Yep. we have crumpets.
and Strong British Tea.
Yep. we have crumpets.
and Strong British Tea.
There was lies and misinformation on both sides and on this occasion I am not being selective.
Leavers didn't like the threat of an emergency budget or an immediate recession.
Remainers didn't like the big red bus or this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkQt4d5sg
A plague on all their houses, eh?
But wouldn't it be good if what we were being told was scrutinised so that we could have greater confidence in what we are being told?
Sinkov, I think we agree here actually!
No way should this have to be done by private individuals - companies are not allowed to sell us stuff that have been incorrectly described, and I'm sure we all agree that is right. So why can politicians, who aspire to run the country by collecting and spending OUR money, be exempt from telling us the truth?
I agree, it is the means of punishing them that needs sorting. But letting them get away with it and picking up a fat cheque every month for the next five years just won't work.
.
What is the truth 59 ? It turned out Boris was lying about the £350k, the actual figure that year was more, but it hadn't been published at the time, or he could have quoted the higher figure and been more accurate. But was he lying ? Was he lying when he said we sent them that money, when he knew we took the refunds and rebates out first ? Maybe, or was he just emphasising the point that we send them eyewatering amounts of money every week in an acceptable way ? Isn't it all just semantics anyway ?
David Mellor was on last week, he was saying that Brexiteers had lied, we hadn't got £350k extra for the NHS. In one respect he's right, we haven't, but how could we have, we haven't left the EU yet, so of course we haven't. He was telling the truth and being misleading at the same time. Should he have his collar felt ? Two days before the referendum Guardian journo Zoe Williams was on the DP, she said quite categorically that 'No Immigration' was the Leave policy. Totally incorrect, even UKIP were proposing a points based system like in Australia, no one on the leave side was advocating a total ban. Did she deliberately lie, or was she just over exuberant, a bit like Boris can be ? Should she have had her collar felt and have to explain herself in a court of law ? I could go on with this sort of stuff all night 59, what you are proposing is completely unworkable, politicians and political journalists are making debatable, dubious claims by the hundred every day, the courts would be swamped, overwhelmed, it couldn't possibly work. And politics is supposed to be the art of the possible isn't it ?
The public aren't fools 59, they know the game politicians play, you, me and them take everything politicians say with a huge pinch of salt. If I can see through them, so can everyone else, keep the law out of it, leave it to us. The EU elections last week showed what happens to politicians and political parties who lie and take us for fools. We obliterate them, we don't need judges.
Last edited by sinkov; 30-05-2019 at 10:10 PM.
We could have a very pleasant two hours in the pub 59, and I guarantee neither of us would have budged an inch in our views. I doubt we would if they locked us in for a week. Problem is we both know we're right don't we.
Is the Tap that micro pub down by the crossing ? No quiz on, but it was Steak Night, good value indeed.
I actually agree with most of that Sinkov.
But I still feel that there should be some form of mechanism for correcting untruths during an election campaign. A lot of people, who take a peripheral interest in politics, are swayed by eye catching sound bites on issues on which they have strong views.
Some kind of fact checking watchdog should do the trick. If someone comes out with a big blatant lie then they must quickly retract their statement.
I can see problems...the watchdog would need to be seen to be politically neutral, which would be difficult.
I agree that the courts are not the right way of doing it (except in extreme cases). It is too long winded and the result of the case would not be heard until after the election. It is too expensive, and it would be open to people making damaging accusations for political ends.
But if no action at all is taken then how can we really trust what anyone is saying?
When the expense scandal broke literally hundreds of MP's were found to be in breach of the laws. Since the politicians realised the damage caused to their reputations they started behaving themselves.
I think the same would happen with lying. Once they realised that if they lied they would be outed and publicly shamed they would think twice.
And we could all have more confidence in them.
Alas, it won't happen and people who are interested in the facts, like us, will have to do the fact checking. But we are in a minority Sinkov. Most people just hear snippets of speeches and many are swayed by the dog whistle sound bites.
The pub idea is a good one. Better make sure it is a rough one though so we don't do too much damage when the glasses start getting chucked about
Yes, the Tap in Hest Bank is down at the railway crossing and it is called...The Crossing. I enjoyed a pint of their Strawberry Blonde last evening.
I think that the quiz night at the Hest Bank Hotel is on Thursday nights now I think about it.
It sounds like you are having a great time. Pity the weather hasn't been the best. We regularly take the dog for a walk down the canal between Lancaster and Carnforth (not all at once)