FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
Yes, and I don't see anything absurd about that. In fact, prohibiting BBC news employees from public demonstrations or gatherings on controversial issues is long overdue. They're supposed to be reporting the news impartially - they are compromised in doing that if they demonstrate a personal partial view on it.
It's about public expressions of opinion, be that on social media or physically in person.
And the existing BBC social media guidelines are here (from December 2019) - it's tightening a couple of loopholes on them, and updating them as part of a commitment to impartiality:
Mate you don't like the BBC and put that together with the gays and you get doubly all hot and bothered.
Those guidelines say not to express an opinion. So does attending, say, a Pride march express an opinion? Well let's see what opinions someone attending a Pride march, by their participation, could be expressing:
1) support 2) oppose 3) wholly uninterested
So on the assumption that you think attending a Pride march = 1) then you are forbidding employees from doing so. And what's the difference between forbidding BBC employees from attending Pride marches and British Gas or Marks & Spencer or the Civil Service, or Parliament wrt MPs doing the same thing?
I agree with this. When I worked for a large retail bank there was no ban on expressing personal views within the law so long as you didn't use the bank's email or mention the bank.
Seemed reasonable to me.
Some roles, like working as an officer in certain local or central government posts, might require a stricter stance, as might working for a determinedly impartial broadcaster. The potential negatives for the organisation can outweigh those for the individual. Even if comments were on personal platforms. If someones personal feed is full of tories are evil or labour are traitors that remains relevant to some roles.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
Labour went through all this in the 80s with Militant and their sidekicks and then again with Clause 4. It survived well enough to get 13 years in government.
As The Independent Group and various Farage / Brexit parties show, splitting off and setting up a separate party is a road to hell.
Labour will be fine, but it needs to throw the nutters out. So do the Tories.
Boris threw the nutters out last year and got rewarded with a landslide as a result.
He kept the nutters and threw out the only intelligent ones who are so needed now!
He threw out the nutters. That some can't see that extremists on their own side of a debate are nutters is part of the problem.
The ERG are the nutters not just on Europe but almost everything else.
The ERG can be nutters but so too were those thrown out. There can be nutters on both sides.
A 24/7 obsessive keyboard warrior calling anyone "nutters" has to be one of the funniest ironies I have seen in a while! Put into the context of your wild and normally extreme and uninformed views it makes it even funnier.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
I agree that Starmer was faced with a very difficult quandary, and also a challenge to his challenge to his authority ; but I think, in this case, the cure might have been worse than the disease, not taking carefully enough taking into account the party's overall picture, or Corbyn's personal views compared to particular others, rather than his symbolic negligence. I think he probably should have issued some sort of sanction or public rebuke rather than suspension, and I suspect there may be some sort of attempt to conciliate back to this, once the Starmer ascendancy narrative starts to be replaced more fully by one of splits in the press.
Ive not read the report but isnt a key part that the leadership should not issue or be involved in sanctions but suspend people so that they can get an independent hearing?
But that was for specific allegations of anti-semitism themselves, rather than understating its extent.
What difference does that make? Again not read the details but its clear from Starmer that understating its extent will count as anti-semitism in his Labour party.
I personally think he should be very careful if he takes that particular approach, because it's open to very wide interpretation.
Gosh, I wonder why, when we relaxed restrictions to similar levels as Sweden, we didn't get the levels reducing. Maybe because we have too many wankers trying to sidestep teh rules, while there, they tend more to comply.
Just a thought.
We're going to end up back in lockdown at this rate, aren't we?
I think it's possible that, with the virus spreading more slowly than in the spring, and a majority in favour of more restrictions, that there will be time for voluntary self-lockdown and local restrictions to stabilise the situation before HMG would be forced to act nationally.
So we may end up in a situation where the hospitals are operating near capacity with daily deaths in the low to mid hundreds for the winter, but Johnson avoids the political damage of imposing a national lockdown.
From the recent messaging this seems to be broadly what the government in its totality is expecting/hoping for.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
Yes, it is infuriating and needs to be legislated on. The insurance industry is a racket
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
Used to have that happen a lot. Now when the quote goes up like that, I generally find the cheapest alternative and switch, you can often get cash back too (quidco etc). Then phone the existing insurer to cancel, they come back with a best offer, often close to what I've just taken (though never beat it including cash back) I then say well if you'd quoted that at renewal I'd still be with you, but no thanks.
I kind of hope that if enough people do that the message will get through, but I assume that sufficient people don't get round to switching that the ~20% increase gains them more than they lose. Also subsidises my insurance premiums, I guess
EOTHO was not a good idea - I have to say I was scratching my head over it at the time and personally I didn't make use of it. Sunak may come to wish he hadn't plastered his name all over it quite so shamelessly.
Another case of this barking mad government thinking of a catchy slogan and then finding a policy to work with it. Ad and PR men have their place but only in their imaginations are they the best people to run a country
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
I agree that Starmer was faced with a very difficult quandary, and also a challenge to his challenge to his authority ; but I think, in this case, the cure might have been worse than the disease, not taking carefully enough taking into account the party's overall picture, or Corbyn's personal views compared to particular others, rather than his symbolic negligence. I think he probably should have issued some sort of sanction or public rebuke rather than suspension, and I suspect there may be some sort of attempt to conciliate back to this, once the Starmer ascendancy narrative starts to be replaced more fully by one of splits in the press.
Ive not read the report but isnt a key part that the leadership should not issue or be involved in sanctions but suspend people so that they can get an independent hearing?
But that was for specific allegations of anti-semitism themselves, rather than understating its extent.
What difference does that make? Again not read the details but its clear from Starmer that understating its extent will count as anti-semitism in his Labour party.
I personally think he should be very careful if he takes that particular approach, because it's open to very wide interpretation.
Steve Richards from earlier this year, before the Labour leadership election, on LotOs
“ After he lost for the second time in 1992, he reflected that voters saw a leader at war with his party, not a prime ministerial figure. His most famous speech at the 1985 party conference, in which he attacked Militant-led Liverpool for hiring taxis to deliver redundancy notices to its own workers, illustrates why. In the same speech he made a considered explanation as to why it was possible for government to intervene in new and different ways, and raised the possibility of an “enabling state” which helped people realise their potential, countering Thatcher’s portrayal of the state as stifling constraint on “freedom.” But no one noticed because when conflict rages it will command the headlines.”
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
Labour went through all this in the 80s with Militant and their sidekicks and then again with Clause 4. It survived well enough to get 13 years in government.
As The Independent Group and various Farage / Brexit parties show, splitting off and setting up a separate party is a road to hell.
Labour will be fine, but it needs to throw the nutters out. So do the Tories.
Boris threw the nutters out last year and got rewarded with a landslide as a result.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
Labour went through all this in the 80s with Militant and their sidekicks and then again with Clause 4. It survived well enough to get 13 years in government.
As The Independent Group and various Farage / Brexit parties show, splitting off and setting up a separate party is a road to hell.
Labour will be fine, but it needs to throw the nutters out. So do the Tories.
Boris threw the nutters out last year and got rewarded with a landslide as a result.
He kept the nutters and threw out the only intelligent ones who are so needed now!
He threw out the nutters. That some can't see that extremists on their own side of a debate are nutters is part of the problem.
You can call Ken Clark, Nicholas Soames, Rory Stewart, Phil Hammond and the others many things. Unhelpful and disloyal for a start. But nutters? Putting them in the same category as Corbyn is exactly what Jez and his acolytes would want.
Apologies for some very mild dyslexic errors in my posts below, which after many decades for me, recur very rarely and on days of maximum tiredness, thankfully.
OTOH, most of the polls there have shown Biden with a double digit margin, the Senate race equally seems uncompetitive, and the Trump campaign (which is relatively poorly funded anyway) isn't spending there. I'd not describe 1.15 as bad value at all on Biden.
If you're bullish about Trump, far better to go for a state where he won narrowly last time or, if you're really bullish, Wisconsin, where his odds are inflated (4.5 with Paddy Power) by a pretty obvious outlier poll showing Biden with a 17% margin when most indicate mid-to-high single figures lead (but that may be systematic polling error, parts of Wisconsin are in Trump's rust belt target area, it has trended GOP a little, has a GOP Senator etc).
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to generate a +17% outlier in favour of Biden if Trump is ahead ?
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
2.6% feels realistic to me.
Systematic polling errors are effectively what makes up the bulk of that 2.6%. Being realistic if there are no systematic polling errors then Trump has lost - end of story. But if there are systematic polling errors then how likely are they and how likely are the errors meaning you're undersampling Trump (its just as plausible that errors go the other way).
Reversion to mean is much less likely given the stability of the polling, the fact that time is up and the fact that the majority of votes have already been cast.
The fundamentals are fairly pro-Biden. Biden doesn't need to win Texas to win the electoral college, he just needs to win a majority of ECVs and that he's even competitive in Texas essentially shows he is there. A sub-1% swing is all that Biden needs to win in most key swing states and the polls are showing he is well past that point.
OTOH, most of the polls there have shown Biden with a double digit margin, the Senate race equally seems uncompetitive, and the Trump campaign (which is relatively poorly funded anyway) isn't spending there. I'd not describe 1.15 as bad value at all on Biden.
If you're bullish about Trump, far better to go for a state where he won narrowly last time or, if you're really bullish, Wisconsin, where his odds are inflated (4.5 with Paddy Power) by a pretty obvious outlier poll showing Biden with a 17% margin when most indicate mid-to-high single figures lead (but that may be systematic polling error, parts of Wisconsin are in Trump's rust belt target area, it has trended GOP a little, has a GOP Senator etc).
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to generate a +17% outlier in favour of Biden if Trump is ahead ?
Exactly. Pile into the Ladbrokes vote share market if you think Trump will surprise on the upside.
If HY really believed his last 2,000 posts on here, he'd put his life savings on Trump 45% vote share or higher. That's a low bar for a decent return.
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
Basically the complete opposite of what @HYUFD is predicting.
They only got Canada 2019 and the 2019 UK election and the 2018 midterms right as the polls were right, if the presidential election polls are mainly wrong again in the key swing states as they were wrong in 2016 then leantossup will be wrong too
And you're predicting that they will be wrong, right?
Well, he's got a point, if all the data on which a prediction is based is wrong then the prediction will be wrong.
The alternative is of course ignoring all data in case it is wrong and guessing. Can work sometimes, but I know which I'd back as the long term better strategy.
Take cancer screening for example, sometimes it's wrong (false positive/negative). You could of course either ignore a positive test or pay privately to have something cut out following a negative test and sometimes you'd be right, but not in general.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
Again, I switch every year. It's the work of a few minutes through something like MoneySupermarket (other comparison sites are available). Once you have set up your basic details they are instantly available for the next year's comparison. Easy-peasy.
Don't forget to cancel the auto-renew of the old policy though!
The only exception is if the renewal quote is the same or lower than last year's - then I give my current insurer the benefit of the doubt ant let the policy renew.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
Labour went through all this in the 80s with Militant and their sidekicks and then again with Clause 4. It survived well enough to get 13 years in government.
As The Independent Group and various Farage / Brexit parties show, splitting off and setting up a separate party is a road to hell.
Labour will be fine, but it needs to throw the nutters out. So do the Tories.
Boris threw the nutters out last year and got rewarded with a landslide as a result.
Boris is the lunatic running the asylum!
Cummings as Nurse Ratched?
Igor perhaps... with the Tory Party as The Monster cobbled together out of all sorts of bits and pieces and lurching from crisis to crisis
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
I would agree with this, I think 538s forecast is about right, a 1 in 8 or 9 chance for Trump with how things currently look and have done for some time, (a lot less volatility in the polls than with Clinton). My feeling is that Trumps chances are much less than in 2016 (again reflected in the forecasts), having said that he still has a chance, if the state polling is out again and the states he needs fall his way. So I certainly would put his chances at much more like 11 or 12% than 2 of 3.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
I know; infuriating, isn't it. And the new renewal was cheaper than most of the quotes on comparison sites.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
A while back one of the guys behind CricViz said if there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman then they needed to take 150 plus test wickets at an average of under 8.
The nearest is S.F. Barnes with 189 test wickets at 16.43.
That's how good Bradman is.
How do you even begin to quantify the comparison between bowling and batting? Bradman's figures are remarkable, but it's almost impossible to work out what the bowling equivalent would be.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
Apologies for some very mild dyslexic errors in my posts below, which after many decades for me, recur very rarely and on days of maximum tiredness, thankfully.
Not something you need to apologise for imo.
Definitely no need to apologise at all, I hadnt spotted them and very likely make far more myself even though Im not (as far as I am aware) dyslexic. Just not a very good typist but like to try and type quickly......thank god for the edit comment button!
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
Basically the complete opposite of what @HYUFD is predicting.
They only got Canada 2019 and the 2019 UK election and the 2018 midterms right as the polls were right, if the presidential election polls are mainly wrong again in the key swing states as they were wrong in 2016 then leantossup will be wrong too
And you're predicting that they will be wrong, right?
Well, he's got a point, if all the data on which a prediction is based is wrong then the prediction will be wrong.
The alternative is of course ignoring all data in case it is wrong and guessing. Can work sometimes, but I know which I'd back as the long term better strategy.
Take cancer screening for example, sometimes it's wrong (false positive/negative). You could of course either ignore a positive test or pay privately to have something cut out following a negative test and sometimes you'd be right, but not in general.
You could alsways follow @HYUFD's approach: pick a 'pollster' whose results you like, stick with them and ignore all the others.
The partisan polls make me smile - pay a pollster to give you the answer you want.
It's like paying McKinsey's to check if you're desire to reorganise is justified.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
Yes, and I don't see anything absurd about that. In fact, prohibiting BBC news employees from public demonstrations or gatherings on controversial issues is long overdue. They're supposed to be reporting the news impartially - they are compromised in doing that if they demonstrate a personal partial view on it.
It's about public expressions of opinion, be that on social media or physically in person.
And the existing BBC social media guidelines are here (from December 2019) - it's tightening a couple of loopholes on them, and updating them as part of a commitment to impartiality:
Mate you don't like the BBC and put that together with the gays and you get doubly all hot and bothered.
Those guidelines say not to express an opinion. So does attending, say, a Pride march express an opinion? Well let's see what opinions someone attending a Pride march, by their participation, could be expressing:
1) support 2) oppose 3) wholly uninterested
So on the assumption that you think attending a Pride march = 1) then you are forbidding employees from doing so. And what's the difference between forbidding BBC employees from attending Pride marches and British Gas or Marks & Spencer or the Civil Service, or Parliament wrt MPs doing the same thing?
I agree with this. When I worked for a large retail bank there was no ban on expressing personal views within the law so long as you didn't use the bank's email or mention the bank.
Seemed reasonable to me.
The problem comes when the individual is so identifiable that even when not advertising who you work for etc, you are still, in effect, representing the organisation.
i.e. Chairman of the bank goes on a march.....
You then get into the issue of discriminating about who is important enough that this matters etc....
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
Again, I switch every year. It's the work of a few minutes through something like MoneySupermarket (other comparison sites are available). Once you have set up your basic details they are instantly available for the next year's comparison. Easy-peasy.
Don't forget to cancel the auto-renew of the old policy though!
The only exception is if the renewal quote is the same or lower than last year's - then I give my current insurer the benefit of the doubt ant let the policy renew.
I know, but - perhaps naively - I like to think that if I landed with a big claim, the fact that I'd been with the same insurer for a number of years, rather than just having signed up a few months before, might help and ought to deliver better service.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
I am about to renew my car insurance with Aviva. They do not appear to have hiked up my premium, based on my research on other providers.
I am someone who, on renewal, will change provider for car, home insurance, energy providers etc. if I can find a cheaper deal on similar terms.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
A while back one of the guys behind CricViz said if there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman then they needed to take 150 plus test wickets at an average of under 8.
The nearest is S.F. Barnes with 189 test wickets at 16.43.
That's how good Bradman is.
How do you even begin to quantify the comparison between bowling and batting? Bradman's figures are remarkable, but it's almost impossible to work out what the bowling equivalent would be.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
Not sure about the captain bit, TBH. Bit too much of a maverick.
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
Basically the complete opposite of what @HYUFD is predicting.
They only got Canada 2019 and the 2019 UK election and the 2018 midterms right as the polls were right, if the presidential election polls are mainly wrong again in the key swing states as they were wrong in 2016 then leantossup will be wrong too
And you're predicting that they will be wrong, right?
Well, he's got a point, if all the data on which a prediction is based is wrong then the prediction will be wrong.
The alternative is of course ignoring all data in case it is wrong and guessing. Can work sometimes, but I know which I'd back as the long term better strategy.
Take cancer screening for example, sometimes it's wrong (false positive/negative). You could of course either ignore a positive test or pay privately to have something cut out following a negative test and sometimes you'd be right, but not in general.
He doesn't have a point, considering almost everyone here accepts there is a chance that the polls are wrong resulting in a Trump victory. What we disagree on is the percentage chance of that happening. So his position is not novel in the slightest.
I'm simply asking - is he "forecasting" that the polls will be wrong, or not?
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Imran better than Botham over the length of their career - at their peak hard to split them.
Sobers & Kallis in another group of genuinely elite batsmen who were good but not brilliant bowlers. Hard to compare with the Botham type all rounders.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
I am about to renew my car insurance with Aviva. They do not appear to have hiked up my premium, based on my research on other providers.
I am someone who, on renewal, will change provider for car, home insurance, energy providers etc. if I can find a cheaper deal on similar terms.
I shall bear that in mind when renewal time come round next year. Much obliged.
Can I have an O/t rant please. Due to renew my car insurance policy and got a notice from my current insurer, whom I have been for 5/6 year, with a 20% increase. So looked around on the net, found several cheaper, Rang up current insurer and have ended up renewing for LESS than I paid last year, with same cover. Not a question of no claims, either! Could argue that is was 30 minutes well spent of course, but GRRRRR!
This is common practice. Car insurers rely on the inertia of automatic renewals.
It's a shit way to treat customers, though. I had the same last week with my buildings/contents - the renewal notice involved a 30% increase (strangely almost to the penny). I phoned up and they said they could run it again - no change. I tried changing a few parameters - still no significant change.
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
I am about to renew my car insurance with Aviva. They do not appear to have hiked up my premium, based on my research on other providers.
I am someone who, on renewal, will change provider for car, home insurance, energy providers etc. if I can find a cheaper deal on similar terms.
Unusually, this year haven't car insurers saved money because there's much less driving going in, particularly for commuting, and especially earlier in the year? I believe some premiums are going down
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Botham’s cricketing ability is largely irrelevant In this debate; he is a Leave voter so isn’t even considered the best English all rounder
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
If you want to see why I think there is a good chance of a systematic polling error, click on here and then scroll down to the section "Standard Polling on EU Membership" and the table below it:
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
A while back one of the guys behind CricViz said if there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman then they needed to take 150 plus test wickets at an average of under 8.
The nearest is S.F. Barnes with 189 test wickets at 16.43.
That's how good Bradman is.
How do you even begin to quantify the comparison between bowling and batting? Bradman's figures are remarkable, but it's almost impossible to work out what the bowling equivalent would be.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
Not sure about the captain bit, TBH. Bit too much of a maverick.
He was brilliant as captain of the Rajasthan Royals in the early IPL, they were the weakest team on paper and won the tournament.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Senior BBC journalists shouldn't be expressing their personal political views on twitter etc. I wouldn't apply the same rules to the whole organization though.
One question I'm wondering - is it appropriate that the head of the BBC is a former Tory councillor?
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
Yes, and I don't see anything absurd about that. In fact, prohibiting BBC news employees from public demonstrations or gatherings on controversial issues is long overdue. They're supposed to be reporting the news impartially - they are compromised in doing that if they demonstrate a personal partial view on it.
It's about public expressions of opinion, be that on social media or physically in person.
And the existing BBC social media guidelines are here (from December 2019) - it's tightening a couple of loopholes on them, and updating them as part of a commitment to impartiality:
Mate you don't like the BBC and put that together with the gays and you get doubly all hot and bothered.
Those guidelines say not to express an opinion. So does attending, say, a Pride march express an opinion? Well let's see what opinions someone attending a Pride march, by their participation, could be expressing:
1) support 2) oppose 3) wholly uninterested
So on the assumption that you think attending a Pride march = 1) then you are forbidding employees from doing so. And what's the difference between forbidding BBC employees from attending Pride marches and British Gas or Marks & Spencer or the Civil Service, or Parliament wrt MPs doing the same thing?
I agree with this. When I worked for a large retail bank there was no ban on expressing personal views within the law so long as you didn't use the bank's email or mention the bank.
Seemed reasonable to me.
The problem comes when the individual is so identifiable that even when not advertising who you work for etc, you are still, in effect, representing the organisation.
i.e. Chairman of the bank goes on a march.....
You then get into the issue of discriminating about who is important enough that this matters etc....
I think this also comes down to the original point which was "what is controversial?"
Today is Pride really controversial. I don't follow the minutiae too closely but am certainly aware of the JK Rowling thing and also, having said that now that I think about it (because, you know, some of my best friends and relations are...) that Stonewall also has put itself into the firing line on gender. But to a (more) disinterested observer is Evan Davis marching under the Pride flag really controversial?
Greater than MoE. It will be interesting to see whether yesterday's news accelerates the trend.
Perhaps the recent tightening of restrictions is making people wonder whether the government's approach to Covid is working, when previously they were prepared to give some benefit of doubt?
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Botham’s cricketing ability is largely irrelevant In this debate; he is a Leave voter so isn’t even considered the best English all rounder
He doesn't always come across as the sharpest knife in the box, other than on the cricket field, to be sure.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
IIRC there is some debate about whether the tattoos are actually neo-nazi or not.
With all the meme stuff going on... it suggests that people should be very careful about what they get tattooed. The meaning might change.....
Has he changed his story from his very much alive dad being dead?
I haven't been following the detail - has his explanation for tattoos fallen over or what?
He claimed the "88" on his cheek represented the year 1988 when his dad died. His dad disagrees as to whether he is dead or not. Two sides to every story.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
The labels really dont matter. The question for those in power is what can they do to improve the situation, not how to categorise everyone. The new policy to improve things includes saying "that antisemitism in Labour is overblown" wont be tolerated as it provides succour to the anti-Semites. His job is not to only exclude anti-Semites it is to make people of all religions feel welcome and valued in his party - that cannot be done whilst Corbyn is allowed to be vocal and public in his denial of reality.
Can we use it as the level to compare any future slump to, as if Labour were always 5 points ahead as Boris hating stats twisters do with net satisfaction ratings?
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Botham’s cricketing ability is largely irrelevant In this debate; he is a Leave voter so isn’t even considered the best English all rounder
He doesn't always come across as the sharpest knife in the box, other than on the cricket field, to be sure.
Yes, agreed. Shouldn’t REALLY matter when assessing cricket ability though!
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Imran better than Botham over the length of their career - at their peak hard to split them.
Sobers & Kallis in another group of genuinely elite batsmen who were good but not brilliant bowlers. Hard to compare with the Botham type all rounders.
Do you remember a 1980s allrounders challenge? It was on ITV which was a v rare thing for cricket. i think most of the top boys were there
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
Some people really are snowflakes. Mostly the ones who invented the term!
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
Labour’s image has improved since a year ago when the brand values were last tested. The percentage seeing the party as having “a good team of leaders” and being “fit to govern” are up, while the scores for “extreme”, “divided”, “out of date” are all down.
The Conservatives’ image suffered on several measures, with fewer people saying they “understand the problems facing Britain”, “look after the interests of people like me”, “are concerned about people in real need” “keep their promises” or are “fit to govern” and have “a good team of leaders”.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Imran better than Botham over the length of their career - at their peak hard to split them.
Sobers & Kallis in another group of genuinely elite batsmen who were good but not brilliant bowlers. Hard to compare with the Botham type all rounders.
Do you remember a 1980s allrounders challenge? It was on ITV which was a v rare thing for cricket. i think most of the top boys were there
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
IIRC there is some debate about whether the tattoos are actually neo-nazi or not.
With all the meme stuff going on... it suggests that people should be very careful about what they get tattooed. The meaning might change.....
Has he changed his story from his very much alive dad being dead?
I haven't been following the detail - has his explanation for tattoos fallen over or what?
He claimed the "88" on his cheek represented the year 1988 when his dad died. His dad disagrees as to whether he is dead or not. Two sides to every story.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
Greatest all-rounder ? For me, Botham. Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
Imran better than Botham over the length of their career - at their peak hard to split them.
Sobers & Kallis in another group of genuinely elite batsmen who were good but not brilliant bowlers. Hard to compare with the Botham type all rounders.
Do you remember a 1980s allrounders challenge? It was on ITV which was a v rare thing for cricket. i think most of the top boys were there
Yes just! Possibly the first time I had heard of Clive Rice with the SA ban at the time.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
The labels really dont matter. The question for those in power is what can they do to improve the situation, not how to categorise everyone. The new policy to improve things includes saying "that antisemitism in Labour is overblown" wont be tolerated as it provides succour to the anti-Semites. His job is not to only exclude anti-Semites it is to make people of all religions feel welcome and valued in his party - that cannot be done whilst Corbyn is allowed to be vocal and public in his denial of reality.
I think the issue with Corbyn was his response to a specific, documented set of events, published in a report. It was the last straw after repeated failures to deal with said events previously.
This wasn't abstract commenting on the extent of racism in society or a portion of it. It was specific actions in reaction to specific events.
I've been thinking. How can Starmer now let Corbyn back into the party without major political blowback?
Surely it has to be final now and this has potentially serious consequences. What happens in Islington North, for example?
It is now not up to Starmer! That is the whole point of independent disciplinary processes!
If Corbyn apologises and backs down on his claim its overblown, he can probably stay - if he doesnt he will get kicked out - but its not down to Starmer.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
The labels really dont matter. The question for those in power is what can they do to improve the situation, not how to categorise everyone. The new policy to improve things includes saying "that antisemitism in Labour is overblown" wont be tolerated as it provides succour to the anti-Semites. His job is not to only exclude anti-Semites it is to make people of all religions feel welcome and valued in his party - that cannot be done whilst Corbyn is allowed to be vocal and public in his denial of reality.
I think the issue with Corbyn was his response to a specific, documented set of events, published in a report. It was the last straw after repeated failures to deal with said events previously.
This wasn't abstract commenting on the extent of racism in society or a portion of it. It was specific actions in reaction to specific events.
It was a godsend for Starmer as otherwise there would have been do direct cause to do so. It was Corbyn's statement wot done it - even if his apologists have tried to row back/clarify.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
IIRC there is some debate about whether the tattoos are actually neo-nazi or not.
With all the meme stuff going on... it suggests that people should be very careful about what they get tattooed. The meaning might change.....
The tattooed woodchopper said the '88' (a well known neo Nazi meme) on his napper was to commemorate the year of his dad's death, the dad who was alive and well. Whatever his sympathies, the lad doesn't seem the sharpest axe blade attacking the woodpile.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
I agree on sexuality, but whether gender identity is inherent, medical or biological or just a choice is hotly contested - as is what it may mean for the rights of men and women.
It's why JK Rowling got into such hot water.
I have met and helped enough people suffering with gender identity issues to know it is no choice. Some of them suffered badly enough to kill themselves.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
The debate at present is whether self-identification alone is enough to change birth certificates or whether that needs to be medically confirmed too - there are issues around the potential for abuse of that process which may allow access to other vulnerable groups, particularly women.
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
If you want to see why I think there is a good chance of a systematic polling error, click on here and then scroll down to the section "Standard Polling on EU Membership" and the table below it:
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
I think you are mis-remembering. There were plenty of polls showing a Leave win, right up to the date of the referendum, particularly online ones.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
Sky History that tries to lever Nazis into just about all of their productions cancels one of them due to an actual Nazi. My IG Farben manufactured irony meter has just exploded.
IIRC there is some debate about whether the tattoos are actually neo-nazi or not.
With all the meme stuff going on... it suggests that people should be very careful about what they get tattooed. The meaning might change.....
Has he changed his story from his very much alive dad being dead?
I haven't been following the detail - has his explanation for tattoos fallen over or what?
He claimed the "88" on his cheek represented the year 1988 when his dad died. His dad disagrees as to whether he is dead or not. Two sides to every story.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
Basically the complete opposite of what @HYUFD is predicting.
They only got Canada 2019 and the 2019 UK election and the 2018 midterms right as the polls were right, if the presidential election polls are mainly wrong again in the key swing states as they were wrong in 2016 then leantossup will be wrong too
And you're predicting that they will be wrong, right?
Well, he's got a point, if all the data on which a prediction is based is wrong then the prediction will be wrong.
The alternative is of course ignoring all data in case it is wrong and guessing. Can work sometimes, but I know which I'd back as the long term better strategy.
Take cancer screening for example, sometimes it's wrong (false positive/negative). You could of course either ignore a positive test or pay privately to have something cut out following a negative test and sometimes you'd be right, but not in general.
He doesn't have a point, considering almost everyone here accepts there is a chance that the polls are wrong resulting in a Trump victory. What we disagree on is the percentage chance of that happening. So his position is not novel in the slightest.
I'm simply asking - is he "forecasting" that the polls will be wrong, or not?
I think I needed a clearer indication that I was being sarcastic
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Comments
So we may end up in a situation where the hospitals are operating near capacity with daily deaths in the low to mid hundreds for the winter, but Johnson avoids the political damage of imposing a national lockdown.
From the recent messaging this seems to be broadly what the government in its totality is expecting/hoping for.
I kind of hope that if enough people do that the message will get through, but I assume that sufficient people don't get round to switching that the ~20% increase gains them more than they lose. Also subsidises my insurance premiums, I guess
“ After he lost for the second time in 1992, he reflected that voters saw a leader at war with his party, not a prime ministerial figure. His most famous speech at the 1985 party conference, in which he attacked Militant-led Liverpool for hiring taxis to deliver redundancy notices to its own workers, illustrates why. In the same speech he made a considered explanation as to why it was possible for government to intervene in new and different ways, and raised the possibility of an “enabling state” which helped people realise their potential, countering Thatcher’s portrayal of the state as stifling constraint on “freedom.” But no one noticed because when conflict rages it will command the headlines.”
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/ill-tell-you-and-youll-listen-the-one-thing-successful-opposition-leaders-all-have-in-common
When I said I would go away and research my options, a 'special discount' magically appeared that removed more than half of the proposed increase.
Not something you need to apologise for imo.
Systematic polling errors are effectively what makes up the bulk of that 2.6%. Being realistic if there are no systematic polling errors then Trump has lost - end of story. But if there are systematic polling errors then how likely are they and how likely are the errors meaning you're undersampling Trump (its just as plausible that errors go the other way).
Reversion to mean is much less likely given the stability of the polling, the fact that time is up and the fact that the majority of votes have already been cast.
The fundamentals are fairly pro-Biden. Biden doesn't need to win Texas to win the electoral college, he just needs to win a majority of ECVs and that he's even competitive in Texas essentially shows he is there. A sub-1% swing is all that Biden needs to win in most key swing states and the polls are showing he is well past that point.
If HY really believed his last 2,000 posts on here, he'd put his life savings on Trump 45% vote share or higher. That's a low bar for a decent return.
The alternative is of course ignoring all data in case it is wrong and guessing. Can work sometimes, but I know which I'd back as the long term better strategy.
Take cancer screening for example, sometimes it's wrong (false positive/negative). You could of course either ignore a positive test or pay privately to have something cut out following a negative test and sometimes you'd be right, but not in general.
Don't forget to cancel the auto-renew of the old policy though!
The only exception is if the renewal quote is the same or lower than last year's - then I give my current insurer the benefit of the doubt ant let the policy renew.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
The partisan polls make me smile - pay a pollster to give you the answer you want.
It's like paying McKinsey's to check if you're desire to reorganise is justified.
Sobers was a very good batsman who could bowl - very few "5-fors".
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
i.e. Chairman of the bank goes on a march.....
You then get into the issue of discriminating about who is important enough that this matters etc....
That's how it used to be.
I am someone who, on renewal, will change provider for car, home insurance, energy providers etc. if I can find a cheaper deal on similar terms.
Biden 52 .. Trump 44
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/30/trump-rallies-spark-covid-19-fears-among-most-americans-poll-finds/6066102002/
I'm simply asking - is he "forecasting" that the polls will be wrong, or not?
Sobers & Kallis in another group of genuinely elite batsmen who were good but not brilliant bowlers. Hard to compare with the Botham type all rounders.
With all the meme stuff going on... it suggests that people should be very careful about what they get tattooed. The meaning might change.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
I wouldn't apply the same rules to the whole organization though.
One question I'm wondering - is it appropriate that the head of the BBC is a former Tory councillor?
Today is Pride really controversial. I don't follow the minutiae too closely but am certainly aware of the JK Rowling thing and also, having said that now that I think about it (because, you know, some of my best friends and relations are...) that Stonewall also has put itself into the firing line on gender. But to a (more) disinterested observer is Evan Davis marching under the Pride flag really controversial?
I mean parliament positively encourages participation: https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/attend-an-event/parliament-at-pride/
Perhaps the recent tightening of restrictions is making people wonder whether the government's approach to Covid is working, when previously they were prepared to give some benefit of doubt?
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/21/the-chop-sky-history-tattoos-darren-dad-not-dead-13456979/
EDIT: I missed the 23/16 first time round! Holy shit balls.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/523494-the-memo-texas-could-deliver-political-earthquake
It's more like a festival than a political event.
Many knives in the drawer, none of which are very sharp
Surely it has to be final now and this has potentially serious consequences. What happens in Islington North, for example?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-poll-keir-starmer-boris-johnson-b27236.html
Labour’s image has improved since a year ago when the brand values were last tested. The percentage seeing the party as having “a good team of leaders” and being “fit to govern” are up, while the scores for “extreme”, “divided”, “out of date” are all down.
The Conservatives’ image suffered on several measures, with fewer people saying they “understand the problems facing Britain”, “look after the interests of people like me”, “are concerned about people in real need” “keep their promises” or are “fit to govern” and have “a good team of leaders”.
http://that1980ssportsblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/cricket-silk-cut-challenge-all-rounders.html
I can think of one person I know who has a green frog tattoo - personal story. I presume she is going to have to get that lasered off.
Thought this guy was meant to be a sharp political thinker.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1322129973969362944?s=20
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
https://twitter.com/ptr_yeung/status/1321909815740932099?s=20
This wasn't abstract commenting on the extent of racism in society or a portion of it. It was specific actions in reaction to specific events.
If Corbyn apologises and backs down on his claim its overblown, he can probably stay - if he doesnt he will get kicked out - but its not down to Starmer.
You're all over the place, pal.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37&LAB=42&LIB=8&Brexit=2&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20&SCOTLAB=18.4&SCOTLIB=5.5&SCOTBrexit=1.1&SCOTGreen=1.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=52.6&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019
Edit: I see this has been covered!
The debate at present is whether self-identification alone is enough to change birth certificates or whether that needs to be medically confirmed too - there are issues around the potential for abuse of that process which may allow access to other vulnerable groups, particularly women.
It's a difficult subject.
Well done and thank you to whomever. Assuming it isn't just for me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.