The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

simonc

But out was the popular vote ;biggrin

grey_til_I_dye

Not in our house... ;angry

MrsGrey

simonc said:

But out was the popular vote ;biggrin

And, erm .. what?

NEoldiron

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38747979

She really does make me want to vomit. ;angry

Dodger58

She really does make me want to vomit. ;angry

Why? As this is surely what shoe should be doing ...

The line that would make you agree with you is

"a man who today she will flatter"

, but that is Laura Kuennsberg's interpretation and quite at odds with

"she has said she "won't be afraid" to speak candidly to Mr Trump on matters where they disagree"

But then that appears to be the BBC's role ...

NEoldiron

Dodger, yeah, right ;hmm

ASLEFshrugged

Kuenssberg is getting a bit of a rep for for ''creative'' journalism.....

MrsGrey

That's an odd article.

Is it meant to be a news report but with a separate bit under her byline that is an opinion piece?

It's rather unclear.

I have no problem with journalist giving their own interpretations and views but the article must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than news.

I think that is one of the disadvantages (or perhaps weaknesses) of web newspapers. In the olden days of print newspaper, the news was on a page labelled news. The opinions and debate-type stuff was further back in the paper, on pages clearly labelled as such.

That distinction has blurred with digital news sites, when the 'front page' can have all kinds of stuff on it.

OutcastLondoner

It's a sidebar with her analysis, not unlike what they do during broadcasts.

BBC used to have a more distinct style for the sidebars which they seem to have changed, making it more confusing.

Opinion on websites is still in the opinion section and is usually labelled as such but yes they promote it more on the front page than before. But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.

MrsGrey

outcast ;ok re the sidebar thing. That's what it seemed like, only the layout wasn't clear.

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - the Opinion pieces are always identified as such, just not always noticeable unless you actually look/check.

But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.

;nonono

I'm a minority, then.

;hmm Can I get a grant?

IronHerb

Don't go to the US.

Dodger58

Or you could meet:



Apologies for second posting, but I couldn't resist it.

thornburyiron

(reply to C+B on American Election thread)
If you're referring to the Supreme Court appeal there's a world of difference. When you have 11 judges, 8 of whom are strongly pro Europe, there's obviously going to be suspicion. if as they claimed they were only ruling on a point of law how come only those 8 saw the law that way.
It's little wonder that people are suspicious of the judiciary.

MrsGrey

thornbury, if there weren't different opinions on how the law was interpreted and applied in individual cases, we wouldn't need courts or lawyers.

NEoldiron

Thorn, perhaps you'd prefer something like this:

https://www.nknews.org/2014/07/how-law-and-order-works-in-north-korea/

MrsGrey

Thorn, genuine question, as you have implied previously that you think the High Court judges in the first case, and now the Supreme Court judges, ruled against the govt because of their own personal views on the European Union.

Do you believe it is impossible for people (any - not just judges) to put aside their personal belief (be it political, religious, whatever) and do their jobs impartially and professionally?

thornburyiron

Genuine answer, I have absolutely no idea. For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.
I don't know how many doctors or nurses will follow this instruction. I was having tests in hospital on Friday and just in general chit chat jokingly referred to this when talking to the cardiologist as he mentioned he was an expectant father. We were talking about my activities with my grandchildren so that is why it came up.
He laughed and said it would depend upon who is listening.
So in answer to your question I don't know if people can ignore their own personal beliefs within their normal jobs.
Might be time to refer to Suzie on this.

MrsGrey

I think you have been reading too much Daily Mail, thorn.

That's really not an accurate representation at all.

I shall look up the facts for you, so you can be better informed when discussing it with your cardiologist in future. ;wink

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

But that isn't what the BMA have done at all.

"This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients."

And what it actually said was:

A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘expectant mothers’.

You can read the whole leaflet here:

https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/about the bma/equality and inclusion/bma-guide-to-effective-communication-2016.pdf

You might still disagree with the reasoning, but at the least I think you will see that it puts their reasoning forwards more fairly than the Telegraph or Mail do.

thornburyiron

I wasn't saying I believed they were the full facts I was just using our off the cuff conversation about it to show that his response implied that he may or may not comply with it should it occur. I doubt I'd be discussing it again as its not a matter close to my heart but his views on my condition is.

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.

The words you list are not 'not to be used'. What the guidance advises is this.

1.If you don’t know for certain what gender to use when talking about a person’s loved ones, or if you aren’t sure whether someone identifies as male or female, keep your language neutral until you know what terms they prefer to use. For example, use the word ‘partner’ instead of ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, ‘parent’ instead of ‘Mum’ or ‘Dad’, and ‘child’ instead of ‘son’ or ‘daughter’.
2. The guidance doesn't apply to clinical staff working with patients, it is for people working for the BMA, which is a professional association representing its members. A direct quote from the BMA: 'This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors, which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients.”



Edit: I spent ages looking it all up, only to find grey got there first. ;weep

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

Genuine answer, I have absolutely no idea.

But you have implied that the judges have not been impartial in their rulings. I don't think you have any evidence of that. So why say it?

PS, I'll move this chunk of discussion over to the Article 50 thread, as it isn't about the US ;ok

thornburyiron

I don't have any evidence of it, I was just saying that it is easy to see why people may be suspicious of the judiciary.

Edit.... Better move this one too

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

I would expect a cardiologist (or any health professional) to carry out their professional duties regardless of their own personal beliefs or opinions.

I would expect a Muslim doctor to treat a Jewish patient as well as any other patient. I would expect a socialist doctor to work to the best of their ability on a right-wing terrorist suspect.

I expect all members of the judiciary to act impartially, based on the evidence they hear, and the relevant laws.

I have no reason to suspect that is not the case, and believe that enough checks and balances exist to deal with any instances where a member of the judiciary falls below that standard.

I think slinging mud at the judiciary because they don't come up with the answer you wanted is a hair's breadth away from totalitarianism.

thornburyiron

Grey I don't know if it's intended that your last paragraph is directed at me but if it is its out of order.
I was not slinging mud at the judiciary but merely stating that for those who do mistrust the judiciary, the fact that the Supreme Court verdict of 8-3 was predicted well in advance of the actual verdict does nothing yo quell their mistrust.
As an aside the mud slinging because it's not the answer someone wants applies totally to remain voters and Clinton supporters.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

No, it wasn't. It was directed at the media hysteria (and the deafening silence of HMG) which followed the result, and which does seem to have coloured your view.

How about: it was pretty well known what the result would be because it was pretty clear what the law said?

To give comfort or credence to those who sling mud at the judiciary, with absolutely no evidence, is to support them, imo.

It's exactly what Trump is doing with his 'Lying media' claims. One of the few independent institutions that could challenge him is directly under attack, precisely so that they will be discredited when his failings are pointed out.

To suggest that it is reasonable to assume the British judiciary is not impartial (without providing compelling evidence of the fact) is, imo, to undermine one of the cornerstones of its democracy.

MrsGrey

HoC debating the Bill at the moment.

In the absence of an effective Opposition, Ken Clarke is having to do all the work himself. ;lol ;bowdown

TheMadcapLaughs

I`ve always liked Ken Clarke. Seems courteous, intelligent, fair, level headed and has that mischievous twinkle in his eye. ;ok

claretandbluesky

This discussion about the BMA guidelines is an example of how in this day and age of everyone being able to publish news via social media can distort perceptions. Whilst I am not suggestion for one moment that you would post such a thing on Facebook Thorn you can see that if someone did post the following:

For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.


It could be spread via facebook very quickly and before you knew it taken as fact by many people who were not able or willing to verify the accuracy. It used to be limited to the Sun printing stories about Bananas needing to have a certain degree of curve as a way of suggesting 'look at these looney Europeans' but now everyone can publish anything. I think Mark Zuckerburg will make fake news a priority as it really does undermine democracy as the information published influences how people vote.

NEoldiron

claretandblue hear, hear. It's why brexiteers got the majority ;angry