Brexit Discussion Thread.

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Thracian said:

The BBC is blatantly biased and would have more respect from me if they admitted it. But their mandate requires them  to be impartial. 

See you're refusing to see anything else.

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

See you're refusing to see anything else.

 

You're flogging a dead horse, Davie.

[Thracian]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

See you're refusing to see anything else.

I wouldn't dream of concluding that the BBC were necessarily wrong because they were clearly biased. But it annoys me when they promote certain views and shroud the thinking behind others. And time after time they seem to be singing the tune of the EU as if they were obliged to. I'd call them disciples to human rights legislation yet firmly believe that perhaps well meaning documentation is so fundamentally flawed as to become a major threat to many communities in the end.  

[davieG]

Just now, Buce said:

 

You're flogging a dead horse, Davie.

I know and I know Thracian reasonably as well and I know he has strong views on life, but sometimes you're just in the mood for a debate. I'm passed it now.

[Alf Bentley]

A one-off comment as staying out of partisan political debate is improving my state of mind. 

 

The Corbynistas are as adamant that the BBC is biased against them as the Eurosceptic Right is. They're forever going on about the alleged pro-Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg & Nick Robinson.

Some might argue that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their side, maybe they're getting the balance right.

Of course, the alternative is that it sits in the middle ground too much trying to avoid bias and ends up mainly propounding a cautious centrist position. So, it could unintentionally end up being biased against both the Left AND the Eurosceptic Right.

 

I don't think that it does too bad a job, having a near-impossible job in the circumstances.

 

Where it could improve, I think, is drawing a much clearer divide between "news" and "comment/analysis".

"News", the reporting of events/decisions, should be as factual and impartial as possible. "Comment/analysis", however, doesn't need to be impartial, so long as a balanced range of commentators/analysts are given a voice overall.

When "The Independent" was first published it was a breath of fresh air in this way: strictly factual news reporting with no analysis or assumptions about readers' views, alongside opinion/analysis pieces from every political perspective.  

Unfortunately, the BBC knows that it will be lambasted if its senior in-house analysts express an opinion too far from the centre-ground, so they tend to rely on partisan interviewees (politicians or whoever) to argue particular cases....and there's certainly no shortage of Eurosceptic ministers, backbenchers and MEPs (hello again, Daniel Hannan!) who get air time.

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

A one-off comment as staying out of partisan political debate is improving my state of mind. 

 

The Corbynistas are as adamant that the BBC is biased against them as the Eurosceptic Right is. They're forever going on about the alleged pro-Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg & Nick Robinson.

Some might argue that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their side, maybe they're getting the balance right.

Of course, the alternative is that it sits in the middle ground too much trying to avoid bias and ends up mainly propounding a cautious centrist position. So, it could unintentionally end up being biased against both the Left AND the Eurosceptic Right.

 

I don't think that it does too bad a job, having a near-impossible job in the circumstances.

 

Where it could improve, I think, is drawing a much clearer divide between "news" and "comment/analysis".

"News", the reporting of events/decisions, should be as factual and impartial as possible. "Comment/analysis", however, doesn't need to be impartial, so long as a balanced range of commentators/analysts are given a voice overall.

When "The Independent" was first published it was a breath of fresh air in this way: strictly factual news reporting with no analysis or assumptions about readers' views, alongside opinion/analysis pieces from every political perspective.  

Unfortunately, the BBC knows that it will be lambasted if its senior in-house analysts express an opinion too far from the centre-ground, so they tend to rely on partisan interviewees (politicians or whoever) to argue particular cases....and there's certainly no shortage of Eurosceptic ministers, backbenchers and MEPs (hello again, Daniel Hannan!) who get air time.

 

If you read the comment section of the Guardian there are people on their who accuse the Guardian of being right wing. Nobody is suggesting that the Guardian is neutral surely?

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

If you read the comment section of the Guardian there are people on their who accuse the Guardian of being right wing. Nobody is suggesting that the Guardian is neutral surely?

 

Nope. The Guardian is a soft-Left, mainly (but not entirely) Europhile paper. It's right-wing to Momentum or the SWP, in the same way that the Telegraph is too left-wing for UKIP or the BNP. 

Of course, this all gets complicated when it comes to Europe, as most of the Hard Left have always been essentially Eurosceptic - including Corbyn.

 

If you're equating The Guardian to the BBC, we'll have to agree to disagree, though. The BBC is much more centrist overall.

 

Funny enough, despite being a Lefty, I switched from The Guardian to The Independent when the latter was launched precisely because it was less partisan.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Nope. The Guardian is a soft-Left, mainly (but not entirely) Europhile paper. It's right-wing to Momentum or the SWP, in the same way that the Telegraph is too left-wing for UKIP or the BNP. 

Of course, this all gets complicated when it comes to Europe, as most of the Hard Left have always been essentially Eurosceptic - including Corbyn.

 

If you're equating The Guardian to the BBC, we'll have to agree to disagree, though. The BBC is much more centrist overall.

 

Funny enough, despite being a Lefty, I switched from The Guardian to The Independent when the latter was launched precisely because it was less partisan.

I wasn't equating the Guardian to the BBC in that post( although there are similarities ) just pointing out that being accused of bias by both sides doesn't prove you're neutral.

[davieG]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

A one-off comment as staying out of partisan political debate is improving my state of mind. 

 

The Corbynistas are as adamant that the BBC is biased against them as the Eurosceptic Right is. They're forever going on about the alleged pro-Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg & Nick Robinson.

Some might argue that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their side, maybe they're getting the balance right.

Of course, the alternative is that it sits in the middle ground too much trying to avoid bias and ends up mainly propounding a cautious centrist position. So, it could unintentionally end up being biased against both the Left AND the Eurosceptic Right.

 

I don't think that it does too bad a job, having a near-impossible job in the circumstances.

 

Where it could improve, I think, is drawing a much clearer divide between "news" and "comment/analysis".

"News", the reporting of events/decisions, should be as factual and impartial as possible. "Comment/analysis", however, doesn't need to be impartial, so long as a balanced range of commentators/analysts are given a voice overall.

When "The Independent" was first published it was a breath of fresh air in this way: strictly factual news reporting with no analysis or assumptions about readers' views, alongside opinion/analysis pieces from every political perspective.  

Unfortunately, the BBC knows that it will be lambasted if its senior in-house analysts express an opinion too far from the centre-ground, so they tend to rely on partisan interviewees (politicians or whoever) to argue particular cases....and there's certainly no shortage of Eurosceptic ministers, backbenchers and MEPs (hello again, Daniel Hannan!) who get air time.

 

I'm more annoyed about how they go completely over the top with key events like the McGuinness (sp) death it was as if no other news had happened that day, likewise with the Westminster event,sure it need major reporting but why send reporters to the site where they have to apologise for the windy conditions and the noise and yet add little to the story. When this first came to the for they had so many interviews with people that knew next to nothing about it and just speculated all with the intention of making a big spalsh, report when you have something new to add please.

 

Another bug bear is when they report on something that has no definitive conclusion at that itme and then bring on an 'expert' who repeats what they've just said and add that it's impossible to answer at that time.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

I'm more annoyed about how they go completely over the top with key events like the McGuinness (sp) death it was as if no other news had happened that day, likewise with the Westminster event,sure it need major reporting but why send reporters to the site where they have to apologise for the windy conditions and the noise and yet add little to the story. When this first came to the for they had so many interviews with people that knew next to nothing about it and just speculated all with the intention of making a big spalsh, report when you have something new to add please.

 

Another bug bear is when they report on something that has no definitive conclusion at that itme and then bring on an 'expert' who repeats what they've just said and add that it's impossible to answer at that time.

 

I agree. That's just the 24-hour news set up. I suppose: lots of time and space to fill, but not enough substance to fill it with.

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree. That's just the 24-hour news set up. I suppose: lots of time and space to fill, but not enough substance to fill it with.

Also the Breakfast programme that finishes at 9ish, I know they have to repeat stuff for people getting up at different times but to exclude all other news is just OTT especially when they have little or no facts, It's like they're waiting for and so pleased when something big happens and it's not just the BBC.

[Buce]

 

The true price of Brexit:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/24/cadbury-warns-chocolate-could-get-smaller-after-brexit

 

The missus is demanding a second referendum!

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The true price of Brexit:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/24/cadbury-warns-chocolate-could-get-smaller-after-brexit

 

The missus is demanding a second referendum!

Yeah well they don't make much money as it is you have to feel sorry for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/06/cadburys-owner-paid-no-uk-tax-last-year

[davieG]

Like the decimalisation they'll use it as an excuse to put up prices whether justified or not.

[Strokes]

Just now, davieG said:

Like the decimalisation they'll use it as an excuse to put up prices whether justified or not.

Prefer mars anyway tbh.

Galaxy is better than dairy milk.

[Innovindil]

Did Cadbury ever need a reason to screw its customers over? Went down the toilet as soon as it was taken over. Cheap ingredients now, tastes nothing like it used to. 

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, davieG said:

See you're refusing to see anything else.

Or you are.  

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

A one-off comment as staying out of partisan political debate is improving my state of mind. 

 

The Corbynistas are as adamant that the BBC is biased against them as the Eurosceptic Right is. They're forever going on about the alleged pro-Tory bias of Laura Kuenssberg & Nick Robinson.

Some might argue that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their side, maybe they're getting the balance right.

Of course, the alternative is that it sits in the middle ground too much trying to avoid bias and ends up mainly propounding a cautious centrist position. So, it could unintentionally end up being biased against both the Left AND the Eurosceptic Right.

 

I don't think that it does too bad a job, having a near-impossible job in the circumstances.

 

Where it could improve, I think, is drawing a much clearer divide between "news" and "comment/analysis".

"News", the reporting of events/decisions, should be as factual and impartial as possible. "Comment/analysis", however, doesn't need to be impartial, so long as a balanced range of commentators/analysts are given a voice overall.

When "The Independent" was first published it was a breath of fresh air in this way: strictly factual news reporting with no analysis or assumptions about readers' views, alongside opinion/analysis pieces from every political perspective.  

Unfortunately, the BBC knows that it will be lambasted if its senior in-house analysts express an opinion too far from the centre-ground, so they tend to rely on partisan interviewees (politicians or whoever) to argue particular cases....and there's certainly no shortage of Eurosceptic ministers, backbenchers and MEPs (hello again, Daniel Hannan!) who get air time.

 

I'd agree although there'd still be the need for balance in terms of the comment/analysis. Among my personal complaints is the apparent manipulating of time given to one respondent or another depending on whether they are strengthening what I see as the BBC's stance and the degree or interruption by the BBC interviewer on the same basis. When a question is asked I like to hear the answer - not to have the answer interrupted and yes, I know there's a time factor involved and some politicians will talk every which way to avoid a question. But that's quickly obvious and the interviewer can justifiably interrupt and say so.     

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Thracian said:

Or you are.  

Not really I can see that for some time spans they can anti and other times pro in their reporting depending on the news that is around.

I voted leave and I didn't feel it was biased towards remain just that some days that's how the news went.

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, davieG said:

I know and I know Thracian reasonably as well and I know he has strong views on life, but sometimes you're just in the mood for a debate. I'm passed it now.

I take the "strong views" comment as a compliment because I've seen where our accommodation, assistance, kindness and compromise has taken us and the seemingly greater problems ahead.   

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Thracian said:

I take the "strong views" comment as a compliment because I've seen where our accommodation, assistance, kindness and compromise has taken us and the seemingly greater problems ahead.   

It was meant as a compliment in that you are not one to sit on the fence umming and arrring, an action man if you like, a decision maker where as I know i'm not really any of them well not in my private life I'd like to think I was more like you when I was working.

[Thracian]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Not really I can see that for some time spans they can anti and other times pro in their reporting depending on the news that is around.

I voted leave and I didn't feel it was biased towards remain just that some days that's how the news went.

 

Although the debate has been centred on the referendum I don't think that's the extent of BBC bias. Indeed I believe they are forever trying to encourage certain views in various ways - but they are not the only manipulators.

It happens on here too where certain commentators clearly despise the voicing of contrary opinions and would far sooner every thought as they do.

I doubt they stop to wonder if their views have been conditioned in schools or university and are not really their own at all or based on the analysing the realities and the most effective way of dealing with them, morally of course.          

We've all been affected, I admit.

I went to Sunday School til I was a teenager and now detest the promotion of man-made religion because of all the evil it's perpetrated in the name, not of humanity, but of control and I say that in relation to so various faiths.

No that doesn't mean I have no faith. Just that my faith has no need of promotion to anyone else and that, I believe, would be for the better in general.

Because faith, so often, is used as an excuse and a conduit for all sorts of evils,

Far more than just encouraging spiritual strength and understanding it is used for putting fear into people and as a means of exerting power, influence, control and,manipulation. Yet people lap it up because they want to belong, to be part of something, and to sing with the strongest voice. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it.   . 

 .   

[Thracian]

21 minutes ago, davieG said:

It was meant as a compliment in that you are not one to sit on the fence umming and arrring, an action man if you like, a decision maker where as I know i'm not really any of them well not in my private life I'd like to think I was more like you when I was working.

You've long had my friendship and respect - and I hope/think you know that. And I've never thought of you as being less of an "action man" either. Quite the contrary. I've admired some of the things you've told me about.    . 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

It was "Numpty Day" yesterday, outside Parliament. What a sad bunch of losers.

[davieG]

Qatar announces £5bn UK investment

Kamal AhmedEconomics editor

1 hour ago

 

From the section BBC Business

 

 

One of the largest investors in the UK has committed £5bn of new money to invest in transport, property and digital technology.

The Middle Eastern state of Qatar said that it was optimistic about the future of the British economy.

It made it clear that the UK leaving the European Union had little bearing on its decision.

Qatar has already invested £40bn in the UK - it owns Harrods and a 95% stake in the Shard in London.

It also has a stake in Canary Wharf in the capital's Docklands, as well as an interest in the Milford Haven liquefied natural gas terminal in South Wales.

It also bought the Olympic Village following the London 2012 Olympics.

"Currently the UK is our first investment destination and it is the largest investment destination for Qatari investors, both public and private," Ali Shareef al Emadi, the country's finance minister, told the BBC.

"We have more than £35bn to £40bn of investments already in the UK.

"We're announcing an additional £5bn of investment in the next three to five years.

"Mainly this investment will focus on infrastructure sectors, technology, energy and real estate."

Image captionAli Shareef al Emadi, Qatar's finance minister

The government relies on foreign investment to support infrastructure projects such as the new high speed rail link between London, Birmingham and Manchester - HS2.

Although no final decisions have been taken on the Qatari investments, Mr Al Emadi did not rule out putting money into HS2.

"We will look at those deals; we will look at electricity, roads, bridges, railways," he said.

The announcement of the Qatari investment is likely to be welcomed by Number 10.

It comes two days before the triggering of Article 50, the official process for leaving the European Union.

Theresa May has made it clear she believes the British economy remains a positive place to invest and the Qatari announcement follows UK-focused investment decisions by Sir James Dyson, Google and Nissan.

'Confident'

The decline in the value of sterling has made UK assets more attractive to overseas investors - though many economists argue that leaving the EU will damage trade with Britain's largest market and therefore damage growth.

"We always like the UK market, it has always been a good market," Mr Al Emadi told me.

"The way we look at our investment in any market, and especially in the UK, it is a very long term investment, so we don't look at any cycles up or down

"So if you are talking about Brexit, I can go back to the financial crisis and tell you the same stories.

"We will do what we think is good for us, it is commercially viable, it has a good vision and a good impact."

 

I asked him whether the UK economy outside the EU was likely to be stronger or weaker.

"It is a lot to do with the policy the UK will take, but I think, knowing the UK market, I am very confident they will have a good future," Mr Al Emadi answered, saying that it was important that Britain was welcoming to high skilled foreign workers and students from Qatar and elsewhere.

'Win-win'

Qatar has faced controversy over a fund raising for Barclays Bank at the time of the financial crisis and - more recently - allegations that poor labour conditions have marred the preparations for the 2022 World Cup which is being held in the country.

Mr Al Emadi said that Qatar had supported job creation in the UK.

"If you look at what we have done here, it has always been a win-win situation, whatever investment we do in the UK," he said.

"When you talk about labour in Qatar, I think a lot of these things have been taken out of proportion and [are] inaccurate news."