| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:55 - May 23 with 2524 views | Darth_Koont |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:41 - May 23 by NewcyBlue |
They should lose their jobs if so.
The integrity of people in this whole sorry saga, and the pandemic in general, is certainly lacking. |
Only they didn't know about the story. Someone had messaged them that someone they knew said Cummings wasn't at home.
A. It's the sort of thing journalists get all the time about all sorts of things that they can't follow up B. A proper journalist would usually need two sources to push harder.
Do you think if they really had "known" about it that they would have said and written nothing? |  |
|  |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:59 - May 23 with 2506 views | itfcjoe |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:48 - May 23 by NewcyBlue |
I would expect journalists to have a duty to report these things.
If they have known about it since 1st April, that’s well over 6 weeks. |
Their colleagues may have been waiting for final confirmation, waiting for the police to go on the record to make sure that the story was watertight before publishing it etc.
You've seen how the story has been treated with the evidence in black and white, this Government are liars and chancers and would have denied it if the evidence wasn't there even if it was true |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:02 - May 23 with 2492 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:01 - May 23 by LankHenners |
The difference is the ones you linked were more or less fine - recounting official responses isn't a problem. Her first tweets were her going straight into bat for Cummings. That you even admitted you hadn't seen what they were makes your whole argument pointless.
"The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever"
Jesus Christ. "Checking" is the cornerstone of journalism. Yes, journalists have reported on what 'sources' have said, quite obviously (to use your classic condescending phrase), but usually after what's being said has been confirmed to a degree of reliability. Again, LK has form for doing this and being wrong, spreading a total fabrication. Therefore, context based on past actions come into play.
You are wrong on this. People aren't just saying this to pile on on someone, it's because they know what they're talking about and they (and now you) don't. |
That’s not illustrating a difference - it almost sounds as if the difference is you like the people responding/views expressed in those but not from the accused
Also for clarity it was just the second tweet I hadn’t seen - but that was just an extension on the first response again clearly indicated as being from sources, so really doesn’t change anything. It certainly doesn’t make any argument pointless
You completely miss the point re journalists checking information. Laura Kuenssberg wasn’t breaking the story or offering any judgement on it in those initial tweets, they were bog standard ‘here’s what so and so says in response’ tweets. The only accuracy point that applies is ensuring the responses are reported accurately - whether the actual response is true or reasonable can then be dissected
Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense btw (people know what they’re talking about and they don’t?), but even if it did it’s ridiculously arrogant to just decide you must be right. Especially as it’s apparent from the paragraph before that you’ve long since decided that Kuenssberg is biased (as have a number of others, clearly) and therefore anything she does is viewed through that prism
Bonkers |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:04 - May 23 with 2469 views | NewcyBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:59 - May 23 by itfcjoe |
Their colleagues may have been waiting for final confirmation, waiting for the police to go on the record to make sure that the story was watertight before publishing it etc.
You've seen how the story has been treated with the evidence in black and white, this Government are liars and chancers and would have denied it if the evidence wasn't there even if it was true |
Yeah you’re right.
I’m just thoroughly annoyed about all this.
Especially when stuff like this happens
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52690264 |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:09 - May 23 with 2437 views | NewcyBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:55 - May 23 by Darth_Koont |
Only they didn't know about the story. Someone had messaged them that someone they knew said Cummings wasn't at home.
A. It's the sort of thing journalists get all the time about all sorts of things that they can't follow up B. A proper journalist would usually need two sources to push harder.
Do you think if they really had "known" about it that they would have said and written nothing? |
“ Do you think if they really had "known" about it that they would have said and written nothing?”
I wouldn’t be surprised. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:19 - May 23 with 2402 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:02 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
That’s not illustrating a difference - it almost sounds as if the difference is you like the people responding/views expressed in those but not from the accused
Also for clarity it was just the second tweet I hadn’t seen - but that was just an extension on the first response again clearly indicated as being from sources, so really doesn’t change anything. It certainly doesn’t make any argument pointless
You completely miss the point re journalists checking information. Laura Kuenssberg wasn’t breaking the story or offering any judgement on it in those initial tweets, they were bog standard ‘here’s what so and so says in response’ tweets. The only accuracy point that applies is ensuring the responses are reported accurately - whether the actual response is true or reasonable can then be dissected
Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense btw (people know what they’re talking about and they don’t?), but even if it did it’s ridiculously arrogant to just decide you must be right. Especially as it’s apparent from the paragraph before that you’ve long since decided that Kuenssberg is biased (as have a number of others, clearly) and therefore anything she does is viewed through that prism
Bonkers |
You're talking nonsense. I know you like being sanctimonious and charging into threads late to try and prove how much more clever you are than everyone else but give it a rest for once.
I don't miss the point - her first tweet on the matter was a direct rebuttal of the story as posted by Pippa Crerar as had been given to her by a 'source'. There was no journalistic integrity to it, it was like any other random on Twitter jumping in to defend Cummings with the addition of a 'source' in there. It's irresponsible for a head editor of the BBC to behave like that. Had it been 'source says this, *quote*, then adding extra information' then that would be more reasonable.
It makes sense, I'm talking about two different groups of "they", quite obviously, admittedly through slightly clumsy wording when typing quickly. Pot kettle to start accusing someone else of arrogance but what I'm saying is correct and you and lowhouse both charged in and missed the point without bothering to see if the multiple people disagreeing had a point.
I haven't long decided she's biased - I mentioned relevant context (which you haven't addressed for some reason) to show she has previous form for repeating words from a 'source' that aren't true. It's like some div on here claiming they have transfer news when they've previously said similar previously which didn't happen so naturally you don't rush to believe them this time. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:25 - May 23 with 2381 views | Darth_Koont |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:09 - May 23 by NewcyBlue |
“ Do you think if they really had "known" about it that they would have said and written nothing?”
I wouldn’t be surprised. |
So two prominent left-wing journalists had one of the biggest and most damaging stories about the government and just sat on it?
Righto. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:35 - May 23 with 2340 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:19 - May 23 by LankHenners |
You're talking nonsense. I know you like being sanctimonious and charging into threads late to try and prove how much more clever you are than everyone else but give it a rest for once.
I don't miss the point - her first tweet on the matter was a direct rebuttal of the story as posted by Pippa Crerar as had been given to her by a 'source'. There was no journalistic integrity to it, it was like any other random on Twitter jumping in to defend Cummings with the addition of a 'source' in there. It's irresponsible for a head editor of the BBC to behave like that. Had it been 'source says this, *quote*, then adding extra information' then that would be more reasonable.
It makes sense, I'm talking about two different groups of "they", quite obviously, admittedly through slightly clumsy wording when typing quickly. Pot kettle to start accusing someone else of arrogance but what I'm saying is correct and you and lowhouse both charged in and missed the point without bothering to see if the multiple people disagreeing had a point.
I haven't long decided she's biased - I mentioned relevant context (which you haven't addressed for some reason) to show she has previous form for repeating words from a 'source' that aren't true. It's like some div on here claiming they have transfer news when they've previously said similar previously which didn't happen so naturally you don't rush to believe them this time. |
Christ, I haven’t charged into anything, I was busy first thing, read through the thread mid morning and compared to her Twitter and thought the consensus was wide of the mark. Talk about adding 2 + 2 and getting 76
Replying to a tweet isn’t rebutting it, it’s just commenting on the story. Again, it was clearly marked that this was what sources were responding with as was the follow up, and then others with others responses
As above I did actually check (as I suspect Lowhouse did) and my conclusion is that they don’t - missing 1 inconsequential tweet doesn’t change that or suddenly invalidate my argument. I’d actually wager most of the people criticising didn’t bother to look themselves and simply responded to the info in the OP, with no clue of her other tweets or the full response
You pretty clearly have long since made your mind up - you’ve referenced her history in both this and the other thread on the subject. The context you quote is exactly what I’m talking about - in your view she did it before so must be doing it again | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:42 - May 23 with 2320 views | bluelagos |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:59 - May 23 by itfcjoe |
Their colleagues may have been waiting for final confirmation, waiting for the police to go on the record to make sure that the story was watertight before publishing it etc.
You've seen how the story has been treated with the evidence in black and white, this Government are liars and chancers and would have denied it if the evidence wasn't there even if it was true |
I suspect there is more to come out. Otherwise why publish the details about the police? You would hold that back, wait for his denial, then report that knowing full well you have that to back up your initial story.
The newspapers like to run a story over a few days if they can. So I'd be surprised if there isn't more to come out in tomorrow's Observer and/or Monday's Guardian. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:44 - May 23 with 2307 views | GlasgowBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:42 - May 23 by bluelagos |
I suspect there is more to come out. Otherwise why publish the details about the police? You would hold that back, wait for his denial, then report that knowing full well you have that to back up your initial story.
The newspapers like to run a story over a few days if they can. So I'd be surprised if there isn't more to come out in tomorrow's Observer and/or Monday's Guardian. |
Hence Cummings going today would save the government an awful lot of bad headlines in the Sunday papers.
If he hasn't gone by 8pm tonight then they are going to try and ride this one out and start looking for the rotting corpse of a cat to throw on the table.
Does Kier Starmer own any other donkey sanctuaries? [Post edited 23 May 2020 14:45]
|  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:48 - May 23 with 2300 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:35 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Christ, I haven’t charged into anything, I was busy first thing, read through the thread mid morning and compared to her Twitter and thought the consensus was wide of the mark. Talk about adding 2 + 2 and getting 76
Replying to a tweet isn’t rebutting it, it’s just commenting on the story. Again, it was clearly marked that this was what sources were responding with as was the follow up, and then others with others responses
As above I did actually check (as I suspect Lowhouse did) and my conclusion is that they don’t - missing 1 inconsequential tweet doesn’t change that or suddenly invalidate my argument. I’d actually wager most of the people criticising didn’t bother to look themselves and simply responded to the info in the OP, with no clue of her other tweets or the full response
You pretty clearly have long since made your mind up - you’ve referenced her history in both this and the other thread on the subject. The context you quote is exactly what I’m talking about - in your view she did it before so must be doing it again |
Must be a coincidence you do it frequently on other threads then. So your whole thing is that everyone else must be some way stupid or lazy in how they've approached this and you are just so much smarter that you can see way above and beyond it, as usual.
I'm not going over the stuff you're misunderstanding again so I'll ask one question you're trying hard to ignore:
Do you think it's reasonable to cast doubt on a journalist's reporting of a 'source' when that same journalist, just a few months ago, spread a blatant lie fed to them by a 'source' where on both occasions the information supplied is designed to 'help' the same people?
I've not made any claim on whether LK is a Tory plant or is deliberately putting out pro-Tory propaganda, you've lumped me in with that group you've made up yourself. Again and again you're telling me what I must think when I haven't said so or made an argument for it using your trademark patronising turns of phrase. No-one likes being wrong, but come on, try and show a little bit of integrity. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:49 - May 23 with 2295 views | bluelagos |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:44 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue |
Hence Cummings going today would save the government an awful lot of bad headlines in the Sunday papers.
If he hasn't gone by 8pm tonight then they are going to try and ride this one out and start looking for the rotting corpse of a cat to throw on the table.
Does Kier Starmer own any other donkey sanctuaries? [Post edited 23 May 2020 14:45]
|
I'm with you. For the life of me why they think taking a week to sack him does anything other than demonstrate poor leadership, a lack of integrity and BJs inability to make a decision, is beyond me.
If he hung on, can you imagine how KS will tear BJ apart on this at PMQs? There are so many holes in the Tory defence it is embarrassing. DC will surely go so like you say, why wait? | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:50 - May 23 with 2296 views | PhilTWTD |
Removed large chunk of this thread. I realise there are some really deeply held animosities on here but really don't think there's any reason to revive and rerun old rows. |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 15:01 - May 23 with 2250 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 14:48 - May 23 by LankHenners |
Must be a coincidence you do it frequently on other threads then. So your whole thing is that everyone else must be some way stupid or lazy in how they've approached this and you are just so much smarter that you can see way above and beyond it, as usual.
I'm not going over the stuff you're misunderstanding again so I'll ask one question you're trying hard to ignore:
Do you think it's reasonable to cast doubt on a journalist's reporting of a 'source' when that same journalist, just a few months ago, spread a blatant lie fed to them by a 'source' where on both occasions the information supplied is designed to 'help' the same people?
I've not made any claim on whether LK is a Tory plant or is deliberately putting out pro-Tory propaganda, you've lumped me in with that group you've made up yourself. Again and again you're telling me what I must think when I haven't said so or made an argument for it using your trademark patronising turns of phrase. No-one likes being wrong, but come on, try and show a little bit of integrity. |
Fairly unnecessary character assassination but FWIW it probably comes across that way as I tend not to bother posting on threads for the sake of it - eg. to make an obvious point or the same point 30 other posters have already made. So maybe it does come across that I’m trying to be contrarian when I think there is a point worth making
I think that because you have a pre-conceived view on her and that has led you to conclude that what are in reality some fairly bland ‘here’s what these people say, now here’s what some other people say, and here’s what some other people say’ tweets are somehow a massive conspiracy to support the Tories
And there clearly is a group of people who think that Kuenssberg does deliberately put out Tory propaganda - there’s accusations of it in both this thread and others on the subject, and indeed in the past. Fair enough if you don’t think it applies to you but I don’t think it really helps your argument to suggest it’s a made up group
Your final line is hilarious in lieu of the rest of your post | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 15:19 - May 23 with 2215 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 15:01 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Fairly unnecessary character assassination but FWIW it probably comes across that way as I tend not to bother posting on threads for the sake of it - eg. to make an obvious point or the same point 30 other posters have already made. So maybe it does come across that I’m trying to be contrarian when I think there is a point worth making
I think that because you have a pre-conceived view on her and that has led you to conclude that what are in reality some fairly bland ‘here’s what these people say, now here’s what some other people say, and here’s what some other people say’ tweets are somehow a massive conspiracy to support the Tories
And there clearly is a group of people who think that Kuenssberg does deliberately put out Tory propaganda - there’s accusations of it in both this thread and others on the subject, and indeed in the past. Fair enough if you don’t think it applies to you but I don’t think it really helps your argument to suggest it’s a made up group
Your final line is hilarious in lieu of the rest of your post |
So you don't have an answer to the question then? It wasn't a trap or a trick, it's just that you're trying to frame me as some anti-LK person determined to fault her when I was merely suggesting that previous instances of repeating fibs would naturally question the reliability of her 'source' when from context clues you can make a pretty good stab at where the 'source' is coming from. That would mean you having to admit you were wrong on something which clearly is a big hurdle for you so I don't expect you to do it, that's fine. The tweets you're referring to aren't the problem ones anyway.
Made up as in the group of posters you're binding together is one you've made up, not that it's fiction. I'm well aware of accusations made about LK on here and elsewhere.
You're clearly very clever so I'll assume that's a typo of 'in light of', but you really don't need to be so rattled by an uncomfortable truth. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 15:58 - May 23 with 2164 views | jaykay |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:37 - May 23 by vapour_trail |
absolutely astonishing lack of self awareness.
Off the scale. |
as i told him before i would ask for a refund on that self awareness course he took.
so lets get this straight, someone starts a thread about we all in this together. a tweet by a reporter is posted . people query reporters sources. a certain poster then say the reporter is being smeared, nothing about it was wrong to travel to the n.e. east
then because posters say that dont agree about a reported being smeared ,they are accused of bullying.
then mirror mirror on the wall appears |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 09:31 - May 25 with 2012 views | Herbivore |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:19 - May 23 by Herbivore |
They are utterly shameless. We're meant to believe that they were so unwell they couldn't care for their child but they were well enough to drive them halfway across the country? And then miraculously they were alright and didn't need family to assist in the end? What a load of b0llocks. Sadly the government has realised that the people are stupid and will buy anything from them, so they'll just keep spinning and banging on about political point scoring until we get to a point where Dom gets canonised for his services to fatherhood. [Post edited 23 May 2020 11:20]
|
After Johnson's speech yesterday my last sentence isn't looking far off the mark. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:25 - May 25 with 1968 views | N2_Blue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:26 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue |
I suspect had Guthers posted the same as Lowhouse this thread would still be in its first page and his comment ignored.
Every day I see a hyperbolic threads started on here, guthers give a reasoned, logical response and he is completely ignored while the rangers continue to bark at the moon.
Ugly gang mentality that has infected this place in recent times and the reason most of my contributions are now designed to have a bit of fun with music in order the lighten the mood in here.
Phil is suffering financially and we see every day the same clique of posters repeating the same posts multiple times a day. Rarely get any new faces on here and why would we?
Five or six posters would prefer TWTD to be their own private bubble.
This place had massive potential to bring people together during this crisis. The exact opposite has happened. This whole place is divide and ugly. Whoever shouts the loudest and has the most back up from their virtual mates on here wins the argument. Facts and logic be damned.
Enjoy your day on here folks. [Post edited 23 May 2020 11:34]
|
I’d thought you’d become a little bit more reasonable recently but this post is total nonsense. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:29 - May 25 with 1962 views | Shawsey |
Yesterday proved that we're not. Total disregard for us "ordinary people". I hate it when they refer to the voters as "ordinary people". Think this is the lowest point in British politics in my lifetime. |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:31 - May 25 with 1957 views | monytowbray |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:25 - May 25 by N2_Blue |
I’d thought you’d become a little bit more reasonable recently but this post is total nonsense. |
Since he stopped piling in and arming the less intelligent right wingers the board calmed down a fair bit for a few weeks.
Yesterday he decided to pile in on me again unprovoked, including his ever classy “revelling in the death toll” remark at me then got upset because I called him a c*nt for even thinking that’s the sort of thing you say to someone.
If we crowdfund a self awareness course for him I’ll put in a tenner.
He spent two weeks shouting down those screaming about the writing on the wall with his PPS and TTS posts and this is him trying to safe face for calling it incredibly wrong. [Post edited 25 May 2020 10:45]
|  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:51 - May 25 with 1936 views | longtimefan |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:31 - May 25 by monytowbray |
Since he stopped piling in and arming the less intelligent right wingers the board calmed down a fair bit for a few weeks.
Yesterday he decided to pile in on me again unprovoked, including his ever classy “revelling in the death toll” remark at me then got upset because I called him a c*nt for even thinking that’s the sort of thing you say to someone.
If we crowdfund a self awareness course for him I’ll put in a tenner.
He spent two weeks shouting down those screaming about the writing on the wall with his PPS and TTS posts and this is him trying to safe face for calling it incredibly wrong. [Post edited 25 May 2020 10:45]
|
How can a person who said an infected person should “lick a Tory and make the world a better place” and responded to criticism of that post with “bulb” lecture anyone on self awareness? |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:54 - May 25 with 1923 views | monytowbray |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:51 - May 25 by longtimefan |
How can a person who said an infected person should “lick a Tory and make the world a better place” and responded to criticism of that post with “bulb” lecture anyone on self awareness? |
I have plenty of self awareness and also don’t get upset over obvious jokes in context whilst ironically being complicit in the actual problems this country faces like yourself.
The problem with Glassers is he seems to lack the ability to sense when he’s being a pr1ck. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:58 - May 25 with 1913 views | pointofblue |
Oh good, cue even more time being taken up by Phil having to deal with abuse reports.
I don’t mean to sound harsh but if you can’t debate maturely with certain posters then maybe just stick each other on ignore? And feel free to do the same with me at the same time if you wish to do so. The number of threads which start with reasonable intent but get dragged into the gutter because relevant points get buried by whataboutery and mudslinging is getting boring now.
Sorry, rant over.  | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:00 - May 25 with 1909 views | longtimefan |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:54 - May 25 by monytowbray |
I have plenty of self awareness and also don’t get upset over obvious jokes in context whilst ironically being complicit in the actual problems this country faces like yourself.
The problem with Glassers is he seems to lack the ability to sense when he’s being a pr1ck. |
Please explain to me with facts how I am more complicit in the problems of this country than you are. I seem to remember you ran home from an area of high infection to somewhere with very low incidence at the start of this. | | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:04 - May 25 with 1898 views | portmanking |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:58 - May 25 by pointofblue |
Oh good, cue even more time being taken up by Phil having to deal with abuse reports.
I don’t mean to sound harsh but if you can’t debate maturely with certain posters then maybe just stick each other on ignore? And feel free to do the same with me at the same time if you wish to do so. The number of threads which start with reasonable intent but get dragged into the gutter because relevant points get buried by whataboutery and mudslinging is getting boring now.
Sorry, rant over. |
Amen.
The sad reality is that TWTD would be a much better place without the 'General' forum and stuck to Football. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
