Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 0:29:19 GMT
To be honest, I would not have stayed in my flat, no matter what the FB said. If the security services told you to stay put because of a bomb threat would you stay, or move of your own free will? If anyone can put forward a worse analogy I'd be interested to hear it |
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Nov 6, 2019 5:02:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 6:31:52 GMT
Social media, never, as this story goes to prove. The utter naivety of some who take social media at face value without an ounce of critical thinking never ceases to amaze me. Guido is a prime example. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,556 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 6, 2019 6:53:54 GMT
Don't take anything at face value.
Daniel Sandford
@bbcdaniels
15h
So this happened. The Conservative Party took an interview from
@gmb
this morning. They edited it to add on the last shot in which Keir Starmer looks stumped. But that didn't happen. In the original Keir Starmer immediately answered
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 7:19:09 GMT
To be honest, I would not have stayed in my flat, no matter what the FB said. If the security services told you to stay put because of a bomb threat would you stay, or move of your own free will? That's a bit silly Oldie, even for you. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 6, 2019 7:55:09 GMT
Social media certainly can't
I see the Tories 'clever' editing of Sir Keir Starmers' interview got called out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 7:58:01 GMT
Social media, never, as this story goes to prove. The utter naivety of some who take social media at face value without an ounce of critical thinking never ceases to amaze me. Guido is a prime example. I think that was part of my criticism for her husband in my previous post. My uncle who is a leaver but at least talks a good game about it told me about his ‘insider dealing’ - he’s usually better informed than that but obviously got this info from social media. After listening to that podcast about the social media exploitation of the American election by Russia it’s scary to think how easy it is to embed untruths in the public consciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:39:00 GMT
If the security services told you to stay put because of a bomb threat would you stay, or move of your own free will? That's a bit silly Oldie, even for you. The real issue of course is the crass ignorance of Rees-Mogg, but a lot of us knew that. But out of interest, as you were the only one on here who seemed to agree with him by saying you would have run out of the building against the advice and perhaps command of the fire service, what would you do in my (hopefully) made up scenario. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:42:24 GMT
Social media, never, as this story goes to prove. The utter naivety of some who take social media at face value without an ounce of critical thinking never ceases to amaze me. Guido is a prime example. I think that was part of my criticism for her husband in my previous post. My uncle who is a leaver but at least talks a good game about it told me about his ‘insider dealing’ - he’s usually better informed than that but obviously got this info from social media. After listening to that podcast about the social media exploitation of the American election by Russia it’s scary to think how easy it is to embed untruths in the public consciousness. Very precisely. Which brings into focus the role of Johnson in suppressing the select committee's report on Russia's role in the EU Referendum. Democracy?? For the few it seems. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:45:41 GMT
Social media certainly can't
I see the Tories 'clever' editing of Sir Keir Starmers' interview got called out
Absolutely hilarious interview with the Tory Chairman just now on R4 on yesterday's Tory car crash day To sum it up. "Umm, err, well you know, people say stuff...umm, err you know, and then they regret it. Laughable and pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Nov 6, 2019 8:49:11 GMT
That's a bit silly Oldie, even for you. The real issue of course is the crass ignorance of Rees-Mogg, but a lot of us knew that. But out of interest, as you were the only one on here who seemed to agree with him by saying you would have run out of the building against the advice and perhaps command of the fire service, what would you do in my (hopefully) made up scenario. The constant attitude of 'My side is better than your side' is not really a discussion is it? We need to give a bit more, expand our minds and learn don't we? Let's face it, there's not many of them we would trust on any side of the house is there, or any? |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,556
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 6, 2019 8:49:45 GMT
Social media certainly can't
I see the Tories 'clever' editing of Sir Keir Starmers' interview got called out
Absolutely hilarious interview with the Tory Chairman just now on R4 on yesterday's Tory car crash day To sum it up. "Umm, err, well you know, people say stuff...umm, err you know, and then they regret it. Laughable and pathetic. He is currently at Sky News HQ but has refused (declined?) to appear on Kay Burley's show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:55:37 GMT
Also, on propaganda. Yesterday the advertising watchdog found that government campaign in the Metro extolling the virtues of Universal Credit had been misleading, factually incorrect. As the Guardian points out, lying to poor people. Now we have proof: the government used your money to lie about poor people flip.it/v2yzO7 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:58:29 GMT
That's a bit silly Oldie, even for you. The real issue of course is the crass ignorance of Rees-Mogg, but a lot of us knew that. But out of interest, as you were the only one on here who seemed to agree with him by saying you would have run out of the building against the advice and perhaps command of the fire service, what would you do in my (hopefully) made up scenario. Have you ever been involved in a bombing scenario either as a civilian or as a member of the security services? I won't go into any details on here but you really are talking out the back of your arse if you are trying to compare a fire in a tower block to an IED situation involving civilians. Have you ever looked at the details of the Omagh bombing, where civilians were cleared from the area where the warnings had said the bomb was, only to find that they were directed unintentionally towards the actual bomb? I work in a tallish building, on the 14th floor. Company policy is that in the event of a fire (or alarm), only the floor affected is cleared. The rest of the people in the building should stay where they are. If I ever hear the alarm go off on another floor, the first thing I do is to leave the building. With only two stairways to get down, I don't take any chances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:00:56 GMT
The real issue of course is the crass ignorance of Rees-Mogg, but a lot of us knew that. But out of interest, as you were the only one on here who seemed to agree with him by saying you would have run out of the building against the advice and perhaps command of the fire service, what would you do in my (hopefully) made up scenario. The constant attitude of 'My side is better than your side' is not really a discussion is it? We need to give a bit more, expand our minds and learn don't we? Let's face it, there's not many of them we would trust on any side of the house is there, or any? It's the negative stuff that makes my teeth itch. Even when they try to tell us how they will improve things, they over exaggerate to such a degree as to make it cringeworthy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:14:12 GMT
Also, on propaganda. Yesterday the advertising watchdog found that government campaign in the Metro extolling the virtues of Universal Credit had been misleading, factually incorrect. As the Guardian points out, lying to poor people. Now we have proof: the government used your money to lie about poor people flip.it/v2yzO7You see Oldie, you yourself are falling into their trap. Yo read an article from a biased newspaper, and then you post on here using language that is really not called for when you look at the context and detail. For example, here is one of the three points raised :- "“If you need money,” readers were assured, “your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance.” In its ruling, the ASA takes the government to task for not making it clear that this is only a loan and that the vast majority of claimants will have to wait five weeks for their first UC payment." So, the claim is that you can get an advance payment. Does this actually happen? Yes, it does. The complaint is that it doesn't mention that it is in fact part of the money you will receive in the future, and as an advance payment, will be deducted from the money when you eventually receive it. Hardly 'lying to poor people' is it? Oh, you mention twice about lies to poor people, repeating the phrase used in the article, just to hammer home your point To underline how you have been seduced by this article, there is a paragraph further down that you haven't mentioned. It's this:- "these ads were not devised by Dominic Cummings, or any party operative. As Rudd admitted in a letter this June to a select committee of MPs, “detailed campaign and content planning was taken forward by Department officials”. Under orders to sell the government’s biggest welfare reform this decade, civil servants played fast and loose with the truth. The reputation of the DWP, already badly damaged by countless failures, has taken another huge knock today." So, the campaign was constructed and ran by the Civil Service. Can you now see how you have been hoodwinked by cheap headlines and soundbites? Your reaction to this article is just the reaction they are looking for from the gullible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:40:27 GMT
The real issue of course is the crass ignorance of Rees-Mogg, but a lot of us knew that. But out of interest, as you were the only one on here who seemed to agree with him by saying you would have run out of the building against the advice and perhaps command of the fire service, what would you do in my (hopefully) made up scenario. Have you ever been involved in a bombing scenario either as a civilian or as a member of the security services? I won't go into any details on here but you really are talking out the back of your arse if you are trying to compare a fire in a tower block to an IED situation involving civilians. Have you ever looked at the details of the Omagh bombing, where civilians were cleared from the area where the warnings had said the bomb was, only to find that they were directed unintentionally towards the actual bomb? I work in a tallish building, on the 14th floor. Company policy is that in the event of a fire (or alarm), only the floor affected is cleared. The rest of the people in the building should stay where they are. If I ever hear the alarm go off on another floor, the first thing I do is to leave the building. With only two stairways to get down, I don't take any chances. The real issue is of course Rees-Mogg, casually suggesting that those poor people trapped in a fire should have ignored the Fire Brigade's advice / command, something you suggested you would do. To your question. As a civilian, yes, once. 1999, London Bridge, at Borough Market. As Director I took operational responsibility for the opening of a new public facility (privately owned by us shareholders, to be clear). Grand opening Saturday morning. 0800 we get a telephone warning of a bomb placed in the building. The building was over 2.5 acres within Victorian ground level archways. 2,500 people booked, £30 million vested. Cash has been spent, we had 30 days working capital only left in the bank. What would you do. Running doesnt count. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:43:52 GMT
Also, on propaganda. Yesterday the advertising watchdog found that government campaign in the Metro extolling the virtues of Universal Credit had been misleading, factually incorrect. As the Guardian points out, lying to poor people. Now we have proof: the government used your money to lie about poor people flip.it/v2yzO7You see Oldie, you yourself are falling into their trap. Yo read an article from a biased newspaper, and then you post on here using language that is really not called for when you look at the context and detail. For example, here is one of the three points raised :- "“If you need money,” readers were assured, “your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance.” In its ruling, the ASA takes the government to task for not making it clear that this is only a loan and that the vast majority of claimants will have to wait five weeks for their first UC payment." So, the claim is that you can get an advance payment. Does this actually happen? Yes, it does. The complaint is that it doesn't mention that it is in fact part of the money you will receive in the future, and as an advance payment, will be deducted from the money when you eventually receive it. Hardly 'lying to poor people' is it? Oh, you mention twice about lies to poor people, repeating the phrase used in the article, just to hammer home your point To underline how you have been seduced by this article, there is a paragraph further down that you haven't mentioned. It's this:- "these ads were not devised by Dominic Cummings, or any party operative. As Rudd admitted in a letter this June to a select committee of MPs, “detailed campaign and content planning was taken forward by Department officials”. Under orders to sell the government’s biggest welfare reform this decade, civil servants played fast and loose with the truth. The reputation of the DWP, already badly damaged by countless failures, has taken another huge knock today." So, the campaign was constructed and ran by the Civil Service. Can you now see how you have been hoodwinked by cheap headlines and soundbites? Your reaction to this article is just the reaction they are looking for from the gullible. I am not seduced by the article, I read it after I learned of the findings of the Advertising Standards Agency, which are not subject to journalistic licence. I only posted the link for those who may not have been aware of another piece of propaganda. Are you claiming the ASA were wrong in their adjudication? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 9:58:24 GMT
Meanwhile More fake stuff put out by the tories UK PM Johnson's party under fire for doctoring Brexit video clip of... flip.it/KWJENN |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 10:02:49 GMT
You see Oldie, you yourself are falling into their trap. Yo read an article from a biased newspaper, and then you post on here using language that is really not called for when you look at the context and detail. For example, here is one of the three points raised :- "“If you need money,” readers were assured, “your Jobcentre will urgently pay you an advance.” In its ruling, the ASA takes the government to task for not making it clear that this is only a loan and that the vast majority of claimants will have to wait five weeks for their first UC payment." So, the claim is that you can get an advance payment. Does this actually happen? Yes, it does. The complaint is that it doesn't mention that it is in fact part of the money you will receive in the future, and as an advance payment, will be deducted from the money when you eventually receive it. Hardly 'lying to poor people' is it? Oh, you mention twice about lies to poor people, repeating the phrase used in the article, just to hammer home your point To underline how you have been seduced by this article, there is a paragraph further down that you haven't mentioned. It's this:- "these ads were not devised by Dominic Cummings, or any party operative. As Rudd admitted in a letter this June to a select committee of MPs, “detailed campaign and content planning was taken forward by Department officials”. Under orders to sell the government’s biggest welfare reform this decade, civil servants played fast and loose with the truth. The reputation of the DWP, already badly damaged by countless failures, has taken another huge knock today." So, the campaign was constructed and ran by the Civil Service. Can you now see how you have been hoodwinked by cheap headlines and soundbites? Your reaction to this article is just the reaction they are looking for from the gullible. I am not seduced by the article, I read it after I learned of the findings of the Advertising Standards Agency, which are not subject to journalistic licence. I only posted the link for those who may not have been aware of another piece of propaganda. Are you claiming the ASA were wrong in their adjudication? Nope, don't try to change the subject. Your reaction was just the sort of reaction the article was looking for. The reality is that the wording 'may' have been mis-leading, as I demonstrated with one of the three examples......but to you it was 'government telling lies to poor people', which is a huge over-reaction. You are the perfect example of the 'useful idiot' that these people exploit. |
|
