Six months for nicking a bottle water

Greg T

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey
that chart shows the Guardian has much less consistent support for any given party than most other papers.

That Chart shows that even the Grauniad can tell a dead horse when they see it.

Since the Times got paywalled I'm forced into an uneasy position of telegraph/grauniad/bbc Venn Diagram hang 'em all / it's the bankers / what about the children analysis . .

also

Funny

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 107054035/

Bikequin

I appreciate that links is a fairly ambiguos word, but its a fairly greyed area. What I mean is that when a labour minister/shadowminister wants to make a briefing to the press they'll often use the Guardian as their vehicle, same can be said for any leaks which the labour party wish to make.

Its not something that I can quantify and I appreciate that one of the main reasons for this is that the standard of journalism within the Guardian is higher than most papers. I'm just making the point that the Guardian has an agenda, (even if to a degree its driven by a commecial realisation that this relationship with the labour party will help provide good news stories).

Edited - for spelling that even the Guardian would be ashamed of.

sketchley

Greg T wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey
that chart shows the Guardian has much less consistent support for any given party than most other papers.

That Chart shows that even the Grauniad can tell a dead horse when they see it.

Since the Times got paywalled I'm forced into an uneasy position of telegraph/grauniad/bbc Venn Diagram hang 'em all / it's the bankers / what about the children analysis . .

also

Funny

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 107054035/

and

http://newsthump.com/2011/08/09/nations ... aily-mail/

rjsterry

Greg T wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey
that chart shows the Guardian has much less consistent support for any given party than most other papers.

That Chart shows that even the Grauniad can tell a dead horse when they see it.

Since the Times got paywalled I'm forced into an uneasy position of telegraph/grauniad/bbc Venn Diagram hang 'em all / it's the bankers / what about the children analysis . .

also

Funny

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 107054035/

I reckon that would give you quite a good overall view of the news. A kind of average (mean, mode or median?) news if you like.

rick_chasey

I used to read The Times.

I got bored with endless chat about sending your kids to school and whether to go private or not, as well as other general chat about lives that I won't be living for another 10-15 years, house prices & doing it up etc. I also got irritated that it was regularly the last paper to the story.

(and I hate Matt Paris with a passion).

I reluctantly read the Guardian on a receptionist temp job I had, and, sifting through all the stuff that the Guardian is infamous for, I found it eminently more relevant to me, given that I'm knocking around in my early 20s.

Their online coverage is also pretty good, and I like their lighter-hearted touches.

I can sift through most of the stuff, but I guess I'm slowly being indoctrinated by it. Maybe my time in a rabid right wing "Thatcher wasn't right wing enough" office has crystallised my views and sent me much further to the left too.

Sewinman

In my opinion the Independent pushes an agenda more than the Guardian, due to its front page 'issues'. The FT on Saturday is probably the most unbiased and straight news I think....for the first few pages.

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

In other news, some northern oiks have been banged up for 4 years for writing some Facebook messages, whilst another who committed the same 'crime' was told to write a letter of apology and freed without charge.

rolf_f

Greg T wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey
that chart shows the Guardian has much less consistent support for any given party than most other papers.

That Chart shows that even the Grauniad can tell a dead horse when they see it.

Why do you say 'even the Grauniad' when the table clearly suggests that it is the paper most likely to tell a dead horse?

If you actually read it you find that the Guardian is pretty happy to give anyone a hard time (and anyone credit when it's due as well).

That 4 year sentence for trying to incite is pretty appalling IMO. Happy to lock up the people who actually rioted for four years (real time) but simply posting stuff on facebook that nobody paid attention to is not worth 4 years.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

Really?

Sewinman wrote:

In other news, some northern oiks have been banged up for 4 years for writing some Facebook messages.

That all, eh?

QED

DonDaddyD

[Fan the flames]

Isn't this all about socio-political ethics.

Personally papers are just an extension of social and political values/ethics. Liberals are no more right than conservatives. My Gran likes reading the South London Press the worst most racist paper ever but it coincides with her conservative values, she votes labor and would never vote Tory.

Why? Here's the thing.

Minorities like the liberals because they're accepting of their differences. If minority group (and most of my like) were ever in the majority then I'd want you lot out and blame you for most of the things wrong in their country. Like people do me.

That is the sum total of why minorities vote labor, though they are Tories, and they are, England's Tories don't represent them and will only accept them to a point.

My Human instinct agrees with the Tories but my higher brain functions, which include self preservation, tells me the Liberals are a safer bet.

Why the Guardians has followers. [/Fan Flames]

DonDaddyD

Now onto these ridiculous sentences and what the Tories are doing about it. At this point I'm actually going to go outside and spit on the floor in protest of the Liberal Demoprats. They disgust me, they stand for nothing. At least with the Tories you know they are their to make the rich more rich at the expense of the poor.

So, guy was on a bus had to get off as a riot broke out. He's in the crowd, gets caught up and nicks a bottle of water from Poundland. Gets 4years in prison.

Guy who throws a bin through Poundland's window, that triggers the looting, is also found to be stealing a bottle of water. Gets 4 years.

I'm of the thought the person on the bus who had to get off should be getting less. (Yes this is just a anecdotal example).

Now while I accept that committing theft during a riot more outrageous in the public's eye. It's just theft and he should be punished accordingly. A person who has attacked or killed someone during a riot isn't going to get anything more severe than manslaughter/murder so why is nicking a bottle of water the crime of the century beyond people looking for someone to be blamed. Likelihood is most (like Rupert Murdoch creampie Man) will appeal and get a less harsh sentence, which won't be as publicly reported.

Whatever happens or whatever the Internet decides I'm not into the law making example of individuals to appease public outrage.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey
Not sure who you're O RLYing at, but that chart shows the Guardian has much less consistent support for any given party than most other papers.

Supporting a paper doesn't necessarily equal 'links' though, whatever 'links' are.

I just wanted in on the O RLY.

I felt left out

notsoblue

I think words like "Agenda" are pretty harsh to apply to broadsheets like The Guardian, The Independent and The Times. What does that word even mean in this context? That they have some kind of sinister motive for trying to indoctrinate their readers? I think that in reality they don't need to do this because their loyal readership largely already agrees with their standpoint.

You can't really credit any paper with a truly objective copy because this is impossible. And undesirable too, a newspaper that went out of its way to report events as dryly and objective as possible simply wouldn't sell.

I tend to buy the Guardian/Observer largely because it's editorial approach is relevant to my world view and the page design is nice than the others. I have no problem with other broadsheets and will read them if they're about because they credit their readership with a certain level of intelligence. Tabloid papers like The Daily Mail simply don't do this.

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

Really?

Sewinman wrote:

In other news, some northern oiks have been banged up for 4 years for writing some Facebook messages.

That all, eh?

QED

Yes, really.

What case have you proven? That I am indoctrinated I suppose. The opinion that some of these sentences are crazy and that inconsistency makes it worse is hardly of any doctrine.

I actually picked this story up on the Daily Telegrah -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/f ... ebook.html

Sewinman wrote:

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

QED

Bikequin

I feel quite comfortable in stating that any newspaper that has Polly Toynbee & George Monbiot writing for them is pushing an agenda.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now onto these ridiculous sentences and what the Tories are doing about it. At this point I'm actually going to go outside and spit on the floor in protest of the Liberal Demoprats. They disgust me, they stand for nothing. At least with the Tories you know they are their to make the rich more rich at the expense of the poor.

So, guy was on a bus had to get off as a riot broke out. He's in the crowd, gets caught up and nicks a bottle of water from Poundland. Gets 4years in prison.

Guy who throws a bin through Poundland's window, that triggers the looting, is also found to be stealing a bottle of water. Gets 4 years.

I'm of the thought the person on the bus who had to get off should be getting less. (Yes this is just a anecdotal example).

Now while I accept that committing theft during a riot more outrageous in the public's eye. It's just theft and he should be punished accordingly. A person who has attacked or killed someone during a riot isn't going to get anything more severe than manslaughter/murder so why is nicking a bottle of water the crime of the century beyond people looking for someone to be blamed. Likelihood is most (like Rupert Murdoch creampie Man) will appeal and get a less harsh sentence, which won't be as publicly reported.

Whatever happens or whatever the Internet decides I'm not into the law making example of individuals to appease public outrage.

It's burglary not theft - it's not the same as shoplifting - and he got 6 months (out in 2-3months if he behaves), which is within the limits set out in the sentencing guidance that all magistrates and judges work to. It's not as though they've all thrown that guidance out in the last two weeks.. 6 months is the most that a magistrate can impose - beyond that they have to refer the case to the crown court, which is what happened to a lot of those who were actually doing the rioting as opposed to opportunistic burglary. Making an example is an intended part of the system (not just in relation to the riots) as the magistrate/judge will also be trying to create some deterrent effect through sentencing.

Oh, and re: the LibDems.

notsoblue

Bikequin wrote:

I feel quite comfortable in stating that any newspaper that has Polly Toynbee & George Monbiot writing for them is pushing an agenda.

When does a point of view become an Agenda?

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

Really?

Sewinman wrote:

In other news, some northern oiks have been banged up for 4 years for writing some Facebook messages.

That all, eh?

QED

Yes, really.

What case have you proven? That I am indoctrinated I suppose. The opinion that some of these sentences are crazy and that inconsistency makes it worse is hardly of any doctrine.

I actually picked this story up on the Daily Telegrah -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/f ... ebook.html

Sewinman wrote:

I tend to read all the papers in order to not become indoctrinated.

QED

Yes, indoctrinated by the softly softly approach advocted consistently in papers like The Guardian. To the point where you deliberately demote/misrepresent serious offences to attempt to make the sentences appear "harsh" when the reality is very different. That's particularly misleading and weakens, rather than strengthens, your position.

Spinning the truth to match a particular stance taken by a particular paper is indoctrination in my book.

You do realise that the offences you refer to our different, right?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, but it's not deliberately inflamatory. They are, in my view, just as bad as each other in terms of stance and spin. One is perhaps rather more faux intelligent about it, but just as biased in reality.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, but it's not deliberately inflamatory. They are, in my view, just as bad as each other in terms of stance and spin. One is perhaps rather more faux intelligent about it, but just as biased in reality.

First rule of trolling: Never admit to being a troll.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Yes, indoctrinated by the softly softly approach advocted consistently in papers like The Guardian. To the point where you deliberately demote/misrepresent serious offences to attempt to make the sentences appear "harsh" when the reality is very different. That's particularly misleading and weakens, rather than strengthens, your position.

Spinning the truth to match a particular stance taken by a particular paper is indoctrination in my book.

You say "softly softly", others might say "grounded in reality and endorsed by professionals". Those that actually deal with many of the social problems you're (probably) referring to don't share the same opinion as you do on crime, punishment and rehabilitation. The world isn't as simple as you think it is.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Yes, indoctrinated by the softly softly approach advocted consistently in papers like The Guardian. To the point where you deliberately demote/misrepresent serious offences to attempt to make the sentences appear "harsh" when the reality is very different. That's particularly misleading and weakens, rather than strengthens, your position.

Spinning the truth to match a particular stance taken by a particular paper is indoctrination in my book.

You do realise that the offences you refer to our different, right?

Ahhh the famous 'softly softly approach' doctrine of which they speak!???

Your just on the other side of a subjective coin. It has nothing to do with 'doctrines' or 'indoctrination'. If you are going to criticise at least try and be accurate with your snipes - disingenuous would have been a far more crushing blow. I happen to think these sentences are silly, it is not even clear that the Guardian 'agrees' with me as I have seen no leader article on the matter.

I used the activity rather than the offence to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the sentence....you already know that though.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, but it's not deliberately inflamatory. They are, in my view, just as bad as each other in terms of stance and spin. One is perhaps rather more faux intelligent about it, but just as biased in reality.

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as unbiased media. All you're saying is that the Guardian's left-wing liberal bias doesn't accord with your right-wing conservative bias. You don't see NSB or me dismissing a story purely because it came from the Telegraph (MPs' expenses for example).

I'd argue that the DM isn't so much right/left-wing, but purely reactionary. It's stories are pitched purely to get a rise out of people. Compare this with The Sun or The Mirror. Then of course there's The Star, which is pitched at the level of a child's picture book.

notsoblue

Also, how the hell would a newspaper go about being "faux intelligent"?

Greg T

So

Grauniad Poll

"Is it fair for severe sentences to be imposed on rioters as a deterrent?"

yes = 38.7%
no = 61.3%

Daily Mail

"Is four years in jail too harsh on the Facebook riot organisers?"

yes = 19%
no = 81%

the Grauniad readership can't even get off their liberal fence on this one - talk about being wet! DM gung ho - made their mind up.

That's the problem with liberals - too liberal.

Bikequin

notsoblue wrote:

Bikequin wrote:

I feel quite comfortable in stating that any newspaper that has Polly Toynbee & George Monbiot writing for them is pushing an agenda.

When does a point of view become an Agenda?

Agenda literally means “things to be done” as such I would say that an opinion becomes an agenda when it demands or advocates that action is taken on the back of the opinion. As such I’d say that most editorial pieces are pushing an agenda.

notsoblue

Bikequin wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Bikequin wrote:

I feel quite comfortable in stating that any newspaper that has Polly Toynbee & George Monbiot writing for them is pushing an agenda.

When does a point of view become an Agenda?

Agenda literally means “things to be done” as such I would say that an opinion becomes an agenda when it demands or advocates that action is taken on the back of the opinion. As such I’d say that most editorial pieces are pushing an agenda.

And this is somehow unique to The Guardian?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Yes, indoctrinated by the softly softly approach advocted consistently in papers like The Guardian. To the point where you deliberately demote/misrepresent serious offences to attempt to make the sentences appear "harsh" when the reality is very different. That's particularly misleading and weakens, rather than strengthens, your position.

Spinning the truth to match a particular stance taken by a particular paper is indoctrination in my book.

You say "softly softly", others might say "grounded in reality and endorsed by professionals". Those that actually deal with many of the social problems you're (probably) referring to don't share the same opinion as you do on crime, punishment and rehabilitation. The world isn't as simple as you think it is.

Hasn't gone so well, has it?

Whilst some see these sentences as "harsh" others simply see the previous sentences are far too soft.

bails87

Bikequin wrote:

most editorial pieces are pushing an agenda.

Well yes, that's why they're editorial/opinion pieces, not news reports.

Plenty of papers can't tell the difference between the two.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Also, how the hell would a newspaper go about being "faux intelligent"?

Don't you just smell smug satisfaction coming from the Guardian? It doesn't actually say very much that's particularly clever, but does so in a way that gives the impression that it is.

A bit like the shouty know-it-all who uses words he doesn't understand.

At least The Mail has the honesty to put the key bits in capital letters, to make it look realistically stupid.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Yes, indoctrinated by the softly softly approach advocted consistently in papers like The Guardian. To the point where you deliberately demote/misrepresent serious offences to attempt to make the sentences appear "harsh" when the reality is very different. That's particularly misleading and weakens, rather than strengthens, your position.

Spinning the truth to match a particular stance taken by a particular paper is indoctrination in my book.

You say "softly softly", others might say "grounded in reality and endorsed by professionals". Those that actually deal with many of the social problems you're (probably) referring to don't share the same opinion as you do on crime, punishment and rehabilitation. The world isn't as simple as you think it is.

Hasn't gone so well, has it?

Whilst some see these sentences as "harsh" others simply see the previous sentences are far too soft.

Yes, because lengthy sentences in oubliette style prisons are the best way to eliminate all social ills. :roll:
I'm perfectly at ease with the fact that you don't share the same world view as I do, W1. You can satisfy yourself with the fact that most people share yours though.