c4countdown

Fiona Bruce has stepped back from her role at the charity Refuge because of thickos on the internet.

The presenter faced a criticism after stepping in when Johnson, the father of former Prime Minister Boris, was described as a "wife-beater" on last Thursday's episode of Question Time.

Bruce interjected, telling viewers: "Just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson's [ex] wife spoke to a journalist, Tom Bower, and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and that she'd ended up in hospital as a result.

"Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off."

I think it's all about that bit in bold. Pretty obvious that the one-off bit is part of what the friends said.

Announcing her decision on Monday, Bruce said: "Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson.

"Those words have been taken as an expression of my own opinions which they are absolutely not, and as a minimising of domestic abuse, which I would never do.

"I have been a passionate advocate and campaigner for all survivors of domestic abuse, and have used my privileged position as a woman in the public eye to bring this issue to the fore, notably in my work for over 25 years with Refuge," she continued.

"But following the events of last week, I have faced a social media storm, much of which mischaracterised what I said and took the form of personal abuse directed at me.

"The only people that matter in all this are the survivors, they are my priority. The last thing in the world that I would want is that this issue in any way creates a distraction from Refuge's critical work on their behalf, and therefore I think the right thing to do is to step back from my role with Refuge."

Bruce added it had been "a hard decision for me as I feel so strongly about promoting their work and advancing awareness of this issue", saying she "will continue to be an active supporter, albeit from the sidelines for now."

She really should have quoted back what she said and pinpointed exactly where the misunderstanding was, let people realise for themselves how stupid, lacking comprehension skills and quick to judge they were, and then just not stepped back.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who brought up the Stanley Johnson wife-beating thing on Question Time has spoken up in favour of Fiona Bruce.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Andrew Neil never called the Government Nazis

Nor did Gary Lineker. This is what he said, here and here:

Gary Lineker wrote: Good heavens, this is beyond awful.

Gary Lineker wrote: This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

He said the policy was "beyond awful" and "immeasurably cruel". He said it used "language that is not dissimilar" to 1930s Germany. It's his personal view expressed in strong terms, which claims the rhetoric surrounding the policy points in a dark direction. Is that the same thing as calling the government Nazis?

He said "1930s Germany". He wasn't talking about the Weimar Republic, was he?

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmnor was he ever party political

Nor is Gary Lineker, any more than Andrew Neil is. He might publish his own views on politics on his own platforms, but has he ever given specific support to one party or another?

Yes. (The complaint to the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit was upheld here too.)

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmand Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee (The Apprentice is an independent production).

Does it matter which production company makes the programme? What is at issue, according to the BBC Editorial Guidelines, is whether "their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality".

Would anyone who read Lineker's tweet think he was speaking for the BBC? If you think so, then why would the same principle not apply to Jeremy Clarkson's newspaper columns when he presented the BBC-produced Top Gear?

When did Clarkson ever make a political endorsement when he worked for the BBC then? He was forced to apologise for a humorous and recently-resurfaced-out-of-context joke about shooting striking workers but that was not because it was seen to be partial. It was also before the current guidelines came in (see Andrew Neil).

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmWhat is ridiculous is the fact the Beeb clearly agree with him.

When you say "the Beeb clearly agree with him", do you actually mean the editorial line of the BBC, or the personal views of other BBC contributors such as Alan Shearer and Ian Wright? If you mean the people at the top, then, well, I'd have a hard time believing that the BBC Chairman who has donated over £400k to the Tories and the Director General who once stood as a local Conservative Party candidate would naturally be aligned with Lineker's view.

If you mean the other sports presenters, then I would argue they have as much of a right to air their personal views off air as Lineker does.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm the Biased Bolshevik Corporation literally had an audience member say Sunak is Hitler on Question Time and it went unchallenged

I haven't watched that episode, but QT usually has at least one Labour and one Conservative representative on the panel. Did they not on this occasion? And if they did, why could the Conservative not challenge it themselves? If you're asking why Fiona Bruce didn't challenge it, a statement like that is obviously opinion rather than something presented as fact. Was it really necessary for her to interject "in the interest of balance, in case any of our viewers think there has been some kind of horrific necromancy experiment, we must point out that the prime minister is not Hitler"?

Yes! In 2001 David Dimbleby had to stop an audience member who called Keith Vaz a "crook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZelxOjzwUKc&t=54m15s... it's ironic that we've literally talked about Fiona Bruce having to qualify "Stanley Johnson is a wife-beater" in literally the same program (I have no idea why she has done what she has this weekend given it was not her decision at all (most likely). Just proves what I've said for years, she's terrible at that job.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm they’ve all gone on strike about this; and much of the same people defending Lineker called for Clarkson to be fired even though he had no obligation to be impartial unlike Lineker. It’s “free speech if I agree”.

Why did Clarkson have no obligation to be impartial? When he presented Top Gear, did he not have a similar relationship with the BBC as Lineker?

It took Clarkson punching a producer to get him removed from a programme. With Lineker, all it's taken is a criticism of the Home Secretary's anti-migrant rhetoric.

I think you misunderstand. I was referring to Clarkson's recent column about Meghan Markle, which of course was written after leaving the Beeb. I suspect the venn diagram overlap of those who defended Clarkson recently and those who defended Lineker is vanishingly small.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:32 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Lineker has still not apologised.

In my opinion he has nothing to apologise for.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm If Lineker worked for BT and/or Walkers alone this wouldn’t be a problem, it’s the fact we all pay his extortionate tax-avoided wage and he has a legal obligation to be impartial.

I'm going to link to the BBC Editorial Guidelines again, specifically this bit (my emphasis):

BBC Editorial Guidelines, section 15.3.13 wrote: The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

Jonathan Agnew and Neil Henderson have both criticised Lineker's outspokenness in the past.

Jonathan Agnew, 2018 wrote:Gary. You are the face of BBC Sport. Please observe BBC editorial guidelines and keep your political views, whatever they are and whatever the subject, to yourself.

I’d be sacked if I followed your example. Thanks.

Neil Henderson, 2022 wrote:Do you have the freedom to tweet about this sort of thing because you have a different contract to mine?

Because I'd be sacked if I did.
[...]
Does our duty of impartiality not apply across the BBC? [...] The BBC lives or dies by it's [sic] impartiality. If you can't abide it, get off it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64999417
This is causing twitter to meltdown so it must be a good thing

They’ve been working on this since lockdown 1. Not a surprise.

On the other hand I bloody hope the test alert makes it clear it’s a test.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:05 pm They’ve been working on this since lockdown 1. Not a surprise.

On the other hand I bloody hope the test alert makes it clear it’s a test.

One way to commemorate St George's Day

If you have, like me, insisted on reading the Gray Report and now Johnson's submission to the Privileges Committee in full, there's a huge conspiracy that went on whilst the media are too busy focusing on the political soap opera.

The Gray report made it clear Boris Johnson was assured repeatedly that events were kosher. Johnson's defence includes transcripts of interviews from key witnesses to the Gray report and the Privileges Committee that Johnson did not lie to the House when he said "I was repeatedly assured all rules were followed", and this is the whole crux of the committee's remit.

What it does not square with is how Martin Reynolds, James Slack, and Jack Doyle told Boris this when Olding and Stratton were laughing about it. Either Olding and Stratton lied to their seniors (Reynolds/Slack/Doyle) who therefore fed Johnson incorrectly that nothing untoward had happened, or Reynolds/Slack/Doyle lied to the then PM and have subsequently lied in their submissions to the committee. Either offence is way more serious than what the media are focusing in on.

The only person who says he did warn Johnson is Dominic Cummings, but he has never substantiated this claim.

I would encourage you to read Johnson's defence. It's watertight.

I'm not reading 52 pages of lies.

The chances are that Boris Johnson, as he was the Prime Minister, knew what the laws were (people talk about them as "rules" like they're some lesser thing, but they were the law), and his claim that he didn't know was just a lie. I can't see what the 52-page defence can say that would make it seem believable. Just saying that he was assured means nothing, and could just be another big lie anyway from the Johnson team.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:06 pm I'm not reading 52 pages of lies.

How do you know it's lies if you haven't read it?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:06 pm The chances are that Boris Johnson, as he was the Prime Minister, knew what the laws were (people talk about them as "rules" like they're some lesser thing, but they were the law), and his claim that he didn't know was just a lie. I can't see what the 52-page defence can say that would make it seem believable. Just saying that he was assured means nothing, and could just be another big lie anyway from the Johnson team.

Read it. These questions are answered.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:14 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:06 pm I'm not reading 52 pages of lies.

How do you know it's lies if you haven't read it?

He can't help himself. It's the habit of a lifetime.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:06 pm The chances are that Boris Johnson, as he was the Prime Minister, knew what the laws were (people talk about them as "rules" like they're some lesser thing, but they were the law), and his claim that he didn't know was just a lie. I can't see what the 52-page defence can say that would make it seem believable. Just saying that he was assured means nothing, and could just be another big lie anyway from the Johnson team.

Read it. These questions are answered.

I might have a look at some point.

I think he is guilty of being a buffoon.
Lets be honest he has always been a buffoon even when he was instrumental in winning the Olympics bid he was a buffoon.
Im not sure if he is a liar though

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:50 pm I think he is guilty of being a buffoon.
Lets be honest he has always been a buffoon even when he was instrumental in winning the Olympics bid he was a buffoon.
Im not sure if he is a liar though

Are you joking? Regardless of whether he is lying about this, there are loads of other examples.

Of course he likes to play the role of some affable buffoon, but in reality he's a nasty man. Come on, Marc - you need to up your game.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:09 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:50 pm I think he is guilty of being a buffoon.
Lets be honest he has always been a buffoon even when he was instrumental in winning the Olympics bid he was a buffoon.
Im not sure if he is a liar though

Are you joking? Regardless of whether he is lying about this, there are loads of other examples.

Of course he likes to play the role of some affable buffoon, but in reality he's a nasty man. Come on, Marc - you need to up your game.

Truth be told I couldn't be bothered with baiting Rhys (or reading the 52 page report.)

The worst kind of liars are culculating and duplicitous.
Boris only seems to lie when found out he's been a naughty boy
Tbh in the pantheon of crap tory prime ministers he isn't even top 3 this century let alone of all time.
He is a film flam who was a remainer right up until the 11th hour.
He seems to follow the crowd and put his trust in Cummins to always get him out of trouble

Sunak worries me more tbh

I don't see any particular danger in having a drink with people that you work with. It's possible that deliberate lies were not told. But anyone stupid enough not to realise what it would look like, or not care what it looked like, shouldn't be running a country. Allegra Stratton told me all I need to know.

I've written a long thing here which sums up my thoughts in detail.

You're giving us a lot of homework. But even if he didn't knowingly mislead the house of commons, he only needs to have recklessly misled it to be potentially suspended, and he definitely did that. Not bothering to check the laws you had only just made up and relying on "assurances". Yeah, you can fuck off with that.

She’d always been a floating voter but it’s disappointing to see Carol Vorderman lurch to far-left conspiracies on her Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/lukerobertblack/sta ... 89922?s=20

Some quotes or context?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:16 am She’d always been a floating voter but it’s disappointing to see Carol Vorderman lurch to far-left conspiracies on her Twitter feed.

I can recommend a look at that Twitter feed, actually. Pointing out a conspicuous lack of party promotion in Twitter bios by Conservative MPs. In addition, it points out some oddly green-looking leaflets going through people's letterboxes (for a party with blue as its main colour), again with little mention of the Conservatives.

But of course that's just a far-left conspiracy and in no way at all a sign of embarrassment at the current shambles/some sly electioneering to start looking like Caroline Lucas gone rogue...

That’s a template that’s been available for years. Theresa May certainly doesn’t need to masquerade as a Green.

Also a majority of MPs don’t put their party in their bios (from all parties). Nor do Brown or Blair.

Disappointing alright. Surely the far left have better conspiracy theories than "Conservatives are mildly embarrassed about their own party". I'd be hoping for something along the lines of Boris Johnson is really an alien or capitalists acquire media empires in an effort to propagandise and brainwash the general public by encouraging divisions between different groups, promoting war, disparaging minorities and creating scapegoats to distract from the real culprits of economic stagnation, disparity and environmental catastrophe in an effort to maitain hegemonic controll and have the general public vote against their interests.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:32 pm Also a majority of MPs don’t put their party in their bios (from all parties). Nor do Brown or Blair.

Is that true?

I've just looked up five labour MPs whose names I know - there was no cherry-picking here - just ones I can name.

Every single one of them has their party in their bio. Maybe I just struck lucky.

Rebecca Long-Bailey - Labour Party MP for Salford & Eccles.

Jess Phillips - Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley

Angela Rayner - MP for Ashton under Lyne | Deputy Leader @UKLabour and Shadow First Secretary of State

Toby Perkins - Labour MP for Chesterfield; Shadow Minister for FE and Skills

Stella Creasy - Labour & Co-op MP for Walthamstow.

Decided to repeat the experiment myself. Going in blind...

Lincolnshire- all Conservative. We have...

Edward Leigh: Father of six & Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. Enquiries here will not be responded to. Contact me at edward.leigh.mp@parliament.uk.

Caroline Johnson (my MP and possibly the safest Tory seat in the UK): Conservative MP for Sleaford & North Hykeham. NHS Doctor. If you’re a constituent please email caroline.johnson.mp@parliament.uk

Matt Warman: Member of Parliament for Boston & Skegness. Former DCMS minister and even more former Technology Editor, Daily Telegraph. Conservative.

Gareth Davies: Conservative MP for Grantham and Stamford

Karl McCartney: Cars, cakes, politics. Conservative MP for Lincoln. Former Transport Minister. Constituents pls E: karl.mccartney.mp@parliament.uk. RTs not endorsements

So 4 out of 5. Moving over to Manchester (all Labour):

Lucy Powell: Labour & Co-op MP for Manchester Central | Shadow Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport contact@lucypowell.org.uk

Lisa Nandy: Labour MP for Wigan Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Jonathan Reynolds: Shadow Secretary of State for @beisgovuk . Lab/Co-Op MP for Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, Longdendale & Dukinfield. Chair @ChrLeft

Afzal Khan: @UKLabour MP for Manchester Gorton I Shadow Justice Minister I Casework afzal.khan.mp@parliament.uk He/Him | RTs not endorsements

Andrew Gwynne: Labour MP for Denton & Reddish | Shadow Public Health Minister | Husband, Dad, Grandad, owned by 2 cats and a Chihuahua | VIC-20 user

5 out of 5.

I thought perhaps that the one outlier (Edward Leigh) might represent a marginal seat, but according to this website (which Rhys will no doubt dismiss as left wing propaganda) his seat isn't especially vulnerable, while McCartney's (city of Lincoln) is usually very neck and neck. Clearly more data points are needed.

My local boys

Leo Docherty - Leo Docherty MP, Member of Parliament for Aldershot, Farnborough, Blackwater and Hawley.

Ranil Jayawarden - Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire

John Redwood - Lives in Wokingham
(He also has an official account - "Published and promoted by David Edmonds for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU.")

Michael Gove - Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath (but he does have Conservative placards in his background pic)

1/4 if we count the background pic.

The 5 around me - three Conservatives all include the party and one of two Labour.

There’s not some big conspiracy going on from Tory MPs. It’s desperate stuff from Carol.

No one thinks it's a big conspiracy. That would imply some sort of coordinated effort to not have the party in their twitter bio. It's just someone having a jibe at politicians she maybe doesn't like. The fact you think she thinks it's a conspiracy is more akin to a conspiracy. Also she specifically said it was tory Prime Ministers, not all tory mps. Grow up you dolt.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:36 am No one thinks it's a big conspiracy. That would imply some sort of coordinated effort to not have the party in their twitter bio. It's just someone having a jibe at politicians she maybe doesn't like. The fact you think she thinks it's a conspiracy is more akin to a conspiracy. Also she specifically said it was tory Prime Ministers, not all tory mps. Grow up you dolt.

No need for personal insults.

I don't think he actually called Rhys a Tory.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:18 am I don't think he actually called Rhys a Tory.

I'd rather be called a cunt than a Tory

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:02 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:36 am No one thinks it's a big conspiracy. That would imply some sort of coordinated effort to not have the party in their twitter bio. It's just someone having a jibe at politicians she maybe doesn't like. The fact you think she thinks it's a conspiracy is more akin to a conspiracy. Also she specifically said it was tory Prime Ministers, not all tory mps. Grow up you dolt.

No need for personal insults.

There's no need for sprinkles on your ice cream either but it's a nice little extra.

If a Tory acted like this we'd never hear the end of it from the BBC and the left-wing media. https://youtu.be/zU1Dx5PYV9Y

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 3:58 pm If a Tory acted like this we'd never hear the end of it from the BBC and the left-wing media. https://youtu.be/zU1Dx5PYV9Y

To be fair he is like that with everyone.
An Odius man I give you that.

Yeah, I'm not sure that proves his attitude towards women is any different. Still, he seems like a twat either way.

These Stop Oil Protesters certainly know how to pick legitimate targets.
Ffs The Snooker World Championships.
Why not formula one.
Would love to see one of these wankers hit at 120 mph

There were protesters at last year's British grand prix, they ran onto the track during the first lap, after the race had already been red flagged due to a crash. This ensured that all they did was get booed by the rest of the crowd and they got precisely zero TV time.

I think a sporting event is a better target than fucking everyone over who's just trying to go about their daily lives getting to and from work. They get a bit of publicity and no-one's really too badly put out by it.

Although, people should really be put out by it - but they shouldn't indiscriminately target the general public, especially if they want to get people on side. People like politicians and people running oil companies should be targeted for inconvenience. Perhaps it's harder to do, but this is essentially their job as protesters.

https://twitter.com/joinaunionpls/statu ... 5068221441

Good thread explaining the reasoning.

Also, I love Stephen Hendry, but his whole "I hope the table is alright" response is hilarious. I get that that could easily be your immediate reaction, I'd probably think the same initially but I would hope he'd be as embarrassed as I would after a while of thinking about it. Like, sure we can get worked up about sports events that we all enjoy being disrupted but as I've pointed out before, everything good we have in this world came from people who were willing to fight for it. Should we not be as equally worried about the planet as we would be a snooker table?

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:06 am https://twitter.com/joinaunionpls/statu ... 5068221441

Good thread explaining the reasoning.

It's a binary between personally hated but effective vs personally indifferent and ineffective.

This is oversimplistic. They even point to graphs showing where these issues get more publicity. I don't think Greta Thunberg addressing the UN General Assembly was particularly disruptive.

I understand Stephen Hendry's response.

Clearly what he drew from the Just Stop Oil protestors' actions is that when our purpose of being here is dependant on the health of a wondrous but fragile greenscape, we must do everything we can to repair it when damaged and protect it from harm by anyone who warps it by releasing harmful substances.

Nice.

I must admit that when I first saw the clip I didn't have the sound on and I immediately thought.
You've been Tangoed

I do hope they don't go to Wembley when I'm watching the Women's FA Cup final next month but I don't care about Wimbledon.

Btw I didn't see anything on the 10 o'clock BBC news headlines

everything good we have in this world came from people who were willing to fight for it

Yes, but it matters who you're fighting, and where you fight. The climate fight isn't with snooker tables, and any benefits from the exposure of protesting (was it even a protest? it was just a disruption) a major sporting event is going to be undercut by the people who weren't otherwise against the movement, who will now think, "twats". Which is a natural human reaction to someone ruining your fun evening out.

I say this as a man who had a fairly robust discussion with his dad about the protests at the Grand National only a couple of days prior, in which he made much the same argument as me, so I feel a little hypocritical. But at least those protesters were actually protesting at the site of the issue they were protesting. These people just annoyed snooker for a bit, nothing was achieved by anyone.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:07 pm

everything good we have in this world came from people who were willing to fight for it

Yes, but it matters who you're fighting, and where you fight. The climate fight isn't with snooker tables, and any benefits from the exposure of protesting (was it even a protest? it was just a disruption) a major sporting event is going to be undercut by the people who weren't otherwise against the movement, who will now think, "twats". Which is a natural human reaction to someone ruining your fun evening out.

I think this argument is so weak. The people you're talking about who would have that reaction against the movement are a very thin slice of the spectrum of human perspective, and even these knobs are almost definitely subconsciously affected in the direction that the protest intends, because they're engaging with the content of it.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:08 pm I say this as a man who had a fairly robust discussion with his dad about the protests at the Grand National only a couple of days prior, in which he made much the same argument as me, so I feel a little hypocritical. But at least those protesters were actually protesting at the site of the issue they were protesting. These people just annoyed snooker for a bit, nothing was achieved by anyone.

A photo of someone with JUST STOP OIL is on the front or back page news of every single major UK news website/publication. One guy will get a slap on the wrists. It's totally nonviolent and zero damage was done. It cost nothing. In terms of bang for buck, this is really top tier protesting.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:50 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:08 pm I say this as a man who had a fairly robust discussion with his dad about the protests at the Grand National only a couple of days prior, in which he made much the same argument as me, so I feel a little hypocritical. But at least those protesters were actually protesting at the site of the issue they were protesting. These people just annoyed snooker for a bit, nothing was achieved by anyone.

A photo of someone with JUST STOP OIL is on the front or back page news of every single major UK news website/publication. One guy will get a slap on the wrists. It's totally nonviolent and zero damage was done. It cost nothing. In terms of bang for buck, this is really top tier protesting.

Yeah, I tend to think it was quite good. A lot of publicity without pissing people off anywhere near as much as messing up the roads. If I'd been at that snooker event, I think it probably would have been quite entertaining as well. Everyone's a winner!

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:43 pmThe people you're talking about who would have that reaction against the movement are a very thin slice of the spectrum of human perspective

Are they?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:12 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:43 pmThe people you're talking about who would have that reaction against the movement are a very thin slice of the spectrum of human perspective

Are they?

Yeah. Anyone who is conscientious enough to have an informed opinion on climate change which moves, as a result of this protest, towards caring less about it, is not a real person.

Well,alright. I disagree, but have only anecdotal evidence with likely selection-bias issues, so. Still think it's not a great protest strategy to disrupt unrelated things, but definitely agree it's better than jumping in the road. Most things are.

The difference in the reactions to the protests at the National and at the snooker was kinda funny. (I mean on the broadcasts, not in my house.)

The protestor at the Crucible was on GB News last month saying having children was morally wrong due to the climate.

I wish his parents had felt the same way.

Before long someone will die at one of these protests - it's a miracle it didn't happen at Silverstone.

There's a chance that GB News selectively chose someone who would say something like that so as to fit an agenda and stoke feelings in the audience. My dad watches GB News pretty much all day, it's, uh, quite the viewing experience.

Ah but Rhys doesn't *watch* GB news, he just

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:06 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑
Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.

I count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.

I don’t count having a news channel on in the background as “watching” it.

has it on in the background (whilst seemingly absorbing quite a lot of the content).

I do hope the King's Coronation is safe as I don't think the police, MI5 and the combined armed services will fuck about if The King feels threatened

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 6:53 am I do hope the King's Coronation is safe as I don't think the police, MI5 and the combined armed services will fuck about if The King feels threatened

It'll be as safe as any other major public event, i.e. at extremely high risk of disruption, but with zillions of plods in place.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 6:53 am I do hope the King's Coronation is safe as I don't think the police, MI5 and the combined armed services will fuck about if The King feels threatened

Yeah I do hope that such an overprivileged and unelected figure can still have an extremely expensive and elaborate ceremony to further emphasise their assumed power while vast swathes of people struggle to make ends meet with the income from their honest work.

Never gonna happen but would be amazing if just no one turned up.

That would be the best thing ever.