Dominic Cummings
- Thread starter simmo
- Start date
simmo
Senior Jockey
If he'd do the right thing and resign we could get on with other stuff.
We still won't be getting together with family members because SIL has returned to work in London and my son's daughter is returning to school. As there will still be a risk that either of them could be asymptomatic or presymptomatic we shall avoid them. We protect ourselves not just for our own sake but to protect the NHS from having more older, vulnerable people to treat. Everyone must still do their bit to reduce the infection rate.
He is an economist that knows almost nothing about economics. Was predicting the 2008 crash in 1998 and was then heralded as an oracle when the sh1t hit the fan 10 years later than he predicted
Sent from my SM-J415FN using Tapatalk
What qualifies you to judge his knowledge of economics?
Apart from an undergraduate degree in economics, a masters degree in economics, and professional experience as an economist, very little!!!
Sent from my SM-J415FN using Tapatalk
Also monetary policy is the one area that the government does not have direct control over. It is set by the bank of England, who like almost all other other central banks, are (rightly) independent of government.
Sent from my SM-J415FN using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-J415FN using Tapatalk
He is an interesting thinker but lives like a C Byrnes trained JP handicap hurdler. He is only right once every couple of years, even though he does come from Dalkey.
And he was wrong about peak oil too. I just thought it was interesting that he likes their economic policies to get out of the crisis. He doesn't strike me as being pro-Britian or pro-Tories.
Fair enough. I'm no blind McWillians fan. I think he talks plenty of shite
Historic day. After 'twenty years of beligerance*' Slim finally takes a backward step.
(*You can have that one for free as the title of your autobigraphy.)
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
I tend not to follow the political stuff on here (or anywhere) but has anyone believed the BBC was fair and impartial at any time in the last 50 years? They've been pro-Tory for as long as I can remember.
It's hardly surprisinng, when you look at their opposition.
Last edited:
archie
Senior Jockey
A Cummings is now a golfing term. It's a really long drive that goes way out of bounds but incurs no penalty.
Wolf
On a break
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,026
Don't think I'd heard of Cummings before as politics bores me - but he's given me a right laugh with this and the fact that he's got away with it, so I quite like this strange looking guy now 
Must see if I can get a Cummings mask, then I could drive wherever I like and stay overnight with impunity.
Must see if I can get a Cummings mask, then I could drive wherever I like and stay overnight with impunity.
Last edited:
As far as news/current affairs programmes are concerned I feel they are just right wing puppets. However, when it comes to dramas [eg Years and Years] and a lot of the history programmes/documentaries on BBC4 they are the complete opposite. Which is probably why the government seem to want to get rid of BBC4.
simmo
Senior Jockey
There are thousands on the BBC hys on this topic claiming that the BBC are raving looney lefty's.
Last edited:
The right wing or left wing perceived bias thing is to do with politics not always being portrayed in a technically clear way that actually suits or acknowledges left wing or right wing agendas.
In other words, the public accept the narrative, but just disagree on what chapter of the book we are actually reading from.
I will try and explain further. If it was clearly to the left, 90 + percent of people would be able to identify it as such, or vice versa. It seems half the public feel its biased one way and half feel its biased the other way.
So again, I will try and expand and explain why this is the case and what this means.
E.G. Look at newspapers. They have always had a difference in styles of writing, detail and what they deem a story or not, etc.
The words used, the imagery, even the people who write the articles and the (typically upper middle class) backgrounds they come from, can imply a technical political bias due to the way news output is constructed or 'put together'.
My point is, the same technical issues are also prevelent on television, and why wouldn't they be?
In the old days you had people like David Frost or Jeremy Paxman. They were world reknowned BBC journalists.
The trend nowadays seems to be that if you are a political editor, you do a year as political editor at the BBC, then move to poltical editor of ITV a year later, then Channel 4 while finishing your career off at Sky News.
In other words, the journalists, have almost become itemised like an individual brand that hovers about from one channel to another!
How many LBC presenters do you see all over the BBC or ITV each day. Now ask yourself how many BBC journalists have slots on LBC. None!
I know we are all friends and stuff, so I am sure the head of BBC goes to dinner with their counterpart at ITV each night, but the reality is that there has never been so much competetion amongst terrestrial and media broadcasters, right?
Something doesn't quite add up.
E.G a DJ plays rap music on radio 1, another DJ plays pop on another station. A third DJ plays rock and roll on another station.
Then one day, the powers that be decide to send DJ (A) to station 3, DJ (B) to station 1 and DJ (C) to station 2.
The output is going to be different as they all play a different tunes!
The channels also gain a completely different demographic and the cause-and-affect is the old status quo of channels that did have a clear positive political bias, (in the same way the Daily Mirror is clearly biased to the left)...well...they all become more intertwined into a perceived 'middle ground,' which of course doesn't actually exist!
Check out Faisel Islam. He started off at Channel 4, then moved on the political editor of Sky, then ITV but now does the same role at the BBC.
In summation, what this all means is that the BBC mandate and modus operandi, (in a political output sense), overall is to really monitor other media and mirror them, in the same way a heavyweight boxer mirrors his opponent.
I reckon there is a correlation between the more to the right the newspapers go, (most of them as we know, are to the right,) and the further perceived bias of the BBC.
I worry there is no way back from this journalistic disorder.
This is what the powers that be wanted for this countries political journalism.
Poliitcal bias has never been so unclear and clear to so many people at the same time.
It really can't be both of the above.
Unless we have entered into a kind 'all things to all people' form of journalistic discourse, which as I said ends up appealing to a centre ground of no 'apparant bias' which obviously doesn't actually exist!
In other words, the public accept the narrative, but just disagree on what chapter of the book we are actually reading from.
I will try and explain further. If it was clearly to the left, 90 + percent of people would be able to identify it as such, or vice versa. It seems half the public feel its biased one way and half feel its biased the other way.
So again, I will try and expand and explain why this is the case and what this means.
E.G. Look at newspapers. They have always had a difference in styles of writing, detail and what they deem a story or not, etc.
The words used, the imagery, even the people who write the articles and the (typically upper middle class) backgrounds they come from, can imply a technical political bias due to the way news output is constructed or 'put together'.
My point is, the same technical issues are also prevelent on television, and why wouldn't they be?
In the old days you had people like David Frost or Jeremy Paxman. They were world reknowned BBC journalists.
The trend nowadays seems to be that if you are a political editor, you do a year as political editor at the BBC, then move to poltical editor of ITV a year later, then Channel 4 while finishing your career off at Sky News.
In other words, the journalists, have almost become itemised like an individual brand that hovers about from one channel to another!
How many LBC presenters do you see all over the BBC or ITV each day. Now ask yourself how many BBC journalists have slots on LBC. None!
I know we are all friends and stuff, so I am sure the head of BBC goes to dinner with their counterpart at ITV each night, but the reality is that there has never been so much competetion amongst terrestrial and media broadcasters, right?
Something doesn't quite add up.
E.G a DJ plays rap music on radio 1, another DJ plays pop on another station. A third DJ plays rock and roll on another station.
Then one day, the powers that be decide to send DJ (A) to station 3, DJ (B) to station 1 and DJ (C) to station 2.
The output is going to be different as they all play a different tunes!
The channels also gain a completely different demographic and the cause-and-affect is the old status quo of channels that did have a clear positive political bias, (in the same way the Daily Mirror is clearly biased to the left)...well...they all become more intertwined into a perceived 'middle ground,' which of course doesn't actually exist!
Check out Faisel Islam. He started off at Channel 4, then moved on the political editor of Sky, then ITV but now does the same role at the BBC.
In summation, what this all means is that the BBC mandate and modus operandi, (in a political output sense), overall is to really monitor other media and mirror them, in the same way a heavyweight boxer mirrors his opponent.
I reckon there is a correlation between the more to the right the newspapers go, (most of them as we know, are to the right,) and the further perceived bias of the BBC.
I worry there is no way back from this journalistic disorder.
This is what the powers that be wanted for this countries political journalism.
Poliitcal bias has never been so unclear and clear to so many people at the same time.
It really can't be both of the above.
Unless we have entered into a kind 'all things to all people' form of journalistic discourse, which as I said ends up appealing to a centre ground of no 'apparant bias' which obviously doesn't actually exist!
Last edited:
That's baked into the plan. Always claim victimhood regardless of objectivity. It's what I would do and encourage others to do if I knew I had the BBC in my pocket.
simmo
Senior Jockey
The hys was there because the BBC printed another article about Cummings - after the Tory press had given up on the subject.
The comments were along the lines that the BBC was trying a hatchet job on him because of the success of Brexit.
I don't believe that the comments were part of some grand conspiracy.
The comments were along the lines that the BBC was trying a hatchet job on him because of the success of Brexit.
I don't believe that the comments were part of some grand conspiracy.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
Cummings breaks the rules and lies.
His wife supports his lies.
M P`s and senior ministers flood the media and lie.
The Prime Minister blatantly repeats the lies ….all of them treating the public as fools.
Maitlis factually reports this....and is reprimanded.
His wife supports his lies.
M P`s and senior ministers flood the media and lie.
The Prime Minister blatantly repeats the lies ….all of them treating the public as fools.
Maitlis factually reports this....and is reprimanded.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
The whole Brexit is thing is one big swindle based on extremely tenuous premises. I don't recall reading anything anywhere about any of it being a success unless it actually being voted for qualifies as a 'success'.
I think you should look at the coordinated talking points repeated by accounts of Tory ministers and amplified by bots throughout the internet's various social media platforms. It would be very interesting to see where that thread leads if followed. Anyone who threatens to do so is subjected to a huge amount of abuse. In other news, where is that Russian report again?
Re a BBC esteemed reporter generally considered to be on the left:
John Humphrys has lifted the lid on the BBC's "institutional liberal bias" and accused the corporation of being out of touch with the nation in his memoir.
The veteran broadcaster, who retired from Radio 4's Today show two days ago, says bosses "badly failed" to read the public's mood on Brexit and "simply could not grasp" why anybody voted Leave.
Opening para from an article in the Daily Telegraph 21st September 2019. I don't see how any balanced, fair-minded person can believe the BBC were not anti-Brexit.