Coronavirus

[Elephant Pyjamas]

How does any of that relate to what I've said?

It wasn't really a reply to your comment as such, just was related in terms of that it is journalism and that it seems to be of a good objective quality?

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Pretty poor form from Sunak and our old friend "senior Government source" to be saying that the furlough scheme will have to be tapered off/ended as people are "addicted" to it.

1) How the fuck can they be "addicted", everyone's only received one payment so far haven't they? And I don't even get to make my claim as a self-employed individual for another week.

2) You know exactly what kind of connotations that kind of terminology has.

3) How does this tally with "whatever it takes" which has been the message to date?

4) How does sending everyone back to work tally with your five tests and no news on an exit strategy?

5) If people can't go back to work (because they're too high risk as individuals, for example), or the businesses they work for simply are unable to survive because we're in some kind of halfway house between where we are now and where we were in February, what then? Millions on to Universal Credit, but there's pretty much no work to search for? Which brings us back to asking MPs if they fancy trying to live on £94 a week. And the system is already shit and doesn't work properly.

6) Everyone already knows this can't last forever FFS.

The important thing isn't that the Government continue with the furlough scheme, it's that it has the capacity to do the furlough scheme

 

[Johnny75]

It wasn't really a reply to your comment as such, just was related in terms of that it is journalism and that it seems to be of a good objective quality?

But not our press. I'm still not sure who has said our press has been harsh.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

200,000 testing target by the end of May. Which will of course be completely fiddled.

Johnson announced it during a few minutes where he discovered that PMQs is quite a bit more challenging with Kier Starmer standing opposite.

There is a 'random' 100k of the population being selected for testing to try and establish a true state of affairs as opposed to the estimates that they've been running with, which would give the Government a month to add 15k tests to the '85k' tests currently being done on around 65k people and they'd hit the magic number. Maybe only for a day. But they'd hit it, and prove that they now have the capacity to do 200k tests, which is the important thing.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

But not our press. I'm still not sure who has said our press has been harsh.

Well off the top of my head Piers Morgan is repeatedly criticised for being overly critical, Panorama and therefore the BBC was also criticised for their programme the other week, C4 News is criticised for being overly critical. FT journalists have been criticised, the Sunday Times article from a few weeks ago another.

It seems that when someone is critical of the government they get attacked personally.

And you've even done it yourself, that interview with the "secret footballer" is deemed to be made up by the author.

 

[Kenny]

200,000 testing target by the end of May. Which will of course be completely fiddled.

Johnson announced it during a few minutes where he discovered that PMQs is quite a bit more challenging with Kier Starmer standing opposite.

Been clarified that this time the 200,000 is capacity rather than actual tests. Its as if Boris has had a quick glance at the briefing sheets this morning and just remembered the overall number but not all the content

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Well off the top of my head Piers Morgan is repeatedly criticised for being overly critical, Panorama and therefore the BBC was also criticised for their programme the other week, C4 News is criticised for being overly critical. FT journalists have been criticised, the Sunday Times article from a few weeks ago another.

It seems that when someone is critical of the government they get attacked personally.

And you've even done it yourself, that interview with the "secret footballer" is deemed to be made up by the author.

Someone is behind bots pushing out the same crap constantly on Twitter.

 

[Johnny75]

Well off the top of my head Piers Morgan is repeatedly criticised for being overly critical, Panorama and therefore the BBC was also criticised for their programme the other week, C4 News is criticised for being overly critical. FT journalists have been criticised, the Sunday Times article from a few weeks ago another.

It seems that when someone is critical of the government they get attacked personally.

And you've even done it yourself, that interview with the "secret footballer" is deemed to be made up by the author.

There's a difference in criticism and being accused of being harsh.

Piers Morgan wasn't being critical he was hectoring and not letting people answer. It was his style that was criticised not his content.

Can you point to anybody who thinks the press has been too critical of the government rather than stuff you've just made up.

A bit like the author of the shite on that website. I would say I was dismissive of the author because he's talking shite.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

There's a difference in criticism and being accused of being harsh.

Piers Morgan wasn't being critical he was hectoring and not letting people answer. It was his style that was criticised not his content.

Can you point to anybody who thinks the press has been too critical of the government rather than stuff you've just made up.

A bit like the author of the shite on that website. I would say I was dismissive of the author because he's talking shite.

Is saying some one is being overly critical not the same as saying someone is being harsh?

"You always do this" rather than respond to the argument you lean on semantics.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Someone is behind bots pushing out the same crap constantly on Twitter.

I've seen this shared repeatedly on Facebook too.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

A bit like the author of the shite on that website. I would say I was dismissive of the author because he's talking shite.

Dismissive? I think you said he'd made the interview up?

You disagreed with it so you just flippantly come to the conclusion it must be fake, with no evidence what so ever.!

 

[Johnny75]

Dismissive? I think you said he'd made the interview up?

You disagreed with it so you just flippantly come to the conclusion it must be fake, with no evidence what so ever.!

I'm pretty sure most of the bible is made up too.

 

[Johnny75]

Is saying some one is being overly critical not the same as saying someone is being harsh?

"You always do this" rather than respond to the argument you lean on semantics.

Just in case you forgot, this is my first response to you.

Who has criticised them for being too harsh?

Most stuff I've seen is of them not being harsh enough or taking the government to task enough.

Personally I think they've been terrible, poor questions, no actual journalism and the relaying of agendas instead of actual news.

I've bolded the bit you still haven't answered.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I answered it!

Well off the top of my head Piers Morgan is repeatedly criticised for being overly critical, Panorama and therefore the BBC was also criticised for their programme the other week, C4 News is criticised for being overly critical. FT journalists have been criticised, the Sunday Times article from a few weeks ago another.

It seems that when someone is critical of the government they get attacked personally.

And you've even done it yourself, that interview with the "secret footballer" is deemed to be made up by the author.

Have you taken the time to give me exact quotes to back up your "Most stuff I've seen is of them not being harsh enough or taking the government to task enough" claim?

Have you bothered to provide evidence to back up your claim that the JN interview was fake?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I'm pretty sure most of the bible is made up too.

:icon_redface:

 

[Johnny75]

I answered it!




Have you taken the time to give me exact quotes to back up your "Most stuff I've seen is of them not being harsh enough or taking the government to task enough" claim?

Have you bothered to provide evidence to back up your claim that the JN interview was fake?

Funnily enough the man you quote along with James O'Brein have been very vocal in their damnation of the press and journalists for being too soft. Even Andrew Neil has had a pop at Peston for being inadequate. A quick look at their twitter accounts will be all the evidence you need.

I haven't seen anybody saying they've been too harsh,could you point me in that direction please?

And as for the shite interview you posted, I think a journalist printing a supposed interview from somebody he can't name or tell the reader the club he plays is asking the reader to stretch the boundaries of belief.

If everybody did that then you could write any old bollocks and say to anybody who dares call you out on it to prove it. The onus is on the writer to provide enough credibility the interview happened. This particular article had zero credibility.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Being inadequate isn't the same as being too soft is it....

And if we are using twitter as a measure I would suggest that you look at Morgan's twitter accounts to see hundreds of people saying he is being far too critical of the government (as well as criticising his style) the Panorama programme was described by many as a hatchet job, and you have the post that DW posted above that has gone viral on social media, so many people share that view of not criticising the government, that they are being too critical.

Maybe we are both right? There have been people saying they have been too soft (i think they have) and there have been people who think they have been too harsh.

On your final point, even today the quote that ran with the Chancellor's comments about furlough/lockdown etc was from am unknown "government source" this happens ALL the time, and a huge majority of people will therefore think it is legit, rightly or wrongly.

You are suggesting that JN fabricated an entire interview to suit his own agenda? I think that is actually far less likely than the article actually being true. Occam's razor etc.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Everybody knows "government source" is "straight from Dominic Cummings".

 

[Johnny75]

Being inadequate isn't the same as being too soft is it....

And if we are using twitter as a measure I would suggest that you look at Morgan's twitter accounts to see hundreds of people saying he is being far too critical of the government (as well as criticising his style) the Panorama programme was described by many as a hatchet job, and you have the post that DW posted above that has gone viral on social media, so many people share that view of not criticising the government, that they are being too critical.

Maybe we are both right? There have been people saying they have been too soft (i think they have) and there have been people who think they have been too harsh.

On your final point, even today the quote that ran with the Chancellor's comments about furlough/lockdown etc was from am unknown "government source" this happens ALL the time, and a huge majority of people will therefore think it is legit, rightly or wrongly.

You are suggesting that JN fabricated an entire interview to suit his own agenda? I think that is actually far less likely than the article actually being true. Occam's razor etc.

I'm not sure you understand Occam's razor. Not one piece of that shitehawk journalist's piece can be verified. There isn't any credible statements in it and most of it can be pulled apart. When the player says 'he can't go into that' you can tell it's total bollocks as the ideal opportunity to go into anything is when you have complete anonymity.

It's just fabricated rubbish.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Everybody knows "government source" is "straight from Dominic Cummings".

Pretty much! But no one dismisses it as a lie.