OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

No , like swearing and name-calling you use that analogy to makeup for your failure to make your case in other ways. Fine with the swearing and name calling but stop with the Hitler stuff. Just for fairness, the same message will be given to TTR if/when he enters the same area

But the comparison with conditions being similar now to those which saw the rise of Hitler in Germany in the thirties is reasonable, AF and let’s face it...Swale has been right more often than he’s been wrong as far as his projections and observations about the impact of Brexit are concerned.
Not sure how swearing and name calling are ‘fine’ but making an objective comparison between today’s economic conditions and those which led to Hitler’s rise to power is verboten.

Seems a bit ‘half baked’ to me and before the usual suspects start bleating about me defending Swale...I’m not...it’s just common sense...you hammer him, quite reasonably, for swearing and name calling, but now say ‘fine with the swearing and name calling’ but hammer him instead for his perfectly reasonable, imo, argument about today’s political and economic conditions.

[swaledale]

No , like swearing and name-calling you use that analogy to makeup for your failure to make your case in other ways. Fine with the swearing and name calling but stop with the Hitler stuff. Just for fairness, the same message will be given to TTR if/when he enters the same area

Oh please, I realise that your level of understanding is low, failure to make my case, WTF are you on about - I mean this from the guy who gets his panties in a bunch about a supposed over representation of ethnic minority people in the media FFS! I can se why the Hitler analogy would make you uncomfortable, I can see quite clearly that you would be one of the "good" Germans.

So you can't see any sort of parallel between the right wing authoritarian governments, that trump led in the uS, that hold sway in Poland and Hungary, Brazil the right wing popularity in France and Italy and the increasingly bizarre far right pronouncements coming from the conservatives with the playbook that Hitler used in the 1930's?

So lets loo at some of the more recent pronouncements shall we.

Legislation to stop protests, threat of more legislation to stop the likes of extinction rebellion, yet no recognition that they might just have a point?

Threatened legislation against those who "vilify" the country, whatever that means.

Threats against the national independent broadcaster, simply because they think its not supportive of them

Threats to further tighten laws against Unions - despite having the strongest laws in Europe

Demonization of ethnic minorities and threats to do away with diversity and equality laws

Threats to abandon membership and adherence to the European Court of Human rights

Attacks on the judiciary and lawyers for simply upholding the law or holding the government to account.

A willingness to break international treaties and international law

An increasing isolationist tendency blaming other countries for the problems the UK government has created

Telling outright lies, then doubling down on those lies when challenged.

Breaking rules set by the government, ignoring standards of behaviour and respect for institutions

I could go on, but I suggest you read a bit of history and see what Hitler did in the 1930's.

If you truly think that my analogy of Hitler is a failed argument, then for one I'm in good company because far more erudite and experienced commentators than I, can see the parallels and for two, you simply are as dim as I think you are.

[swaledale]

But the comparison with conditions being similar now to those which saw the rise of Hitler in Germany in the thirties is reasonable, AF and let’s face it...Swale has been right more often than he’s been wrong as far as his projections and observations about the impact of Brexit are concerned.
Not sure how swearing and name calling are ‘fine’ but making an objective comparison between today’s economic conditions and those which led to Hitler’s rise to power is verboten.

Seems a bit ‘half baked’ to me and before the usual suspects start bleating about me defending Swale...I’m not...it’s just common sense...you hammer him, quite reasonably, for swearing and name calling, but now say ‘fine with the swearing and name calling’ but hammer him instead for his perfectly reasonable, imo, argument about today’s political and economic conditions.

I regret rA that Faber has lost it, not that I ever think he had it - perhaps the analogy is rather to close for comfort, this after all is the guy who is constantly posting about how there are too many ethnic minorities in the media for his liking - then whoops with joy when some research shows that now, there may well be 4% more than are a proportion of the population!! I mean wowie zowie, so what? if they can do their job who gives a flying **** what colour, *** etc. a person is?

[Andy_Faber]

I regret rA that Faber has lost it, not that I ever think he had it - perhaps the analogy is rather to close for comfort, this after all is the guy who is constantly posting about how there are too many ethnic minorities in the media for his liking - then whoops with joy when some research shows that now, there may well be 4% more than are a proportion of the population!! I mean wowie zowie, so what? if they can do their job who gives a flying **** what colour, *** etc. a person is?

Thanks for admitting here you were wrong, saved me rooting round for the post in question

[Andy_Faber]

But the comparison with conditions being similar now to those which saw the rise of Hitler in Germany in the thirties is reasonable, AF and let’s face it...Swale has been right more often than he’s been wrong as far as his projections and observations about the impact of Brexit are concerned.
Not sure how swearing and name calling are ‘fine’ but making an objective comparison between today’s economic conditions and those which led to Hitler’s rise to power is verboten.

Seems a bit ‘half baked’ to me and before the usual suspects start bleating about me defending Swale...I’m not...it’s just common sense...you hammer him, quite reasonably, for swearing and name calling, but now say ‘fine with the swearing and name calling’ but hammer him instead for his perfectly reasonable, imo, argument about today’s political and economic conditions.

Thanks for agreeing on the swearing and name calling bit, it’s only ‘fine’ in that it’s so chronic it has passed into forum folklore and reflects on the perpetrator not the targets. Excuse my clumsy use of words, for ‘fine’ read ‘not being discussed here’

Don’t agree at all on the other issue, in fact I wouldn’t if it was a one off but it’s not, it’s a repeated cheap shot in appalling taste and I’m surprised at you falling for it

[ramAnag]

Thanks for agreeing on the swearing and name calling bit, it’s only ‘fine’ in that it’s so chronic it has passed into forum folklore and reflects on the perpetrator not the targets. Excuse my clumsy use of words, for ‘fine’ read ‘not being discussed here’

Don’t agree at all on the other issue, in fact I wouldn’t if it was a one off but it’s not, it’s a repeated cheap shot in appalling taste and I’m surprised at you falling for it

Not ‘falling for anything’, AF. If you can’t see the sense of what Swale has written in post #8212 that’s your problem.
I agree with the vast majority of it. Not sure where ‘taste’ comes into it and I honestly have no idea what your point is in #8214.

[swaledale]

Thanks for admitting here you were wrong, saved me rooting round for the post in question

Oh really? Your classing that as me admitting I was wrong? Sorry but you really are stupid I did not admit to being wrong, for the simple reason I wasn't. It is as I thought only in your own rather simple head that you have been "proven" right.

First my point (as you very well know) was why the **** are you so concerned about this issue? Why do you get your panties in a bunch about something that is actually not an issue? I guess its because in your own words your "broadly non racist" - which rather translates into being racist but smart enough to keep quiet about it.

Secondly and I pointed this out, there is no way in reality that you through casual observation of the broadcast media and drama have made an accurate assessment, when the figures showed a 4% over representation - I mean if it had been say 20% over representation then you would have been able to claim you were right, but 4% over, come on only a fool would think that significant. 4% is so statistically small that claiming it is over representation is not just splitting hairs, but looking suspiciously like somebody whose grasp on reality is tenuous to say the least or somebody who has made a nonsensical claim and is now desperate to appear credible.

Of course as you were so eager to milk a statistical chance that seemed to support your view, you dismissed the points I had made. But then thats your general approach when challenged on some of your more esoteric opinions, either ignore or simply disappear and never address the issue.

Still even you as an accountant (apparently, though I do wonder) must recognise that, 29% of people being from an ethnic background in the broadcast media as against 24% in society is hardly over representation.

What the **** this has to do with your claim that my Hitler analogy was wrong and I'd admitted it, I don't know. Oh I've noticed that rather than address the matter being debated, you have chosen to cite this as if it were some great feat of judgement on your part.

Toodle pip pops, I have had more intelligent conversation with a child of primary school age than yourself.

[Andy_Faber]

Oh really? Your classing that as me admitting I was wrong? Sorry but you really are stupid I did not admit to being wrong, for the simple reason I wasn't. It is as I thought only in your own rather simple head that you have been "proven" right.

First my point (as you very well know) was why the **** are you so concerned about this issue? Why do you get your panties in a bunch about something that is actually not an issue? I guess its because in your own words your "broadly non racist" - which rather translates into being racist but smart enough to keep quiet about it.

Secondly and I pointed this out, there is no way in reality that you through casual observation of the broadcast media and drama have made an accurate assessment, when the figures showed a 4% over representation - I mean if it had been say 20% over representation then you would have been able to claim you were right, but 4% over, come on only a fool would think that significant. 4% is so statistically small that claiming it is over representation is not just splitting hairs, but looking suspiciously like somebody whose grasp on reality is tenuous to say the least or somebody who has made a nonsensical claim and is now desperate to appear credible.

Of course as you were so eager to milk a statistical chance that seemed to support your view, you dismissed the points I had made. But then thats your general approach when challenged on some of your more esoteric opinions, either ignore or simply disappear and never address the issue.

Still even you as an accountant (apparently, though I do wonder) must recognise that, 29% of people being from an ethnic background in the broadcast media as against 24% in society is hardly over representation.

What the **** this has to do with your claim that my Hitler analogy was wrong and I'd admitted it, I don't know. Oh I've noticed that rather than address the matter being debated, you have chosen to cite this as if it were some great feat of judgement on your part.

Toodle pip pops, I have had more intelligent conversation with a child of primary school age than yourself.

I’ll just repeat, I’ve got under your skin with this. Now Give it a rest

[Geoff Parkstone]

"Still even you as an accountant (apparently, though I do wonder) must recognise that, 29% of people being from an ethnic background in the broadcast media as against 24% in society is hardly over representation."

As an accountant I can confirm it's a shade over 20% over representation, or, as it were, representation plus VAT.

Not a trivial sum

[swaledale]

Not ‘falling for anything’, AF. If you can’t see the sense of what Swale has written in post #8212 that’s your problem.
I agree with the vast majority of it. Not sure where ‘taste’ comes into it and I honestly have no idea what your point is in #8214.

His point, which has nothing to do with my Hitler analogy, though he said it was. Is that he has constantly made, (in my opinion in poor taste and bordering on racist) a whinge about there being a supposed over representation of people from an ethnic background in the broadcast media - I queried why it was such an issue for him, It certainly isn't something that has bothered me, but then maybe my world is rather wider than his! I also queried to what extent his perception was true - my main point (which he ignores) was what's the issue here and why does it concern him so much? (I'm guessing he may have been reading about the great replacement theory and is worrying his days are numbered?).

Anyway lo and behold there was some research published which showed that 29% of people in the broadcast media were from an ethnic background, as against 24% in the population generally. My view is so what is hardly significant is it? But clearly for AF he needs to grasp onto any evidence that supports his view, however weak it might be. But that is accountants for you, look at the figures and ignore the context!!

Apparently that means that any of my criticism or points about his whinge are invalid because he was right all along! It must be frightening being him, worrying about a 4% "bias"!!