UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Rosemary (aiming to misbehave) wrote: "Patti (baconater) wrote: "From the New Yorker. Hmmhttp://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-..."
Well that's totally not racist. (Is Canadian a race? You kno..."
Some would argue that Canadian isn't even a culture. ;)
I shouldn't give that article any weight as it's written by an American.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan...
Anyone been listening to the Adam Johnson stuff?This Guardian article gives a decent overview of what went on. The man is a complete and utter cretinous fuckwit. There is simply no excuse to be found for his behaviour.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20...
R.M.F wrote: "They do have the leeway to walk away and find another job. If this country needs anything it's hard hitting investigative journalism. ..."
But will this country pay for it? It'll get the journalism that it pays for.
A chap I know produces a news sheet for farmers. He analyses prices, trends, and it's eight A4 pages, you get 48 issues a year and from memory it's about £300 a year to subscribers.
He has no advertisers because they would limit what he could say, and he produces purely for his subscribers.
That's the cost of proper investigative journalism, and frankly I cannot imagine many people paying it.
Who needs proper investigative journalism when you've got Facebook and trial by Twitter?
Now then, interesting question. Can you experience trial by twitter if you haven't got an account? Is this a version of the 'if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear, does it make a sound?'
Trial in absentia, you mean?
I'm not sure that this country will ever have proper investigative journalism again.The Guardian was forced by the security services to destroy the original source material it got from Wikileaks.
Telegraph journalists have been stopped from following stories disliked by Editorial policy, and the editors stopped from publishing stories disliked by the owners and advertisers.
The tabloids basically follow Murdoch's agenda of the week.
The BBC is so terrified/under the thrall of the Tories that the government gets no negative press there, and ITV follows the BBC lead.
Social Media might be all that's left, but that is so unreliable it's as bad as the tabloids who commonly print erroneous stuff as fact all over page one, and a tiny apology and correction on a page no one will ever read two days later
Private Eye perhaps the last stand
Will wrote: "I'm not sure that this country will ever have proper investigative journalism again.The Guardian was forced by the security services to destroy the original source material it got from Wikileaks...."
do you remember D-Notices Will? It's been like this since the 1970s, very little different, except the pressure on jobs may make journalists tow the line more in fear of being in the next round of cuts. I think the Guardian only has something like 6 actual journalists on its full time staff. The rest are paid as freelancers.
This is another good one.http://www.euractiv.fr/section/all/ne...
The part that says Europe has the legal means to stop a country violating democratic principles. If a country has been democratically elected whether right wing or left wing how can it be anything other than democratic. Hollande is a very nasty joke
I remember D-Notices. There used to be a wargaming hobby magazine whose name I won't mention in case they're still watching :-)But it ran an article on the tanks of the Yom Kippur war, and the guy who wrote it had been to Israel, walked the battlefields not long after and had photographed the results.
These photographs illustrated the article.
Unfortunately they showed that knocked out Israeli tanks had been fitted with the British made L7 105 mm gun. The official government line from the Labour government was that whilst we had sold the Israeli's centurions, they had been upgraded by buying the American gun. This chap's photo showed the guns, fresh fitted, still with UK markings on the thermal sleeve which showed have new the guns actually were.
It was either the Wilson or the Callaghan government that issued the D notice, had the magazine pulped, and then issued D notices on the next two issues as soon as they were printed so they were pulped as well even though the editor had dropped the offending articles. Obviously the magazine went bust
it must have been very bizarre theatre when MI whichever went into the offices of the Guardian and negotiated with then editor Rusbridger how they were going to deal with Greenwald's 'offending' laptop that contained all the leaks from Snowdon. And that they agreed the spooks could take a hammer to the computer and put it beyond use.
I was under the impression that D-notices were not legally enforceable? Say what you want about the Yanks, but at least they have the first amendment to protect them from this fawning nonsense.
I think you're getting confused with superinjunctions
D-notices are still in place and used.
Marc wrote: "see if "New Day" takes Trinity Mirror Group down. Anyone read it btw?"Yes, I thought I'd give it a go. I'm quite impressed so far. Balanced coverage of significant issues - and some eye-catching photographs.
B J wrote: "Marc wrote: "see if "New Day" takes Trinity Mirror Group down. Anyone read it btw?"Yes, I thought I'd give it a go. I'm quite impressed so far. Balanced coverage of significant issues - and some ..."
And the 'tough' Sudoku seems to be actually quite tough...
David wrote: "Patti (baconater) wrote: "Hmmm.Investing in loonies might make sense. The Canadian dollar is quite low at the moment."
Risky. Canada may face serious economic problems once the waves of refugees..."
I was amused to read that the number of visits by Americans to the site giving details on how to emigrate to Canada showed a huge spike in the hours after Trump's successful Super Tuesday. The Canadian Government's website crashed.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "We have a website? Wow."It's hosted in America.
How do they know it's all Trumps fault. Clinton isn't exactly everyone's idea of a President either. Perhaps it's the thought of either that is so scary.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "How do they know it's all Trumps fault. Clinton isn't exactly everyone's idea of a President either. Perhaps it's the thought of either that is so scary."agreed, it's an even poorer choice than we the British electorate were offered last May
I see that BMW are laying down the law to their workforce about the vote, and the French government are threatening to pull the plug on stopping migrants at Calais. If the EU and its business lackeys have to resort to blackmail to keep us in, then it was never worth being a member in the first place.
Marc wrote: "I think you're getting confused with superinjunctions"From the font of all knowledge that is wikpedia:
"In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media."
Request being the key word here, which highlights how spineless the British press is.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "D-notices are still in place and used."Same response to you as to Marc.
Elizabeth wrote: "B J wrote: "Marc wrote: "see if "New Day" takes Trinity Mirror Group down. Anyone read it btw?"Yes, I thought I'd give it a go. I'm quite impressed so far. Balanced coverage of significant issues..."
Well I'm finding it so, although I'm probably not much of a measure as I'm even finding the daily riddle tough - and one is supposed to be able to solve it while the first kettle of the morning boils. Having said that, the 'Brain Escapes' page is a fun feature.
Not quite sure how to feel about the cancellation of the trump rally in Chicago.Torn between disappointment at the suppression of free speech and very pleased at the suppression of hate speech...
The trouble is it engenders sympathy. Not something that comes easily to Trump. You need to hear him so that you can see him for what he is .They shouldn't suppress him, they should amplify what he says so that no one can say they weren't warned.
Engenders sympathy? For trump, do you mean?How?
Articles are referring to the anti-Trump people as a 'mob' and also the woman on Twitter in this article is calling them brown shirts etc and they are being accused of denying free speech - We stopped Trump mob etc
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Engenders sympathy? For trump, do you mean?How?"
remember quite a big group of people have little interest in politics and regard politicians as a bizarre subtribe prone to lying, cheating and embezzling.
Trump has managed to interest some of this group. The fact that people interested in politics seem to be trying to shut him up might well convince others of this group that he's telling the truth and embarrassing politicians.
People interested in politics tend to over-estimate the interest other people have in politics. At the moment somebody in Labour has decided that they'll run a campaign 'your MP voted to cut this that or the other.'
The problem is people are sharing it and posting it on their news feeds and of course it ends up being shown on their friends newsfeeds
To a lot of people this is just spam, and my guess is that some people will discover themselves unfriended, and it'll probably have a bigger negative impact on Labour (because it'll irritate people) than it will on the individual MPs 'named and shamed' because the only people who care wouldn't have voted for that MP anyway
What I'm finding very interesting is the contrast between the lovey, huggie political reports out of Canada with our 'sexy' new prime minister and the extremely aggressive and hate filled rhetoric in the states.Then there's the spin coming out of Europe on all sorts of issues.
It's no wonder people are thinking of it as spam, Jim.
It's easier to unfriend people than to examine differing points of view to find the kernels of what might be truth.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "It's easier to unfriend people than to examine differing points of view to find the kernels of what might be truth. ..."
I think it's more than that Patti.
I think a lot of people resent their facebook feed being filled with what they regard as political crap. One person commented to me that she uses facebook to keep in touch with family and friends (and see funny pictures etc). It's relaxing, it's fun. She can get political crap spouted at her on the radio, in the paper and coming out of the telly any time she wants. She just doesn't need it on facebook as well.
It's not she's thick and cannot examine differing points of view, she just finds it intrusive and irritating. Someone described it to me as being like cold calling phone calls. You pick up the phone hoping it's a friend to chat, or worried it's bad news and get spam
I feel the same way about Twitter. I get mails saying this celebrity is trending on Twitter and that politician is doing that. I'm not interested.
Yes they tend to get deleted unread, the subject line is enough
Jim wrote: "I think it's more than that Patti.
I think a lot of people resent their facebook feed being filled with what they regard as political crap. One person commented to me that she uses facebook to keep in touch with family and friends (and see funny pictures etc."
Yes I don't like wading through post after post of the same stuff - rather than unfriend though I just say I don't want posts from that person on my newsfeed.
Plus Facebook keep putting their idea of what are top stories instead of leaving the settings as I want them so I see the latest news from family and friends. I missed an announcement from my cousin because of FB messing with my settings.
As for Twitter - I rarely read it, they keep sending me emails about what is going on in my network. As far as I know I don't have one and certainly the people that they think are in this network aren't anyone I am interested in. Plus they keep wanting me to follow a bunch of people - most of whom I've never heard of.
Perhaps I'll just stick to Goodreads. I much prefer honest no-holds-barred opinion to whatever propaganda or marketing crap the power/money brokers have dreamed up.
Jay-me (Janet) wrote: "Plus they keep wanting me to follow a bunch of people - most of whom I've never heard of. ..."I discovered pretty quick that the people Twitter wanted me to follow were actually other authors
Which struck me as a total waste of time to be honest. I wanted to be followed by readers not writers :-)
So what I did was unfollow all the people on Twitter that I didn't 'know'. (People I interacted with in real life of forums, so effectively the people I follow on Twitter I can at least email or PM on goodreads)
I went from following 113 and being followed by 110 to following 36 and being followed by 103
Now I'm apparently following 46 but am followed by 120
But twitter doesn't do it for me to be honest
I saw today that the government is making animal welfare in the food farming industry self-regulatory.The fox is now in charge of the chicken house.
Of more concern is the suspicion that this is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the giant livestock farms prevalent in the States. (See That Old Ace in the Hole by Annie Proulx for a graphic description of the effects that giant hog-farms have on their surroundings).
The plans for a herd of 8000 plus dairy cows to be kept in Nocton in Lincolnshire were eventually refused, but the government already appears to be friendly towards a radical increase in the size of dairy herds whose numbers preclude life outside the milking parlour. Undoubtedly the stealthy return of battery hens will be next.
We take nuclear waste from other countries, have done an about-turn on our own nuclear energy policy, pay lip-service to EU eco-policies and are now apparently being geared up to become a shit-covered malodorous island for the benefit of big business.
In Europe or out of it makes no difference - this is David Cameron's and the government's vision for the future - money from foreign business traded off against the despoiling of our green and pleasant land.
(Well you did throw down the gauntlet, Geoff)
message 2891:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Mar 26, 2016 07:04AM)
(new)
You think that's a problem Elizabeth? Then you obviously haven't been keeping up with the TTIP negotiations.To quote Al Jolson "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
It's simple;I saw some figures from a group of farmers. Their margin per cow after purchased feed last year was £1570.
The problem with this figure is the costs you have to pay out of it. So when looking at costs let’s start with the fertiliser to make the grass grow. That could be another £100 per cow. There’s the machinery cost, the wages, the rent or mortgage, the interest payments on the overdraft, the vets bills, the council tax, the water rates, the insurance premium, staff wages and national insurance, the list goes on and on. There’s an awful lot to go before you take out the housekeeping and put something aside for your own pension.
Last year the figure was £1915 per cow. So these guys have had an 18% pay cut.
Not only that but £1570 was for last year when they were averaging 25p a liter. Currently they're averaging 20-21p a liter, so my guess is that next year's figure will be about £1210 per cow.
And remember, to get this in proportion, that I was managing £1500 per cow back in 1990. An electric bills and council tax and similar were a damned sight cheaper, as was everything else.
People are getting the agriculture they're willing to pay for.
As a rule of thumb each generation could eat entirely organic and still spend a lesser proportion of their income on food than their parents did eating 'conventionally'.
http://wsm.wsu.edu/researcher/wsmaug1... has a nice chart, proportion of annual income spent on food. At 8.9% only the Irish republic and the USA are lower than us
Basically, as a population as a whole, the people of the UK don't actually care. They just want it cheap. Yes there are exceptions, but I doubt they amount to more than 10% of the population.
Most UK producers don't produce organic because it is uneconomic, you are largely replacing technology with labour and you cannot afford to use UK labour to produce food at world market prices, even organic food.
Jim, I understand that market forces dictate that all farming in this country cannot be organic without a shift in traditional spending and eating habits. But there is a difference between the conventionally sized dairy herd (for instance), which is not necessarily managed organically, and a business which involves keeping thousands of cows in sheds without seeing the light of day and which does not possess a minimal-polluting excrement disposal plan.I just hope that people can be made to realise and care that what they are willing to pay for, will, in the end, mean a stupendous cost in terms of pollution and non-existent concern for animal welfare.
Ok, read, thanks Geoff. And no, I hadn't been keeping up, although the essence of these negotiations simply confirm my suspicions. I would say that our very own DC and Co are simply lining up the ducks so that they can offer the same terms to big business as the rest of Europe, whether we're in or out.
It also makes me think that local authorities who have contracted out all their services to business 'partners' could be taking part in a trial test of public tolerance of the fact that their elected representatives are actually figure-heads in the service of big business.
We have been following a tend for a long time that the opinion of large business managers is more important than that of the citizens.hence the fight to find business leaders to support views over the EU referendum.
The further problem, Elizabeth, is if we stay in Europe then we will almost certainly have TTIP forced upon us, as with majority voting, most members will be in favour of it.
Will wrote: "We have been following a tend for a long time that the opinion of large business managers is more important than that of the citizens.hence the fight to find business leaders to support views ove..."
The news yesterday that about 250 businesses were supporting the leave campaign was countered by comments from a Remainders supporter, the chairman of BT. Hardly a like for like comparison. The scare today that the NHS will suffer sounds far fetched too.
Lynne, with BT's customer service standards, and their ethical approach to taking Welsh Assembly money to roll out broadband in rural areas and then refusing to do it or give the money back, whichever side the chairman of BT supports has lost my vote!
Will wrote: "Lynne, with BT's customer service standards, and their ethical approach to taking Welsh Assembly money to roll out broadband in rural areas and then refusing to do it or give the money back, whiche..."This is exactly the problem with TTIP. At present it sounds as though governments (and therefore all of us) are going to be at the mercy of businesses whose ethics are questionable to say the least.
If signatories to this agreement had to prove a track record of payment and support of the living wage, demonstrate sound ecological policies and agree to be held liable should any of their business practices prove detrimental to a nation's health before being allowed to sign up to this apparently lucrative deal, then we could possibly be a little easier about the concept.
I've been warning people for weeks that a tidal wave of scare stories would be heading their way ahead of the EU vote. I'm used to it having lived through the Scottish independence referendum, but I don't think the rest of the UK has any idea of how much bull will be heading their way between now and June.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-..."
lol