BigFatCoward Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 3 hours ago, john said: Hide contents Who’s breaking the law? The SUPERMARKET is! is the kind of tricksy question they always put in these bbc quizzes. I got 6. Got that one wrong. In my defence I'm doing it at 0230 in the morning while feeling like shit so my reading comprehension is a bit off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 One of the good things Victoria did in its second lock-down was strict distance limits. So you could only go to places within 5km without a damn good reason (e.g. essential worker going to work). This forced people to stay local, but most importantly, made it easy for the police to enforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 I see Andrew Neil is doing his Brillo-padded nut this morning, as Owen Jones lumps him in with the rest of Trump's UK-based fans and sycophants: "Owen Jones is a compulsive liar. He lumps me with so called "cheerleaders" for Trump. Yet he cannot produce a single example of me cheerleading for him. If he had a reverence for facts he would reproduce my regular criticisms of Trump." Trump's British cheerleaders are rushing to denounce him. It's too little, too late Quote The Spectator is chaired by former flagship BBC interviewer Andrew Neil, who can now be found beating his chest and declaring: “There is one name responsible for what is happening on Capitol Hill tonight and that name is TRUMP.” And yet no British publication gave such generous space to Trump and Trumpism as the Spectator, publishing articles with headlines such as “The intelligent case for voting Trump” and “Trump will be much, much better for Britain”, or crowing “Donald Trump’s victory marks the death of liberalism”. There is a broad consensus that what paved the way for Wednesday’s insurrection in Washington DC was the deliberate (and baseless) delegitimising of the presidential election, and in November, the Spectator was publishing articles such as “Trump is right not to concede” and “Can you really blame Trump for refusing to accept the election result?” I mean, the only thing missing here is the fucking pom poms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Owen Jones here as usual showing himself up and proving himself to be as irritating and dishonest as ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 LOL. So are you saying that Neil's Spectator didn't publish the above mentioned bullshit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, Spockydog said: LOL. No seriously. Find a quote from Andrew Neil praising trump, then also try and understand what his role is at the Spectator, then you’ll have done more research than Jones, who of course has never had much of a problem being elusive with facts or the truth Btw, you quoting Owen Jones would explain a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 He's the fucking chairman. And don't even bother coming back and claiming he has zero editorial control, because we all know that's not how publishing works. And I didn't bother looking for moments where he has supported Trump (other than via his publication). Try searching for any time he has openly criticised Trump. Go on. I await the results. ETA: Google returns countless positive results when you search for "Andrew Neil criticizes Corbyn". Trump, not so much. Hmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, Spockydog said: He's the fucking chairman. And don't even bother coming back and claiming he has zero editorial control, because we all know that's not how publishing works. And I didn't bother looking for moments where he has supported Trump (other than via his publication). Try searching for any time he has openly criticised Trump. Go on. I await the results. It’s the actual truth that he has zero editorial control as he’s not the editor. Sorry to burst your bubble on that. If you want to go through his Twitter feed there are plenty of examples of Neil criticising Trump. It’s nonsense to say he hasn’t. Of course this all stems from great humiliations of Jones in the past where he’s looked utterly foolish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 14 minutes ago, Heartofice said: who of course has never had much of a problem being elusive with facts or the truth Seriously? This has been your MO ever since you turned up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 5 minutes ago, Heartofice said: It’s the actual truth that he has zero editorial control as he’s not the editor. Sorry to burst your bubble on that. So, it's your assertion that only The Editor has input over what is published in newspapers and magazines? Are you that naïve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, Spockydog said: So, it's your assertion that only The Editor has input over what is published in newspapers and magazines? Are you that naïve? Yes it’s the editor making the choice. That’s how it works. On top of this, the spectator has a range of different views contained within it. Much like the guardian. I find much of what is in the guardians opinion section absolutely appalling and disagree with it vehemently but I understand it’s the opinion section and people have opinions. Again on almost every single point Jones makes he scrubs away all context and puts his totally dishonest take on it. It’s standard fare for him, because clearly he can’t afford his swish london pad on Guardian pay, which is why he’s begging for money for his new YouTube channel and trying to create as much of a stir as possible to get noticed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Yes it’s the editor making the choice. That’s how it works. Oh my sweet summer child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Spockydog said: Oh my sweet summer child... NVM I’m aware this is again turning this thread into a back and forth between me and Spocky so I’ll leave it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Some of the other diverse viewpoints you can find in the Spectator include trans exclusionary radical feminism, the same trans exclusionary viewpoints but from a philosophy professor that doesn't even understand the faux feminism she's espousing and criticism of the way those trans "critics" have been silenced written by the very same not at all silenced critic who just received an OBE. Oddly I haven't seen any trans supportive articles in my feed from the Spectator, but I'm sure that's just a probably with the outrage machine not sharing the good articles that must exist from a publication with a range of views right? Not that that particular editorial slant is remotely out of step with British media's coverage of the topic, which the Australian media is now earnestly trying to import. ETA: Sorry, a bit of a topic jump. I'd just seen that latest article complaining about being silenced right before opening the thread so it was on my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Here is a date ranged (01 Jan 2017 - 01 Jan 2021) Google search for the term, Andrew Neil criticisms of Trump Let's just say that Neil's claim of offering 'regular criticisms of Trump' isn't backed up by the historical record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 This is a silly argument on a number of levels. Jones’ largely fact free ramblings don’t warrant even this much attention. And Neil’s political views are widely known and never, ever kept to himself, outside a BBC studio, anyway. If he had supported Trump, you would be assured he’d have said so, frequently, and would not have changed his mind. The Spectator does not slavishly follow Neil’s politics, never has. In fact, he has spent a lot of time trying to change it. Actually, Neil and the Spectator are an odd match. Neil is more Thatcherite than Thatcher was. He is fascinated by business and economics, and hates High Tories, respected institutions and the Upper Class. The Spectator is the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 On an unrelated note - surely we can all agree that JRM is an odd man right? Who says this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proudfeet Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 23 hours ago, Heartofice said: This is the main issue with the outsourcing model really. A lot of companies, and I've worked for them, are set up primarily to win pitches and contracts, over promise and under deliver. This is why you get situations like this where outsourced companies are much more concerned with doing the bare minimum (they haven't even managed that it seems). Probably also a product of this all being incredibly rushed and not planned, constant u-turning on issues and over promising from the governement. I can believe over promising timelines and quality of what is delivered. Quantity of something hard to procure maybe. Quantity of food? Its hard to believe its an "over promise". Its pretty cut and dry. Putting the company that made the bid aside, its a pretty clear failure of the government to have awarded the tender. Either they didn't bother with making sure a breakdown of what would be delivered was listed or they didn't bother to visualise the breakdown and see if it was reasonable cost and quantity wise. I don't think that this case is a problem of the outsourcing model, government or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 16 minutes ago, Proudfeet said: I don't think that this case is a problem of the outsourcing model, government or otherwise. The entire process of outsourcing public services is extremely flawed and designed to fail. Companies are so desperate to win these contracts that they make a whole bunch of wild promises and then, well, we've seen the results all over the news this week. There are some things that simply should not be handled by companies seeking to make profits from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, Spockydog said: There are some things that simply should not be handled by companies seeking to make profits from. This line of thinking would be worrying for Tesco, Sainsbury’s et al, not to mention their customers! Seriously, though, I agree that outsourcing to companies without existing expertise is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.