|
In my view allowing forceful promulgation of blatantly misleading information on a well-respected forum such as this one is dangerous regardless of whether it is labelled as a "question", an "opinion" or a "fact".
Here are a few examples from this thread of both. If you are content to leave them for posterity to mull over that is your prerogative as moderator. Given the nature of this website I wonder if the owners are as relaxed about the possible effect on its reputation.
----------------------------------
Where's the actual proof of people actually dying OF COVID
the WHO, big pharma and others colluded to get governments to declare a pandemic and spend fortunes (though nothing compared to this time) on vaccines that weren't needed and didn't work anyway.
the agenda and power behind the curtain on COVID re: The Great Reset (Build Back Better), the UN's Agenda 21 and 30, The 4th Industrial Revolution etc from the World Economic Forum - an organisation run by unelected billionairres, officials etc who seemingly have more influence over world affairs than any government.
[a 'COVID death'] can by a GP's opinion (and apparently they are being pressured by PHE etc into putting it on death certificates even when other illness is equally suspected - i.e. in the elderly and already sick).
There have been documented cases in the media (though not well publicised) of people's deaths being attributable to COVID by dying of cancer, unrealted heart attacks, other diseases, physical injury/accidents, etc.
the [PCR} tests are not accurate and that they cannot properly differentiate between any type of Coronavirus - a group which also includes a variant of the common cold - something which a LOT of people will be suffering from at the present.
None of the testing reliability, nor the positive cases or death rates have been indpendently verified by a body/organisation who isn't part of government/civil service or has a vested interest to do so.
the possibilities of this pandemic being manufactured, as it seemed to be in 2010? There was evidence of collusion between the WHO and at least big pharma back then,
PHE, Whitty and SAGE STILL believe that mask-wearing is just a 'confidence measure'
measures being drawn up to forceably remove otherwise healthy people from their homes into interment facilities - permanently unless and until you agree to take the jab
a virus that kills 0.3% and mainly people already near to death anyway
Truly sinister people are using Covid as an ideal opportunity to bring in whatever future they want under the cosy sounding Great Reset
This isn't about preventing a Virus doing its thing, which has never worked anyway and never will unless you issue every living person with a full biohazmat suit, this about fear as a tool for control, and it works especially when almost the whole mainstream media, one or two souls excepted, is owned by those signed up, the state broadcaster itself one of the worst examples
over here, the media has a far bigger impact on the actions of politicians and civil servants than on the continent.
The MSM have been absolutely terrible throughout the pandemic in their sensationalist, often contradictory and agenda-driven 'reporting', paying little attention to factual reporting, public service information and especially proper investigative journalism.
It appears that a leak has emerged that says that ICU admissions are at the normal level for the time of year.
|
|
Does anyone want to carry on with this thread or shall I close it?
|
Does anyone want to carry on with this thread or shall I close it?
I think it's worth leaving open but as (a) Engineer Andy has personalised the issue (by no means the first time he has done so) and (b) somebody else has refuted his claims for me I'm not adding any more unless something new comes in.
|
|
Might as well leave it open for L3. I would like to say that given the brains in this country the whole thing is a disaster. The so called second wave is wrongly named, it is still the first because the brakes were put on for months and then released. It implies that the virus as suddenly grown in strength which it hasn't The leaders of the 4 nations should have their heads banged together given the stupid way its citizens are treated. The different rules re the border between Wales and England being the most stupid and it is still going on although there are signs that the Drakeford is aligning a bit more to England. I personally hope this will prove the end of devolution.
More research needs to be done or the public advised to just how the covid is transmitted. Are the masks really doing any good for instance? Millions of holiday makers went to the west country in the months after lockdown but this area still has one of the lowest covid rates. Rules of 6 bubbles and all the rest need to be justified.
|
|
|
Does anyone want to carry on with this thread or shall I close it?
I think it's worth leaving open but as (a) Engineer Andy has personalised the issue (by no means the first time he has done so) and (b) somebody else has refuted his claims for me I'm not adding any more unless something new comes in.
I believe that you're describing you own actions and attributing them to those you politically disagree with, and not for the first time either, as is then going silent after making such an accusation and/or not answering questions with opinions dressed up as facts or ignoring difficult ones.
I have no problem with people having contrary opinions, but you need to understand that's what they are - opinions.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone want to carry on with this thread or shall I close it?
The original issue was relevant to this forum but the thread went astray very quickly. Its up to you but it would be better to remove it rather than just closing it. Given the unique situation with COVID I don't think you need worry about setting a precedent for future "debates" on less serious issues.
|
|
|
Does anyone want to carry on with this thread or shall I close it?
Please leave it as it keeps everything in one place and I think the discussion will stay on the straight and narrow
|
|
|
|
|
I think Misar is overstating his point.
For a start, I see no "forceful promulgation of blatantly misleading information", merely statements of such. I can't think what "forceful" promulgation would be like (adopting a hectoring tone, perhaps?), but I don't see it here.
Secondly, giving a list of quotations ignores the fact that most of the points, if not all of them, have been challenged and refuted. That is far more satisfactory for anyone looking at this forum than simply discovering that something they had seen had subsequently disappeared.
Finally, I think one should not be carried away by the significance of this forum in the wider scheme of things. "Well-respected" it may be, but I imagine the number of people who read it is probably very small.
|
|
I read the Daily Telegraph comments columns on Covid.
This debate is informed, courteous and knowledgeable. and falsehoods are challenged..
If you really want to realise how many ignorant, innumerate, illiterate, mendacious, disingenuous people exist in the UK read the DT on line. And the conspiracies that are promulgated make those here appear fairy tales.
There are a lot of very sick people who appear to have lots of time on their hands and agendas..
Edited by madf on 04/11/2020 at 12:07
|
I read the Daily Telegraph comments columns on Covid.
This debate is informed, courteous and knowledgeable. and falsehoods are challenged..
If you really want to realise how many ignorant, innumerate, illiterate, mendacious, disingenuous people exist in the UK read the DT on line. And the conspiracies that are promulgated make those here appear fairy tales.
There are a lot of very sick people who appear to have lots of time on their hands and agendas..
All newspapers have a wide array of people commenting on articles - the Telegraph included, but you have to pick and choose what articles and who you discuss and debate issues.
As a now (recent) former Telegraph subscriber, I can say that there wre a LOT of seemingly professional trolls frequenting the comments sections - but ones who were likely paid activists supporting Opposition parties, Momentum and for a while, a good number working for the EU Commission/certain political groups (mainly around the time of the EU referendum) and the Chinese (a few) and especiialy the Russian government.
When the Telegraph reduced the access of non-paying 'readers' from (I think) 10-20 free articles a week to 1 (and not able to comment on articles at all) in around April this year, much of them left because they presumably didn't want to pay the subscription for every person/login they used. A few of these trolls still ply their trade.
Most of the time they were on the 'news ticker feeds' because the ongoing updated news items (normally important news/issues) lended themselves to discussion. Others popular with them were columnists' articles, especially those that were forcefully taking one side or the other.
What is seen now is a lot of angry readers criticising the paper for its leftward/woke/political establishment move over the last few years, both with the addition of certain columnists (some of which have worked for left wing papers etc before) or who nowadays don't really represent a conservative viewpoint.
I know a LOT of long-term readers like myself who have got disillusioned at the coverage (including of factual news reporting and of the pandemic). In my view, the paper more resembles the London Evening Standard aside the view point on the EU.
I think that the owners are trying to play all sides to gain more subscribers - the problem is that extra ones who've joined during the period after the 2019 GE and through the pandemic (who want something to read when they aren't working) are often month-by-month subscribers rather than annual ones like myself and many of those who've unsubbed in the last 6 months.
I agree that the quality of the debate in the comments sections has fallen (another reason why I left) as a result of long term subscribers leaving. I've seen what goes on elsewhere on other newspaper sites (aside from the Times - too expensive subs for my wallet) and frankly it's either just as bad (just from a different political standpoint), or in the case of the tabloids, a lot worse.
I think that the polarisation of politics (on all sides) combined with the problems I'm sure most of us have faced dealing with the pandemic professionally and personally have made as often quicker to temper and less able to engage more constructively in debate without the need to either deliberately inflame or push political agendas.
Many of us still have a lot of spare time with nothing really new or positive to talk about, especially when it is either difficult or illegal to meet many friends and relations to chew the fat - myself included. It means that we often come to a forum (like this one) already in a bad mood, which won't help.
Maybe we need to start some threads on less contentious issues - even mundane stuff - just so we can get used to reasonable discussion and give us all a break from the world's troubles. Some projects we're doing at home or work, gardening, useful tips and ideas on problems and issues.
It's not as though lockdown #2 is going to give us a huge amount to talk about on the pandemic or politics that hasn't already been said (and elsewhere).
Just some thoughts before my lunch.
|
|
I should add that I often read The Guardian comments as well. Apart from the obvious political differences, there appear to be far fewer conspiracy theorists on the Guardian's site - well that is except for the "big business is screwing everyone and Bill Gates is taking over the world... but my Apple phone is essential " type of stuff..
I would remind Andy it was the DT which employed Boris as journalist (on £250k a year) and which supported him in his race for the Leadership of the Conservative Party .. so to accuse them of being left wing is patently ridiculous.
Historically in the UK right wing politicians oppose social liberalisation when it is introduced and support it twenty years later...(See Votes for women, decriminalisation of homosexuality, Women's Rights, Anti Apartheid etc largely opposed by the Conservatives when initially voted on)
Edited by madf on 04/11/2020 at 14:15
|
I should add that I often read The Guardian comments as well. Apart from the obvious political differences, there appear to be far fewer conspiracy theorists on the Guardian's site - well that is except for the "big business is screwing everyone and Bill Gates is taking over the world... but my Apple phone is essential " type of stuff..
I would remind Andy it was the DT which employed Boris as journalist (on £250k a year) and which supported him in his race for the Leadership of the Conservative Party .. so to accuse them of being left wing is patently ridiculous.
I wasn't saying the paper is entirely left wing, but that elements of it and some journalists they employ are now definitely left of centre and more. They have Cathy Newman as a columnist and have other left wing writers regularly write articles (almost always without reader commentary facilities) that could eaily be from the Guardian.
It was why I said they are more like the Evening Standard - trying to be everything to everyone and failing, just annoying each group.
For someone who purports to regularly read the Telegaph, you apparently are missing many articles. Non-paying 'guests' could never read more than a few articles a week, and now only one. The trolls tended to stay on certain pages whilst they could to get the most 'value' from their efforts. Now there are far less of them, by several magnitudes.
I'm not sure what the PM's former salary at the paper has to do with it's tone and content today.
Historically in the UK right wing politicians oppose social liberalisation when it is introduced and support it twenty years later...(See Votes for women, decriminalisation of homosexuality, Women's Rights, Anti Apartheid etc largely opposed by the Conservatives when initially voted on)
It doesn't sound like you are 'conservative' (so why would you pay a subscription to read the Telegraph), but bringing up such issues and then essentially tarring everyone who is as some kind of bigot, ist and phobe is rather sad.
I would point out the Left's current troubles with anti-seminitism and its own chauvanistic attitues of many politicans (mainly white middle class men and some women too) towards women and ethnic minority conservative politicnas and voters. Or their support over the years for totalitarian communist regimes abroad.
I'd be careful to start throwing proverbial stones in glass houses, given the proverb connotations. People on all sides of the political divide have said and done things that today's generation finds objectionable, but we will likely find the same happening to us in a few decades.
That's why all this 'cancel culture' around our historical figures and buildings/monuments is at best ill-advised, and at worst Orwellian revisionism a-la 1930s Germany and the Soviet Union. I somehow doubt if people in 50 years will look back fondly on these times, and not as some may think due to just one side of the political aisle.
|
|
That's why all this 'cancel culture' around our historical figures and buildings/monuments is at best ill-advised, and at worst Orwellian revisionism a-la 1930s Germany and the Soviet Union. I somehow doubt if people in 50 years will look back fondly on these times, and not as some may think due to just one side of the political aisle.
I am not political at all but I cannot understand why the elected government has not strongly condemned the deliberate vandalism and denial of our history good and bad. I for one haven't clue who is driving this ie named individuals?? but it does seem widespread and coordinated .
As for government over the years they seem to get less and less done that benefits the ordinary folk that elect them.
|
.
As for government over the years they seem to get less and less done that benefits the ordinary folk that elect them.
We have a seriously unbalanced economy. Financial services and the SE are the only economically viable parts and largely pay for the rest of the country (A sweeping generalisation and not entirely true but close enough)
The goose that lays golden eggs must be fed.
And the Government - and BOTH major political parties are dominated by MPS from the SE.
See Johnson and Starmer and Corbyn.
Groupthink and lawyers' lack of vision.
Edited by madf on 05/11/2020 at 10:33
|
|
|
|
It appears that a leak has emerged that says that ICU admissions are at the normal level for the time of year.
That’s probably this article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/03/hospital-inten.../
It’s behind DT’s paywall but if you hit “escape” as the text is loading you should be able to see it. In case you can’t, here’s an extract:
“An update from the NHS Secondary Uses Services (SUS), seen by The Telegraph, shows that capacity is tracking as normal in October with the usual numbers of beds available that would be expected at this time of year, even without extra surge capacity. An NHS source said: "As you can see, our current position in October is exactly where we have been over the last five years."
“Although there has been a reduction in surge capacity since the first wave, with the closure of the emergency Nightingale Hospitals, there is still 15 per cent spare capacity across the country – fairly normal for this time of year.”
“In critical care, around 18 per cent of beds are still unoccupied, although it varies between regions. However, even in the worst affected areas, such as North-West, only 92.9 per cent of critical care beds are currently occupied.”
“Commenting on the new data, Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: "This is completely in line with what is normally available at this time of year. What I don't understand is that I seem to be looking at a different dataset to what the Government is presenting. Everything is looking at normal levels and free bed capacity is still significant, even in high dependency units and intensive care, even though we have a very small number across the board. We are starting to see a drop in people in hospitals.”
Edited by Middleman on 05/11/2020 at 10:37
|
|
This lockdown is nothing of the sorts as most places are still open, but it is a rinse and repeat of the failures from March.
There is still no clear messaging or a sound strategy put in place that people can understand and back. Putting in deadlines for measures is also madness, the deadline should be when the results show the strategy is working. It focuses the minds of Government to get things right.
Set out the current situation
Set out the consequences of doing nothing.
Set out what the proposals are
Set out details of what this will achieve
Set out what data will be used to measure success
Set out the support measures for those affected by the proposals
Set out the exit strategy
The app and test, track and trace systems are failing because people don't want to be told to isolate for two weeks (especially self employed) as the support measures just aren't there.
People are being told to isolate, but rather than do so are going and getting a test, getting a negative, assuming they are clear and carrying on as normal. The virus incubates, ten days later they are on their back with Covid having infected other people and so the cycle continues.
|
|
The problem is that anyone can get a test, whether a home kit or a drive-in one, and then get the virus within minutes of that test being conducted or before teh results are amde known - never minds afterwards, because as we all know, it can be transmitted by touching surfaces as well as by cough or sneeze.
For all the so-called 'scientific or medical experts' who regularly weigh in on TV, in newspaper interviews/letters or on social media (the worst), few have much in the way of practical proposals that don't result in bankrupting the nation.
I have seen little change in their thinking (hence why we're once again in lockdown) from March - probably because most of them advocating on the lockdown side do not rely on the economy going (for the moment at least) normally because they work outside of the private sector.
The few alternative (and seemingly credible) voices such as Professor Carl Heneghan regularly have their views suppressed by much of the MSM, especially TV news, who appear to have already made the minds up (without any of them being experts) about what their readers or viewers should believe is true and what isn't.
Given the novel nature of the disease and STILL the lack of a complete picture, I'd love to know these people in such positions of influence over public opinion can be so certain about what is fact and what is either merely opinion, educated guesses, and partial or full facts.
That was why I was strongly advocating for FAR greater transparency in the who process, including validation of the science behind it all.
There are, in my view, way too many powerful vested interests involved to ensure internal self-certification or via government bodies with their own self-interest (whether continued existence, enlargement of power/responsibilies and/or budgets). Questions are either not being answered or fully and transparently.
All this does is it creates increasing resentment across the nation and, as we've seen here, increases polarisation on all sides. All that does is further play into the hands of the tech/social media/pharma and other coprorates and especially hostile foreign governments like China's.
Resolving these issues requires honest and open debate, and not just one side trying to shut down the other or to withold information because doing so helps their personal, financial or political agenda(s).
That's why I'm saying that the media generally, especially the legacy print and TV news media has done an absolutely and increasingly terrible job over the last decade, but especially in the last year or two.
There are a few very small outlets that are doing a great job, but the MSM industry and their chums in big finance is effectively stopping them from expanding sufficiently to properly break into the market - most of these new entrants are niche market (type of news/issues reported on) outlets and in only one country or even region.
Many have to work incredibly hard to survive (especially given the headwind), relying on subscribers at a low payment level compared to those demanded by the MSM sites, who still get a decent amount of revenue from ads - from their corporate buddies who want their agenda pushed. The truly independents don't pander to that and thus don't get such revenues.
The rest of them who entered the market between 3 and 15 years ago are essentially 'activist media' who are the least impartial and have relied mainly on outside funding to survive rather than through subscriptions, or what one YouTuber calls the 'access media' who just pander to whatever cause or thing is in fashion with the elites (e.g. wokeness) at the time. Neither of these report factually on news.
Both now are in serious decline because funding and revenue has dried up and audiences have got fed up with a bunch of shills.
|
The few alternative (and seemingly credible) voices such as Professor Carl Heneghan regularly have their views suppressed by much of the MSM,
I'm just going to pick up one thing here.
Prof Heneghan is regularly quoted in the 'MSM'. He was on the Today programme on Monday and his work is regularly in the Guardian preyed in aid of those opposing lockdown:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/06/brit...n
Skip the first segment which is about terrorism.
|
It appears that a leak has emerged that says that ICU admissions are at the normal level for the time of year.
That’s probably this article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/03/hospital-inten.../
It’s behind DT’s paywall but if you hit “escape” as the text is loading you should be able to see it. In case you can’t, here’s an extract:
“An update from the NHS Secondary Uses Services (SUS), seen by The Telegraph, shows that capacity is tracking as normal in October with the usual numbers of beds available that would be expected at this time of year, even without extra surge capacity. An NHS source said: "As you can see, our current position in October is exactly where we have been over the last five years."
“Although there has been a reduction in surge capacity since the first wave, with the closure of the emergency Nightingale Hospitals, there is still 15 per cent spare capacity across the country – fairly normal for this time of year.”
“In critical care, around 18 per cent of beds are still unoccupied, although it varies between regions. However, even in the worst affected areas, such as North-West, only 92.9 per cent of critical care beds are currently occupied.”
“Commenting on the new data, Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: "This is completely in line with what is normally available at this time of year. What I don't understand is that I seem to be looking at a different dataset to what the Government is presenting. Everything is looking at normal levels and free bed capacity is still significant, even in high dependency units and intensive care, even though we have a very small number across the board. We are starting to see a drop in people in hospitals.”
The ESC buttoin route doesn't work for me - I already tried it and you can see the full page for about 1/3rd of a second. I think that the reason is that if you clear all the cookies you had as a subscriber which stops the page regenerating from a full article to a paragraph only plus the subscriber message, the site automatically defaults to 'non-subscriber' mode, whatever you do.
Thanks BTW for the quotes on the credible alternative views.
|
|
I am not political at all but I cannot understand why the elected government has not strongly condemned the deliberate vandalism and denial of our history good and bad. I for one haven't clue who is driving this ie named individuals?? but it does seem widespread and coordinated .
They have condemmed it - not sure why you think they haven't? Also not sure it is widespread - there have been a few isolated instances but nothing i would say is widespread or even co-ordinated.
|
I am not political at all but I cannot understand why the elected government has not strongly condemned the deliberate vandalism and denial of our history good and bad. I for one haven't clue who is driving this ie named individuals?? but it does seem widespread and coordinated .
They have condemmed it - not sure why you think they haven't? Also not sure it is widespread - there have been a few isolated instances but nothing i would say is widespread or even co-ordinated.
It's rather more than a few 'isolated incidents', plus a large number of councils are now 'reviewing all the buildings names and monuments existence, presumably to see which the need to 'cancel' in case BLM or Antifa threatens violence etc.
It may be on a much larger scale in the US, but it still in co-ordinated. The people behind it also like their 'useful idiots' to carry out their dirty work, so they can deny being involved.
It's just that over here there has been more of a backlash to it outside of the university towns and cities that it hasn't been as bad as in the US, where pandering to such 'causes' still goes on.
|
It's rather more than a few 'isolated incidents', plus a large number of councils are now 'reviewing all the buildings names and monuments existence, presumably to see which the need to 'cancel' in case BLM or Antifa threatens violence etc.
It may be on a much larger scale in the US, but it still in co-ordinated. The people behind it also like their 'useful idiots' to carry out their dirty work, so they can deny being involved.
It's just that over here there has been more of a backlash to it outside of the university towns and cities that it hasn't been as bad as in the US, where pandering to such 'causes' still goes on.
BLM, at least in the UK, is more of a slogan/movement than some sort of organised 'party' with a defined set of policies. Some hangers on on the far left have tried to hi-jack the name but a lot of the stuff that's thrown at (say) Lewis Hamilton about BLM 'policy' is nonsense.
As for Antifa it doesn't have much existence outside the mind of President Trump and in the USA. It's no sort of movement or threat there never mind in the UK.
Do you believe that British History, in the form related to those of us at school in the sixties through to the eighties, is an accurate account? Does it cover ALL the people who had a part in it? Does it give a fair and accurate account of the contribution of minorities?
Because that's what the fuss is about.
In my schooldays Churchill was portrayed solely as the hero who led us through WW2, which he was. But there's a whole lot more about him, his attitude to minorities and Indian Independence, that was never touched on.
Is it right that that situation should continue?
Edited by Bromptonaut on 05/11/2020 at 16:11
|
|
Wow. Just wow.
Unbelievable the lengths you IMHO appear to go to peddle your agenda and 'debunk' others. I also see that you're making a similar 'splash' over on c a r 4 p l a y as well with this sort of commentary, and making just as many 'friends' in the process.
I notice not one of your arguments has any information to back them up. Why bring up Trump and Churchill? No-one was talking about them before and has nowt to do with the issues raised.
I've tried to be conciliatory by showing that both sides of the political divide have faults, but you appear to be entrenched by pretending yours are saints and everyone else's are some kind of monsters.
Please have a sense of proportion in all this - this forum isn't Political Betting of other hardcore ones you may also have frequented over the years - it's a motoring forum where we mainly discuss motoring-related issues and occaionally other stuff. That's why I'm here - can you honestly say the same?
Edited by Engineer Andy on 05/11/2020 at 18:25
|
|
So Rishi is extending the furlough until the end of March and is rightly criticised for not making the decision earlier which would have kept more people on the payroll.
But does this extension also mean that a vaccine is further away than ever?
|
So Rishi is extending the furlough until the end of March and is rightly criticised for not making the decision earlier which would have kept more people on the payroll.
But does this extension also mean that a vaccine is further away than ever?
It means the lockdown will be removed for Christmas and reimposed in January.
The 30 million does promised for Christmas is at most 5 million.
But as no vaccines has yet been approved, it might be available for April 2021
|
Wow. Just wow.
I think I'll just let that and the plea to stay off politics to stand for itself.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 05/11/2020 at 20:26
|
Wow. Just wow.
I think I'll just let that and the plea to stay off politics to stand for itself.
I read your reply to Andy and then read wat he wrote - I thought Wow. Just Wow from his reply - seems to make n sense from what you posted at all.
|
|
"I read your reply to Andy and then read wat he wrote - I thought Wow. Just Wow from his reply - seems to make n sense from what you posted at all."
Same here.
On the other hand, it is quite revealing. Let's leave it at that.
Edited by FP on 05/11/2020 at 23:19
|
"I read your reply to Andy and then read wat he wrote - I thought Wow. Just Wow from his reply - seems to make n sense from what you posted at all."
Same here.
On the other hand, it is quite revealing. Let's leave it at that.
I think it's revealing that Bromp got banned from the Political Betting website - something he didn't deny (but didn't say why he was) when a previous argument arose here a few years ago. His comments are still available there to review.
Doesn't it strike anyone odd that he frequents websites that aren't about politics (including C4P), but posts a significant amount on politics and gets into arguments with other users, after being forced to leave one that was only about that subject?
It reminds me of a well known left wing troll who continues to post on the Telegraph website - but only on the Letters Page, called 'Am Faochagach', who IMHO seems to revel doing so in a very similar manner, but also goes silent/changes the subject when proven incorrect or worse.
I reluctantly become in volved in debates of a political nature because I feel I have to respond to certain individuals who are, in my view, deliberately spreading falsehoods and starting/inflaming arguments. That others all feel compelled to respond as well also says quite a bit as well. I rarely got into political debates here for many years because I was here for the motoring discussion, and left political discussion on The Telegraph for the vast majority of the time.
I would, even with all this, point out the methodology used by certain organisations and people, both in the past and even today to subvert general discourse. Just review the thoughts of Yuri Bezmenov on how that game is played.
|
|
Your first two paragraphs are a simple ad hominem attack and do little to strengthen your position - quite the opposite. What has anyone's treatment on other websites got to do with anything?
Your personal account of why you post political stuff here is just that - personal. Reluctant or not, you get into political discussions and should expect to be challenged.
In your final paragraph presumably you want us to think that Bezemov's thoughts on the distortion of truth and facts in Soviet Russia are relevant to the present discussion. They prove nothing, but show how you view opinions that you identify as being left-wing.
As always, my interest is not personal - I have no thoughts about you as an individual, nor about Bromp, who seems well able to speak for himself. But I am concerned about the way you approach political discussion, with a mixture of personal and prejudiced comments.
|
|
I'll P,K,B that post, if you don't mind.
|
I think it's revealing that Bromp got banned from the Political Betting website - something he didn't deny (but didn't say why he was) when a previous argument arose here a few years ago. His comments are still available there to review.
Except they're not mine. I don't think I've ever even looked at Political Betting until today. Somebody else with the same username. I'm still trying to work out why they were banned.
Doesn't it strike anyone odd that he frequents websites that aren't about politics (including C4P), but posts a significant amount on politics and gets into arguments with other users, after being forced to leave one that was only about that subject?
I enjoy discussions about politics and current affairs; the border between discussion and argument is a fine one. C4P has long been a virtual pub for general discussion. There are two or three characters in there who could start a fight in an empty room. Argument goes with the territory.
The only other site where I regularly contribute on News/Current Affairs is Cyclechat.
So far as this site is concerned I'm a frequent contributor to Motoring threads and regularly add my two pennyworth in Legal.
As to the rest of it I'm frankly at the stage of Meh or maybe Whatever.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 06/11/2020 at 13:01
|
|
I used to post on Political betting a decade ago. (Interested in the politics as I do not bet.)
I cannot imagine anyone being banned from PB unless it was continued personal harassment of others, continued ant semitism or other racism or personal abuse hurled at others.
Much as I disagree with Bromptonaut on things political, I cannot imagine he would do any of the above. In fact it is unthinkable. I have been here some 20 years and Bromps was there roughly when I started. He has never written anything worthy of banning here either
Edited by madf on 06/11/2020 at 13:30
|
I used to post on Political betting a decade ago. (Interested in the politics as I do not bet.)
I cannot imagine anyone being banned from PB unless it was continued personal harassment of others, continued ant semitism or other racism or personal abuse hurled at others.
Much as I disagree with Bromptonaut on things political, I cannot imagine he would do any of the above. In fact it is unthinkable. I have been here some 20 years and Bromps was there roughly when I started. He has never written anything worthy of banning here either
Just visit the website and do a search - it says it against his name. When I brought the issue up before during a previous 'heated discussion', he didn't deny it had happened. You might want to check his posts there to decide for yourself the reason(s) why. It seemed quite obvious to me.
|
Just visit the website and do a search - it says it against his name. When I brought the issue up before during a previous 'heated discussion', he didn't deny it had happened. You might want to check his posts there to decide for yourself the reason(s) why. It seemed quite obvious to me.
As I've already pointed out those posts are by somebody else using the same username.
The username Bromptonaut doesn't require a huge leap in imagination. I've had the odd comment on cycling forums to the effect that they wished they'd thought of it first.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 07/11/2020 at 12:23
|
Just visit the website and do a search - it says it against his name. When I brought the issue up before during a previous 'heated discussion', he didn't deny it had happened. You might want to check his posts there to decide for yourself the reason(s) why. It seemed quite obvious to me.
As I've already pointed out those posts are by somebody else using the same username.
The username Bromptonaut doesn't require a huge leap in imagination. I've had the odd comment on cycling forums to the effect that they wished they'd thought of it first.
TBH I don't recall you denying it before - fair enough if you have. Still, quite an amazing coincidence given the similarity of political views.
|
TBH I don't recall you denying it before - fair enough if you have. Still, quite an amazing coincidence given the similarity of political views.
Andy,
I think I remember a previous occasion where you alluded to me being banned from another forum but didn't refer to the specific site. Now you've done so I've categorically denied that I was responsible for the posts on Political Betting using the same forum name I've used here and elsewhere.
While the person concerned is in the same broad political spectrum as I am their writing style is very different. I only wish I could fashion smart one liners like that.
I'm not demanding a formal apology but an unequivocal acknowledgment that what I've said is true would be appreciated.
|
TBH I don't recall you denying it before - fair enough if you have. Still, quite an amazing coincidence given the similarity of political views.
Andy,
I think I remember a previous occasion where you alluded to me being banned from another forum but didn't refer to the specific site. Now you've done so I've categorically denied that I was responsible for the posts on Political Betting using the same forum name I've used here and elsewhere.
While the person concerned is in the same broad political spectrum as I am their writing style is very different. I only wish I could fashion smart one liners like that.
I'm not demanding a formal apology but an unequivocal acknowledgment that what I've said is true would be appreciated.
OK then - I accept they are (I also said as much on another thread) after reviewing some more posts on that forum from your namesake - whilst their political views were remarkably similar to yours, I noticed some responses that weren't. Perhaps I got too caught up in the heated debate. My apologies.
I still strongly maintain you're incorrect on a good number of the main issues of the thread though. And I believe that some on the other sides of the debate (and more generally) have often been very quick to pass judgement on people like myself (and other long time members) who differ politically with accusations of being ists and phobes. Those (incorrect) accusations hurt me just as much as mine probably did you.
As I said earlier, perhaps we all need to take a breath and be more considerate of others we disagree with. That's not to say no any political debate, but I'd suggest we tone things down a bit, given this forum is a motoring one first and formost, especially as heavy-grade political debate appears to put off other website members from ineterracting here generally.
I sometimes look on the political debates on TV shown from many decades ago between people on opposite sides as much as we often are, but seem to go far more smoothly. Perhaps text-based internet / (un)social media debates isn't the best way of discussing a subject. The internet forums work generally seems to encourage antagonism.
I've noticed this with the newspaper comments areas under articles as well - they are mainly either people all with the same beliefs just blindly agreeing with eachother, or people going up against eachother like a boxing match. It used to be far more civilised where differences could be just discussed, rather than people trying to one-up eahcother with their next response.
I think that's what was happening here, helped by many of us having little to do or new/positive things to discuss because of current events in the world.
Hopefully this can draw a line under this matter.
|
OK then - I accept they are (I also said as much on another thread) after reviewing some more posts on that forum from your namesake - whilst their political views were remarkably similar to yours, I noticed some responses that weren't. Perhaps I got too caught up in the heated debate. My apologies.
I'm grateful for that acknowledgement, thank you. I've caused the odd mod intervention or application of threadlock (to pick a metaphor) on Cyclechat and was beginning to wonder if I'd caused greater upset somewhere and forgotten. I always try to be polite but recognise that I may not succeed, or offend by tactlessness. In the latter context I apologise to madf for comments made elsewhere.
As to the rest we're clearly in different camps. I'm not going to convince you of the merits of even the Croslandite version of Socialism. Neither am I going to swallow views that put the Telegraph on the left, decry the independence of the BBC or promote the 45th President of the USA as anything other than a lying narcissist. I don't want to label thoughts (and perhaps the people who express them) as ists or phobes but my roots are in the West Riding and I speak as I find :-P (see above re tact)
In a debate no proposer, seconder or speaker is hoping to change the view of their opponents; the aim is to carry the floor. To that end going for the man is a waste of time, it's the ball that you score with. We all need to remember that.
Let's all try harder in future.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 10/11/2020 at 20:40
|
|
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment or not.
I'm fairly sure I have ruffled feathers here in debates of a political nature, but to be honest I think sometimes people feel uncomfortable simply when an idea they hold dear is challenged, and take it personally. I admit I have been forthright in dealing with some matters. However, I apologise if I have offended anyone - it wasn't intentional and it wasn't personal.
It seems to me that discussion of controversial subjects should concentrate on ideas, opinions, evidence and rational/logical thought. Not only is it that "going for the man" (i.e. making statements - actual or implied - about someone as a person) is a waste of time - it is totally improper and inappropriate when attempting to establish the rights and wrongs of an opinion.
In case anyone wishes to know, my own political views are fairly centrist; I am naturally suspicious of extremes of any kind. I have voted for various parties over the years, though I've never been able to bring myself to vote Labour.
Edited by FP on 10/11/2020 at 21:57
|
It seems to me that discussion of controversial subjects should concentrate on ideas, opinions, evidence and rational/logical thought. Not only is it that "going for the man" (i.e. making statements - actual or implied - about someone as a person) is a waste of time - it is totally improper and inappropriate when attempting to establish the rights and wrongs of an opinion.
That exactly.
I do though have an ironic giggle over a centrist who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour, presumably even in the Blair era......
|
|
I seem to recall I was flirting with the Libdems at that point, but more importantly Blair put me off right from the beginning. I think it was the rictus smile and the love-ins with celebrities. Or maybe that was after he was elected. Of course, the Iraq business finished off any lingering respect I might have had.
|
I do though have an ironic giggle over a centrist who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour, presumably even in the Blair era......
It always amazes me how the Tories continually manage to persuade anyone earning south of £50,000 PA to vote for them?
|
As I've already pointed out those posts are by somebody else using the same username.
TBH I don't recall you denying it before - fair enough if you have. Still, quite an amazing coincidence given the similarity of political views.
His post was two before yours. Are you so blinkered? Just saying "fair enough" implies you are still not convinced though and wish to maintain your opinion.
|
I used to post on Political betting a decade ago. (Interested in the politics as I do not bet.)
I cannot imagine anyone being banned from PB unless it was continued personal harassment of others, continued ant semitism or other racism or personal abuse hurled at others.
Much as I disagree with Bromptonaut on things political, I cannot imagine he would do any of the above. In fact it is unthinkable. I have been here some 20 years and Bromps was there roughly when I started. He has never written anything worthy of banning here either
Just visit the website and do a search - it says it against his name. When I brought the issue up before during a previous 'heated discussion', he didn't deny it had happened. You might want to check his posts there to decide for yourself the reason(s) why. It seemed quite obvious to me.
Instead of digging yourself a hole and looking foolish it would be easier to apologise and move on as it was someone different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
