On 28/01/2022 19:53, MB wrote:
> On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
>> Thank goodness Owen Jones is an opinion writer and not a reporter. He
>> must make a few shillings from all the newstalk shows his agent gets
>> him on.
>
> A year or so ago, it was reckoned that he must be a millionaire with his
> earnings from his book(s?) so he is one one the "wealthy" that he wants
> to tax heavily.

So he isn't a hypocrite?

Bill

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 15:27:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote as underneath :

snip
>On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
>it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
>to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
>other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
>
>Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.

An informative and worrying read! C+

On 28/01/2022 17:10, Pamela wrote:
> On 15:11 28 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:
>
>> On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark Carver
>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>> So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your
>>>>>> view) as GB News?   And LBC too?
>>>>> The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have
>>>>> not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming, but
>>>>> it's possible my memory may be at fault  -  we see so much crud
>>>>> linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one example from
>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>> LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's
>>>> sanctioned as OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the
>>>> schedule is politically balanced.
>>>>
>>>> Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
>>>>
>>>> Nick Ferrari   'A fair amount Right'
>>>> James O'Brien 'A fair amount Left'
>>>> Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left'
>>>> Eddie Mair  'Arguably a tiny bit left'
>>>> Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as Ferrari'
>>>>
>>>> You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an
>>>> hour or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've
>>>> been radicalised by them.
>>>> Eddie Mair is significantly more entertaining, and asks
>>>> enlightening questions, than his days being shackled at the BBC on
>>>> the PM prog.
>>>>
>>>> As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually
>>>> one of the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning
>>>> Channel 4 News, so go figure.
>>> I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
>> Perhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
>> Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote; "...a
>> load of boring old crap..."
> Murdoch is the owner of Times Radio, isn't he?
Yes, that was exactly my point !

On 28/01/2022 15:27, Java Jive wrote:

> On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
> it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
> to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
> other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
>
> Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.

I acknowledge your staying power! Over 700 pages long...

Does it add anything revolutionary to what has been understood for over
40 years: "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"?

--

Jeff

In message <dor9vglfjec2686b2ufju9bfe1huskevc3@4ax.com>, Charlie+
<charlie@xxx.net> writes
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 15:27:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote as underneath :
>
>snip
>>On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
>>it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
>>to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
>>other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
>>
>>Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
>
>An informative and worrying read! C+

My first thought was: "If that only rates a C+, what would rate an A?"
But then I looked at your From header and realised that C+ was your sig.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 11:24 29 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:08:43 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
>>gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
>>point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
>>into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
>>gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
>
> In some ways it's the worst and the best all rolled into one. I only
> look at the website as I haven't bought an actual paper paper in
> years, but as long as you count the adjectives in the headlines and
> the spelling mistakes in the text, you're reading it with the
> required amount of circumspection. The headlines full of adjectives
> are to make sure that even before you've read the article itself you
> know not only what it's about but what you will be expected to think
> of it. The spelling mistakes show how much thought the writer has put
> into it.
>
> Rod.

Once upon the "Grauniad" was notorious for spelling mistakes and got
ridiculed but that stopped decades ago with word processors.

The new champion of the truly-far-too-long-and-jibe-filled headline is
the Daily Mail online. See:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

On 09:40 29 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:
> On 28/01/2022 17:10, Pamela wrote:
>> On 15:11 28 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:
>>> On 28/01/2022 15:01, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:59:36 +0000, Mark Carver
>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/01/2022 12:15, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/01/2022 23:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your
>>>>>>> view) as GB News?�� And LBC too?
>>>>>> The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here
>>>>>> have not exactly been examples of fair and unbiased programming,
>>>>>> but it's possible my memory may be at fault� -� we see so much
>>>>>> crud linked here that it becomes difficult to remember one
>>>>>> example from another.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LBC doesn't have unbiased programming, it's fine, and it's
>>>>> sanctioned as OK by Ofcom. The only requirement is overall the
>>>>> schedule is politically balanced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Broadly weekdays, you have three hour chunks of:-
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick Ferrari�� 'A fair amount Right' James O'Brien 'A fair
>>>>> amount Left' Shelagh Forgarty 'A little bit Left' Eddie Mair�
>>>>> 'Arguably a tiny bit left' Iain Dale 'Not quite as far right as
>>>>> Ferrari'
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd go mad if you listened all day, but I normally listen to an
>>>>> hour or so of Mair, and an hour or so of Dale, I don't think I've
>>>>> been radicalised by them. Eddie Mair is significantly more
>>>>> entertaining, and asks enlightening questions, than his days
>>>>> being shackled at the BBC on the PM prog.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Times Radio, I don't really detect much bias, and actually
>>>>> one of the presenters is Cathy Newman who's from the left leaning
>>>>> Channel 4 News, so go figure.
>>>> I think Jenny Kleeman is ex C4 also.
>>> Perhaps the best endorsement of Times Radio as being 'OK' was when
>>> Rupert Murdoch heard the station, and proclaimed it as, quote;
>>> "...a load of boring old crap..."
>> Murdoch is the owner of Times Radio, isn't he?
> Yes, that was exactly my point !

Okay got it now! Although it's not like Murdoch to talk down his own
ventures.

On Sat 29/01/2022 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:08:43 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
>> gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
>> point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
>> into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
>> gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
>
> In some ways it's the worst and the best all rolled into one. I only
> look at the website as I haven't bought an actual paper paper in
> years, but as long as you count the adjectives in the headlines and
> the spelling mistakes in the text, you're reading it with the required
> amount of circumspection. The headlines full of adjectives are to make
> sure that even before you've read the article itself you know not only
> what it's about but what you will be expected to think of it. The
> spelling mistakes show how much thought the writer has put into it.
>
>

Ah, a Grauniad man there no doubt. Did you used to work for the BBC by
any chance?

(For the record, nearly 3000 copies of the Grauniad are delivered to BH
every weekday.)

On 29/01/2022 10:02, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> On 28/01/2022 15:27, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
>> it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
>> to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
>> other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
>>
>> Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
>
> I acknowledge your staying power! Over 700 pages long...

Actually only about 525 or so, the rest are notes and references.

> Does it add anything revolutionary to what has been understood for over
> 40 years: "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"?

Yes, in fact she specifically decries that assumption, because she
believes the reality is rather different, more that you are the
landscape that is being trashed for the purposes of data mining, but
those are my way of expressing what she says, not hers, which I would
have to look up, which would take quite a long time because my copy is a
hardcopy book, not an e-edition. I've already quoted extensively from
one section about Google Maps Street View here, but that is just one
section giving one example of how our real lives are being colonised for
the profit of others, the book is much, much more wide-ranging than just
this one example:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/WBuYJJT2Ax0

It's a pity that it's a PITA to read, because I feel it's an important
book, but her written style is difficult to digest, more like a
behavioural economics textbook than easily digestible English. For
example, rather than avoiding jargon, she goes to the other extreme of
inventing a good deal of it, which you have to master to understand what
she's saying - examples:

behavioural surplus - the profitable metadata we create online by
just using things like Google Search, etc.

uncontract - A contract that locks you in to their T & C
so is not an 'agreement between two parties'

Etc, etc, the book is rife with them.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/01/2022 21:48, NY wrote:
> "Chris J Dixon" <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:qka8vgdd2cboinjjddm9d5cpf1u5ifku3b@4ax.com...
>> Perhaps it is like my remembering differentiating details of cars
>> of the 60s, but being unable to recognise much of the current
>> production.
>>
>> Perhaps they had more character then?
>
> My dad maintains that at the age of 3 I sat on his knee behind the
> wheel of the car as he was parked waiting for mum outside a friend's
> house, at night, and I was calling out "Ford Cortina", "Mini", "Ford
> Corsair", "Triumph Herald", "Rover 2000" as each car approached. I was
> recognising the cars by the pattern of their headlights and side lights.
You beat me to it, I could do the same in the 70s and 80s. Not now.

On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
> The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
> gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
> point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
> into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
> gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.

The Daily Maxwell is by far the worst. From being owned by the biggest
criminal in the history of British newspapers and deeply embedded in the
Labour party through printing fake pictures of British servicemen which
probably lead to the loss of lives of British servicemen and Iraqis and
continuing with sleazy stories.

They ran a smear about David Cameron when he was PM (or were going to
run) that was so bad no one dare repeat it so never found out what it was.

But because of its very close connections to the Labour party, the
Labour party directs all its attacks towards the Daily Mail and Sun.

It should be noted that during the Leveson business, it was reported
there were very few complaints about the Mail and many about the Daily
Maxwell, rivalling the News of the World in number of complaints.

On 29/01/2022 16:10, MB wrote:
>
> deeply embedded in the
> Labour party through printing fake pictures of British servicemen which
> probably lead to the loss of lives of British servicemen and Iraqis and
> continuing with sleazy stories.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> They ran a smear about David Cameron when he was PM (or were going to
> run) that was so bad no one dare repeat it so never found out what it was.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> But because of its very close connections to the Labour party, the
> Labour party directs all its attacks towards the Daily Mail and Sun.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> It should be noted that during the Leveson business, it was reported
> there were very few complaints about the Mail and many about the Daily
> Maxwell, rivalling the News of the World in number of complaints.

FALSE! YET AGAIN YOU REPEAT A LIE THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEBUNKED!

Data from a FOI completely contradicts you:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270939/0780_i.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270941/0780_ii.pdf

5.13 The report noted that a Freedom of Information Act request for
further information about the 305 journalists identified in the Motorman
material and referred to in What Price Privacy? had been considered and,
on the basis that disclosure of the information was in the public
interest, the employers of the journalists were set out in tabular form.

5.14 This table is replicated below.[52]

Table E3.1
Publication No. of Transactions positively identified No. of Clients
Journalists or using services
Daily Mail 952 58
Sunday People 802 50
Daily Mirror 681 45
Mail on Sunday 266 33
News of the World 228 23
Sunday Mirror 143 25
Best Magazine 134 20
Evening Standard 130 1
The Observer 103 4
Daily Sport 62 4
The People 37 19
Daily Express 36 7
Weekend Magazine (Daily Mail) 30 4
Sunday Express 29 8
The Sun 24 4
Closer Magazine 22 5
Sunday Sport 15 1
Night and Day (Mail on Sunday) 9 2
Sunday Business News 8 1
Daily Record 7 2
Saturday (Express) 7 1
Sunday Mirror Magazine 6 1
Real Magazine 4 1
Woman’s Own 4 2
The Sunday Times 4 1
Daily Mirror Magazine 3 2
Mail in Ireland 3 1
Daily Star 2 4
The Times 2 1
Marie Claire 2 1
Personal Magazine 1 1
Sunday World 1 1

So, exactly contrary to your claim, The Daily Mail not The Daily Mirror
was actually the worst offender, though the latter can take no credit,
because they were in the same ball park, the same order of magnitude.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16:10 29 Jan 2022, MB said:
> On 28/01/2022 17:08, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> The worst paper on the newstands is surely the Daily Mail. It's news
>> gathering operation is well funded but even when I agree with it's
>> point of view, I blanch at the gallons of editorial comment it pours
>> into news stories. It's got so carried away that editorialising now
>> gets squeezed into its long and drawn out news headlines.
>
> The Daily Maxwell is by far the worst. From being owned by the
> biggest criminal in the history of British newspapers and deeply
> embedded in the Labour party through printing fake pictures of
> British servicemen which probably lead to the loss of lives of
> British servicemen and Iraqis and continuing with sleazy stories.
>
> They ran a smear about David Cameron when he was PM (or were going to
> run) that was so bad no one dare repeat it so never found out what it
> was.
>
> But because of its very close connections to the Labour party, the
> Labour party directs all its attacks towards the Daily Mail and Sun.
>
> It should be noted that during the Leveson business, it was reported
> there were very few complaints about the Mail and many about the
> Daily Maxwell, rivalling the News of the World in number of
> complaints.

I can't say I have read a copy of the Mirror lately but I remember it
trying to be a news-focussed newspaper, unlike the Sun. It had lots of
impressive photo-like graphics too.

Papers are partisan. The Mirror (along with the Telegraph) have been
writing a lot of anti-Boris Partygate stuff but it's their prerogative.
The Mirror is markedly less sensationalist than the Sun, which can't be
bad.

These days, I can't really understand the Mail's stance about most
things. One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's
the greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now it's
terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon. It's
readers seem to love it though. Maybe they don't care what the news is,
as long as celebrity happenings keep them occupied. Perhaps they don't
even realise half the stories aren't even about the UK but Australia
and America.

In message <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> writes
>Papers are partisan. The Mirror (along with the Telegraph) have been
>writing a lot of anti-Boris Partygate stuff but it's their prerogative.

If even the Telegraph - which had been pro-Boris until fairly recently -
thinks that he's in the wrong over Partygate, I'd be surprised if there
are any national papers still supporting him.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 29/01/2022 18:40, Pamela wrote:
> I can't say I have read a copy of the Mirror lately but I remember it
> trying to be a news-focussed newspaper, unlike the Sun. It had lots of
> impressive photo-like graphics too.

I can't remember the Mail ever faking pictures as the Daily Maxwell did.
The Daily Maxwell had had to pay out a lot of compensation because of
its hacking.

On 19:27 29 Jan 2022, MB said:

> On 29/01/2022 18:40, Pamela wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can't say I have read a copy of the Mirror lately but I remember
>> it trying to be a news-focussed newspaper, unlike the Sun. It had
>> lots of impressive photo-like graphics too.
>
> I can't remember the Mail ever faking pictures as the Daily Maxwell
> did.
>
> The Daily Maxwell had had to pay out a lot of compensation because
> of its hacking.

On the other hand, I can't remember the Mirror getting taken to the
cleaners the way Meghan Markle did to the Mail.

I don't like Markle but I have to admit she gave the Mail a legal black
eye it isn't going to forget for a long time.

In article <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
> greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
> point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
> it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.

At the start of the pandemic nobody had much of a clue what was going
to happen next, we had not seen anything like this in our lifetime.

Predictions were made and decisions taken that were a mixture of
panic and arse covering. As time went on opinion split more and more
about everything covid.

To be fair to Johnson, I think he knew from the start that the path
we went down was wrong, we should never have abandoned the original
decades old pandemic plan.

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/excessD.jpg

He was pushed and pushed hard by the media and sage that demanded the
most draconian of measures without any balance at all in the decision
making process. What cost benefit analysis? And of course through
panic, we followed China and the "soft underbelly of europe".

He was weak, he also became ill himself and I'm not sure I would have
had the courage of my convictions when I'm told by my "advisers" and
press that I must lockdown or face charges of mass murder. Not an
enviable position at all.

When he eventually realized that the predictions coming from Ferguson
and all, were preposterous every single time and admittedly pushed by
a need to save his own political skin he called enough and he was
right. At least, he was right last summer and over christmas and the
dire predictions proved complete nonsense.

None of us know what will come next but some people do look like they
have a clue whilst others have been proved wrong too often to have
any credibility except to the lockdown loving left and the media.

So far I'm still glad I had my jabs but I do now worry that things
can be pushed too far even with that and we none of us know what
effect they may have on our immune systems and general health. One
issue where I think the advise from the EU is correct. We think it
still helps us recover from covid but certainly no longer helps us
avoid Omicron so I think the next jab is a harder call for me.

So I'm not surprise that papers are struggling to say the right thing
on covid, so is everyone else unless you're like a clapping seal in
the zoo. Lock us down harder daddy, clap clap.

Bob.

On 29/01/2022 11:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how long
> it will be possible to admit to being proud of that?

I don't subscribe to any social media, because I have never seen the
point in telling the world what they can manage without.

only thing like that I still have an entry in is Linkedin, mainly
because it was useful when I joined and I haven't seen anything
describing how I can close my now dormant account.

Jim

On 29/01/2022 19:27, MB wrote:
>
> I can't remember the Mail ever faking pictures as the Daily Maxwell did.
>  The Daily Maxwell had had to pay out a lot of compensation because of
> its hacking.

They faked graphs and/or reproduced other people's fake graphs as part
of a fake article about the pandemic in Spain. Any idea that any of the
three main tabloids are less dire than others is wishful thinking.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 29/01/2022 19:58, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
>> greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
>> point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
>> it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.
>
> At the start of the pandemic nobody had much of a clue what was going
> to happen next, we had not seen anything like this in our lifetime.

Except you, who start posting crap from Shitter insisting that you knew
everything, and everyone else was wrong. Of course none of it was true,
and now you've forgotten the arse of yourself that you made at the time.
I haven't however.

> Predictions were made and decisions taken that were a mixture of
> panic and arse covering. As time went on opinion split more and more
> about everything covid.

Between idiots like you who believed in every piece of obviously fake
news that you stepped in, and others who have enough sense to see it for
the turd on the pavement that it obviously was.

> To be fair to Johnson, I think he knew from the start that the path
> we went down was wrong, we should never have abandoned the original
> decades old pandemic plan.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/excessD.jpg

How typical of you to post a graph that doesn't apply to the period
which you are arguing about.

> He was pushed and pushed hard by the media and sage that demanded the
> most draconian of measures without any balance at all in the decision
> making process. What cost benefit analysis? And of course through
> panic, we followed China and the "soft underbelly of europe".

Bollocks, as the Channel 4 documentary at the time showed, his first
'plan' was to just let it rip and let those who were unlucky enough to
die, do so. It was only when he rang the Italian PM that he seemed to
realise that he needed to do do something more positive to prevent the
spread of the disease.

> He was weak, he also became ill himself and I'm not sure I would have
> had the courage of my convictions when I'm told by my "advisers" and
> press that I must lockdown or face charges of mass murder. Not an
> enviable position at all.

He had put himself there by his initial callousness to the worsening
situation, him getting the disease and suffering from it badly himself
merely underlined his initial negligence.

> When he eventually realized that the predictions coming from Ferguson
> and all, were preposterous every single time and admittedly pushed by
> a need to save his own political skin he called enough and he was
> right. At least, he was right last summer and over christmas and the
> dire predictions proved complete nonsense.

Fake news reported to ...
n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

How many times must you be told that the reason such predictions are
made are precisely to persuade people to change matters so that the
worst of them don't have to come true???!!!

> None of us know what will come next but some people do look like they
> have a clue whilst others have been proved wrong too often to have
> any credibility except to the lockdown loving left and the media.

False political propaganda reported to ...
n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

> So far I'm still glad I had my jabs but I do now worry that things
> can be pushed too far even with that and we none of us know what
> effect they may have on our immune systems and general health. One
> issue where I think the advise from the EU is correct. We think it
> still helps us recover from covid but certainly no longer helps us
> avoid Omicron so I think the next jab is a harder call for me.

As with *ALL* vaccinations, if there are any more it will be a question
of whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.

> So I'm not surprise that papers are struggling to say the right thing
> on covid, so is everyone else unless you're like a clapping seal in
> the zoo. Lock us down harder daddy, clap clap.

No-one here behaves more like a clapping seal in a zoo than you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19:58 29 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE2EBE0E63B7037B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One moment it is rabidly anti-Boris and the next it thinks he's the
>> greatest. Same goes for the Mail's Covid coverage where at one
>> point it was pillorying Whitty and Vallance remorselessly but now
>> it's terribly concerned that we're coming out of Plan B too soon.
>
> At the start of the pandemic nobody had much of a clue what was going
> to happen next, we had not seen anything like this in our lifetime.
>
> Predictions were made and decisions taken that were a mixture of
> panic and arse covering. As time went on opinion split more and more
> about everything covid.
>
> To be fair to Johnson, I think he knew from the start that the path
> we went down was wrong, we should never have abandoned the original
> decades old pandemic plan.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/excessD.jpg

Didn't I read you here arguing against the viability of using excess
deaths as a measure of deaths from Covid?

Your chart shows every comparable European country (with the exception
of Italy) had a lower excess death rate than the UK. The chart covers
2021 which means we did worse than our peers in maintaining defences
against Covid in the second year of the virus.

If you were to look excess deaths in 2020, it would show far worse
death rates in the UK. You may recall we were one of the last in
Western Europe to lockdown (Boris didn't attend Cobra meetings) and had
some of the weakest enforcement for which we paid the price with the
care home carnage and an overwhelmed NHS.

> He was pushed and pushed hard by the media and sage that demanded the
> most draconian of measures without any balance at all in the decision
> making process. What cost benefit analysis? And of course through
> panic, we followed China and the "soft underbelly of europe".
>
> He was weak, he also became ill himself and I'm not sure I would have
> had the courage of my convictions when I'm told by my "advisers" and
> press that I must lockdown or face charges of mass murder. Not an
> enviable position at all.

Boris Johnson was largely out of his mind with the after effects of
Covid for most of 2020 after his hospital recovery. His foolhardiness
from failing to take distancing precautions seriously meant he was
admitted into ICU and occupied a bed someone else who had taken care
was denied.

> When he eventually realized that the predictions coming from Ferguson
> and all, were preposterous every single time and admittedly pushed by
> a need to save his own political skin he called enough and he was
> right. At least, he was right last summer and over christmas and the
> dire predictions proved complete nonsense.

Ferguson's 16th March 2020 prediction was for what would happen if no
precautions were taken and he also modelled other scenarios with
precautions. The modelling turned out quite good and it was later
refined as more data become available such as better estimates of
R-rate, PPE use, and later vaccination effectiveness.

> None of us know what will come next but some people do look like they
> have a clue whilst others have been proved wrong too often to have
> any credibility except to the lockdown loving left and the media.
>
> So far I'm still glad I had my jabs but I do now worry that things
> can be pushed too far even with that and we none of us know what
> effect they may have on our immune systems and general health. One
> issue where I think the advise from the EU is correct. We think it
> still helps us recover from covid but certainly no longer helps us
> avoid Omicron so I think the next jab is a harder call for me.

You're under no obligation to have further jabs and if you feel unduly
coerced then you should refuse them. Nor do you have to wear a mask in
crowded settings or stay away from potentially infected people. The
choice is entirely yours.

You are free to take part in a mini Great Barrington experiment of your
own. Mention to your wife to let us know if it doesn't turn out too
well as data about an individual Covid death or long-term disability is
always valuable to know.

On 11:15 29 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:50:46 +0000, John Hall
> <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ua18vgpk55kg8nq8dr63id9ul797v2i3uo@4ax.com>, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:50:04 +0000, Java Jive
>>><java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28/01/2022 08:49, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never
>>>>> listened to James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't listen to talk radio, because I'm far too busy to allow
>>>>myself to be distracted by other people talking
>>>
>>>Mother of a friend of mine once declared, 'I can honestly say I have
>>>never read a book in my life'. I am sure you would get on well.
>>
>>My sister-in-law's niece once said that in my hearing. She seemed to
>>be proud of it. I was rather shocked, but thought it better not to
>>say anything.
>
> I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how
> long it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The
> rambling subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to be
> something of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print
> screeds of it unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort of
> official policy or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound serious.
>
> Rod.

You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything. It is
full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is listening. It's
not really like Usenet or web-based forums. Reading twitter is like
listening to a field full of grasshoppers and about as informative,
unless you regularly spend time there digging very deeply.

Once in a while, a prominent figure has a need to post something to the
world and some use Twitter for this. To be honest it's a wonder any
Tweet gets noticed (other than those which turn into a meme) and I have
no idea how journalists who mention Twitter as a source pick up on the
material there.

There is no proper two-way discussion there, only very fleeting
exchanges which are ideal for conspiracy theorists to feed their worrie
dminds because they can't (and don't wish to) go back and check the
source of the latest weird idea.

On 29/01/2022 13:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 29/01/2022 10:02, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> On 28/01/2022 15:27, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On the contrary, I'm reading a book at the moment, on and off because
>>> it's rather a tome, and you certainly can't read such a book and listen
>>> to talk radio at the same time, because you will be ignoring one or the
>>> other, and I know which is most likely to be informative, it's:
>>>
>>> Shoshana Zuboff: The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism.
>>
>> I acknowledge your staying power! Over 700 pages long...
>
> Actually only about 525 or so, the rest are notes and references.

525 gets you an A rather than an A+. ;-)

>> Does it add anything revolutionary to what has been understood for over
>> 40 years: "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"?
>
> Yes, in fact she specifically decries that assumption, because she
> believes the reality is rather different, more that you are the
> landscape that is being trashed for the purposes of data mining, but
> those are my way of expressing what she says, not hers, which I would
> have to look up, which would take quite a long time because my copy is a
> hardcopy book, not an e-edition. I've already quoted extensively from
> one section about Google Maps Street View here, but that is just one
> section giving one example of how our real lives are being colonised for
> the profit of others, the book is much, much more wide-ranging than just
> this one example:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/WBuYJJT2Ax0

I /thought/ that title and author were familiar! I'd seen that post in
comp.mobile.android.

> It's a pity that it's a PITA to read, because I feel it's an important
> book, but her written style is difficult to digest, more like a
> behavioural economics textbook than easily digestible English. For
> example, rather than avoiding jargon, she goes to the other extreme of
> inventing a good deal of it, which you have to master to understand what
> she's saying - examples:
>
> behavioural surplus - the profitable metadata we create online by
> just using things like Google Search, etc.
>
> uncontract - A contract that locks you in to their T & C
> so is not an 'agreement between two parties'
>
> Etc, etc, the book is rife with them.

Perhaps she was hoping to introduce new words into the academic
vocabulary in her field, for which she'd be recognised and quoted.
There's a review of the book here:
<https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2019/11/04/book-review-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-the-fight-for-the-future-at-the-new-frontier-of-power-by-shoshana-zuboff/>.
In it are quite a few words in quote marks such as ‘inevitabilism’. Is
that one of Zuboff's words or the reviewer's? I can't decide if the
review is of really high quality or is vying for a top position in
"Pseud's Corner" (Quote: "To that purpose, surveillance companies use a
rhetoric of exceptionalism to mask our dispossession.").

--

Jeff

On 29/01/2022 21:11, Pamela wrote:
> You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.

It can be a very good way of contacting large organisations. They often
do not publish an EMail address and there might just be a form to fill
in that might possibly be answered.

If you post on Twitter, anyone can read your complaint so it will often
get an answer.

On 29/01/2022 21:35, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> Perhaps she was hoping to introduce new words into the academic
> vocabulary in her field, for which she'd be recognised and quoted.
> There's a review of the book here:
> <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2019/11/04/book-review-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-the-fight-for-the-future-at-the-new-frontier-of-power-by-shoshana-zuboff/>.
> In it are quite a few words in quote marks such as ‘inevitabilism’. Is
> that one of Zuboff's words or the reviewer's? I can't decide if the
> review is of really high quality or is vying for a top position in
> "Pseud's Corner" (Quote: "To that purpose, surveillance companies use a
> rhetoric of exceptionalism to mask our dispossession.").

Sounds like Zuboff. IIRC ...

'Inevitabilism' refers to how surveillance capitalism tries to persuade
us, particularly legislators, that this sort of capitalism in inevitable
and therefore no attempt should be made to control it. Of course, this
is bollocks, the only inevitabilism is that if any form of capitalism
isn't controlled, it becomes exploitative, even cruelly so: slave trade,
opium wars, children working in factories, dire health & safety, denial
of the deleterious health effects of tobacco, etc, etc.

'Exceptionalism' refers to how, prior to 9/11, federal leanings were
towards greater control of the companies that inhabited the WWW, but
after the terrorist attacks, all that was forgotten, and federal
agencies, subject to democratic checks and balances, found they couldn't
act fast enough to scan the web for threatening content, watch people of
interest, etc, and started getting into bed with the surveillance
capitalists who already had a lot of data useful to the state. In that
sense, the word is being used to bolster the idea of 'inevitablism' above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk