Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[tinfoilhat]

9 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Of course she is entitled to her opinion. Everyone is.

 

I'm certainly not defending the approach as you've mentioned "oh thatss my opinion and I'm entitled to it and you are being unreasonable for saying it's wrong so jog on". How I see it is more like "that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, you can say it's wrong - you SHOULD say it's wrong if you're reasonable and I want to hear your reasons".

 

Now, the discussion can be held on anything, even scientific topics (I'd say especially on those). Let's have a look at your example. I also have an opinion on nuclear power. My opinion is backed up by science too. I am aware that many people might not understand the implications of nuclear physics though. I'd welcome questions from those people and I'd do my best to explain my knowledge and understandings. Also, safety of nuclear power is reasonable topic for scientific discussion - I can imagine that research is constantly coming with more detailed information and we should update our knowledge.

 

Surely, you can have your opinion on vaccination. Do you think they are harmful? I can explain why you're wrong. I can even explain it in public debate - by giving you reasons and showing evidence! Not by shutting you down with "you're wrong, go get a new opinion". Btw, everytime new vaccine is developed it undergoes series of trials and assessments, during which doctors are encouraged to voice their concerns and opinions, until enough evidence is gathered. It's perfectly fine to ask for this evidence.

 

She stated her opinion. That's fine. She can have it. You think her opinion is racist. You're wrong, her opinion doesn't even concern any specific race.

You (and others) think she's wrong - well show her why. You think immigrants contribute more than they take? Nothing easier than showing those numbers and studies (if you have it). Shutting her down and simple saying "you're wrong, get a new opinion" doesn't achieve anything at all. Such a response is totally irrelevant and useless.

 

You've said she's racist. With no evidence, no facts, no reasoning. You've just repeated that three times - that doesn't make it true.

It does. She's racist. She's the daily mail made flesh.

[Delayed]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

 

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

He's still bitter over Brexit and how the UK has treated him.... apparently. So he uses every opportunity to make snide childish comments towards the UK. All comes across as very childish and does nothing to change this apparrent 'them' and 'us' attitude developed from Brexit

Edited February 24, 2020 by Delayed

[RJRB]

25 minutes ago, Delayed said:

He's still bitter over Brexit and how the UK has treated him.... apparently. So he uses every opportunity to make snide childish towards the UK. All comes across as very childish and does nothing to change this apparrent 'them' and 'us' attitude developed from Brexit

That appears to be the case.

I am still disappointed at leaving the EU,but having said that there is nowhere that I would prefer to live in Europe than Britain.

I have spent considerable time in Belgium,France and Germany in my working life and they all have their idiosyncrasies,and national stereotypes.

However that is far from labelling every individual as having these traits.

We in Britain also look outwards upon our neighbours and sometimes wonder at the political shifts at work in those countries.

I would say that Britain is as stable as any,apart from perhaps Luxembourg 😁.

I also firmly believe that the BBC remains as impartial as possible,and Loobs idea that they are in thrall to Johnson and Cummings is obviously not shared by the Conservative Party.

That is what they would like ,but long may they be resisted.

 

[Car Boot]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

So you have found common ground with Carboot.

The BBC now stands accused of promoting the views of the loony right,whilst the same loony right have plans to gag them for being too far to the left.

The truth is that a wide spectrum of views is on offer and you use your own powers of reasoning to form a considered opinion.

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

The BBC has rarely been independent. It has always been a propaganda mouthpiece for the government of the day. 

 

Its current incarnation appears to be desperately sucking up to the Tories to try to stave off the axe.

[RJRB]

5 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The BBC has rarely been independent. It has always been a propaganda mouthpiece for the government of the day. 

 

Its current incarnation appears to be desperately sucking up to the Tories to try to stave off the axe.

VGTRK is probably the service for you.

[L00b]

2 hours ago, Delayed said:

He's still bitter over Brexit and how the UK has treated him.... apparently. So he uses every opportunity to make snide childish comments towards the UK. All comes across as very childish and does nothing to change this apparrent 'them' and 'us' attitude developed from Brexit

You need to rebait that hook. It's too shiny.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

That appears to be the case.

I am still disappointed at leaving the EU,but having said that there is nowhere that I would prefer to live in Europe than Britain.

I have spent considerable time in Belgium,France and Germany in my working life and they all have their idiosyncrasies,and national stereotypes.

However that is far from labelling every individual as having these traits.

We in Britain also look outwards upon our neighbours and sometimes wonder at the political shifts at work in those countries.

I would say that Britain is as stable as any,apart from perhaps Luxembourg 😁.

I also firmly believe that the BBC remains as impartial as possible,and Loobs idea that they are in thrall to Johnson and Cummings is obviously not shared by the Conservative Party.

That is what they would like ,but long may they be resisted.

 

The political 'partiality' of the BBC, seen as leftist by the conservatives, and conservative by the left,  is as old as the BBC itself.

 

The several new dimensions which (I believe-) you are missing however, are the extreme polarisation (still ongoing) of the current political discourse, the influencing role played by disinformation ('post-truth', to use a modern expression)  in that, and the complete and utter ruthlessness and lack of morals by current-day politicians availing of these for their vested interests.

 

I've left social media out for now (...but Kuessenberg, as the BBC political editor and serial fat fingered-Twittererati, has a lot to answer for on that front in more recent times).

 

In that context, given the momentous occasions that were the referendum and nowadays Brexit for the UK, the BBC -with its level of resources and the size and depth of its audience- should rival independent outfits FactCheck to uphold its neutral, apolitical role per its Royal Charter. I'm obviously writing about news, reports and other 'factual' opinion-shaping content like QT here.

 

But the BBC arguably does not, preferring instead to e.g. turn a boring (but hitherto respectful and factual) political show like QT, into a punch-and-judy pantomime, furthering that divide when it 'balances' a political debate with cheats and charlatans like Farage or dog-whistling cretins like that woman the other night, rather than with experts. Better not mention Radio 4 either, and there's much more where this came from. For ratings or on orders, it doesn't matter: again given the sizes of the audiences involved, these are political choices, with unavoidable political consequences.

 

Against that background, the government (i.e. Johnson, and his Cabinet and associated SPADs all run by Cummings) sets the license fee amount and the BBC budget. Not the BBC. Stakeholders don't come any bigger, nor with any bigger a stake, for any organisation - regardless of whether it is a private or statutory one.

 

Brexit will save some of the BBC irrespective, probably that which gets fully on-message with Johnson's government: major UK-based content providers are all busy scouting office space in Amsterdam, Dublin and Luxembourg, because Brexit. Can't have the population left without content, so that should guarantee some life in Auntie Beeb yet.

Edited February 24, 2020 by L00b

[nikki-red]

Back on topic now please.

 

This isnt yet another BBC/licence fee thread.

[Longcol]

On 23/02/2020 at 20:27, Car Boot said:

YOUR BBC - uncritically pumping out racist rants. 

 

Make sure you pay your Licence fee.

So any comments about the Tory austerity agenda which you seem to have avoided for a few years?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/24/austerity-blamed-for-life-expectancy-stalling-for-first-time-in-century

 

How is Brexit going to help?

 

 

[L00b]

10 hours ago, Longcol said:

(...) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/24/austerity-blamed-for-life-expectancy-stalling-for-first-time-in-century

 

How is Brexit going to help?

Falling life expectancy is a feature, not a bug.

 

Ever less State, means ever less public funding required, to the point wherein 'austerity-level' budgeting is the new normal. 

 

Brexit, in that context, is not meant to 'help': it's just one means, amongst so many others, to less State (...but more executive power).

 

Johnson's current reneging on the WA treaty obligations about the NI frontstop, which he signed only about 4 weeks ago as that great 'win', is perfectly symptomatic.

 

[Robin-H]

7 hours ago, L00b said:

Falling life expectancy is a feature, not a bug.

 

Ever less State, means ever less public funding required, to the point wherein 'austerity-level' budgeting is the new normal. 

 

Brexit, in that context, is not meant to 'help': it's just one means, amongst so many others, to less State (...but more executive power).

 

Johnson's current reneging on the WA treaty obligations about the NI frontstop, which he signed only about 4 weeks ago as that great 'win', is perfectly symptomatic.

 

What do you define as 'austerity level' budgeting? 

 

Spending per head is higher now than it was in 2007 (adjusted for inflation).