Rumour of snap GE -announcement 11.15 - Page 41 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rumour of snap GE -announcement 11.15


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

 The MSM have not let it past unchecked, they have picked up that she is no food bank user, however i dont think the subject will benefit anyone and the lady involved has to an extent tarnished nurses,,, move on and quick 

She is not doing herself any favours but doing plenty for the Tories

Says she has only used foodbanks a couple of times .........

DAaw8jnXcAEmjZ_.jpg:large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That nurse has now said the BBC asked her to come back and ask that question after they didnt pick her for Question Time the week before.

Therefore, despite Sarah Smiths claim last night that it was the audience demand for questions on education that made them cover this devolved topic, it was in fact pre planned by the BBC.    

I feel sorry for the nurse, she didnt understand that Sturgeon wasnt standing for election and clearly was equating her concerns about the NHS to the whole UK situation.  Too many doughnuts jumped onto the councillors wife issue which the hypocritical Labourites on social media will now jump over as harrassment.

Seen many posts from NHS staff annoyed about her comments re foodbanks etc and now she has came back saying anyone who is a nurse complaining about her comments is a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time the SNP did go all in Trump from now on

Absolutely sick fed up with the subterfuge by the Unionist parties and the BBC in particular

Just start saying shit about everyone and anything & if anyone takes you up on it say it again

It's the only way to compete with the Massies and Torrances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The harrassment of this nurse is absolutely f***ing moronic. The complete lack of self-awareness continues to amaze me. There really needs to be some restraint and consideration for how this will be used again SNP/Yes because the damage always far outweighs the benefit of hounded a member of the public.

I appreciate it looks suspect and there's a huge argument to be made that the BBC (and the media generally) are absolutely appalling at offering any kind of nuanced political coverage. But some folk need to switch Twitter and let people with half a brain consider how best to deal with it. Joanna Cherry MP had to offer apology on Twitter ffs as she repeated the nonsense about her being married to a Tory councillor. How can anyone be so stupid to repeat/retweet this sh*t without engaging their brain?!

Infuriatingly, it's almost impossible to question the media because of stuff like this, as it's too easy to dismiss criticisms as hysterical cybernats. But there really needs to be inquiry into how a debate is allowed to focus on devolved issues with little or no comment from the governing UK party. We cannot ask questions like this while people continue to act like children or stalk individuals online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/05/2017 at 0:51 AM, phart said:

You should assess information from the news before you rush to repeat it.  Cause when you propagandize you need people to uncritically pass on the information to disseminate it. Like the BBC does when reporting the government.

Assess the veracity of the information, i.e. what in this article distinguishes it from random fantasy.

For instance in this story we have one name H.R. McMaster who is quoted as saying it is "false", and attended the meeting as national security advisor. What is the name(s) of the person/people making the opposite claim and under what capacity did they attend?

 

As i said last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, giblet said:

Therefore, despite Sarah Smiths claim last night that it was the audience demand for questions on education that made them cover this devolved topic, it was in fact pre planned by the BBC.    

 


Here is a thought : neither Davidson or Sturgeon are standing for election...
Yet both are the highest profile figures for their party in Scotland and so took to the stage last night
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Holyrood has become higher profile platform (... for Scots voters) than Westminster ;-)

Of course debating devolved issues in a general election is pointless smokescreen designed to distract from Brexit and right wing Tory government.
However it shows how far Scottish politics have come when devolved Scottish issues dominate Westminster election (and not the other way round!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Auld_Reekie said:

The harrassment of this nurse is absolutely f***ing moronic. The complete lack of self-awareness continues to amaze me. There really needs to be some restraint and consideration for how this will be used again SNP/Yes because the damage always far outweighs the benefit of hounded a member of the public.

I appreciate it looks suspect and there's a huge argument to be made that the BBC (and the media generally) are absolutely appalling at offering any kind of nuanced political coverage. But some folk need to switch Twitter and let people with half a brain consider how best to deal with it. Joanna Cherry MP had to offer apology on Twitter ffs as she repeated the nonsense about her being married to a Tory councillor. How can anyone be so stupid to repeat/retweet this sh*t without engaging their brain?!

Infuriatingly, it's almost impossible to question the media because of stuff like this, as it's too easy to dismiss criticisms as hysterical cybernats. But there really needs to be inquiry into how a debate is allowed to focus on devolved issues with little or no comment from the governing UK party. We cannot ask questions like this while people continue to act like children or stalk individuals online.

Correct. You only have to look at some of the folk on this messageboard to see that some folk are so desperate to sling mud and whinge about "BBC bias" that they're going to parrot inaccurate smears and cause more harm than good. 

Anyone on this board who's an undecided voter would be turned off the SNP by the comments of some of the SNP fanboys on here, i'd suggest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the debate on You Tube tonight. Aside the comments made earlier in this thread the most interesting thing I found was right at the end, when the commentators were pointing out a lot of discussion was on devolved matters so irrelevant for this GE.

One even went so far as to say maybe we shouldn't bother any more trying to explain the difference if people dont want to hear.

In that one soundbite was the reason that a Scottish Six should no longer be considered not an option. 

Disgraceful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Correct. You only have to look at some of the folk on this messageboard to see that some folk are so desperate to sling mud and whinge about "BBC bias" that they're going to parrot inaccurate smears and cause more harm than good. 

Anyone on this board who's an undecided voter would be turned off the SNP by the comments of some of the SNP fanboys on here, i'd suggest. 

I suspect she was very definately a "plant".  Let's take at face value that she has used food banks in the past and she's no affiliation to any particular political party.

When I say she's a plant, I suspect that what happened was that when the Question Time researchers originally spoke to her, they realised she had a "good story" and it was one which would put a politician under pressure - in this case the SNP.

She wasn't called at Question Time but I've no doubt the researcher called her back straight away and said, can we get you on the leader's debate.

Now to me that's a pretty underhand tactic.  In these circumstances they are supposed to present a balanced audience.  A balanced audience appears to mean having a similar number of people with strong views on all sides.  I suppose that makes for better TV than having an audience full of "mibbee's aye, mibbee's naw" folk and so is understanding that they do that.  

However, what isn't clear is if they "load" the audience with similar questioners from all sides of the argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

This is her at the foodbank 3 months ago (from twatter i'm not stalking)

Obviously she could have got herself into financial difficulty since then ......

DAYRjWDXoAADjrQ.jpg

According to the daily record she is believed to send her daughter to a £11,000 a year private school.

This photo, above, was taken in a 5 star New York hotel.

She also describes herself as moderately rich.

The lady is going to find out the hard about online and media scrutiny soon. 

http://archive.is/3C4Fd

Edited by antidote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aaid said:

I suspect she was very definately a "plant".  Let's take at face value that she has used food banks in the past and she's no affiliation to any particular political party.

When I say she's a plant, I suspect that what happened was that when the Question Time researchers originally spoke to her, they realised she had a "good story" and it was one which would put a politician under pressure - in this case the SNP.

She wasn't called at Question Time but I've no doubt the researcher called her back straight away and said, can we get you on the leader's debate.

Now to me that's a pretty underhand tactic.  In these circumstances they are supposed to present a balanced audience.  A balanced audience appears to mean having a similar number of people with strong views on all sides.  I suppose that makes for better TV than having an audience full of "mibbee's aye, mibbee's naw" folk and so is understanding that they do that.  

However, what isn't clear is if they "load" the audience with similar questioners from all sides of the argument. 

I've no issue with activists being shown to be activists. However, spreading false smears just undermines valid complaints. 

Like all the folk who said Clare Lally was related to Pat Lally (his daughter, the claim was, i think?). Just nonsense. Stick to the facts rather than making shit up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also folk are probably being fed bad info deliberately.

If i was going to run cointelpro against the SNP they're supporters propensity to parrotting would be one of the first things i'd use. Plant false info and just let it spread like wildfire, instant credibility problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly hate the BBC and thats not a word i use often,, the lady involved probably never knew what she was letting herself in for,the yes/snp supporters need to be more clever, the bbc have thrown that lady under the bus to get a few points on the board,, as has been pointed out, the media ate trying to intertwine the scottish and Westminster governments,, yes the NHS. Is devolved but its run with pocket money,,, Davidson was horrendous as well which has been lost in the fallout 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, antidote said:

According to the daily record she is believed to send her daughter to a £11,000 a year private school.

This photo, above, was taken in a 5 star New York hotel.

She also describes herself as moderately rich.

The lady is going to find out the hard about online and media scrutiny soon. 

http://archive.is/3C4Fd

It's the plaza hotel, used for the filming of Home Alone 2. 

I only know because I was there a couple of years back. I had a groupon voucher to get lunch :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She does say she was forced to use foodbanks in her opening statement no? But then she describes herself as moderately rich and could afford to send her kid to George Herriots(?). 

So if she was blatantly dishonest with that why should anyone take the rest of assertions any more seriously. It is a honesty and credibility issue and hers are not looking great here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thplinth said:

She does say she was forced to use foodbanks in her opening statement no? But then she describes herself as moderately rich and could afford to send her kid to George Herriots(?). 

So if she was blatantly dishonest with that why should anyone take the rest of assertions any more seriously. It is a honesty and credibility issue and hers are not looking great here. 

 

The way I look at it is, that she is a member of the public and shouldn't need to be put to the same level of scrutiny about her "honesty and credibility" that public servants should be. She may, (or may not?), have told a few fibs to help get her point across but her lifestyle shouldn't be put on display like this. She has been used by the BBC. 

Attacking the BBC is fair enough but she should be left alone, IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

I've no issue with activists being shown to be activists. However, spreading false smears just undermines valid complaints. 

Like all the folk who said Clare Lally was related to Pat Lally (his daughter, the claim was, i think?). Just nonsense. Stick to the facts rather than making shit up. 

Totally agree with that.   On the Clare Lally point, she absolutely was in with the bricks with Labour but was being touted as being an "ordinary mum".  The Pat Lally part was completely incorrect and all that did was to distract from the initial deception.   Mind you, it's interesting why being Pat Lally's daughter would be such slur on her character.

There was also the "nurse who is an actress" who featured in both Better Together and Labour 2015 leaflets that was found to be going out with Richard Simpson's aide. 

I've no idea if the SNP do the same thing but there doesn't seem to be any noticeable cases in recent years and I've no doubt there are as many Cyberyoons as Cybernats trawling social media for examples.  I suspect there's been a lot of people trying to find out about the boy with Asberger's as well.

To be clear, I've no problem with activists or politicians giving their views, especially if they have some real life expertise to share, it's the deception when they are aligned to a political party that's wrong when the public are supposed to assume they are an ordinary Joe and is completely objective.

You can to an extent understand why the political parties do it but when it appears there's collusion with the broadcasters that t starts to stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Totally agree with that.   On the Clare Lally point, she absolutely was in with the bricks with Labour but was being touted as being an "ordinary mum".  The Pat Lally part was completely incorrect and all that did was to distract from the initial deception. 

Exactly. 

1 minute ago, aaid said:

To be clear, I've no problem with activists or politicians giving their views, especially if they have some real life expertise to share, it's the deception when they are aligned to a political party that's wrong when the public are supposed to assume they are an ordinary Joe and is completely objective.

You can to an extent understand why the political parties do it but when it appears there's collusion with the broadcasters that t starts to stink.

Yeah, i made the point on here the other day when folk were calling for panels of "experts" in debates, that these self-same "experts" will have their own political bias. Which will then lead to biased information being treated as gospel because it is claimed to be from independent experts! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, giblet said:

 Too many doughnuts jumped onto the councillors wife issue which the hypocritical Labourites on social media will now jump over as harrassment.

.

that started last night any sort of criticism or question about her status was meet claims of sexual harassment and how it was always women that are criticised 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was she a "plant" ? Yes probably.

Was the choice of a woman deliberate > Of course,

Was she aware how stupid she was in allowing that to happen ? ?

Did she not expect the backlash ?

Should she be "hounded"  ? No but in this case the media are as hungry for this as "nats"...

Are the BBC ultimately culpable - of course 100%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mariokempes56 said:

Are the BBC ultimately culpable - of course 100%.

 

Dont forget Scottish Labour

Their grubby hands will have been all over it - its been a recurring theme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...