Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 5 2017, 07:09 AM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4842270/diane-abbott-numbers-gaffe-voting-at-16-video-blunder/

Her gaffe came before a bill seeking to reduce the voting age was due to be debated in Parliament on Friday.

It was later shelved when MPs failed to vote on time. Labour accused the Tories of indulging in long speeches to wind down the clock.

In a video released on Facebook on Friday, Ms Abbott said: "I believe in votes at 16."

She added: "If you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to vote.

She was panned on social media for yet another numbers blunder.

One Facebook user said: "Sixteen-year-olds don't fight on the frontline... yet again Abbott doesn't know the facts".

Another blasted: "You can't fight at 16. You can join the forces but definitely no fighting until your 18. That is international law. Straight away wrong with a simple fact."

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 5 2017, 10:24 AM

Where's your thread about David Davis thinking Czechoslovakia still exists?

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 5 2017, 10:32 AM

It doesn't exist (either the country or the thread).

I simply never heard about this, so how could I post about something I didn't know about?

Posted by: Doctor Blind Nov 5 2017, 10:58 AM

I'm no fan of Abbott, but this continual over scrutiny and over hyping of relatively minor gaffes by her and her alone just reinforces and encourages the racist and sexist attacks that she has been subject to this year. It must really boil your blood that she increased her majority by 11K and got one of the largest majorities of any constituency in the UK of 35,000 back in June vid?

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 5 2017, 12:36 PM

I don't understand why she is so popular in her constituency, but it doesn't bother me because it would be ultra-safe Labour whoever the MP was.

It's surely not racist/sexist to expect senior members of the shadow cabinet not to make easily avoidable errors?

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 5 2017, 01:02 PM

The attack on Diane Abbott is being used to distract from the real issue. She was talking about the subject because an MP had tried to introduce a bill to reduce the voting age to 16. By talking at length about a different, relatively uncontroversial, bill, a group of Tory MPs ensured that there was only 90 minutes left to discuss the voting age. When an MP tried to put the matter to the vote, the Deputy Speaker ruled that there had not been enough discussion.

Even if the matter had been put to a vote and that vote went in favour of reducing the voting age, it is highly unlikely that it would have become law. However, it is surely a subject worthy of discussion in parliament.

That's the real issue but, once again, the press are doing their best to make sure it doesn't get discussed.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 5 2017, 09:14 PM

Yet you don't ever mention the hundreds of gaffes by Trump, a white male - granted they would need a whole continuous thread filled on a daily basis.

Or Johnson, who doesn't just do gaffes, he does outright blatant lies. As does Dave Dave, Nige Garage, Foxy Loxy and any number of Tory MP's.

That you choose not to start a thread on the ones they do but you choose to focus on Not-actually-in-government Rambling Di - who I'm not a fan of - is a bit errr showing bias.

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 6 2017, 06:54 AM

1. I have minimal interest in US politics

2. The papers I read rarely mention them.

3. I am under no obligation not to be biased.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 6 2017, 08:00 AM

Good to hear you admit you are biased and get your selective facts and opinons from a biased narrow range of sources...

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 6 2017, 11:17 AM

Isn't that better than lying about it.

Seriously though, it's no different from others here getting their info from left-leaning sources.

In any case, I have posted links to Guardian articles a number of times here.

Posted by: danVember Nov 6 2017, 11:33 AM

Diane Abbott shouldn't be getting a free pass by the press just because she's been getting racist and sexist attacks, when she constantly makes blunders. Of course the attacks are vile and should be stopped but she really should step down as Shadow Home Secretary and the position be given to someone more competent who doesn't mess up their numbers. I imagine she's good in her constituency considering her huge majority so she should stick to that.

Meanwhile I do agree that the likes of Johnson and Davis should be getting more press criticism than they are, but sadly the right wing media are just putting their hands over their ears and la la la brexit is wonderful la la take back control.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 6 2017, 01:28 PM

except that we pay attention to all sources of news.....

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 6 2017, 02:10 PM

Even the Daily Mail?

Posted by: Buttered Muffin Nov 6 2017, 02:15 PM

DailyMail is not a RELIABLE source.

The fact is the media is using this 'gaffe' to avoid talking about how Tories are stiffing younger voters AGAIN and then wondering why they don't vote for that crusty party. The gaffe is unimportant - the undemocratic attacks on parliament are. 'Take back control' = throw all power to the Tories.

Posted by: danVember Nov 6 2017, 02:41 PM

Daily Mail (and The Sun) is so unreliable it doesn't really count as a 'source of news'.

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 6 2017, 03:47 PM

So the Church Gun Massacre they report didn't really happen?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052163/Up-27-shot-Texas-church-gunman-opens-fire.html

Having proven you wrong, will you now admit they *do* publish news, albeit with an editorial slant you don't like?

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 6 2017, 03:54 PM

When did anybody suggest that none of the events reported in the Wail actually happened?

Your admission earlier that you hadn't read about various Tory gaffes just underlines why the Wail is considered unreliable. After all, the implication is that the rag didn't report them. Some Wail readers are, no doubt, capable of seeing through at least some of the bias in the reports they do publish. That still means that anybody using it as their principal source of news may miss a lot of stories that don't fit the Wail's agenda.

As an example, did the Wail bother to report why Diane Abbott was talking about 16-year-olds?

Posted by: danVember Nov 6 2017, 03:56 PM

I was clearly exaggerating, but yeah, read what Suedehead said, Mail is very biased and unreliable.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Nov 6 2017, 11:14 PM

I'm struggling to work out if this is a worse gaffe than Diane's: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/boris-johnson-mistake-could-harm-case-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-say-family?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

One was a minor point with no consequences whatsoever, and the other may lead to an innocent women spending additional years in jail.

It's a tough one isn't it.

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 06:52 AM

Yes, the Mail did report she was talking about lowering the voting age.

As for what the Mail (or any other newspaper) reports, their space is not infinite (especially in the printed versions) so they *have* to be selective.

Obviously, major stories are covered in all of them, but beyond those, it is up to the editors as to which stories they include - anything other method of deciding would be against the freedom of the press. The political spin put on stories is a somewhat separate issue, based on demographics, and the political persuasion of their core readership. That applies whether you're talking of a right-leaning paper like the Mail, or a left=leaning one like the Guardian.



I address the issue of bias above, but iro reliability, they report real stories that other papers do not, because they think their readership will be interested in them - in that respect they are no different from any other newspaper.

Also, as Suedehead says above, readers are capable of looking behind political bias, but I see no reason to believe that Mail readers are less capable of that then readers of any other newspaper. If you have evidence (rather than simply opinion) to suggest otherwise, I'd love to debate the issue further.

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 07:09 AM

On the subject of newspaper bias, here is an interesting example...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/pmqs-corbyn-attacks-may-over-failure-to-tackle-tax-avoidance

But from today's Mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5056363/Jeremy-Corbyn-great-tax-hypocrite.html

Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite: Labour rents its HQ from offshore firm ... but still attacks the Royals

Corbyn suggested Queen apologise if she invested £10m of her wealth offshore
Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell demanded an inquiry
Labour council avoided paying millions in tax after it used an offshore company
Party’s London headquarters is rented from a tax-exempted property trust fund

******

Has the Guardian reported the second part of the above?

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 07:21 AM

BTW, the Mail did report this too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5054801/Boris-Johnson-gaffe-Nazanin-Zaghari-Ratcliffe.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 08:05 AM

Hah! Game Set and Match...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 08:08 AM

That wasn't the issue (and it was online, not in print, in amongst a load of clickbait about scantily clad sexist celebrity drivel)

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 7 2017, 08:11 AM

Then there's the International Development secretary Priti Patel. She held a series of unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. She first said there were only a couple and that she had informed the Foreign Office. It is now known that there were twelve meetings and Patel says that her claim about the FO knowing was "imprecise". In other words, a lie.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 7 2017, 08:12 AM

Since when has a tenant been responsible for their landlord's tax affairs?

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 08:13 AM

But a gaffe by a member of the opposition is almost inevitably consequence-free anyway, so is it really a fair comparison.

While I'm not excusing it, Boris's gaffe only involved one person, where Abbott's potentially involved hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 08:15 AM

renting property in a country where the government has allowed foreign tax dodgers to buy shitloads of UK assets up is not in any way the same as stuffing your actual money abroad, which the Fail takes great pains to quote Moggy as saying that rich people using these schemes make absolutely no money out of them. If that were true he would have no problem with the UK government closing all of them immediately. More likely he is preparing the groundwork to divert attention in case his finances ever come up for discussion (you know, his stakes in cancer-sticks among others)...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 08:19 AM

You are trying to make excuses for the Mail for their selective bias and actual lies. Your assumptions that left-leaning papers are incapable of balance is not a balanced perspective. If it were a far-left paper providing click bait and propaganda then it would be a valid argument.

You're right in that they pander to their older readership. You're not right in assuming propaganda has no effect. The evidence of thousands of years is that it very much does have an effect.

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 08:46 AM

ISTM you're trying to overcomplicate this - it is either wrong to use tax havens, or it is not, regardless of whether we are talking about individuals or businesses.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin Nov 7 2017, 11:02 AM

Uh WUT?

Her gaffe affects literally NO ONE because the TORIES affected them by dwnying parliamentary sovreignty and not allowing a VOTE!!!

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 11:52 AM

Hence my use of the word 'potentially'. If she hadn't been in opposition...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 12:56 PM

Not if you need to rent and there is no alternative it isn't. The fault is the government that allows tax haven companies to buy up all the key assets in the country and stash their profits overseas. The fault of tax havens are the governments that allow it. They are not the same thing at all because the renter makes no profit out of it and they aren't evading tax they pay all they are supposed to pay, it's the BVI company that breaks the (spirit of) the law not the occupier who may not have ablind idea what or who they are (because these facts are not published and they are secretive). If everything was published and open then you MIGHT have an argument. That isn't the case and the Tories have lied continuously about doing anything about election after election. Wonder why.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 7 2017, 01:03 PM

How would her words have affected anyone if she was in government?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 01:04 PM

No. No. No.

Getting a fact wrong is an error of memory that is quickly corrected by the whole of Fleet Street.

making dangerous statements in public that have consequences for individuals immediately is unforgivable. Half of Fleet Street tend to try and make excuses for the inexscusable.

Not the same at all.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin Nov 7 2017, 01:53 PM

Labour nor anyone else is under no obligation, nor should be, to investigate the holdings of their landlords though? And before these papers leaked ... how would they have known anyway? Lol. Also, if the government of the day's priviliges for the ultra wealthy basically promote this toxic culture, then it makes sense a lot of properties will be owned by firms like this. So? You point is completely biased and misses the um actual point of the scandal?

Posted by: vidcapper Nov 7 2017, 03:24 PM

No more so than the Queen should be expected to know exactly how royal money is being invested on her behalf.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin Nov 7 2017, 03:31 PM

Again, that misses the point that THE RULING ELITE are stashing their money away, showin right wing neoliberal economics isn't working like um at all. The Queen SHOULD have more knowledge of her estate than tenants should have of their landlords'! But again, that is aside the point - the rich and powerful are stashing money away. This is helped by a Tory for-the-rich cosy environment.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Nov 7 2017, 04:57 PM

Nonsense. The queen's money is indeed invested on her behalf by experts (Gove wouldn't approve). Anybody who employs people to invest their money can issue instructions, e.g. avoid companies involved in tobacco or the arms trade. Equally, they can say, e.g., "I'm the head of state. It would be a bit embarrassing if my money was invested in offshore trusts and people found out. With that in mind, please avoid them. After all, I'll still be loaded."

Posted by: Buttered Muffin Nov 7 2017, 05:01 PM

Whilst the tenants of a property would have no reason, ESPECIALLY, pre-papers to dig into the finance of their landlords, ESPECIALLY when almost ANYBODY or ANY ENTITY would have more important things to do.

This is all very obvious?

Also, this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901175

Prince Charles' lobbying for a rule change to benefit these companies was purely coincidence ... right?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Nov 7 2017, 09:35 PM

I don't think many people ARE blaming the Queen. They are blaming her appointed "experts"....