Agreed. And the fact the second thing happened isn't a reason to assume that the first thing didn't ever happen.
No but it's not an excuse to treat soldiers doing a 5h1t job as potential abusers.
Agreed. And the fact the second thing happened isn't a reason to assume that the first thing didn't ever happen.
1 - There is no evidence at all to suggest out various opt-outs (of which there are many, not just anything that Cameron managed to get - things like our opt out of the Euro etc) would be at risk or would lead to us "being on the outside looking in".
2 - Surely that is the situation we are going to be in anyway if we leave? From the outside looking in, but still paying the bills (either paying in the form of a fee to access the single market, or paying in terms of import / export tariffs that will be applied to us if we are not in the single market).
No but it's not an excuse to treat soldiers doing a 5h1t job as potential abusers.
What is this mythical "status quo" to which you refer?
The EU is constantly evolving into a more unified state. True, we have (had) Cameron's laughable opt outs, but even if the EU had finally passed them, within a few years the UK would have been on the outside looking in, but in that case still paying the bills.
We are going to escape the shackles of the EU and make trade deals with more sane regimes like the US, India and China.
More sane?
Except, of course, that the rest of the EU would also pay tariffs on their exports to us.
Given the trade imbalance in their favour that would make us net winners.
After seeing Trump's latest press conference, sanity seemed in short supply.
There is very little chance that being outside of the EU will get us beneficial trade with the rest of the EU - infact, put simply, that cannot be allowed to happen from an EU stand point, and we have very little to bargain with to gain such an agreement.
Indeed, what would the British view if it had been France or Germany had been the ones to declare they would be leaving the EU.
More sane?
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!
I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
A
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!
I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
A
The Brexit discussion has to go somewhere whilst the main Brexit thread deals with the question of the Death Penalty!
The move by the online encyclopedia — which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information — was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.
It reported that Wikipedia’s editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mail’s journalism cannot be trusted.
No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)
Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.
If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’.
Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information.
Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today.
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:
The move by the online encyclopedia which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.
It reported that Wikipedias editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mails journalism cannot be trusted.
No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industrys Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)
Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.
If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedias decision to censor the Mail the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the sites 30 million total, plus five administrators.
Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the worlds most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information.
Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese governments Xinhua news agency, Irans Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today.
Full piece here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:
The move by the online encyclopedia which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.
It reported that Wikipedias editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mails journalism cannot be trusted.
No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industrys Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)
Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.
If they had, then it would have become apparent to readers that this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and that Wikipedias decision to censor the Mail the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the sites 30 million total, plus five administrators.
Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the worlds most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information.
Wikipedia has not, for example, banned the Chinese governments Xinhua news agency, Irans Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today.
Full piece here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html
The Mail is far worse than most though. The ban is no actual hardship; anything even remotely true can be sourced from a more reliable source.Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy.Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
It must be thirty years since I've seen a copy of the Mail, so can't comment on its factual verisimilitude. However it does host the redoubtable Peter Hitchens, whose on-line column is one of the few havens of good sense in a political mire. Wikipedia editing has been taken over by vested interests who commit themselves full time to removing anything they disagree with by fair means or foul.The Mail is far worse than most though. The ban is no actual hardship; anything even remotely true can be sourced from a more reliable source.
The Mail is infamously known for its inaccuracies and incredible bias, and we can't fix those inaccuracies. People can fix inaccuracies on Wikipedia.
Having read the marriage discussion thread, in which you disagree with just about everyone else, and having read Peter Hitchens' Wikipedia entry, I can see why you would be a fan of his column... However it does host the redoubtable Peter Hitchens, whose on-line column is one of the few havens of good sense in a political mire....
He's a political Conservative, whereas I'm a social conservative, and a Labour voter. However I'm sure he'd agree that's a much smaller difference than the chasm between the laissez faire social and economic liberalism that dominates the political agenda of the main parties, and each other's political compass.Having read the marriage discussion thread, in which you disagree with just about everyone else, and having read Peter Hitchens' Wikipedia entry, I can see why you would be a fan of his column