Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

And the grauniad (for services to spelling)!

Seriously though, are you proposing closing down a national newspaper because your don't agree with what they print?

It could be argued that following that sentiment, depending on your pov, we should close guardian, independent, morning star (is it still published?) telegraph, etc. There'll always be some print and online media you don't like or the government doesn't like. If enough people don't like it should that be reason to close it down.

BTW even sh1tstirrers get things right now and again.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Don't knock the daily mail. They were the first newspaper to publicly identify the Lawrence murderers (yeah I watched last night's documentary). They have done a good public service before with at least that ballsy headline. Even the daily heil/wail does its bit for the country...on the odd occasion.

Whether I think their role on getting Brexit, when it actually happens (I'm getting bored can see leave now?), is positive or negative I'll keep to myself.

What would have been the outcome had they not publically identified the Lawrence murderers? Would another have done so the following day? One possibly insconsequential right doesn't make up for many thousands of wrongs. Pick up a copy and see how many headlines beging "Fury at" - they are sh1tstirrers of the first degree that exist basically to make their readership unhappy. Lawrence or not, the world would be a better place without the mail.

I think you give the Mail way too much credit. If it did not exist, the sentiments that it echoes and amplifies would still be there and some other publication or opportunist politician would fill that void.

Dacre's intervention in the Lawrence case was largely because he knew Neville Lawrence personally (Lawrence decorated Dacre's house) and had briefly met Stephen. In the documentary, IIRC Dacre admitted that if this hadn't been the case he probably wouldn't have written that headline.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Decent write up on the culture of the home office immigration service through the ‘90s through to now in the FT

Seems Nick Timothy, he of “citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere”, was one of the key men behind the hostile policy. Who’d have thought it, eh?

Must be sad to see the world through his eyes.

A slightly more objective view shows that the UK is top half in the Global table and roughly mid table within the EU countries in terms of acceptance of migrants:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/216377/new-index-shows-least-accepting-countries-migrants.aspx

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Decent write up on the culture of the home office immigration service through the ‘90s through to now in the FT

Seems Nick Timothy, he of “citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere”, was one of the key men behind the hostile policy. Who’d have thought it, eh?

Must be sad to see the world through his eyes.

A slightly more objective view shows that the UK is top half in the Global table and roughly mid table within the EU countries in terms of acceptance of migrants:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/216377/new-index-shows-least-accepting-countries-migrants.aspx

38th out of 138 is a bit "B-". Not that that is really the point in question anyway, which is the accuracy and competence with which immigration policies are enacted and enforced.

Possibly this is as a result of requiring health professionals, employers and landlords to act as immigration officials.

rick_chasey

No bites on the corruption article?

No wonder the Liam Foxes of this world get back into Cabinet. No-one gives a sh!t about grease.

In more fun news, Nick Timothy's deleted his twitter page after an ill-advised defence of May has landed her in more hot water.

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Decent write up on the culture of the home office immigration service through the ‘90s through to now in the FT

Seems Nick Timothy, he of “citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere”, was one of the key men behind the hostile policy. Who’d have thought it, eh?

Must be sad to see the world through his eyes.

A slightly more objective view shows that the UK is top half in the Global table and roughly mid table within the EU countries in terms of acceptance of migrants:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/216377/new-index-shows-least-accepting-countries-migrants.aspx

Are you suggesting the FT isn't objective?

Paging SC! Paging SC!

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

No bites on the corruption article?

Sh!itshow getting sh!ttier.
That no one is surprised is telling enough.

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No bites on the corruption article?

Sh!itshow getting sh!ttier.
That no one is surprised is telling enough.

Surprised that anyone wrote it down. Only the stupidity surprises.

rick_chasey

Honestly.

Gotta be on that sh!t like a hawk and punish them in the ballot box.


Grease and corruption erode trust in institutions (look at the expenses scandal) and is corrosive to a well functioning society.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Honestly.

Gotta be on that sh!t like a hawk and punish them in the ballot box.


Grease and corruption erode trust in institutions (look at the expenses scandal) and is corrosive to a well functioning society.

Can't erode trust in institutions if no one has any trust in institutions.

Most voters, (seemingly) would vote for a Turd Sandwich if it wore the right colour rosette, I think changing the voting system would improve this...but when both main political parties stand to lose so much with reform of the system, it's going to be very difficult to get that off the ground.

Stevo_666

mrfpb wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Decent write up on the culture of the home office immigration service through the ‘90s through to now in the FT

Seems Nick Timothy, he of “citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere”, was one of the key men behind the hostile policy. Who’d have thought it, eh?

Must be sad to see the world through his eyes.

A slightly more objective view shows that the UK is top half in the Global table and roughly mid table within the EU countries in terms of acceptance of migrants:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/216377/new-index-shows-least-accepting-countries-migrants.aspx

Are you suggesting the FT isn't objective?

Paging SC! Paging SC!

Not the FT in this case

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Decent write up on the culture of the home office immigration service through the ‘90s through to now in the FT

Seems Nick Timothy, he of “citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere”, was one of the key men behind the hostile policy. Who’d have thought it, eh?

Must be sad to see the world through his eyes.

Any chance of a precis of the FT article or its source material?

rick_chasey

Read it in the physical paper.

"The roots of the Windrush scandal".

Basically it was based in Croydon in the early '90s and the staff there were all about the "gotcha" moments.

David Blunkett didn't like the culture and so used that as pretext to move it to Sheffield, where they worked on a more common sense policy.

That worked for a bit, but, as the article explains, their ultimate day-to-day job is to make sure people aren't lying to them so by its nature you end up in a "gotcha" style culture, especially if the people who have more of a propensity to be sh!tty aren't reigned in.

The consensus was that those types were encouraged to behave that way post 2014.

rjsterry

Thanks.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Read it in the physical paper.

"The roots of the Windrush scandal".

Basically it was based in Croydon in the early '90s and the staff there were all about the "gotcha" moments.

David Blunkett didn't like the culture and so used that as pretext to move it to Sheffield, where they worked on a more common sense policy.

That worked for a bit, but, as the article explains, their ultimate day-to-day job is to make sure people aren't lying to them so by its nature you end up in a "gotcha" style culture, especially if the people who have more of a propensity to be sh!tty aren't reigned in.

The consensus was that those types were encouraged to behave that way post 2014.

Not a big surprise really. Many people see this in the approach of HMRC, although to be fair that is far from being a uniquely British thing.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Honestly.

Gotta be on that sh!t like a hawk and punish them in the ballot box.


Grease and corruption erode trust in institutions (look at the expenses scandal) and is corrosive to a well functioning society.

Not sure Buzzfeed counts as a credible news source.. maybe if more heavyweight titles run with it.

But as suggested why would anybody donate if they did not want a favour? and on that basis it probably falls into the camp of things you thought you already knew (like DC fvcking a pig)

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Honestly.

Gotta be on that sh!t like a hawk and punish them in the ballot box.


Grease and corruption erode trust in institutions (look at the expenses scandal) and is corrosive to a well functioning society.

Not sure Buzzfeed counts as a credible news source.. maybe if more heavyweight titles run with it.

But as suggested why would anybody donate if they did not want a favour? and on that basis it probably falls into the camp of things you thought you already knew (like DC ******* a pig)

FT heavyweight enough?
https://www.ft.com/content/137b28d8-43b ... ac3a6482fd

"Nicky Morgan, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons Treasury select committee, said: “This clearly raises all sorts of questions and is completely inappropriate.

“I would expect the committee to look into this as part of our economic crime review and to have some early questions for HMRC about the correspondence that they sent.”"

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Honestly.

Gotta be on that sh!t like a hawk and punish them in the ballot box.


Grease and corruption erode trust in institutions (look at the expenses scandal) and is corrosive to a well functioning society.

Not sure Buzzfeed counts as a credible news source.. maybe if more heavyweight titles run with it.

But as suggested why would anybody donate if they did not want a favour? and on that basis it probably falls into the camp of things you thought you already knew (like DC ******* a pig)

It was being discussed on the Today programme this morning.

rick_chasey

Buzzfeed’s got a very strong investigative journalism team. Top class.

kingstongraham

BuzzFeed definitely counts as credible these days. That's one of the "6 amazing things you never knew about BuzzFeed"

Stevo_666

There seems to material dounts about the credibilityof Buzzfeed, for example:
http://theracquet.org/1886/viewpoint/is-buzzfeed-really-reliable/

Quote:
"Buzzfeed also allows any registered users to make their own posts. While this is a great way to get members more actively participating within the news community, it leaves a lot of room for unprofessional, unaccredited and untrue writing. Unless all of these posts made by unpaid “reporters” are filtered through some editing system, there is no regulation for what can and cannot be said in these posts. If anybody can write a post about any topic they want to and blatantly state their own opinion, can this site be considered a credible source?"

Stevo_666

And bottom of the class here, even amongst liberals - well US ones anyway.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3

pblakeney

"HMRC mentioned a mobile operator's donations to the Conservative Party when it rejected a French request to search the firm's London offices, Downing Street has admitted."

https://news.sky.com/story/hmrc-raised- ... t-11337730

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

And bottom of the class here, even amongst liberals - well US ones anyway.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3

But can we trust Businessinsider?

Anyway back to Buzzfeed did they explain it by allocating Game of Thrones characters?

rick_chasey

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Read my posts above. You were quick to say that is a credible source: I showed you evidence that it isnt. Simple really...

rick_chasey

Well it’s run by the former head of investigative journalism at the Wall Street journal and propublica and has been nominated multiple times for Pulitzer’s so I think they’re ok.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well it’s run by the former head of investigative journalism at the Wall Street journal and propublica and has been nominated multiple times for Pulitzer’s so I think they’re ok.

I had a mate who used to work there - he was a little surprised that we thought we could just send in our own sh1t listicle and they would get published.

I know it has evolved and has a long term strategy (the new Huffpo) but to me it is a joke that I would not want to see on my work browsing history.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Deflection. As usual.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What are you saying Stevo, that buzzfeed has made up those quotes and admissions from HMRC?

Or did you take one look at the url and figured “nah” despite it being picked up by plenty of other outlets?

FWIW SC buzzfeed were the only outlet to report on all the suspicious Russian linked deaths in Surrey last year.

Read my posts above. You were quick to say that is a credible source: I showed you evidence that it isnt. Simple really...

That Americans didn't trust Buzzfeed a year ago is hardly evidence that the particular story isn't credible. It was run by the BBC and Sky to name two others. Oh, and the sainted FT.