[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Monster Hunter]

Dunning Kruger effect. They play on people thinking they’re better, deserve better, and are just temporarily not doing as well as they might.

A whole mythology of the nation being a meritocracy is just the start of it.

To me what it shows is people want a meritocracy. So that's what there voting for even if there being Lied to int he end.

- - - Updated - - -

You really need to read this paper. Not a newspaper, an academic paper that studied media representation.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-commu...-jeremy-corbyn

This will explain why you hate him, and why you keep misrepresenting him.

And as an added bonus.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9123946.html

Boris reported to the Police Watchdog (as he was effectively a Police Commissioner as Mayor of London) for misconduct in public office, regarding his relationship with an American lady, and how public funds were spent on her.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course it is. Tories are rich people for rich people, and only rich people can run a media enterprise.

I don't read news papers or use social media, I watch the conferences and debates in Parliament. Also I hate Boris more than hate corbyn but I still fucking hate corbyn.

[Slant]

Parliament is sovereign ultimately, the executive cannot act without a Parliamentary majority, and has been seen on a few occasions now, Parliament can seize control of the order paper from the Government and make law without its consent.

It's like the House and Senate's 2/3rds rule overwrites Presidential vetos in America. If Parliament seizes control of the order paper, and passes a bill which then gaines Royal Assent the PM has two options, s/he can do nothing and like it.

It is unconventional, but it is not unconstitutional.

I know it's a joke, but I'm not getting it. The EU expects someone to either ask for a extension formally, in the European Council, where usually only the PM has the power to speak... so who determines which representative of the UK is sent to the EC? And the same is valid for a revocation (academical question at this point).

[LeGin Tufnel]

Dunning Kruger effect. They play on people thinking they’re better, deserve better, and are just temporarily not doing as well as they might.

Are you a psychologist? I've had to look this up. Da phuq is the Dunning Kruger effect, I was asking myself.

In 2011, David Dunning wrote about his observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect".[2] In 2014, Dunning and Helzer described how the Dunning–Kruger effect "suggests that poor performers are not in a position to recognize the shortcomings in their performance"

It's really quite depressing: on average, men overestimate their abilities by 30% and women by 15%.

Fuck me... it's a whole new world of pain.

What do you do if you're extraordinariy competent in one field e.g., a Premiership footballer, but extraordinarily incompetent in another field e.g., IQ. What a complete head fuck.

[draykorinee]

Problem is no. The papers are pritty honest with who they have a bias towards. And the cons have attacked the media just as much as labour over the last few years. The BBC our biggest media outlet was recently repremendad by the goverment for supposedly holding a left wing bias and nearly lost its royal charter over it.

So this complaint isn't something just Labour supporters are making.

No, the BBC did not get reprimanded and both ofcomm and the government who hold sway over the Royal charter have not commented on bias or even came close to removimg its charter because of bias. .

The BBC is bias in some of its comedy but ofcomm were very clear that they are offering trusted news.

You're welcome to share the details of this reprimand though, I've never heard of it, the studies done in the BBC generally don't support a strong bias to the left, and there are lots of people claiming its been too far to the right with people like Andrew Neil and in particular giving Farage so much air time for a part time mep.

[dribbles]

Lies, Mr D.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathalegg...mail-headlines

With the exception of the The Times, which on occasion I do find space in my schedule to accommodate, literally, every single other right-leaning British newspaper isn't fit to wipe my arse.

All of those sensationalist headlines are from the Dacre days. The Daily Mail has improved significantly since then. Granted it will never be a Guardian but it's far more balanced and sensible with respect to leave/remain than is given credit for.

[Northern Goblin]

I know it's a joke, but I'm not getting it. The EU expects someone to either ask for a extension formally, in the European Council, where usually only the PM has the power to speak... so who determines which representative of the UK is sent to the EC? And the same is valid for a revocation (academical question at this point).

Ok couple of things to clear up here.

The PM actually goes on behalf of the Queen, who, if she so desired, has the right to go herself and represent the UK.

Legislation passed commanding the PM to go means to ignore it would be illegal, that'll cost him his job, potentially land him in a cell temporarily and we send someone else in a caretaker role.

Revocation can be notified by one of several people if I'm not mistaken, including the Speaker of the House.

His bluster is purely that, his hands are tied but he's making as much noise as possible to garner sympathy from the leave side of the public.

[Monster Hunter]

No, the BBC did not get reprimanded and both ofcomm and the government who hold sway over the Royal charter have not commented on bias or even came close to removimg its charter because of bias. .

The BBC is bias in some of its comedy but ofcomm were very clear that they are offering trusted news.

You're welcome to share the details of this reprimand though, I've never heard of it, the studies done in the BBC generally don't support a strong bias to the left, and there are lots of people claiming its been too far to the right with people like Andrew Neil and in particular giving Farage so much air time for a part time mep.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tel...bc-warned/amp/

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I think Monster Hunter is in that specific group of cowardly and pathetic individuals that want to essentially to talk to themselves in a vacuum without fear of contradiction, like an aggressive mental patient.

It would save me a lot of time if I could just post corrections to every factual error MT comes up with, rather than having to deal with his endless attempts to muddy the waters further when he's caught with this pants down in public.

- - - Updated - - -



You may think this is more of Dribble's partisanship, but it is actually true. It has changed significantly. Admittedly it was extremely bad to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah fuck off then, with your tail between your legs you annoying little twat, about time really.

Oh and please learn to use a spell/grammar checker, your English is embarrassing.

So dar you haven't posted anything except stamens to the effect of "nuh huh" where as u have delved into my concerns. Its clear by how much it bothers you that you make soc accounts that I have a point you don't like and can't tackle directly.

Also im heavily dyslexic, so don't be an ablalsit twat on top of a general knob.

[Pann]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tel...bc-warned/amp/

That story is essentially a bunch of MPs moaning that the BBC are telling the, uncomfortable, truth.

[Jessicka]

No, the BBC did not get reprimanded and both ofcomm and the government who hold sway over the Royal charter have not commented on bias or even came close to removimg its charter because of bias. .

The BBC is bias in some of its comedy but ofcomm were very clear that they are offering trusted news.

You're welcome to share the details of this reprimand though, I've never heard of it, the studies done in the BBC generally don't support a strong bias to the left, and there are lots of people claiming its been too far to the right with people like Andrew Neil and in particular giving Farage so much air time for a part time mep.

To say this on a day where they just reprimanded a journalist for calling out Trump for being racist, because they're not allowed to call people making (repeated) racist statements racists, or people who lie, liars. This is why we are where the fuck we are. Because we can't call Trump a racist or Boris a liar, even though they both have phenomenal form for being those things.

And indeed, Ofcom are now investigating the BBC for this.

[Jessicka]

Yep. In all honesty, John Whittingdale deserves a good pick axe between the eyes.

BBC are in impossible position.

1/4 of me thinks let's just get on and move to a subscription based model and I can happily condemn Nihal on R5 to the rubbish dump of failed talking heads who think they're journalists. 3/4 of me thinks I still very much enjoy seeing hysterical right wing tears re. their funding.

- - - Updated - - -



Read the following from first paragraph to last:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49837511

Specifically, this debate is more nuanced than you frame it. If you're going to criticise the BBC, do so for the right reasons.

I’m not going to trust the BBC to report on themselves. It’s not nuanced. The literal head of policy said straight up that they can’t call someone who tells a lie a liar, or someone who makes a racist comment - however frequently - racist, because they regard calling people liars and racists as insults.

That is their actual policy. That is why they frame these things, if they contest them at all, as “which this other guy says isn’t true”. Then it’s no longer presented as whether the statements are true or not, but come down to just opinions. And the worst of this is their disgraceful reporting on global warming.

That matters a lot because it impacts how they report things. When you see them report “X said this” and doesn’t directly spell out that what was said is not true, or that it was racist or whatever, then that gives that untrue statement legitimacy. They instead relegate whether it’s true or not to another column on their website called ‘reality check’, which isn’t repeated in their main reports through other media.

It’s an awful way to do business.

Furthermore, the LSE paper I linked for Monster Hunter on the previous page found them not to be any better than other media when it came to smearing and attacking Corbyn, principally because of how it frames it’s reports in this way.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I’m not going to trust the BBC to report on themselves. It’s not nuanced. The literal head of policy said straight up that they can’t call someone who tells a lie a liar, or someone who makes a racist comment - however frequently - racist, because they regard calling people liars and racists as insults.

That is their actual policy. That is why they frame these things, if they contest them at all, as “which this other guy says isn’t true”. Then it’s no longer presented as whether the statements are true or not, but come down to just opinions. And the worst of this is their disgraceful reporting on global warming.

That matters a lot because it impacts how they report things. When you see them report “X said this” and doesn’t directly spell out that what was said is not true, or that it was racist or whatever, then that gives that untrue statement legitimacy. They instead relegate whether it’s true or not to another column on their website called ‘reality check’, which isn’t repeated in their main reports through other media.

It’s an awful way to do business.

This is simply not true:

Explaining their thinking, the BBC's letter said: "Due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. And the president's remarks were widely regarded as racist and condemned in the UK across the political spectrum.

"Ms Munchetty had been pressed to comment by her co-presenter and had a legitimate, personal reason for feeling strongly on this issue. She was therefore in our view entitled to give a personal response to the phrase 'go to back to your own country', as it was rooted in her own experience of racism and in a generally accepted interpretation of that phrase."

Adding: "But it is also evident that Ms Munchetty, despite at the end of the exchange acknowledging 'I am not here to give my opinion', did comment directly and critically on the possible motive for, and potential consequences of, the president's conduct, which by their nature were a matter for legitimate discussion and debate. This, in our view, went beyond what the Guidelines allow for under these circumstances, and on those grounds I am therefore upholding your complaint."

The problem here is that the BBC holds itself to impossibly high standards of integrity and is, therefore, currently tying itself in knots.

I promise you, it is not the BBC who is the enemy here.

[Jessicka]

This is simply not true:

Explaining their thinking, the BBC's letter said: "Due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. And the president's remarks were widely regarded as racist and condemned in the UK across the political spectrum.

"Ms Munchetty had been pressed to comment by her co-presenter and had a legitimate, personal reason for feeling strongly on this issue. She was therefore in our view entitled to give a personal response to the phrase 'go to back to your own country', as it was rooted in her own experience of racism and in a generally accepted interpretation of that phrase."

Adding: "But it is also evident that Ms Munchetty, despite at the end of the exchange acknowledging 'I am not here to give my opinion', did comment directly and critically on the possible motive for, and potential consequences of, the president's conduct, which by their nature were a matter for legitimate discussion and debate. This, in our view, went beyond what the Guidelines allow for under these circumstances, and on those grounds I am therefore upholding your complaint."

The problem here is that the BBC holds itself to impossibly high standards of integrity and is, therefore, currently tying itself in knots.

I promise you, it is not the BBC who is the enemy here.

There is nothing in there that contradicts what I said. She suggested he was racist for making racist comments. But she’s not allowed to do that, only debate whether the comments were racist. That inherently suggests that it’s not racist and that therefore it must be okay to say these things. And certainly not suggest Trump is racist, in spite of repeatedly saying and doing very racist things.

Just rattling out “a bunch of people think this is racist” isn’t exactly affirming.

It’s actually a classic right wing tactic to gain legitimacy, as mastered by the tobacco industry and oil industries for decades, to try to keep a debate open to give a perception of doubt over the harm they do, so they can keep doing it.

It’s like when they put Nigel fucking Lawson up in climate change debate against actual experts, just because he disagreed with them and they wanted to ‘present balance’.

The BBC are fucking terrible.

[Slant]

Ok couple of things to clear up here.

The PM actually goes on behalf of the Queen, who, if she so desired, has the right to go herself and represent the UK.

Legislation passed commanding the PM to go means to ignore it would be illegal, that'll cost him his job, potentially land him in a cell temporarily and we send someone else in a caretaker role.

Revocation can be notified by one of several people if I'm not mistaken, including the Speaker of the House.

His bluster is purely that, his hands are tied but he's making as much noise as possible to garner sympathy from the leave side of the public.

Ok, my concern is... let's assume he ignores it, gets fired, goes to jail for a couple days or weeks... as far as the EU is concerned, if nobody is present to make these requests, the UK will be out. Regardless of him being in jail, contempt or everyone really, really wanting for these things to be requested.

Your suggestion of a caretaker role, or even the Queen herself doing it (by instructions of Parliament, I suppose) would be a good trump card to have. Because I think he may just be planning something like that. But it needs to be legal and constitutional, otherwise BoJo might actually try to use the ECJ to nullify any such request. That's why I'm asking. This is bordering on conspiracy theory, but I want to understand the potential schemes working here, because I think the Brexiteers are scheming right now. I don't think we'll have heard the last of this, yet. There's still a month to go. And a month that still has nothing speaking against a no-deal. Remember, simply not wanting it is not good enough. It has to be replaced with a deal. And despite BoJo's propaganda about progressing, I think everyone knows by now that the EU is not impressed by anything he came up with so far. Certainly anything without a solution to the Irish situation will be dismissed.

[Northern Goblin]

It's not by instruction from Parliament, it's her right to demand she attend.

But yes, there are always ways and means, sometimes it tends to be a bit roundabout but ultimately it gets the necessary results.

Annoyingly to say this, a month is a heck of a long time in politics, come the 11th hour we can push through crazy amounts of legislation. Makes you wonder why we aren't doing it now though.


Also Johnson's career is dead if he relies on the ECJ for anything. Farage and co will tear him to shreds.

[draykorinee]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tel...bc-warned/amp/
.

Brexiteers angry that he can't get positive coverage of Brexit in the Torygraph is absolutely not supporting anything you said.

John Whittingdale, a Conservative MP, said that he is concerned that the corporation is "constantly looking for negatives and highlighting the challenges" of Brexit.

Arrgh, bloody BBC looking for the challenges of Brexit.

[Slant]

It's not by instruction from Parliament, it's her right to demand she attend.

But yes, there are always ways and means, sometimes it tends to be a bit roundabout but ultimately it gets the necessary results.

Annoyingly to say this, a month is a heck of a long time in politics, come the 11th hour we can push through crazy amounts of legislation. Makes you wonder why we aren't doing it now though.


Also Johnson's career is dead if he relies on the ECJ for anything. Farage and co will tear him to shreds.

You think? They have no morals, no ethics... they don't care how, they just want to get out of the EU, to avoid those tax evasion regulations. I think they'd cheer him on if only he saves them their necks.

[ranzino]

it seems opposition cannot agree upon Corbyn as caretaker PM, but will not wait much longer with VONC. it has to and therefore will happen before the EU Summit to safeguard against weird and shady attempts by Boris to sit it out. those 14 days grace period between vote itself and scheduling a GE would bite them otherwise

[Mormolyce]

That story is essentially a bunch of MPs moaning that the BBC are telling the, uncomfortable, truth.

John Whittingdale, a Conservative MP, said that he is concerned that the corporation is "constantly looking for negatives and highlighting the challenges" of Brexit.

LOL this is fucking Orwellian.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems very weird to me that the BBC can release an hour long documentary about how anti-semitic Jeremy Corbyn is, when he has literally never said anything anti-semitic, but no one is allowed to say Donald Trump is a racist, when he says openly racist shit more or less daily. Or, to a lesser extent, Boris Johnson, whose dog whistle messages are pretty blatant if not quite on the Trump level. That doesn't seem very nuanced to me, just seems like a double-standard.

Not that I really care either way. Maybe Labour will pick up some votes from confused nazis.

That anti-Semitism thing is fucking ridiculous, the media was blatantly spreading a partisan slur based on nothing. I couldn't believe it when I saw some British TV shows accepting that narrative without question.

[Slant]

That anti-Semitism thing is fucking ridiculous, the media was blatantly spreading a partisan slur based on nothing. I couldn't believe it when I saw some British TV shows accepting that narrative without question.

Well, they spread every Brexit lie, why stop there...

[Monster Hunter]

That story is essentially a bunch of MPs moaning that the BBC are telling the, uncomfortable, truth.

Basically how I see any one who complains about the media.

It's like yea.... There bias, but there also bias towards you from other papers, and it's always been like that so get over it.

That my general response.