being back to normal in days.
You wouldn't bother with another CRP test?
I would normally do one after a few days of treatment as a measure of how well the treatment was working.
It is reasonable to check to confirm that its back to normal as part of a wider assessment.
Heres an interesting article on the utility of measuring CRP in the acute management of sepsis.
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
But you might expect an internal investigation to be truthful, objective, accurate and carried out in good faith, when this report is clearly none of these things. Why would we hold the investigation to a completely ethical standard from the journalism?
See my last comment. What Prescott has done is not an internal investigation. (If anyone in my team had presented that as a report, I'd have .... well, never mind, they wouldn't have dared.) He has written about a load of issues - some of which are opinion, some of which appear to be facts but who knows - which he thinks show a load of problems. The report raises a load of questions. It does not really provide answers though it does have a lot of opinionated conclusions.
It needs a proper team going through everything he says to see whether what he is saying is accurate or not and if not how and why. This is called an investigation and it should be done because it is the best possible answer to the criticisms being made.
This is not hard to understand.
When people and organisations are so resistant to doing something which is likely to help them, the next obvious question is why?
I'm not entirely clear that it's fair to label the BBC as resistant to investigation at this point ?
I think it would be fairer to say they are in a state of some confusion, given the events of the last few days, and in any event have no real idea of how to go about the kind of thing you suggest.
(And as we discussed yesterday, how such an investigation might be structured isn't as clearcut as the other ones you've previously discussed.)
I don’t think the BBC understand why so many of their viewers and listeners don’t share their own world view, or the importance of their utterances about themselves.
The expression “full of their own importance “ comes to mind.
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
How did Keir respond to being put on an official warning?
This is a problem in one respect for Sir Keir, but a bonus in another; it explains why he contradicts himself all the time - he has to appeal to two wildly different set of voters - but the bonus is, as has flip flopped on everything since he became an MP anyway, it comes naturally
Half of voters who backed Labour at the last general election have deserted the party, according to internal polling being shared with Labour MPs, reports @harriet_symonds
This is not great, speaking as a Tory centrist who voted Labour and as of today would do so again through gritted teeth. The 34-35% of voters who voted Labour in 2024 included a large number of those who voted Labour as a last resort, there being nowhere else to go. (My formula is fairly simple: you vote for a party that can come first or second in your seat, which in the olden days in England meant Lab, Con or LD, and within that constraint you vote for the best possible choice.)
In 2024 in my seat that was Labour and the unvoteable for Tory party (and candidate). Next time it will even less jolly, with Reform well in play. Tories remain impossible Reformlite. Reform are Reform. So Labour it is. Though without dancing in the street.
Fair analysis and we are in uncharted waters here with five parties polling in the range 14-26% (according to YouGov) currently.
In my part of the world, the "choice" will likely be Labour, perhaps Green and a candidate from the Newham Independents who are basically a pro-Muslim pro-Palestine organisation who might be running the Council from next May (perhaps).
I would have to consider a tactical vote for Labour to keep out the Newham Independent and/or the Greens - the local Greens are not as ideological as Polanski and have dug in around the newer parts of Stratford.
The positioning of the Conservatives will be fascinating - if they are seen as being too close to Reform, they will miss out on anti-Reform tactical voting but if they end up saying they won't support Reform before the election and end up supporting a Reform minority Government (even via C&S) they will be politically finished.
I don't follow the logic of your last statement at all. The Tories should do pretty well out of a coalition with Reform. They are the more experienced politically. The Tory Party in Canada that was effectively taken over by 'Reform' actually ended up taking 'Reform' over again.
Don't forget that the Lib Dems had a totemic policy that was torpedoed when they entered the coalition. The Tories don't really have any popular policies that Reform might want to jettison. Reform might cut welfare less than the Tories (though there might not be a choice) but I don't see anything likely to cause generational resentment.
The Conservative Party of Canada was really a Reform/Canadian Alliance take over of the Progressive Conservatives in 2003. Stephen Harper, its first leader and only Canadian PM, was first elected as a Reform MP back in 1993 and its current leader, Pierre Poilievre began his political career working for Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day (the Canadian Alliance created as a vehicle by the Reform Party and a few provincial Tory parties in 2000 to merge Reform with the Tories).
Indeed after the merger in 1993 not all Tory members went to the new party, some joined the Liberals, indeed even a few Progressive Conservative MPs like former leadership candidate Scott Brison crossed the floor to the Liberals rather than join the new Reform dominant Conservative Party of Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brison
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
How did Keir respond to being put on an official warning?
Called Lord Hermer to represent him as he sees it as an infringement on his human rights....
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
This is a problem in one respect for Sir Keir, but a bonus in another; it explains why he contradicts himself all the time - he has to appeal to two wildly different set of voters - but the bonus is, as has flip flopped on everything since he became an MP anyway, it comes naturally
Half of voters who backed Labour at the last general election have deserted the party, according to internal polling being shared with Labour MPs, reports @harriet_symonds
This is not great, speaking as a Tory centrist who voted Labour and as of today would do so again through gritted teeth. The 34-35% of voters who voted Labour in 2024 included a large number of those who voted Labour as a last resort, there being nowhere else to go. (My formula is fairly simple: you vote for a party that can come first or second in your seat, which in the olden days in England meant Lab, Con or LD, and within that constraint you vote for the best possible choice.)
In 2024 in my seat that was Labour and the unvoteable for Tory party (and candidate). Next time it will even less jolly, with Reform well in play. Tories remain impossible Reformlite. Reform are Reform. So Labour it is. Though without dancing in the street.
French police are preventing fewer migrants from crossing the Channel since Sir Keir Starmer struck a deal with President Emmanuel Macron to tackle small boats, The Telegraph can reveal.
Just over a quarter (28.7 per cent) of migrants’ attempts to make the crossing have been stopped by French officers since the agreement was implemented in August.
This contrasts with the 38 per cent of migrant crossings the French prevented in an equivalent 13-week period before the “one in, one out” deal was struck with France, according to an analysis of official data.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The comparison with Prescott is ridiculous.
Why?
Andrew Norfolk is a principled investigative journalist. Prescott ... is not.
This is a problem in one respect for Sir Keir, but a bonus in another; it explains why he contradicts himself all the time - he has to appeal to two wildly different set of voters - but the bonus is, as has flip flopped on everything since he became an MP anyway, it comes naturally
Half of voters who backed Labour at the last general election have deserted the party, according to internal polling being shared with Labour MPs, reports @harriet_symonds
'14 per cent say they are undecided how they would vote.
On Labour's right flank, 11 per cent of people who supported Labour last year now back Reform UK, while three per cent would vote for the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, on its left flank, nine per cent say they would vote for the Liberal Democrats, while six per cent would back Zack Polanski's Green Party, and four per cent would vote for independents.
The figures suggest Labour's lost 2024 vote is broadly split between the right and the left'
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
Back to GB News for you then, I guess.
I haven't watched broadcast news for a long time, but I do pay the licence fee, and I don't especially see why I should pay for an organisation to pump out a world view that I think is actively unhelpful at best.
It's tricky Lucky. If the BBC pumped out your world view, I'd similarly object. It's never going to satisfy everyone, it often annoys me, but it does remain one of, if not the, most trusted news broadcasters in the world.
That's why it should attempt impartiality and try to focus on presenting the facts. It could never please everyone, but it could be respected by everyone.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The comparison with Prescott is ridiculous.
Why?
Andrew Norfolk is a principled investigative journalist. Prescott ... is not.
If the Beeb had just employed Cyclefree instead, they might have been in a better position now.
Three years ago, after the Martin Bashir scandal, BBC boss Tim Davie tried to prevent future crises by appointing two “external editorial experts” to scrutinise BBC journalism. Oddly, both came from PR rather than journalism.*
One, ex-Sunday Times political editor turned lobbyist Michael Prescott, had worked at PR firm Hanover alongside a former Tory press officer and right-wing hacks. While at the BBC, Prescott raised internal concerns about editorial standards - but after leaving this summer, he went to his old media contacts with a list of the BBC’s failings.
Speaker Mike Johnson just swore Representative Adelita Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, into office. “Finally,” one Democrat called out as they all rose to watch her taking her oath.
Ny Times
My understanding is that if she immediately signs the petition on releasing the Epstein files, then that locks in all of those who have added their name - including the four (?) Republicans. If Trump has not already got those four to withdraw, it is too late - the vote happens. In one week.
The release of the Epstein estate emails today by the bipartisan committee has made it more difficult for Trump to get minds changed. The 100+ Republicans who were talked about voting to release may now be an underestimate. It is now clear that Trump was in the loop - within Epstein's home - with one of the sexually trafficked girls for hours. Who now gives him the benefit of the doubt?
Michael Wolff's take on the released e-mails - and his coaching of Epstein - will be fascinating. Will look forward to his podcast...
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
I just cancelled it via my banking app instead. If I wasn't quite sure about doing it (after 2yrs of paying for nout) - the shady dark patterns made me double-down.
They will probably want you to confirm every 2 years.
When I cancelled mine, I eventually got doorstepped.
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
I just cancelled it via my banking app instead. If I wasn't quite sure about doing it (after 2yrs of paying for nout) - the shady dark patterns made me double-down.
They will probably want you to confirm every 2 years.
When I cancelled mine, I eventually got doorstepped.
They can want to the cows come home, you don't have to provide any reason or information, nor do you have to interact with the capita sales people. Talking to them is how people often get themselves in a mess.
A number of years ago, I legally, through an odd loophole, didn't need a tv licence. We never explained the reason why we didn't need one, just didn't pay, binned the letters, never had any issues.
All this leadership talk, it seems like the King of the North is yesterdays news.
Starmer's team just made Wes Streeting the heir apparent.
Now maybe 4-d chess thinking showed that that puts a real target on his back and they will come after him. Or maybe some serious people in Starmer's group would want Streeting to take over and maybe, whisper it, there's been a deal.
What’s the point of having a pious boring Berk in No10 if he’s also incompetent and keeps breaking the rules?
BREAKING: Keir Starmer admits he DID sign off the appointment of David Kogan as chairman of the football regulator - despite taking donations from him.
PM has written to the No10 ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus saying: "This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret."
Magnus replies that this was "regrettable" and welcomes his promise to launch an internal review on appointments.
Does anyone find it particularly impressive that a PM is grovelling to a civil servant and expressing his regret?
Leaving aside the issue at hand, PMs are accountable to the public and should speak to them first and foremost.
This was actually the argument from old fogies like me about having a regulator to oversee expenses for MPs. The constitutional implications were disgraceful
Question for @Foxy if you have time and inclination to answer..
Please could you tell me, how high is a C-Reactive Protein level of 279 mg/dL?
Blanche, I've asked my father and he's said get yourself to A&E right now.
Happily he did, three weeks ago. Might have helped if he’d included that info in his original post…
Though I do see now how my original post might have been misinterpreted, and I do apologise for causing any alarm, I didn't originally say that I had that level of CRP
I wanted to ask if someone with that recorded level would normally be be given another test, and after how long
Sorry again if I did worry anyone, and many thanks to those who offered advice
Given how f*cking cheap they are (speaking as a board member of a diagnostics company) absolutely you should
A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.
This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.
----------------- Good morning, Matt
Many thanks for your enquiry.
We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.
If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.
We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.
Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.
Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.
Kind Regards
That looks to me to be a very good response and they are doing everything they reasonably can to accommodate wheelchair users.
Where did they fall down so that you docked 2.5/10 points?
Because accessibility is about far more than wheelchairs, and I would need to do a site survey to get a full impression. So it's more about not having enough information to go higher, rather than docking points.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The comparison with Prescott is ridiculous.
Why?
Andrew Norfolk is a principled investigative journalist. Prescott ... is not.
Was a principled investigative journalist unfortunately, died earlier this year. Good interview with him on R4’s Media Show just before that, came across as a very decent bloke apart from anything else.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
But you might expect an internal investigation to be truthful, objective, accurate and carried out in good faith, when this report is clearly none of these things. Why would we hold the investigation to a completely ethical standard from the journalism?
See my last comment. What Prescott has done is not an internal investigation. (If anyone in my team had presented that as a report, I'd have .... well, never mind, they wouldn't have dared.) He has written about a load of issues - some of which are opinion, some of which appear to be facts but who knows - which he thinks show a load of problems. The report raises a load of questions. It does not really provide answers though it does have a lot of opinionated conclusions.
It needs a proper team going through everything he says to see whether what he is saying is accurate or not and if not how and why. This is called an investigation and it should be done because it is the best possible answer to the criticisms being made.
This is not hard to understand.
When people and organisations are so resistant to doing something which is likely to help them, the next obvious question is why?
Because it might lead to change.
Which would mean not Being A Safe Pair Of Hands. Not being A Team Player.
French police are preventing fewer migrants from crossing the Channel since Sir Keir Starmer struck a deal with President Emmanuel Macron to tackle small boats, The Telegraph can reveal.
Just over a quarter (28.7 per cent) of migrants’ attempts to make the crossing have been stopped by French officers since the agreement was implemented in August.
This contrasts with the 38 per cent of migrant crossings the French prevented in an equivalent 13-week period before the “one in, one out” deal was struck with France, according to an analysis of official data.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I agree with your critique @Cyclefree and I certainly agree on the substance. But I can also see how people are asking questions about Prescott and his report. Impartial, objective, independent, none of the above.
I see parallels with a certain Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his campaign around grooming gangs. Now his motives may have been impure (a hatred of Islam/muslims) but the bad facts he was bringing up were true. There was (and probably still is) an issue. But because of who he is, people ignored it.
People on here are attacking Prescott for attacking the BBC and because he is of the right they are dismissing his complaints. I think that’s very dangerous. On some of the issues he is right. BBC Arabic broadcasting a very skewed output on Gaza, for instance. A dangerous adoption and pushing of non scientific nonsense on trans.
Just because you don’t like a messenger, or think their motives not pure, it doesn’t mean you should ignore their words.
Even when Andrew Norfolk wrote his articles in the Times, he was initially smeared as racist / Islamophobe / dodgy motives....part of the Murdoch media empire, etc.
Not by me. I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The comparison with Prescott is ridiculous.
Why?
Andrew Norfolk is a principled investigative journalist. Prescott ... is not.
Was a principled investigative journalist unfortunately, died earlier this year. Good interview with him on R4’s Media Show just before that, came across as a very decent bloke apart from anything else.
Damn. RIP.
Incidentally, this from one of X's good guys. For those who followed some of my health's updates in the last months/days, it's suspected pancreas cancer.
I think I couldn't have a worst day, I think problems rain like sh!t. But I think it's life.
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
London's 0207, isn't it?
020 actually.
Back in the day, the Sunday Telegraph had a cartoon strip based on some very middle class aliens. The sort of aliens who would have read the Sunday Telegraph when it was only mildly eccentric.
"Darling, what's the phone code for the extreme outer edge of the Solar System?"
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
Pleased to see ‘this is not the net zero I voted for’ reflected as a PB headline.
I keep telling my local MP to shift to the greens if he wants to make a difference. He’s a good bloke and would fit in okay. Some small shifts of tone and he would shine.
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
Her first question was a zinger and her next two were calmly delivering winners and then she got all smug and shouty.
If @DavidL is around it would be interesting to hear his thoughts - if he is able to give them - on the SC judgment on the "rape shield laws" and how they have been interpreted.
This is a problem in one respect for Sir Keir, but a bonus in another; it explains why he contradicts himself all the time - he has to appeal to two wildly different set of voters - but the bonus is, as has flip flopped on everything since he became an MP anyway, it comes naturally
Half of voters who backed Labour at the last general election have deserted the party, according to internal polling being shared with Labour MPs, reports @harriet_symonds
This is not great, speaking as a Tory centrist who voted Labour and as of today would do so again through gritted teeth. The 34-35% of voters who voted Labour in 2024 included a large number of those who voted Labour as a last resort, there being nowhere else to go. (My formula is fairly simple: you vote for a party that can come first or second in your seat, which in the olden days in England meant Lab, Con or LD, and within that constraint you vote for the best possible choice.)
In 2024 in my seat that was Labour and the unvoteable for Tory party (and candidate). Next time it will even less jolly, with Reform well in play. Tories remain impossible Reformlite. Reform are Reform. So Labour it is. Though without dancing in the street.
Could you vote for a Cleverly led Tories?
It would be the first time the Tories would have done anything cleverly for a long while.
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
Starmer has to have an independent investigation about whether an official warning is the correct course of action first, surely?
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
I suspect she’s more likely to survive next May’s elections than Starmer is.
A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.
This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.
----------------- Good morning, Matt
Many thanks for your enquiry.
We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.
If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.
We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.
Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.
Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.
Kind Regards
That looks to me to be a very good response and they are doing everything they reasonably can to accommodate wheelchair users.
Where did they fall down so that you docked 2.5/10 points?
Because accessibility is about far more than wheelchairs, and I would need to do a site survey to get a full impression. So it's more about not having enough information to go higher, rather than docking points.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
There's loads of stuff to consider.
Seems harsh to score them down vs note the limitations of your work
What’s the point of having a pious boring Berk in No10 if he’s also incompetent and keeps breaking the rules?
BREAKING: Keir Starmer admits he DID sign off the appointment of David Kogan as chairman of the football regulator - despite taking donations from him.
PM has written to the No10 ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus saying: "This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret."
Magnus replies that this was "regrettable" and welcomes his promise to launch an internal review on appointments.
Does anyone find it particularly impressive that a PM is grovelling to a civil servant and expressing his regret?
Leaving aside the issue at hand, PMs are accountable to the public and should speak to them first and foremost.
This was actually the argument from old fogies like me about having a regulator to oversee expenses for MPs. The constitutional implications were disgraceful
I’ve just realised we have a role for Andrew Windsor.
Politicians who need to make amends can grovel in front of him.
As in - “Your so shit you need to grovel… in front of *that*”
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
Very good I thought. Couple of funny jokes in there too. The waiting list one was funny at least.
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
I am content with Badenoch who is growing into the role and as far as I am concerned she should lead into the next GE
There is no obvious alternative and notwithstanding she could have a difficult May 26 she has time and next May is going to be all about Starmer and Reeves [if they survive that long]
I would say Starmer handed Streeting a huge win today and frankly, labour could do worse than making him PM
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
I suspect she’s more likely to survive next May’s elections than Starmer is.
You may be right. I’ve always said that it would be the other way round - Badenoch gone next summer and Starmer probably getting the benefit of the doubt for another 12-24 months at least - but things feel increasingly sensitive around the Labour leadership at the moment and if Starmer is in danger it surely shores up her position, at least for the short term.
@Peston · 11m Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
I presume the conversation went, it never crossed my desk, but if i find out who the person responsible i will write to them informing them that they are on a now on an official written warning.....
How did Keir respond to being put on an official warning?
Called Lord Hermer to represent him as he sees it as an infringement on his human rights....
He’d negotiate a deal to give the keys of Number 10 to Streeting and pay him an allowance.
Having caught up with PMQs today, whisper it, and I know she’s being gifted own goals at the moment, but Badenoch is now doing… quite well?
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
I suspect she’s more likely to survive next May’s elections than Starmer is.
You may be right. I’ve always said that it would be the other way round - Badenoch gone next summer and Starmer probably getting the benefit of the doubt for another 12-24 months at least - but things feel increasingly sensitive around the Labour leadership at the moment and if Starmer is in danger it surely shores up her position, at least for the short term.
She's defo better now at PMQs than a few months ago. No doubt. Learning on the job as all Oppo leaders must do.
Mind you, she's been gifted some material to work with in recent weeks!!
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
He no longer really needs to be on it I should think. But I've never really understood the complaint he was on it too much anyway. If the argument is it was disproportionate to party support then I guess that could be true, I haven't seen the stats, but I don't see the big deal, and the only other argument would presumably be just not wanting the public to hear him, which again what's the big deal?
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
London's 0207, isn't it?
020 actually.
I was living in London when they changed so I should not have forgotten.
My worst experience was having a number one different from a cat sanctuary.
They'd just call up on autopilot and ignore the "this is not the cat sanctuary" message. Then call back later and leave a cross "why has no one got back to me" message. Wearing.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I don't disagree - but it's also the case that this isn't true any more:
.."It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report...
The criticism of the US coverage is quite clearly not sound. Did the NBC make editorial mistakes - absolutely. But the allegation that its overall coverage was skewed is simply untrue, as far as I can see. And contains within it intentional inaccuracy.
One suggestion I saw earlier this evening is that Trump could apply under a FOI request for internal.BBC emails and see what they say about him. I would hazard a guess the BBC management would find that rather embarrassing.
A couple of days ago I mentioned that I was mystery shopping the Forest of Dean heritage railway wrt accessibility.
This is the reply, to which I give about 7.5 out of 10 - that is, quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
There are other things for a 9/10 or 1 10/10, such as secure, inclusive parking for adapted cycles and mobility aids, gradients, offsite safe routes to get there etc, but I'd need a more detailed conversation to explore those.
----------------- Good morning, Matt
Many thanks for your enquiry.
We are able to accommodate both manual and electric wheelchairs. We provide a ramped access to the train for boarding and disembarking at our stations, and there are disabled toilets at our main station, Norchard, and also Lydney Junction and Parkend. Our porters will be happy to assist.
If you are thinking of visiting, especially during busier days, or booking an experience such as a Santa Special, we ask that you let us know when booking so we can check availability of wheelchair spaces and reserve these for you, as there is limited room on board. For those who are able to transfer from wheelchair to a seat, we are happy to store wheelchairs and reserve tables closest to the ramped access.
We regret there is no wheelchair access for the First Class saloon, due to the nature of the carriage.
Finally, we recommend starting your journey at Norchard station, as we have a large car park including disabled spaces, plus a wheelchair accessible museum, shop and café. There are also half price discounts for carers for our steam train rides, and an £8 discount per carer for our Santa Specials.
Please let us know if you have any further queries, or need help booking something.
Kind Regards
That looks to me to be a very good response and they are doing everything they reasonably can to accommodate wheelchair users.
Where did they fall down so that you docked 2.5/10 points?
Because accessibility is about far more than wheelchairs, and I would need to do a site survey to get a full impression. So it's more about not having enough information to go higher, rather than docking points.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
There's loads of stuff to consider.
Seems harsh to score them down vs note the limitations of your work
I disagree, but I'm happy to withdraw the (good) score, and just leave the praise.
This is the reply. It is quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I don't disagree - but it's also the case that this isn't true any more:
.."It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report...
The criticism of the US coverage is quite clearly not sound. Did the NBC make editorial mistakes - absolutely. But the allegation that its overall coverage was skewed is simply untrue, as far as I can see. And contains within it intentional inaccuracy.
One suggestion I saw earlier this evening is that Trump could apply under a FOI request for internal.BBC emails and see what they say about him. I would hazard a guess the BBC management would find that rather embarrassing.
They are somewhat protected in that they have an exemption for material relating to journalism.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
They must not have got the "Cyclefree is never wrong on anything" memo
In this instance Cyclefree was not wrong. Trust in the BBC has collapsed from 81% to 38% in 20 years. There is a reason for that and its not because of all those nasty right wingers.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
They must not have got the "Cyclefree is never wrong on anything" memo
In this instance Cyclefree was not wrong. Trust in the BBC has collapsed from 81% to 38% in 20 years. There is a reason for that and its not because of all those nasty right wingers.
Or possibly the three appointed by Johnson?
Unlikely given that almost no one has heard of them.
@EdKrassen BREAKING: CNN is reporting that Trump held a meeting in the Situation Room (Yes THE SITUATION ROOM!) with Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel and Lauren Boebert over the House effort to force the release of the DOJ’s Epstein files!
They are panicking big time! They are literally resorting to the Situation room!
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
London's 0207, isn't it?
020 actually.
I was living in London when they changed so I should not have forgotten.
My worst experience was having a number one different from a cat sanctuary.
They'd just call up on autopilot and ignore the "this is not the cat sanctuary" message. Then call back later and leave a cross "why has no one got back to me" message. Wearing.
At the Rata childhood home, before the advent of 0300s and special numbers for everything, we were one number out from a gas problems hotline (I think even then not the full emergency one, which was a special number, but one below that, but which people still used for emergencies), which resulted in some quite stressed calls to my parents. We just had to furnish ourselves with a bit of patience, convincing peoole we weren't the gas board, and directing them at the right number.
Was just trying to cancel my license fee (not especially related to current events - just haven't watched any BBC content for 2+ years, so...)
"To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.
We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.
*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline."
... Wut?
01 and 02 are standard lines eg 0171, 0115 for London and Nottingham.
London's 0207, isn't it?
020 actually.
I was living in London when they changed so I should not have forgotten.
My worst experience was having a number one different from a cat sanctuary.
They'd just call up on autopilot and ignore the "this is not the cat sanctuary" message. Then call back later and leave a cross "why has no one got back to me" message. Wearing.
At the Rata childhood home, before the advent of 0300s and special numbers for everything, we were one number out from a gas problems hotline (I think even then not the full emergency one, which was a special number, but one below that, but which people still used for emergencies), which resulted in some quite stressed calls to my parents. We just had to furnish ourselves with a bit of patience, convincing peoole we weren't the gas board, and directing them at the right number.
At one point I resorted to something along the lines of "this is not the cat sanctuary, so I cannot help you with your sore pussy", but it just generated abuse.
Now that the so-called discharge petition that would force a vote on the Epstein files has the backing of 218 members, their signatures are frozen and cannot be removed.
Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told reporters that he checked with the House parliamentarian and was told that even if one of the members who signed the petition leaves Congress or dies, their signature will still stand.
The question will be relevant soon: Representative Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat who won an election to be New Jersey governor’s, said she plans to submit her resignation next week.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I don't disagree - but it's also the case that this isn't true any more:
.."It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report...
The criticism of the US coverage is quite clearly not sound. Did the NBC make editorial mistakes - absolutely. But the allegation that its overall coverage was skewed is simply untrue, as far as I can see. And contains within it intentional inaccuracy.
One suggestion I saw earlier this evening is that Trump could apply under a FOI request for internal.BBC emails and see what they say about him. I would hazard a guess the BBC management would find that rather embarrassing.
They are somewhat protected in that they have an exemption for material relating to journalism.
I was under the impression that the journalism exemption for a Subject Access Request was narrower than an FOI.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
Back to GB News for you then, I guess.
I haven't watched broadcast news for a long time, but I do pay the licence fee, and I don't especially see why I should pay for an organisation to pump out a world view that I think is actively unhelpful at best.
It's tricky Lucky. If the BBC pumped out your world view, I'd similarly object. It's never going to satisfy everyone, it often annoys me, but it does remain one of, if not the, most trusted news broadcasters in the world.
That's why it should attempt impartiality and try to focus on presenting the facts. It could never please everyone, but it could be respected by everyone.
//MEDIUM RANT ON
I am not convinced that ever works.
Broadcast a plurality of views. Partial, with viscous challenge. Don’t seek the impossible. Offer opinion and discourse. Treat the viewer with respect. Expect viewers to manage a synthesis to suit their world view and lived experience.
I’d defund BBC news for a few months. Concentrate their minds / kick them out of their comfy view bunkers. Narcissistic fuckers think they know best. They are a service. They need to up their game.
The multi year period of pushing climate change denial seriously hacked me off. It was arrogant and complacent. I’m definitely bearing a grudge.
I also don’t like the BBC because it seems to be managed by entitled public school types which shows in the constant drip drip of allegations, sackings and cover-ups.
The failure of the BBC news operation is unsurprising. I walked away from their establishment worldview decades ago and I’m enjoying their discomfort.
As for them being Lefty. Yer what? Middle of the road tedious with zero backbone and the radicalism of Kier Starmer. There isn’t any thought in there.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
You do know your stuff. No question. Far more than most. But here you are trying to shoehorn a square peg into the round hole that you have expertise in. This is not a whistleblowing exposure of malpractice, it's an agenda driven attack on the BBC. I'm surprised you don't see it.
I will see it if and when there is an investigation showing that and that there is no substance to any of the allegations.
It is you who have formed an opinion without the evidence to support it. Not me.
This - if it were sent to a senior person at any of the places I have worked at - would be treated as a whistleblowing. Rightly so. It is how it should be treated by the BBC. It should be investigated and by a proper investigation team.
And I will let you into another professional secret. All investigations - whether into complaints, whistleblowings, matters raised by internal audit or the business or however they come in and whatever they are called, are and should be investigated to the same high standard and with the same rigour. That is what should happen here.
You don't want that to happen because you are worried at what such an investigation might show. I want it to happen because I would like to find out the answer. And because I think that process will help improve matters at the BBC. Not least because it would - I would hope - answer the question of why an external consultant was brought in by the D-G to do this job after the Bashir scandal rather than having a proper investigation team.
There's evidence to support what you're stressing (BBC failures) and what I'm stressing (that this was a partisan hitjob not an independent review). Both these things should be investigated and I hope they are.
@EdKrassen BREAKING: CNN is reporting that Trump held a meeting in the Situation Room (Yes THE SITUATION ROOM!) with Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel and Lauren Boebert over the House effort to force the release of the DOJ’s Epstein files!
They are panicking big time! They are literally resorting to the Situation room!
What's Lauren Boebert doing in there? I'm not aware that she has any Government position. Isn't she just a peculiar Congressman with many strange views?
Is she there to make Pam Bondi seem impressive? Update: Aha - she is one of the 4 Republicans who signed the discharge petition.
Are they trying to get her to withdraw her signature before it is presented?
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I don't disagree - but it's also the case that this isn't true any more:
.."It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report...
The criticism of the US coverage is quite clearly not sound. Did the NBC make editorial mistakes - absolutely. But the allegation that its overall coverage was skewed is simply untrue, as far as I can see. And contains within it intentional inaccuracy.
One suggestion I saw earlier this evening is that Trump could apply under a FOI request for internal.BBC emails and see what they say about him. I would hazard a guess the BBC management would find that rather embarrassing.
Can we return the favour and make a FOI request to find out what Epstein had to say about Trump?
Honestly I'm tired of the continuing debate over poor editorial decisions that exaggerated the words of a man while he was trying to overturn a free and fair election in his favour.
BBC internal emails should be biased against Trump, in the same way their emails about Putin are biased.m against him. There's no requirement for them to be politically neutral in relation to foreign countries' politics.
@EdKrassen BREAKING: CNN is reporting that Trump held a meeting in the Situation Room (Yes THE SITUATION ROOM!) with Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel and Lauren Boebert over the House effort to force the release of the DOJ’s Epstein files!
They are panicking big time! They are literally resorting to the Situation room!
What's Lauren Boebert doing in there? I'm not aware that she has any Government position. Isn't she just a peculiar Congressman with many strange views?
Is she there to make Pam Bondi seem impressive? Update: Aha - she is one of the 4 Republicans who signed the discharge petition.
Are they trying to get her to withdraw her signature before it is presented?
The BBC's "anti-bias" dossier that called out Panorama for splicing together disconnected quotes itself spliced together disconnected quotes.
According to Michael Prescott Trump actually said the following, which indicated there was no incitement to riot:
We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
What Trump actually, actually said it appears was the following, with the bit that Prescott cut out in italics and a clear incitement to riot;
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Did Mr Prescott not use ellipses - [...] most explicitly?
Mind it doesn't always work. Slab once put out a press release bitterly attacking the SNP for misquoting someone or other by leaving stuff out full stop. Slab hadn't realised what the funny characters meant.
He did not. No indication that these were disconnected quotes. He based his assertion that there was no incitement and that Panorama was misleading the viewer on his misquotation when the full quotation would have made clear there was incitement.
Arguably worse than what Panorama did.
Thanks. How utterly extraordinary.
Not really, it was a politically motivated hatchet job. The Newsagent podcast on this is the most revealing about what has been going on inside BBC news. Clearly they're not impartial, but their accounts have not been rebutted (just ignored).
The News Agents podcast is an excellent rebuttal of @Cyclefree's BBC critique from yesterday.
The irony is we are criticising the BBC for a poor edit, the biased dossier which raised this does itself have a similarly poor edit; and the subject of complaint is the most egregious liar in democratic political history.
The tail is not so much wagging the dog, it is throttling it.
The dossier is not simply about the Trump documentary. This is a point that you and others repeatedly ignore. It certainly suits the BBC and those defending it to pretend that it is. But it is a mistake.
I said yesterday in the header this -
"It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report.
And this BTL -
"As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.
I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others."
And again this -
"As to your second point, I am not convinced by all the accusations Prescott makes. But there are statements of fact he makes from which he draws conclusions of bias etc. So were I being asked what to do, I would investigate those statements of fact, interview the relevant people etc. review the applicable policies, guidance and so on and establish exactly what happened and why and what he (Prescott) may have left out and whether this shows no issue or a breach of guidelines / policies or laws, or, potentially, a problem with internal policies/scrutiny/governance/training etc. This is standard investigative stuff. There will also be mitigating factors, which he does not consider."
So all they are doing is pointing out that Prescott has an agenda and may well have got his facts and allegations wrong, both of which I pointed out yesterday. That is the case in pretty much the majority of whistleblowing investigations and I have done far more of them than Lewis Goodall or Emily Maitlis or Jon Sopel or all 3 of them combined. Allegations are simply that - allegations. Some are untrue, some are made up, some are misunderstandings, some have answers, some are true and a problem and some are true but not a problem because ..... It is the investigation that gives you that information not evidence that the allegations come from someone with an agenda.
What those journalists have not done is investigated the entirety of the claims made and proved that they are - each and every one of them - wholly untrue. Instead they are doing a version of no 3 in yesterday's list. Prescott may well be a dubious or partisan source but that is neither a complete nor a sufficient answer to all the claims made in what he writes.
Oh and @kinabalu is someone who does not understand what a whistleblowing is. Like most people.
But I understand what it isn't.
I am afraid you don't. On this topic I really really know my stuff and you do not.
The BBC would be and do so much better if it actually answered its critics with substance. Instead of this wailing about how unfair and horrid it all is.
I don't disagree - but it's also the case that this isn't true any more:
.."It is not possible to say whether all or any of the criticisms made are justified or not." about the report...
The criticism of the US coverage is quite clearly not sound. Did the NBC make editorial mistakes - absolutely. But the allegation that its overall coverage was skewed is simply untrue, as far as I can see. And contains within it intentional inaccuracy.
One suggestion I saw earlier this evening is that Trump could apply under a FOI request for internal.BBC emails and see what they say about him. I would hazard a guess the BBC management would find that rather embarrassing.
Can we return the favour and make a FOI request to find out what Epstein had to say about Trump?
Honestly I'm tired of the continuing debate over poor editorial decisions that exaggerated the words of a man while he was trying to overturn a free and fair election in his favour.
BBC internal emails should be biased against Trump, in the same way their emails about Putin are biased.m against him. There's no requirement for them to be politically neutral in relation to foreign countries' politics.
I think there is one of those in already for the Epstein papers already from early summer, and it is now in litigation.
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 47m A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
The race of the left to defend 'our BBC' (a lot of unintentional truth in that designation) is a bit like those undead dragon things in Lord of the Rings fleeing back to help Suaron when they drop the ring in the volcano.
It's pretty much exactly what would happen if the BBC were deeply biased toward the left and a hyperpartisan left wing crowd were afraid of losing that finger on the scales.
These people deserve their current panic, because most of them are bad faith debators who think that throwing up some chaff about 'Farage on Question Time again' is enough to make it appear that there's an argument about bias on both sides. There isn't, and there never has been.
I've mulled on this kind of thing before on here, how the 'establishment' went, over a couple of generations, from being centre-right patrician - health & safety was a military moustached man with a clipboard, the BBC had Lord Reith, - to being centre-left know better - diversity prominent in HR departments, a metropolitan BBC, health & safety a lass with an interesting hairstyle. Maybe even the old 10k becoming the nu 10k.
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
As I pointedout yesterday Farage is on QT a lot less often than people think. The last time was December 2024. He is the 6th highest appearing guest and equal 4th highest in rate of appearances per year. Averaging 1.5 times per year.
Away with your Bad Facts.
What about the lived experience of the people who see him on QT 18 or 19 times a day? Doesn’t that out way all that Western Imperialist… *maths*!?!!
On topic, Labour's big majority never hid the percentage vote. The public were lukewarm and of that 34 and a bit percent, a there is going to be a slice that was voting on a 'fed up with the other lot' basis
That the government has ballsed it, from supporting the economy, through taxation and immigration shouldn't be a surprise either. These are big & difficult issues but they have fluffed it so far.
Off topic, I'd be cautious about those emails released featuring Trump's name. We don't know if thats all there is. Its going to take more to damage him any more than any other issue that may put a dent in his vote.
Would the WH not hand over all the Epstein files ? Would they risk releasing only those which don’t include anything incriminating to Trump ?
Could they get away with that ? Or have too many already seen what’s in those files especially from the previous administration.
The Dems either didn’t see anything that would hurt Trump or was there also files incriminating senior Democrats and that’s why they didn’t release them .
On topic, Labour's big majority never hid the percentage vote. The public were lukewarm and of that 34 and a bit percent, a there is going to be a slice that was voting on a 'fed up with the other lot' basis
That the government has ballsed it, from supporting the economy, through taxation and immigration shouldn't be a surprise either. These are big & difficult issues but they have fluffed it so far.
Off topic, I'd be cautious about those emails released featuring Trump's name. We don't know if thats all there is. Its going to take more to damage him any more than any other issue that may put a dent in his vote.
And isn't that depressing. It confirms that MAGA is a cult.
Comments
Ny Times
I recall posting some of his articles myself.
The comparison with Prescott is ridiculous.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6481256/#:~:text=A CRP is an acute,peak values in 48 hours.
20 hours before the first antibiotics prescribed sounds more than a little lackadasical to me.
·
11m
Very brief chat just now between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting. I am told the PM apologised to the health secretary for the briefings against him, did not share detail, and said they would speak again soon
https://x.com/Peston/status/1988719622787596308
This is muscular leadership
The expression “full of their own importance “ comes to mind.
Indeed after the merger in 1993 not all Tory members went to the new party, some joined the Liberals, indeed even a few Progressive Conservative MPs like former leadership candidate Scott Brison crossed the floor to the Liberals rather than join the new Reform dominant Conservative Party of Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brison
Just over a quarter (28.7 per cent) of migrants’ attempts to make the crossing have been stopped by French officers since the agreement was implemented in August.
This contrasts with the 38 per cent of migrant crossings the French prevented in an equivalent 13-week period before the “one in, one out” deal was struck with France, according to an analysis of official data.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/12/french-stopping-fewer-small-boats-since-deal-with-starmer/
Prescott ... is not.
On Labour's right flank, 11 per cent of people who supported Labour last year now back Reform UK, while three per cent would vote for the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, on its left flank, nine per cent say they would vote for the Liberal Democrats, while six per cent would back Zack Polanski's Green Party, and four per cent would vote for independents.
The figures suggest Labour's lost 2024 vote is broadly split between the right and the left'
Three years ago, after the Martin Bashir scandal, BBC boss Tim Davie tried to prevent future crises by appointing two “external editorial experts” to scrutinise BBC journalism. Oddly, both came from PR rather than journalism.*
One, ex-Sunday Times political editor turned lobbyist Michael Prescott, had worked at PR firm Hanover alongside a former Tory press officer and right-wing hacks. While at the BBC, Prescott raised internal concerns about editorial standards - but after leaving this summer, he went to his old media contacts with a list of the BBC’s failings.
So in the end, the man who Davie (ironically considered a Tory) appointed in 2022 to stop the next crisis ended up causing his demise.
https://x.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1988659433467936840
*To be accurate, Prescott was a journalist before he went into PR.
The release of the Epstein estate emails today by the bipartisan committee has made it more difficult for Trump to get minds changed. The 100+ Republicans who were talked about voting to release may now be an underestimate. It is now clear that Trump was in the loop - within Epstein's home - with one of the sexually trafficked girls for hours. Who now gives him the benefit of the doubt?
Michael Wolff's take on the released e-mails - and his coaching of Epstein - will be fascinating. Will look forward to his podcast...
When I cancelled mine, I eventually got doorstepped.
A number of years ago, I legally, through an odd loophole, didn't need a tv licence. We never explained the reason why we didn't need one, just didn't pay, binned the letters, never had any issues.
Now maybe 4-d chess thinking showed that that puts a real target on his back and they will come after him. Or maybe some serious people in Starmer's group would want Streeting to take over and maybe, whisper it, there's been a deal.
Who knows.
It's either very murky or a shitshow.
eg is there an inductive loop in the ticket office, are gradients in paths less than 1 in 20, types of surface, safe access separate from motor vehicles, secure mobility aid parking where people would do the actual train trip with sticks, is the secure parking suitable and wheel-in wheel-out for mobility aids with no reverse gear, is a loan wheelchair available for people who tire easily, is tactile paving to national guidelines.
There's loads of stuff to consider.
Which would mean not Being A Safe Pair Of Hands. Not being A Team Player.
Being a leader, really.
(It may be that the actual numbers look worse than the %!)
Incidentally, this from one of X's good guys.
For those who followed some of my health's updates in the last months/days, it's suspected pancreas cancer.
I think I couldn't have a worst day, I think problems rain like sh!t. But I think it's life.
At least I still have an X account.
https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1988666094362730824
"Darling, what's the phone code for the extreme outer edge of the Solar System?"
"081"
Shaws Cove is where I tend to hang out when I am on the west coast
Farage is on Question Time too much and most of the political staff are ex-Tories but culturally it is still the centre-left, myself included, that feel affinity to the institution, that is true.
If I look it up there was some murmur of the death of establishment about a decade back, but that was framed differently and I don't know if anyone has any specific book recommendations on this key post-war tale. If anyone wishes to @ me anything of interest that explains this specific phenomenon, I'd be very interested.
I know it’s only PMQs and doesn’t mean much in the general scheme of things (ask Hague), but she’s definitely grown in confidence. I don’t quite know exactly where a Badenoch led Tory Party goes from here, and their poll ratings are still dismal, but is it really worth them switching leader in the next 12 months? I’d be giving her a bit more time.
I keep telling my local MP to shift to the greens if he wants to make a difference. He’s a good bloke and would fit in okay. Some small shifts of tone and he would shine.
Davey was very good.
The Prescott memo flunks the impartiality test
The document at the heart of the BBC’s crisis is unfairly selective and ignores most of the corporation’s output
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-prescott-memo-flunks-the-impartiality-test
It doesn't involve any conspiracy theories.
Politicians who need to make amends can grovel in front of him.
As in - “Your so shit you need to grovel… in front of *that*”
There is no obvious alternative and notwithstanding she could have a difficult May 26 she has time and next May is going to be all about Starmer and Reeves [if they survive that long]
I would say Starmer handed Streeting a huge win today and frankly, labour could do worse than making him PM
Mind you, she's been gifted some material to work with in recent weeks!!
My worst experience was having a number one different from a cat sanctuary.
They'd just call up on autopilot and ignore the "this is not the cat sanctuary" message. Then call back later and leave a cross "why has no one got back to me" message. Wearing.
This is the reply. It is quite good, especially around prompt individual attention given to my query. So well done the FODway. I'll copy to the other project I was talking about, and ask them to make sure that latest accessibility standards are a foundational aspect of their project.
Ed Krassenstein
@EdKrassen
BREAKING: CNN is reporting that Trump held a meeting in the Situation Room (Yes THE SITUATION ROOM!) with Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel and Lauren Boebert over the House effort to force the release of the DOJ’s Epstein files!
They are panicking big time! They are literally resorting to the Situation room!
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/1988730657867202978
Well, to be fair, it certainly is a "situation".
In the end I had the line taken out.
Now that the so-called discharge petition that would force a vote on the Epstein files has the backing of 218 members, their signatures are frozen and cannot be removed.
Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told reporters that he checked with the House parliamentarian and was told that even if one of the members who signed the petition leaves Congress or dies, their signature will still stand.
The question will be relevant soon: Representative Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat who won an election to be New Jersey governor’s, said she plans to submit her resignation next week.
NY Times live blog
I am not convinced that ever works.
Broadcast a plurality of views. Partial, with viscous challenge. Don’t seek the impossible. Offer opinion and discourse. Treat the viewer with respect. Expect viewers to manage a synthesis to suit their world view and lived experience.
I’d defund BBC news for a few months. Concentrate their minds / kick them out of their comfy view bunkers. Narcissistic fuckers think they know best. They are a service. They need to up their game.
The multi year period of pushing climate change denial seriously hacked me off. It was arrogant and complacent. I’m definitely bearing a grudge.
I also don’t like the BBC because it seems to be managed by entitled public school types which shows in the constant drip drip of allegations, sackings and cover-ups.
The failure of the BBC news operation is unsurprising. I walked away from their establishment worldview decades ago and I’m enjoying their discomfort.
As for them being Lefty. Yer what? Middle of the road tedious with zero backbone and the radicalism of Kier Starmer. There isn’t any thought in there.
//OFF Oooh that’s better. . .
What's Lauren Boebert doing in there? I'm not aware that she has any Government position. Isn't she just a peculiar Congressman with many strange views?
Is she there to make Pam Bondi seem impressive?
Update: Aha - she is one of the 4 Republicans who signed the discharge petition.
Are they trying to get her to withdraw her signature before it is presented?
Will Hutton
@williamnhutton
·
47m
A masterclass today in how to do politics in 2025 from Wes Streeting - at least the equal if not better than Farage or Polanski. Great humour: streetwise: serious intent: and deadly. He has sunk Morgan McSweeney who will know who did the leak. Every Labour MP will take note.
https://x.com/williamnhutton/status/1988731897673867580
Streeting is 5 on BF
Honestly I'm tired of the continuing debate over poor editorial decisions that exaggerated the words of a man while he was trying to overturn a free and fair election in his favour.
BBC internal emails should be biased against Trump, in the same way their emails about Putin are biased.m against him. There's no requirement for them to be politically neutral in relation to foreign countries' politics.
What about the lived experience of the people who see him on QT 18 or 19 times a day? Doesn’t that out way all that Western Imperialist… *maths*!?!!
That the government has ballsed it, from supporting the economy, through taxation and immigration shouldn't be a surprise either. These are big & difficult issues but they have fluffed it so far.
Off topic, I'd be cautious about those emails released featuring Trump's name. We don't know if thats all there is. Its going to take more to damage him any more than any other issue that may put a dent in his vote.
Could they get away with that ? Or have too many already seen what’s in those files especially from the previous administration.
The Dems either didn’t see anything that would hurt Trump or was there also files incriminating senior Democrats and that’s why they didn’t release them .
So many questions ?