• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Grooming gangs

Wisbech Eagle said:
Because they are only considered left of centre by those on the hard right.

To people who are centralists, whether centre right, like me, or centre left, they are balanced and objective. The centralists, despite what you read here, continue to dominate British politics.
Click to expand...
Of course they are.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

openDemocracy - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com
 
Teddy Eagle said:
LEFT-centre as originally stated.
Click to expand...
Right centre or Left centre is still in the centre.

It’s neither of the hard right nor hard left and it’s from there that the perception of bias is seen.

That one outside agency expresses an opinion is, in any case, hardly conclusive is it? They have an opinion. So do you and so do I. My opinion is what matters most to me and that is that they are fairer and more objective than others. So acceptable.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Right centre or Left centre is still in the centre.

It’s neither of the hard right nor hard left and it’s from there that the perception of bias is seen.

That one outside agency expresses an opinion is, in any case, hardly conclusive is it? They have an opinion. So do you and so do I. My opinion is what matters most to me and that is that they are fairer and more objective than others. So acceptable.
Click to expand...
Now you're questioning fact checkers.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
This though is not an assessment of fact is it?

It’s an opinion, probably of just one writer.

The fact checking comes with the assessment of their accuracy. Which is very high.
Click to expand...
By the same token that's one person's opinion as well then. So that's fact checkers done with.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No it isn’t.

There will be several people checking facts using a standardised protocol to verify their truth or not. It will be a system, not an opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course. Twist everything to fit your opinion. I would ask for a list of approved fact checkers but that won't get a response either.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Of course. Twist everything to fit your opinion. I would ask for a list of approved fact checkers but that won't get a response either.
Click to expand...
No twisting involved. I am not Chubby Checker!

Facts need verification. Not opinions. They are either true, or not. If a determination cannot be made then that must be stated.

I don’t use fact checkers often enough to have a preferred list but there is an EU code of Standards to which many have signed up, including some from the UK. So ensuring integrity and reliability is very much part of what they do. If you are seeking information on whether something is true, or not, you need to first believe the information provider.

efcsn.com

Code of Standards – European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)

The European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations is designed to ensure that organisations adhere to the highest standards.
efcsn.com efcsn.com

I think you can safely trust their members and all others who subscribe to the code.

That the right try to undermine confidence in them by suggesting they are themselves politically biased just demonstrates how concerned they are that their lies may be exposed.

Where does the tactic of smearing your opponent with your own worst sins come from? Politics nosedived after 2016.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No twisting involved. I am not Chubby Checker!

Facts need verification. Not opinions. They are either true, or not. If a determination cannot be made then that must be stated.

I don’t use fact checkers often enough to have a preferred list but there is an EU code of Standards to which many have signed up, including some from the UK. So ensuring integrity and reliability is very much part of what they do. If you are seeking information on whether something is true, or not, you need to first believe the information provider.

efcsn.com

Code of Standards – European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)

The European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations is designed to ensure that organisations adhere to the highest standards.
efcsn.com efcsn.com

I think you can safely trust their members and all others who subscribe to the code.

That the right try to undermine confidence in them by suggesting they are themselves politically biased just demonstrates how concerned they are that their lies may be exposed.

Where does the tactic of smearing your opponent with your own worst sins come from? Politics nosedived after 2016.
Click to expand...
Earlier you said - It’s an opinion, probably of just one writer.
Politics was on a steady downward trajectory for many years prior to 2016.
 
ASCPFC said:
On the one hand The Guardian are outraged. Yet they wouldn't find it ironic to call for Shari'a law in Bradford on the next page.
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t because they won’t!

The idea that a responsible newspaper like the Guardian would argue for anything other than British law is absurd.

What seems to confuse people is the voluntary use of Sharia as a form of dispute resolution. That has nothing to do with the law and doesn’t restrict anyone’s access to it. That though doesn’t mean everyone is aware of that so more ought to be done to ensure they are.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Earlier you said - It’s an opinion, probably of just one writer.
Politics was on a steady downward trajectory for many years prior to 2016.
Click to expand...
That was directed at the assessment of there being a “centre-left” bias from an organisation describing themselves as mediabiasfactcheck! There is no objective measurement that can determine whether that’s a fact or not so this has nothing to do with actual fact checking, or a genuine fact checker. It’s an opinion.

So who is this organisation? It’s based in the USA, which is enough on its own to raise doubts on its ability to truly assess left leaning views. When any kind of social conscience is portrayed by some as being communist you can see why.

en.wikipedia.org

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That was directed at the assessment of there being a “centre-left” bias from an organisation describing themselves as mediabiasfactcheck! There is no objective measurement that can determine whether that’s a fact or not so this has nothing to do with actual fact checking, or a genuine fact checker. It’s an opinion.

So who is this organisation? It’s based in the USA, which is enough on its own to raise doubts on its ability to truly assess left leaning views. When any kind of social conscience is portrayed by some as being communist you can see why.

en.wikipedia.org

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That's the way. Another source off the list because it doesn't match your parti pris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top