Brillo calls out BoJo
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
No, I am saying that people in the positions they have achieved, should have the honesty to declare if they have any interests / funding etc which might skew their approach/viewpoint. As we have seen (not least with some politicians) this is not always done when it should be.
It does not matter whether they are from the left, or right, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, but they should have the honesty to declare up front their position on a given matter.
I think for myself, which is why I have been saying that anyone who bases their decision on how they will vote on the 12th, on all the bullsh*t coming out of ALL the parties in the run up to the election, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
Looking at the people you’ve suggested could be biased due to interest / funding below. Now I’m no expert, but I’m pretty certain we don’t have judges “sponsored by Sainsbury’s finest wines”, or “The Supreme Court, sponsored by Greggs pasties”. Nor do I see that the BBC is suddenly going full on worrying about the licence fee. If anything the licence fee keeps them more honest, those with commercial interests are more likely to be biased. Andrew Neil doesn’t appear to be biased to me. He goes after everyone with equal fervour, as do all of these interviewers, albeit with differing levels of competence. Lack of competence shouldn’t be confused with bias though. It does not matter whether they are from the left, or right, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, but they should have the honesty to declare up front their position on a given matter.
I think for myself, which is why I have been saying that anyone who bases their decision on how they will vote on the 12th, on all the bullsh*t coming out of ALL the parties in the run up to the election, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
Pan Pan Pan said:
With regard to AN, no, not really, he seems to be equally aggressive with every politician he interviews, But I do have my doubts about the BBC and some of the other news channels, as they receive funding from the EU, which hardly makes them impartial, I would guess that many in the BBC, are not too keen on Johnsons idea of scrapping license fees either, as that is where their pay comes from.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.
Keoparakolo said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
No, I am saying that people in the positions they have achieved, should have the honesty to declare if they have any interests / funding etc which might skew their approach/viewpoint. As we have seen (not least with some politicians) this is not always done when it should be.
It does not matter whether they are from the left, or right, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, but they should have the honesty to declare up front their position on a given matter.
I think for myself, which is why I have been saying that anyone who bases their decision on how they will vote on the 12th, on all the bullsh*t coming out of ALL the parties in the run up to the election, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
Looking at the people you’ve suggested could be biased due to interest / funding below. Now I’m no expert, but I’m pretty certain we don’t have judges “sponsored by Sainsbury’s finest wines”, or “The Supreme Court, sponsored by Greggs pasties”. Nor do I see that the BBC is suddenly going full on worrying about the licence fee. If anything the licence fee keeps them more honest, those with commercial interests are more likely to be biased. Andrew Neil doesn’t appear to be biased to me. He goes after everyone with equal fervour, as do all of these interviewers, albeit with differing levels of competence. Lack of competence shouldn’t be confused with bias though. It does not matter whether they are from the left, or right, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, but they should have the honesty to declare up front their position on a given matter.
I think for myself, which is why I have been saying that anyone who bases their decision on how they will vote on the 12th, on all the bullsh*t coming out of ALL the parties in the run up to the election, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
Pan Pan Pan said:
With regard to AN, no, not really, he seems to be equally aggressive with every politician he interviews, But I do have my doubts about the BBC and some of the other news channels, as they receive funding from the EU, which hardly makes them impartial, I would guess that many in the BBC, are not too keen on Johnsons idea of scrapping license fees either, as that is where their pay comes from.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Looks like we agree with regard to Andrew Neil, but how do you, I, or anyone know what interests those such as the judges, and politicians, who ruled over various issues related to Brexit have, unless they publicly make clear where their interests lie? We must rely on the integrity and honesty of those involved, and even you will have to admit that for many such public figures those qualities appear to be in (very) short supply. Only where each person involved, publicly states their position for all to see, can they be truly trusted in todays rather toxic legal and political atmosphere.
This isn’t the US it’s rare (if not impossible) for politicians to be in the pockets of big business over here. You’re buying into some conspiracy theorist drivel about the judges. The decision around proroguing was unanimous, now if you want to believe that every Supreme Court judge is in the pocket of the EU I’d suggest that you need to broaden your reading. Some of those judges voted againstMiller in the case she brought. I’ll be honest and say I’ve answered out of courtesy, but am done with any discussion that goes down the conspiracy theory route. I find it bizarre that adults on here seem to be tinfoil hat wearing, climate change denying, Brexit obsessed misogynistic types. I thought the younger generation were our biggest worry, but here seems to be a hot bed of weirdness.
Keoparakolo said:
I find it bizarre that adults on here seem to be tinfoil hat wearing, climate change denying, Brexit obsessed misogynistic types.
Since you raised it, who on here denies that climate changes? I haven't seen one example in many years.Plenty agree with the science that rejects baseless alarmism founded not on credible empirical data but on inadequate climate models, see below. In the same vein as your post, only credulous types with a narrow reading base could be so uninformed as to swallow the information pollution from politically motivated extremists.
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities" Full paper link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showing that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect". The link is to the full paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) "The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate." A link to the abstract follows:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-0...
Many western politicians are running scared of the grip that alarmists hold over media outlets so they too (politicians) remain uninformed or at least won't admit that they know it's baseless ecohype.
turbobloke said:
Keoparakolo said:
I find it bizarre that adults on here seem to be tinfoil hat wearing, climate change denying, Brexit obsessed misogynistic types.
Since you raised it, who on here denies that climate changes? I haven't seen one example in many years.Plenty agree with the science that rejects baseless alarmism founded not on credible empirical data but on inadequate climate models, see below. In the same vein as your post, only credulous types with a narrow reading base could be so uninformed as to swallow the information pollution from politically motivated extremists.
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities" Full paper link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showing that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect". The link is to the full paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) "The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate." A link to the abstract follows:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-0...
Many western politicians are running scared of the grip that alarmists hold over media outlets so they too (politicians) remain uninformed or at least won't admit that they know it's baseless ecohype.
What’s next, “I’m not a misogynist, I just hate women”?
Keoparakolo said:
Unbelievable. Seriously, you’re going to hang onto the pedantic definition of climate change to try to make your point that you don’t believe in man-made climate change and that you’re not a climate change denier. Give your head a wobble.
What’s next, “I’m not a misogynist, I just hate women”?
Shhh, let the gammon have their little bolthole, it stops them wandering around in public getting in our way, and its a little safe space where they won't be shouted at by their wives or mothers.What’s next, “I’m not a misogynist, I just hate women”?
GoodCompany said:
Keoparakolo said:
Unbelievable. Seriously, you’re going to hang onto the pedantic definition of climate change to try to make your point that you don’t believe in man-made climate change and that you’re not a climate change denier. Give your head a wobble.
What’s next, “I’m not a misogynist, I just hate women”?
Shhh, let the gammon have their little bolthole, it stops them wandering around in public getting in our way, and its a little safe space where they won't be shouted at by their wives or mothers.What’s next, “I’m not a misogynist, I just hate women”?
turbobloke said:
Take your mere opinions up with the authors, after reading the papers, though it looks as though you'll struggle for understanding as it's science not sixth-form politics.
There are hundreds who disagree with you, with science to back their stance up. Quite simply for every one scientist denier there will be dozens of scientists who say it is happening. The more you argue the more you make my point about conspiracy theorist drivel. Would you support the flat Earth, 911 denying, fake moon landing nut jobs? Because if you see them as weirdos that’s exactly how I see you lot Keoparakolo said:
turbobloke said:
Take your mere opinions up with the authors, after reading the papers, though it looks as though you'll struggle for understanding as it's science not sixth-form politics.
There are hundreds who disagree with you, with science to back their stance up. Quite simply for every one scientist denier there will be dozens of scientists who say it is happening. The more you argue the more you make my point about conspiracy theorist drivel. Would you support the flat Earth, 911 denying, fake moon landing nut jobs? Because if you see them as weirdos that’s exactly how I see you lot 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff