The Politics Thread

[Lofthouse Lower]

I don't know the first thing about this AV business. Are there any quick run-down versions anywheres?

[Armchair Wanderer]

I was shaving this morning and was thinking of Scarlett Johansson's tits

Much better use of time

[thebish]

Indeed. Though reports this morning suggest Labour might not gain as much as might have been expected.

Which actually isn't too much of a surprise probably take another 12 months before people are really riled into a protest vote.

council elections are kind of cyclical... labour will do well because they did very badly with this crop last time round - and conversely, the tories will do badly because they did really well last time round... it's quite difficult to tease out causality.

I suspect the lib dems will do badly because they are not now the first option for a protest vote - and that was always a vote-winner for them in the past...

[Armchair Wanderer]

I don't know the first thing about this AV business. Are there any quick run-down versions anywheres?

AV means you can vote once with your head, once with your heart, and once with any other body part you like... esp if you're thinking about Scarlet's tits

[Zulus Thousand of em]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

[thebish]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

thankyou Zulu, I'll bear it in mind.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

thankyou Zulu, I'll bear it in mind.

No problem. If I can help, I will.

[thebish]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

thankyou Zulu, I'll bear it in mind.

No problem. If I can help, I will.

once again, thankyou!

[superjohnmcginlay]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

hmmm.... but what is better..

1. an MP who 40% wanted - and 60% specifically didn't

or

2. and MP who 30% wanted, 30% don't mind, 8% can live with and 32% specifically didn't

it's the latter for me...

Might not work like that though.

You're 2nd option could be 30% wanted, 30% didn't have a fooking clue but fancied putting a 2 next to something, 8% thought they were voting for x factor and 32% just fooking hate everyone.

It just doesn't sound right.

Still unsure, see how drunk I am when I vote.

[Gooner Girl]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

Hey! Hold on Zulu! That's unfair... I'll have you know bish usually does at least 3 weddings a year too!

[Bruce Rioja]

a completely different track...

I am not suggesting any of these incidents are directly related - but it is striking me how often this happens:

summat happens that might be controversial or "big news" - and a quick statement is made widely available that heavily hints at or directly describes what "happened". This gains all the initial publicity while the story is "hot" and becomes the most widespread version of what happened. Then, a couple of days later, a corrected version emerges when some of the heat has died down - often quite the opposite of what was originally stated or heavily hinted at.

some examples..

1. Ian Tomlinson. First we were told that he was a direct threat to the police who acted in self defense with reasonable force and that there is no case to answer. Later, the police officer involved tells us that Tomlinson was no threat and was walking away with no weapon.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes. First we are told that he leapt over ticket barriers in an obviously suspicious manner. Later this is revised to - he bought a ticket and proceeded through the barrier like anyone else.

3. Libya. First we are told that there will be no ground troops going in and this is a very strictly limited air operation in protection of civilians. Later we are told there will be forces on the ground and that we are effectively acting as the opposition air-force.

4. Bin Laden. First we are told that he was shot as he was a threat to American troops and that he used his wife as a human shield. Later we are told that he was in fact unarmed and did not use his wife as a human shield.


now - of course information can be confused in today's news-hungry media world - but it does seem to me that ALLOWING misinformation to spread shortly after an event without correcting it (even if not yourself in as many words saying it) or cleverly hinting at a scenario which you can later deny, IS a news-management tactic being used in many places...

I, for one, am now very wary of believing the FIRST official report of an incident that emerges - it is very often not the most accurate...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was Kate wearing when any of this went on? Well?

[thebish]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was Kate wearing when any of this went on? Well?

well... first we were told that she was wearing a cream Fleur Of England Daisy Dreams Silk Boudoir bra with matching panties from the Boudiche bridal lingerie range...

but later, it transpires, she went commando....

[BWFC_Insane]

a completely different track...

I am not suggesting any of these incidents are directly related - but it is striking me how often this happens:

summat happens that might be controversial or "big news" - and a quick statement is made widely available that heavily hints at or directly describes what "happened". This gains all the initial publicity while the story is "hot" and becomes the most widespread version of what happened. Then, a couple of days later, a corrected version emerges when some of the heat has died down - often quite the opposite of what was originally stated or heavily hinted at.

some examples..

1. Ian Tomlinson. First we were told that he was a direct threat to the police who acted in self defense with reasonable force and that there is no case to answer. Later, the police officer involved tells us that Tomlinson was no threat and was walking away with no weapon.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes. First we are told that he leapt over ticket barriers in an obviously suspicious manner. Later this is revised to - he bought a ticket and proceeded through the barrier like anyone else.

3. Libya. First we are told that there will be no ground troops going in and this is a very strictly limited air operation in protection of civilians. Later we are told there will be forces on the ground and that we are effectively acting as the opposition air-force.

4. Bin Laden. First we are told that he was shot as he was a threat to American troops and that he used his wife as a human shield. Later we are told that he was in fact unarmed and did not use his wife as a human shield.


now - of course information can be confused in today's news-hungry media world - but it does seem to me that ALLOWING misinformation to spread shortly after an event without correcting it (even if not yourself in as many words saying it) or cleverly hinting at a scenario which you can later deny, IS a news-management tactic being used in many places...

I, for one, am now very wary of believing the FIRST official report of an incident that emerges - it is very often not the most accurate...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was Kate wearing when any of this went on? Well?

Nowt if we're in luck!

[thebish]

meanwhile - in world politics - Fatah and Hammas are signing a reconciliation agreement...

let's hope they have thought it through and won't name the coalition Fat-as...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13277734

[Lofthouse Lower]

a completely different track...

I am not suggesting any of these incidents are directly related - but it is striking me how often this happens:

summat happens that might be controversial or "big news" - and a quick statement is made widely available that heavily hints at or directly describes what "happened". This gains all the initial publicity while the story is "hot" and becomes the most widespread version of what happened. Then, a couple of days later, a corrected version emerges when some of the heat has died down - often quite the opposite of what was originally stated or heavily hinted at.

some examples..

1. Ian Tomlinson. First we were told that he was a direct threat to the police who acted in self defense with reasonable force and that there is no case to answer. Later, the police officer involved tells us that Tomlinson was no threat and was walking away with no weapon.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes. First we are told that he leapt over ticket barriers in an obviously suspicious manner. Later this is revised to - he bought a ticket and proceeded through the barrier like anyone else.

3. Libya. First we are told that there will be no ground troops going in and this is a very strictly limited air operation in protection of civilians. Later we are told there will be forces on the ground and that we are effectively acting as the opposition air-force.

4. Bin Laden. First we are told that he was shot as he was a threat to American troops and that he used his wife as a human shield. Later we are told that he was in fact unarmed and did not use his wife as a human shield.


now - of course information can be confused in today's news-hungry media world - but it does seem to me that ALLOWING misinformation to spread shortly after an event without correcting it (even if not yourself in as many words saying it) or cleverly hinting at a scenario which you can later deny, IS a news-management tactic being used in many places...

I, for one, am now very wary of believing the FIRST official report of an incident that emerges - it is very often not the most accurate...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was Kate wearing when any of this went on? Well?

Nowt if we're in luck!

She's rough

[BWFC_Insane]

a completely different track...

I am not suggesting any of these incidents are directly related - but it is striking me how often this happens:

summat happens that might be controversial or "big news" - and a quick statement is made widely available that heavily hints at or directly describes what "happened". This gains all the initial publicity while the story is "hot" and becomes the most widespread version of what happened. Then, a couple of days later, a corrected version emerges when some of the heat has died down - often quite the opposite of what was originally stated or heavily hinted at.

some examples..

1. Ian Tomlinson. First we were told that he was a direct threat to the police who acted in self defense with reasonable force and that there is no case to answer. Later, the police officer involved tells us that Tomlinson was no threat and was walking away with no weapon.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes. First we are told that he leapt over ticket barriers in an obviously suspicious manner. Later this is revised to - he bought a ticket and proceeded through the barrier like anyone else.

3. Libya. First we are told that there will be no ground troops going in and this is a very strictly limited air operation in protection of civilians. Later we are told there will be forces on the ground and that we are effectively acting as the opposition air-force.

4. Bin Laden. First we are told that he was shot as he was a threat to American troops and that he used his wife as a human shield. Later we are told that he was in fact unarmed and did not use his wife as a human shield.


now - of course information can be confused in today's news-hungry media world - but it does seem to me that ALLOWING misinformation to spread shortly after an event without correcting it (even if not yourself in as many words saying it) or cleverly hinting at a scenario which you can later deny, IS a news-management tactic being used in many places...

I, for one, am now very wary of believing the FIRST official report of an incident that emerges - it is very often not the most accurate...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was Kate wearing when any of this went on? Well?

Nowt if we're in luck!

She's rough

Aye

[Lofthouse Lower]

Classic case of BOBFOC

[Bruce Rioja]

She's rough

So tell us, Lofthouse Lower - are you the plug or the socket?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

Hey! Hold on Zulu! That's unfair... I'll have you know bish usually does at least 3 weddings a year too!

[thebish]

You really should get out more Bish. Two funerals a week just isn't occupying your mind enough.

Hey! Hold on Zulu! That's unfair... I'll have you know bish usually does at least 3 weddings a year too!

last week's was a biggie though...