ok everyone's seen the trump with epstein photos by now, after years of the media pretending they didn't exist. good progress. next step is making sure everyone who is like "uh this all is sketchy but surely the president isn't literally a pedophile" sees this gross photo
Police have arrested two men in connection with a mobile phone hidden in the House of Commons that was reportedly planted there to play sex noises during prime minister’s questions.
which will become a bigger story of the men in question are, or are linked to, serving politicians…..
Weird this has become 'news' now, given it happened 10 weeks ago. (?)
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Is it standard journalistic techniques to concatenate two different parts of the speech and give the impression they were continuous? You would normally have some sort of break between them to show they had been edited "later in the speech, he said...". That's all they needed to do.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It doesn't help that Prescott also wielded the scalpel;
When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.
The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It doesn't help that Prescott also wielded the scalpel;
When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.
The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?
The problem is, of course, that Trump incited a riot but he and his supporters don't want to admit it.
And to try and conceal that, they indulge in selective quoting of their own, noting the 'peacefully and patriotically' and forgetting the 'fight like hell' bit.
Ultimately, looking at the whole speech, which was his usual rambling and incoherent mess, it's clear he did incite a protest and knew at some level it was likely to turn violent.
While the report could have been more nuanced - and really probably should have been about the advanced mental health problems his style and language displayed - it was actually fair enough and the BBC should certainly not have apologised on the basis of a heavily quote mined report from somebody who is clearly not very trustworthy.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
That reduces the majority further than being kicked out of the Commons though. One MP going into opposition equals two votes lost.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Is it standard journalistic techniques to concatenate two different parts of the speech and give the impression they were continuous? You would normally have some sort of break between them to show they had been edited "later in the speech, he said...". That's all they needed to do.
It is a long, long time since The Times reported parliamentary speeches verbatim.
In any case, the BBC did not make Panorama, which comes from an independent production company. Newsnight, which I believe is still made in-house, had in 2022 used a similar edit which was called out on the programme, but even though it is compulsory viewing for our journalistic and political Establishments, none of them cared at the time.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It doesn't help that Prescott also wielded the scalpel;
When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.
The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?
You put breaks in to show they are selected quotes
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It doesn't help that Prescott also wielded the scalpel;
When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.
The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?
The problem is, of course, that Trump incited a riot but he and his supporters don't want to admit it.
And to try and conceal that, they indulge in selective quoting of their own, noting the 'peacefully and patriotically' and forgetting the 'fight like hell' bit.
Ultimately, looking at the whole speech, which was his usual rambling and incoherent mess, it's clear he did incite a protest and knew at some level it was likely to turn violent.
While the report could have been more nuanced - and really probably should have been about the advanced mental health problems his style and language displayed - it was actually fair enough and the BBC should certainly not have apologised on the basis of a heavily quote mined report from somebody who is clearly not very trustworthy.
Yes, it is obvious gaslighting by Trump and his right wing imps.
What was Trump's Jan 6 rally about if not about inciting a mob to attack Congress and prevent implementation of an election result?
Its like claiming the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch was just being out on the lash with some old comrades.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It combined 2 disparate quotes in a way which made a seamless single, non-existent, quote.
Now, the resultant quote is arguably a representation of Trump's broader incitement for violence over months *, never mind his watching it on TV, gloating, and doing nothing to stop events. But it fails on basic journalistic process.
* eg His "Stand Back and Stand By" message to the Proud Boys neo-fascist group.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
That reduces the majority further than being kicked out of the Commons though. One MP going into opposition equals two votes lost.
It's a different distribution of powers, which is why the attempts to import American models to the UK are going to be tricky.
The bar for the American legislature getting rid of the President is (rightly) extremely high- though it's pretty dismal that the Republicans haven't yet judged that Trump passes that test.
The bar for the British legislature getting rid of a PM is pretty low, and amounts to "enough of your own party are narked enough to vote with the opposition on the matter". Even if Leader Farage has tied up the leadership of Reform, it's not easy to see how he can force Reform MPs to support him in Parliament. An signed but undated letter of resignation from all his candidates, kept in a safe? Can he make that stick?
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Here's the guide to the mechanics of Revolution by the remarkable Kamil Galeev. Some of his stuff on Russia is worth reading.
TLDR - It's a death by dominos. A series of events where there is never 'first mover advantage'.
Stanford Medicine scientists tie lupus to a virus nearly all of us carry https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/11/lupus-epstein-barr.html One of humanity’s most ubiquitous infectious pathogens bears the blame for the chronic autoimmune condition called systemic lupus erythematosus or, colloquially, lupus, Stanford Medicine investigators and their colleagues have found.
The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which resides silently inside the bodies of 19 out of 20 Americans, is directly responsible for commandeering what starts out as a minuscule number of immune cells to go rogue and persuade far more of their fellow immune cells to launch a widespread assault on the body’s tissues, the scientists have shown.
The findings were published Nov. 12 in Science Translational Medicine.
“This is the single most impactful finding to emerge from my lab in my entire career,” said William Robinson, MD, PhD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and the study’s senior author. “We think it applies to 100% of lupus cases.”..
I wonder how many other mysterious, intractable diseases like lupus, which are incredible hard to treat, could be prevented by a simple vaccine ?
EBV is implicated in several now.
It's a fascinating area of research but if 95% of us have EBV is it really surprising that 100% of those with an autoimmune deficiency have it? And what triggers lupus in the relatively small number of people who develop lupus but does not trigger it in the vast majority of those who are infected with EBV? Still got a bit of work to do here I think.
Doesn't really matter why it doesn't affect most of us - the point is a vaccine or treatment might prevent that minority. And given that EBV is associated with all sorts of other diseases, the fact they've found the mechanism...
I'd take it if it reduced my chance of MS and some cancers.
Unlikely, I think.
You'd probably need to vaccinate young children before infection, as the virus is largely dormant and inaccessible most of the time in infected individuals.
But knowing the mechanisms promises other treatments for our generation.
Isn't the shingles virus dormant in most adults, but a vaccine is still effective (and also seems to protect against dementia)?
The news on viral links to numerous syndromes and conditions that has emerged over the last few years, and the advanced with mRNA vaccines have been really exciting.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
It combined 2 disparate quotes in a way which made a seamless single, non-existent, quote.
Now, the resultant quote is arguably a representation of Trump's broader incitement for violence over months *, never mind his watching it on TV, gloating, and doing nothing to stop events. But it fails on basic journalistic process.
* eg His "Stand Back and Stand By" message to the Proud Boys neo-fascist group.
Indeed. Also, this conversation may be better informed by knowledge of the Kuleshov effect
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Here's the guide to the mechanics of Revolution by the remarkable Kamil Galeev. Some of his stuff on Russia is worth reading.
TLDR - It's a death by dominos. A series of events where there is never 'first mover advantage'.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
This is nothing new with the Beeb either. Their reporting has been problematic for years. Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies fell over the Iraq issue.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Dividing Reform supporters somewhat arbitrarily like that seems artificial, but the analysis does highlight a key dilemma for that party, which it inherits from the Leave campaign - that being the tension between the conservative 'small state' economics of its leadership and many of its politicians and donors, and the economic self-interest and views of a big slice of its supporters, which lean heavily left towards 'big state'. We can see Farage already struggling to reconcile these.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
'Contrarian Youth'. Is there any other type of youth?
Stanford Medicine scientists tie lupus to a virus nearly all of us carry https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/11/lupus-epstein-barr.html One of humanity’s most ubiquitous infectious pathogens bears the blame for the chronic autoimmune condition called systemic lupus erythematosus or, colloquially, lupus, Stanford Medicine investigators and their colleagues have found.
The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which resides silently inside the bodies of 19 out of 20 Americans, is directly responsible for commandeering what starts out as a minuscule number of immune cells to go rogue and persuade far more of their fellow immune cells to launch a widespread assault on the body’s tissues, the scientists have shown.
The findings were published Nov. 12 in Science Translational Medicine.
“This is the single most impactful finding to emerge from my lab in my entire career,” said William Robinson, MD, PhD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and the study’s senior author. “We think it applies to 100% of lupus cases.”..
I wonder how many other mysterious, intractable diseases like lupus, which are incredible hard to treat, could be prevented by a simple vaccine ?
EBV is implicated in several now.
It's a fascinating area of research but if 95% of us have EBV is it really surprising that 100% of those with an autoimmune deficiency have it? And what triggers lupus in the relatively small number of people who develop lupus but does not trigger it in the vast majority of those who are infected with EBV? Still got a bit of work to do here I think.
Doesn't really matter why it doesn't affect most of us - the point is a vaccine or treatment might prevent that minority. And given that EBV is associated with all sorts of other diseases, the fact they've found the mechanism...
I'd take it if it reduced my chance of MS and some cancers.
Unlikely, I think.
You'd probably need to vaccinate young children before infection, as the virus is largely dormant and inaccessible most of the time in infected individuals.
But knowing the mechanisms promises other treatments for our generation.
Isn't the shingles virus dormant in most adults, but a vaccine is still effective (and also seems to protect against dementia)?
The news on viral links to numerous syndromes and conditions that has emerged over the last few years, and the advanced with mRNA vaccines have been really exciting.
The theory that MS might either be caused or triggered by a virus, possibly sexually transmitted, has been around since the explosion in case numbers among Icelandic females in the post-war period, US troops having been stationed there during the war.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Interesting, though as with characterising the left categories like 'thoughtless idiots', 'fat bloke in pub', 'simplistic ignoramus', 'seeker of riots' are omitted, perhaps out of politeness. Have 'libertarians' all vanished too?
Helpful would be a list of 10 or so really substantial things Reform would do to make all these groups dance in the streets, bring back happy days and get Reform re-elected.
When a GE gets near the issue of how to be elected is interesting but secondary. The deeper issue is policy and actual realisation and implementation of it. Governments have not found this easy recently. Why do I think Reform might find it hard too?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
This is nothing new with the Beeb either. Their reporting has been problematic for years. Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies fell over the Iraq issue.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
The Martin Bashir stuff with Diana is truly chilling. A journalist working for the BBC actually creating documents to convince Diana that she was going to be murdered. Which very probably ended up driving her into the scenario wherein she was eventually killed. Evil is the only word for it. The man who re-appointed Bashir as religious correspondent has just been promoted to acting Head of News.
Ukraine reported to have struck two oil refineries overnight, in Volgograd Oblast and Samara Oblast, respectively the 6th and 16th largest oil refineries in Russia.
Also more reports of how Ukraine is using ground drones for reconnaissance and combat. Pushing forward that technology in capability and scale enables Ukraine to fight while minimising casualties of their own soldiers.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
The best way to ‘address’ these groups is to make their lives and communities better rather than just talking at them and sneering at them, the latter being a very PB thing to do.
Meanwhile we have reports that Angela Rayner is on manoeuvres and offering people cabinet jobs in return for support. Now she may be or it may be being briefed by an opponent to undermine her. Either way this lot are no better than the Tories now. It’s all inward looking and self absorbed while the country is going to shit. No wonder people on the right flock to Reform and on the left flock to the Greens. The Greens policies are bonkers but for people who have little hope,of getting on the property ladder and are stuck in flat shares and whose salary growth is minimal they offer a vision.
Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dem’s offer us little in many parts of the country. Address that rather than lecture people.
I’m only currently still Labour as my MP, the parachuted in right winger Luke Akehurst, is doing a decent job and is very active in the seat.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Dividing Reform supporters somewhat arbitrarily like that seems artificial, but the analysis does highlight a key dilemma for that party, which it inherits from the Leave campaign - that being the tension between the conservative 'small state' economics of its leadership and many of its politicians and donors, and the economic self-interest and views of a big slice of its supporters, which lean heavily left towards 'big state'. We can see Farage already struggling to reconcile these.
Even more basic than that he does not even have spokespersons to shadow the great offices of state yet he’s hoping to be in power in just under 4 years.
All parties are a coalition. We’ve seen how tough it is for the Tories and Labour to hold it together. I think Reform would be better off getting 200 plus MPs and being the main opposition with a view to 2034.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
The best way to ‘address’ these groups is to make their lives and communities better rather than just talking at them and sneering at them, the latter being a very PB thing to do.
Meanwhile we have reports that Angela Rayner is on manoeuvres and offering people cabinet jobs in return for support. Now she may be or it may be being briefed by an opponent to undermine her. Either way this lot are no better than the Tories now. It’s all inward looking and self absorbed while the country is going to shit. No wonder people on the right flock to Reform and on the left flock to the Greens. The Greens policies are bonkers but for people who have little hope,of getting on the property ladder and are stuck in flat shares and whose salary growth is minimal they offer a vision.
Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dem’s offer us little in many parts of the country. Address that rather than lecture people.
I’m only currently still Labour as my MP, the parachuted in right winger Luke Akehurst, is doing a decent job and is very active in the seat.
The fact Labour have done little to help those groups in the past 18 months is why I think Reform will win the next election.
To avoid it, it requires a non reform none of the above party to be in a plausible position to win - which can’t be Labour because it doesn’t meet the non of the above party criteria. Now the Lib Dems could but I don’t see that happening either
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Interesting, though as with characterising the left categories like 'thoughtless idiots', 'fat bloke in pub', 'simplistic ignoramus', 'seeker of riots' are omitted, perhaps out of politeness. Have 'libertarians' all vanished too?
Helpful would be a list of 10 or so really substantial things Reform would do to make all these groups dance in the streets, bring back happy days and get Reform re-elected.
When a GE gets near the issue of how to be elected is interesting but secondary. The deeper issue is policy and actual realisation and implementation of it. Governments have not found this easy recently. Why do I think Reform might find it hard too?
Good morning
Reform do not have the answers, but the more relevant question is why has the electorate become so disillusioned that Reform or the Greens may well have a big say in the next GE
The truth is the established parties have failed and simply have no answers because they fear the truth will not get them elected
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
Looking at that, the commentary I linked to actually uses the previous set of "tribes" - so it is useful but easy to get wires crossed.
Last year HNH identified amongst RefUK's Early 2024 supporters:
Working Right Radical Young Men Moderate Interventionist Older Authoritarian Right Traditional Conservatives
And amongst current people, who I think were 2024 Reform voters:
Working Right Contrarian Youth Reluctant Reformers Squeezed Stewards Hardline Conservatives.
As others have noted, they can be useful frameworks but need explication, and there are I can see bits of analysis that do not show up. For example afaics there is a similar divide amongst leaders and supporters of the Pink Ladies, with the leadership being quite happy to share platforms with extremists (eg TR, Homeland Party), and the "turn up" supporters being "it's about our girls" and not having picked up implications, or engaged with actual risks to "their girls".
I think we had another division into 7 "tribes" in a piece on here a few weeks ago.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
Which party/faction/fraction was the editing deemed to have affected?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
You think whether you get away with something is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong it was?
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Dividing Reform supporters somewhat arbitrarily like that seems artificial, but the analysis does highlight a key dilemma for that party, which it inherits from the Leave campaign - that being the tension between the conservative 'small state' economics of its leadership and many of its politicians and donors, and the economic self-interest and views of a big slice of its supporters, which lean heavily left towards 'big state'. We can see Farage already struggling to reconcile these.
Even more basic than that he does not even have spokespersons to shadow the great offices of state yet he’s hoping to be in power in just under 4 years.
All parties are a coalition. We’ve seen how tough it is for the Tories and Labour to hold it together. I think Reform would be better off getting 200 plus MPs and being the main opposition with a view to 2034.
That doesn't suit Farage, though. He will be 70 in 2034, and there is no way that he will be credible as an incoming PM at that age.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
'Contrarian Youth'. Is there any other type of youth?
Well there is Sonic Youth and Musical Youth but Contrarian Youth’s first album was better than either of them.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
'Contrarian Youth'. Is there any other type of youth?
Well there is Sonic Youth and Musical Youth but Contrarian Youth’s first album was better than either of them.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
'Contrarian Youth'. Is there any other type of youth?
I think with "Contrarian Youth" they are groping after Tommy Robinson supporters and others who want to reject the existing framework, and the "plague on all their houses; they all failed us" tendency, which rejects all the political parties and is after something "new" (which is actually "something old" recycled). They seem to have appropriated terms such as "uniparty"; I have not seen "LibLabCon" much yet, which was notable 15 years ago as a BNP slogan.
That then bleeds into the attraction to "authoritarianism not failed democracy", and a MAGA-style rejection of "globalists". That latter is imo the key division between Reaganites and MAGA.
In the UK that manifests as groups exploring things like Distributionism which I highlighted here, which is the one drawn from Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton - it looks to Victorian style economic models and nationalism.
The Australian coalition, still smarting, in the case of the Liberals, from a heavy election defeat, have come out with a new "energy" policy (or series of policies) as an opposing view to Net Zero and it doesn't read too badly.
I suspect adaptations of this will feature strongly in the election manifestos here at the next GE.
The thrust of today's announcement from Liberal leader Sussan Ley and National leader David Littleproud was the removal of the arbitarary Net Zero target and its replacement by a commitment to emissions reduction via new technology.
Some of the details (as reported on the Guardian blog):
A technology-neutral capacity investment scheme, including coal fired power
“Crowding in” of private capital investment in energy markets
Amendments to the National Electricity Objectives, with changes to the rules for the Australian Energy Market Operator
Support for more gas supply, including through public spending on infrastructure, speeding up of regulations and committing to an annual offshore acreage release
Providing new spending on carbon capture and storage technology, commercial and industrial rooftop solar, low emissions metals, soil carbon, biofuels and nuclear
Using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to support scalable “breakthrough” low emission technologies.
Removing Labor’s 43% 2030 emissions reduction target and its net zero by 2050 target from the Climate Change Act 2022, and legislating to make affordable energy its number one priority.
Simplifying this down somewhat, I suspect most British parties will promise to lower energy prices (we've heard this before) but the question will be how to meet the platitude - what practical measures could be implemented to reduce energy costs of both residential and business customers without Government subsidy?
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
There was an attempt by Phil Moorhouse on A Different Bias to develop that thesis late last week. I did not find it quite convincing; it felt like a bit of a stretch.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
This is the current version of their "5 tribes of Reform supporters", which is imo a decent set of labels than last time for identifying groups to address. But it needs some commentary to elucidate.
Dividing Reform supporters somewhat arbitrarily like that seems artificial, but the analysis does highlight a key dilemma for that party, which it inherits from the Leave campaign - that being the tension between the conservative 'small state' economics of its leadership and many of its politicians and donors, and the economic self-interest and views of a big slice of its supporters, which lean heavily left towards 'big state'. We can see Farage already struggling to reconcile these.
Even more basic than that he does not even have spokespersons to shadow the great offices of state yet he’s hoping to be in power in just under 4 years.
All parties are a coalition. We’ve seen how tough it is for the Tories and Labour to hold it together. I think Reform would be better off getting 200 plus MPs and being the main opposition with a view to 2034.
Labour cannot be in Government again - ideally for a lifetime. It is a one-way ticket to economic ruin, every resource falling into the hands of an overseas corporation, erosion of freedom of speech and thought, compulsory ID and limits on movement for most, but a criminal class immune from legal consequences - a UK that is an enslaved hellhole. Anyone who supports that is part of the problem frankly.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
You think whether you get away with something is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong it was?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
Until this thing blew up, I genuinely thought what was shown was what Trump had actually said. That's kind of the problem, you know.
1) It currently appears to me that only two parties, at most, could possibly lead (minority or majority) the next government - Reform and Labour 2) About 65% of the population don't want a Reform government and won't vote for one 3) About 75% of the population don't want a second Labour government and say they won't vote for one
Therefore there might be something wrong with proposition (1). But I have no idea what it is. And there can't be no party who can lead the next government (as minority or majority) because the laws of maths don't allow it and nature abhors a vacuum.
Enlightenment?
There's almost always a majority who vote against the election winner. It's not a conundrum. It's a cornerstone of FPTP.
Thanks. I take that point, but in the olden days to win on FPTP you needed plus or minus 40% to win and the two majoe parties were much less far apart - there was a reasonable degree of 'losers consent.
Now, on the polling, about 80% don't want to vote Labour, and they are intensely disliked. Fewer, 65%+ don't want Reform, but it is reasonable to expect that they feel quite or very strongly anti-Reform.
So, as things stand (obviously stuff will change) there are both large and strong populations who really don't want Labour, and really don't want Reform, to a degree different from the past.
60% didn't want Thatcher. We got Thatcher anyway. FPTP is shite.
Polls showed voters preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock until 1990, although Callaghan would likely have beaten Thatcher head to head in a direct PM vote but the Conservatives still won most MPs
Never mind opinion pols, look at votes cast. The Conservatives under Thatcher always fell well short of 50% vote share.
I don't think any party should have a majority in parliament, let alone a landslide, on less than half of the vote.
That works both ways, also means Attlee would not have had a majority in 1945 for his nationalisations and welfare state and NHS nor Blair in 1997 for devolution and the minimum wage
We'd have needed to rely on the Liberals/ LibDems. So be it.
Who certainly in 1945 would have blocked some of the nationalisations and likely required more of an insurance model for the health service.
I have a fascination for points of departure: times when things changed, or could have changed. One of my favourite YouTubers is EastGermanyInvestigated, covering the evolution of the DDR from 1945-1990 and after, and well worth watching. Similarly, the anthology "Red Plenty" about a version of the Soviet Union that might have worked (but didn't).
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
This is nothing new with the Beeb either. Their reporting has been problematic for years. Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies fell over the Iraq issue.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
The Martin Bashir stuff with Diana is truly chilling. A journalist working for the BBC actually creating documents to convince Diana that she was going to be murdered. Which very probably ended up driving her into the scenario wherein she was eventually killed. Evil is the only word for it. The man who re-appointed Bashir as religious correspondent has just been promoted to acting Head of News.
Trebles all round. We need to support the BBC to show our patriotism apparently. It really has a legacy of not being fit for purpose and being extremely arrogant with its news. Even having its own verify unit is the height of pomposity.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
Journalists really, really shouldn't stick two disparate quotes together without indicating a break.
Nevertheless... there won't be a single large news organisation in the world that hasn't done similar, or likely worse, at some time or other. Saying the BBC is prepared to doctor its news is massively tendentious. Nor is it a huge issue for anyone without an agenda. You review it, issue a correction, update your guidelines if necessary and move on
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
This is nothing new with the Beeb either. Their reporting has been problematic for years. Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies fell over the Iraq issue.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
The Martin Bashir stuff with Diana is truly chilling. A journalist working for the BBC actually creating documents to convince Diana that she was going to be murdered. Which very probably ended up driving her into the scenario wherein she was eventually killed. Evil is the only word for it. The man who re-appointed Bashir as religious correspondent has just been promoted to acting Head of News.
Trebles all round. We need to support the BBC to show our patriotism apparently. It really has a legacy of not being fit for purpose and being extremely arrogant with its news. Even having its own verify unit is the height of pomposity.
Originally fronted by someone with a Reeves style CV
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
This is nothing new with the Beeb either. Their reporting has been problematic for years. Greg Dyke and Gavin Davies fell over the Iraq issue.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
The Martin Bashir stuff with Diana is truly chilling. A journalist working for the BBC actually creating documents to convince Diana that she was going to be murdered. Which very probably ended up driving her into the scenario wherein she was eventually killed. Evil is the only word for it. The man who re-appointed Bashir as religious correspondent has just been promoted to acting Head of News.
Trebles all round. We need to support the BBC to show our patriotism apparently. It really has a legacy of not being fit for purpose and being extremely arrogant with its news. Even having its own verify unit is the height of pomposity.
I do seem to have stopped seeing those Youtube ads about the BBC exposing all the lies and misinformation though, wonder why.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
Remember - a Reform government would rapidly lose its majority. MPs quitting - I didn’t know I’d have to go to London. Others thrown out for shockingly being unveiled as massive racists. Others thrown out for squabbling with the boss.
Drawing the (fairly weak) weak analogy about how many Republican Congressmen and Senators have been willing to suck up whatever Trump wanted them to do perhaps implies that whilst there may be ructions in such a Government, there might not be that many expelled from Parliament.
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
Speaking of the Republican Party and Reform UK, what if MAGA does splinter further, or what if Trump becomes completely toxic, how does that affect Reform here? If there is some smoking gun, a photo of Trump with topless underage girls, what happens to #1 Trump fan Nigel Farage?
On possible outcomes in the USA for Trump (best case, worst case etc), there was a bit of exploration of scenarios on the Rest is Politics US podcast on I think Thursday on best and worst scenarios from a Trump point of view, with Scaramouche doing the Trump angle.
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Antony Scaramucci, but he can capture the cynicism of US politics quite well:
(UK is different eg we already defenestrated Andrew MW just on the potential stuff that may emerge, when no one in the USA has done much at all on that basis.)
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
A reminder of events and a mealy mouthed expression of regret from Nick.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
You think whether you get away with something is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong it was?
Newsnight did not get away with it. It was called out by an American expert on the programme. The point is none of the British viewers cared, even though this ‘deception’ had been brought to their attention.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Is it standard journalistic techniques to concatenate two different parts of the speech and give the impression they were continuous? You would normally have some sort of break between them to show they had been edited "later in the speech, he said...". That's all they needed to do.
Is it standard newspaper practice to make up entire quotes ? As the Mail did for Nick Robinson during its attacks in the BBC ?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
Journalists really, really shouldn't stick two disparate quotes together without indicating a break.
Nevertheless... there won't be a single large news organisation in the world that hasn't done similar, or likely worse, at some time or other. Saying the BBC is prepared to doctor its news is massively tendentious. Nor is it a huge issue for anyone without an agenda. You review it, issue a correction, update your guidelines if necessary and move on
Whenever the BBC (or any other media) report on any of the stuff I know something about, they typically get a number of the facts and nuances wrong - frustrating when they have interviewed you or quoted one of your reports. However, I've never come away from one of these interactions with a sense that they have been malicious, and the reports usually do a good job of getting the general gist across and raising the points of debate or controversy. (The both side-ism thing is a problem however - interviewing a scientist and then getting a contrary view from a crofter who claims the local eagle (6kg) has taken 200 of his lambs (5kg).)
This is just another - perhaps egregious - example of that. The complainers either have an ulterior motive or are hopelessly naive about the limitations of the media. The correct response is to launch an investigation about their reporting of some left-wing issue and kick up an equally loud fuss when you find an error.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
You think whether you get away with something is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong it was?
Newsnight did not get away with it. It was called out by an American expert on the programme. The point is none of the British viewers cared, even though this ‘deception’ had been brought to their attention.
Then you think nobody caring is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong something is?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
And if she had in any event incited the riot, how great a wrong ?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
A reminder of events and a mealy mouthed expression of regret from Nick.
It seems Robinson did a rubbish job reporting that interview - I don't really know why he was doing an interview with no means to record the answers anyway.
It does not seem quite as bad the Trump speech, he didn't follow his question with footage of Salmond in befuddled silence.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
A reminder of events and a mealy mouthed expression of regret from Nick.
It seems Robinson did a rubbish job reporting that interview - I don't really know why he was doing an interview with no means to record the answers anyway.
It does not seem quite as bad the Trump speech, he didn't follow his question with footage of Salmond in befuddled silence.
It wasn’t an interview, it’s was a big public speech with an audience at which Robinson along with other hacks asked questions. The gap between what happened and how Robinson reported it later inspired several thousand Scots to protest outside BBC Scotland. Of course this produced a further round of ‘mad Nats are anti journalism’ guff. The difference between this and the Trump thing is that it played a direct part in an actual vote. Trump being edited changed not a single voter’s mind.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
A reminder of events and a mealy mouthed expression of regret from Nick.
It seems Robinson did a rubbish job reporting that interview - I don't really know why he was doing an interview with no means to record the answers anyway.
It does not seem quite as bad the Trump speech, he didn't follow his question with footage of Salmond in befuddled silence.
It wasn’t an interview, it’s was a big public speech with an audience at which Robinson along with other hacks asked questions. The gap between what happened and how Robinson reported it later inspired several thousand Scots to protest outside BBC Scotland. Of course this inspired a further round of ‘mad Nats are anti journalism’ guff. The difference between this and the Trump thing is that it played a direct part in an actual vote. Trump being edited changed not a single voter’s mind.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Standard technique would have included a clue that the sentence had been stuck together. It didn’t, so ‘doctored’ is fair criticism.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
And if she had in any event incited the riot, how great a wrong ?
The only thing I'd be incited to do following an hour and ten minutes of that speech is go for a piss and find somewhere to get warm.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
Journalists really, really shouldn't stick two disparate quotes together without indicating a break.
Nevertheless... there won't be a single large news organisation in the world that hasn't done similar, or likely worse, at some time or other. Saying the BBC is prepared to doctor its news is massively tendentious. Nor is it a huge issue for anyone without an agenda. You review it, issue a correction, update your guidelines if necessary and move on
Whenever the BBC (or any other media) report on any of the stuff I know something about, they typically get a number of the facts and nuances wrong - frustrating when they have interviewed you or quoted one of your reports. However, I've never come away from one of these interactions with a sense that they have been malicious, and the reports usually do a good job of getting the general gist across and raising the points of debate or controversy. (The both side-ism thing is a problem however - interviewing a scientist and then getting a contrary view from a crofter who claims the local eagle (6kg) has taken 200 of his lambs (5kg).)
This is just another - perhaps egregious - example of that. The complainers either have an ulterior motive or are hopelessly naive about the limitations of the media. The correct response is to launch an investigation about their reporting of some left-wing issue and kick up an equally loud fuss when you find an error.
Yes. I think the Diana interview was dreadful for the BBC, as was its covering up of Jimmy Saville - although in the second case other media such as the Mail were equally complicit, just more hypocritical. But splicing two quotes together without a break was poor journalism by the people concerned. It isn't a scandal.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
No, I don’t, but I’m confident that the PB pearl clutchers don’t give a fck about editorial standards, rather they want some part of the woke blob that tortures their imaginations to get a kicking. As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
If the BBC spliced together a punchy Sturgeon speech to make it appear that she had incited a riot, I would absolutely call it out as wrong.
What was your view of Nick Robinson misreporting an exchange between him and Alex Salmond just days before the 2014 referendum?
If I've heard of the event in question, I definitely don't remember it. But it's an easy answer - if he misrepresented something that was said, beyond the bounds of plausible mistaken recollection (ie a small error), to give a false impression, he should have faced consequences.
A reminder of events and a mealy mouthed expression of regret from Nick.
It seems Robinson did a rubbish job reporting that interview - I don't really know why he was doing an interview with no means to record the answers anyway.
It does not seem quite as bad the Trump speech, he didn't follow his question with footage of Salmond in befuddled silence.
It wasn’t an interview, it’s was a big public speech with an audience at which Robinson along with other hacks asked questions. The gap between what happened and how Robinson reported it later inspired several thousand Scots to protest outside BBC Scotland. Of course this produced a further round of ‘mad Nats are anti journalism’ guff. The difference between this and the Trump thing is that it played a direct part in an actual vote. Trump being edited changed not a single voter’s mind.
Agreed. I remember talking to a Labour activist from down south who was absolutely convinced by NR anmd believed that he and colleagues were threatened by a baying mob. He was very surprised when I pointed out that, inter alia, the protest was populated in part by weans with balloons. Dangerous things, balloons.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
You don't believe that tripe you've just written for a second, and nor does anyone else.
Then explain why there was no outcry when Newsnight did something similar back in 2022. Newsnight is watched by journalists and politicians, so they will have seen it, and the editing was explicitly called out on the programme by one of the guests, so they will have known about it. Yet silence; tumbleweed. No-one cared then, however much they pretend to care now.
You think whether you get away with something is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong it was?
Newsnight did not get away with it. It was called out by an American expert on the programme. The point is none of the British viewers cared, even though this ‘deception’ had been brought to their attention.
Then you think nobody caring is an appropriate yardstick to measure how wrong something is?
I think nobody caring is an appropriate yardstick to judge whether they care, and they don't, or at least they didn't until it became politically expedient in the last few days.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
The most likely outcome is what happens to most of Trump’s libel suits: the court throws it out. Although that will still cost the BBC a legal fees.
He has to bring the case in the US, where the episode wasn’t shown and where, to win, he has to show the BBC acted with malice.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
The point is that those US election attack ads aren’t considered libellous, so how can the BBC’s report be found to be?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
It really didn’t ‘doctor’ anything. It used standard journalistic techniques to condense a story, but some believe that in this case that process put a spin on the story that put Trump and his actions in a worse light than was the case on the day. Frankly, I don’t really buy that and in my view the BBC should have fronted up. Editing happens to every story, every day.
Yep, it was a 70 minute speech, editing was always going to happen. Trump is now saying the BBC ‘changed my words’ which is an outright lie. Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring. Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
You think the BBC should apply the editorial standards of US election attack ads?
The point is that those US election attack ads aren’t considered libellous, so how can the BBC’s report be found to be?
The BBC claimed that Trump said he would be there fighting with them which is libellous because Trump has a well-known reputation for avoiding the action.
Comments
Telephone line installation all sounds a bit quaint now.
When Himself first became a local councillor in 1979, he had to haggle quite hard with the Post Office to get our phone upgraded from a party line.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wSkGgBtRqt8
https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/james-ball-exclusive-the-error-at-the-heart-of-trumps-bbc-attack/
When does "tightening up a quote for impact and because many viewers have the attention span of a goldfish" become "doctoring"? The second is wrong, no question, but the first is essential if news on TV is going to work.
The obvious but difficult line is "don't change the meaning". So what do you do if the meaning is contested? What do you do if the meaning is pretty obvious, but still contested by shysters?
Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock are still there.
And to try and conceal that, they indulge in selective quoting of their own, noting the 'peacefully and patriotically' and forgetting the 'fight like hell' bit.
Ultimately, looking at the whole speech, which was his usual rambling and incoherent mess, it's clear he did incite a protest and knew at some level it was likely to turn violent.
While the report could have been more nuanced - and really probably should have been about the advanced mental health problems his style and language displayed - it was actually fair enough and the BBC should certainly not have apologised on the basis of a heavily quote mined report from somebody who is clearly not very trustworthy.
In any case, the BBC did not make Panorama, which comes from an independent production company. Newsnight, which I believe is still made in-house, had in 2022 used a similar edit which was called out on the programme, but even though it is compulsory viewing for our journalistic and political Establishments, none of them cared at the time.
What was Trump's Jan 6 rally about if not about inciting a mob to attack Congress and prevent implementation of an election result?
Its like claiming the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch was just being out on the lash with some old comrades.
Now, the resultant quote is arguably a representation of Trump's broader incitement for violence over months *, never mind his watching it on TV, gloating, and doing nothing to stop events. But it fails on basic journalistic process.
* eg His "Stand Back and Stand By" message to the Proud Boys neo-fascist group.
The bar for the American legislature getting rid of the President is (rightly) extremely high- though it's pretty dismal that the Republicans haven't yet judged that Trump passes that test.
The bar for the British legislature getting rid of a PM is pretty low, and amounts to "enough of your own party are narked enough to vote with the opposition on the matter". Even if Leader Farage has tied up the leadership of Reform, it's not easy to see how he can force Reform MPs to support him in Parliament. An signed but undated letter of resignation from all his candidates, kept in a safe? Can he make that stick?
TLDR - It's a death by dominos. A series of events where there is never 'first mover advantage'.
https://kamilkazani.substack.com/p/mechanics-of-revolution
The news on viral links to numerous syndromes and conditions that has emerged over the last few years, and the advanced with mRNA vaccines have been really exciting.
I found Farage's links to Steve Bannon a more convincing narrative.
And also his running away from the questions he was asked in that congressional committee some time ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R313AhDnPAA
Short of anything criminal which I do not expect, I think it depends on how Farage is perceived by the elements of his support coalition (which is different between his base and his supporters). There was recent large scale polling (10k+ sample) by Hope Not Hate exploring that, which is an interesting contrast to the parallel work they did before the 2024 Election.
In my thinking it is important to distinguish between the Reform care and fringe.
Phil Moorhouse also did one exploring the latest HNH assessment of "tribes of Reform supporters".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K_8BP3_WQo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
There are decent summaries here from the Welsh TUC:
https://nation.cymru/news/five-groups-of-people-support-reform-uk-but-theyre-not-all-racists/
The sharpest division to note for me last time (ie Spring 2024) was amongst reactions to people amongst the sample (which was more "core" rather than "voted for") - eg "like" or "don't like" Tommy Robinson.
They trust their own journalists so much they have a well funded verify team in place.
Someone on here pointed out that slicing up opponents’ speeches and taking them out of context is a staple of the robust US political ads scene. I imagine a few of the more egregious (Trump’s new favourite word) examples from the GOP might play a part in any defence the BBC may have to bring.
Unfortunately I think the likeliest outcome is the Beeb, ie us, paying out a few token millions (!) which will of course reinforce the fat orange capo di capo in his behaviour.
Helpful would be a list of 10 or so really substantial things Reform would do to make all these groups dance in the streets, bring back happy days and get Reform re-elected.
When a GE gets near the issue of how to be elected is interesting but secondary. The deeper issue is policy and actual realisation and implementation of it. Governments have not found this easy recently. Why do I think Reform might find it hard too?
Also more reports of how Ukraine is using ground drones for reconnaissance and combat. Pushing forward that technology in capability and scale enables Ukraine to fight while minimising casualties of their own soldiers.
Meanwhile we have reports that Angela Rayner is on manoeuvres and offering people cabinet jobs in return for support. Now she may be or it may be being briefed by an opponent to undermine her. Either way this lot are no better than the Tories now. It’s all inward looking and self absorbed while the country is going to shit. No wonder people on the right flock to Reform and on the left flock to the Greens. The Greens policies are bonkers but for people who have little hope,of getting on the property ladder and are stuck in flat shares and whose salary growth is minimal they offer a vision.
Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dem’s offer us little in many parts of the country. Address that rather than lecture people.
I’m only currently still Labour as my MP, the parachuted in right winger Luke Akehurst, is doing a decent job and is very active in the seat.
All parties are a coalition. We’ve seen how tough it is for the Tories and Labour to hold it together. I think Reform would be better off getting 200 plus MPs and being the main opposition with a view to 2034.
To avoid it, it requires a non reform none of the above party to be in a plausible position to win - which can’t be Labour because it doesn’t meet the non of the above party criteria. Now the Lib Dems could but I don’t see that happening either
Reform do not have the answers, but the more relevant question is why has the electorate become so disillusioned that Reform or the Greens may well have a big say in the next GE
The truth is the established parties have failed and simply have no answers because they fear the truth will not get them elected
Last year HNH identified amongst RefUK's Early 2024 supporters:
Working Right
Radical Young Men
Moderate Interventionist
Older Authoritarian Right
Traditional Conservatives
And amongst current people, who I think were 2024 Reform voters:
Working Right
Contrarian Youth
Reluctant Reformers
Squeezed Stewards
Hardline Conservatives.
As others have noted, they can be useful frameworks but need explication, and there are I can see bits of analysis that do not show up. For example afaics there is a similar divide amongst leaders and supporters of the Pink Ladies, with the leadership being quite happy to share platforms with extremists (eg TR, Homeland Party), and the "turn up" supporters being "it's about our girls" and not having picked up implications, or engaged with actual risks to "their girls".
I think we had another division into 7 "tribes" in a piece on here a few weeks ago.
And without Farage, Reform are nothing.
As as a resident of Scotland I’m sure you’re aware of the BBC’s spotty record on bias in North Britain, even if hitherto you’ve been unconcerned about it.
That then bleeds into the attraction to "authoritarianism not failed democracy", and a MAGA-style rejection of "globalists". That latter is imo the key division between Reaganites and MAGA.
In the UK that manifests as groups exploring things like Distributionism which I highlighted here, which is the one drawn from Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton - it looks to Victorian style economic models and nationalism.
The Australian coalition, still smarting, in the case of the Liberals, from a heavy election defeat, have come out with a new "energy" policy (or series of policies) as an opposing view to Net Zero and it doesn't read too badly.
I suspect adaptations of this will feature strongly in the election manifestos here at the next GE.
The thrust of today's announcement from Liberal leader Sussan Ley and National leader David Littleproud was the removal of the arbitarary Net Zero target and its replacement by a commitment to emissions reduction via new technology.
Some of the details (as reported on the Guardian blog):
A technology-neutral capacity investment scheme, including coal fired power
“Crowding in” of private capital investment in energy markets
Amendments to the National Electricity Objectives, with changes to the rules for the Australian Energy Market Operator
Support for more gas supply, including through public spending on infrastructure, speeding up of regulations and committing to an annual offshore acreage release
Providing new spending on carbon capture and storage technology, commercial and industrial rooftop solar, low emissions metals, soil carbon, biofuels and nuclear
Using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to support scalable “breakthrough” low emission technologies.
Removing Labor’s 43% 2030 emissions reduction target and its net zero by 2050 target from the Climate Change Act 2022, and legislating to make affordable energy its number one priority.
Simplifying this down somewhat, I suspect most British parties will promise to lower energy prices (we've heard this before) but the question will be how to meet the platitude - what practical measures could be implemented to reduce energy costs of both residential and business customers without Government subsidy?
Right- off to do Sunday School.
Nevertheless... there won't be a single large news organisation in the world that hasn't done similar, or likely worse, at some time or other. Saying the BBC is prepared to doctor its news is massively tendentious. Nor is it a huge issue for anyone without an agenda. You review it, issue a correction, update your guidelines if necessary and move on
NEW THREAD
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Antony Scaramucci, but he can capture the cynicism of US politics quite well:
https://youtu.be/V6-W1fAYVyw?t=777
(UK is different eg we already defenestrated Andrew MW just on the potential stuff that may emerge, when no one in the USA has done much at all on that basis.)
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13599067.nick-robinson-regret-salmond-row/
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
This is just another - perhaps egregious - example of that. The complainers either have an ulterior motive or are hopelessly naive about the limitations of the media. The correct response is to launch an investigation about their reporting of some left-wing issue and kick up an equally loud fuss when you find an error.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
It does not seem quite as bad the Trump speech, he didn't follow his question with footage of Salmond in befuddled silence.
The difference between this and the Trump thing is that it played a direct part in an actual vote. Trump being edited changed not a single voter’s mind.
He has to bring the case in the US, where the episode wasn’t shown and where, to win, he has to show the BBC acted with malice.