The news thread - Page 3 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

Somehow doubt it will be reported on GB news.

It looks as though the encouraging numbers they got in the first week was made up primarily of people watching to see if it was really as shite as people were saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wheres the pies said:

From Twitter 

6D281D52-B1AB-40EA-90AD-035E74EA404F.png

Apart from a bloody good laugh at Andrew Neil there's a few interesting things in there.  Sky News figure shows how hard, for better or worse, it must be for a new entrant to establish themselves.  The other thing is only about 10% of voting age folk are watching the two flagship news programs.  In comparison, going off Wiki, these two attracted 9 million in 2008 so its halved in just over a decade.  Double edged sword of people looking elsewhere for news rather than having it spoon fed but also end up with a rise in absolute lunatics believing everything they see on Facebook then tv trying to attract them back to survive / remain relevant. 

That News Night, as BBC's probably highest brow current affairs outlet, only attracts double the viewers of Welsh Paw Patrol is fairly stark and telling too.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Apart from a bloody good laugh at Andrew Neil there's a few interesting things in there.  Sky News figure shows how hard, for better or worse, it must be for a new entrant to establish themselves.  The other thing is only about 10% of voting age folk are watching the two flagship news programs.  In comparison, going off Wiki, these two attracted 9 million in 2008 so its halved in just over a decade.  Double edged sword of people looking elsewhere for news rather than having it spoon fed but also end up with a rise in absolute lunatics believing everything they see on Facebook then tv trying to attract them back to survive / remain relevant. 

That News Night, as BBC's probably highest brow current affairs outlet, only attracts double the viewers of Welsh Paw Patrol is fairly stark and telling too.    

Sky news it’s been losing money hand over fist for years and people get there news from different platforms aye gone are the days when 9 million tuned in for the news at 6 or 10 o’clock at night and GB news I’ll give it 18 months tops 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wheres the pies said:

Sky news it’s been losing money hand over fist for years and people get there news from different platforms aye gone are the days when 9 million tuned in for the news at 6 or 10 o’clock at night and GB news I’ll give it 18 months tops 

I believe that it’s a condition of their operating licence that Sky has to provide a free to air news channel.  I don’t think it’s ever made a profit off its own back.  I think 18:weeks might be more optimistic for GB News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aaid said:

I believe that it’s a condition of their operating licence that Sky has to provide a free to air news channel.  I don’t think it’s ever made a profit off its own back.  I think 18:weeks might be more optimistic for GB News

Possibly it isn't failing because there isn't a market for it but that Talk Radio already seems to have plugged that void with their radio/YouTube combo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Toepoke said:

These floods in Germany :o

Absolutely devastating!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57858829

 

Seems like scientists were giving warnings as well, much like they were with regards to pandemics. Just doesn't enter decision making till folk see it.

These wild swings in weather are just going to intensify. There's already warnings going out for 2030 where due to the moons wobble(moon wobbles over something like an 18 year period) affecting tides and water levels being higher there is a risk of catastrophic flooding.

At some point this is going to negatively affect millions of people and then it will become a total shit-show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aaid said:

Innocent until proven Gylfi

Agreed. It's best to let the proper authorities conduct an in delph investigation into the matter first before leaping to any conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aaid said:

Innocent until proven Gylfi

Wait... is the court process in these cases important or not or does it depend on who is involved and how you feel about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phart said:

Wait... is the court process in these cases important or not or does it depend on who is involved and how you feel about them.

I suspect that my post might have gone over your head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, aaid said:

I suspect that my post might have gone over your head. 

It's a pun whereby you name the person who according to the BBC article "has not been named for legal reasons" , I was merely pointing out the incongruity of behaviour when one considers you made dozens of posts about the accusers in the Salmond case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phart said:

It's a pun whereby you name the person who according to the BBC article "has not been named for legal reasons" , I was merely pointing out the incongruity of behaviour when one considers you made dozens of posts about the accusers in the Salmond case.

 

 

That all sounds very convenient, it’s almost as though it’s an explanation constructed after the fact, to try to deflect from you missing the point.

On the Salmond case, I happen to believe that the verdicts were correct as no criminality was proven.  My view on that hasn’t changed since the trial.  

I also happen to believe that the incidents with one exception probably happened - some were admitted -but the level of intent, consent and seriousness are only for those directly involved to know and there is obviously a difference of interpretation there from each party.   I don’t believe that anyone flat out lied or at least there is no evidence to support that since the whole thing was all a case of he said/she said, with very little corroborating evidence.  That of course is all to common in cases like this.

The one exception is the most serious case, where there is conflicting evidence from others.  Depending on whose version you believe you may conclude that the other is lying.

in this case as in others I’ll wait to see what it’s all about and evidence is led before jumping to any conclusions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, aaid said:

That all sounds very convenient, it’s almost as though it’s an explanation constructed after the fact, to try to deflect from you missing the point.

On the Salmond case, I happen to believe that the verdicts were correct as no criminality was proven.  My view on that hasn’t changed since the trial.  

I also happen to believe that the incidents with one exception probably happened - some were admitted -but the level of intent, consent and seriousness are only for those directly involved to know and there is obviously a difference of interpretation there from each party.   I don’t believe that anyone flat out lied or at least there is no evidence to support that since the whole thing was all a case of he said/she said, with very little corroborating evidence.  That of course is all to common in cases like this.

The one exception is the most serious case, where there is conflicting evidence from others.  Depending on whose version you believe you may conclude that the other is lying.

in this case as in others I’ll wait to see what it’s all about and evidence is led before jumping to any conclusions. 

Mine is supposedly an ad hoc rationalisation, yet you have to write 5 paragraphs to explain a 4 word post.

Jennifer Lawrence Ok GIFs | Tenor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phart said:

Mine is supposedly an ad hoc rationalisation, yet you have to write 5 paragraphs to explain a 4 word post.

Jennifer Lawrence Ok GIFs | Tenor

 

Whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

What double standards?

 

Naming somebody whose name had not been released “for legal reasons”, whilst having spent the best part of a year deriding those who wanted the anonymous (and wrongfully protected?) accusers of Salmond named. Anyway, that’s the way I read it. But I don’t give enough of a f*** to actually give a f***. So maybe I’m wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, duncan II said:

Naming somebody whose name had not been released “for legal reasons”, whilst having spent the best part of a year deriding those who wanted the anonymous (and wrongfully protected?) accusers of Salmond named. Anyway, that’s the way I read it. But I don’t give enough of a f*** to actually give a f***. So maybe I’m wrong.

You don’t think victims of rape and sexual assault should not be entitled to anonymity?

Are you happy with the atrociously low level of convictions in these cases.

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...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...