John Bercow - right or wrong?

[chrisd]

It takes a twisted tortured mind.

Correct!!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread

 

[chrisd]

So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread

I dont want to pick fault but just by writing this you aren't practicing what you preach!

 

[SocketRocket]

So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread

Oh the irony! The flaming irony in that post

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Isn't it a pity that it gets to this with the most read daily newspaper in the country. And there we go as Paul Dacre leads his vitiolic, vitupertive and abusive personal denegration and assault on Speaker Bercow. But no doubt there will be some who put Wikipedias stance down as what would be expected from such a leftie bunch.

 

[IanM]

So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either. (Although his language was less sensationalist)

Disagree - get banned. The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad. The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that. Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.

Newspapers.... don't like? Don't buy. Simple.

 

[Sweep]

And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Isn't it a pity that it gets to this with the most read daily newspaper in the country. And there we go as Paul Dacre leads his vitiolic, vitupertive and abusive personal denegration and assault on Speaker Bercow. But no doubt there will be some who put Wikipedias stance down as what would be expected from such a leftie bunch.

The Daily Mail is given far too much importance nationally and especially on here. I am afraid that you, Delc and especially HK just fall for their brand of sensationalist journalism. You can see how it makes your blood boil and that is what they intend to do. They take popular centre right views and give them a twist and they do it for one reason. It creates controversy and conversation which leads to selling newspapers. It works. In an admittedly rapidly declining market they are number 1 which is a result given that a few years ago they were just a daily paper aimed at women readers. The Express has tried to follow but having spent years concentrating on Princess Diana, miracle health cures and extreme weather they can't get close.
As a Lettie you should concern yourself more with the rapid decline of the Observer and especially the Guardian which is resorting to begging its readership for money. That can only be because no-one wants to read left wing, pseudo intelligent, Islington based nonsense anymore.
There are reasons why people want to read the DM and it isn't that they agree with everything it says. More likely it's because it addresses issues that concerns them and whilst they may think the DM is a bit extreme they agree with its sentiments. They believe the left has too far in giving everything to anyone other than those who work for it and that the left has gone soft on terrorists, hate preachers, health tourists etc. They believe in respect for all but that PC has gone too far. They want someone to stand up for the working people and middle England. It is not just a UK issue. It's exactly why Trump was elected in America. It is not a massive swing to the right, it's a reaction to the left moving further left.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Oh the irony of Wikipedia doubting the factual validity of the DM.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As i asked the question, and havent commented as of yet, my view is

Bercow is a total knob, he is hated in the HOC by large sections, he should NOT have spoken out of turn without the people who decide such matters agreeing the decision first and as bad, or worse than Trump, have addressed the House and as the POTUS he should be welcomed to speak and quite possibly make a fool of himself.

Id also add that how one voted in the referendum has absolutely no bearing on people's views on Bercow!

You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do. Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed. But that might just be coincidence and not representative.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It takes a twisted tortured mind.

Not really - it just takes listening to what people say.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either. (Although his language was less sensationalist)

Disagree - get banned. The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad. The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that. Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.

Newspapers.... don't like? Don't buy. Simple.

That I don't like what the DM says does not stop me reading it. In fact I'm surprised that you suggest I should.

Perhaps DM readers could do with reading the Guardian from time to time.

 

[SocketRocket]

You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do. Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed. But that might just be coincidence and not representative.

And your point is what exactly?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either. (Although his language was less sensationalist)

Disagree - get banned. The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad. The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that. Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.

Newspapers.... don't like? Don't buy. Simple.

Their language and attacks on Bercow is rabble rousing, irresponsible, intemperate and frankly reprehensible. But what do they care. They have a huge readership and Dacre gets to say and print what he thinks. And Wikipedia thinks what he gets printed has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.

Isn't it comforting to know that so many of the the British electorate get their political steer from that paper. Well not for me it isn't.

And was it not the DM who ranted about the 'he doesn't look like a child' refugee? And so yesterday the Tories sneak in the news that they are halting acceptance of under 10s lone-children refugees - because we can't find foster homes for any more. Really? 350 children out of 3000 we agreed to take. And that's that. Done deal. Paul Dacre and his readers satisfied. These under 10s can fend for themselves - we just can't cope. Isn't that just fine, well it will be with DM readers - can't have these 'burly lads aged anywhere between 15 and 21' pretending they are children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hildren-lied-age-officials.html#ixzz4YBdPgJ5s

 

[chrisd]

You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do. Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed. But that might just be coincidence and not representative.

To be honest i dont know it "for a fact" any more than you. Almost everything on these threads are unsubstantiated guess work but after a few postings saying the same thing you'd think they were facts. Lets be honest, you dont know that Brexit won't be a roaring success and i dont know if its going to end up as the worst thing we ever did - if we "knew for a fact" we wouldn't all engage in endless discussion.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And your point is what exactly?

From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU. I cannot prove it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.

 

[Sweep]

Their language and attacks on Bercow is rabble rousing, irresponsible, intemperate and frankly reprehensible. But what do they care. They have a huge readership and Dacre gets to say and print what he thinks. And Wikipedia thinks what he gets printed has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.

Isn't it comforting to know that so many of the the British electorate get their political steer from that paper. Well not for me it isn't.

And was it not the DM who ranted about the 'he doesn't look like a child' refugee? And so yesterday the Tories sneak in the news that they are halting acceptance of under 10s lone-children refugees - because we can't find foster homes for any more. Really? 350 children out of 3000 we agreed to take. And that's that. Done deal. Paul Dacre and his readers satisfied. These under 10s can fend for themselves - we just can't cope. Isn't that just fine, well it will be with DM readers - can't have these 'burly lads aged anywhere between 15 and 21' pretending they are children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hildren-lied-age-officials.html#ixzz4YBdPgJ5s

See what I mean? Your blood is boiling but you cannot blame all the worlds ills on the Daily Mail.
You say people get their political steer from the DM but I doubt they influence that many and the same can be said about the Guardian. Is it just that the DM does a better job?
Do you really believe government policy is influenced by the DM? ( and btw he didn't look like a child and isn't it part of the job of a journalist to highlight where there is injustices?)

 

[Sweep]

From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU. I cannot prove it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.

So, in other words it's just your gut feeling and nothing else.
It could be that leavers are stronger believers in democracy but other than that They are two different subjects.

 

[IanM]

From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU. I cannot prove it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.

...which is a bit like saying, I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of God, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.

 

[FairwayDodger]

To be honest i dont know it "for a fact" any more than you. Almost everything on these threads are unsubstantiated guess work but after a few postings saying the same thing you'd think they were facts. Lets be honest, you dont know that Brexit won't be a roaring success and i dont know if its going to end up as the worst thing we ever did - if we "knew for a fact" we wouldn't all engage in endless discussion.

Indeed. I suspect we all know deep down that it will likely be somewhere between the two extremes but "my option will be marginally better than yours" doesn't have the same appeal to debate.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Could be on the Trump thread or this one - but for me it adds to why Speaker Bercow is correct - I think what they say is very important

I'll just suggest some might like to listen to this from Morning Joe today - on Trumps views on the Judiciary the free press - and they refer to the constitution and Magna Carta. It's 20mins but makes interesting listening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQaOUiuXMHE&list=PLDIVi-vBsOEy6jMSt_r_SMj9F5tuqdtKe&index=6

Bear in mind that Joe Scarborough is a Republican (ex-Congressman) and Mika Brzezinski is a Democrat (her father is Zbigniew Brzezinski - Pres. Carters NSA). Now this is how many American political commentators see Trump and what he is doing and the risks he presents - and as they say - what he is saying is deeply disturbing. Also mention of Judge Gorsuch's views on what Trump is saying and Yemen (what Trump is saying and doing ...'it's really and truly dangerous)

And given they refer back to Magna Carta - their thoughts on judiciary independence and the importance of the role of the judiciary are telling I think in the context of our own Art50 debate.

Morning Joe is the most watched US cable political news programme. Day 20 and Mika and Joe are exhausted trying to come to terms with, unravel and understand what Trump is doing in creating his own reality.