Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: sevenlayermuddle on May 27, 2020, 05:41:17 PM
-
It’s a fair way down the headlines but sounds like BBC have finally been forced to fess up to anti-government bias, specifically in their ongoing ‘get Cummings’ campaign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52824508
Hopefully now, Maitlis and the other newsreaders and editorial teams will now be expected to resign, with no excuses accepted, as that is what they themselves demand of their victims?
-
What planet are you on? The amount of news that is adverse to this awful government that the BBC doesn't cover is scandalous. The BBC is constantly scared of being honestly balanced because they fear that the vindictive b......ds like Cummings will start dismantling them.
-
Here's 850,000 people that think Cummings broke the rules and should be sacked: https://www.change.org/p/dominic-cummings-must-be-sacked
I think Emily summed up what the majority of people think pretty accurately. There will be deaths because of his refusal to acknowledge what he did was wrong because of the huge numbers of people who will think that because it was OK for him to break the rules, all rules can be disregarded.
-
And don't overlook that 39 CONSERVATIVE MPs have demanded his resignation.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/public-opinion-hardens-against-dominic-cummings-fjz8jrxph
-
Did you actually follow the link? In the BBC’s own words, headline reads...
Newsnight 'breached BBC impartiality guidelines' with Cummings remarks
I’m just guessing here, that their own lawyers may have intervened and told them they overstepped the mark, and best way forwards was to own up.
Many newsworthy things happened in the past week, from drug & vaccine developments to a A320 passenger jet crashing, but you had to be pretty attentive to hear any of it from the BBC, always overshadowed by their ranting and raving about the government.
-
What planet are you on? The amount of news that is adverse to this awful government that the BBC doesn't cover is scandalous. The BBC is constantly scared of being honestly balanced because they fear that the vindictive b......ds like Cummings will start dismantling them.
This.
-
Ok you have aroused my curiosity, what are these adverse stories that the BBC have not mentioned?
Being fair, they’ve not latched onto anti-government 5G conspiracies, I suppose. Time yet, mind you. :)
-
Ok you have aroused my curiosity, what are these adverse stories that the BBC have not mentioned?
Being fair, they’ve not latched onto anti-government 5G conspiracies, I suppose. Time yet, mind you. :)
I haven't been following recently, but what really bothered me was how much air time they were willing to give to unfounded extremist BS about Corbyn during the election.
The problem seems to be that if there are lots of proven true stories about the Tories, but only lots of rumours and hearsay about Labour, they will cover both equally so they can claim to be impartial.
Its no longer the case that only proven fact checked evidence is news, anything goes. But all that did was reinforce the notion that "they're all as bad as each other" and left us with an utter garbage government.
I'm absolutely not saying Labour are perfect, I'd much prefer REAL proportional representation for a truly democratic government, But what can be excused as "news" today is far too varied and a serious lack of fact checking going on.
There is absolutely no valid argument that what Cummings did wasn't against his own guidance. There is something seriously wrong if they aren't allowed to say as such. Being impartial shouldn't mean that you can't state facts because it might look bad for one side.
-
No harm at all in reporting the Cummings story. But turning it into an obsessive stream of venom dominating the news for days on end, was that measured?
I see Maitlis was unexpectedly off-air last night.
-
No harm at all in reporting the Cummings story. But turning it into an obsessive stream of venom dominating the news for days on end, was that measured?
I see Maitlis was unexpectedly off-air last night.
I'm in two minds, because I absolutely do not think this should be dropped until there are consequences for what he did. He DID break the rules and put people at risk DIRECTLY of infection from his family. That should not be excused.
As I've said in other places, his excuse that it was to protect his kid is utter BS. Hundreds maybe thousands of people have been in the position he was in and still looked after their kid while ill. He actually put his kid at a greater risk by potentially infecting his parents so the kid would then have NO safety net at all. The more details we find out from what has happened, the more appalling it comes across - would we have gotten all those details had it been reported once then dropped? I don't know.
-
strange how some people think the BBC is pro-goverment and others think the BBC is anti-government.
all it does is show their own personal agenda rather than what the BBCs is or isn't.
as for Cummings, i couldn't care less what he has done or hasn't done.
i can guarantee that some those that are "baying for blood" have breached the lockdown rules at some point. but because no-one knows or cares about them it goes under the radar.
-
As I've said in other places, his excuse that it was to protect his kid is utter BS. Hundreds maybe thousands of people have been in the position he was in and still looked after their kid while ill. He actually put his kid at a greater risk by potentially infecting his parents so the kid would then have NO safety net at all.
It's actually far, far worse than that. How sick people get with the virus can be dependant on the size of the initial virus load. A small initial virus load gives the body time to develop the antibodies etc. to fight the infection, a large initial load and the defences can be quickly overloaded. That's why early on so many doctors and nurses in ICU became so ill before full PPE procedures were in place. So what better way to make sure that their son was subjected to a large initial load than coop them up in the back of a car with someone already ill with COVID?
-
Emphasise again, it is not my judgement that the BBC is biassed, it is their own confession of bias and their own reprimand of Newsnight, that is the subject of this thread. Here again is the link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52824508
Just google for Emily Maitlis Impartiality, it’s all over the news, all accepting the fact the BBC was not impartial.
None of above is based on my opinion, it is all accepted as fact, by BBC and others. What is my opinion is that the best way forwards, to restore any credibility to BBC news, and as a reminder to other news staff not to follow private vendettas/agendas, is for Maitlis and her team to resign or be sacked. Early signs are that may be happening as she was unexpectedly absent the following night...
-
the whole "BBC must be impartial" thing is a total nonsense in my opinion.
if a host of a program that is discussing the news (not reporting the news) - which is what newsnight is can't give their opinion then something is wrong.
those reporting the news should report it and not give opinion, but a program that is solely there to discuss the news of the day should be able to give opinion.
it's gone that far that if the BBC have someone on a program saying that 5G isn't a health risk then they MUST have some crack-pot on as well to give their alternate view. all in the name of impartiality.
-
The problem is that Newsnight presented an opinion in a way that would be confused with statement of facts. With the public trust of BBC impartiality, that carries a real risk that the viewing public will be misinformed.
The question as to whether the BBC should be impartial is a different one. There are all sorts of crackpot news publications, from editorials in politicised daily papers to radical student newsletters. We just ignore the ones we don’t like as long as they don’t break any laws, we accept that they do not need to be impartial, and I have no problem with that.
I do, personally, think that impartiality remains important for BBC. To best of my knowledge, it remains law that the BBC must be impartial.
-
I do, personally, think that impartiality remains important for BBC. To best of my knowledge, it remains law that the BBC must be impartial.
The problem is how that is interpreted.
As we mentioned, when its proven fact that 5G is safe, they shouldn't need to get a conspiracy theorist on to say its not, to be impartial.
There has to be a line drawn between opinion (requiring impartiality) and fact (which does not).
-
i can guarantee that some those that are "baying for blood" have breached the lockdown rules at some point. but because no-one knows or cares about them it goes under the radar.
Spot on 100%
Absolute hypocrites IMO.
-
being impartial doesn't mean neutering opinion though. they just have to remain balanced.
if the host isn't allowed to have voice (or even have) an opinion then why bother employing them. simply replacing them with a computer that churns out benine questions and waits for the response.
and the problem with BBC and impartiality is that, i would bet, that almost no-one thinks it is. everyone tends to believe that the BBC is against their own particular viewpoint.
the BBC in scotland is a prime example, nationalists think the BBC is anti-SNP, and unionists think the BBC is pro-unionist (and vice versa). rangers supporters think the BBC is anti-rangers, and celtic supporters think it is pro-rangers (and vice versa).
-
Expressing an opinion is fine, providing it is clearly an opinion. Much of the BBC’s climate coverage is based on scientific opinion. They can also be express it as news providing they precede it with something like “scientists believe” . And providing they have evidence that there is a credible majority of qualified scientists who believe it, they don’t need to switch to some other idiot to argue that the earth is flat.
But stating a substantially unfounded opinion as fact is a different matter.
She said the "public mood" was "one of fury, contempt and anguish", and that Cummings had made people who struggled to keep to the government's rules "feel like fools".
I am a member of the public and I know many other members of the public. None of those I knew shared that opinion. Some others clearly did think that way, but it falls far short of ‘fact’.
Spot on 100%
Absolute hypocrites IMO.
The one angle I don’t get is why they think, even if it were all true at face value, that it would have threatened public observation of lockdown. I saw lots of people flouting lockdown rules, it certainly didn’t make me feel tempted to join them. And I think people of that ilk would have behaved that way regardless, with or without a public scapegoat.
What might threaten observations of subsequent lockdowns (which are, I think, expected) is the BBC mantra resounding in our subconscious ... “it’s ok to ignore as long as you can blame it on a public figure”.
-
They’re still at it, I am truly amazed.
Durham Police have released a statement which is in the public domain...
https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News%20Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx
It begins
On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
...
It goes to say that in the drive to Barnard Castle there might have been a minor breach that might have resulted in ‘advice’. That’s fair enough, in fact I confess that the only time I left the village during lockdown was to take my own car for a drive, just once, about 15 miles, to charge up the battery and loosen off the brake callipers etc. I suspected that drive could be challenged, and was prepared to accept advice if it was.
Somehow, the BBC have twisted the Police statement into a headline for the current lead article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982
Dominic Cummings 'might have broken lockdown rules' - police
-
Unbelievable - the Government is now using OUR money to pay the Daily Mail to publish pro-government pieces about how well it is handling COVID-19.
Link to the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8340593/How-Covid-19-pandemic-threatened-businesses-Government-helping-them.html
Bet the BBC have said nothing about that!
-
They’re still at it, I am truly amazed.
Durham Police have released a statement which is in the public domain...
https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News%20Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx
It begins
It goes to say that in the drive to Barnard Castle there might have been a minor breach that might have resulted in ‘advice’. That’s fair enough, in fact I confess that the only time I left the village during lockdown was to take my own car for a drive, just once, about 15 miles, to charge up the battery and loosen off the brake callipers etc. I suspected that drive could be challenged, and was prepared to accept advice if it was.
Somehow, the BBC have twisted the Police statement into a headline for the current lead article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982
So who is trying to twist things now? The headline is 100% accurate. To quote the police press statement (my bold):
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
So how do think the headline "Dominic Cummings 'might have broken lockdown rules' - police" inaccurate?
-
i think it's very clear that someone in this thread has an agenda!
-
i think it's very clear that someone in this thread has an agenda!
Oh you noticed as-well.. :lol:
-
The problem is, if it was an offence or not shouldn't be the primary aim here. If it was selfish and endangered other people is what should be relevant and I think its pretty hard to argue that it wasn't and didn't. He was thinking about what was easiest for himself, not the safety of others.
There is research to suggest that driving while sick is as dangerous as drunk driving. Sticking a young child in a small poorly ventilated tin can with people who may have the virus in itself is moronic, they are more likely to get a higher concentration of the virus and thus far more risky than staying in a house. Those things alone should be grounds for firing him as clearly he has pretty atrocious judgement so shouldn't be advising anyone.
-
Sorry Alex are you referring to the trip to Durham to self-isolate near his parents, the second alleged trip to Durham of which Police could find no evidence, or the drive to Barnard Castle?
I have not seen any evidence, aside from BBC rants, that on any of these trips were undertaken when he was feeling so unwell as to affect his driving. Do you have a (respectable) link I could follow?
Regarding eyesight, if he was worried that his vision was sub optimal for driving, providing it was well above the legal minimum, I’d say (Covid rules aside) it was a responsible thing to put it to the test under relaxed conditions. I had to reject a new pair of glasses last year, as they didn’t work well for driving. The only way to ‘prove’ it was to allow the optician to make tweaks to how they fitted, then try them out for a few days, whilst driving around. At all times my vision was vastly superior to the legal minimum, but I still wanted better, and eventually got it - replacements are fantastic.
-
Sorry Alex are you referring to the trip to Durham to self-isolate near his parents, the second alleged trip to Durham of which Police could find no evidence, or the drive to Barnard Castle?
The initial drive regarding locking the kid in a situation where they are more likely to get infected.
The shorter drive:
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
You shouldn't be driving to test if your eyesight is okay for driving, if you have any doubts you shouldn't be driving period.
I'd also question, if his job is advisor, why does he need to physically be there in the first place? Surely you can advise from home? By his own advise, only go out if you absolutely need to.
If you can't follow your own advise, then maybe you shouldn't be an advisor to begin with!
-
It is very easy to establish whether your eyesight meets basic driving standards by pacing out distance stipulated in the legislation and trying to read a number plate. That’s 20 metres for a modern number plate. There’s more detailed requirements too, that only an optician can test, but I don’t think it is practical to say anybody who has had Covid 19 needs to consult an optician before driving again.
But it’s also wise to tread cautiously, with extra precautions, even if you have tested as above. As in my own example of new glasses, I always put them to the test with a short drive around local roads before committing to a long motorway drive. That appears to be all Cummings did, except he was confirming his eyes had fully recovered, rather than testing new glasses.
Another scenario was following abdominal surgery some years ago. The surgeon had given me the all clear to drive again, and I actually wanted to drive to Scotland, so I tried a short drive first. It was still uncomfortable, so I deferred the Scotland drive for another month.
Cummings was quite likely being a lot more responsible than most people, who would undoubtably have jumped in the car and driven straight to London with no attempt at all to confirm fitness.
-
IF, and that's a IF, the purpose of the drive was to test your eyesight, you don't need to take your family with you, and you don't need to stop off and wander around. You do a short "round the block" first and if that is OK you do a longer round trip. It is not necessary to go "to" somewhere and, especially in the circumstances at the time, you don't stop off anywhere. It's absolutely 110% clear they thought lets go out for a bit before we head back to London and the eyesight test is just a feeble excuse.
It's just typical of this unspeakable mob that are in charge, one lie after another to get what they want or get out of a situation, and if they are caught out they double down on them. The difference between them and Trump is frighteningly small.
I quite frankly blame Labour for the current situation, if they hadn't been so totally and utterly useless for the last few years, we wouldn't have this lot in power!
-
It’s a great idea to take somebody along with you if you are confirming your own fitness to drive.
In the unlikely event you find yourself thinking that the test drive was a bad idea, you may be able ask your passenger to drive back, if they are licensed and insured
If checking eyesight, you can ask your passenger(s) to read the road signs as early as they can at the longest distance, and compare that with your own abilities. I do that quite regularly in fact, it can be interesting as it lets you know your own real-world strengths and weaknesses in different lighting, even if an optician has recently assured you that your eyesight is 20/20 or better.
-
It’s a great idea to take somebody along with you if you are confirming your own fitness to drive.
nonsense.
if you have even the slightest thought that you aren't fit to drive then you don't drive at all, not even 1 inch.
having the thought that you aren't fit to drive means you aren't fit to drive.
you don't go out and test the fact.
If checking eyesight, you can ask your passenger(s) to read the road signs as early as they can at the longest distance, and compare that with your own abilities. I do that quite regularly in fact, it can be interesting as it lets you know your own real-world strengths and weaknesses in different lighting, even if an optician has recently assured you that your eyesight is 20/20 or better.
you can, and should, do that without getting into a car.
-
Certainly agree that if you have any doubts about your eyesight then testing it by driving is a bad idea.
I don't know about now, but the first part of my driving test was to read a car number plate from the requisite 20 meters in the car park of the test centre. If I had failed that then the test would have been over without me even getting into my car.
:)
-
If you have doubts then, of course, don’t drive.
But if you feel fine to drive, and want to confirm your are indeed fine to drive, it’s a good idea to put it to the test by trying it out. After recovering from any serious medical problem, it would take a lot more than a spin around the block to convince me I was fit to drive from Durham to London.
And stress again, the 20 metre number plate test does not prove you are fit to drive. Failing it proves you are not fit, but passing it merely suggests you might be fit. Try it, it can be passed with vision that many people would regard as totally unacceptable for driving.
It’s been suggested he stopped during the test drive and went walking. I’d have done the same thing and again, an assistant can help for comparisons’ sakes. E.g. Who can count most clearly the lines on that electricity pylon on that hilltop? Does that gate at the far end of the field have a padlock?
-
This tweet thread from @Russincheshire sums it up pretty well:
Too good to miss. It clears up everything. Enjoy. The week in Tory (Cummings special):
1. Dominic Cummings, one of the few men to have ever been found in contempt of Parliament, moved onto contempt for everything.
2. When the story broke, and he was accused of doing things that look bad, he said he didn't care how things looked.
3. Then ministers said press outrage meant nothing, only the opinion of the people mattered.
4. Then polls showed 52% of people wanted Cummings to resign.
5. So Cummings decided to show the public some respect, by turning up 30 minutes late to make his explanation.
6. He began by saying he wasn't speaking for the govt, which must be why he was in the Rose Garden of 10 Downing Street.
7. Then the self-styled "enemy of the Islington media elite" said his wife, who works in the media, had been ill in their house in Islington.
8. But she was only a bit ill, so he popped home, got himself nice and infected, then went back to Downing Street for meetings with lots of vitally important people in the middle of a national crisis.
9. But then he got ill too, so then it was suddenly important.
10. Sadly he couldn't get childcare in London, even though 3 immediate relatives live within 3 miles of his London home.
11. So because he was carrying a virus that can cross a 2 metre distance and kill, he immediately locked himself in a car with his wife and child for 5 hours.
12. He then drove 264 miles without stopping in a Land Rover that gets maybe 25 MPG.
13. Then the scourge of the metropolitan elites made himself extra-relatable by describing his family's sprawling country estate, multiple houses and idyllic woodlands.
14. He explained that he'd warned about a coronavirus years ago in his blog.
15. Then it was revealed he actually secretly amended old blogs after he'd returned from Durham.
16. And anyway, if he'd warned years ago, why was he so massively unprepared and slow to react?
17. Then he said he was too ill to move for a week.
18. But in the middle of that week, presumably with "wonky eyes", he drove his child to hospital.
19. Then he said that to test his "wonky eyes" he put his wife and child in a car and drove 30 miles on public roads.
20. Then it was revealed his wife drives, so there was no reason for the "eye test", cos she could have driven them back to London.
21. Then it was revealed the "eye test" trip to a local tourist spot took place on his wife's birthday.
22. Then cameras filmed as he threw a cup onto the table, smirked and left.
23. And then it emerged his wife had written an article during the time in Durham, describing their experience of being in lockdown in London, which you'd definitely do if you weren't hiding anything.
24. A govt scientific advisor said "more people will die" as a result of what Cummings had done.
25. Boris Johnson said he "wouldn't mark Cummings " down for what he'd done.
26. The Attorney General said it was ok to break the law if you were acting on instinct.
27. The Health Minister said it was OK to endanger public health if you meant well.
28. Johnson said Cummings' "story rings true" because his own eyesight was fine before coronavirus, but now he needs glasses.
29. But in an interview with The Telegraph 5 years ago, Johnson said he needed glasses cos he was "blind as a bat"
30. Michael Gove went on TV and said it was "wise" to drive 30 miles on public roads with your family in the car to test your eyesight.
31. The DVLA tweeted that you should never, ever do this.
32. Then ministers started claiming Cummings had to go to Durham because he feared crowds attacking his home. The streets were empty because we were observing the lockdown.
33. And then a minister finally resigned.
34. Steve Baker, Richard Littlejohn, Isabel Oakeshott, Tim Montgomerie, Jan Moir, Ian Dale, Julia Hartley Brewer, 30 Tory MPs, half a dozen bishops and the actual Daily Mail said Cummings should go.
35. The govt suggested we can ignore them, because they're all left-wingers.
36. Then a vicar asked Matt Hancock if other people who had been fined for doing exactly what Cummings did would get their fine dropped. Matt Hancock said he'd suggest it to the govt.
37. The govt said no within an hour. Cummings' statement had lasted longer than that.
38. And if the guidelines were so clear, why were people being stopped and fined for driving to find childcare in the first place?
39. Then a new poll found people who wanted Cummings sacked had risen from 52% to 57%.
40. Cummings is considered the smartest man in the govt
41. And in the middle of all this, in case we take our eye off it: we reached 60,000 deaths. One of the highest per capita death rates worldwide.
42. We still face Brexit under this lot.
43. It's 4 years until an election.
44. And it's still only Wednesday
-
This tweet thread from @Russincheshire sums it up pretty well:
I expect he’ll be getting a job offer from the BBC. :)
-
I think the BBC is more bias today than it used to be. There are people in the BBC who have been wanting to express opinions rather than just report the news. Jon Sopel is an example of someone who as gone on record wanting this.
I think the biggest problem when it comes to reporting the news these days is that there is a mind set that if they interview someone with views they think the public don't like then they have to attack and ridicule the person, because if they don't then others assume they agree with the persons views. I see that as a big problem to the neutral reporting of news.
As for DC, I agree that he should have resigned or been sacked. Though I think constantly hijacking the coronavirus press conference days after the news broke seems to be dragging it a bit. People are still dying and we're still in a lockdown. It starts to become a bit tedious when journalists seem more interested in scoring a political point than getting the updates on the coronavirus.
-
I think the BBC is more bias today than it used to be.
I quite agree. Why they've kept Andrew Neil with his obvious bias is beyond me.
-
I quite agree. Why they've kept Andrew Neil with his obvious bias is beyond me.
Agreement at last. :)
I’m not familiar with Andrew Neil or his views but if he ever exhibits bias to the extent BBC need to acknowledge it and apologise for it, proving you right, hopefully he’ll be sacked.
Unfortunately, despite Maitlis having already proven me right by being publicly reprimanded, the signs are she has not gone for good, and will be back.
So don’t pin your hopes on it. :(
-
a person having an opinion and voicing it does not equate to corporate bias.
if anyone believes that then they clearly have an agenda.
as i said, you could ask 100 people and 50 of them will say something is biased in one direction and the other 50 will say the opposite.
-
a person having an opinion and voicing it does not equate to corporate bias.
Not that simple.
If I were to compose a message with a radical political content and send it from my personal email account, signed by me personally, I’d expect people to accept it as a personal opinion. It may not make me popular, but it shouldn’t get me into trouble.
If I sent the same email from my employer’s corporate email address, signed by my job title, I’d rather expect people to think it was a corporate view.
A TV newsreader, is closer to the second of these scenarios. Unless they go out of their way to make clear they are expressing a personal opinion, they can reasonably assumed to be representing the employer.
In my case (second scenario) since my imaginary employer does not want to show corporate political bias, I’d also expect to be fired, just as Maitlis should be fired.
-
A TV newsreader, is closer to the second of these scenarios. Unless they go out of their way to make clear they are expressing a personal opinion, they can reasonably assumed to be representing the employer.
In my case (second scenario) since my imaginary employer does not want to show corporate political bias, I’d also expect to be fired, just as Maitlis should be fired.
Emily Maitlis is not a newsreader.
-
Emily Maitlis is not a newsreader.
Pedantic point accepted. :)
Even more pedantic... in that post, I never actually said she was. :D
-
Emily Maitlis is a Canadian-born British journalist, documentary filmmaker and newsreader for the BBC. She presents BBC Two's news and current affairs programme Newsnight, and also covers elections for the BBC in UK, US and Europe. ;)
-
Emily Maitlis is a Canadian-born British journalist, documentary filmmaker and newsreader for the BBC. She presents BBC Two's news and current affairs programme Newsnight, and also covers elections for the BBC in UK, US and Europe. ;)
Even Wikipedia can get it wrong sometimes.
-
Scrap the tv fee and they can say and do what they want :)
-
Newsnight does not report the news, it discusses the news items of the day - conducted in a serious manner.
Have I Got News For You does not report the news, it discusses the news items of the day/week - conducted in a satirical manner.
One program is allowed to voice an opinion, one isn't - see the contradiction there?
Both are there to discuss the news, not report it, but one is allowed to say whatever they want because they being satirical, and hence not biased.
I wonder if the OP would be claiming BBC bias if said person has voiced opinion supporting the particular person in question - something makes me think not.
-
I wonder if the OP would be claiming BBC bias if said person has voiced opinion supporting the particular person in question - something makes me think not.
I’d be claiming bias if the Newsnight presenter had attempted to sway the viewing audience to any radical political view that the audience cannot validate for themselves, no matter who was being portrayed as saints or sinners.
I personally have no actual view on the ‘guilt’ of Dominic Cummings. The Police seem to have cleared him of any technical wrong doing, other than a minor breach that would not even merit a fine and so my assessment would need to be based on personal, perhaps moral judgement. I simply do not feel qualified to make that judgement, I am not privy to any convincing facts beyond the Police’s statement.
-
forgive me for not believing you in this case.
everything you have posted has reeked of anti-BBC, and everytime time i've seen an anti-BBC "rant" it has always come from a political stance where they are, apparently, biased against their own politicial views.
maybe you didn't have the intention to do so, but, IMO that's how you've come across.
-
The Police seem to have cleared him of any technical wrong doing, other than a minor breach that would not even merit a fine and so my assessment would need to be based on personal, perhaps moral judgement. I simply do not feel qualified to make that judgement, I am not privy to any convincing facts beyond the Police’s statement.
That's because there is no law against going around infecting everyone with the virus, strangely enough. This is why he knew he could get away with ignoring his own advise.
From the facts we know his behaviour was selfish and put everyone, including his kid, at risk. Both from the initial trip from London and the secondary journey when by his own admission his eyesight might not have been 100%. I actually wonder if it had been a normal member of the public if there wouldn't be a case for child endangerment here, but when you have the PM up your arse, nobody is going to dare to come after you.
-
forgive me for not believing you in this case.
everything you have posted has reeked of anti-BBC, and everytime time i've seen an anti-BBC "rant" it has always come from a political stance where they are, apparently, biased against their own politicial views.
maybe you didn't have the intention to do so, but, IMO that's how you've come across.
Always interesting, as Burns puts it, “To see oursels as ithers see us!”. :)
I suppose I have developed a general loathing of BBC over recent years, but I’ve believed it to be based on factors other than political bias. Following examples are of course just personal opinions...
I resent what I regard as dumbed down scientific coverage.
I resent the use of foul language in programmes where it is not necessary. It may be necessary for example to set the social scene in a movie, but all too often it is used just for laughs. I have never understood why the ‘f’ word is seen as comical.
I resent the way a loudmouthed presenter will start yapping over the music during credits tracks, at the end of an engaging movie or show.
I resent the intrusive self-promoting ‘adverts’ between programs, which also frequently intrude on fading movie credits.
...So there may be some merit in your observation, as I do pretty much detest BBC and some of the above maybe could be loosely classed as ‘political’. But I don’t see why that amounts to ‘not believing’ my earlier post? :-\
-
From the facts we know his behaviour was selfish and put everyone, including his kid, at risk.
With respect Alex, what ‘facts’ do we know, beyond what the media have told us? I gave up on all media channels a long time ago, as sources of facts. That includes all TV channels that I have tried viewing, and all newspapers I have reading, and - obviously - all SM. I still buy the Guardian on a Saturday if the chance arises as I like some of the columns, and I like the Sudoku, but I don’t regard it as factual.
The Internet makes my approach easier. For example I spent the morning perusing the minutes of some of the Government's SAGE group meetings, that produced the Coronavirus advice upon which the government choses to act (or not act). They have recently been made public and whilst I would not pretend for a minute I understood it all, or even pretend it was all that interesting, it still places me closer to the ‘facts’ than just reading some journalist’s attempts to relay them, with or without bias.
-
This seems to cover everything. https://fullfact.org/health/dominic-cummings-lockdown-rules/
-
This seems to cover everything. https://fullfact.org/health/dominic-cummings-lockdown-rules/
Interesting link, thanks.
I’ve always been suspicious of ‘fullfact.org’, the use of the word ‘fact’ in the domain name by no means implies that the content will be factually correct. In fact (!?), the cheesy name probably raises my suspicion it might be some crank site masquerading as facts.
But at a glance, whilst sipping my cream soda between lawn mowing duties, it does look balanced and well argued. Even if I find myself disagreeing with it, I can’t see it making my blood boil in the way that the BBC’s rantings and ravings might do. :)
My Saturday Guardian has just arrived. I’ll let it decontaminate in the sunshine for a while before reading but the headline screams “MPs deluged with angry emails over Cummings”. I don’t doubt it’s true but barring a very small number who will have made any attempts to check the facts for themselves, vast majority of these emails will be from people who are only ‘angry’ because the BBC or some other outlet told them to be angry.
-
Hi
@7lm
As I said before, I tend to keep away from these type of threads
However, your comment over emails to mp re DC and they were lead to this by media (note media not bbc)
I understand why people are angry over DC and everyone makes their own mind up
To keep it at simple fact level which is not disputed
DC believed he/family may have virus
DC drove over 200 miles
dC drove over 30 miles to test eyesight/fit to drive
The above are one way mileages
Imagine what the UK would be like if we all had done that
So yes, a lot of people are very angry and there is a petition with over 1 million signatures and counting for DC to be sacked
Many thanks
John
-
I’ve avoided commenting on the ‘isolation’ trip, as I simply can’t think of any basis for a valid opinion. Maybe it was reckless, maybe not, I just don’t have an opinion.
Repeating myself here, but I did give thought, earlier in the thread, to the ‘eyesight test’ and concluded it is largely blown out of proportion and imho, anybody who gives it serious consideration should drop it as ‘unproven’ from the list of criticisms.
It is comparable to a dilemma I faced last year, trying to convince my optician that my new glasses, despite giving me vision that scored better than 20/20 on the charts, weren’t right for driving. In doing so, I had to allow the optician to repeatedly make small adjustments and then try them out... by driving for an hour or so. Eventually, I won the argument, I got a new pair - the varifocal transition was in the wrong place.
I also took (and passed) the advanced driving test last year, examined by a police advanced training driver. At the outset I explained to my examiner that, in the mixture of wet roads, sunshine and cloud, I was unsure which glasses would be optimal, and that I may want to pull over at some point and replace my prescription sunglasses with clear glasses. After confirming I could “read that number plate over there” he was entirely happy that I wanted to simply ‘put it to the test’, to decide which glasses were the best compromise that day.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a drive to see how good your vision is, providing you are certain it surpasses, ideally far surpasses, the requirements of the legislation. There’s been nothing to suggest his eyesight fell short of that legislation at any time. If there were, I’d want him prosecuted.
I’d be far more critical if he’d just jumped in the car, after a serious illness, and launched straight onto a long motorway haul without even pausing to see if driving felt comfortable.
-
Hi
@7lm
Not having an option on the Covid drive does not mean you do not understand most peoples anger at the journey when nearly everyone stopped at home!
Many thanks
John
-
We’re veering off topic.
The thread is meant to be about BBC’s attempt to whip up hatred.
-
The BBC didn't need to whip up hatred.
It was already there.
I personally think Emily is a great journalist and see nothing wrong with her report.
It was a minor beach of the BBC editorial guidelines.
I completely agree the BBC is usually biased.
They are far too Pro government.
-
I completely agree the BBC is usually biased.
They are far too Pro government.
+1
-
The BBC didn't need to whip up hatred.
It was already there.
I don’t understand that argument.
Are you suggesting the hatred spontaneously arose out of nowhere?
Or that the BBC simply sniffed around for existing anti-government wackos, and cashed in on this one as a convenient opportunity?
Or are you simply suggesting that people who did not vote for this government should not have to accept the democratic outcome, following precedents set in recent EU and Scotland ‘leave/remain’ referendums?
-
Their reporters could see and were getting deluged with tweets etc. that expressed outrage about what Cummings did. They accurately reported it.
-
People are thinking that the rules don't matter so you end up with scenes like those in this report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52864454
There will be people who die because of Cummings - there will be a lot more infected because the virus will be spread by people thinking its OK to ignore the rules, and some of those infected will end up seriously ill in hospital, and some of those will die. I can't see a lot of the idiots that ignore the rules co-operating with track and trace.
Boris is being very clever here - he's setting it up so that he can blame the public if there's a second peak. He knows relying on the great British public's common sense to obey the rules will be as effective as expecting them not to start panic buying toilet rolls etc.
-
Their reporters could see and were getting deluged with tweets etc. that expressed outrage about what Cummings did. They accurately reported it.
Ah yes, social media campaigns coupled with the BBC’s desire to draw in audience numbers regardless of professional and corporate integrity, that would explain it all.
Apols for being old fashioned, but I can honestly say I have never been influenced, in the slightest, by any tweets I have been shown. It goes without saying I don’t even have a personal twitter account, I consider myself capable of forming an opinion on my own, independently of others.
-
People are thinking that the rules don't matter so you end up with scenes like those in this report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52864454
There will be people who die because of Cummings - there will be a lot more infected because the virus will be spread by people thinking its OK to ignore the rules, and some of those infected will end up seriously ill in hospital, and some of those will die. I can't see a lot of the idiots that ignore the rules co-operating with track and trace.
Boris is being very clever here - he's setting it up so that he can blame the public if there's a second peak. He knows relying on the great British public's common sense to obey the rules will be as effective as expecting them not to start panic buying toilet rolls etc.
Sorry, I had not realised this is all a master plan to kill off the population. Maybe it’s to reduce pension costs? Cunning, eh.
If you are open minded to different analyses then try, as I did this morning, browsing the independent SAGE meeting minutes, that have now been released. It’s heavy going, but informative. Worrying for your SM groups, I’m afraid all references to ‘get Cummings’ have been mysteriously redacted, damned government spooks at it I suppose.
BTW, if you followed the original Imperial College models, a second peak is expected, as is a third, etc, in a series of waves. In response to each wave, measures would be turned on an off as required, to keep R_t below 1. One reason BBC are not mentioning that might be, they’ve already prepared the headline “Second wave! Government facing calls for election!”.
-
I don’t understand that argument.
Are you suggesting the hatred spontaneously arose out of nowhere?
Or that the BBC simply sniffed around for existing anti-government wackos, and cashed in on this one as a convenient opportunity?
Or are you simply suggesting that people who did not vote for this government should not have to accept the democratic outcome, following precedents set in recent EU and Scotland ‘leave/remain’ referendums?
To be fair, its not a democratic system. You shouldn't be able to get more votes and less MPs, it should be proportional representation. Its particularly harsh on the smaller parties where their votes rose quite a bit but were spread out so far between different regions that it meant practically nothing.
-
Hi
Sorry it is not hatred but anger
You are correct, this is taking it off topic as your topic is bbc bias not bbc hatred
Many thanks
John
-
Newsnight does not report the news, it discusses the news items of the day - conducted in a serious manner.
I can never remember Newsnight presenters being the centre of stories before. Bring back Paxman!
I think there is too much discussion and not enough serious interviews these days. I dare say a lot of these opinions from presenters are fillers as the tv media tries to compete with the Internet for news coverage.
-
I was also a fan of Paxman. He was even used as a prop in a training course I once attended, covering interview techniques. That was the famous “Did you threaten to overrule him?” question, put to Michael Howard as Prisons Minister.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IqU77I40mS0
A lot of people criticised Paxman for crossing the line from aggressive interviewer to rude interviewer, and indeed, he was maybe a little rude in that clip. But somehow it was rudeness with a blend of dry humour. I couldn’t help thinking that Michael Howard was trying not to chuckle himself, despite being on the receiving end of it.
-
I can never remember Newsnight presenters being the centre of stories before. Bring back Paxman!
lol, is that a serious comment?
Google "did you threaten to overrule him".
-
Google "did you threaten to overrule him".
Read previous post. :)
-
Read previous post. :)
Ah... Not sure how I missed your post.
Excellent journalism and brilliant TV if you ask me.
It shows up politicians who refuse to answer the question.
They go straight to their rehearsed lines and sound bites and it isn't called out enough.
-
If what I've seen today is correct, Cummings could be in yet more trouble. It appears possible that the "spare cottage" he stayed in may have been built without planning permission and doesn't pay council tax and he appears as a co-owner of the property on the Land Registry records.
-
If what I've seen today is correct, Cummings could be in yet more trouble. It appears possible that the "spare cottage" he stayed in may have been built without planning permission and doesn't pay council tax and he appears as a co-owner of the property on the Land Registry records.
I’ve been wondering if it’s my imagination, but I do think maybe it’s possible they’ve been toning down the nasty rhetoric since the Maitlis episode? Not just about Cummings but other stories too, the whole website and news content just feels a bit more balanced and informative this past few days.
With all due sympathy (which may be ‘none’ ) to Cummings, I hope this story runs. It would be a useful test for BBC to see if they can now cover it appropriately, without the malice and hatred.
-
Lol the OP's post is utter nonsense. Never read so much drivel in my life.
-
Lol the OP's post is utter nonsense. Never read so much drivel in my life.
Many thanks for your considered analysis. It is always good to have some expert advice on tap, when discussing topics such as this.
-
If what I've seen today is correct, Cummings could be in yet more trouble.
Is this story still in the running? Google finds references among conspiratorial forums, but it’s odd that none of the mainstream have yet taken the bait? :-X
Shame if it turns out to be fake, as I was really looking forwards to seeing how BBC handled it. :(
-
BTW, if you followed the original Imperial College models, a second peak is expected, as is a third, etc, in a series of waves. In response to each wave, measures would be turned on an off as required, to keep R_t below 1. One reason BBC are not mentioning that might be, they’ve already prepared the headline “Second wave! Government facing calls for election!”.
You heard it first here. :D
On the front page now...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52900206
Boris Johnson's "mismanagement" of the easing of virus restrictions risks a second wave of infections, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has warned.
You can’t blame Starmer, it’s his job to seek out opportunities for publicity and in the eyes of his supporters he can do no wrong, just as Boris in the eyes of his supporters.
But should a balanced BBC call “bullsh*t” when either pushes it too far, or go with the flow on the basis it makes a good headline, and the gullible public won’t notice the flaws?
-
I predict a Second wave in August/September based on the 1918 model.
-
Have you looked at how they are easing people back into work though? They are expecting businesses to start paying their staff, even if they haven't opened yet.
Its not the "go to work if you feel its safe" they are promoting it to be, they are literally forcing workplaces to open and forcing people to go into them, even if they feel its not safe.
-
It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that a Conservative government is putting the economy above lives!
-
There’s plenty of things the UK is clearly doing better(/safer) than other countries. Nobody really knows whether 2 metres is enough of a gap to make a difference, but it’s gotta be safer than the 1 metre that WHO recommend. They might be forced to relax that to get people working again, but I was pleased UK went for the bigger gap so far. I think Italy and France have had just 1 metre all the way through it, haven’t they?
There’s all sorts of things that make further waves of infection a strong possibility, I don’t envy the decision-makers in government that are tasked with balancing that risk against the need to get the economy going.
It’s a thing that almost all other European countries are of course going through. It would be interesting to know whether, in other countries, the media are being supportive of the decisions their unfortunate governments need to take. Or are they nit picking, with the risk that doing so undermines the strategies?
-
wouldn't being "supportive" suggest a bias though? which you are totally against.
you believe the media should report just the facts and offer no opinion (be it supportive or non-supportive).
you can't be anti-bias one minute and pro-bias the next.
reading between the lines, i think what you mean is that you want the media to be pro-conservative party. and anything other than that is bias against them.
-
Interesting argument Chenks about whether ‘supportive’ amounts to ‘bias’. I suppose comparisons of wartimes come to mind, though that’s probably an insensitive comparison as few of us here have any idea of what war time is like - I suspect it must be infinitely more horrible.
Another peripheral comparison is the general agreement to stop publishing 5G conspiracies, most people understand the need for it. To clarify that one, I’m not suggesting Starmer’s comments bear any relation to 5G, he’s just a perfectly reasonable politician doing his job, which is sometimes to nit-pick. I bet it’s no fun, they’d rather find something positive to promote.
I did feel that once the 2003 Gulf war kicked off and in its immediate aftermath, the UK press and BBC tended to drop the nit-picking and maybe focus a little more on moral-boosting news. Even though I was not a supporter of the Blair government, I thought the BBC was doing the right thing, but was that ‘supportive’?
Note however that I don’t think I suggested that I wanted BBC should be ‘supportive’ right now, I was questioning whether media in other European countries was being supportive of their governments. I suppose if the answer is ‘yes’ I might change my opinion, that the UK media (not just BBC) should do so too.
-
Can I get it clear what you want. No matter what the government do wrong, even if a significant majority of the press and other news media are say what they are doing is wrong, if the government are defending their position you expect the BBC to be supportive of the government?
-
Interesting argument Chenks about whether ‘supportive’ amounts to ‘bias’. I suppose comparisons of wartimes come to mind, though that’s probably an insensitive comparison as few of us here have any idea of what war time is like - I suspect it must be infinitely more horrible.
Some of us remember WW2 it was horrible in part and lasted a lot longer, it's interesting to note that the civilian death toll was 70,000 over the 6 years. Covid-19 has been nearly as destructive in a much shorter time and will probably be a distant memory in 6 years time.
During the war the BBC and newspapers were supportive to maintain morale but they also had to be careful not to give out too much information that could help the enemy. I doubt the virus is taking notes.
You say the UK is clearly doing better/safer than other countries, haven't you seen the statistics, the UK has one of the highest death rates in the world because of this bumbling Government.
-
You say the UK is clearly doing better/safer than other countries, haven't you seen the statistics, the UK has one of the highest death rates in the world because of this bumbling Government.
To be fair, I said it was the UK was doing plenty of things better/safer and gave the example of two metre distancing. I didn’t mean to suggest we were doing everything better, as I wouldn’t be able to back up such a claim. I’m not at all convinced that the NHS phone tracking App is optimal, for example.
I’m aware the BBC and other media have been reporting that our death rate is one of the highest, but that is an example of what I perceive to be ‘bias’ as it is usually based on absolute numbers, taking no account of the fact that the countries they are comparing have different populations.
A more useful statistic is to look at deaths per million population, by which measure Spain, Andorra, Belgium and San Marino have all fared worse than UK. The USA, which BBC also seem to enjoy showing in a bad light, is currently in twelfth place, after Ireland (Though individual states, such as New York, have fared terribly).
Even then, it is still pretty pointless comparing these numbers as different countries include different statistics. It’s not clear, for example, how many care home deaths are included in the Italian stats, which might (or might not) be the reason we overtook them. I think that Belgium counts more ‘probables’ even when there is no proof, which probably explains why their figures look so bad, even though it seems widely recognised that Belgium did pretty much everything right. And that’s before you start looking at different age profiles in different countries, different habits like smoking, housing conditions, lifestyles etc...
-
I've seen a fair few complaints on Facebook claiming their loved ones were counted as a COVID-19 death despite having prior medical conditions.
Although I'm starting to think there is a stigma in that some people don't want their loved one to be counting as a COVID-19 death, even if it was.
People also seem to not understand that if you have a prior condition but you got COVID-19 and it killed you due to that prior condition, its still a COVID-19 death as you could have lived for years if you hadn't gotten it. I think its perfectly fair to include those as its not like everyone know if they have a prior condition either. When the virus causes blood clots and general damage to your organs, any minor flaw you were born with could be triggered. I mean surely every single person who has a bad reaction is "technically" a prior condition, as they have an over-active immune system, it just wasn't a problem before.
-
To be fair, I said it was the UK was doing plenty of things better/safer and gave the example of two metre distancing. I didn’t mean to suggest we were doing everything better, as I wouldn’t be able to back up such a claim. I’m not at all convinced that the NHS phone tracking App is optimal, for example.
I’m aware the BBC and other media have been reporting that our death rate is one of the highest, but that is an example of what I perceive to be ‘bias’ as it is usually based on absolute numbers, taking no account of the fact that the countries they are comparing have different populations.
A more useful statistic is to look at deaths per million population, by which measure Spain, Andorra, Belgium and San Marino have all fared worse than UK. The USA, which BBC also seem to enjoy showing in a bad light, is currently in twelfth place, after Ireland (Though individual states, such as New York, have fared terribly).
How many lives do you think distancing of 2 metres has saved compared to 1 metre, and what are the other plenty of things the UK has done?
I was referring to the rate of deaths not absolute numbers. When you start quoting countries like Andorra and San Marino and their rates per million you're clutching at straws. San Marino has a population of 33,800 it only takes 1 to person to raise the rate per million by 29.6. The only good comparison is with countries of similar or larger size.
-
I have no idea how many lives have been saved by 2 metres rather than 1 metre, I don’t think anybody can answer that. But unless the whole distancing thing is a fiction, which I doubt, it seems pretty obvious that 2 metres is safer than 1 metre. 1 metre would have been cheaper in terms of policies demanded of shops and transport, I’m glad they spent a few bucks and went the extra mile. Wish it had been literally a mile.
Other things they did well? Well, I quite like the way that pretty much all of the scientific input seems to be in the public domain, at least in England - I don’t know if same applies in other parts of UK, it might. I like the way they recently released the minutes of a the earlier SAGE meetings.
Basically, I feel they’ve been impressively open about their options and policies throughout, which is not something we always see in government these days, same going for all parties.
-
I've seen a fair few complaints on Facebook claiming their loved ones were counted as a COVID-19 death despite having prior medical conditions.
Although I'm starting to think there is a stigma in that some people don't want their loved one to be counting as a COVID-19 death, even if it was.
Guilt if they think that they may have in some way been responsible for the deceased catching COVID-19? I'm sure that will apply to some.
-
@Alex, re ‘cause of deaths’, I’m coming around to the idea that maybe best estimate is to compare how many people died in the period, vs same period previous years. We’ve a big enough population to give us a fairly stable statistical starting point.
It’s still not perfect as there’ll be additional deaths from strokes and heart attacks simply because people were afraid to go to hospital, rather than because they had the virus. But equally, the tally from road deaths should be lower. It cuts both ways.
I’d not be surprised if, on balance, this year’s extra deaths over recent years yielded a figure not far from the true total for Covid. But that doesn’t help with international comparisons as I don’t know how easy it is to obtain the data? Ours is published by Office of National Statistics, but what about others?
-
Hi
I have the impression that not a lot of people on here have traveled or called at a supermarket
The 2 meter advice (as that’s all that it is) seems to apply when queuing to enter supermarket but once inside, it’s a free for all... nearly everyone ignores the arrows on the floor and supermarket staff stand right next to you...
It’s the same at motorway services, but worse is not many men wash their hands after going to the toilet
Many thanks
John
-
That’s interesting thanks, John.
I’ve managed to get home deliveries throughout, so I have avoided supermarkets, and will continue to do so. That’s been quite a struggle, but sounds like it was worth it.
Here in the village, 2 metres has been pretty well respected. When out walking, people will invariably facilitate passing one another by edging into a hedge, or into the road which has been blissfuly devoid of traffic.
There’s one quiet lane that’s probably just about 3 metres wide, houses both sides. On VE day, I noticed neighbours were enjoying drinks and eats, settled in their own front gardens, whilst enjoying conversations with those living opposite. As in a street party, but having to shout not talk. I did wonder if that was stretching the rules , but if that’s the naughtiest thing that happened, our village has probably not done too badly.
I have various bits of furniture and walls in the driveway at front of my house and delivery drivers are happy to co-operate, generally they wait until I point at a location for them to place a package, so they can avoid even approaching the door.
Our local postman in particular has made it very clear that he’s observing the gap. In days gone by, if I saw his van, I’d always open the door and meet him in the drive to accept post and exchange pleasantries. He’ll have none of that nowadays though he tells me (from a distance!) that not everybody in the sorting offices are so committed. He’s still grateful though if I happen to catch his eye, and indicate he can leave something on the wall.
-
It’s the same at motorway services, but worse is not many men wash their hands after going to the toilet
i can't imagine there would be that many people in motorway service stations.
excluding the essential workers (truck drivers etc) where are they all travelling to? unless they all live within 5 miles of said service station and using it for the daily exercise?
-
i can't imagine there would be that many people in motorway service stations.
excluding the essential workers (truck drivers etc) where are they all travelling to? unless they all live within 5 miles of said service station and using it for the daily exercise?
Verging off topic slightly, but one professional driver I know mentioned (by electronic communication) that the creepy thing about service stations was, whilst the sitting areas were all blocked off and the whole places nearly deserted, the piped music continued to play, even in the toilets.
Altogether reminiscent of a scene from Tomb Raider or, since that ages me, a modern equivalent. :)
-
Hi
Sorry not all essential workers or key workers are nhs or drivers....
I have travelled to the other side of London on Monday/Tuesday for essential works which needed completed in order for essential manufacturing to carry on.... and have traveled throughout England to complete services to maintain manufacturing (even though there’s no guarantee I will get paid)
That’s round trips of circa 500 miles a day....
Service stations are quieter and as stated, all seating areas blocked off... piped music but important announcements for 2 meter distance etc for Covid
Honestly, no one I have seen really wash their hands in the toilets and virtually all ignore the floor markings... perhaps it’s just the services I called in but I stopped about every hour or so at services
Many thanks
John
-
Where I live there is a general ignorance of social distancing. People walking along a pavement 3 a best, not moving necessitating me to go into the road....and I won’t even mention cyclists !
-
If what I've seen today is correct, Cummings could be in yet more trouble. It appears possible that the "spare cottage" he stayed in may have been built without planning permission and doesn't pay council tax and he appears as a co-owner of the property on the Land Registry records.
Three days later https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52911605
Seems possible that they were shamed in to publishing because an article appeared in the The Northern Echo.
-
Where I live there is a general ignorance of social distancing. People walking along a pavement 3 a best, not moving necessitating me to go into the road....and I won’t even mention cyclists !
I’ve been trying not to mention cyclists as once I start, there’s no stopping me. But yes, problems here too. Mainly that they use our village as a race track, literally holding organised time trials in normal times. No organised trials during lockdown but plenty of lycra clad yobs taking advantage of the lack of other traffic, tearing down the hill and through the village as fast as their wheels would carry them, zero chance of stopping should a pedestrian accidentally step out. Damn, I started. :D
Calming myself down, I think many of us need to remember to be grateful to the likes of John, for continuing to work and travel.
I was lucky, retired from proper work and able to cocoon myself at home with supermarket deliveries. Other half just worked from home. Also living in a quiet village so, cyclists apart, able to get out for a pleasant walk every day in full sense of safety. But my cocooning only worked because other people kept on working, thereby by definition, exposing themselves to hazard. The people we have to thank are countless, not just NHS but also delivery drivers, refuse collection crews, utilities maintenance workers, police officers, firemen, the list is endless. I have no idea where John fits on the endless list, but I am sure he has a place. :)
-
Three days later https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52911605
Seems possible that they were shamed in to publishing because an article appeared in the The Northern Echo.
Thanks, that makes interesting reading.
It does look to me like the Beeb are treading more lightly with this story, more balanced, less venomous. Maybe they have learned lessons from the other blatant ‘get Cummings’ crusade that ended in a reprimand for Maitlis? I’d like to think so. :)
Will certainly be interesting also to see what this new investigation into Cummings reveals, as long as everybody keeps calm and objective.
-
as long as everybody keeps calm and objective.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ::) :P
-
Nope, lessons not learned. Newsnight are still at it with more fake news that happens, by an amazing coincidence, to encourage people to think our government is doing badly... :(
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/newsnight-s-dodgy-coronavirus-data
Newsnight’s dodgy coronavirus data
That link’s paywalled, I’m afraid. Since it’s paywalled I’m not going to risk getting us sued by pasting it onto the forum. If you can’t read enough of it, it basically debunks Newsnight’s claim, earlier in the week, that
“The UK now has more daily deaths from Covid than the rest of the entire EU put together.”
That ‘illusion’ was apparently caused by a change in the method some countries report the data, which Newsnight failed to reveal. If England used the same method as Spain, it’s claimed we’d have reported just 20 deaths that day.
Spectator cite Financial Times as source for their story. I’ve not found the FT article but probably not much point, as FT is mostly paywalled too.
-
how about rather than bumping your gums about it here, why don't you make a complaint yourself to the BBC?
make sure you list all your sources and eveidence for the allegation and i'm sure you'll get the outcome you want.
-
how about rather than bumping your gums about it here, why don't you make a complaint yourself to the BBC?
make sure you list all your sources and eveidence for the allegation and i'm sure you'll get the outcome you want.
Thank you for your thoughtful advice. ‘Bumping gums’ is not an expression I have come across before. :)
-
If England used the same method as Spain, it’s claimed we’d have reported just 20 deaths that day.
Spectator cite Financial Times as source for their story. I’ve not found the FT article but probably not much point, as FT is mostly paywalled too.
https://t.co/kThBKffKeD?amp=1 though the stat likely comes from https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1268450749614358528?s=20
-
I’m not sure what Spain are now doing. It may well be what I’d have liked to see all along, which is stats for all countries by date of death, rather than date of reporting.
That makes it so much easier to wind back a fixed number of days, and see whether a change in the slope on the graphs can be associated with an event such as VE day street parties, or a change in lockdown rules. These are random examples, whist either or both may well be the case I’m not suggesting any such specific associations necessarily exist.
Unfortunately it also means that ‘latest’ reports will always be an underestimate, because nobody is likely to know exactly how many people died yesterday, it takes a few days for the new deaths to be registered and counted. And that might lead to media allegations that governments (in this case, Spain) are cooking the books, even though the data is actually more useful.
All ‘imho’ of course, other ‘ho’s will undoubtably differ. :)
-
‘Bumping gums’ is not an expression I have come across before. :)
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bumping%20them%20gums
-
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bumping%20them%20gums
Yes I already found it thanks, very amusing. :)
-
Unfortunately it also means that ‘latest’ reports will always be an underestimate, because nobody is likely to know exactly how many people died yesterday, it takes a few days for the new deaths to be registered and counted. And that might lead to media allegations that governments (in this case, Spain) are cooking the books, even though the data is actually more useful.
All ‘imho’ of course, other ‘ho’s will undoubtably differ. :)
The problem I have with death statistics is that its only relevant if we have a picture of how long people normally survive, how long from infection to complications, etc. I'd imagine time from infection to symptoms to death is pretty random, unless I have statistics to suggest otherwise. Its obviously going to be impacted by the number of people who had prior conditions too.
The only relevant figure really is number of new confirmed cases, and even that is dependant on people being tested, which AFAIK only people who end up at hospital or are key workers, are being tested.
-
Hi
I am sorry if this is wrong thread but as I said before, I am convinced I had Covid 19 in December last year
Reading a thread from another forum here is what was posted
Right or wrong but I am convinced I have already had it in December
Many thanks
John
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52935644
-
The problem I have with death statistics is that its only relevant if we have a picture of how long people normally survive, how long from infection to complications, etc. I'd imagine time from infection to symptoms to death is pretty random, unless I have statistics to suggest otherwise. Its obviously going to be impacted by the number of people who had prior conditions too.
The only relevant figure really is number of new confirmed cases, and even that is dependant on people being tested, which AFAIK only people who end up at hospital or are key workers, are being tested.
I think actually, whilst the time from infection to death does vary, if you have a large enough statistical sample then you can draw some conclusions from average and median values that are meaningful.
Numbers of confirmed cases is a pretty useless statistic, since it is seriously skewed by the number of tests carried out, which is in turn skewed by how many tests are available.
Number of deaths is a pretty reliable number as deaths are an unambiguous event. It might vary by +/- say 50% depending in whether you count care home deaths, but number of cases has been widely estimated to be up to 100 fold in error. That’s 1000%, isn’t it?
But are we verging off topic again? Me as much to blame as anybody, but this probably belongs in the Coronavirus thread, whereas we are in ‘BBC bias’?
Fact remains that BBC Newsnight reported fake news, by saying UK daily deaths exceeded all of EU combined.
I actually felt sorry for them at one point, when UK ‘overtook’ Italy in deaths per million pop, which I found sobering, even though it may have been misleading if Italy doesn’t include care homes. But BBC didn’t even mention it. They couldn’t really, as they’d already some days earlier screamed that UK had overtaken Italy at which time it was fake news, based on absolute numbers rather than percentages. :D
-
Hi
I am sorry if this is wrong thread but as I said before, I am convinced I had Covid 19 in December last year
Reading a thread from another forum here is what was posted
Right or wrong but I am convinced I have already had it in December
Many thanks
John
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52935644
I also recall both of us here having a horrid and rather frightening respiratory illness in early January, that was in a class of its own above anything I ever recall.
But as per previous post, it’s not related to BBC bias. Maybe the other thread might be more apt?
PS, hope you don’t mind, I’ve added that link in the other thread...
https://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,24502.msg417309.html#msg417309
:)
Edit: added PS
-
Back on topic, interesting article discussing challenges facing Beeb’s new Director General...
https://www.thearticle.com/can-a-new-director-general-fix-the-bbc
But the real problem is that the BBC is biased — over Israel, Brexit, Cummings and now the US. Its producers and programme editors seem to think its audience are all Guardian readers.
As a life-long Guardian reader, who has always turned to BBC when neutrally was required, I agree. :)
-
The BBC news website has changed the headline of a news article published yesterday. It is now Brexit: Gove defends £705m plan for border posts and staff (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53375713) - and the the article has been updated a number of times.
The original title was “Brexit border infrastructure gets £705m boost.”. That's clearly publishing the pro-government spin on the announcement.
An unbiased summary of the facts of the announcement would have been “Brexit border infrastructure to cost British taxpayers an additional £705m.”
The current headline could easily read "Brexit: Gove criticised for £705m plan for border posts and staff" so it's still pro-government.
-
actually no.
both original and new headling are factually accurate.
your suggested headline is also factually accurate, but everything spent costs the taxpayer, so not sure why that angle would be used - and it's potentially anti-government bias.
you section suggested headline is actually only partially accurate, as there will be some that don't criticise it, so again that could be anti-goverment in bias.
those who want to see bias will find it in anything, even if it isn't there. funny that isn't it?
-
The original might be factually accurate (in your opinion) - but it is lazy replication of blatant government spin that reveals the author is sympathetic to the government line and therefore didn't see the problem.
The problem is the word "boost". That implies it is something extra, to be celebrated, a good thing. There's many ways that headline could have been neutral.
-
boost - to improve or increase something.
so is something being "increased"? clearly the answer is yes. the defintion doesn't not imply celebration.
does Gove defend it? the answer would appear to be yes.
and something being "factually accurate" can't be an opnion, it either is or it isn't. facts are opinion.
as i said, people of a certain nature will tend to find bias in anything if they want to see it.
-
Harping back to the opening post, it was not the opinion of anybody here that the BBC was biased over Cummings. It was the opinion of the her own BBC bosses, that Maitlis breached impartiality rules.
It doesn’t matter how much you dislike Cummings, we can’t let the situation arise whereby bias is tolerated as long as it’s ‘only about somebody we don’t like’.
Not the first time Maitlis was reprimanded either for being biased, she has form for it, in 2019 on her own Wikipedia page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Maitlis
An investigation by the BBC Executive Complaints Unit upheld the complaints against her, agreeing that she been "persistent and personal" in her criticism of Liddle, thus "leaving her open to the charge that she had failed to be even-handed" in the discussion between Brexit-supporting Liddle and his anti-Brexit opponent Tom Baldwin.
Again, that’s not an opinion of anybody here. It’s a decision reached by the BBC themselves.
-
so you don't think the BBC is bias then?
i should also note that having an opinion on something and voicing it isn't being "Bias". it's only bias if you continue to voice such an opinion even when it appears to be dubious.
the BBC only needs to be impartial, so that does allow someone voicing an opinion providing there is someone there to offer an opposing opinion.
however, the requirement to be impartial is a total nonsense as you end up with someone talking about how 5G isn't killing people and having to have a crackpot on saying the opposite.
-
so you don't think the BBC is bias then?
i should also note that having an opinion on something and voicing it isn't being "Bias". it's only bias if you continue to voice such an opinion even when it appears to be dubious.
the BBC only needs to be impartial, so that does allow someone voicing an opinion providing there is someone there to offer an opposing opinion.
however, the requirement to be impartial is a total nonsense as you end up with someone talking about how 5G isn't killing people and having to have a crackpot on saying the opposite.
I might actually think the BBC are biassed. I might even think they have never given up their plans to stop Brexit. I’m sure others here will think they are biassed in other ways. And we are all entitled to our opinions. We are even entitled to post them on forums.
But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think, in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.
-
But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think, in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.
but not biased in all other instances whilst working for the BBC - which seems to never get mentioned.
but if it's irrelevant what we think then why even start a thread titled "BBC Bias"?
-
But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think, in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.
But as it's your opinion that the BBC are biased, therefore the BBC finding must also be biased.
-
But as it's your opinion that the BBC are biased, therefore the BBC finding must also be biased.
Hmm, I think you have a point, that I should not trust the bosses' decisions to reprimand, as I do not trust the BBC?
I see that argument. But thinking it through, I am reasoning that there are two possibilities here. The bosses who reprimanded Maitlis may have been biassed, or they may not.
Now, if the bosses are not biassed then their finding should be trusted, so Maitlis must be biassed. And since Maitlis is allowed to speak for the BBC, I think it is fair to regard the BBC as biassed.
Conversely if the bosses themselves are biassed then Maitlis may be innocent, but since the bosses "are" the BBC, the BBC is biassed.
So either train of thought remains suggestive of BBC bias, does it not?
-
Can any news source ever hope to be truly unbiased in the eyes of most observers for most of the time? I don't believe so.
Seems to me that the BBC , for most of the time, make a better stab at it than most.
-
Can any news source ever hope to be truly unbiased in the eyes of most observers for most of the time? I don't believe so.
Seems to me that the BBC , for most of the time, make a better stab at it than most.
as i said (this'll be the third time now), for those so inclinded, they will find bias in anything if they want to, even if it isn't there.
reporting the news should be impartial (which is actually what we're talking about here, not specifically bias) and should never include opinion, it should include only fact backed up by evidence, however emily maitlis doesn't report the news, the hosts a program that discusses the news of the day and as such opinion should be allowed, providing the opposite side of that opinion has the opportunity to respond. i see nothing wrong with that, however the BBC bashers will use any opportunity to claim bias on whatever side is the opposite of the BBC.
personally i couldn't give a toss about what cummings does or hasn't done (past or present). but if he is in the news then he is open game to opinion based broadcasting.
-
We need to remember, Maitlis’ assault on Cummings wasn’t just an accidental venting of opinion. It was a full on assault, carefully scripted by (almost certainly) herself, with potential to seriously impact a person’s reputation and career, yet not based on actual fact. It came across to me more as an expression of personal hatred, rather than an expression of opinion.
I do ‘get’ that most people in this thread strongly dislike Cummings and agreed with her sentiment, so they didn’t mind Maitlis beating him up, in fact they quite liked it. But for a state-sponsored broadcaster, that acceptance is dangerous territory... what if, next week, Maitlis sinks their teeth into somebody we do all like? The precedent’s been set, we’ve told her it’s ok, so why not?
And emphasise again, Maitlis’ alleged transgression is not based on the opinion of anybody here. Regardless of whether we share that opinion, it is based on the opinion of her own bosses. And I do still believe, at the top level, BBC is still directed by some decent minded individuals.
-
And emphasise again, Maitlis’ alleged transgression is not based on the opinion of anybody here. Regardless of whether we share that opinion, it is based on the opinion of her own bosses.
I don't think the BBC bosses came to the same conclusion as you.
We need to remember, Maitlis’ assault on Cummings wasn’t just an accidental venting of opinion. It was a full on assault, carefully scripted by (almost certainly) herself, with potential to seriously impact a person’s reputation and career, yet not based on actual fact. It came across to me more as an expression of personal hatred, rather than an expression of opinion.
You'll need to point me to the report where BBC bosses called it a full on assault.
You're grossly exaggerating their findings.
What they actually said was
"While we believe the programme contained fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism, we feel that we should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, with all the accompanying evidence, in the rest of the programme," it continued.
"As it was, we believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality."
A million miles from your summary.
-
Thanks for that John.
I don’t agree with your analysis, but good to get the discussion back on the available facts, rather than a division of those who dislike the BBC, and those who don’t. Or even just those who dislike Cummings, and those who do.
In particular...
You'll need to point me to the report where BBC bosses called it a full on assault.
Hands up, you’re right, that was merely my own conclusion and I should have accompanied it with an ‘imho’. I’d never have made a good journalist as I freely admit to having too many ‘ho’s. To be fair, I did include the words “it came across to me” later in the same paragraph, but I should have been more explicit, that it was based on just my own interpretation.
Thanks especially though for digging up the BBC statement, that people seem to have forgotten.