The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[ECCOnoob]

You are missing the point. Its not about pro or anti bexit.

 

I know the scenarios have been modelled by Civil Servants. Civil Servants do that all the time.

 

They create reports, proposals, suggestions, ideas. They have think tanks and brainstorm sessions and creative idea groups as to what MIGHT happen and moreover what they would LIKE to happen. They prepare wildly speculative future projections and seek advice on the absolute worse case situation and come up with proposals on how to deal with it.

 

All of that is rough notepad stage which is neither likely or definitive basis to reality.

 

However, that never stops Newspapers snipping out the jucy bits losing all context and publishing such a load of guff as factual reporting. What's even worse these days is that, all that inaccurate and speculative reporting is followed up by talking heads, journalists, opinion machines, MPs and Minsters who all should know better using those distorted facts as some concrete evidence to what WILL happen to minipulate and push thier own agenda on the public.

 

That's just what is happening here. It sickens me.

[I1L2T3]

You are missing the point. Its not about pro or anti bexit.

 

I know the scenarios have been modelled by Civil Servants. Civil Servants do that all the time.

 

They create reports, proposals, suggestions, ideas. They have think tanks and brainstorm sessions and creative idea groups as to what MIGHT happen and moreover what they would LIKE to happen. They prepare wildly speculative future projections and seek advice on the absolute worse case situation and come up with proposals on how to deal with it.

 

All of that is rough notepad stage which is neither likely or definitive basis to reality.

 

However, that never stops Newspapers snipping out the jucy bits losing all context and publishing such a load of guff as factual reporting. What's even worse these days is that, all that inaccurate and speculative reporting is followed up by talking heads, journalists, opinion machines, MPs and Minsters who all should know better using those distorted facts as some concrete evidence to what WILL happen to minipulate and push thier own agenda on the public.

 

That's just what is happening here. It sickens me.

 

Well it’s factually true that the modelling was done by civil servants isn’t it.

 

What you are taking issue with is the risk assessment, and the reporting of the risk.

 

If the risk is low then why be upset about the public being made aware of the it? It should be good for your case. Right?

 

If the risk is high then surely you’re not suggesting it should be concealed from the public. Are you?

 

I guess that sickens you because reporting of risk - quite rightly - gets in the way.

[ECCOnoob]

Because the "mass public" are dumb. The "mass public" are easily minipulated particularly by popular media. The "mass public" are reactionary. The "mass public" overexaggerate, edit and distort facts.

 

Harm can be done by sensationalised stories and chinese whispers created from highly unlikley predictions and unverified rough notepad suggestions.

 

Salmonella Egg controversy for example or how about the bucketloads of misinformation created from the MMR / Autism links.

 

Both of those incidents were created and blown up from what was merely theretical academic preditions within lengthy and complex reports. Snip snip the jucy bit forget about the rest and hey presto you have an attention grabbing story.

 

I am certainly not saying the public dont need to be made aware of things but focus on ONE single aspect of a wide ranging thing is not helping anyone and is wholly minipulation by the media.

 

If The Times and all these morons jumping all over this story wanted to be so noble - why didn't they focus and provide sensationalist headlines about the OTHER two papers also produced by the civil servants on the same subject.

 

Why all the focus about the scary doomsday one eh? Perhaps its because it will sell more papers.

 

Now thanks to it, all that will be talked about on the twitterati and the news will be the "doomsday" paper. From the viewpoint of the "mass public" the other two dont even exist.

Edited June 3, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3]

Because the "mass public" are dumb. The "mass public" are easily minipulated particularly by popular media. The "mass public" are reactionary. The "mass public" overexaggerate, edit and distort facts.

 

Harm can be done by sensationalised stories and chinese whispers created from highly unlikley predictions and unverified rough notepad suggestions.

 

Salmonella Egg controversy for example or how about the bucketloads of misinformation created from the MMR / Autism links.

 

Both of those incidents were created and blown up from what was merely theretical academic preditions within lengthy and complex reports. Snip snip the jucy bit forget about the rest and hey presto you have an attention grabbing story.

 

I am certainly not saying the public dont need to be made aware of things but focus on ONE single aspect of a wide ranging thing is not helping anyone and is wholly minipulation by the media.

 

If The Times and all these morons jumping all over this story wanted to be so noble - why didn't they focus and provide sensationalist headlines about the OTHER two papers also produced by the civil servants on the same subject.

 

Why all the focus about the scary doomsday one eh? Perhaps its because it will sell more papers.

 

Now thanks to it, all that will be talked about on the twitterati and the news will be the "doomsday" paper. From the viewpoint of the "mass public" the other two dont even exist.

 

So you are not arguing for concealment. Good.

 

However uncomfortable it may be for you this information does need to be provided to the public.

 

I don’t think the original report was sensationalised. It simply describes the risks.

 

And a reminder that the Times was pro-Brexit.

 

And as for harm, appropriate response to serious risk is a good way of avoiding it.

[tzijlstra]

To continue on the discussion above - a no deal IS damaging for the UK, the hardcore Brexiteers actually admit that. The report was published (inadvertently) by David Davis stooges.

 

Let's wake up, David Davis isn't going to suffer the consequences of Brexit, is he? He'll be fine, as will Rees-Mogg in his 5 million £ home.

 

It is you and me that will be taking the brunt and our current government couldn't care less about Labour heartlands.

[hackey lad]

To continue on the discussion above - a no deal IS damaging for the UK, the hardcore Brexiteers actually admit that. The report was published (inadvertently) by David Davis stooges.

 

Let's wake up, David Davis isn't going to suffer the consequences of Brexit, is he? He'll be fine, as will Rees-Mogg in his 5 million £ home.

 

It is you and me that will be taking the brunt and our current government couldn't care less about Labour heartlands.

 

I maybe wrong but did you say a while ago that you were leaving the country ?

[I1L2T3]

I maybe wrong but did you say a while ago that you were leaving the country ?

 

I’m sure Tim can answer that question, but can you just clarify why you would ask such a thing?

 

Do you want foreigners to leave? Isn’t he British enough for you?

[Top Cats Hat]

They prepare wildly speculative future projections and seek advice on the absolute worse case situation and come up with proposals on how to deal with it.

 

OK, so you've yelled Project Fear!!! once again. Maybe it's time you started to point to a projection which claims that the UK will be better off outside the EU.

 

I follow these things, and haven't seen anything that even remotely claims that leaving the EU will be anything but a disaster.

 

If you can't counter what you call Project Fear with any credible projections of your own then you are basically admitting that you have no idea what will happen. With the future of our country at stake that is just not good enough!

[hackey lad]

I’m sure Tim can answer that question, but can you just clarify why you would ask such a thing?

 

Do you want foreigners to leave? Isn’t he British enough for you?

 

Right then bright boy . I asked the question because I thought Tim had said before that he was leaving the country , but in post 9268 he said " it is you and me that would be taking the brunt" . I wondered why he would say this if he was leaving . If I am wrong and he never said he was/would be leaving , I will apologise . YOU , can carry on with your unfounded allegations

[tzijlstra]

Right then bright boy . I asked the question because I thought Tim had said before that he was leaving the country , but in post 9268 he said " it is you and me that would be taking the brunt" . I wondered why he would say this if he was leaving . If I am wrong and he never said he was/would be leaving , I will apologise . YOU , can carry on with your unfounded allegations

 

There was a chance and there still is. I’ve flirted with jobs back in the NLs but nothing became concrete.

 

Is your question designed to divert attention from the fact that Moggie won’t have an issue with economic turmoul? I’m sure Sixtus and Prius and whatever the hell he calls his brood will still get nice banking jobs.