politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this is accurate, then you might wish to update your Trump

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this is accurate, then you might wish to update your Trump impeachment, conviction, resignation, and exit date betting

(THREAD) BREAKING: Harvard professor and @CNN political analyst Juliette Kayyem says, per sources, Michael Flynn may have flipped on Trump. pic.twitter.com/kkG4h4gqvw

Read the full story here

PClipp

First. You can blame this on the change of hours, if you like!

PClipp

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

SouthamObserver

Wishful thinking. Will not happen.

rkrkrk

SouthamObserver said:

Wishful thinking. Will not happen.

Decent chance of impeachment if the Democrats do very well in the mid-terms but not before.
Laying Donald Trump to go this year is good value IMO.

tlg86

I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but this tweet makes me think it could be wishful thinking:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/845722486100635648

You might not like it, but having close ties to Russia could be considered a virtue by the Trump administration.

SouthamObserver

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

tlg86

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Is it not the case that there are demonstrations in London most weekends? The BBC should report on all of them or none of them, unless a march draws in exceptional numbers (i.e. Iraq War).

OldKingCole

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

OldKingCole

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

Described = surprised.

Is Old Age catching up with me?

JackW

OldKingCole said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

Described = surprised.

Is Old Age catching up with me?

It passed you under DRS .... you might still manage a podium finish.

Whilst on the sporting theme, the Dharamsala venue for the India Oz test match must have one of the finest cricket backdrops anywhere sitting as it does in the foothills of the Himalayas.

SouthamObserver

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

tlg86

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

Described = surprised.

Is Old Age catching up with me?

It passed you under DRS .... you might still manage a podium finish.

Whilst on the sporting theme, the Dharamsala venue for the India Oz test match must have one of the finest cricket backdrops anywhere sitting as it does in the foothills of the Himalayas.

It's beautiful and they've produced a very good pitch. India should play here more often.

DecrepitJohnL

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Is it not the case that there are demonstrations in London most weekends? The BBC should report on all of them or none of them, unless a march draws in exceptional numbers (i.e. Iraq War).

That is pretty much what happens.

CD13

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

tlg86

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Was it not for the Remain campaign to call out the questionable claims by their opponents (and if you believe Cummings, the Leave campaign wanted the scrutiny)?

Without wanting to start an argument about BBC bias, @Morris_Dancer of this parish quite rightly points to Kamal Ahmed's question to Mark Carney - "Can you rule out a recession if we vote to leave the EU?"

That doesn't prove bias, but it does show that the BBC employ some complete morons.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

Alistair

Was their really a debate on the merits of extreme libertarianism in the last thread? Is this 2008? Is Ron Paul running again?

DavidL

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

tlg86

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

But during the election we were told that the Trump campaign was totally incompetent. So if they were being fed intelligence by the Russians, presumably most think that they weren't using it to any great effect.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

A very fair point! After his performance over recent days Lord Haw Haw is not an advocate that many people will give much time to.

TheScreamingEagles

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

This might help

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.inquisitr.com/4090747/donald-trump-impeachment-michael-flynn-flipped-on-trump-working-with-fbi/amp/

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Just got up. Woke up in time to listen to the race. First half sounded very exciting, second half mostly settled down. Will be watching the highlights later, and writing the post-race article shortly.

OldKingCole

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

But during the election we were told that the Trump campaign was totally incompetent. So if they were being fed intelligence by the Russians, presumably most think that they weren't using it to any great effect.

TBH, the idea that Trump is going to be impeached, let alone successfully, is wishful thinking, rather than a reasonable forecast.
If that’s the aim of the opposition it’s an admission of futility. Far better to spend time organising, and putting the Dem machine back in order to try and get control of the House in 2018 and make some advances in the Senate and in the ranls of the Governors.

DecrepitJohnL

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

But during the election we were told that the Trump campaign was totally incompetent. So if they were being fed intelligence by the Russians, presumably most think that they weren't using it to any great effect.

TBH, the idea that Trump is going to be impeached, let alone successfully, is wishful thinking, rather than a reasonable forecast.
If that’s the aim of the opposition it’s an admission of futility. Far better to spend time organising, and putting the Dem machine back in order to try and get control of the House in 2018 and make some advances in the Senate and in the ranls of the Governors.

You're thinking of the Democrat opposition. As the health plan fiasco showed, there is plenty of Republican opposition to Trump. And the question is not will he be impeached but will he be forced to resign before he is impeached?

CD13

Mr L,

Thanks.

So, it might be that some tweeters don't like Trump and are hinting they someone he knows may or may not have received information from the Russians during the POTUS election campaign about some factual information about Hilary's campaign. which Trump may or may not have used. And if he did, he may or may not have lied about it.

As this sounds a little bit like Watergate, they hope he'll be impeached.

Oh, the excitement.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

A very fair point! After his performance over recent days Lord Haw Haw is not an advocate that many people will give much time to.

I saw one bitter and pointless tweet about Carswell, but was there any more than that?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Just got up. Woke up in time to listen to the race. First half sounded very exciting, second half mostly settled down. Will be watching the highlights later, and writing the post-race article shortly.

Mr Dancer, the afternoon thread contains a reference to classical history, I'll be onsite around 8pm to help explain and educate you about it if you'd like.

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Just got up. Woke up in time to listen to the race. First half sounded very exciting, second half mostly settled down. Will be watching the highlights later, and writing the post-race article shortly.

A satisfying outcome, Mr.D.

JonnyJimmy

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

JosiasJessop

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

But during the election we were told that the Trump campaign was totally incompetent. So if they were being fed intelligence by the Russians, presumably most think that they weren't using it to any great effect.

Were 'we' told that? Many anti-Trump posts seemed to be about his unsuitability for the office, and the fact his campaign was revelling in spreading lies.

And it wasn't just being fed intelligence by the Russians; it was the allegations that people linked with the Russian authorities were running attacks and hatchet jobs on Clinton on-line. Bogus information that idiots believed and accentuated; for instance 'confusing' uranium ore for plutonium ...

The 2016 presidential campaign will be remembered for a blonde-haired monkey throwing sh*t all around his cage. Sadly, the monkey is incapable of cleaning up after himself, and has not learnt better habits.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B, I thought so. Don't want to talk much about it on-thread because I imagine some PBers will be waiting for highlights.

Mr. Eagles, I'll probably be off the computer at 8pm, but I'm sure we'll see each other on Monday.

CD13

Mr Eagles,

Thanks.

I'll admit to a guilty secret. I didn't like Nixon, so when Watergate blew up I was all for it. But to be totally honest, it was the burglary and deceit that I disliked. After all, he was seeking factual information against his opponent, a bit like the opposition newspapers were.

One of Reagan's better lines was "Let's make a deal. I'll stop telling the truth about you, if you stop telling lies about me."

logical_song

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

JonnyJimmy

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

MarqueeMark

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

MattW

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

They certainly covered it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

I am not sure what the BBC policy is on covering marches that turn out to be about 25 times smaller than claimed by the organisers in advance:

"Unite for Europe, an umbrella group of remain campaigners, plans to march on parliament at 11am on 25 March – the last weekend before Theresa May’s self-imposed deadline for launching the process of leaving the European Union – hoping to attract a crowd in excess of three-quarters of a million people."

"The idea is to try to make this the biggest march the capital, or country, has ever seen,” said French, who pointed out that there were 6 or 7 million voters in London alone, some 70% of whom had opposed Brexit."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/stop-brexit-campaign-biggest-uk-biggest-protest-march

Own. Petard. Hoist. But the BBC didn't cover that, so may have been biased the other way !

Perhaps because most areas of the country voted Out, a regional "London" news item is about right.

They should have publicised more heavily that Farron and Clegg were speaking, then 100k extra people would have come down from the Peaks and the Lakes with their thermos flasks.

OldKingCole

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Forgive my ignorance but what is this thread about? A few tweets from people I've never heard of. I did google Abramson and he seems to be a blogger hinting at something I know not.

What crime is being hinted at?

I'm happy to believe that Trump has dome something, but what is it?

I share your confusion. I think the context of this is that senior staffers and possibly Trump himself may have had meetings with Russians and possibly received intelligence from them that they have subsequently lied about and said didn't happen. But its all a bit obscure.

But during the election we were told that the Trump campaign was totally incompetent. So if they were being fed intelligence by the Russians, presumably most think that they weren't using it to any great effect.

TBH, the idea that Trump is going to be impeached, let alone successfully, is wishful thinking, rather than a reasonable forecast.
If that’s the aim of the opposition it’s an admission of futility. Far better to spend time organising, and putting the Dem machine back in order to try and get control of the House in 2018 and make some advances in the Senate and in the ranls of the Governors.

You're thinking of the Democrat opposition. As the health plan fiasco showed, there is plenty of Republican opposition to Trump. And the question is not will he be impeached but will he be forced to resign before he is impeached?

Yes, US parties are not the near-monoliths we are used to here...... I except the current Labour Party, of course ...... and just because someone registers as a Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean that they are prepared to fall in line with the party’s pronouncements on pretty well everything.

I really can’t see enough Republicans being prepared to push Trump into resigning for the movement to get anywhere. IIRC it took ages to get to that point with Nixon, and proceedings against Clinton could only be undertaken because the Republicans had control of Congress.
Furthermore, given the way electoral districts are drawn in the US, it’s probably more important for the Democrats to get hold of the machinery for same in as many states as possible than it is to spend time and effort on organising against the President.

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

Remainers are too busy running the country; unlike leavers who are too busy sitting at home with slippers and pipes, complaining ...

foxinsoxuk

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

Ishmael_Z

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

There weren't that many good ones on your link - just the usual scatological rubbish.

"Borders against Borders" was mildly amusing, as was "I am quite cross" and the Tintin one.

I suppose 3/15 isn't too bad...

Ishmael_Z

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

No LOLs in that lot for me, and the harder they try the more I think that they might have thought about expending a tiny bit of effort prior to 23/6/16. "The real fightback starts here" arsehattery.

Ishmael_Z

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

Remainers are too busy running the country; unlike leavers who are too busy sitting at home with slippers and pipes, complaining ...

I am puzzled by Farron's involvement. People complain about Osborne's multi-tasking, but he is a backbencher. Surely being Secretary of State for Defence should be a full-time job?

williamglenn

Ishmael_Z said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

No LOLs in that lot for me, and the harder they try the more I think that they might have thought about expending a tiny bit of effort prior to 23/6/16. "The real fightback starts here" arsehattery.

I'm sure in a few months your disdain will have moved over to to the Brexiteers for not doing their homework prior to the referendum. The real test for them starts on 29/3/17.

SquareRoot

Ishmael_Z said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

Remainers are too busy running the country; unlike leavers who are too busy sitting at home with slippers and pipes, complaining ...

I am puzzled by Farron's involvement. People complain about Osborne's multi-tasking, but he is a backbencher. Surely being Secretary of State for Defence should be a full-time job?

I suppose you never do anything outside the remit of your full time job.

Roger

Could so many christmasses have come at once?

They say the dawn follows the darkest night but only Farage drowning in a giant bowl of custard could make this a more optimistic header..

(Footnote....Why are the BBC leading on Sebastian Vettel winning the grand Prix if the POTUS is about to be impeached?)

Ishmael_Z

SquareRoot said:

Ishmael_Z said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

Remainers are too busy running the country; unlike leavers who are too busy sitting at home with slippers and pipes, complaining ...

I am puzzled by Farron's involvement. People complain about Osborne's multi-tasking, but he is a backbencher. Surely being Secretary of State for Defence should be a full-time job?

I suppose you never do anything outside the remit of your full time job.

Hook, line, sinker.

williamglenn

10 French centrist senators have announced their support for Macron (dumping Fillon in the process).

http://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/Dix-senateurs-centristes-annoncent-leur-soutien-a-Macron-856406

Sean_F

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

Roger

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

Remainers are too busy running the country; unlike leavers who are too busy sitting at home with slippers and pipes, complaining ...

You make a good point. If we could zap all Leavers with one blast who would be the biggest loser...?

Jeremy Kyle

Blue_rog

Forget the froth of the thread header, this is becoming a bit of a problem

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/26/fighting-breaks-supporters-opponents-donald-trump-clash-southern/

There is no healing of the divide but the thought of 30 protesters violently blocking a rally by 2000 seems a little anti-democratic

JosiasJessop

In other news: Uber's self-drive cars have a few more problems:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39397211

Kevin_McCandless

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Thanks.

I'll admit to a guilty secret. I didn't like Nixon, so when Watergate blew up I was all for it. But to be totally honest, it was the burglary and deceit that I disliked. After all, he was seeking factual information against his opponent, a bit like the opposition newspapers were.

One of Reagan's better lines was "Let's make a deal. I'll stop telling the truth about you, if you stop telling lies about me."

Weirdly, not only is John Dean still alive, a quick Google search has him as a very spry 78-year-old.

Casino_Royale

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

Dominic Cummings being one of them.

Knowing that by doing so they address the letter of impartiality against them, by having a Leave representative, but failing in spirit because he is so effective at repelling centrists.

Theuniondivvie

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

And by the same token more than Brexiteers were hoping for.

Roger

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

Dominic Cummings being one of them.

Knowing that by doing so they address the letter of impartiality against them, by having a Leave representative, but failing in spirit because he is so effective at repelling centrists.

It wasn't the BBC who persuaded Trump to make Farage the international face of Brexit. Though he always was anyway.

Casino_Royale

MattW said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

They certainly covered it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

I am not sure what the BBC policy is on covering marches that turn out to be about 25 times smaller than claimed by the organisers in advance:

"Unite for Europe, an umbrella group of remain campaigners, plans to march on parliament at 11am on 25 March – the last weekend before Theresa May’s self-imposed deadline for launching the process of leaving the European Union – hoping to attract a crowd in excess of three-quarters of a million people."

"The idea is to try to make this the biggest march the capital, or country, has ever seen,” said French, who pointed out that there were 6 or 7 million voters in London alone, some 70% of whom had opposed Brexit."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/stop-brexit-campaign-biggest-uk-biggest-protest-march

Own. Petard. Hoist. But the BBC didn't cover that, so may have been biased the other way !

Perhaps because most areas of the country voted Out, a regional "London" news item is about right.

They should have publicised more heavily that Farron and Clegg were speaking, then 100k extra people would have come down from the Peaks and the Lakes with their thermos flasks.

Given the large numbers of ardent Remainers in Inner London, and high the population of EU citizens across town, the organisers should have had no trouble at all in getting six figures.

And yet they didn't.

Casino_Royale

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

SimonStClare

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

Indeed, hence the use of the term 'Tens of thousands' appearing on many news sites, rather than an actual figure. – Must admit the march looked colourful, good natured and respectful of the recent Westminster atrocity, you can’t ask for much more than that.

Morris_Dancer

F1: my post-race analysis is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/australia-post-race-analysis-2017.html

surbiton

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

Many Leavers will be described by the BBC as Leavers. You can be sure of that. It's in the charter.

logical_song

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It was a genuine question. The BBC, a reputable news organisation, say that it was tens of thousands but you disagree? Yet, you want me to prove that the BBC is correct and you are not. Come on, be reasonable.

Big_G_NorthWales

Keir Starmer talking sensibly on Brexit and indeed I do not think he is that far away from David Davis and Theresa May. He absolutely confirms the end of free movement and agrees that the UK should accept that it must meet it's commitment, following negotiation, to a divorce bill.

If this tone is matched by TM and David Davis this could be the start of a badly needed consensus. In my opinon the hard Brexit demanded by UKIP and some others will not happen

Roger

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

Croucho's annual fees have just gone up to £1000 a year with almost no warning so the protests were always going to be large.

surbiton

MattW said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

They certainly covered it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

I am not sure what the BBC policy is on covering marches that turn out to be about 25 times smaller than claimed by the organisers in advance:

"Unite for Europe, an umbrella group of remain campaigners, plans to march on parliament at 11am on 25 March – the last weekend before Theresa May’s self-imposed deadline for launching the process of leaving the European Union – hoping to attract a crowd in excess of three-quarters of a million people."

"The idea is to try to make this the biggest march the capital, or country, has ever seen,” said French, who pointed out that there were 6 or 7 million voters in London alone, some 70% of whom had opposed Brexit."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/stop-brexit-campaign-biggest-uk-biggest-protest-march

Own. Petard. Hoist. But the BBC didn't cover that, so may have been biased the other way !

Perhaps because most areas of the country voted Out, a regional "London" news item is about right.

They should have publicised more heavily that Farron and Clegg were speaking, then 100k extra people would have come down from the Peaks and the Lakes with their thermos flasks.

Too cold for sandals!

Paristonda

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Keir Starmer talking sensibly on Brexit and indeed I do not think he is that far away from David Davis and Theresa May. He absolutely confirms the end of free movement and agrees that the UK should accept that it must meet it's commitment, following negotiation, to a divorce bill.

If this tone is matched by TM and David Davis this could be the start of a badly needed consensus. In my opinon the hard Brexit demanded by UKIP and some others will not happen

UKIP's ongoing struggles may give May the breathing space she needs to go for a more consensual brexit. I think if we had a relevant labour opposition a consensual approach would have been unavoidable for May. Because of their irrelevance under Corbyn, May's only opposition so far has been pulling her to a more extreme brexit.

Alanbrooke

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Surbiton, Roman soldiers posted to Britain wore socks with their sandals.

NickPalmer

Americans are sceptical about the political system but very protective of the institution of the Presidency, so it would take a great deal to move impeachment into the realms of serious possibility. If Flynn were to say that he had conspired with Russia on Trump's orders to affect the outcome of the election, that would do it - not much less. It's probably true to say that there is a majority in the Senate (not sure about the House) who don't actually approve of Trump and would prefer his vice-president.

Personally, I prefer Trump to Pence on current evidence. His willingness to give up on Obamacare shows his lack of real hard-edged conservative ideology. Pence is the real deal. We need to be thankful for small mercies.

surbiton

Kevin_McCandless said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

Thanks.

I'll admit to a guilty secret. I didn't like Nixon, so when Watergate blew up I was all for it. But to be totally honest, it was the burglary and deceit that I disliked. After all, he was seeking factual information against his opponent, a bit like the opposition newspapers were.

One of Reagan's better lines was "Let's make a deal. I'll stop telling the truth about you, if you stop telling lies about me."

Weirdly, not only is John Dean still alive, a quick Google search has him as a very spry 78-year-old.

But he flipped, if I recall ?

Ishmael_Z

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

And by the same token more than Brexiteers were hoping for.

I can't speak for them, but I would have thought that the march actually happening, and resembling a wet fart, was a better result than no march at all.

And the bigger story (this is not tailored trolling btw, I was going to say this anyway) is that the Grauniad has a turnout of "more than a thousand" for the Edinburgh event. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/mar/25/brexit-protest-thousands-march-in-london-to-unite-for-europe-live
I thought Scotland's huge Remain majority meant that this was the issue which was going to put fire in the bellies of Yes this time round. This is surely serious for Sturgeon? "more than a thousand" sounds thin to me.

Casino_Royale

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

;-)

Monksfield

Ishmael_Z said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

And by the same token more than Brexiteers were hoping for.

I can't speak for them, but I would have thought that the march actually happening, and resembling a wet fart, was a better result than no march at all.

And the bigger story (this is not tailored trolling btw, I was going to say this anyway) is that the Grauniad has a turnout of "more than a thousand" for the Edinburgh event. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/mar/25/brexit-protest-thousands-march-in-london-to-unite-for-europe-live
I thought Scotland's huge Remain majority meant that this was the issue which was going to put fire in the bellies of Yes this time round. This is surely serious for Sturgeon? "more than a thousand" sounds thin to me.

Given the march would have 0 influence on what May does what was the point? At least for the Iraq march (which I was on) there was some prospect that a massive show of opposition might influence events. It didn't of course.

surbiton

Flynn may have flipped. That's what the indications are. However, that does not necessarily mean he will take down Trump with him. He is probably only reducing his sentence.

Trump's choice was bizarre to say the least. It just shows the man does not do any detail. Flynn, Manafort et al would work with the Devil if the pay was right.

Casino_Royale

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

Dominic Cummings being one of them.

Knowing that by doing so they address the letter of impartiality against them, by having a Leave representative, but failing in spirit because he is so effective at repelling centrists.

It wasn't the BBC who persuaded Trump to make Farage the international face of Brexit. Though he always was anyway.

But, that's a charade that works well both for Farage and for the soft-Left media channels: Farage gets his airtime and his ego indulged, and the broadcasters can use him to caricature the entire Leave vote accordingly, perhaps secretly hoping to discredit it in the process.

Ignore both.

RoyalBlue

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

surbiton

NickPalmer said:

Americans are sceptical about the political system but very protective of the institution of the Presidency, so it would take a great deal to move impeachment into the realms of serious possibility. If Flynn were to say that he had conspired with Russia on Trump's orders to affect the outcome of the election, that would do it - not much less. It's probably true to say that there is a majority in the Senate (not sure about the House) who don't actually approve of Trump and would prefer his vice-president.

Personally, I prefer Trump to Pence on current evidence. His willingness to give up on Obamacare shows his lack of real hard-edged conservative ideology. Pence is the real deal. We need to be thankful for small mercies.

The right wing [ as opposed to the Alt-Right ] will prefer Pence any day. They really don't believe Trump is one of them. Apart from anything else, he is too unpredictable.

Nonetheless, Trump has a third of Americans rock solid behind him.

[ P.S. Useless anecdote. I was looking at our Mexican subsidiaries sales in 2017. Up 23% on last year with a week to go ! ]

Casino_Royale

Paristonda said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Keir Starmer talking sensibly on Brexit and indeed I do not think he is that far away from David Davis and Theresa May. He absolutely confirms the end of free movement and agrees that the UK should accept that it must meet it's commitment, following negotiation, to a divorce bill.

If this tone is matched by TM and David Davis this could be the start of a badly needed consensus. In my opinon the hard Brexit demanded by UKIP and some others will not happen

UKIP's ongoing struggles may give May the breathing space she needs to go for a more consensual brexit. I think if we had a relevant labour opposition a consensual approach would have been unavoidable for May. Because of their irrelevance under Corbyn, May's only opposition so far has been pulling her to a more extreme brexit.

The political situation in the EU appears to stabilising around moderates at the moment: Macron, Rutte and Schulz/Merkel. The language from the likes of Juncker/Tusk has been more tempered in recent days, and there have been some interesting leaks of negotiating lines.

If the EU feels its political situation has stabilised, but can still point to the UK with a depreciated currency, a big divorce bill, ongoing payments into the EU budget, some jobs relocating into the EU, but with no say or vote in the rules, then all of that creates the political space to do a pragmatic economic deal.

MonikerDiCanio

Ishmael_Z said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

And by the same token more than Brexiteers were hoping for.

I can't speak for them, but I would have thought that the march actually happening, and resembling a wet fart, was a better result than no march at all.

And the bigger story (this is not tailored trolling btw, I was going to say this anyway) is that the Grauniad has a turnout of "more than a thousand" for the Edinburgh event. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/mar/25/brexit-protest-thousands-march-in-london-to-unite-for-europe-live
I thought Scotland's huge Remain majority meant that this was the issue which was going to put fire in the bellies of Yes this time round. This is surely serious for Sturgeon? "more than a thousand" sounds thin to me.

Star speakers; Lammy, Clegg and Campbell. No wonder the event flopped.

surbiton

RoyalBlue said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

It took a long time but Starmer is gradually turning the ship. I hope Corbyn actually understands this position.

Casino_Royale

RoyalBlue said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

That's absurd. Even full membership of the EEA wouldn't deliver that.

malcolmg

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

RobD

JosiasJessop said:

In other news: Uber's self-drive cars have a few more problems:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39397211

I would have thought the Uber car would be measuring the speed of a car that it expected to yield, like a human driver would (should).

Casino_Royale

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

Happy to consider a Scottish fizz.

Recommend anything?

MonikerDiCanio

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

Your palate is probably unrefined ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/english-sparkling-wine-beats-champagne-in-paris-blind-tasting/

RoyalBlue

Casino_Royale said:

RoyalBlue said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

That's absurd. Even full membership of the EEA wouldn't deliver that.

They know that. They've decided that making the 25% of the electorate that still supports them feel good is more important than actually reaching out to Labour leavers and having a chance of making progress in 2020.

ThreeQuidder

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

It also might be seen as pro-Remain bias to not expose their derisory turnout...

malcolmg

excellent video on attached , very funny
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/haw-yersel-away-watch-scottish-10098265

malcolmg

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

Happy to consider a Scottish fizz.

Recommend anything?

I doubt we would be champions for our wine , fizzy or otherwise. Irn Bru is fizzy mind you and requires no sun to get it flavoursome.
I prefer veuve Clicquot myself.

malcolmg

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

Your palate is probably unrefined ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/english-sparkling-wine-beats-champagne-in-paris-blind-tasting/

You mean like your brain

tlg86

ThreeQuidder said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

It also might be seen as pro-Remain bias to not expose their derisory turnout...

Quite. I remember a friend on Facebook complaining that the BBC were ignoring the anti-Tory protests after the 2015 election. I politely pointed out that it was probably in their interest that the BBC weren't drawing attention to the behaviour of some of the protesters.

TwistedFireStopper

ThreeQuidder said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

Ironically there is a perception among some Leavers that giving Nigel Farage inordinate amounts of airtime demonstrates the BBC's bias towarsds Remain!

It also might be seen as pro-Remain bias to not expose their derisory turnout...

I don't think anything needs exposing. There was a pro EU march in London yesterday that didn't meet expectations about its turnout. I was on an FBU march in 2015, 2000 of us outside parliament that never got reported. Even the pro EU Guardian today is barely mentioning it, although the article about it has nearly 6000 comments. If there had been a massive march it would have got reported. There wasn't, it didn't.

malcolmg

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

JonnyJimmy said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

It's missing an s. It reads like only ten, out of thousands who could have, joined the march. I was jokingly accusing the bbc of pro Brexit bias because of a typo.

More importantly, the BBC should have asked - where were the missing 16 million who could have joined the march? Maybe there'll be a Panorama special....

It was a good spirited march by all accounts, and a particularly high standard of placards. Protest placads have definitely become wittier over the years:

http://inktank.fi/15-fantastically-fun-protest-signs-from-the-unite-for-europe-march/

I'll be in even better spirits on Wednesday evening after my glasses of champagne.

english fizz mr CR !

yuk

Happy to consider a Scottish fizz.

Recommend anything?

Being serious for a moment you could try Cairn O' Mohr....................something different

Roger

OT Though I like John Piennar the interview on radio 5 at the moment with John McClusky is not his finest. It becomes more obvious by the hour that Labour are forever finished. The only remaining question is who it brings down with it. This is certainly worse than militant and this time there's no Kinnock

Theuniondivvie

Ishmael_Z said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

logical_song said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Biased BBC caption on picture of the pro EU march,

"Ten of thousands of people joined the march"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39392584

Is that not a simple fact?

Is which not a simple fact? "Thousands" in the headline or "tens of thousands" in the text? It can't be both, except in the really tedious sense that one is a subset of the other, because the intention is clearly to identify the right order of magnitude. To recognise it as a fact, we need evidence of some kind. The estimate made by the police is usually regarded as reliable, or we could look at aerial photos. Have you sought evidence of either kind, or do you just (logically!) think it must be true because it's on the internet?

It looks like turnout wasn't bad, but certainly not on the scale the organisers were hoping for.

And by the same token more than Brexiteers were hoping for.

I can't speak for them, but I would have thought that the march actually happening, and resembling a wet fart, was a better result than no march at all.

And the bigger story (this is not tailored trolling btw, I was going to say this anyway) is that the Grauniad has a turnout of "more than a thousand" for the Edinburgh event. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/mar/25/brexit-protest-thousands-march-in-london-to-unite-for-europe-live
I thought Scotland's huge Remain majority meant that this was the issue which was going to put fire in the bellies of Yes this time round. This is surely serious for Sturgeon? "more than a thousand" sounds thin to me.

Since the PB Brexiteers' estimates of a poor show for this march seem to have been creeping up incrementally from 10k - 20k - 25k - 40k, I'd suggest their/your definition of a wet fart may be somewhat elastic.

As far as you thinking that Scotland's huge Remain majority meant this was the issue which was going to put fire in the bellies of Yes this time round, can I ask which specific statements propelled this idea into your (no doubt pretty) little head, or are you resorting to setting up your own proposition so you can say it's failed? I'd wait for the council elections in May to see the lie of the land, since we're told by no greater authority than Tessy herself that they'll be a proxy poll on the desire for a 2nd referendum. You should perhaps note that in Glasgow yesterday the SNP & Sturgeon were launching their manifesto for the GCC council elections and large numbers of members were pounding the streets, which should give an indication of current priorities.

isam

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

PClipp said:

Both Tim Farron and Nick Clegg seem to have made a considerable impact at the EU Rally in London yesterday. This was well covered by Channel 4, but not by the BBC, so it will have escaped the attention of the PB Tory commentariat. Apologies for going off topic so soon.

The pro-Leave BBC was never going to cover the march.

Many Leavers will be described by that description of the BBC, I’m sure.

I may have been ever so slightly tongue in cheek ;-)

That said, there is a perception among some Remainers that the BBC went easy on Leave claims during the referendum and continues to give Nigel Farage, for one, inordinate amounts of airtime. Just goes to show it's not just Leavers who see bias.

4m people voted for Ukip, they only got one MP who has now left, & people complain when they're on the telly!

williamglenn

Casino_Royale said:

RoyalBlue said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

That's absurd. Even full membership of the EEA wouldn't deliver that.

They appear to be the words of David Davis... Who knew that the main opposition to Brexit would come from the Brexiteers?

kle4

Roger said:

OT Though I like John Piennar the interview on radio 5 at the moment with John McClusky is not his finest. It becomes more obvious by the hour that Labour are forever finished. The only remaining question is who it brings down with it. This is certainly worse than militant and this time there's no Kinnock

It was of interest only to political obsessives, and we are the only ones who noticed. Seems fair.

kle4

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

RoyalBlue said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/26/labour-keir-starmer-brexit-exact-same-benefits

Sounds like Labour are pivoting to oppose Brexit when Theresa May fails to deliver on their impossible demands.

That's absurd. Even full membership of the EEA wouldn't deliver that.

They appear to be the words of David Davis... Who knew that the main opposition to Brexit would come from the Brexiteers?

EveryonE. May has done a good job pleasing the unpleaseable but the more severe will revert to type.

kle4

Roger said:

OT Though I like John Piennar the interview on radio 5 at the moment with John McClusky is not his finest. It becomes more obvious by the hour that Labour are forever finished. The only remaining question is who it brings down with it. This is certainly worse than militant and this time there's no Kinnock

The tories are not inhereby popular. The Lib Dems are creeping up when they need to soar. Labour Rebels woukd rather Quit Politics Than Quit Labour, Which Means The Scope for Revival Is There. They're going nowhere.