Also in the news

[Buce]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fair enough. 

 

I still think if you are prepared to profit from selling stuff to the press you take the consequences of that - even more so when it's pretty obvious you are doing it for political motivations.

 

It will be interesting to see if these two have expressed an interest in public survelience given they are happy to put a recorder to someone's wall for a few quid.

 

I haven’t seen it stated that they sold the story, just that it was given. Do you have evidence of money changing hands?

[Facecloth]

27 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I haven’t seen it stated that they sold the story, just that it was given. Do you have evidence of money changing hands?

Of course he hasn't, but only you need evidence to prove a point to Matt, he doesn't need evidence, just assumptions.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

I haven’t seen it stated that they sold the story, just that it was given. Do you have evidence of money changing hands?

 

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Of course he hasn't, but only you need evidence to prove a point to Matt, he doesn't need evidence, just assumptions.

The Sunday Times says "sold to the Guardian" - if not I'm sure they'll take the relevant action.

 

But you boys keep going, it's nice where you are I imagine.

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

The Sunday Times says "sold to the Guardian" - if not I'm sure they'll take the relevant action.

 

But you boys keep going, it's nice where you are I imagine.

 

Got a link?

[Facecloth]

44 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Got a link?

Probably not. I'm pretty sure if you posted a link to the guardian saying someone had sold a story to another paper, that would be accepted as proof ? and not laughed off.

 

Love how we've got on the actions of the people reporting it, not the actions of out potential future PM. People will forgive "their team" for ****ing anything. 

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Probably not. I'm pretty sure if you posted a link to the guardian saying someone had sold a story to another paper, that would be accepted as proof ? and not laughed off.

 

Love how we've got on the actions of the people reporting it, not the actions of out potential future PM. People will forgive "their team" for ****ing anything. 

 

Only certain people, mate.

[Wymsey]

Think the 'MattP with People' thread should have an image of him "alongside" Rachel Riley..

Think that'd make his day. 

Edited 23 June 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[l444ry]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Who said anything about her being the subject of imagination?

 

But in any case, let's be thankful we live in a society that isn't quite 1984 yet, are able to spot obvious false equivalences and thus still place a distinction between thoughts and fantasies about such things and thoughts and fantasies accompanied by tangible images obtained without the owners consent.

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." 
Not far off it though with Trump and most Brexit supporting rags.

[Mike Oxlong]

Bozza is such a johnson 

 

There’s only one Johnson that can get us through this mess

 

 

[David Guiza]

Yes, we single handedly won both world wars and Boycott was instrumental as a baby in swinging the odds in our favour. There's something about the arrogant, racist, convicted domestic abuser that has always made me not warm to him. 

 

Assume the Brexit mob who throw their toys out the pram anytime Lineker tweets will be fine with this ex-sportsman sharing his views because they agree with him? 

 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, we single handedly won both world wars and Boycott was instrumental as a baby in swinging the odds in our favour. There's something about the arrogant, racist, convicted domestic abuser that has always made me not warm to him. 

 

Assume the Brexit mob who throw their toys out the pram anytime Lineker tweets will be fine with this ex-sportsman sharing his views because they agree with him? 

 

 

Regardless of what he's said on that show, that's an alarming editorial policy from GMB.

[Countryfox]

16 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, we single handedly won both world wars and Boycott was instrumental as a baby in swinging the odds in our favour. There's something about the arrogant, racist, convicted domestic abuser that has always made me not warm to him. 

 

Assume the Brexit mob who throw their toys out the pram anytime Lineker tweets will be fine with this ex-sportsman sharing his views because they agree with him? 

 

 

 

You are just twisting everything he has said ...   we won the war  singlehanded ?! ...  he was instrumental as a baby ??!? ...   what are you on about.    I have no problem with people who voted remain and no problem with people who voted leave ...   but I do have a problem with people (a relatively small group) who cannot accept a democratically decided outcome and want to change it cus they know best ...   THEY are the ones who are throwing things out of the pram ..   no one else. 

 

And just for the record I don’t particularly like Mr Boycott and I didn’t vote to leave ...   and I sincerely wish Cameron hadn’t got us into this mess.  But I DO believe we should be out of the federal republic of Europe before it goes tits up ....  but having said that I also accept we are incapable of doing it properly.   So best, for now, left alone.

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Yes, we single handedly won both world wars and Boycott was instrumental as a baby in swinging the odds in our favour. There's something about the arrogant, racist, convicted domestic abuser that has always made me not warm to him. 

 

Assume the Brexit mob who throw their toys out the pram anytime Lineker tweets will be fine with this ex-sportsman sharing his views because they agree with him? 

 

 

 

This is what is so depressing about Brexit - the number of people (and we see it on here) who ignore the facts, ignore the experts, ignore any tendency toward common sense, and assume everything will be fine because we survived a war 80 years ago and possess a mythical ‘bulldog spirit’. 

 

Who will they blame when it all turns to shit?

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

This is what is so depressing about Brexit - the number of people (and we see it on here) who ignore the facts, ignore the experts, ignore any tendency toward common sense, and assume everything will be fine because we survived a war 80 years ago and possess a mythical ‘bulldog spirit’. 

 

Who will they blame when it all turns to shit?

The ones who didn't believe hard enough. You can't expect people like that to ever accept any kind of culpability, it's just not in their nature.

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Regardless of what he's said on that show, that's an alarming editorial policy from GMB.

Absolutely, we're days/weeks away from appointing the next PM and you have a wide variety of people you could chose to come and discuss important matters from those in opposition, to those who know Hunt and or Boris, and you go with Boycott to give a war cry. Then promote the guy by saying he should be given the keys to number 10. Bizarre. 

 

4 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

You are just twisting everything he has said ...   we won the war  singlehanded ?! ...  he was instrumental as a baby ??!? ...   what are you on about.    I have no problem with people who voted remain and no problem with people who voted leave ...   but I do have a problem with people (a relatively small group) who cannot accept a democratically decided outcome and want to change it cus they know best ...   THEY are the ones who are throwing things out of the pram ..   no one else. 

 

And just for the record I don’t particularly like Mr Boycott and I didn’t vote to leave ...   and I sincerely wish Cameron hadn’t got us into this mess.  But I DO believe we should be out of the federal republic of Europe before it goes tits up ....  but having said that I also accept we are incapable of doing it properly.   So best, for now, left alone.

I'm fed up of people who weren't even alive/weren't out of nappies reciting horrific events that killed millions of people, left others scarred for life and ruined the economy and welfare of some nations for decades as a point scorer. It's pathetic and has about as much relevance as saying Leicester should be given more devolved powers because we won the PL 3 years ago.

 

What on earth has 'winning' two wars got to do with intricate matters involved with negotiating a trade deal/tariffs? Will our past glories be of any benefit when it comes to the Irish border debate? There is also a vast difference between showing 'spirit and determination' when the freedom and lives of entire continents/religions/people are at stake and you have no alternative but to fight for your existence and the existence of a free world, and 'Brexit'. We've moved on in the last 80 years but some seem determined for it to be 'us against them' so that we can show our bulldog spirit and overcome the odds. 

[Footballwipe]

21 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Regardless of what he's said on that show, that's an alarming editorial policy from GMB.

It is, but that's ITV's entire MO for their morning television now. From GMB to This Morning, they are determined to have a litany of people who hold outrageous/invalid or unqualified views that are there just for the views. The entire point of them being on the show isn't for the Live TV audience, it's for the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube engagements. I imagine they make a good chunk of money from YT ad revenue these days.

[Countryfox]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Absolutely, we're days/weeks away from appointing the next PM and you have a wide variety of people you could chose to come and discuss important matters from those in opposition, to those who know Hunt and or Boris, and you go with Boycott to give a war cry. Then promote the guy by saying he should be given the keys to number 10. Bizarre. 

 

I'm fed up of people who weren't even alive/weren't out of nappies reciting horrific events that killed millions of people, left others scarred for life and ruined the economy and welfare of some nations for decades as a point scorer. It's pathetic and has about as much relevance as saying Leicester should be given more devolved powers because we won the PL 3 years ago.

 

What on earth has 'winning' two wars got to do with intricate matters involved with negotiating a trade deal/tariffs? Will our past glories be of any benefit when it comes to the Irish border debate? There is also a vast difference between showing 'spirit and determination' when the freedom and lives of entire continents/religions/people are at stake and you have no alternative but to fight for your existence and the existence of a free world, and 'Brexit'. We've moved on in the last 80 years but some seem determined for it to be 'us against them' so that we can show our bulldog spirit and overcome the odds. 

 

Fair point well made.   If you’d put it like that to start with I’d probably have repped you.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

It is, but that's ITV's entire MO for their morning television now. From GMB to This Morning, they are determined to have a litany of people who hold outrageous/invalid or unqualified views that are there just for the views. The entire point of them being on the show isn't for the Live TV audience, it's for the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube engagements. I imagine they make a good chunk of money from YT ad revenue these days.

I've no problem with them reporting his view, even if he is an utterly depressing and cynical choice of guest for this topic - guaranteed to provoke the kind of conversation we're having on here. But to promote his view as that of common sense, befitting of a Prime Minister, is an absolutely extraordinary editorial stance for the programme to take.

[Facecloth]

I was going to respond the to the Boycott post, but I think others have said pretty much what I would have. I'd add, they aren't really selling it by likening it to death of millions and the destruction of numerous cities. They talk like you would to someone who's had bad news and you're trying to make them keep their chin up, by reminding them of other bad things they've got through. Thought Brexit was going to be great, yet its being talk about in a similar way to a divorce or a job loss.

 

Also the same people who mention the spirit of the wars getting us through will be the first to complain about how weak and pathetic our young generations are these days. Can't have it both ways. Arguably right now, we are in the worst position spirit and determination wise for war like effort.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Countryfox said:

 

You are just twisting everything he has said ...   we won the war  singlehanded ?! ...  he was instrumental as a baby ??!? ...   what are you on about.    I have no problem with people who voted remain and no problem with people who voted leave ...   but I do have a problem with people (a relatively small group) who cannot accept a democratically decided outcome and want to change it cus they know best ...   THEY are the ones who are throwing things out of the pram ..   no one else. 

 

And just for the record I don’t particularly like Mr Boycott and I didn’t vote to leave ...   and I sincerely wish Cameron hadn’t got us into this mess.  But I DO believe we should be out of the federal republic of Europe before it goes tits up ....  but having said that I also accept we are incapable of doing it properly.   So best, for now, left alone.

 

I fundamentally disagree with you, CF, and think David Guiza makes some good points:

 

WW1&2: Boycott says that No Deal will not be terrible for GB/UK because we won two world wars. He then specifically says: "Why?! Because of the spirit and determination of the British people! That's what the British people do". He then blathers on about our island status but does not mention our Allies, USA, USSR, European allies etc. He implicitly puts it down to British "spirit and determination", which in turn justifies a crazy, damaging No Deal.

 

Boycott as a baby: I presume Mr. Guiza was referring to his age. He was born in 1940, so almost anything he knows about WW2 (& everything he knows about WW1) is second-hand, like most of us. Only people in their mid-80s will have meaningful childhood memories of WW2; only people aged over 90 will have been adults or on active service. The other day, I saw a Brexit poll that, unusually, divided the over-65s into 65-85 and 85+ or similar (can't remember exact split). The very old were significantly LESS pro-Brexit than the generation born in the 40s & 50s (still pro-Brexit, I think, but much less so than the likes of Bigot Boycott).

 

The "democratically decided outcome" that you mention was to Leave the EU (means/terms unspecified). That is why, until recently, I've always favoured a Soft Brexit deal, even though I'd prefer to Remain. If Parliament somehow passes a deal negotiated with the EU, I can reluctantly accept that as democratic. If the Govt/PM seeks to impose No Deal by not compromising to get a deal through parliament & then closing down parliament to obstruct any democratic reversal of Article 50, I absolutely do NOT accept that as democratic. I would see it as a coup by the extreme right. I would expect to see mayhem on the streets - and, frankly, even at my age, I'd join in!!

 

Completely agree with Voll Blau, too, about it being a disgrace that a national broadcaster has Piers Moron making such blatantly partisan comments. Can you imagine the hoo-ha on the Right if Lineker said something pro-EU and a leading TV presenter said it was one of the "greatest mission statements since the era of Churchill" - and the programme then tweeted that Lineker should be made PM?! 

 

Edited 24 June 2019 by Alf Bentley

[yorkie1999]

I don't know where mr boycott gets this bulldog spirit from. I don't see it. I see a weak nation led by bumbling oafs with an i'm alright jack attitude along with the most educated mcdonalds staff in the world. More like a Shameless spirit.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

It is, but that's ITV's entire MO for their morning television now. From GMB to This Morning, they are determined to have a litany of people who hold outrageous/invalid or unqualified views that are there just for the views. The entire point of them being on the show isn't for the Live TV audience, it's for the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube engagements. I imagine they make a good chunk of money from YT ad revenue these days.

And people on here critisize the BBC, imagine the state of the British media without them.

[Footballwipe]

25 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I've no problem with them reporting his view, even if he is an utterly depressing and cynical choice of guest for this topic - guaranteed to provoke the kind of conversation we're having on here. But to promote his view as that of common sense, befitting of a Prime Minister, is an absolutely extraordinary editorial stance for the programme to take.

Do you not? I'm surprised. I'd like to be in a situation where the people who speak about brexit are specifically qualified to. People who have undertaken PHDs or worked in the trade negotiating area, industry experts who will benefit/be impacted by it. And as a result more air time is given to challenge those, of either side, who make terrible sweeping statements, who generalise and who cannot justify what they are saying.

 

I'm not sure, personally, that an ex-cricketer who has never held a political office or has an expert view on brexit in his entire life should be given a platform on television espousing such empty words to an audience of millions. Boycott is perfectly entitled to hold is view, but I don't think there's any merit in broadcasting it.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

Do you not? I'm surprised. I'd like to be in a situation where the people who speak about brexit are specifically qualified to. People who have undertaken PHDs or worked in the trade negotiating area, industry experts who will benefit/be impacted by it. And as a result more air time is given to challenge those, of either side, who make terrible sweeping statements, who generalise and who cannot justify what they are saying.

 

I'm not sure, personally, that an ex-cricketer who has never held a political office or has an expert view on brexit in his entire life should be given a platform on television espousing such empty words to an audience of millions. Boycott is perfectly entitled to hold is view, but I don't think there's any merit in broadcasting it.

 

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong - this whole debate is severely lacking in qualified opinion and, like I say, booking him as a guest is depressing and cynical. My main gripe though is with the way it's been packaged by GMB, basically saying the programme wholeheartedly agrees with Boycott's view. Astounding.

[Footballwipe]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong - this whole debate is severely lacking in qualified opinion and, like I say, booking him as a guest is depressing and cynical. My main gripe though is with the way it's been packaged by GMB, basically saying the programme wholeheartedly agrees with Boycott's view. Astounding.

Got you - had me worried for a few seconds there! Is there an element that that's exactly what GMB wants, though? Seen as sympathetic to those views so that audience keeps flocking back for more and more. "GMB agrees with me, it's the place to go to validate my views."