It’s probably me @StrongestTeam and my naivety but I just don’t understand (well, not fully anyway) the essence of your post.
I don’t read newspapers. Maybe I should.
@micra said:
Well, today’s Gasroom debate and the Jenrick/Long-Bailey stories epitomise why I have (some would say irresponsibly) opted out of the debate. It is all so black and white and there seems to be no scope for seeing merit in anything the other party says or does.
@mooneyman said: @micra - Like you, I didn't vote for either of the two main parties but I did place a cross against the Green candidate merely as a token and meaningless protest against Boris and Corbyn.
Blame firmly lies with the Boris for not following WHO scientific advice and delaying lockdown which has tragically cost many thousands of avoidable extra deaths. Carrying on with Cheltenham races on its own must have resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
You place most culpability on those individuals who flock to beaches protests and parks. This with respect is unfair. All they have done is followed the likes of Professor Ferguson, Catherine Calderwood, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock and King Cummings in ignoring the lockdown regulations.
I agree @mooneyman with your second paragraph but to describe deaths from the Covid19 pandemic (as @drcongo did) as “mass murder” by the government really is beyond the pale.
I was out of order to suggest that irresponsible members of the public have been equally or more culpable for deaths than government’s incompetence but I was basing that on my expectation (having seen pictures of so many crowded streets, parks and beaches) that in due course, ignorance, irresponsibility and sheer selfishness would be largely responsible for the expected “spike”.
I strongly disagree with @Chris’s comment at 1.29pm. Just because the government has advised that people may go to parks and beaches doesn’t mean that they don’t need to observe well established sensible protocols. Nor does it make sense to me that the behaviour of one megalomaniacal government adviser and resulting loss of trust in the government’s advice should cause people to behave in ways that could easily compromise their health and, more importantly, the health of people who continue to behave in a cautious and responsible way.
There were no ifs, buts or maybes when the government made plenty of their decisions in their response to Covid, they were guaranteed to result in extra unnecessary deaths. The govt knew this and proceeded anyway, in many people's eyes that is the same as mass murder. I wouldn't go that far, but it's negligent manslaughter on the scale of 10,000s and they should be prosecuted.
A lot of the general public seem to think that our death toll was unavoidable and that we were just unlucky.... It wasn't and we weren't.
The social science and psychology around messaging and trust in a huge population is well established, the government knew that by letting Cummins off the hook it would cause a large number of people to ignore the rules, so again it wasn't chance that the govt undermined the rules and the population followed the rules less, it was a conscious decision by the government with a known outcome
The government's complete unwillingness to admit any fault or error (even on things that were "unlucky" ) in comparison to their willingness to put the boot into others (footballers, the public, protesters, nurses for using too much PPE?! Etc etc ) shows their complete self serviance, they care far more about staying in power than in thousands die
@micra said:
but to describe deaths from the Covid19 pandemic (as @drcongo did) as “mass murder” by the government really is beyond the pale.
Just to clarify, here I was specifically referring to their decision to knowingly move covid-positive patients from hospitals into care homes, ie: a conscious and deliberate decision to put a deadly disease into a confined space filled with the very people that are most likely to die from that disease. I don't know what else you could call that.
I can only speak from direct local experience. A friend of my wife (a retired nurse herself) is in charge of a local nursing home and she adamantly refused to admit patients who had been in hospital.
You are clearly more savvy than I am about the details of the government’s guidelines however and I defer to your judgment that mass murder has been committed. The whole situation is vastly complex and tragic and whatever decisions were made by this government or indeed would have been by any other that might have been in power in these horrible circumstances would have resulted in thousands of deaths. Sadly, it’s very much a classic no win situation.
The whole situation is vastly complex and tragic and whatever decisions were made by this government or indeed would have been by any other that might have been in power in these horrible circumstances would have resulted in thousands of deaths. Sadly, it’s very much a classic no win situation.
I'm sorry, but the narrative that they couldn't possibly have prevented the vast majority of the deaths just isn't true.
They could have (some countries have!) and they chose not to.
Some deaths were unavoidable, most deaths were as a direct result of the actions of this govt.
i work in novel technologies and science, some dangerous, if I decided to test something out in the riskiest way possible because of a cost saving, and ended up killing my colleagues, I would expect to be charged by the police, let alone lose my job. If you don't know all the facts around something, the rule is always safety first until you find out more that allows you to then relax precautions.
@micra said:
I think, on the strength of occasional extracts from the Daily Express that pop up on Google, that it must be one of the worst daily newspapers ever.
When I worked in a cuttings library in the 1980s @micra we cut news articles from broadsheets as follows The Times (traditionally the paper of record) followed by Torygraph (also best for sport) and the Gruniad, tabloids (mainly ignored for news of course), went Mail, Mirror, Sun, Star with the Excess skimmed as a last resort. My boss at the time (and no lefty) described the Express as a newspaper only in that it was on paper.
@micra said:
I think, on the strength of occasional extracts from the Daily Express that pop up on Google, that it must be one of the worst daily newspapers ever.
When I worked in a cuttings library in the 1980s @micra we cut news articles from broadsheets as follows The Times (traditionally the paper of record) followed by Torygraph (also best for sport) and the Gruniad, tabloids (mainly ignored for news of course), went Mail, Mirror, Sun, Star with the Excess skimmed as a last resort. My boss at the time (and no lefty) described the Express as a newspaper only in that it was on paper.
I should imagine the express was probably far better, atleast editorially, in the 80s than it is now. Having previously worked in support roles in the industry it's easy to underestimate how badly some of it has responded to the challenges brought on by new tech, with increased competition from hobbyists (I'd say the BFP struggles to keep up with the pace and detail on Wycombe for example that Chairboys Central or Paul Lewis can provide), from paid aggregators such as Google and people sharing specific items rather than a whole paper or website, and with the need to be loud or first sometimes outdoing the need to be good or even accurate.
Far fewer people have a paper delivered and they are desperately chasing £s, either by clickbait or "alliances" and sponsored pieces that can be shady.
There has also been a huge increase in spin and campaign management on a daily basis with preferred journalists and briefing prior to announcing policies, journos often seem to swap between their roles and press management roles with the people they are usually supposed to be investigating.
The BFP is completely stretched. You have to wonder if they'd invest more in sport (i.e. us) - if they'd be able to - were we to go up. Pop-ups asking for donations everywhere you go on their site these days.
The last time a read a newspaper on anything like a regular basis it was the spinoff from the Independent - the “i”. I am virtually impervious to political bias but, to me, it seemed like a good read, with well written and relatively short articles and news reports, easily handled tabloid format, 20p (?) a copy and, obviously a clincher for someone who, pre-senility, regularly completed the torygraph cryptic crosswords, a four clue version.
@micra said:
The last time a read a newspaper on anything like a regular basis it was the spinoff from the Independent - the “i”. I am virtually impervious to political bias but, to me, it seemed like a good read, with well written and relatively short articles and news reports, easily handled tabloid format, 20p (?) a copy and, obviously a clincher for someone who, pre-senility, regularly completed the torygraph cryptic crosswords, a four clue version.
@micra try a digital subscription to The Times, FT or Telegraph. The puzzles are excellent and I would also highly recommend reading the comments if any article is of particular interest. I am amazed at the depth of knowledge among the readership of these newspapers. Nothing like the Daily Mail, which gets a bit shouty.
Thanks @Username and @LX1. I’ll chew over the Times suggestion but, these days, everything takes ages and I find little time (or concentration) for reading.
Comments
It’s probably me @StrongestTeam and my naivety but I just don’t understand (well, not fully anyway) the essence of your post.
I don’t read newspapers. Maybe I should.
I think, on the strength of occasional extracts from the Daily Express that pop up on Google, that it must be one of the worst daily newspapers ever.
There were no ifs, buts or maybes when the government made plenty of their decisions in their response to Covid, they were guaranteed to result in extra unnecessary deaths. The govt knew this and proceeded anyway, in many people's eyes that is the same as mass murder. I wouldn't go that far, but it's negligent manslaughter on the scale of 10,000s and they should be prosecuted.
A lot of the general public seem to think that our death toll was unavoidable and that we were just unlucky.... It wasn't and we weren't.
The social science and psychology around messaging and trust in a huge population is well established, the government knew that by letting Cummins off the hook it would cause a large number of people to ignore the rules, so again it wasn't chance that the govt undermined the rules and the population followed the rules less, it was a conscious decision by the government with a known outcome
The government's complete unwillingness to admit any fault or error (even on things that were "unlucky" ) in comparison to their willingness to put the boot into others (footballers, the public, protesters, nurses for using too much PPE?! Etc etc ) shows their complete self serviance, they care far more about staying in power than in thousands die
Just to clarify, here I was specifically referring to their decision to knowingly move covid-positive patients from hospitals into care homes, ie: a conscious and deliberate decision to put a deadly disease into a confined space filled with the very people that are most likely to die from that disease. I don't know what else you could call that.
I can only speak from direct local experience. A friend of my wife (a retired nurse herself) is in charge of a local nursing home and she adamantly refused to admit patients who had been in hospital.
You are clearly more savvy than I am about the details of the government’s guidelines however and I defer to your judgment that mass murder has been committed. The whole situation is vastly complex and tragic and whatever decisions were made by this government or indeed would have been by any other that might have been in power in these horrible circumstances would have resulted in thousands of deaths. Sadly, it’s very much a classic no win situation.
I think this article from the ITV supports the doc's allegation @micra
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-28/itv-news-reveals-plans-to-discharge-covid-19-patients-into-care-homes-nhs-coronavirus/
And for a long time care home deaths were not counted in the official figures...
The whole situation is vastly complex and tragic and whatever decisions were made by this government or indeed would have been by any other that might have been in power in these horrible circumstances would have resulted in thousands of deaths. Sadly, it’s very much a classic no win situation.
I'm sorry, but the narrative that they couldn't possibly have prevented the vast majority of the deaths just isn't true.
They could have (some countries have!) and they chose not to.
Some deaths were unavoidable, most deaths were as a direct result of the actions of this govt.
i work in novel technologies and science, some dangerous, if I decided to test something out in the riskiest way possible because of a cost saving, and ended up killing my colleagues, I would expect to be charged by the police, let alone lose my job. If you don't know all the facts around something, the rule is always safety first until you find out more that allows you to then relax precautions.
When I worked in a cuttings library in the 1980s @micra we cut news articles from broadsheets as follows The Times (traditionally the paper of record) followed by Torygraph (also best for sport) and the Gruniad, tabloids (mainly ignored for news of course), went Mail, Mirror, Sun, Star with the Excess skimmed as a last resort. My boss at the time (and no lefty) described the Express as a newspaper only in that it was on paper.
I should imagine the express was probably far better, atleast editorially, in the 80s than it is now. Having previously worked in support roles in the industry it's easy to underestimate how badly some of it has responded to the challenges brought on by new tech, with increased competition from hobbyists (I'd say the BFP struggles to keep up with the pace and detail on Wycombe for example that Chairboys Central or Paul Lewis can provide), from paid aggregators such as Google and people sharing specific items rather than a whole paper or website, and with the need to be loud or first sometimes outdoing the need to be good or even accurate.
Far fewer people have a paper delivered and they are desperately chasing £s, either by clickbait or "alliances" and sponsored pieces that can be shady.
There has also been a huge increase in spin and campaign management on a daily basis with preferred journalists and briefing prior to announcing policies, journos often seem to swap between their roles and press management roles with the people they are usually supposed to be investigating.
The BFP is completely stretched. You have to wonder if they'd invest more in sport (i.e. us) - if they'd be able to - were we to go up. Pop-ups asking for donations everywhere you go on their site these days.
The last time a read a newspaper on anything like a regular basis it was the spinoff from the Independent - the “i”. I am virtually impervious to political bias but, to me, it seemed like a good read, with well written and relatively short articles and news reports, easily handled tabloid format, 20p (?) a copy and, obviously a clincher for someone who, pre-senility, regularly completed the torygraph cryptic crosswords, a four clue version.
@micra try a digital subscription to The Times, FT or Telegraph. The puzzles are excellent and I would also highly recommend reading the comments if any article is of particular interest. I am amazed at the depth of knowledge among the readership of these newspapers. Nothing like the Daily Mail, which gets a bit shouty.
Imagine how "clogged up" @micra's machine would get if he downloaded the Times!!!!
I think 'i' is 40p now but still good value IMHO
Thanks @Username and @LX1. I’ll chew over the Times suggestion but, these days, everything takes ages and I find little time (or concentration) for reading.
The Gasroom has kept me fully occupied recently!
This is a pretty good substitute for a newspaper these days: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1276512600398925824.html