In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On November 23 2016 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote: There is no evidence DB states this. If the UK does not stay within the single market then capital and services cannot remain tarrif free. It's pretty simple really. EU countries will force hard brexit so it simply cannot happen.
You are, without linking them, quoting tabloid newspaper articles again.
No, you're calling The Telegraph a tabloid when it is, in fact, a broadsheet that doesn't report in line with your political leaning. In the meantime you're quite happy to cite The Guardian when you must know full well that it is the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail.
The Telegraph used to be a quality broadsheet, but nowadays it's practically a trash tabloid minus the tits on the page. A shame really since now we are missing a right-wing broadsheet that isn't run by Murdoch. Meanwhile the Guardian is an extremely well regarded quality broadsheet, as long as you ignore its left bent.
So yeah, bardtown, you don't read newspapers do you?
On November 23 2016 07:23 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of which, can someone give me a general rundown of U.K. origin news sites by reliability? I usually like BBC but the rest I don't know how good they are.
As for the rest, The Times and the Independent are both still well regarded, but declining. The Times is right wing and The Independent is centre-right. The rest are mostly tabloids. The Daily Mail, Daily Express are right wing tabloids with an extreme hatred towards foreigners and The Daily Mail has an odd obsession with cancer. The others are seriously trashy tabloids. Don't source them.
There's also the Financial Times and The Economist, which are internationally well regarded, but as you might tell from their name, they are not really "news" newspapers.
The BBC used to be impartial in all aspects, even going out of its way to interview the point of view of people like the US birther theorists, but nowadays it seems to be toeing the government line.
The Independent is centre-right? I have read a lot of the Independent lately and I thought it was quite overwhelmingly negative about May and her policies. I am really only interested in Brexit news, and when I browse: http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/brexit
I get the feeling that the Independent has made up its mind already.
On November 23 2016 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote: There is no evidence DB states this. If the UK does not stay within the single market then capital and services cannot remain tarrif free. It's pretty simple really. EU countries will force hard brexit so it simply cannot happen.
You are, without linking them, quoting tabloid newspaper articles again.
No, you're calling The Telegraph a tabloid when it is, in fact, a broadsheet that doesn't report in line with your political leaning. In the meantime you're quite happy to cite The Guardian when you must know full well that it is the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail.
The Telegraph used to be a quality broadsheet, but nowadays it's practically a trash tabloid minus the tits on the page. A shame really since now we are missing a right-wing broadsheet that isn't run by Murdoch. Meanwhile the Guardian is an extremely well regarded quality broadsheet, as long as you ignore its left bent.
So yeah, bardtown, you don't read newspapers do you?
On November 23 2016 07:23 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of which, can someone give me a general rundown of U.K. origin news sites by reliability? I usually like BBC but the rest I don't know how good they are.
As for the rest, The Times and the Independent are both still well regarded, but declining. The Times is right wing and The Independent is centre-right. The rest are mostly tabloids. The Daily Mail, Daily Express are right wing tabloids with an extreme hatred towards foreigners and The Daily Mail has an odd obsession with cancer. The others are seriously trashy tabloids. Don't source them.
There's also the Financial Times and The Economist, which are internationally well regarded, but as you might tell from their name, they are not really "news" newspapers.
The BBC used to be impartial in all aspects, even going out of its way to interview the point of view of people like the US birther theorists, but nowadays it seems to be toeing the government line.
I feel sorry for you LegalLord, because the reality is that you cannot trust anything anyone in this thread says about newspapers in the UK. For example, when this guy says the guardian is 'extremely well regarded', what I hear is that he has never spoken to anyone outside whichever metropolis he lives in. In rural Britain nothing will make you an object of suspicion more than reading The Guardian, which they consider to be far left.
I think it's fair to say that The Times is the most reliable/well regarded paper. The Independent is very variable, and no better than The Telegraph which he dismisses as a tabloid. Both produce some good content and some awful content.
I think we all can agree that the Guardian definitely is a paper of the left. Nevertheless it's quality content in my book. Though, as I would with mostly all media - established or not, left, centre, right, whatever - I would not take what they write about very recent events on face value. I am under the impression, that too much time is spent on bending the facts to cater one's opinion and picking out the facts that support them, rather than focusing on the available facts. This applies to many news-sources I use. Those who do not have a daily newspaper and want to be superfast on their webpage are rather exempt from that (le monde diplomatique, economist). Getting "facts" from source A to agree with "facts" from source B to agree with one another appears to be a major problem/source of misunderstanding.
And of course you get different opinions about which paper you can "trust" when you ask different parts of the populace. Just because BILD is the paper/tabloid with most copies/day sold it can not be seen as well regarded even though so many use it as a their daily source of information. It's a question who defines well regarded and I suppose it is rather the intellectual part than the tabloid part.
It is fair to say that people have differing opinions on a situation and value/weight facts differently to support said opinion.
Except that the Guardian was responsible for things such as Snowden and the telegraph publishes anything from anyone that fits their agenda. And in the UK there is a huge difference between what is reliable and what isn't. I doubt you have such an important murdoch problem in ger.
I don't really understand why you posted that video link. It is what a Guardian employee going on some rant? Was that to prove that because she has some beef with grammar snobs that every article the guardian publishes is flawed? o_o;:
We have a Springer problem though >_> But tbf I cannot compare their severity. Still, doing something of value doesn't lift the not so good articles above their level.
The Guardian is OK. I read the website often, and about half of the articles seem to be about which word, job, product, or politician is sexist this week. It still has some high quality investigative journalism and well researched stuff, but the opinion articles from identity politics addicts are just ridiculous.
On November 23 2016 08:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On November 23 2016 07:16 bardtown wrote:
On November 23 2016 04:26 MyTHicaL wrote: There is no evidence DB states this. If the UK does not stay within the single market then capital and services cannot remain tarrif free. It's pretty simple really. EU countries will force hard brexit so it simply cannot happen.
You are, without linking them, quoting tabloid newspaper articles again.
No, you're calling The Telegraph a tabloid when it is, in fact, a broadsheet that doesn't report in line with your political leaning. In the meantime you're quite happy to cite The Guardian when you must know full well that it is the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail.
The Telegraph used to be a quality broadsheet, but nowadays it's practically a trash tabloid minus the tits on the page. A shame really since now we are missing a right-wing broadsheet that isn't run by Murdoch. Meanwhile the Guardian is an extremely well regarded quality broadsheet, as long as you ignore its left bent.
So yeah, bardtown, you don't read newspapers do you?
On November 23 2016 07:23 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of which, can someone give me a general rundown of U.K. origin news sites by reliability? I usually like BBC but the rest I don't know how good they are.
As for the rest, The Times and the Independent are both still well regarded, but declining. The Times is right wing and The Independent is centre-right. The rest are mostly tabloids. The Daily Mail, Daily Express are right wing tabloids with an extreme hatred towards foreigners and The Daily Mail has an odd obsession with cancer. The others are seriously trashy tabloids. Don't source them.
There's also the Financial Times and The Economist, which are internationally well regarded, but as you might tell from their name, they are not really "news" newspapers.
The BBC used to be impartial in all aspects, even going out of its way to interview the point of view of people like the US birther theorists, but nowadays it seems to be toeing the government line.
I feel sorry for you LegalLord, because the reality is that you cannot trust anything anyone in this thread says about newspapers in the UK. For example, when this guy says the guardian is 'extremely well regarded', what I hear is that he has never spoken to anyone outside whichever metropolis he lives in. In rural Britain nothing will make you an object of suspicion more than reading The Guardian, which they consider to be far left.
I think it's fair to say that The Times is the most reliable/well regarded paper. The Independent is very variable, and no better than The Telegraph which he dismisses as a tabloid. Both produce some good content and some awful content.
You do realise that the quality of a newspaper isn't on the bent of politics it is percieved to be biased towards?
The quality of a newspaper is regarded nationwide. There is no rural/urban divide that you seem to imagine.
On November 24 2016 02:16 Jockmcplop wrote: The Guardian is OK. I read the website often, and about half of the articles seem to be about which word, job, product, or politician is sexist this week. It still has some high quality investigative journalism and well researched stuff, but the opinion articles from identity politics addicts are just ridiculous.
Yeah the website has gradually devolved into a "-ism" clickbait. Unfortunate. Still the actual accuracy of reporting, analysis and general journalism and investigative journalism are top notch.
Basically, there is some credence to diregard the "analyitcal" or "opinion" articles. However most of the main articles (although there are some important exceptions to this rule), seem to be actual reporting. Unfortunately, some who post here will be in dismay faced with the truth of a plethora of inconveients regarding the referendum, the conservative party and T. May in particular. Not that at least one individual in particular shall ever admit it. (lol)
I truly never would have thought that I would have prefered a pig head fetichist compared to the present. What shall be the 3rd horror!? Hope for France, Ger and the rest of Europe. Or WWIII?
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
What is equally delusional is thinking that London will suddenly lose it's importance as a financial hub and that all the business will flock to the European mainland. London will still be important (although not as important as it is now), some jobs will disappear completely and others will move to the US. London has more going for it than just access to the EU.
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
The article is from July. Head of DB has since said that London will still be the financial capital after Brexit. July was before all the positive economic data of the last 4 months made it clear just how misleading the Remain claims had been, even to hardcore Remain supporters.
There aren't really any inconvenient truths for me to have to come to terms with. I expected a short term economic downturn, but even that hasn't happened. Almost every piece of economic data has been positive, including data on increased business investment released today. Weren't you assuring me earlier in this thread that no business would have any reason to invest in the UK any more?
Even with regards to sterling:
And by the way, if the EU does try to isolate London, it will come at a high price. If a new Eurozone crisis looks likely, which it may do after the Italian referendum/French elections, then access to London financial services will be very important. As far as I'm concerned protectionism re financial services will just push the EU into more rapid decline, but that's for them to decide.
On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote: Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day?
No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated.
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
Scotland's independence is very different from the Catalan attempt. Catalunia is more like Corsican independence or the Basque country.
IMF said pound was over valued by 13 percent so it falling by 13 percent (+) is OK then? The UK losing 1.5 TRILLION is OK? lol. When the fuck are you ever going to just admit that you are wrong? Even if all your hopes and dreams come true, the EU dies, all it will mean is that Europe has no say in the world anymore. Braindead idiot.
Furthermore the EU will isolate London. It has nothing to do with economics but pride, spite and conquest. Why is it that English think that only they have a proud national identity. Ever?
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
And by the way, if the EU does try to isolate London, it will come at a high price. If a new Eurozone crisis looks likely, which it may do after the Italian referendum/French elections, then access to London financial services will be very important. As far as I'm concerned protectionism re financial services will just push the EU into more rapid decline, but that's for them to decide.
If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it
I'd like to hear where the discrepancy comes from, if one person states "nah, totally nothing will change most likely maybe, here, look, the newspaper said that if so and so, and maybe that happens, then nothing will change" and another posts actual "emergency plans" of the DB.. I wonder if one side purposely ignores it to instead argue how amazing the newspaper is that was "wrongfully attacked".
Sidenote: if the UK loses free movement of capital and services, which they will if they don't accept free movement of labour (one of the key points of the brexit campaign), the banks will leave. To assume otherwise is actually delusional. And i think that it comes down to the Scotland/Spain/Catalonia independence example. Scotland will not join the EU independent, because spain would veto it out of fear that catalonia would take it as an example. The UK will not get 2-3 out of four "free movements" because other countries would start doing the same - and the whole cardhouse crashes.
And by the way, if the EU does try to isolate London, it will come at a high price. If a new Eurozone crisis looks likely, which it may do after the Italian referendum/French elections, then access to London financial services will be very important. As far as I'm concerned protectionism re financial services will just push the EU into more rapid decline, but that's for them to decide.
If a Eurozone crisis starts in 2017 (which I don't think is likely), the UK will suffer with us for most/all of it
Of course. It's better for everyone if there is no crisis, although at this point it's hard to see how it can be avoided. Even if you can't avoid it, though, you can avoid exacerbating it by cutting yourself off from vital services/markets in London.
On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote: Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day?
No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated.
Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK.
EPT
