  |
 The week in the world, because the pace of events is immense it's easy to miss stu |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 8th September 2019, 01:57 PM
Post
#481
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
  |
QUOTE(Algernon Monqueef @ Sep 8 2019, 02:53 PM)  They need a yes-man EXTREME HARD RIGHT spesker to subvert the laws and conventions of parliament. I told you all along that this was the true face of the landed gentry party. Believe me now?  No - because you are delusional, as always. |
 |
 
|
|
8th September 2019, 02:07 PM
Post
#482
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,421 User: 12,929                |
It's shocking because this is not how that works. The Speaker is and has been following the laws of parliament (against attempts by the government to break them) and for the Tories to try and oust him, unprecedentedly breaking a convention of gentleman's honour, because they don't like his results shows they truly are gone from pretending to be democratically respectable.
|
|
|
|
|
8th September 2019, 02:08 PM
Post
#483
|
|
 Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,112 User: 18,639
       |
Preach, Iz!! They really showed their authoritarianism under Mad May, but this is verging on full on dictatorship. And people like vidcapper will still doff their caps and defend their Tory landed gentry master of the manor!
|
|
|
|
|
8th September 2019, 02:17 PM
Post
#484
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,678 User: 3,272
  |
It isn't unprecedented for the Speaker to be opposed by the main parties. Both opposition parties stood against Bernard Weatherill in 1987. However, I suspect it is unprecedented for the Speaker's former party to oppose him.
When John Bercow stood for the Speakership, he promised to uphold the rights of backbenchers. That is exactly what he has done. He did it when Gordon Brown was PM and has continued to do it against a string of Tory PMs. The trouble with Johnson and his acolytes is that they don't like it when people do their job. |
|
|
|
|
13th September 2019, 08:11 PM
Post
#485
|
|
 Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
  |
A man in New Zealand was told that he was allowed to bring an advocate in with him to his Redundancy meeting.
He chose to bring in a clown, who blew up balloon animals & mimed crying when the redundancy papers were handed over. |
|
|
|
|
19th September 2019, 05:09 AM
Post
#486
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,421 User: 12,929 |
Canadian politics emerging onto the front page as an old photo of Trudeau has emerged wearing brownface (during a performance of Aladdin). This is a month before their elections on October 21st.
Awful stuff, particularly from one in the upper half of current mainstream Anglosphere leaders (almost the best but Ardern has him beat). HOWEVER, I've watched his apology and it's a fairly good as far as these things go QUOTE I shouldn't have done that, I should have known better but I didn't, and I'm really sorry . The main reason I'm worried is that this is the sort of thing that Canada's Conservatives need to get back into power and they are a rather unsavoury lot, far more consistently, and sadly, their social democratic party is by some way the third option. Polls will be interesting to watch in Canada now. |
|
|
|
|
27th September 2019, 08:57 AM
Post
#487
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
|
In 2015, an academic paper published in a major academic journal, claimed that the children of religious parents were less altruistic and meaner than the children of non-religious parents. Unsurprisingly, this paper was picked up by tens of media outlets, and much heralded by the usual suspects as "proof" that the religious are worse than the non-religious, and has continued to be cited since.
Well, four years later, that same paper has just been retracted. The reason for the retraction is that the data set they used was incorrect, and once updated, the researchers found that "country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes." I hope that the same publications that promoted the original paper with much pomp will highlight the fact the original paper has been retracted, and will give this exactly the same amount of prominence as the original article. Although I very much doubt it. It's not the first time that a much shared paper has been subsequently retracted - further evidence of the so-called "replication crisis" in the social sciences (where academic papers have to be retracted as their findings can't be replicated, due to faulty data sets), as well as the "science gap" between academics & journalists (where the latter aren't able to properly communicate the findings of academic papers, and not follow-up when the original findings are found to be wanting). A good rule of thumb for any findings you hear in the media: if the findings go against your personal biases - question them. If they confirm your personal biases - question them even more. |
|
|
|
|
27th September 2019, 09:45 AM
Post
#488
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Sep 27 2019, 09:57 AM) A good rule of thumb for any findings you hear in the media: if the findings go against your personal biases - question them. If they confirm your personal biases - question them even more. Good advice. Some people just can't be convinced though - anti-vaxxers for example, despite the original 'vaccines cause autism' article being discredited, retracted,and the Dr who wrote it being struck off... |
|
|
|
|
27th September 2019, 11:03 AM
Post
#489
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,112 User: 18,639
|
QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Sep 27 2019, 09:57 AM) In 2015, an academic paper published in a major academic journal, claimed that the children of religious parents were less altruistic and meaner than the children of non-religious parents. Unsurprisingly, this paper was picked up by tens of media outlets, and much heralded by the usual suspects as "proof" that the religious are worse than the non-religious, and has continued to be cited since. Well, four years later, that same paper has just been retracted. The reason for the retraction is that the data set they used was incorrect, and once updated, the researchers found that "country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes." I hope that the same publications that promoted the original paper with much pomp will highlight the fact the original paper has been retracted, and will give this exactly the same amount of prominence as the original article. Although I very much doubt it. It's not the first time that a much shared paper has been subsequently retracted - further evidence of the so-called "replication crisis" in the social sciences (where academic papers have to be retracted as their findings can't be replicated, due to faulty data sets), as well as the "science gap" between academics & journalists (where the latter aren't able to properly communicate the findings of academic papers, and not follow-up when the original findings are found to be wanting). A good rule of thumb for any findings you hear in the media: if the findings go against your personal biases - question them. If they confirm your personal biases - question them even more. Papers should be forced to give as much print and as much prominence to retractions as the sensationalist propaganda they printed about falsehoods/ lies. The S*n etc would be forced to have a grovelling front page every other day! |
|
|
|
|
27th September 2019, 09:19 PM
Post
#490
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,678 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Sep 27 2019, 09:57 AM) In 2015, an academic paper published in a major academic journal, claimed that the children of religious parents were less altruistic and meaner than the children of non-religious parents. Unsurprisingly, this paper was picked up by tens of media outlets, and much heralded by the usual suspects as "proof" that the religious are worse than the non-religious, and has continued to be cited since. Well, four years later, that same paper has just been retracted. The reason for the retraction is that the data set they used was incorrect, and once updated, the researchers found that "country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes." I hope that the same publications that promoted the original paper with much pomp will highlight the fact the original paper has been retracted, and will give this exactly the same amount of prominence as the original article. Although I very much doubt it. It's not the first time that a much shared paper has been subsequently retracted - further evidence of the so-called "replication crisis" in the social sciences (where academic papers have to be retracted as their findings can't be replicated, due to faulty data sets), as well as the "science gap" between academics & journalists (where the latter aren't able to properly communicate the findings of academic papers, and not follow-up when the original findings are found to be wanting). A good rule of thumb for any findings you hear in the media: if the findings go against your personal biases - question them. If they confirm your personal biases - question them even more. Even if the data were used correctly there is another rule to remember. Statistical correlation does not necessarily mean causation. There are some great examples here. |
|
|
|
|
28th September 2019, 05:09 AM
Post
#491
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Algernon Monqueef @ Sep 27 2019, 12:03 PM) Papers should be forced to give as much print and as much prominence to retractions as the sensationalist propaganda they printed about falsehoods/ lies. The S*n etc would be forced to have a grovelling front page every other day! Surely that would only apply if it could be *proven* they knew a story was false in advance, otherwise they could maliciously be fed fake news in order to get them into trouble. |
|
|
|
|
28th September 2019, 07:36 AM
Post
#492
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Sep 28 2019, 06:09 AM) Surely that would only apply if it could be *proven* they knew a story was false in advance, otherwise they could maliciously be fed fake news in order to get them into trouble. I would disagree. Most reputable news outlets should vet and fact check a story that they are sent before publishing it, so if they publish something that later turns out to be incorrect, they should put their hands up and admit that they got things wrong. It would definitely be an improvement on what happens now, with the clickbait culture meaning that stories that are obviously false get published anyway, as competing outlets need to get eyeballs on their site to get the ad clicks, fact checking be damned. |
|
|
|
|
28th September 2019, 07:42 AM
Post
#493
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
|
QUOTE(Algernon Monqueef @ Sep 27 2019, 12:03 PM) Papers should be forced to give as much print and as much prominence to retractions as the sensationalist propaganda they printed about falsehoods/ lies. The S*n etc would be forced to have a grovelling front page every other day! That is currently what Ipso, the regulators for newspapers, already do. If a newspaper/magazine is found to have broken their code of conduct, it is required that they publish a retraction or apology on a page in the publication that is just as or more prominent as the original publication. ie if the error is made on page 14 of a newspaper, the correction needs to be published on page 14 or closer to the front of the paper. If the story is also published online, this apology is usually required to be posted on the homepage of the website for 24 hours. |
|
|
|
|
28th September 2019, 07:49 AM
Post
#494
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Sep 28 2019, 08:42 AM) That is currently what Ipso, the regulators for newspapers, already do. If a newspaper/magazine is found to have broken their code of conduct, it is required that they publish a retraction or apology on a page in the publication that is just as or more prominent as the original publication. ie if the error is made on page 14 of a newspaper, the correction needs to be published on page 14 or closer to the front of the paper. If the story is also published online, this apology is usually required to be posted on the homepage of the website for 24 hours. Even if retractions *are* published, I suspect far fewer people read them than the original article. |
|
|
|
|
4th October 2019, 05:32 AM
Post
#495
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-75...acking-ban.html
Scotland becomes first UK nation to ban smacking children after MSPs vote to outlaw parents using physical punishment Law gives children the same level of protection from violence as adults Introduced by Scottish Greens MSP John Finnie who said it has 'no place' Brings Scotland up to international standards and is first UK nation to do so ***************************** A good move by the Scottish Parliament, but I fear it will have no impact on actual abusive parents, as they act out of their own anger issues, rather than 'reasonable chastisement'. 
|
|
|
|
|
11th October 2019, 05:17 AM
Post
#496
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
The Guardian would never draw attention to this level of absurdity...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-75...pus-racism.html Sheffield Student Union bans white students from attending meeting on campus racism as it plans to change 'from being simply non-racist to actively anti-racist' The union said it wanted to change from being 'non-racist to actively anti-racist' Union is going to hold meetings to get opinions and experiences from students However, these meetings are only open to black and ethnic minority students *************************** How unaware can these idiots be? 
|
|
|
|
|
11th October 2019, 09:12 AM
Post
#497
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,421 User: 12,929 |
Reputable newspapers know that students trying to do the right thing, with a story lifted straight from a student tabloid of all things, isn’t worth reporting on.
It’s important for people to have a space where they can share how they’ve experienced racism and I guess they figured that ensuring they didn’t even have supportive white people ready to butt in and make it about them when it isn’t was worth it. |
|
|
|
|
11th October 2019, 02:20 PM
Post
#498
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,112 User: 18,639
|
I don't even see a problem with that? Stop reading the daily mail. It has destroyed you and turnes you into a right wing puppet of the billionaire elite.
|
|
|
|
|
11th October 2019, 02:23 PM
Post
#499
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Algernon Monqueef @ Oct 11 2019, 03:20 PM) I don't even see a problem with that? Stop reading the daily mail. It has destroyed you and turnes you into a right wing puppet of the billionaire elite. Yawn. |
|
|
|
|
11th October 2019, 02:26 PM
Post
#500
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Tones and Iz @ Oct 11 2019, 10:12 AM) Reputable newspapers know that students trying to do the right thing, with a story lifted straight from a student tabloid of all things, isn’t worth reporting on. It’s important for people to have a space where they can share how they’ve experienced racism and I guess they figured that ensuring they didn’t even have supportive white people ready to butt in and make it about them when it isn’t was worth it. The method I use to judge such cases is to switch the victim group to the opposite one, and then re-examine whether the outcome seems fair... 
This post has been edited by vidcapper: 11th October 2019, 02:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 27th April 2024, 04:25 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
