Having a go at the wrong person/people.

dejongj said:
There is a big difference between say forensic evidence and standing up to academic scrutiny, versus a dubious source. Mistakes get made but they cannot just print full untruths. Editors will require something to corroborate the story.
Click to expand...
Someone really should tell our newspaper editors that. Because as you can see from several examples above, they don't just print lies, they knowingly do so. Because we have no press regulation worthy of the name.

And that's actual lies, this story isn't quite there, its the usual DM trick of carefully worded ambiguous exaggeration and misinformation.

It'd be nice if our newspapers were limited to printing the truth, but I don't think it's ever been the case. Broadcasters are held to a higher standard, but even then there are plenty of 'errors' ;)
 
Phil V said:
Someone really should tell our newspaper editors that. Because as you can see from several examples above, they don't just print lies, they knowingly do so. Because we have no press regulation worthy of the name.

And that's actual lies, this story isn't quite there, its the usual DM trick of carefully worded ambiguous exaggeration and misinformation.

It'd be nice if our newspapers were limited to printing the truth, but I don't think it's ever been the case. Broadcasters are held to a higher standard, but even then there are plenty of 'errors' ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sure they are aware, as are the colleges and universities and the regulators.

We only hear about the stuff where it goes wrong, and don't where it doesn't. Naturally where ever people work mistakes happen, hey not everyone is as good as the members of TP OOF :) (y)

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html
 
Phil V said:
Someone really should tell our newspaper editors that. Because as you can see from several examples above, they don't just print lies, they knowingly do so. Because we have no press regulation worthy of the name.

And that's actual lies, this story isn't quite there, its the usual DM trick of carefully worded ambiguous exaggeration and misinformation.

It'd be nice if our newspapers were limited to printing the truth, but I don't think it's ever been the case. Broadcasters are held to a higher standard, but even then there are plenty of 'errors' ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sure they are aware, as are the colleges and universities and the regulators.

We only hear about the stuff where it goes wrong, and don't where it doesn't. Naturally where ever people work mistakes happen, hey not everyone is as good as the members of TP OOF :) (y)

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html
 
This reminds me of the Piers Morgan "incident" (when he was booted from the Mirror).

Ah, the glorious British tabloid press. :)
 
dejongj said:
I'm sure they are aware, as are the colleges and universities and the regulators.

We only hear about the stuff where it goes wrong, and don't where it doesn't. Naturally where ever people work mistakes happen, hey not everyone is as good as the members of TP OOF :) (y)

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but those really are rose tinted glasses. Our print press knowingly print lies, always have and it's because we can't settle on press regulation that'll allow them to work in the public interest and still stop them being complete tools. The sad thing is for every good 'public interest' story investigated there's a thousand pointless 'investigations' into celebrities who fancy a shag on the side.

You do understand that that new code of conduct is the one under which the Sun recently printed the story about Corbyn linked above? The story that the Times printed years ago and then was forced to print an apology for. You surely aren't suggesting that was an honest mistake? The same publisher printing the same lie twice and the second time well after the first lie was admitted and apologised for.

I do not believe for a second you're genuinely that naive.o_O
 
ZoneV said:
This reminds me of the Piers Morgan "incident" (when he was booted from the Mirror).

Ah, the glorious British tabloid press. :)
Click to expand...
That'd be the same Piers Morgan who when interviewed denied all knowledge of the McCartney phone hacking, despite the fact we've all heard a recording of him listening to it. That b*****d wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the throat.
 
Phil V said:
I'm sorry but those really are rose tinted glasses. Our print press knowingly print lies, always have and it's because we can't settle on press regulation that'll allow them to work in the public interest and still stop them being complete tools. The sad thing is for every good 'public interest' story investigated there's a thousand pointless 'investigations' into celebrities who fancy a shag on the side.

You do understand that that new code of conduct is the one under which the Sun recently printed the story about Corbyn linked above? The story that the Times printed years ago and then was forced to print an apology for. You surely aren't suggesting that was an honest mistake? The same publisher printing the same lie twice and the second time well after the first lie was admitted and apologised for.

I do not believe for a second you're genuinely that naive.o_O
Click to expand...
I also don't believe they are that "clever"

Look I am a positive cup is half full, rose tinted glasses type person. I give anyone the benefit of doubt and assume a positive intend first approach.

Ofcourse mistakes are made, ofcourse there is a level of wilful uncompliance. It happens in any industry and any walk of life. Doesn't mean all are bad and all are from a dubious source.

Let's get back to the context of where this comment by me was made. You agree it wasn't likely untrue, but written in let's say a rather creative way that demonstrate a certain bias. Of course that happens. All I am saying that that doesn't make the thousands of good uns all dubious.
 
Phil V said:
That'd be the same Piers Morgan who when interviewed denied all knowledge of the McCartney phone hacking, despite the fact we've all heard a recording of him listening to it. That b*****d wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the throat.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's the perfect personification of all that is wrong with the British tabloid press, isn't he?

IMO Jeremy Clarkson's only redeeming feature is that he once punched the slimy tart straight in the kisser. :D
 
dejongj said:
I also don't believe they are that "clever"

Look I am a positive cup is half full, rose tinted glasses type person. I give anyone the benefit of doubt and assume a positive intend first approach.

Ofcourse mistakes are made, ofcourse there is a level of wilful uncompliance. It happens in any industry and any walk of life. Doesn't mean all are bad and all are from a dubious source.

Let's get back to the context of where this comment by me was made. You agree it wasn't likely untrue, but written in let's say a rather creative way that demonstrate a certain bias. Of course that happens. All I am saying that that doesn't make the thousands of good uns all dubious.
Click to expand...

Another "edge case"?

I mean, Adolf Hitler wasn't all bad either was he? I heard he liked dogs.
 
ZoneV said:
Another "edge case"?

I mean, Adolf Hitler wasn't all bad either was he? I heard he liked dogs.
Click to expand...
Oh don't be stupid.
 
Getting back on topic (ish)
There's a programme on atm (the Mrs is recording it to watch later) about a Mum & her large brood living it up on benefits. Wonder what folk will think of her?

(I'm getting mi popcorn out shortly :) )
 
dejongj said:
I also don't believe they are that "clever"

Look I am a positive cup is half full, rose tinted glasses type person. I give anyone the benefit of doubt and assume a positive intend first approach.

Ofcourse mistakes are made, ofcourse there is a level of wilful uncompliance. It happens in any industry and any walk of life. Doesn't mean all are bad and all are from a dubious source.

Let's get back to the context of where this comment by me was made. You agree it wasn't likely untrue, but written in let's say a rather creative way that demonstrate a certain bias. Of course that happens. All I am saying that that doesn't make the thousands of good uns all dubious.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you believe our press might have just made a few mistakes?

Either News International are a lucky bunch of incompetents or they're completely dishonest. There's no middle ground - lets examine the facts.

Rebekah Brooks went from Editor of the NOTW to being head of News International during the time her staff were doing all sorts of illegal stuff (not up for negotiation some of them are still in Jail), right up to the point the NOTW (the best selling paper in the country) was closed costing the company millions. She was let go until the investigation into her was complete, there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction (I'm not saying she was guilty - you can decide). After the investigation she was put back in chargeo_O

So - either one of the richest media magnates in the world has a soft spot for her even though she's incompetent :thinking:, was out of control and lost him many millions :(. Or knowing exactly what happened he supports everything that she did to protect herself and him :sneaky:. You'd seriously choose incompetent? How many other senior managers of failed organisations walk straight back into a top job with the same company?

The Daily Mail article is a gnats cock from outright lying - but lets not forget the lies it knowingly told in the past. Labelling Ed Millibands dad an immigrant and enemy of the state - ignoring his war service and highly respected position (I know he was a lefty - it's neither illegal or unpatriotic). All the time brushing under the carpet the fact the founder of the DM was a fan of Moseley and Hitler. The same paper constantly makes up 'immigration' stories and is the typical source of shed loads of misinformation seen here and elsewhere regarding immigration, Islam, the EU and anyone else t doesn't like the look of.
 
I think its worth mentioning again how ironic this thread title is! People would rather stick the boot into a working single mother because of a dubious article in a newspaper we all know is nothing but a pot stirring piece of toilet paper, rather than take a look at the lies the PM has spoken on a matter that affects the poorer members of society.

A tip, if you see the words 'reportedly', 'claims', or, as used in the article the OP linked to, 'apparently', it is safe to think that the 'fact' that follows is anything but.

For further reading I recommend 'Flat Earth News', also take a look at 'One Rogue Reporter' a documentary by Richard Peppiat, ex-journalist the Daily Star. Please take your time to verify anything you read, especially from the Mail, as things are not always as they seem, as evidenced in this example.
 
Rapscallion said:
I think its worth mentioning again how ironic this thread title is! People would rather stick the boot into a working single mother because of a dubious article in a newspaper we all know is nothing but a pot stirring piece of toilet paper, rather than take a look at the lies the PM has spoken on a matter that affects the poorer members of society.
.
Click to expand...

while i agree - the thing that puzzles me is that if her business doesn't make a profit how is she paying any tax let alone enough for the tax credit to make a difference ?
 
You can claim tax credits even if you are self employed.
 
Phil V said:
I'm sorry but those really are rose tinted glasses. Our print press knowingly print lies, always have and it's because we can't settle on press regulation that'll allow them to work in the public interest and still stop them being complete tools. The sad thing is for every good 'public interest' story investigated there's a thousand pointless 'investigations' into celebrities who fancy a shag on the side.

You do understand that that new code of conduct is the one under which the Sun recently printed the story about Corbyn linked above? The story that the Times printed years ago and then was forced to print an apology for. You surely aren't suggesting that was an honest mistake? The same publisher printing the same lie twice and the second time well after the first lie was admitted and apologised for.

I do not believe for a second you're genuinely that naive.o_O
Click to expand...

Hum - related?
Rebekah Brooks returns as News Corp’s UK chief executive
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9fe5216-4d9d-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3p6naTaon
 
OldCarlos said:
You can claim tax credits even if you are self employed.
Click to expand...

indeed - but only if you are actually paying any tax to be credited against , according to the woman concerned her business isnt making any profit, so no profit = no tax = pointlessness of tax credits
 
Some people seem to think that tax credits are actually linked to tax, they're not. They're a low income benefit with a nice name.

In fact it's frustrating that they're managed by HMRC and they can't automatically react to earnings, resulting in needless over and under payments because they're so inflexible.

When you consider HMRC now give real time tax info to DWP so that earnings are automatically adjusted for Universal Credit, WTF have HMRC been playing at?
 
Phil V said:
Some people seem to think that tax credits are actually linked to tax, they're not. They're a low income benefit with a nice name.
?
Click to expand...

f*****g hell thats news to me - I always assumed they were a credit against tax paid , hence the name - if that's the case ignore my last three posts
 
big soft moose said:
f*****g hell thats news to me - I always assumed they were a credit against tax paid , hence the name - if that's the case ignore my last three posts
Click to expand...
You're not alone in this thread with that assumption. ;)
 
big soft moose said:
f*****g hell thats news to me - I always assumed they were a credit against tax paid , hence the name - if that's the case ignore my last three posts
Click to expand...

They should have been called TUBMEAT&P!SS (top up because my earnings are terrible & profit is seriously substandard)
 
OldCarlos said:
They should have been called TUBMEAT&P!SS (top up because my earnings are terrible & profit is seriously substandard)
Click to expand...
or SMSTTPWPUTT
Sod My Staff The Tax Payer Will Pick Up The Tab :p
 
Over the last couple of days I've seen the clip of Cameron denying that they'd do this in the TV debate. To be honest, if I was a tax credit recipient and Tory voter id be as angry as the woman on question time.

He didn't just say it wouldn't happen, he was emphatically denying the rumour that it would. Many papers were reporting the 'secret plan' and they were going out of their way to deny it.

I'm sure there'll be people who think he couldn't possibly have been lying, or that in the few months between there being no chance it would happen and the queens speech they'd had a genuine change of heart. But there are people who believe in fairies too, it doesn't make it likely.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I'm always slightly bewildered by people's shock when it becomes apparent that politicians have lied.
Click to expand...

I'm agree with you in the whole but this is a little more then just a little lie. This one is affecting a hell of a lot of people and will have a huge affect on there lives. He was quite public and open about not cutting them. A party for the working class... Yet he really has screwed them over.
 
eeyore said:
I'm agree with you in the whole but this is a little more then just a little lie. This one is affecting a hell of a lot of people and will have a huge affect on there lives. He was quite public and open about not cutting them. A party for the working class... Yet he really has screwed them over.
Click to expand...

Quite, but I didn't mean little lies (if there is such a thing)......this is not the first time a political party has done a complete U-turn, is it?
 
viv1969 said:
Quite, but I didn't mean little lies (if there is such a thing)......this is not the first time a political party has done a complete U-turn, is it?
Click to expand...

Nope and won't be the last. Though I'm sure they had quite as big effect on so many as this one.
(In recent times, I can't think of any UK based ones. I know the lib dems shafted the students and I'm sure labour did a few too. I'm sure someone will let me know tho ;) )

At the time he was quite public in saying it. And I know it would have been a massive vote winner with the less fortunate voters.

Obviously it's hard to work out was it all a lie back then or have things dramatically changed in 6 months...

I also find it interesting that the house of Lords were thinking of trying to stop it.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm always slightly bewildered by people's shock when it becomes apparent that politicians have lied.
Click to expand...

A bit like all the cuts they made in the beginning & telling us they'd have the country sorted during their 1st parliament? :rolleyes:
 
viv1969 said:
I'm always slightly bewildered by people's shock when it becomes apparent that politicians have lied.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders. We should be making a fuss over this type of thing, and this is one of the more blatant examples.
 
OldCarlos said:
A bit like all the cuts they made in the beginning & telling us they'd have the country sorted during their 1st parliament? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And yet here they are....back in power.
Who's to blame for that? ;)
 
OldCarlos said:
The folk they lied to.

Things like this are why politicians aren't trusted. (but are THEY bothered. nope!)
Click to expand...

Exactly, lied to time and time again but hey....let's give them another go!!!
Under gullible in the dictionary is say "also see voter" :LOL:
 
eeyore said:
I'm agree with you in the whole but this is a little more then just a little lie. This one is affecting a hell of a lot of people and will have a huge affect on there lives. He was quite public and open about not cutting them. A party for the working class... Yet he really has screwed them over.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but then he won't get voted in again if people are that bothered and it affects them so much so it will come back to bite.

To be fair, especially with this balancing the books thing, if all parties told us exactley what they would do and stuck with it we would probably not vote for anyone. Whatever they give within one hand they take away with the other. Too many hidden taxes and so on.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly, lied to time and time again but hey....let's give them another go!!!
Under gullible in the dictionary is say "also see voter" :LOL:
Click to expand...
When the alternative are a different bunch of (perceived) liars, thieves and hypocrites, it becomes Sophie's Choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top