Bob The Badger

Been plenty of coverage of the Dutch demonstrations.

I wonder if it's because they got violent and there were more people involved?

But if there is a conspiracy to quieten down that side of the argument why cover it at all?

It would be easy to ignore an overseas story.

1 hour ago, Archied said:

And the me and my strong anti bbc strong feelings thing ? 
gloss over that or admit you were once again attributing stuff to me that you’ve actually just made up ,, 

my bet will be the former?

You said this when we were talking about the BBC:

This has been a big problem from day. 1,, when you have censorship of debate there’s a problem and there’s lots of well qualified science and medical based views being silenced 

I'd say accusing an organisation of censoring debate and silencing qualified science as having a fairly strong opinion.

48 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

On how the Governments manipulate/use the media for their own agenda, And how the media are happy to facilitate the Government of the day...we're pawns in a very BIG game

Or as Brian London said to (I think) Harry Carpenter when asked if he would fight Cassius Clay 'I dunno Harry, I'm just a prawn in the game'

15 minutes ago, Archied said:

????, think you’re looking foolish and mixing me up with someone else , ive not posted anything strong regards bbc ,in fact I would be interested to see if you can find any post s I’ve made regards the bbc certainly not anywhere close to indicating any stron feelings on the bbc , awaiting you showing these posts with my strong anti bbc feelings??‍♂️ ( making up what people say and think again)

nope , I work for a living ,, not a great sleeper , kids grown up , don’t do Twitter or any other social media ,don’t do pubs so perhaps I do have some spare time to read and post on here , no bad thing for the site clicks I expect ,

the spreadsheet thing was not serious as I don’t believe anybody could be ludicrous enough to expect that kind of record of anybody s viewing stats , don’t bother with the tenner I’m ok for money thanks?

Sorry, I thought you were maybe going to set up a Google Sheet and invite everybody in the group to view it in real time.

I do feel foolish now.

I trusted you.

But we can rectify things because I'm actually a bit short of cash at the mo, so seeing as I offered you a tenner, how about you do the decent thing and offer me one too?

I'd not insult you by saying no, I promise.

8 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

As a very late comer to this thread I find it very fascinating on views, Propaganda, Conspiracy, False reporting either favourable or not in the media, I understand all who post which doesn't mean I agree, We live in a diverse sociaty/country with a multitude of views that we can post or discuss to an extent in public.

As to your post above, I stopped watching any news programes this last couple of years, I was an avid viewer of the BBCs question time until I found out that those who wanted to be in the audience were vetted for political purposes especially leading upto and including Brexit.

Are the Government and MPs being truthfull with us?...I doubt it, Are multi national companys in it for money?, I'm pretty sure all western countrys are the same with their citizens, You'll always get a % of those citizens that want to pick a fight, The fight today is either climate change or covid-19.

As an older citizen now that fought in the 80s for the miners cause and against Thatcherism...what we have now is a spin off from those days only the weapon of choice is the internet...imo

I'm honestly not sure what the last bit means.

FWIW, I was a Thatcher supporter at the time.

Something that deeply pains me to say now.

In my defence I came from a strong Tory household and hadn't worked out I could think for myself.

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

Thanks ,, will start keeping a spreadsheet to post in future , if it’s better for you I can only say I’m not chained to one source of information without a recorded log to back it up ,, do I need signed independent verification of said log? ?

You seem to have a very strong opinion of the BBC, so I presumed you must listen to it a lot, otherwise what do you base such a strong opinion on, Daily Express articles or an inherent bias? Of course you don't!

But if you listen/watch the BBC a lot there must be multiple other sources that equally you listen to and watch a lot seeing as you're so eclectic and not chained to any one source.

Aaaand you're in here a lot.

And presumably you occasionally sleep and spend time with your family (I'm guessing you must be retired to have so much time on your hands), so it just made me curious.

When can you share your first spreadsheet?

Give it a week or so, and if you want to start a whip round to pay for a VA to construct something so complex I'll throw a tenner in.

 

5 hours ago, Archied said:

I listen to and watch the bbc pretty much as much as other channels and sources 

I see.

So you watch one channel (amount unknown) the same amount as some other channels (number unknown) and some sources (number unknown) .

Interesting.

Veeeery interesting.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm definitely much clearer now as you seem to have a grasp on things.

1 hour ago, Archied said:

This has been a big problem from day. 1,, when you have censorship of debate there’s a problem and there’s lots of well qualified science and medical based views being silenced 

How much do you listen to the BBC?

They may interview people from one side, but they pretty much never have a one-sided debate.

The big problem is in your mind, at least with BBC Radio 5 and 4 which are all I listen to tbf.

I think it's outrageous that people say the media are overhyping Covid or suggesting that it's being held responsible for deaths that it had nothing to do with.

14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Question is why didn't BBC get a scientist on the show with an opposing view , not a layperson? Was it maybe planned to make the layperson look like a layperson who didnt know what she was talking about?

Maybe they couldn't find an actual scientist with an opposing view and they wanted a balanced debate?

And she was no thickee, I *think* she worked on a school advisory board, or something like that. She worked in education, she just wasn't a scientist per se.

I rarely watch the BBC, but I listen to a fair bit of 5 Live and they are super balanced.

They ran an interview this morning where the presenter asked some virology professor if omicron could possibly be less severe, but still replace delta as the main variant and thus be a good thing in the long run <gasp>

The Professor said that was a definite possibility, but they just don't know yet.

Both sides whine at the BBC and whereas you can tell what the presenters think a lot of the time, they clearly go balls to the wall in balancing debates. 

8 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I didn’t hear the debate but it seems bizarre to me that wearing a mask for the relatively brief period of our week that we’re in a shop is either psychologically damaging or dehumanising. Perhaps she, and others, are taking this so called research out of context and to wear masks 24/7 is both of those things.

Sorry mate and to @Archied too because I just reread what I wrote and I wasn't at all clear, in fact, just the opposite. They were talking about kids wearing masks in school being psychologically damaging.

9 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

I'm a humble man, quoting myself.

But, I was thinking about this later and I think this is a REALLY important point that rarely gets mentioned.

On the one side of the 5 Live debate which was about kids being told to wear masks in schools (sorry I didn't. make this clear) was a scientist who conducts research and has access to a poo load of it and is involved in peer reviews.

On the other, was a woman who wasn't a scientist quoting one paper (albeit it from a prestigious University, Brown),  with no context and being incredibly vague.

Laypeople will often see science as being split if they hear one person with any science training taking a contrary stand.

Or read a snippet of any report that suggests a different way of looking at things.

And that is totally understandable.

But it's not at all what it means.

For example, I have heard people (way too many times) claim that science is split on the law of attraction and its relationship to quantum mechanics because a quack like Deepak Chopra who happens to be a trained endocrinologist and MD links the two.

I bet most people in here have heard that a glass of red wine is good for the heart because when the research that suggested this was published it hit most of the peoplers

ZERO alcohol is what's good for the heart, because alcohol is a poison and a carcinogenic.

However, there are some anti-oxidants in red wine that can be beneficial that come from the grape skins.

The fact that you can get the same effect from a few blueberries or handful of walnuts doesn't make good reading so the journalists reported on one tiny element and people who love a glass of wine (like me) latched on to that.

The reality is, because of the internet, you will always find people with contrary opinions if you go looking for them on almost any topic.

But, it's probably not wise to go looking for information to support your point of view, but instead, and to to paraphrase @Archied

Follow the science. 

3 hours ago, Archied said:

I believe being forced to wear one is dehumanising , I believe they are so damaging to our children psychologically instilling  fear of other humans into them ( the change in them has been horrible to see ) , I believe they are divisive in society ,I believe they give a false sense of security,I believe we are going to be swamped with billions of them in land fills , in rivers , in the sea ,

if it was a serious thing and not theatre mask spec would be stipulated and poss provided by government and proper bio bins situated in our towns and cities for them if disposable,, the silly pants on your head posts over the last few days actually aren’t so silly because I would be welcomed on a train, bus or in a shop if I put a pair of pants on my head ??‍♂️
pure theatre and I’m stunned people fall for it the negatives far outweigh any minuscule effect they only might have ,, folks this virus is airborne, I’ll fitting bits of paper , scarves , snoods ,pants ,on and off in and out of pockets is useless theatre , 

the least sinister explanation I can see is government s desperately needed if to look like they are doing something 

I heard an interesting debate on 5 Live today driving into Truro on Naga Munchetty's show. A woman was saying the exact same thing as you, that it was dehumanising and that there was research to support the belief that it was psychologically damaging and that science was split on the topic.

Then Naga went to the other woman, a scientist who works in this field who said that was absolutely nonsense and science was no longer split and that she should stop sharing disinformation.

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

Then I pulled into the car park and I had to get out, so no idea if a fight broke out but I suspect it did.

Wearing masks doesn't bother me in the slightest although maybe it would if I worked in a shop.

I think there's a significant difference between popping one on to go into a shop for 10 or 15 minutes (which I never stopped doing at the behest of the wife) and wearing one all day.

I went into Marks earlier today and forgot to take mine back off until I'd got back into my car and noticed it in the rear view mirror.

So I'm curious to know, for most people who are unhappy in here and presuming you don't have to wear one all day at work, is it a point of principle, a comfort thing, or a combination of the two?

And I think believing they offer no benefit fits into the principle part.

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Why are you refusing to answer a simple question? Come on man. Explain your repeated phrase of ‘follow the money’... 

Calling me naive, privileged and out of touch. I’m obviously missing something here. 

I think there is clearly a lot of people eating from the Covid trough and getting very fat.

But, I think that's merely a correlation.

In any time of crisis opportunists will take advantage and corrupt politicians and business people will use the situation to line their own pockets.

However, I don't think Government decisions like reintroducing the mask mandate has got anything to do with money, that just softens the blow for them.

The last thing Johnson wants to have to do is tell people to start wearing masks again at the moment.

Anybody who thinks this entire thing can be explained just by following the money, and I'm not suggesting @Archied is saying that, I honestly doubt it but there are dozens of pages in this thread I haven't read, probably worries about falling off the edge of the world.

@G STAR RAM telling me I'm pig headed properly gave me a laugh.

Also, it finally being warmer in Cornwall than Derbyshire.

I had no clue before I moved here a year ago that until you get into late autumn Matlock's average temperature is significantly higher than where we are in Cornwall.

But this is the time of the year it tips, so happy not to be dealing with snow.

I think last winter I used a de-icer on my car 3, maybe 4 times.

On 27/11/2021 at 00:01, uttoxram75 said:

It'll be a bit fresh Monday night I believe. Might have to resort to the hip flask.

You'll never fit inside a hip flask.

In all seriousness though, whereas alcohol increases body temperature for a very short period, it then causes more blood to flow to the skin and lowers it.

A small oil-fired radiator is a more sensible option.

Fnar fnar 

8 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

I watched this and instantly thought of a poster on here ?

 

TBF, this was his daughter.

I know I'm only talking to the half of people in this thread that believe in science and that accept there are people more knowledgable than they are.

But the irony is, that if all the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers hadn't been anti-mask and anti-vaxx they wouldn't be whining about having to wear a mask now because there would be no need.

The new variant is here in this country, in large part, because of people who refused to wear masks and have the vaccine.

Dr. Fauci said as soon as the vaccine came out that if we cannot get at least 80%, preferably 90% of people to get vaccinated then it would just mutate.

No doubt that was all part of the great conspiracy.

And yes, I recognise that if they'd not been whining then they wouldn't be whining now, but you get my gist.

Brilliant thread on Twitter 

30 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I get it, and I agree that the media will hype the bad news as it sells papers. Its the old "man bites dog" is news, "dog bites man" isn't. I don't know what this variant will be like in the long run, nobody does. Let's wait and see how it goes, hope our government starts to lead people with sensible mandates for the public to follow and wait for the scientists to tell us what they discover when they analyse all the data. I will not believe the press or the government before that happens. 

Which man bit a dog?

Please cite your sources because I heard 98% of men almost never bite a dog.