Labour ?

Dave***t posted:

I was just reading the meagre news feed on a plane and it claimed that at least 4 government ministers had strenuously been made aware of the deficiencies in fire safety at numerous blocks such as the one on everyone's minds. Yet they'd all basically ignored the warnings.

Has there been any further reporting on this at home? Much as political capitalisation on such events is repellent, there has to be some major political fallout if it's true.

They hadn't "ignored" the "warnings". They had "considered" various "reports" prepared by experts. They concluded that other matters were worthy of more immediate funding and action. This didn't go down well with the experts who had retaliated with predictions of dire consequences.

At least, that's my interpretation of this background news.

Don Atkinson posted:

Dave***t posted:

I was just reading the meagre news feed on a plane and it claimed that at least 4 government ministers had strenuously been made aware of the deficiencies in fire safety at numerous blocks such as the one on everyone's minds. Yet they'd all basically ignored the warnings.

Has there been any further reporting on this at home? Much as political capitalisation on such events is repellent, there has to be some major political fallout if it's true.

They hadn't "ignored" the "warnings". They had "considered" various "reports" prepared by experts. They concluded that other matters were worthy of more immediate funding and action. This didn't go down well with the experts who had retaliated with predictions of dire consequences.

At least, that's my interpretation of this background news.

I'm not sure there is any difference between what you wrote Don and what Dave wrote :-)

Of course it also didn't go down well with the people who's families have been killed and who have lost everything as a result of the conclusion that other matters were worthy of more immediate funding and action.

The public enquiry should draw out the issues, who recommended what to whom, and what or what was not done.  If the PE is brave enough in addition to unearthing the facts it might also express a view about the reasonableness of the decisions taken or not taken.   A tough job in today's febrile atmosphere. 

My instinct, and its no more than that, is that the findings of the PE may not attribute the level of 'blame' that the families and friends of the victims would like (because things like this are very rarely clear-cut) but nevertheless will be very uncomfortable for the local authority and maybe for the government of the day.  

MDS posted:

The public enquiry should draw out the issues, who recommended what to whom, and what or what was not done.  If the PE is brave enough in addition to unearthing the facts it might also express a view about the reasonableness of the decisions taken or not taken.   A tough job in today's febrile atmosphere. 

My instinct, and its no more than that, is that the findings of the PE may not attribute the level of 'blame' that the families and friends of the victims would like (because things like this are very rarely clear-cut) but nevertheless will be very uncomfortable for the local authority and maybe for the government of the day.  

The problem is that by the time the public inquiry is complete, it may be easy for the government to shelve the report / conclusions.  There needs to be an initial interim report really so that lessons can be learned and implemented quickly and while it's still in the public eye. 

But there's also a wider question... we need to tackle the whole "red tape is bad" mentality.  Health and Safety has a bad name, but for the most part (and there are exceptions of course) health and safety legislation is for the public good.  Red tape can be over regulation, but the desire to get rid of bad regulation has lead to the opportunity for good regulation being ignored and dropped for the benefit of no one but commerce.

Oh and I agree with your second paragraph... though it's more important (IMO) to learn lessons for the future than just apportion blame.

I think TM committed to something fast and that would come up with interim findings, Eloise.

I partly agree with your point about red-tape but I think governments are also rather two-faced on the matter. Red tape is labelled as bad when it 'stifles' economic growth - a mantra that you rightly challenge as overly simplistic. However , where I depart is that government seems to be very much in favour of red tape, process and rules when it comes to accessing benefits and services.  For example, have a look at the form that vulnerable and ill people have to complete to apply for Personal Independence Payment.  

MDS posted:

I think TM committed to something fast and that would come up with interim findings, Eloise.

You're right that's what she's committed to...

I partly agree with your point about red-tape but I think governments are also rather two-faced on the matter. Red tape is labelled as bad when it 'stifles' economic growth - a mantra that you rightly challenge as overly simplistic. However , where I depart is that government seems to be very much in favour of red tape, process and rules when it comes to accessing benefits and services.  For example, have a look at the form that vulnerable and ill people have to complete to apply for Personal Independence Payment.  

Not really, we're not departing we agree there :-)

Yes. You're right that we agree, Eloise. I should have said to build on your point rather than to depart from it.  

I received an email from a recruitment agency I did a few contracts for, about 10 years ago. Presumably they sent it to me because I have autocad qualifications.

 Your new company
This is a fire protection specialist, working predominantly within residential properties and care homes. They specialise in design, installation and commissioning. They are a sociable team and due to the increase in workload need a CAD technician to help out.

 Your new role
You will be overlaying sprinklers on existing architectural and structural designs, using AutoCAD.

 The advert for the contract was posted last Friday. Either it’s a coincidence or somebody’s made a snap decision, favouring safety over cost.

Last evenings Question Time had the unusual spectacle of Chairman Dimbleby ordering a disruptive audience member to leave. The man constantly interrupted pro-EU campaigner Gina Miller & Tory MP David Lidlington.   This prompted me to look around various www news where I read that a 'false news' feed claimed the government has placed a ‘D-notice’ on the real number of deaths in the Grenfell Tower fire.   That then led me to www articles on 'Corbynistas'  a new word to me but it seems its been around for a while.  Then to reports of organised crowds of various Labour group members being car pooled to meetings/rallies & that includes to Tory events to shout down & disrupt.     Is this the new face of Labour ?      

You're obviously not aware Corbynista is derogatory term.

Mike-B posted:

Last evenings Question Time had the unusual spectacle of Chairman Dimbleby ordering a disruptive audience member to leave. The man constantly interrupted pro-EU campaigner Gina Miller & Tory MP David Lidlington.   This prompted me to look around various www news where I read that a 'false news' feed claimed the government has placed a ‘D-notice’ on the real number of deaths in the Grenfell Tower fire.   That then led me to www articles on 'Corbynistas'  a new word to me but it seems its been around for a while.  Then to reports of organised crowds of various Labour group members being car pooled to meetings/rallies & that includes to Tory events to shout down & disrupt.     Is this the new face of Labour ?      

I was watching it. The behaviour of the audience was pretty awful, glad that guy left/was kicked out. 

fatcat posted:

You're obviously not aware Corbynista is derogatory term.

No idea FatCat,  its what the media seem to be using quite openly & prompted by your post I looked it up & don't see much about it being derogatory.  Collins Dictionary show it as 'an enthusiastic supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'.  MacMillan as 'a dedicated supporter of British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn'

Mike-B posted:

fatcat posted:

You're obviously not aware Corbynista is derogatory term.

No idea FatCat,  its what the media seem to be using quite openly & prompted by your post I looked it up & don't see much about it being derogatory.  Collins Dictionary show it as 'an enthusiastic supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'.  MacMillan as 'a dedicated supporter of British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn'

I believe that in many circles it is used as a derogatory term - just as in many circles, the term 'Tory' is used in a derogatory manner.

However, over many decades, the Labour party has developed a tendency to develop internal pressure groups that have the express intent to drive the rest of the party to wards the left wing (or in their terms "to lead the party on the path to true socialism").  Previously there have been 'Militant Tendency', and 'Momentum', and now an informal sub-group forming within Corbyn's supporters who are coalescing into just such another fanatical body.  Currently, even though they are an identifiable group, they don't have a name for themselves (or even a coherent internal identity), so they have been labelled the 'Corbynistas' by the news media (and outer outside agencies).

Mike-B posted:

Last evenings Question Time had the unusual spectacle of Chairman Dimbleby ordering a disruptive audience member to leave. The man constantly interrupted pro-EU campaigner Gina Miller & Tory MP David Lidlington.   This prompted me to look around various www news where I read that a 'false news' feed claimed the government has placed a ‘D-notice’ on the real number of deaths in the Grenfell Tower fire.   That then led me to www articles on 'Corbynistas'  a new word to me but it seems its been around for a while.  Then to reports of organised crowds of various Labour group members being car pooled to meetings/rallies & that includes to Tory events to shout down & disrupt.     Is this the new face of Labour ?     

These are worrying trends in a parliamentary democracy.  TM had to be circumspect in interacting with Grenfell Tower "community" representatives, because she knows the Momentum rent a mob will be there to shout her down on live TV. Of course her consequent reluctance to engage then gives Labour all the ammunition it needs.

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.   I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Norton posted:

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.  

I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Then how do you know they're part of a propaganda conspiracy? Genuine question.

As a principle of life, I don't believe in conspiracy theory - instead I believe in cock-up theory!

P.S.  Not to forget the lesser effect of bias from personal agendas, whether intended or unintended,

I think you're right. It's hard to believe there are any UK politicians that are actually capable of organising a conspiracy.

Dave***t posted:

Norton posted:

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.  

I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Then how do you know they're part of a propaganda conspiracy? Genuine question.

I didn't use the term conspiracy, but if you google the names (where given by the BBC) or otherwise know of the individuals from previous media interest, on occasion you will realise that what are being presented to the public as random vox pops, are in reality known activists looking to push a line. That seems like propaganda to me, no attempt to make clear to the public the speaker's allegiances or  motivation, or obligation to provide balance as would be required in conventional democratic debate. 

My skepticism  is triggered when we just get a talking head in the street with, at most,  a name on screen, who then goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually building up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering.  A speaker radically different in age, class or ethnicity from the "community" they claim to speak for can be something of a giveaway too.  

I actually have no problem in the BBC giving them time, providing the BBC also makes  it clear who they are,  what they stand for, above all why they are being interviewed and provides balance.  Given the mission to explain, I'm concerned that I have to resort to other media to provide context which must be readily apparent to the BBC,   yet passes without challenge or remark.

Norton posted:

Dave***t posted:

Norton posted:

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.  

I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Then how do you know they're part of a propaganda conspiracy? Genuine question.

I didn't use the term conspiracy, but if you google the names (where given by the BBC) or otherwise know of the individuals from previous media interest, on occasion you will realise that what are being presented to the public as random vox pops, are in reality known activists looking to push a line. That seems like propaganda to me, no attempt to make clear to the public the speaker's allegiances or  motivation, or obligation to provide balance as would be required in conventional democratic debate. 

My skepticism  is triggered when we just get a talking head in the street with, at most,  a name on screen, who then goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually building up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering.  A speaker radically different in age, class or ethnicity from the "community" they claim to speak for can be something of a giveaway too.  

I actually have no problem in the BBC giving them time, providing the BBC also makes  it clear who they are,  what they stand for, above all why they are being interviewed and provides balance.  Given the mission to explain, I'm concerned that I have to resort to other media to provide context which must be readily apparent to the BBC,   yet passes without challenge or remark.

 

 

 

You have every right to your view, but your point of view implies to me that you are yourself a 'conspiracy' theorist, and your words imply that the BBC is part of the conspiracy and in collusion with left wing activists. 

My own scepticism about your impartiality and the validity of your argument is triggered by your words "My scepticism is triggered when we get a talking head in the street ... who goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually leading up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering"  and "when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign"

Are you really suggesting that this is a one way street, and that the majority of persons interviewed by the BBC are left wing activists and not "ordinary members of the public", and that somehow the BBC is colluding with them to air their views on TV? The views of the people interviewed by the BBC are probably simply governed by the demographic of the immediate vicinity. Like Huge above, I do not believe in conspiracy theory, even if it appears to me that most of the rhetoric and coordinated sloganeering in BBC interviews comes from people who sound to me as though they might be lobbyists for the Tory party or the far right.

Actually, despite the impression I sometimes get, I suspect that the BBC is by and large pretty impartial, and that if you or I (or any of us) detect a bias one way or the other, then we are simply 'hearing' what we want to hear, and reinforcing our own natural bias. I suspect that most of us are guilty of this to at least some extent.

Hmack posted:

Norton posted:

Dave***t posted:

Norton posted:

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.  

I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Then how do you know they're part of a propaganda conspiracy? Genuine question.

I didn't use the term conspiracy, but if you google the names (where given by the BBC) or otherwise know of the individuals from previous media interest, on occasion you will realise that what are being presented to the public as random vox pops, are in reality known activists looking to push a line. That seems like propaganda to me, no attempt to make clear to the public the speaker's allegiances or  motivation, or obligation to provide balance as would be required in conventional democratic debate. 

My skepticism  is triggered when we just get a talking head in the street with, at most,  a name on screen, who then goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually building up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering.  A speaker radically different in age, class or ethnicity from the "community" they claim to speak for can be something of a giveaway too.  

I actually have no problem in the BBC giving them time, providing the BBC also makes  it clear who they are,  what they stand for, above all why they are being interviewed and provides balance.  Given the mission to explain, I'm concerned that I have to resort to other media to provide context which must be readily apparent to the BBC,   yet passes without challenge or remark.

 

 

 

You have every right to your view, but your point of view implies to me that you are yourself a 'conspiracy' theorist, and your words imply that the BBC is part of the conspiracy and in collusion with left wing activists. 

My own scepticism about your impartiality and the validity of your argument is triggered by your words "My scepticism is triggered when we get a talking head in the street ... who goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually leading up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering"  and "when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign"

Are you really suggesting that this is a one way street, and that the majority of persons interviewed by the BBC are left wing activists and not "ordinary members of the public", and that somehow the BBC is colluding with them to air their views on TV? The views of the people interviewed by the BBC are probably simply governed by the demographic of the immediate vicinity. Like Huge above, I do not believe in conspiracy theory, even if it appears to me that most of the rhetoric and coordinated sloganeering in BBC interviews comes from people who sound to me as though they might be lobbyists for the Tory party or the far right.

Actually, despite the impression I sometimes get, I suspect that the BBC is by and large pretty impartial, and that if you or I (or any of us) detect a bias one way or the other, then we are simply 'hearing' what we want to hear, and reinforcing our own natural bias. I suspect that most of us are guilty of this to at least some extent.

 

 

Well said. Strangely enough, this 'positive reinforcement' which you so accurately and succinctly describe, seems to apply in a very similar fashion to hi-fi. A lot of people, especially those who have spent a lot of money, hear exactly what they want to hear, and will shout down any opposing point of view! Spooky, eh?

Hmack posted:

Norton posted:

Dave***t posted:

Norton posted:

Another matter for concern is the way in which, in the aftermath of the Grenfell  Tower and Finsbury Park, the BBC broadcasts interviews with various individuals as if they were ordinary members of the  affected community, when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign.  

I've never heard the BBC ask any of these individuals what their relationship to the event or local community is.

Then how do you know they're part of a propaganda conspiracy? Genuine question.

I didn't use the term conspiracy, but if you google the names (where given by the BBC) or otherwise know of the individuals from previous media interest, on occasion you will realise that what are being presented to the public as random vox pops, are in reality known activists looking to push a line. That seems like propaganda to me, no attempt to make clear to the public the speaker's allegiances or  motivation, or obligation to provide balance as would be required in conventional democratic debate. 

My skepticism  is triggered when we just get a talking head in the street with, at most,  a name on screen, who then goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually building up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering.  A speaker radically different in age, class or ethnicity from the "community" they claim to speak for can be something of a giveaway too.  

I actually have no problem in the BBC giving them time, providing the BBC also makes  it clear who they are,  what they stand for, above all why they are being interviewed and provides balance.  Given the mission to explain, I'm concerned that I have to resort to other media to provide context which must be readily apparent to the BBC,   yet passes without challenge or remark.

 

 

 

You have every right to your view, but your point of view implies to me that you are yourself a 'conspiracy' theorist, and your words imply that the BBC is part of the conspiracy and in collusion with left wing activists. 

My own scepticism about your impartiality and the validity of your argument is triggered by your words "My scepticism is triggered when we get a talking head in the street ... who goes on to deliver what seems to be a scripted piece, usually leading up to dog whistle anti-Tory sloganeering"  and "when in fact they are activists from the left using the BBC to get their propaganda across in a planned campaign"

Are you really suggesting that this is a one way street, and that the majority of persons interviewed by the BBC are left wing activists and not "ordinary members of the public", and that somehow the BBC is colluding with them to air their views on TV? The views of the people interviewed by the BBC are probably simply governed by the demographic of the immediate vicinity. Like Huge above, I do not believe in conspiracy theory, even if it appears to me that most of the rhetoric and coordinated sloganeering in BBC interviews comes from people who sound to me as though they might be lobbyists for the Tory party or the far right.

Actually, despite the impression I sometimes get, I suspect that the BBC is by and large pretty impartial, and that if you or I (or any of us) detect a bias one way or the other, then we are simply 'hearing' what we want to hear, and reinforcing our own natural bias. I suspect that most of us are guilty of this to at least some extent.

 

 

As I said before, I didn't use the term "conspiracy".  I also didn't suggest  that the majority of interviewees  were activists, you appear to be wilfully ignoring my use of  the term "on occasion" to set up a straw man there.  I would also describe myself as a floating voter and have never belonged to any political party or allied group.  I do have a strong  sense of fair play and a healthy scepticism though.

If you don't agree with me, I have no interest in persuading you.  If you do however have  a little curiosity I just suggest you google past cases and in future  the names of apparent members of the public attributed to no party or group, but taking a strong anti Tory line when you see or hear them interviewed on the BBC.   Judging by your reply,  you might be surprised at who gets airtime and what the BBC don't tell us about them.

It's entirely possible that there are equivalents on the right, but I have never noticed any and I have never heard of any apologies from the BBC concerning right of centre "schils", although there have been such apologies regarding interviewees with undisclosed left wing allegiances.  I suspect the Tories are way behind the left at this particular game

Norton posted:

It's entirely possible that there are equivalents on the right, but I have never noticed any and I have never heard of any apologies from the BBC concerning right of centre "schils", although there have been such apologies regarding interviewees with undisclosed left wing allegiances.  I suspect the Tories are way behind the left at this particular game.

 

So you didn't hear about Tory Councillers appearing in the audience of Question Time as so called "neutral" people? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...562ce4b00f308cf43291

The BBC has a duty to ensure that panellists on shows like Question Time are balanced, but they have no control over the audience - nor should they.

It would be undesirable for all kinds of reasons - not to mention time consuming and thoroughly impractical - to start vetting audience members for their political vews.

The audiences tend to be self-selecting in any case: the politically committed, those with questions to ask, those who just want to be on the telly, etc.

To be honest I really don't see this as a problem.

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

It's entirely possible that there are equivalents on the right, but I have never noticed any and I have never heard of any apologies from the BBC concerning right of centre "schils", although there have been such apologies regarding interviewees with undisclosed left wing allegiances.  I suspect the Tories are way behind the left at this particular game.

 

So you didn't hear about Tory Councillers appearing in the audience of Question Time as so called "neutral" people? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...562ce4b00f308cf43291

I didn't think the QT audience was even supposed to be neutral, but now you mention it last night's episode was a pretty unedifying ( if comically inept)  example of BBC airtime being given over to sloganeering from covert  activists.

I've always thought that overall BBC achieve a good balance of political representatives together with & an interesting mix of various media & academic over the weeks of QT.    Last night however I did wonder about the need or point in having an SNP representative when in Plymouth,  OK he did make some relevant points,  maybe too much soundbites (again) of the SNP's version of scotxit.   As its a political question/answer debate & if it didn't cause disagreement to some degree with a fair proportion (half) of the audience & viewers,  its failed to achieve its objective,