Over the last few years many observers on politics, myself included, have made assumptions that turned out be very wrong. Lib Dem incumbency would save them from a catastrophic seat loss in 2015, the electorate wouldn’t vote to make themselves poorer by Leaving the European Union, and Jeremy Corbyn’s backstory & a divided Labour party would see a Corbyn led Labour party pummelled at the 2017 general election to name but three assumption that proved hugely wrong.
Comments
No, not a quote from Paisely, but a quote from TSE when asked if he'd like a slice of pineapple pizza.
For those of you who may be terminally bored, here's an excellent analysis of the bridge that collapsed in America.
http://happypontist.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-collapse-of-fiu-sweetwater.html
It also includes some excellent technical diagrams, which are far better than the artists renderings I had seen.
The bridge appears to have been designed to be self-supporting, with the pylon and cable stays essentially being non-load bearing (hence why they thought it could span the road without them). As I surmised.
Well he is dead.
Sinn Fein and DUP voters in Northern Ireland are largely working class. Take away the nationalism and there is a hell of a lot of overlap. They know how the other side thinks and operates, and share the same experiences, including going through the Troubles. Corbyn, on the other hand, is from another planet. He backed the IRA from a safe place. What’s more he’s not an anti-British republican, he’s an anti-British Brit. That makes him worse than anyone from Sinn Fein in DUP eyes. They will never go near him.
https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/975143798186696704?s=21
(In post-tensioining, 'cables' are put through ducts before casting. Once the cast concrete is in place, the cables are stressed by pulling them and anchored).
As for supporting: AIUI simply supporting a structure under a potential failure point is not simple or quick, and would itself need to be designed - hopefully quickly. You do not just need to factor in thee loads on the temporary support and bridge, but also on the ground below. You might run into problems if you put a support above a sewer drain.
Hopefully this was the week the mask slipped and Corbyn was shown for who he really is among the ‘faithful’.
I’m assuming, as the bridge was over a public road, that the local highways department would have approved the plan and that the collapse will be investigated by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) as with a train or plane accident - so we should get an idea of the nature of the failure pretty quickly, with a comprehensive report and safety recommendations following a year or two later.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-jimmy-saviles-close-friendship-with-margaret-thatcher-8432351.html
The complaints, or at least some of the ones I've seen aren't that the BBC are showing him wearing the hat that he is wearing in the first image and has worn in lots of other photographs. The complaints are that it has been made to look different to that hat by looking bigger and losing its definiton
I don't believe the BBC went out of its way to try and smear Corbyn here but you can understand some suspicions on behalf of the Corbyn fans given this sort of looks like the BBC backing the right wing presses message.
I'd complain but quite frankly there seems to be a loop whereby the less attention Labour pay to some of the centrists the more crazy their claims become and the less attention etc.
As someone on the left of the Labour party there is a win win element here, it might mean a bit of negative attention for Jezza but that wouldn't be a first.
I just think he is one of those that have been driven mad by Corbyn in the same way some people have been driven mad by Brexit, say Lord Adonis for example or I saw (or maybe heard) Matthew Paris say the he'd been driven mad by it.
Edit: SO I mentioned the hat in my first 2 or 3 posts on it...
The keys are in recognising that bias, and understanding whether that bias *matters*.
The BBC claim that their output is unbiased over the full output. That means individual programs or interviews can display a bias, but that will be countered elsewhere in the output. As they say this, then they must have studies and figures that show it is the case, and processes to ensure it. AFAIAA they've never released any such information, which makes me suspect the claim is b/s.
Edit: which in fairness you can argue is from their POV what is best for the country but pragmatically at this point they must know it isn't going to be their politics as an option for the electorate.
https://twitter.com/laurapidcockmp/status/975139619602927616?s=21
Only just woke up and I read "As for Jimmy Saville, he fooled a lot of people for a long time. God knows how, though." as starting 'As for Jeremy Corbin ... "
It seems to fit.
Peter Sellers used to do a nice line in loons having their simplistic statements mistaken for great wisdom. Jezza hasn't changed but once the rose-tinged spectacles vanish, it's more ... "He's not very bright, is he?"
It doesn't make him a nasty person, but his politics could have that effect.
Although admittedly a much better poster.
The odd thing is that I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. I utterly agree that many people go too far in their criticisms of the BBC (I for one do not regret a penny of the licence fee - I get more than my money's worth). However I'd argue that you go too far in blindly defending them, when the people complaining might have a point.
Maybe Thornberry
I feel like I've missed something here.
May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
F1: going to peruse the markets before deciding on a betting post, but think it unlikely. So, if it goes up it'll be today, otherwise the first article will be (probably) Friday.
I think the race starts at 6.10am, which is a stupid time. Of course, it's probably convenient in America, so they haven't changed it (beyond the pointless 10 minute delay). Which is a shame, because 7.10am would be a lot more convenient for me.
Yeah I was reluctant to say photoshopped as they haven't completely invented the image or added bits which might be the impression people get if you say that but it has been photoshopped, only lightly. (Edit: or changed using some editing software) He was a trot earlier on when that was useful... now he has clearly become a committed Stalinist and Putinist...
@MaxPB
If you really care I sort of went through it a few posts up.
http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/scientist-brilliantly-tears-conspiracy-theory-about-russian-spy-to-shreds/
There is something disturbing going on out there.
Left wing activists are wearing balaclavas and trying to physically no platform opponents but the police does not arrest them.A sizeable amount of the left hate the Daily Mail so much that they are clearly looking to ban it.
Whilst the Home Office last week detained and deported 2 young `alt-right` foreign journalists for basically holding `Rod Liddle/Douglas Murray` type views.
i.e If Rod Liddle & Douglas Murray were foreign journalists the current Home Office would be looking to ban them.This is under a conservative govt.
I
Technology can be used to repress as well as enable free speech, as we've seen with student social media being scoured for using Wrongspeak.
Yes, but there are also many similarities, particularly in the way it affects behaviour.
WRT your last sentence, I fear that you are giving the BBC far too much credit.
As I've said before many times, the BBC should have figures to who they are politically unbiased, to support their claims that they are. It'd be good to see them. If they don't have them, then they've no way of knowing if they're politically biased and their assurances are worthless. If they have figures and are not releasing them, then we need to ask why.
A big problem with your position is that the biases you mention - e.g. being pro-monarchy and pro-capitalism - impinge on political beliefs, and therefore on politics directly.
This is exactly what has happened to the Republicans under Trump.
This is pretty much the reason they've been pushed out of the Labour mainstream.
Of course, the BBC will be biased, its staff selection will be biased. The 'like us' tendency. You can introduce quotas (be they ethnicity, class, sex) but that will remove one bias (possibly only) and ignore many more.
The aim should be to be aware that bias is present - known and unknown.
Personally, I occupy the sensible centre position between the extremes of Marxism and of Anarcho-Syndiclalism
"The majority I canvassed thought it was a welcome return to Labour's centre."
Do you mean economically or socially?
:tumbleweed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43447624
It also allows you to check for biases in the methodology, and improve it.
I can't see that. The crucial thing the thread header overlooks is that under power sharing the DUP were *leading* the Stormont government. Therefore, in exchange for taking on and in their eyes neutering their enemies (Paisley boasted in his last interview that Sinn Fein had ceased to be a Republican Party as a result of power-sharing) they gained real power to shape the future of Northern Ireland the way they wanted to, within the British state.
Corbyn would not offer them that. He would instead be leading away from what they want (and undoubtedly would be willing to hand Northern Ireland over to Ireland to ensure Brexit - indeed, he might see it as a good opportunity to secure something he has always supported). The risks involved for the DUP in supporting him would be appalling and there would be no noticeable or measurable gains.
It is also worth considering that while the DUP regarded Sinn Fein as enemies fighting a war, they see Corbyn and his ilk as traitors undermining their own side. That's far worse.
A more likely scenario is that they accidentally precipitate an election by over-reaching themselves which allowed Corbyn to cobble together a government. But for the reasons above I think they will be very careful about doing so until we have finally left the EU.
(Incidentally may I say that the moment PB's most Fascistic poster, somebody whose dishonesty would cause even David Irving to blench, accused somebody else of being a right wing fake news peddler was the moment satire officially died.)
It turns out it's because he granted them a town charter, and in return they gave him the dysentery that killed him.
I'm sure the Corbynistas would appreciate that.