Six months for nicking a bottle water
Comments
-
W1 wrote:jamesco wrote:
Do you work for Rupert Murdoch, by any chance? The phone-hacking scandal investigation by The Guardian is already being compared to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation. Left or right, we should all be very grateful The Guardian exists.W1 wrote:I wouldn't "gloat" about an article in the Guardian anymore than I'd gloat about one in the Mail.
Indeed. I mean, what else would I line my cat's litter tray with?
The Guardian have an agenda and spin it just as much as the Mail.
True.
It doesn't have a reputation for printing false information though, which the Mail does.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's not like papers to publish academic results that don't support their general line is it?
I think in this case W1, had the academics said the opposite, you'd be gloating about it till the cows came home.
Er, exactly. It's hardly a reliable source and it's a crap article. So why you seem to think that it's somehwhat of a concluded point is beyond me. What exactly have they "come through" about except some very dubious inferences?
I meant come through in the sense that I like to see historians throw their hat into the ring.
We listen to experts on science, but people often don't listen to historians and other professional academics who specialise in social sciences and humanities. I was pleased that there were finally some academic studies on the subject, and that they given their expert opinion. After all, it's their job to study this stuff.
It's a long gripe of mine that everyone listens to a scientist, but everyone think that because they've read a few books they're bona fide historians.
Starkey did that days ago!0 -
W1 wrote:Starkey did that days ago!
He did indeed. I got the distinct impression he wasn't too representative of his peers though...
He also writes terrible history, but I digress.
Point is, some smart people have done some analysis of stats and have found a correlation between austerity cuts and riots, one that doesn't strongly exist between tax rises and riots.
With hindsight, we should have been less surprised.0 -
W1. Everyone has an agenda. That is just stating the obvious. That they have an agenda does not completely invalidate what they publish. Even the DM makes valid points very, very occasionally. Or do you believe that there is some mythical source of unspun unbiased truth?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oh, FFS, if you're going to equate the Guardian with the Mail then you're being wilfully obnoxious. The Guardian isn't a sacred text, but there's no question it has loftier goals and standards than the Mail.W1 wrote:Indeed. I mean, what else would I line my cat's litter tray with?
The Guardian have an agenda and spin it just as much as the Mail.
Don't get the satisfaction that you've got my blood pressure up - I feel the same way about you now as I do about the taxi driver who told me I don't pay road-tax this morning. Nah, actually he was just ignorant, not being a sh1t-stirrer.0 -
The Guardian reference is a bit of a red herring; the discussion paper studying the effects of austerity on social unrest has nothing to do with the press of any political hue. The article in the Guardian is based on work done for the Centre for Economic Policy Research not for the Guardian, and though this paper doesn't deal with the UK's heightened correlation between austerity and anarchy, it does set out the background: http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/file ... DP8513.pdf0
-
My wife and I have discussed this and really can't see why a more drastic approach isn't undertaken.
Why not create a system that allows forced national service for repeat youth offenders? Their parents obviously don't give a toss about their offspring so why should they be at cost to society and get away with an easy life in the process with badges of honour such as ASBOs? At least make our tax money work towards something useful and in the process perhaps the tough regime of the service would make something out of someone destined to be a complete waste of space and drain on society for the rest of their life?
This kind of system would easily act as a deterrent to the friends 'gang' members or other youths. Imagine knowing your best mate at school had to be shipped off for 24 months of national service because he's racked up three offences between the age of 12-18 for example. Would you then kick in the bus shelter windows on the way home from school or nick something from the shop or perhaps punch someone in the face while your mate records it on their phone ready to upload to youtube?
We all know this country has helped breed disrespect in the youth of today. It's about time we got tough with it tbh. It wasn't even long ago when the government were spin doctoring policies such as "hug a hoody". It's all too soft and something drastic needs to be undertaken which will educate our younger generations, breed a culture of respect and put a stop to all this politically correct BS we've all been force-fed for last umpteen years.
Ill get off me soapbox now!
Ribble Stealth/SRAM Force
2007 Specialized Allez (Double) FCN - 30 -
jamesco wrote:
Oh, FFS, if you're going to equate the Guardian with the Mail then you're being wilfully obnoxious. The Guardian isn't a sacred text, but there's no question it has loftier goals and standards than the Mail.W1 wrote:Indeed. I mean, what else would I line my cat's litter tray with?
The Guardian have an agenda and spin it just as much as the Mail.
Don't get the satisfaction that you've got my blood pressure up - I feel the same way about you now as I do about the taxi driver who told me I don't pay road-tax this morning. Nah, actually he was just ignorant, not being a sh1t-stirrer.
I'll try not to cry myself to sleep at night.
The Guardian is laughably left wing. The Mail is laughably right wing. In that respect they are both as predictable and biased as eachother.
Clearly you're willing to be drawn in by their spin to the point of defending them with personal insults on the internet.0 -
rjsterry wrote:W1. Everyone has an agenda. That is just stating the obvious. That they have an agenda does not completely invalidate what they publish. Even the DM makes valid points very, very occasionally. Or do you believe that there is some mythical source of unspun unbiased truth?
Indeed, but it should be taken with a heavy dose of salt, and not relied on to "prove" a point.
Even a brief skim of that article showed it to be limited in conclusions - conclusions which I (after clarification, mistakenly) thought were being touted by Rich Chasey as being facts.0 -
The Mail is a waste of good wood pulp. It is written by w@ankers and read by w@ankers.0
-
jamesco wrote:Oh, FFS, if you're going to equate the Guardian with the Mail then you're being wilfully obnoxious.
Jamesco, it sounds as though you haven't been formally introduced to W1...
0 -
Heard this last night made my laugh. Not 100% sure it's relevant to this thread....
"A liberal is simply a Tory that has never been mugged".........--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
-
CRAIGO5000 wrote:My wife and I have discussed this and really can't see why a more drastic approach isn't undertaken.
Why not create a system that allows forced national service for repeat youth offenders? Their parents obviously don't give a toss about their offspring so why should they be at cost to society and get away with an easy life in the process with badges of honour such as ASBOs? At least make our tax money work towards something useful and in the process perhaps the tough regime of the service would make something out of someone destined to be a complete waste of space and drain on society for the rest of their life?
This kind of system would easily act as a deterrent to the friends 'gang' members or other youths. Imagine knowing your best mate at school had to be shipped off for 24 months of national service because he's racked up three offences between the age of 12-18 for example. Would you then kick in the bus shelter windows on the way home from school or nick something from the shop or perhaps punch someone in the face while your mate records it on their phone ready to upload to youtube?
Ill get off me soapbox now!
Either that or you give a load of gang members state funded training on how to wage war.0 -
Sorry, but WTF? Who's making the comparisons? The Guardian?jamesco wrote:The phone-hacking scandal investigation by The Guardian is already being compared to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation. Left or right, we should all be very grateful The Guardian exists.
:roll:
I have to say, I've made the comparisons between the Guardian and the Mail before too, just to try and get some kind of balance from the Guardian evangelists. Just because your paper uses longer words, and had more credibility than the Mail doesn't mean you're not being peddled as biased an editorial.
Of course it's more credible than the Mail, but If you normalise for the intelligence of the readership, then in terms of hammering an agenda, it does the same job of serving up what its readers want to read.0 -
Garnett wrote:
Sorry, but WTF? Who's making the comparisons? The Guardian?jamesco wrote:The phone-hacking scandal investigation by The Guardian is already being compared to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation. Left or right, we should all be very grateful The Guardian exists.
:roll:
I have to say, I've made the comparisons between the Guardian and the Mail before too, just to try and get some kind of balance from the Guardian evangelists. Just because your paper uses longer words, and had more credibility than the Mail doesn't mean you're not being peddled as biased an editorial.
Of course it's more credible than the Mail, but If you normalise for the intelligence of the readership, then in terms of hammering an agenda, it does the same job of serving up what its readers want to read.
You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that doesn't.
Some papers have a rep for higher quality journalism than others though.
The Times often gets touted as the most balanced, but I disagree. It tends to occupy a more central political perspective on things, but that's no more biased than any other broadsheet. The same can be said for the FT.
Point is, the guardian has excellent online blogs and comments - so is likely to get more purchase from the online community than, say, the times which is paywalled.
Also, boring middle ground chat makes for rubbish debates on forums.0 -
Recently when I get PT I've switch from a Murdoch paper that I used to buy as I could read it in the 20 min train journey to the "i". I have to say finding it fairly balanced if a little smug.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:Recently when I get PT I've switch from a Murdoch paper that I used to buy as I could read it in the 20 min train journey to the "i". I have to say finding it fairly balanced if a little smug.
Slippery slope, you'll be apologising for darling rioters and suggesting they get given holidays and hugs instead of prison sentences soon.0 -
0
-
W1 wrote:Sketchley wrote:Recently when I get PT I've switch from a Murdoch paper that I used to buy as I could read it in the 20 min train journey to the "i". I have to say finding it fairly balanced if a little smug.
Slippery slope, you'll be apologising for darling rioters and suggesting they get given holidays and hugs instead of prison sentences soon.
Do you read a paper, W1?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Sketchley wrote:Recently when I get PT I've switch from a Murdoch paper that I used to buy as I could read it in the 20 min train journey to the "i". I have to say finding it fairly balanced if a little smug.
Slippery slope, you'll be apologising for darling rioters and suggesting they get given holidays and hugs instead of prison sentences soon.
Do you read a paper, W1?
I did try once, but found the wind-brake effect ruined my SCRing.0 -
W1 wrote:I did try once, but found the wind-brake effect ruined my SCRing.
Do you know you can access newspaper content through the "Internet"?0 -
jamesco wrote:
Oh, FFS, if you're going to equate the Guardian with the Mail then you're being wilfully obnoxious. The Guardian isn't a sacred text, but there's no question it has loftier goals and standards than the Mail.W1 wrote:Indeed. I mean, what else would I line my cat's litter tray with?
The Guardian have an agenda and spin it just as much as the Mail.
Don't get the satisfaction that you've got my blood pressure up - I feel the same way about you now as I do about the taxi driver who told me I don't pay road-tax this morning. Nah, actually he was just ignorant, not being a sh1t-stirrer.
Of course you can compare the Guardian to the Mail - they're both national newspapers with a significant readership and they both have a fairly strong agenda to push (in fact the Guardian has much stronger links with the labour party than most newspapers do with political parties). Also the assertion that the Guardian doesn’t print non-truths is complete poppycock.
As for the Guardian going after News International, it’s interesting that they’ve been like a savage attack dog towards the NotW whilst have left the Mirror (and others) largely untouched.
All that said I wouldn’t be seen dead buying either paper.You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quin.0 -
Bikequin wrote:(in fact the Guardian has much stronger links with the labour party than most newspapers do with political parties)
O RLY?
Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... er-support0 -
notsoblue wrote:Bikequin wrote:(in fact the Guardian has much stronger links with the labour party than most newspapers do with political parties)
O RLY?
Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... er-support
O RLY?
0 -
NSB & Rick - As I'm sure you're both aware the level of links between a newspaper and a political organisation and support for that party at a general election are not one and the same thing.You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quin.0
-
I've got to plead ignorance there, what links are you suggesting?Bikequin wrote:NSB & Rick - As I'm sure you're both aware the level of links between a newspaper and a political organisation and support for that party at a general election are not one and the same thing.0 -
