So, whadda we gonna moan abart?

[Hampton]

Interestingly just recieved a letter from my kids primary school advising that school will remain closed with exception of key workers kids.
Apparently because Lancashire doesn't meet the 5 criteria set out by the govt.
Whilst individual schools are "responsible" for making the decision Lancashire county council are "supporting" any schools who refuse to re-open.
It's taken the educators at our school literally moments to vote themselves further time away from work (on a rota basis obvs)
That would be Labour run Lancashire county council - quelle surprise !

An apology to..........the Labour Party !

It's been a day for these
I've just been advised that following my above castigation of the Labour run LCC for advising schools to remain closed in defiance of the government it turns out that it's actually a Tory council
Apologies to all hard working Labour councillors
Embarrassing for Hampton certainly !
Potentially more embarrassing for the government !

 

[moonay]

It is with Maitlis.

As I said earlier KDZ, given that the Tories have been in government for the last ten years, it's going to feel that way. They're there to be challenged. The opposition only get the same kind of grilling around election time.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

As I said earlier KDZ, given that the Tories have been in government for the last ten years, it's going to feel that way. They're there to be challenged. The opposition only get the same kind of grilling around election time.

That is just an excuse for bias. If a MP of any stripes goes on why else would they not be treated with the same level of scrutiny? We know with people like Maitlis it only works one way.

 

[moonay]

That is just an excuse for bias. If a MP of any stripes goes on why else would they not be treated with the same level of scrutiny? We know with people like Maitlis it only works one way.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course they should be treated the same level of scrutiny.

However, it's always going to be easier to scrutinise someone who's "responsible" for something, as opposed to one who's in opposition, who just has "would be" policies. Also, the news programmes will always want attendance from those in power rather than those who aren't. (Obviously, they need to balance appearances round election times, but at other times, they're going to seem to be picking on the government, as that's who they interview most.

 

[moonay]

Hampton......not necessarily the council's fault ......

https://twitter.com/x/status/1265758012838477825

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

I think you misunderstood me. Of course they should be treated the same level of scrutiny.

However, it's always going to be easier to scrutinise someone who's "responsible" for something, as opposed to one who's in opposition, who just has "would be" policies. Also, the news programmes will always want attendance from those in power rather than those who aren't. (Obviously, they need to balance appearances round election times, but at other times, they're going to seem to be picking on the government, as that's who they interview most.

It's not about how often they interview people it's how the whole interview approach often completely varies in terms of attitude depending on if they are leave / remain, conservative / anyone else. The BBC had to appologise for her making false statements about Richard Tice about a year ago, they had to appologise for her smearing Rod Liddell as racist about 6 months ago and she was dreadful during the Tory leadership debate. All these issues are only one way.

But it's no suprise considering the guy who runs news night Lewis Goodall was a labour activist who makes little attempt to hide his hates the Torys. I wonder if when he goes the BBC will look to hire someone like Tom Harwood from Guido to balance things out.

 

[Made in Wigan]

The hypocrisy is astounding. All those so called “journalists” that have just been hysterically demanding the sacking of DC for “breaking the rules” (opinion) are now rushing to hysterically defend Emily Maitlis for actually breaking the rules. You really couldn’t make this shit up.

Suggestion is she wasn’t stood down, it appears the toys went flying when she got a bollocking.

 

[moonay]

The point about frequency KDZ is that repetition merely reinforces the impression of bias .....when in reality, it's simply scrutiny, or challenge...........that you see more often.

As for Richard Tice and Rod Liddle ...... I'm sorry, but they've both said or been involved in stuff that merits a fair degree of them both being smeared......... and Oakshott is no angel either.

Tories think the BBC is biased
Labour think the BBC is biased
I reckon the BBC is doing their job.

 

[moonay]

The hypocrisy is astounding. All those so called “journalists” that have just been hysterically demanding the sacking of DC for “breaking the rules” (opinion) are now rushing to hysterically defend Emily Maitlis for actually breaking the rules. You really couldn’t make this shit up.

Suggestion is she wasn’t stood down, it appears the toys went flying when she got a bollocking.

Other than the "blind loyalty" statement ......... what exactly did she say that was wrong?

 

[Made in Wigan]

Other than the "blind loyalty" statement ......... what exactly did she say that was wrong?

‘other than’ - you’re accepting I see she was in the wrong.

Claiming he broke the rules. Wrong. Opinion.
Claiming the country can see it. Wrong. Opinion.

Her diatribe was spoken as a statement of fact. Despite half of it being wrong, it was just opinion. There was no impartiality. None whatsoever.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

The point about frequency KDZ is that repetition merely reinforces the impression of bias .....when in reality, it's simply scrutiny, or challenge...........that you see more often.

As for Richard Tice and Rod Liddle ...... I'm sorry, but they've both said or been involved in stuff that merits a fair degree of them both being smeared......... and Oakshott is no angel either.

Tories think the BBC is biased
Labour think the BBC is biased
I reckon the BBC is doing their job.

Tice and Liddel both got appologise from the BBC so they clearly didn't merit it in this instance which is the point. - the Tice one was her pushing left wing talking points as facts and the Liddell one was beggars belief for a supposed impartial journalist and generated a lot of complaints. We haven't got the instances of when the likes of Paul Mason, Owen Jones, etc were issued appologise by the BBC on Maitlis behalf which is the whole point. She is bias and dreadful.

 

[moonay]

‘other than’ - you’re accepting I see she was in the wrong.

I said that it was a matter of opinion .........it's actually correct though. He is. she should have included "seems to be", and the statement would have been fine.

Claiming he broke the rules. Wrong. Opinion.
Claiming the country can see it. Wrong. Opinion.

Oh, please, must we go over this again?

He certainly broke the rules with his Barnard Castle trip, almost certainly with his hospital trip and probably when returning to work after nipping home .......as whether you take his wife or Johnson, he'd been in the presence of someone with suspected symptoms.

As for the country seeing it, well I presume that (in addition to the MPs all telling us about the state of their inboxes) the results of the various polls - especially from yougov - acts as evidence for that statement.

Her diatribe was spoken as a statement of fact. Despite half of it being wrong, it was just opinion. There was no impartiality. None whatsoever.

I've already acknowledged that the part that was editorial should have been made clear ........ however, what (half ?!) was wrong? I would concede the blind loyalty statement as opinion, due to the fact that she's ascribing an action onto Johnson, so she obviously can't know for certain ......... but other than that, nothing can be refuted.

 

[moonay]

Tice and Liddel both got appologise from the BBC so they clearly didn't merit it in this instance which is the point. - the Tice one was her pushing left wing talking points as facts and the Liddell one was beggars belief for a supposed impartial journalist and generated a lot of complaints. We haven't got the instances of when the likes of Paul Mason, Owen Jones, etc were issued appologise by the BBC on Maitlis behalf which is the whole point. She is bias and dreadful.

Them receiving an apology doesn't mean to say that what the BBC journalist accused them of was incorrect .......... merely that the journalist had gone beyond their remit.

For me, though Tice was the least dislikeable of the LeavEU trimvarate of him, Banks and Wigmore, he's never been particularly relevant (despite his repeated attmepts to get noticed). Liddell however has some odious views .......... even though I weirdly sometimes find him quite engaging and entertaining.

Maitlis is an excellent journalist, in the wake of Neil and (early) Paxman, and if she angers a few people because she's rough with their interviewees, then she's clearly doing her job.

 

[daleks.at.the.monaco]

This Durham farm that Cummings part owns with his parents and sister as reported in newspapers a year or so ago (in reference to the farm receiving EU subsidies).
Does that make it his 2nd home? If so travel not allowed.
If he filled his part of the farm with donkeys, what would it be worth. We need to be told, for parity with SKS.
I wonder if the farm has any red diesel, that would be helpful.
Cummings must have a security detail. Any ex military on here care to comment?

 

[daleks.at.the.monaco]

It's not about how often they interview people it's how the whole interview approach often completely varies in terms of attitude depending on if they are leave / remain, conservative / anyone else. The BBC had to appologise for her making false statements about Richard Tice about a year ago, they had to appologise for her smearing Rod Liddell as racist about 6 months ago and she was dreadful during the Tory leadership debate. All these issues are only one way.

But it's no suprise considering the guy who runs news night Lewis Goodall was a labour activist who makes little attempt to hide his hates the Torys. I wonder if when he goes the BBC will look to hire someone like Tom Harwood from Guido to balance things out.

Not sure that 6th former Tom, is the answer.
You are correct about Newsnight editorial team.
Now what about the Politics Live editorial team?
Also I see that Jon Pienar has left Been to join Murdoch's new radio channel
Loads of Tories and Labour in the BBC, at least they cover politics unlike other broadcasters

 

[Made in Wigan]

Oh, please, must we go over this again?

Then why ask? Particularly when you are accepting the diatribe was wrong. Bc perhaps. The rest certainly not.

Anyway let’s hope maitlis has been suitably reprimanded and this public funded broadcaster can get back to a semblance of impartiality in news reporting.

 

[moonay]

Then why ask? Particularly when you are accepting the diatribe was wrong. Bc perhaps. The rest certainly not.

You said ....."Claiming he broke the rules. Wrong. Opinion."

He quite clearly did break the rules.........as you now concede re Barnard Castle. The return to work in the afternoon was also quite clearly against the rules.

I didn't accept the "diatribe was wrong" .......... you're just making things up. I said that the "blind loyalty" comment couldn't be stated as "fact". That's all.

Anyway let’s hope maitlis has been suitably reprimanded and this public funded broadcaster can get back to a semblance of impartiality in news reporting.

What's the point of impartial reporting when the government won't put people forward for interview in the first place? Disgraceful.

 

[Made in Wigan]

He quite clearly did break the rules

No, that’s your opinion. I said perhaps he did, that’s my opinion. However there is nothing ‘clear’ about it.

said that the "blind loyalty" comment couldn't be stated as "fact

Exactly, so the diatribe was wrong. Let alone the other points I raised.

What's the point of impartial reporting when the government won't put people forward for interview

What’s the point? Accuracy, fairness, evidential, balance, objectivity, rules. That sort of stuff.

Andrew Bridgen was on there to offer one side yet Blackford (hypocritic) and some other mp with an axe to grind were to do the opposite. Seems the panel was loaded and yet as Bridgen points out he was the only one interrupted by this biased host.

 

[moonay]

No, that’s your opinion. I said perhaps he did, that’s my opinion. However there is nothing ‘clear’ about it.

After knowing he'd been working in the presence of someone who'd been infected (Johnson) and someone who thought they may have been infected (his wife) he went back into work. That's clear.

There's no verifiable justification for his Barnard Castle trip. It was against the rules in place at the time. That's clear.

Exactly, so the diatribe was wrong. Let alone the other points I raised..

To label a whole section a "diatribe", simply because of a single comment is ludicrous. Everything else she stated was a provable fact.

What’s the point? Accuracy, fairness, evidential, balance, objectivity, rules. That sort of stuff.
.

Qualities that BBC reporting is usually full of .......... if only they could get to interview a government minister who's willing to be reported on !

Andrew Bridgen was on there to offer one side yet Blackford (hypocritic) and some other mp with an axe to grind were to do the opposite. Seems the panel was loaded and yet as Bridgen points out he was the only one interrupted by this biased host.

We all see what we want to see. We also ignore what doesn't enrage us. Some of us however don't like to admit that.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...s-Momentum-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-update-latest

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...dum-emily-maitlis-bbc-newsnight-boris-johnson

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...ily-maitlis-squirm-BBC-Newsnight-conservative

 

[Made in Wigan]

After knowing he'd been working in the presence of someone who'd been infected (Johnson) and someone who thought they may have been infected (his wife) he went back into work. That's clear.

Didn’t realise he lived in the same household as Boris. His wife didn’t have covid symptoms. So his return was perfectly within the rules, no matter how often you stamp your feet about this. So therefore your opinion is anything but clear or accurate.

There's no verifiable justification for his Barnard Castle trip. It was against the rules in place at the time. That's clear.

He gave his justification. Your assumption of wrong doing isn’t clear.

To label a whole section a "diatribe", simply because of a single comment is ludicrous. Everything else she stated was a provable fact.

No it wasn’t fact. It was a diatribe. It wasn’t impartial. Her bosses agreed and reprimanded her.

Qualities that BBC reporting is usually full of

‘Usually’ - nice to see you conceding it wasn’t on this occasion, but I disagree as sadly their failings are all too frequent.

We all see what we want to see. We also ignore what doesn't enrage us. Some of us however don't like to admit that.

See point above.