FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 2017
2017
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday:" Is that not an oxymoron?  | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron? "Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article. -Matt | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt"People do not ignore it because of its EU stance. They ignore it because it is crap. | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt""A big remain supporter" writing "a balanced article" now that is an oxymoron, surely? | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
"A big remain supporter" writing "a balanced article" now that is an oxymoron, surely? "Whatever. Take a moment to step outside your own pre-conceptions. Read the article. Make your own conclusion. -Matt | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4079270/Thought-2016-turbulent-Trust-revolution-just-beginning-true-cost-Brexit-backlash-France-new-cold-war-2017-set-far-bumpier-writes-ROBERT-PESTON.html The bit that struck me the most was the penultimate paragraph: "What should keep them awake at night is that we the people have learned we can change very big things, we've acquired a taste for power and we won't settle for less than we've bought." 2017 will be a very interesting year in which we see how the decisions of 2016 play out. -Matt" Well Matt, very few others would have got me reading from the Daily Mail! 
But you're right, a very well thought through article, all of us on here who argue the leave / remain debate should read it. It produces food for thought for both sides and is not really a comfortable read.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention! | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4079270/Thought-2016-turbulent-Trust-revolution-just-beginning-true-cost-Brexit-backlash-France-new-cold-war-2017-set-far-bumpier-writes-ROBERT-PESTON.html The bit that struck me the most was the penultimate paragraph: "What should keep them awake at night is that we the people have learned we can change very big things, we've acquired a taste for power and we won't settle for less than we've bought." 2017 will be a very interesting year in which we see how the decisions of 2016 play out. -Matt Well Matt, very few others would have got me reading from the Daily Mail!
But you're right, a very well thought through article, all of us on here who argue the leave / remain debate should read it. It produces food for thought for both sides and is not really a comfortable read.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention!"It is not the Daily Mail (editor: Darce), it is the Mail on Sunday (editor: Greig). It is almost a different newspaper with a much less Xenophobic outlook. -Matt | |||
| |||
"Actually the article is written by Robert Peston and therefore unlikely to be representative of the majority view of Mail On Sunday readers. Robert Peston is the economics editor for BBC news and would likely be labelled by Brexiters as being biased because of this. " Keep up he left the beeb last year and has his own showon itv | |||
"Actually the article is written by Robert Peston and therefore unlikely to be representative of the majority view of Mail On Sunday readers. Robert Peston is the economics editor for BBC news and would likely be labelled by Brexiters as being biased because of this. Keep up he left the beeb last year and has his own showon itv" Would that make any difference to how he is labelled? I think not. | |||
"Actually the article is written by Robert Peston and therefore unlikely to be representative of the majority view of Mail On Sunday readers. Robert Peston is the economics editor for BBC news and would likely be labelled by Brexiters as being biased because of this. Keep up he left the beeb last year and has his own showon itv Would that make any difference to how he is labelled? I think not." I doubt it, he knows a lot about his subject, probably a relevant degree or two, experience on the job in a range of situations. Sounds like an expert to me! | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
People do not ignore it because of its EU stance. They ignore it because it is crap."Just because you do not agree does not make it crap but your a typical none thinking remainer | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt"The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article. | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article. "Oh, for goodness sake. Really? Is there any point in me telling you to actually go back and re-read what I wrote. Or what you wrote for that matter? As you seem to have either a very dodgy memory or very creative reasoning. I can't believe I'm even indulging you in this, but here we go. You originally posted: ""Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year. "" (note, no mention of Guardian there) Which seemed odd, as I had seen a report from the IoD saying what *seemed* like the opposite. So replied: ""Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats: Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years? 54% - likely to hinder growth in my business 30% - no effect 16% - likely to boost growth in my business Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum? 58% - no 34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact 8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses: 68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services 57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market."" There was some debate on the timing of the two sets of stats, implying that somehow a week's difference made them invalid or something. DurhamCT then very sensibly pointed out: ""Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please."" To which you replied: ""I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them."" And I replied: ""I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." ie. 60% of firms thing that they are optimistic about 2017, nothing to do with brexit. ie. despite the negative aspect Brexit has had and will have on their business they still feel optimism for 2017."" (first mention of the Guardian) As you can clearly read from what I said above (and re-stated several times in the thread), I am not disputing the legitimacy of the numbers reported in the newspapers, only that I can't see any link to a source of them. The fact that *multiple* newspapers were all reporting the same numbers you mention but *none* of them had a link to the original survey the IoD did, and the IoD didn't appear to have that survey on their website, but one that appeared to show (on the surface) the opposite made me question what was behind the numbers. Did it not you? I mean, if you see two reports allegedly from the same source, saying what appears to be opposite things, a week apart from each other... does that not make you wonder why? Hint: it should do. Alas we can't always nowadays just believe that we read/hear in the news. Mostly it is not lying, but by telling selective parts of the story they can spin in a certain way. E.g. those IoD figures above might have just been from a single industry. Ie. was that 60% of firms (in the auto industry) feel optimistic. Or 60% of firms (in the North West) feel optimistic. It wouldn't be 'lying' to leave out the context. But could make the numbers appear contradictory. Again I reiterated that I was curious as to why this, seemingly, discrepancy was there: ""Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting. I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better."" Then what basically followed was you arguing against citing sources and just generally being belligerent. You then repeatedly missed the point of what I was saying above about wanting to find the source of the information, and kept saying "It's on the IoD website" (despite myself, or you being unable to find it). And saying: ""I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE."" Which, as I say, misses still my point above about wanting to find the actual original source of the data. The original press release, or survey, or article that the IoD published to see what they *actually* wrote in it's full context to see if there was something there we were missing that accounted for the seeming discrepancy with the survey they had published on their website. So there we go. And just to bring this back full circle, again below is what you have just accused me of: "The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article. " Read it again. Why do you think I am ignoring and dismissing the article? I am wanting to find the original source of the figures used as reported in multiple papers (not just The Guardian). That is not dismissing and ignoring it. That is wanting to understand it further. That is seeking to read between the lines and discover what is *actually* being said. -Matt | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article.
Oh, for goodness sake. Really? Is there any point in me telling you to actually go back and re-read what I wrote. Or what you wrote for that matter? As you seem to have either a very dodgy memory or very creative reasoning.
I can't believe I'm even indulging you in this, but here we go.
You originally posted:
"Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year. "
(note, no mention of Guardian there)
Which seemed odd, as I had seen a report from the IoD saying what *seemed* like the opposite. So replied:
"Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats:
Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years?
54% - likely to hinder growth in my business
30% - no effect
16% - likely to boost growth in my business
Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum?
58% - no
34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact
8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact
And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses:
68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services
57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods
So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market."
There was some debate on the timing of the two sets of stats, implying that somehow a week's difference made them invalid or something.
DurhamCT then very sensibly pointed out:
"Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please."
To which you replied:
"I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them."
And I replied:
"I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section.
The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated:
"Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved."
ie. 60% of firms thing that they are optimistic about 2017, nothing to do with brexit. ie. despite the negative aspect Brexit has had and will have on their business they still feel optimism for 2017."
(first mention of the Guardian)
As you can clearly read from what I said above (and re-stated several times in the thread), I am not disputing the legitimacy of the numbers reported in the newspapers, only that I can't see any link to a source of them. The fact that *multiple* newspapers were all reporting the same numbers you mention but *none* of them had a link to the original survey the IoD did, and the IoD didn't appear to have that survey on their website, but one that appeared to show (on the surface) the opposite made me question what was behind the numbers. Did it not you? I mean, if you see two reports allegedly from the same source, saying what appears to be opposite things, a week apart from each other... does that not make you wonder why? Hint: it should do.
Alas we can't always nowadays just believe that we read/hear in the news. Mostly it is not lying, but by telling selective parts of the story they can spin in a certain way. E.g. those IoD figures above might have just been from a single industry. Ie. was that 60% of firms (in the auto industry) feel optimistic. Or 60% of firms (in the North West) feel optimistic. It wouldn't be 'lying' to leave out the context. But could make the numbers appear contradictory.
Again I reiterated that I was curious as to why this, seemingly, discrepancy was there:
"Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting.
I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better."
Then what basically followed was you arguing against citing sources and just generally being belligerent. You then repeatedly missed the point of what I was saying above about wanting to find the source of the information, and kept saying "It's on the IoD website" (despite myself, or you being unable to find it). And saying:
"I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE."
Which, as I say, misses still my point above about wanting to find the actual original source of the data. The original press release, or survey, or article that the IoD published to see what they *actually* wrote in it's full context to see if there was something there we were missing that accounted for the seeming discrepancy with the survey they had published on their website.
So there we go. And just to bring this back full circle, again below is what you have just accused me of:
The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article.
Read it again. Why do you think I am ignoring and dismissing the article? I am wanting to find the original source of the figures used as reported in multiple papers (not just The Guardian). That is not dismissing and ignoring it. That is wanting to understand it further. That is seeking to read between the lines and discover what is *actually* being said.
-Matt"What I simply don't get is this: I can (almost!) understand those who just want to chat on here using the knowledge that they (think) they have. What I don't get is those who like to discuss facts but resist our calls for checking these facts and, most of all, to citing sources for these facts. Surely we all want to get as full a picture as possible, so why are Matt, CLCC and myself, along with others, so often attacked for simply trying to get the full picture? Full picture: I'm happy when I find points that disagree with my views, it gives me food for thought and challenges me so that I go looking for evidence one way or another. Note, I look for evidence for both sides. This applies to most things in my life, work in particular. | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
People do not ignore it because of its EU stance. They ignore it because it is crap.Just because you do not agree does not make it crap but your a typical none thinking remainer"Strange that. I voted for Brexit. | |||
"What I simply don't get is this: I can (almost!) understand those who just want to chat on here using the knowledge that they (think) they have. What I don't get is those who like to discuss facts but resist our calls for checking these facts and, most of all, to citing sources for these facts. Surely we all want to get as full a picture as possible, so why are Matt, CLCC and myself, along with others, so often attacked for simply trying to get the full picture? Full picture: I'm happy when I find points that disagree with my views, it gives me food for thought and challenges me so that I go looking for evidence one way or another. Note, I look for evidence for both sides. This applies to most things in my life, work in particular." If someone doesn't want to check their facts. Then fine. That is their prerogative. I don't understand it. But there you go. What I don't get is when they don't understand why other people might want to do so. I too like to look into both sides of things.. and hence why I like, for example, reading a range of newspapers. I don't, personally, *like* The Sun or the Daily Mail for example, but read them quite a lot to try and see the 'other' side to something. I find it interesting to see which papers report on which stories and the differences in how they are reported. Actually, funnily enough, my very first swinging MMF encounter as a single male about 12 years ago. They were a bit older than me, in their late thirties when I was in my late twenties. He was British, she was Scandinavian. On our second or third meet I was back at their house for the weekend and I remember the Sunday morning, after lots more sex, he popped to the shops and came back in with about six different Sunday newspapers and spreading them out on the bed and going through them looking at how the different stories were reported. That was a bit of an eye opener for me (well the whole weekend was tbh ). I am actually quite jealous of those who can speak multiple languages well enough to be able to read the political and cultural subtleties of international events in their own language.
-Matt | |||
"A good article published by the Mail on Sunday: Is that not an oxymoron?
Well the Mail on Sunday is not my first choice of news no, but it is still a pretty balanced article. But as the Mail on Sunday was a big Remain supporter I'm sure a lot of people will chose to ignore the article.
-Matt
The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article.
Oh, for goodness sake. Really? Is there any point in me telling you to actually go back and re-read what I wrote. Or what you wrote for that matter? As you seem to have either a very dodgy memory or very creative reasoning.
I can't believe I'm even indulging you in this, but here we go.
You originally posted:
"Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year. "
(note, no mention of Guardian there)
Which seemed odd, as I had seen a report from the IoD saying what *seemed* like the opposite. So replied:
"Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats:
Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years?
54% - likely to hinder growth in my business
30% - no effect
16% - likely to boost growth in my business
Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum?
58% - no
34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact
8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact
And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses:
68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services
57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods
So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market."
There was some debate on the timing of the two sets of stats, implying that somehow a week's difference made them invalid or something.
DurhamCT then very sensibly pointed out:
"Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please."
To which you replied:
"I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them."
And I replied:
"I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section.
The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated:
"Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved."
ie. 60% of firms thing that they are optimistic about 2017, nothing to do with brexit. ie. despite the negative aspect Brexit has had and will have on their business they still feel optimism for 2017."
(first mention of the Guardian)
As you can clearly read from what I said above (and re-stated several times in the thread), I am not disputing the legitimacy of the numbers reported in the newspapers, only that I can't see any link to a source of them. The fact that *multiple* newspapers were all reporting the same numbers you mention but *none* of them had a link to the original survey the IoD did, and the IoD didn't appear to have that survey on their website, but one that appeared to show (on the surface) the opposite made me question what was behind the numbers. Did it not you? I mean, if you see two reports allegedly from the same source, saying what appears to be opposite things, a week apart from each other... does that not make you wonder why? Hint: it should do.
Alas we can't always nowadays just believe that we read/hear in the news. Mostly it is not lying, but by telling selective parts of the story they can spin in a certain way. E.g. those IoD figures above might have just been from a single industry. Ie. was that 60% of firms (in the auto industry) feel optimistic. Or 60% of firms (in the North West) feel optimistic. It wouldn't be 'lying' to leave out the context. But could make the numbers appear contradictory.
Again I reiterated that I was curious as to why this, seemingly, discrepancy was there:
"Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting.
I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better."
Then what basically followed was you arguing against citing sources and just generally being belligerent. You then repeatedly missed the point of what I was saying above about wanting to find the source of the information, and kept saying "It's on the IoD website" (despite myself, or you being unable to find it). And saying:
"I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE."
Which, as I say, misses still my point above about wanting to find the actual original source of the data. The original press release, or survey, or article that the IoD published to see what they *actually* wrote in it's full context to see if there was something there we were missing that accounted for the seeming discrepancy with the survey they had published on their website.
So there we go. And just to bring this back full circle, again below is what you have just accused me of:
The Guardian is a Remain supporting newspaper but when I pointed out the Institute of Directors poll figures on another thread which was reported on and printed in the Guardian, you seemed pretty quick to dismiss it and ignore the article.
Read it again. Why do you think I am ignoring and dismissing the article? I am wanting to find the original source of the figures used as reported in multiple papers (not just The Guardian). That is not dismissing and ignoring it. That is wanting to understand it further. That is seeking to read between the lines and discover what is *actually* being said.
-Matt"As a Remain supporting newspaper why would the Guardian try to spin the institute of directors poll figures to support the case for Leave? That seems to be what you are suggesting now, it would go against the Remain position of the newspaper if they spinned any figures in that way. Maybe then there was no spin and they just reported the figures from the institute of directors as they found them direct from the institute of Directors as did many other newspapers who reported the exact same poll figures as The Guardian. | |||
"As a Remain supporting newspaper why would the Guardian try to spin the institute of directors poll figures to support the case for Leave? That seems to be what you are suggesting now, it would go against the Remain position of the newspaper if they spinned any figures in that way. Maybe then there was no spin and they just reported the figures from the institute of directors as they found them direct from the institute of Directors as did many other newspapers who reported the exact same poll figures as The Guardian. " Fuck it. I give up. -Matt | |||
