Also in the news

[MC Prussian]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The thing is we can't prove that other politicians aren't being shot without providing footage of every army shooting range exercise. Since you feel so strongly about this I'm nominating you to gather that footage. In the meantime it's fair to assume any such footage would probably have surfaced much like this has, it's up to you whether you want to accept that, dig for the proof yourself or hide behind strawman whataboutery to defend highly inappropriate behaviour.

True.

Because not every shooting range incident is being filmed or talked about and/or reported (outside of these particular circles).

 

And how am I defending the soldier's behaviour?

If you knew what inappropriate goofs or pranks Armed Forces are or were up to in general in the past in their spare time in order to alleviate some of the pressure whilst on duty in regions of conflict or when combatting boredom in the institutions, you'd be surprised.

Is it offensive? Yes. To some. Not all.

Just not a fan of outrage culture that is particularly strong on Social Media.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Because it has either

a) not been made available to the press yet (not yet leaked)

or

b) been suppressed by the media

 

None of this should come to anybody's surprise. Whatever news you read/gather is basically the result of a particular selection process.

 

Or option c) Doesn't exist in the first place. I mean, I know that doesn't do much for your conspiracy theory, but it is a possibility, right?

 

Many, many different news sources across the world have reported on this Corbyn story, as a quick two-second trip over to our good friend Google verifies...

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=jeremy+corbyn+army&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6mt-MjrThAhWIRBUIHQJLASQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1600&bih=757

 

But wait, don't tell me, they're all in on suppressing these other videos too. 

[MC Prussian]

Speaking of Brexit and generating and shaping news and political outcomes, please talk a bit more in-depth about Nick Clegg and his role at Facebook.

https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-regulation-tech-europe-privacy-data-protection-washington-nick-clegg/

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Because it has either

a) not been made available to the press yet (not yet leaked)

or

b) been suppressed by the media

 

None of this should come to anybody's surprise. Whatever news you read/gather is basically the result of a particular selection process.

Only weighing in with the observation on this, but though the media can and have been dirty in the past the burden of proof for your assertion is still on you on this one.

 

Until there's evidence that the media or some other party are withholding the materials suggested in this particular case (saying nothing of the tendencies of media in other cases) this is just a speculative assertion.

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

Or option c) Doesn't exist in the first place. I mean, I know that doesn't do much for your conspiracy theory, but it is a possibility, right?

 

Many, many different news sources across the world have reported on this Corbyn story, as a quick two-second trip over to our good friend Google verifies...

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=jeremy+corbyn+army&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6mt-MjrThAhWIRBUIHQJLASQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1600&bih=757

 

But wait, don't tell me, they're all in on suppressing these other videos too. 

Eh? What conspiracy theory?

There have been countless inappropriate incidents within the military - long before smartphones and Social Media existed, some more offensive than others, some even vicious or deadly. They live on - in parts - as folklore or in history books. Most of them, however, are forgotten.

 

And where have I denied the Corbyn placard incident taking place?

This is hilarious - now people contrive my own statements.

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Only weighing in with the observation on this, but though the media can and have been dirty in the past the burden of proof for your assertion is still on you on this one.

 

Until there's evidence that the media or some other party are withholding the materials suggested in this particular case (saying nothing of the tendencies of media in other cases) this is just a speculative assertion.

I wasn't talking about this case in particular when I mentioned the media suppressing information.

There are many reasons for this, ranging from own interests, to privacy laws, police intervention or political decisions.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Eh? What conspiracy theory?

There have been countless inappropriate incidents within the military - long before smartphones and Social Media existed, some more offensive than others, some even vicious or deadly. They live on - in parts - as folklore or in history books. Most of them, however, are forgotten.

 

And where have I denied the Corbyn placard incident taking place?

This is hilarious - now people contrive my own statements.

No, I've not said you've denied this incident took place. You have claimed that there is a conspiracy involving "the media" withholding evidence of similar incidents involving other targets. You have absolutely no evidence of this, but nonetheless believe the publication of this video means there is some kind of "bias" at play in the fact that this Corbyn incident, for which there is proof, is being reported, while other similar incidents, for which there is no proof, aren't being reported. I'm telling you you're talking bollocks.

Edited 3 April 2019 by Voll Blau

[leicsmac]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

I wasn't talking about this case in particular when I mentioned the media suppressing information.

There are many reasons for this, ranging from own interests, to privacy laws, police intervention or political decisions.

Absolutely there are many examples.

 

But until further evidence reveals otherwise in this particular case then perhaps the possibility of it being so should be qualified as mere assertion rather than, perhaps, being expressed in a manner that begs that it is positively likely?

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I wasn't talking about this case in particular when I mentioned the media suppressing information.

There are many reasons for this, ranging from own interests, to privacy laws, police intervention or political decisions.

You literally were. You said it was one of two possible reasons as to why other similar stories haven't appeared in the media.

[MC Prussian]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

You literally were. You said it was one of two possible reasons as to why other similar stories haven't appeared in the media.

You asked the general question

Quote

"How can the media report on something that doesn't exist FFS?"

To which I replied

Quote

 

Because it has either

 

a) not been made available to the press yet (not yet leaked)

or

b) been suppressed by the media

So, no. That's me not talking about this incident in particular.

 

I can only assume you misinterpreted this part here:

Quote

But seeing that this video has gone viral and others haven't, you can ask yourself why that is.

I guess I should've made it clearer that this statement was aimed at news reporting in general, not the Corbyn placard shooting alone.

Hope this clears it up.

Edited 3 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

You asked the general question

 

So, no. That's me not talking about this incident in particular.

 

I can only assume you misinterpreted this part here:

Except I wasn't asking a general question, was I? I was asking how the media could report on incidents like this if there was no evidence that they had taken place. You know full well the context in which I asked that question.

 

I've misinterpreted nothing. You decided to specifically mention the video, and others which may or may not exist, in the point you were making.

[MC Prussian]

38 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Except I wasn't asking a general question, was I? I was asking how the media could report on incidents like this if there was no evidence that they had taken place. You know full well the context in which I asked that question.

 

I've misinterpreted nothing. You decided to specifically mention the video, and others which may or may not exist, in the point you were making.

"How can the media report on something that doesn't exist FFS?"

is a general question, otherwise you should have/could have been more specific with regards to the Corbyn placard incident.

 

I just stated that when I talk about other existing videos, I'm not referring to other videos of this sole incident in particular, but soldiers doing similar or even more heinous, offensive or inappropriate stuff.

Edited 3 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

"How can the media report on something that doesn't exist FFS?"

is a general question, otherwise you should have/could have been more specific with regards to the Corbyn placard incident.

 

I just stated that when I talk about other existing videos, I'm not referring to other videos of this sole incident in particular, but soldiers doing similar or even more heinous, offensive or inappropriate stuff.

Yeah, I know that's what you meant. That's why I asked the question. You made that comment in the context of the Corbyn incident video being published.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

True.

Because not every shooting range incident is being filmed or talked about and/or reported (outside of these particular circles).

 

And how am I defending the soldier's behaviour?

If you knew what inappropriate goofs or pranks Armed Forces are or were up to in general in the past in their spare time in order to alleviate some of the pressure whilst on duty in regions of conflict or when combatting boredom in the institutions, you'd be surprised.

Is it offensive? Yes. To some. Not all.

Just not a fan of outrage culture that is particularly strong on Social Media.

You did this in the Yaxley-Lennon chat the other day too:  "Here's a bunch of reasons why it's the media's fault you falsely believe this event/person is wrong... but I'm not defending them!"  Your intentions are transparent even if you think you're being clever with your words.

 

Unless you can prove that this story has been twisted by every major news organisation across the political spectrum (which shouldn't be too difficult given the preponderance of independent news outlets ready to stick the knife to mainstream media), perhaps you should stop making completely unfounded assertions and just accept that Corbyn is the only UK political figure our own army used for target practice.  It says a lot that you believe similar things - and much worse besides - go on all the time in the army so it's ok.  If that's true (it probably isn't or we'd hear about these things far more often) then there's a real problem with our armed forces and we need to have a serious conversation as a country.

 

I wonder what you'd say if that was a picture of national treasure and family man Tommy Robinson.

[Buce]

Straight from an episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister':

 

Govt source on challenge of reaching agreement between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn on a customs union: our position is a customs union but we don’t call it that. Labour’s position is not a customs union but they do call it that...

 

...so the source says the challenge is to persuade Jeremy Corbyn to sign up to Theresa May’s non customs union customs union and not call it a customs union. This would put the UK in a customs union with the EU which would then not be called a customs union.

Edited 3 April 2019 by Buce

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You did this in the Yaxley-Lennon chat the other day too:  "Here's a bunch of reasons why it's the media's fault you falsely believe this event/person is wrong... but I'm not defending them!"  Your intentions are transparent even if you think you're being clever with your words.

 

Unless you can prove that this story has been twisted by every major news organisation across the political spectrum (which shouldn't be too difficult given the preponderance of independent news outlets ready to stick the knife to mainstream media), perhaps you should stop making completely unfounded assertions and just accept that Corbyn is the only UK political figure our own army used for target practice.  It says a lot that you believe similar things - and much worse besides - go on all the time in the army so it's ok.  If that's true (it probably isn't or we'd hear about these things far more often) then there's a real problem with our armed forces and we need to have a serious conversation as a country.

 

I wonder what you'd say if that was a picture of national treasure and family man Tommy Robinson.

 

29 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, I know that's what you meant. That's why I asked the question. You made that comment in the context of the Corbyn incident video being published.

[MC Prussian]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You did this in the Yaxley-Lennon chat the other day too:  "Here's a bunch of reasons why it's the media's fault you falsely believe this event/person is wrong... but I'm not defending them!"  Your intentions are transparent even if you think you're being clever with your words.

 

Unless you can prove that this story has been twisted by every major news organisation across the political spectrum (which shouldn't be too difficult given the preponderance of independent news outlets ready to stick the knife to mainstream media), perhaps you should stop making completely unfounded assertions and just accept that Corbyn is the only UK political figure our own army used for target practice.  It says a lot that you believe similar things - and much worse besides - go on all the time in the army so it's ok.  If that's true (it probably isn't or we'd hear about these things far more often) then there's a real problem with our armed forces and we need to have a serious conversation as a country.

 

I wonder what you'd say if that was a picture of national treasure and family man Tommy Robinson.

No outrage from me there.

They can shoot at Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Castro, Putin, Trump, etc. etc. Couldn't care less.

In the end, it's their decision and they have to take the blame for it and face the consequences.

 

And again - where did I say that THIS story was "twisted"? Or that I think it's ok for soldiers to shoot at Corbyn placards (or similar)?

This is getting stranger by the minute, you're not the first one to put words in my mouth.

 

And yes, maybe it is time to debate how soldiers spend their spare time in the military, why the pranks, why that is and how the situation can be improved.

 

And one can and should point out how the media do their coverage, excluding certain information in order to portray people and happenings in a certain manner.

It's only reasonable to do so.
Or do you take everything your read in the papers or online or see on telly fully for granted?

I think a certain skepticism is warranted. Media organizations and outlets need to be held accountable also and have to work towards more objective, investigative journalism, moving away from opinion pieces.

Edited 3 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think you might be onto something.

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think you might be onto something.

 

He's the same in every thread that he posts in, mate.

 

The same right-wing troll persona as the original Moosebreath.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Hey, I don't find it particularly funny, but at times, such pasttime activities are also a means to an end, in the sense that it somewhat temporarily eases the pressure and boredom for the people abroad, serving their country.

Men do stupid things at times, because men.

You been in the Army Forces? Days can be long and repetitious, and you're far from home.

The shooting range incident wasn't that smart a move to begin with, and the recording has done its own, additional damage.

Fair play.

 

Please elaborate on the "many evils" within the military. I'd be interested.

There are lots of jobs that have pressure and many many more jobs that have more boredom.

 

There is no excuse for the racist, sexist, homophobic etc... jokes and attitudes which are awkwardly present in the armed forces. "because men" is no excuse, in fact it is both sexist and the cause of the problem. 

Edited 3 April 2019 by Guest

[bovril]

So they had a vote on whether to have a vote on Monday and.... it's a tie?

 

This is like Dave Bassett vs Bolton, "what do we do now?"

[Guest MattP]

310-310 tie

 

Bercow has casting vote and has to vote with the government on precedent. Must kill him that.

[MC Prussian]

Somebody should do a TV series on Brexit - it has it all.

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

He's the same in every thread that he posts in, mate.

 

The same right-wing troll persona as the original Moosebreath.

That last post was the clincher for me, who seriously complains that a news story is the product of "biased" media but equally seriously protests that they've not claimed the story has been "twisted" as though there's any difference beyond the semantics of which specific collection of words was used to convey the same meaning.  

Edited 3 April 2019 by Carl the Llama

[AKCJ]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

310-310 tie

 

Bercow has casting vote and has to vote with the government on precedent. Must kill him that.

If that doesn't sum up this sorry mess then nothing will