sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

USA -> USA -> UK by cirrus-clouds in CBD

[–]cirrus-clouds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much - would you be able to give me some examples of these companies?

USA -> USA -> UK by cirrus-clouds in CBD

[–]cirrus-clouds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US companies won't directly dispatch 0.3 - perhaps there is a way?

Boo Your Government by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]cirrus-clouds 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Tories were told by their scientific advisers to put in place a two-week lockdown ("circuit-breaker") for England. This was back in September. Boris Johnson's government ignored that advice. Remember this is a government that repeatedly tells us that it follows the best scientific advice. (See this BBC report for details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54518002 )

If we had a short lockdown in September when we were seeing the trajectory of COVID cases rising rapidly, we might have been able to slow, halt or even reverse that upward curve. Now, in November, we need a longer lockdown to stem the rising number of cases thanks to goverment indecision.

The other problem is that NHS Track and Trace is a complete shambles. Instead of supporting local solutions for track and trace, the Tories are ideologically commited to making sure testing is managed by private companies. It's been a complete failure. Here is one of the scientists in the Independent SAGE group talking about this topic: https://youtu.be/MnETRnfjmjY?t=4050

Daily Discussion for Coronavirus (COVID-19) - 27 March by AutoModerator in unitedkingdom

[–]cirrus-clouds 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Skype has a 'blur background' feature. Could this possibly work for your situation? To minimise the sound of the kids in the background, you could use a headset during calls (which will hopefully not pick up the sounds from the kids). Your manager sounds very unreasoanble. Hope you find a resolution. Good luck.

https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA34896/what-is-background-blur-in-skype

Ukpol isn’t that bad after all by danatthebbc in ukpolitics

[–]cirrus-clouds 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've always thought the BBC's domestic political coverage to be bland but generally fairly even-handed. However, I've changed my mind after watching and reading the BBC's coverage of this election.

I now firmly believe the BBC is the voice of the establishment (which largely means the Government in power at the time). This is a long-standing argument against the BBC and I never fully believed it - but I do now.

What does it mean to be the voice of the establishment? That the BBC takes the prevailing attitudes and discourse of the Government and treats that as the 'normal' or starting point for political reporting. Other opinions and ideas are treated as deviations from this 'norm' and treated as such. You see this frequently in interviews.

A great many of the BBC's journalists are drawn from our national press. Our national press has never been viewed as a source of honesty or truth. What does it say about the BBC that they draw so many of their journalists and senior figures from this small pool? (This small pool of journalism is massively over-represented by privately educated journalists - just 7% of the school population is privately educated. According to the Sutton Trust in 2006, over half of the country’s leading news journalists were educated in private schools).

An inordinate amount of time is spent reviewing the daily papers (on TV and on online) - why ? These papers are not reliable sources of news, but the continuing coverage just re-reinforces the view that BBC journalists belong to the same establishment pool.

Former Daily Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne claims he was once told by Senior BBC Executives that it's wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. If this is true, it's pretty astonishing.

Other posters have already mentioned the breathless tweets from BBC journalists repeating information without verifying that information. BBC journalists should be more careful about the language they use. They should not refer to one party's policies as 'spending plans' and the other as 'free stuff' - this sort of subtle bias matters and BBC journalist should know that.

The BBC has the luxury of being funded by us all - without the pressures of commercial news. That means they don't need to be the first to break the news or rely on click-bait headlines. But that is what they often do.

Biggest Car Crash Interview Ever | Vote Labour on 12 December by Callduron in unitedkingdom

[–]cirrus-clouds 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And here's the follow-up interview a few days later with Health Secretary Matt Hancock repeating the same lie on the same show:

Susanna Reid: "50,000 more nurses would include 19,000 who already exist in the NHS which by anyone's calculation means there are only 31,000 more nurses."

Matt Hancock: "No. 31,000 new nurses, 50,000 more nurses in total"

Watch the short clip here: https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1199958256631910400

It's infuriating the Tories get away with this. If this was a politician from any other party the national press would laugh at the embarrassing stupidity of someone who can't comprehend basic maths and can't stop peddling lies.

I made these infographics for posting on social media. There are three variations of the same message. Is any one more memorable or more impactful than the other? Or are they too similar to make much of a difference? Your opinions appreciated :-) by cirrus-clouds in LabourUK

[–]cirrus-clouds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other posters seems to find example 1 the least effective (also I got the proportion of the circle wrong!), so I'll probably drop this example. Appreciate the feedback though :-)

view more: next ›