Planet Rugby Forum

camroc1 wrote:

Covfefe wrote: Who cares what he thinks. This is taken to long and the UK needs to show balls. I'd move the army to the border and Dover as a show of strength.

Question 1 : The British government should, as we're probably your only friends left in Europe.

Statement 1: The delay in commencing negotiations is a direct result of the delay in activating Article 50 by the British government and the subsequent further delay caused by the GE called by the British Government.

Statement 2: Whatever about moving British Troops to Dover, the UK would be in breach of the GFA if it moved large numbers of troops to NI (I assume it's the Irish border you're talking about). The GFA is very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI.

That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Covfefe wrote: Who cares what he thinks. This is taken to long and the UK needs to show balls. I'd move the army to the border and Dover as a show of strength.

Question 1 : The British government should, as we're probably your only friends left in Europe.

Statement 1: The delay in commencing negotiations is a direct result of the delay in activating Article 50 by the British government and the subsequent further delay caused by the GE called by the British Government.

Statement 2: Whatever about moving British Troops to Dover, the UK would be in breach of the GFA if it moved large numbers of troops to NI (I assume it's the Irish border you're talking about). The GFA is very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI.

That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

Disappointing manufacturing results. Below projections.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... se-ground/
I thought this was meant to pick up again.

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Covfefe wrote: Who cares what he thinks. This is taken to long and the UK needs to show balls. I'd move the army to the border and Dover as a show of strength.

Question 1 : The British government should, as we're probably your only friends left in Europe.

Statement 1: The delay in commencing negotiations is a direct result of the delay in activating Article 50 by the British government and the subsequent further delay caused by the GE called by the British Government.

Statement 2: Whatever about moving British Troops to Dover, the UK would be in breach of the GFA if it moved large numbers of troops to NI (I assume it's the Irish border you're talking about). The GFA is very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI.

That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

That doesn't mean you're not being disingenuous with what the agreement says to make a point.

Covfefe wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slims.html

This is the anti free speech EU in action

This is part of the issue with the whole Brexit thing. Sections of the media publish outright anti-EU propaganda, with scant regard for truth. They push a very hard political agenda for the sole purpose of creating an anti-EU sentiment in their readership. And it works.

There is a spectrum on which the media operates. At one end is the reporting of truth and letting people make up their own minds (I'm not sure any media outlets sit at that perfect point) and from there it runs the gamut of increasing editorializing, cherry-picking and distorting before arriving at outright lies - 'Fake News'.

Significant parts of the UK media sit disturbingly close to the wrong end of that spectrum.

More worryingly, a significant proportion of people are utterly incapable of identifying where on the spectrum their media sit.



EDIT: As an example, this line from the Daily Mail report "In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." is not even a distortion of the truth, it is an outright lie. It is utterly untrue. The report not only did not make that recommendation, it didn't even imply it.

The ACTUAL recommendation that came from the report was this: "ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards."

Readers of the Daily Mail will believe the lie, however, and will become further entrenched in their anti-EU views.


Actual report: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/e ... 38-ENG.pdf

The media is all lefties. Even the daily mail has to bite it's tongue on what it should be addressing.

Comments have been monitored in advance.

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Covfefe wrote: Who cares what he thinks. This is taken to long and the UK needs to show balls. I'd move the army to the border and Dover as a show of strength.

Question 1 : The British government should, as we're probably your only friends left in Europe.

Statement 1: The delay in commencing negotiations is a direct result of the delay in activating Article 50 by the British government and the subsequent further delay caused by the GE called by the British Government.

Statement 2: Whatever about moving British Troops to Dover, the UK would be in breach of the GFA if it moved large numbers of troops to NI (I assume it's the Irish border you're talking about). The GFA is very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI.

That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

That doesn't mean you're not being disingenuous with what the agreement says to make a point.

The GFA says the British Government has the objective of "the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society;".

Assuming everything doesn't all kick off again, militarising the border wouldn't meet this objective.

The Independent followed buy the Guardian and the mirror are Soviet level propaganda.

The Independent is the worst news publication I have ever seen. Ever.

mikerob wrote:

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:
Question 1 : The British government should, as we're probably your only friends left in Europe.

Statement 1: The delay in commencing negotiations is a direct result of the delay in activating Article 50 by the British government and the subsequent further delay caused by the GE called by the British Government.

Statement 2: Whatever about moving British Troops to Dover, the UK would be in breach of the GFA if it moved large numbers of troops to NI (I assume it's the Irish border you're talking about). The GFA is very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI.

That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

That doesn't mean you're not being disingenuous with what the agreement says to make a point.

The GFA says the British Government has the objective of "the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society;".

Assuming everything doesn't all kick off again, militarising the border wouldn't meet this objective.

UK is at peace. Douglas Murray is stating Europe is being invaded. Bill Gates touched on it too. The army to the border is to protect the citizens.

Austria and Hungary are doing it.

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote: That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

That doesn't mean you're not being disingenuous with what the agreement says to make a point.

OK, Croyals, I'll bite.

Here's what the GFA says :

2. The British Government will make progress towards the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat and with a published overall strategy, dealing with:

(i) the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society;

(ii) the removal of security installations;

(iii) the removal of emergency powers in Northern Ireland;

(iv) other measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal peaceful society.Please always cite: Peace Accords Matrix (Date of retrieval: (7/7/2017), https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/d ... -agreement, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.

Here's what happened :

The British Army suspended its operation in Northern Ireland starting on 1 August 2007, thus ending a 38-year presence in Northern Ireland. The move reduced the size of the British troops to 5,000, which was compatible with a normal peaceful society as suggested in the peace agreement. The Independent Monitoring Commission also confirmed the cutbacks in British troops in Northern Ireland.

So, 5,000 troops are what is considered compatible with a normal peaceful society, and has been verified as such by the Independent Monitoring Commission.

Ipso facto were the UK government to substantially increase the number of troops in NI from 5,000, and move them to the border (as was suggested), whilst NI remains a 'normal peaceful society', it would be in breach of the requirements of the GFA.

5000 is plenty. Sure it would be enough to take Dublin

Covfefe wrote:5000 is plenty. Sure it would be enough to take Dublin

Whatevs, DAC.

This fuckwit is talking weapons-grade bollocks

Chuckles1188 wrote:This fuckwit is talking weapons-grade bollocks

Weapons grade Spud peeling ?

4071 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slims.html

This is the anti free speech EU in action

This is part of the issue with the whole Brexit thing. Sections of the media publish outright anti-EU propaganda, with scant regard for truth. They push a very hard political agenda for the sole purpose of creating an anti-EU sentiment in their readership. And it works.

There is a spectrum on which the media operates. At one end is the reporting of truth and letting people make up their own minds (I'm not sure any media outlets sit at that perfect point) and from there it runs the gamut of increasing editorializing, cherry-picking and distorting before arriving at outright lies - 'Fake News'.

Significant parts of the UK media sit disturbingly close to the wrong end of that spectrum.

More worryingly, a significant proportion of people are utterly incapable of identifying where on the spectrum their media sit.



EDIT: As an example, this line from the Daily Mail report "In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." is not even a distortion of the truth, it is an outright lie. It is utterly untrue. The report not only did not make that recommendation, it didn't even imply it.

The ACTUAL recommendation that came from the report was this: "ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards."

Readers of the Daily Mail will believe the lie, however, and will become further entrenched in their anti-EU views.


Actual report: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/e ... 38-ENG.pdf

ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press
regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive
material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the
importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and
biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable
groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly
under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the
world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for
the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for
their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside
University50 suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of
perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent
backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the
perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative
explanations.51

It's pretty clear that they are recommending a form of regulator because they think that regulator will ban reporting that focuses on ethnic origin of terrorists.

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

croyals wrote: That is a very stringent and myopic view of what the GFA says, regardless of how ridiculous this scenario is.

We're not the ones currently driving a horse and four through the Agreement, Croyals.

That doesn't mean you're not being disingenuous with what the agreement says to make a point.

OK, Croyals, I'll bite.

Here's what the GFA says :

2. The British Government will make progress towards the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat and with a published overall strategy, dealing with:

(i) the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society;

(ii) the removal of security installations;

(iii) the removal of emergency powers in Northern Ireland;

(iv) other measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal peaceful society.Please always cite: Peace Accords Matrix (Date of retrieval: (7/7/2017), https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/d ... -agreement, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.

Here's what happened :

The British Army suspended its operation in Northern Ireland starting on 1 August 2007, thus ending a 38-year presence in Northern Ireland. The move reduced the size of the British troops to 5,000, which was compatible with a normal peaceful society as suggested in the peace agreement. The Independent Monitoring Commission also confirmed the cutbacks in British troops in Northern Ireland.

So, 5,000 troops are what is considered compatible with a normal peaceful society, and has been verified as such by the Independent Monitoring Commission.

Ipso facto were the UK government to substantially increase the number of troops in NI from 5,000, and move them to the border (as was suggested), whilst NI remains a 'normal peaceful society', it would be in breach of the requirements of the GFA.

I know what it says and what has happened. As I'm sure deep down you know, unless there are specified numbers and criteria, they are open to interpretation. For example, it is perfectly arguable that having a base the size of, say, the Aldershot Garrison outside of Belfast would be entirely compatible with a normal peaceful society, given that Hampshire isn't exactly a militarised state. Further, it is also arguable that the agreement refers just as much to the watchtowers and patrols as it does to numbers in ordinary garrison.

I would agree, 5,000 troops appears appropriate and has been signed off as such, but that doesn't mean your statement that the GFA is 'very specific about demobilisation of British troops, and the numbers that are allowed to be billeted in NI' is correct.

Which returns me to my original point, that you are being disingenuous.

A EU regulator

There are currently about 1,800 British troops in NI, which actually is probably the number any third party arbitrator would start with.

You are the one being disingenuous if you think the GFA is a 'pick and choose' agreement. Although no surprise there given your views on Brexit.

zzzz wrote:

4071 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slims.html

This is the anti free speech EU in action

This is part of the issue with the whole Brexit thing. Sections of the media publish outright anti-EU propaganda, with scant regard for truth. They push a very hard political agenda for the sole purpose of creating an anti-EU sentiment in their readership. And it works.

There is a spectrum on which the media operates. At one end is the reporting of truth and letting people make up their own minds (I'm not sure any media outlets sit at that perfect point) and from there it runs the gamut of increasing editorializing, cherry-picking and distorting before arriving at outright lies - 'Fake News'.

Significant parts of the UK media sit disturbingly close to the wrong end of that spectrum.

More worryingly, a significant proportion of people are utterly incapable of identifying where on the spectrum their media sit.



EDIT: As an example, this line from the Daily Mail report "In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." is not even a distortion of the truth, it is an outright lie. It is utterly untrue. The report not only did not make that recommendation, it didn't even imply it.

The ACTUAL recommendation that came from the report was this: "ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards."

Readers of the Daily Mail will believe the lie, however, and will become further entrenched in their anti-EU views.


Actual report: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/e ... 38-ENG.pdf

ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press
regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive
material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the
importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and
biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable
groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly
under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the
world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for
the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for
their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside
University50 suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of
perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent
backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the
perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative
explanations.51

It's pretty clear that they are recommending a form of regulator because they think that regulator will ban reporting that focuses on ethnic origin of terrorists.

Really? You really think that's what the Leveson report suggested? A regulator that would have the power to ban the reporting of information?

ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report.

Where in the Leveson report was that suggested? Or implied?

Covfefe wrote:A EU regulator

FFS, learn to read.

easyray wrote:

Gospel wrote:

Lenny wrote:The problem is that in the majority of the important ones (US, EU, China, India etc.) you'll be very much the junior partner, with far less economic clout, and the danger is that those bespoke deals will favour the other party more than you. This idea that all other countries will come cap in hand, begging you to export your goods to them without a very significan quid pro quo, is stunningly naive. There is also the issue of how long it takes to negotiate those deals, especially in the absence of any qualified or experienced trade negotiators.

Well right now we don't have a trade deal with the US or China because the EU hasn't been able to agree terms. Without the same red-lines as the EU it's possible the UK might be able to find common ground with these two trading powerhouses; say for instance with services. There will be both gains and losses with this 'control'. I'm merely stating that in leaving the Customs Union the UK does regain control over trade.

Yet we still sell 54.5b (2016 figures, which are down on 2015) worth of goods to the USA. Before joining the single market, the average yearly figure on goods sold to the USA was around 16b per year. You really think it's going to get better under a protectionist like T-rump

In real terms that's a drop in sales to the US , thank you for confirming that. Index linked that should be 177 Bon now not 53.

You don't need a regulator. Just up the fines a thousand fold and make them pay for their transgressions. Their fines currently don't cover the increase in circulation a controversy delivers in £.

Would love to see media outlets required to print apologies for outright falsehoods in the same size font and on the same page as the offending headline appeared, rather than a tiny font sentence in the corner of page 13.

4071 wrote:

zzzz wrote:

4071 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slims.html

This is the anti free speech EU in action

This is part of the issue with the whole Brexit thing. Sections of the media publish outright anti-EU propaganda, with scant regard for truth. They push a very hard political agenda for the sole purpose of creating an anti-EU sentiment in their readership. And it works.

There is a spectrum on which the media operates. At one end is the reporting of truth and letting people make up their own minds (I'm not sure any media outlets sit at that perfect point) and from there it runs the gamut of increasing editorializing, cherry-picking and distorting before arriving at outright lies - 'Fake News'.

Significant parts of the UK media sit disturbingly close to the wrong end of that spectrum.

More worryingly, a significant proportion of people are utterly incapable of identifying where on the spectrum their media sit.



EDIT: As an example, this line from the Daily Mail report "In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." is not even a distortion of the truth, it is an outright lie. It is utterly untrue. The report not only did not make that recommendation, it didn't even imply it.

The ACTUAL recommendation that came from the report was this: "ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards."

Readers of the Daily Mail will believe the lie, however, and will become further entrenched in their anti-EU views.


Actual report: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/e ... 38-ENG.pdf

ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press
regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive
material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the
importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and
biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable
groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly
under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the
world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for
the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for
their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside
University50 suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of
perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent
backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the
perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative
explanations.51

It's pretty clear that they are recommending a form of regulator because they think that regulator will ban reporting that focuses on ethnic origin of terrorists.

Really? You really think that's what the Leveson report suggested? A regulator that would have the power to ban the reporting of information?

ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report.

Where in the Leveson report was that suggested? Or implied?

#

Nice switch. Were not talking about Levenson.


The ECRI report makes it clear they believe an independent regulator would ban reporting that emphasised background and presents it as being "a good thing" and argument for having such a regulator. The Mail shorthanded that to "ECRI wants to ban..". Not actually untrue.

The only real gripe is whether "stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it" is quite the same as saying no coverage of background.

Either way, it's a modicum of how la la land the ECRI report is that it thinks an independent regulator should be weighing in on this point.

zzzz wrote:

4071 wrote:

zzzz wrote:

4071 wrote:

Covfefe wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... slims.html

This is the anti free speech EU in action

This is part of the issue with the whole Brexit thing. Sections of the media publish outright anti-EU propaganda, with scant regard for truth. They push a very hard political agenda for the sole purpose of creating an anti-EU sentiment in their readership. And it works.

There is a spectrum on which the media operates. At one end is the reporting of truth and letting people make up their own minds (I'm not sure any media outlets sit at that perfect point) and from there it runs the gamut of increasing editorializing, cherry-picking and distorting before arriving at outright lies - 'Fake News'.

Significant parts of the UK media sit disturbingly close to the wrong end of that spectrum.

More worryingly, a significant proportion of people are utterly incapable of identifying where on the spectrum their media sit.



EDIT: As an example, this line from the Daily Mail report "In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists." is not even a distortion of the truth, it is an outright lie. It is utterly untrue. The report not only did not make that recommendation, it didn't even imply it.

The ACTUAL recommendation that came from the report was this: "ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards."

Readers of the Daily Mail will believe the lie, however, and will become further entrenched in their anti-EU views.


Actual report: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/e ... 38-ENG.pdf

ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press
regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive
material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the
importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and
biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable
groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly
under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the
world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for
the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for
their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside
University50 suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of
perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent
backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the
perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative
explanations.51

It's pretty clear that they are recommending a form of regulator because they think that regulator will ban reporting that focuses on ethnic origin of terrorists.

Really? You really think that's what the Leveson report suggested? A regulator that would have the power to ban the reporting of information?

ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report.

Where in the Leveson report was that suggested? Or implied?

#

Nice switch. Were not talking about Levenson.


The ECRI report makes it clear they believe an independent regulator would ban reporting that emphasised background and presents it as being "a good thing" and argument for having such a regulator. The Mail shorthanded that to "ECRI wants to ban..". Not actually untrue.

The only real gripe is whether "stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it" is quite the same as saying no coverage of background.

Either way, it's a modicum of how la la land the ECRI report is that it thinks an independent regulator should be weighing in on this point.

We are NOT talking about Leveson?

Hold on, I'll try this for the THIRD time, and try to make it quite clear what the ECRI report is recommending.

ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report.

That is the recommendation.

That one. Which talks about the UK establishing an independent press regulator as recommended in the Leveson report, which was commissioned by the UK government.

zzzz wrote:
Either way, it's a modicum of how la la land the ECRI report is that it thinks an independent regulator should be weighing in on this point

The ECRI report makes it clear they believe an independent regulator would ban reporting that emphasised background and presents it as being "a good thing" and argument for having such a regulator. The Mail shorthanded that to "ECRI wants to ban..". Not actually untrue.

The only real gripe is whether "stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it" is quite the same as saying no coverage of background.

No it f***ing doesn't.

The disconnect between the words and phrases that you read and your understanding of what they mean is quite remarkable.


The ECRI report includes a footnote about the Teeside University study: "The study suggests that more restrained media reporting of the Sydney hostage situation in 2014, in which the hostage taker, who claimed to be acting on behalf of Islamic State, was swiftly and repeatedly identified as mentally ill, may have played a role in minimising the backlash against the Muslim community"

Note that the media reported that the perpetrator was a Muslim - it was not hushed up. However, the reporting was restrained and did not focus purely on religious motivation. In the report, the ECRI "urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting" rather than being "reckless in prioritising sensational stories" and reporting with "significant and reckless disregard for accuracy" (both quotes from the Leveson enquiry about the UK press).


The recommendation from the ECRI is not to ban anything ("ECRI strongly encouraged the authorities to intensify their efforts to impress on the media, without encroaching on their editorial independence, the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups"), but simply to follow through on the recommendation of the Leveson report, which had not been acted on in the 4 years between its publication and the publication of the ECRI report.


The report does not recommend any bans, and the quote from the Daily Mail is simply a lie. The fact that you believe it - and appear to be able to believe it DESPITE the actual text of the report being available to you - rather reinforces my earlier point that an irresponsible press peddling lies to a easily duped and gullible audience can be problematic.

You're being dense.

The ECRI report clearly assumes a Levenson regulator will block this type of reporting. The ECRI also make it clear this would be a good thing and is a reason for adopting a Levenson regulator. Whether they are right or wrong as to what a Levenson regulator would do/can do, it doesn't change the fact the ECRI are effectively recommending this type of reporting should be blocked.

zzzz wrote:You're being dense.

The ECRI report clearly assumes a Levenson regulator will block this type of reporting. The ECRI also make it clear this would be a good thing and is a reason for adopting a Levenson regulator. Whether they are right or wrong as to what a Levenson regulator would do/can do, it doesn't change the fact the ECRI are effectively recommending this type of reporting should be blocked.

We have different approached to understanding what the report meant and what was recommended.

I started out from the position of not knowing, and then built up an understanding based on the words I read, their meaning, the combination of words and the context. From that I inferred the intentions of the report.

You took the approach of knowing what was intended from the report, THEN reading the words and seeing if any of them fitted your interpretation.

It's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure we can come to an agreement having come from such different directions.

camroc1 wrote:There are currently about 1,800 British troops in NI, which actually is probably the number any third party arbitrator would start with.

You are the one being disingenuous if you think the GFA is a 'pick and choose' agreement. Although no surprise there given your views on Brexit.

So you accept that what you said was disingenuous? Good. There are plenty of sticks to beat us with without making them up.

This has nothing to do with Brexit at all and is a strawman for an argument you have lost.

The organs of the press never pipe down:

"The Daily Express and Daily Mail battled hard to prise Britain from the EU - a year on they are still fighting"

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5093373

camroc1 wrote:There are currently about 1,800 British troops in NI, which actually is probably the number any third party arbitrator would start with.

You are the one being disingenuous if you think the GFA is a 'pick and choose' agreement. Although no surprise there given your views on Brexit.

Why? Are they a local regiment?

kagamusha wrote:

camroc1 wrote:There are currently about 1,800 British troops in NI, which actually is probably the number any third party arbitrator would start with.

You are the one being disingenuous if you think the GFA is a 'pick and choose' agreement. Although no surprise there given your views on Brexit.

Why? Are they a local regiment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Iri ... ent_(1992)

bimboman wrote:

easyray wrote:

Gospel wrote:

Lenny wrote:The problem is that in the majority of the important ones (US, EU, China, India etc.) you'll be very much the junior partner, with far less economic clout, and the danger is that those bespoke deals will favour the other party more than you. This idea that all other countries will come cap in hand, begging you to export your goods to them without a very significan quid pro quo, is stunningly naive. There is also the issue of how long it takes to negotiate those deals, especially in the absence of any qualified or experienced trade negotiators.

Well right now we don't have a trade deal with the US or China because the EU hasn't been able to agree terms. Without the same red-lines as the EU it's possible the UK might be able to find common ground with these two trading powerhouses; say for instance with services. There will be both gains and losses with this 'control'. I'm merely stating that in leaving the Customs Union the UK does regain control over trade.

Yet we still sell 54.5b (2016 figures, which are down on 2015) worth of goods to the USA. Before joining the single market, the average yearly figure on goods sold to the USA was around 16b per year. You really think it's going to get better under a protectionist like T-rump

In real terms that's a drop in sales to the US , thank you for confirming that. Index linked that should be 177 Bon now not 53.

No problem, after reading your posts, I feel it's my purpose to enlighten you.

easyray wrote:

bimboman wrote:

easyray wrote:

Gospel wrote:

Lenny wrote:The problem is that in the majority of the important ones (US, EU, China, India etc.) you'll be very much the junior partner, with far less economic clout, and the danger is that those bespoke deals will favour the other party more than you. This idea that all other countries will come cap in hand, begging you to export your goods to them without a very significan quid pro quo, is stunningly naive. There is also the issue of how long it takes to negotiate those deals, especially in the absence of any qualified or experienced trade negotiators.

Well right now we don't have a trade deal with the US or China because the EU hasn't been able to agree terms. Without the same red-lines as the EU it's possible the UK might be able to find common ground with these two trading powerhouses; say for instance with services. There will be both gains and losses with this 'control'. I'm merely stating that in leaving the Customs Union the UK does regain control over trade.

Yet we still sell 54.5b (2016 figures, which are down on 2015) worth of goods to the USA. Before joining the single market, the average yearly figure on goods sold to the USA was around 16b per year. You really think it's going to get better under a protectionist like T-rump

In real terms that's a drop in sales to the US , thank you for confirming that. Index linked that should be 177 Bon now not 53.

No problem, after reading your posts, I feel it's my purpose to enlighten you.

, fabulous the EU costs us trade with America yep?

Rugby2023 wrote:

As Internet memes go that is probably one of the stupidest and you do yourself very little credit by endorsing it.

If the British are relying on Donald Trump to preserve their economy (or their security) then good luck to them.

Rinkals wrote:

Rugby2023 wrote:

As Internet memes go that is probably one of the stupidest and you do yourself very little credit by endorsing it.

If the British are relying on Donald bubblefart to preserve their economy (or their security) then good luck to them.

Christ, Teresa looks like Fr Douglas in that picture.

Nick Cohen mocks May's attitude to the ECJ.
Surely it's a case of better the devil you know.

"We are heading for a smash-up in ways the majority of the public do not begin to understand. The Bar Council warned again last week that May’s dogmatic insistence on the European court of justice having no say in British affairs will blight tourists involved in accidents on European holidays, British companies with branches on the continent, British men and women whose European exes fail to meet child access or divorce agreements and British innovators who want to protect their trademarks and intellectual property. All have rights that ultimately depend on the European court of justice being the court of final appeal. The Bar Council’s Hugh Mercer told me that English law’s greater virtue was that the citizen could know where he or she stood. Soon, no one will know where they stand on laws that bear upon millions of people and businesses."

Rinkals wrote:

Rugby2023 wrote:

As Internet memes go that is probably one of the stupidest and you do yourself very little credit by endorsing it.

If the British are relying on Donald bubblefart to preserve their economy (or their security) then good luck to them.

What scares me is what quality type standards, consumer protection, health standards, commercial rights and environmental standards a Conservative government will sign away to get a trade deal with America. We could put ourselves in the situation where we are under the same sort of limitations we were with the EU but with no influence on them instead of being a major partner with a lot of influence.

Quite bizarre innit.

Why is it assumed that a trade deal with the USA will be a good thing for the man on the street?

I'm sure some people will get rich out of it of course.

Day by day we look weaker. I'm biased of course as a remoaner, but I think we should just be honest with people and say all Brexit can deliver is some immigration controls which we may not even use.

There is nothing I've seen anywhere which suggests we will have more money, more influence and more control. Quite the opposite.

Politics, ideology and face saving over public interest. Pathetic.