Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Doon frae Troon]

Loving this thread title - call it like it is ,............if only government could do that too.

Instead I'm having to rely on Andrew Neil, Piers Morgan and others to press ministers for facts with the Cult of Boris membership obfuscating at every turn.

Look this latest news came from The Sunday Times, not The Guardian or Mirror so can't be instantly derided as political, they are a Tory paper after all. In that regard it's content should be taken on board and it's claims countered or clarified by Govt, hopefully will be later today but expect waffle and deflection, it'll somehow end up the fault of anyone but those in charge and actually Boris attended all those Cobra meets via skype.

According to the Scots Tory leader BBC Scotland is now showing bias towards the SNP.
The Times turning against a Tory Government and BBC Scotland supporting the SNP...........has hell frozen over.

Me re title thread, I do not think that history will judge this Westminster Government well.

 

[SocketRocket]

And posting this comment achieves what exactly?

Sarcastic balance. Anyone believing that the Government have been flying by the seat of their pants rather than following the advice of leading Scientific and Medical experts needs a dose of reality. Dealing with such a massive emergency the like we have never seen in our life times is not an easy task. Playing political sound bites at this time is IMO pointless and petty.

 

[jim8flog]

If we are going to compare our response against other countries - glad I do not live in Japan.

 

[SocketRocket]

According to the Scots Tory leader BBC Scotland is now showing bias towards the SNP.
The Times turning against a Tory Government and BBC Scotland supporting the SNP...........has hell frozen over.

Me re title thread, I do not think that history will judge this Westminster Government well.

Pathetic meany mouthed posting.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

There does seem to be a bit of a misconception that the Times and Sunday Times are particularly pro Conservative.

In recent elections their endorsement has swayed between the two major parties.

Generally speaking I believe they would consider themselves to be issue led.

Obviously the same cannot be said for Owen Jones who brought the article to many people's attention.

 

[MegaSteve]

Sarcastic balance. Anyone believing that the Government have been flying by the seat of their pants rather than following the advice of leading Scientific and Medical experts needs a dose of reality. Dealing with such a massive emergency the like we have never seen in our life times is not an easy task. Playing political sound bites at this time is IMO pointless and petty.

I am sure you know what they say about sarcasm... I believe the government is in denial with regard its handling of the basics... And, until it takes that on board and deals with it I remain concerned with its ability to resolve the bigger issues required to achieve a least worse outcome...

 

[SocketRocket]

I am sure you know what they say about sarcasm... I believe the government is in denial with regard its handling of the basics... And, until it takes that on board and deals with it I remain concerned with its ability to resolve the bigger issues required to achieve a least worse outcome...

And I disagree with your belief. It's too soon for that kind of judgement and you are simplifying a very complex issue.

 

[SocketRocket]

Owen Jones didn’t write the article and certain people reacted to a poster as opposed to what the actual article said.

The article was also posted in a well known Pro Tory paper so what political leaning does that show.

I would also suggest that people are reacting in a way because it maybe highlights that the government ( whose political side they support ) potentially could be culpable for lives being lost based on poor or incorrect initial reactions to the issue

Anything Owen Jones supports is politically biased in the extreme. If Tommy Robinson tweeted support of a newspaper article you would feel the same.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Anything Owen Jones supports is politically biased in the extreme. If Tommy Robinson tweeted support of a newspaper article you would feel the same.

I don’t care who tweets the support of the article - that’s not the point and it shouldn’t distract from the content of the article itself . People are more than capable of reading an article and judging it purely on the content as opposed to who “shared” it on the Internet.

Who shared on twitter is irrelevant and I would potentially suggest that people who focus on someone who shared it is prob trying to deflect away from the actual content.

You have posted a few times about the article but not actually said anything about the content or challenged it - more about posting sarcastic remarks. Do you have an actual opinion on the article or are you preferring to concentrate elsewhere

 

[User62651]

Was out there well before Owen Jones got hold of it, I saw it on twitter from other sources, but OJ went to get it past the Times pay barrier. I would agree OJs is not a balanced view.
Moot point but you just know JHunt would've been far better at this PM job, it's an adults job after all. Remember the 31/10 promise that couldn't be kept, Hunt was honest, BJ was not. Honesty does not matter where PM is concerned. As for Gove, slippery doesn't come close. Seen suggestions Gove and Murdoch are in cahoots over this story release.

 

[bluewolf]

We seem to have a fairly seismic split on this thread.

On one side are the people who’ve read the article and can discuss its content.

On the other side are those who haven’t read it but have judged its content based on the fact that a person they don’t like has brought attention to it.

I just feel sorry for the actual authors of the piece. I’m not sure they’ll be overly happy that Owen Jones appears to be getting credit for it.

 

[MegaSteve]

And I disagree with your belief. It's too soon for that kind of judgement and you are simplifying a very complex issue.

Looks like we are in an agreeing to disagree impasse...

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I think it's quite telling that an explosive story like this is published and nobody seems willing to refute its content. Instead we get "now is not the time", "oooh hindsight" and "I don't like Owen Jones" (who did nothing other than tweet the article).

Tells me that the report rings true across the political spectrum.

Just as some might say that the willingness of some to accept the contents of the article as absolutely correct says much about the political standpoint of those individuals.

Over the years The Insight team at the Sunday Times have undertaken some great work.

However, they have also been wrong on a number of occasions and had to subsequently retract certain stories.

Personally I want to see an independent, judicial review not trial by media.

 

[bluewolf]

Just as some might say that the willingness of some to accept the contents of the article as absolutely correct says much about the political standpoint of those individuals.

Over the years The Insight team at the Sunday Times have undertaken some great work.

However, they have also been wrong on a number of occasions and had to subsequently retract certain stories.

Personally I want to see an independent, judicial review not trial by media.

However, even if they’re wrong (and I’m certainly not saying that they aren’t), it’s articles like this that spark debate and lead to the momentum required to launch independent enquiries. If we all sit quietly, accepting everything that is happening then nothing will ever change.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

We seem to have a fairly seismic split on this thread.

On one side are the people who’ve read the article and can discuss its content.

On the other side are those who haven’t read it but have judged its content based on the fact that a person they don’t like has brought attention to it.

I just feel sorry for the actual authors of the piece. I’m not sure they’ll be overly happy that Owen Jones appears to be getting credit for it.

And there are those of us who have read the article but don't think that this is the best time for an inquiry into actions which cannot now be reversed.

 

[bluewolf]

And there are those of us who have read the article but don't think that this is the best time for an inquiry into actions which cannot now be reversed.

We’re not having an enquiry. We’re having a discussion.
However, I would expect challenging questions on this from journalists. The answers to these questions will hopefully drive the public discussion for the next few days.
Once this is over, then I’d expect a full public enquiry.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

However, even if they’re wrong (and I’m certainly not saying that they aren’t), it’s articles like this that spark debate and lead to the momentum required to launch independent enquiries. If we all sit quietly, accepting everything that is happening then nothing will ever change.

I genuinely want a review and also want ongoing scrutiny of the day to day actions of the authorities.

My concern is that some seem happy to reach a conclusion now based only on one newspaper's report.

 

[Blue in Munich]

If the article stuck to the factual I'd give it far more credence. But little gems like this betray an agenda to me;

The prime minister had been sunning himself with his girlfriend in the millionaires’ Caribbean resort of Mustique when China first alerted the World Health Organisation (WHO) on December 31 that several cases of an unusual pneumonia had been recorded in Wuhan, a city of 11 million people in Hubei province.

Of what relevance is that to how he has performed afterwards; and how is it relevant how he spends his New Year? It's a snide little dig. If he has been that bad, the facts should stand on their own, if the authors need to resort to this then there's some substance lacking for me.

 

[SocketRocket]

I don’t care who tweets the support of the article - that’s not the point and it shouldn’t distract from the content of the article itself . People are more than capable of reading an article and judging it purely on the content as opposed to who “shared” it on the Internet.

Who shared on twitter is irrelevant and I would potentially suggest that people who focus on someone who shared it is prob trying to deflect away from the actual content.

You have posted a few times about the article but not actually said anything about the content or challenged it - more about posting sarcastic remarks. Do you have an actual opinion on the article or are you preferring to concentrate elsewhere

The article is a great use of hindsight and as such is no more than a newspaper editorial looking for a sale. I believe the Government has been following the Scientific and Medical advice from the start of this. If you wish to believe otherwise then you are free to do so. I dont come to my conclusion as a rampant Tory supporter but as someone who is trying to stay impartial in this current crisis and let the people who know what they are doing do it. That's my take on it for what it's worth.

 

[bluewolf]

I genuinely want a review and also want ongoing scrutiny of the day to day actions of the authorities.

My concern is that some seem happy to reach a conclusion now based only on one newspaper's report.

To be fair (and I’m conscious of the fact that I’ve started 3 posts on this thread with that same line ?). Phil posted the article to prompt a discussion. It was immediately dragged off course absolutely unnecessarily by typical little potshots and sarcastic comments from people who should know better.

My view of the article itself is that it stretches a little too far at times. However, I’m incredibly interested in the reasoning behind it. I have my own suspicions about the reasons for the article.