Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#191829
Yes indeed, amongst others (Richard Desmond took his share).
Hislop has been told, twice, though that things may be a bit 'more nuanced' than he says.
Otherwise he's being quite impressive, and should be playing an important part in the inquiry.
By Althea
Membership Days Posts
#214691
bluebellnutter wrote:Which bits in particular are you thinking of?
In particular? Not sure, I've not really read much of it. I was looking at the first few pages with the news and talk about Leveson and stuff.

I just don't know how much is... exaggerated, as it were.
 
By ezinra
Membership Days Posts
#214708
The In the Back section is very good, very reliable (apart from on MMR). The front sections cherry-pick information and don't really bother with balanced journalism (ie, contacting the person they're criticising or attempting to get a balancing quote). Also a lot of it is insinuation and innuendo: it will note that so-and-so is on the board of X-Corp which gave money to the Tories, and that the Tories have a policy which benefits so-and-so, but there's rarely any proof that one causes the other. Rather, Private Eye is content to give a general impression of a ruling elite in which everyone greases each other's palm.
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#214710
Althea - I have it in front of me now, essentially it's all broadly true except for the cartoons and pastiches of newspapers. In the current edition that means up to page 18 is true, 19-27 is pastiche and 28 onwards is factual (obviously the reviews are opinion).

I like this week's break down on the military cover for the tanker drivers, apparently, due to the defence cuts, the Army only has 300 ADR trained drivers who have passed a dangerous goods awareness course and only 20% of them have done the HAZMAT training they need to load and unload petrol.

So that's 60 Army drivers in military tankers (which are not equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks anyway) to cover 2,000 UK civilian delivery drivers.
By Althea
Membership Days Posts
#214712
oboogie wrote:Althea - I have it in front of me now, essentially it's all broadly true except for the cartoons and pastiches of newspapers. In the current edition that means up to page 18 is true, 19-27 is pastiche and 28 onwards is factual (obviously the reviews are opinion).

I like this week's break down on the military cover for the tanker drivers, apparently, due to the defence cuts, the Army only has 300 ADR trained drivers who have passed a dangerous goods awareness course and only 20% of them have done the HAZMAT training they need to load and unload petrol.

So that's 60 Army drivers in military tankers (which are not equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks anyway) to cover 2,000 UK civilian delivery drivers.
I see, thanks for that.

It just seems to get stories, cut the journalistic waffle and go "here are the facts, here's a pet name for someone, job's a good 'un" with 'em.
By Carlos The Badger
Membership Days Posts
#214713
oboogie wrote:So that's 60 Army drivers in military tankers (which are not equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks anyway) to cover 2,000 UK civilian delivery drivers.
:lol: Sounds about right. Incompetence, this season's new black!
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#214750
Althea wrote:It just seems to get stories, cut the journalistic waffle and go "here are the facts, here's a pet name for someone, job's a good 'un" with 'em.
Pretty much. They're sometimes a little trigger happy with their bullshit detector, but get it right most of the time.
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#214752
Carlos The Badger wrote:
oboogie wrote:So that's 60 Army drivers in military tankers (which are not equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks anyway) to cover 2,000 UK civilian delivery drivers.
:lol: Sounds about right. Incompetence, this season's new black!
It's spin innit - we've got it under control don'cha know.

And yeah, Spurt Are Troops!
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#214757
They do have a tendency to bang the drum a bit on old news. See for instance Piers Morgan and Viglen. Yes, we know. Get over it, Hislop.

Otherwise, what gets me about them is that they are very much of the "Tee hee, what larks!" approach, where everything in public life's a big giggle, a pantomime played out for the entertainment of the watching masses.

Oh yes, and the "Body X has done something. Couldn't have anything to do with member of body X knowing someone on body Y, eh?" attitude that Ezinra identified. Sometimes that's the case. But not always.
Labour, Generally.

Very interesting piece in the New Statesman by S[…]

Mark Francois MP

I have now.... :(

Whilst on the subject of "woke", I've ju[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Normally I don't respond to the Demon Headmaster[…]