Channel 4 no more?

Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News today:

The facts are that in many areas, Scotland does lag behind other areas in the UK in terms of vaccine rollout. Just tell us candidly and frankly, what mistakes and short-comings have you noted thus far with this.

On every other issue, Channel 4 News tends to be better than the others but on Scotland they have a problem it seems.

Did Thomson not hear the previous explanations? Does he still think English care homes have been done and not just lettered?

In a perverse way, I suppose, he is correct. Scotland does lag behind other areas in the UK with much lower infection and death rates or lower hospital-onset infections, or lower care home deaths or…..

I’ve tried, but I give up on them as of now.

26 thoughts on “Channel 4 no more?

  1. Today’s questioning at the briefing did ma heid in! Then, looking at the replies to the Scottish Govt. twitter feed it was Bot Central. You must be exhausted just trying to keep up with the lies never mind trying to refute them. Thanks again for all your hard work.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I share your views John. I also watched the briefing today. There must be a real panick about something south of the border to send one of their top men up . Where was their Scottish cub reporter today?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Sadly joanna has appeared to show intolerance to a minority and unfortunately supported one using the n**i and h***t words on Twitter a definite no no e.g. ken livingstone

      Like

    2. On political parties and party discipline in general:

      – how ‘tolerant’ should a party be of differences of view expressed publicly by its general membership? IMHO, very tolerant – (respectful if robust) debate is good and division is natural. There will be – must be – ‘battles of ideas’. It’s how these are conducted and resolved that matters.

      – how ‘tolerant’ should a party be of differences of view expressed publicly by its MPs and MSPs? IMHO, quite tolerant – (respectful if robust) debate is good and division is natural. But amongst a party’s MSPs and MPs substantial public disagreements with party policies should not become the norm. A collegiate approach working in support of party policy should be the norm.

      – how ‘tolerant’ should a party in opposition be of differences of view publicly expressed (as distinct from internally argued) by MPs or MSPs that are ‘front bench’ spokespersons? IMHO the party leadership cannot be tolerant, at least not if this concerns multiple key policy issues and/or over a prolonged period.

      Having front bench spokespersons – especially when sitting in a very hostile parliament and with a very hostile press – with substantial, public opposition to key elements of policy is a recipe for other parties’ and press’ ridicule. Yes, battle for your point of view internally but as an official front bench spokesperson your opposition to your own party’s key policies in public will inevitably have consequences.

      I have zero experience of political party management. But this seems to be blindingly obvious!

      Like

    1. Really! I have a few of his books on my shelves. This is the ideal person to sit as an Independent…a real Green instead of the current $&@! who pretend they are. He would be a tremendous asset to Holyrood as an unshackled MSP (unshackled from her and Harvey’s extreme ideas on Biology)

      Like

  3. The EngGov think that people with a letter in their hands, is a job ‘done’, like clapping for English NHS staff but leaving them to need foodbanks due to their low wages, a letter is enough. Firstly, why a letter? secondly how much did it cost to print and send the letters and which company was contracted to do the job! They did not need to send out letters many in care homes will for eg have dementia, they won’t understand what the letter is about or for. A huge waste of money, all they needed to do was inform the care homes via the old fashioned telephone, or modern form of communication via email, that their residents wwould be offered the vaccine on such and such a date, job ‘done’! I am sure the care home staff could pass on that message to residents somehow!

    I don’t know what is going on re J.Cherry etc but I am staying away from twitter for now, it’s quite toxic now, the anti SNP are out in force and too many agent provocatuers getting a hold! The manipulation is incessant and full on. They know it works, very sinister and will get worse in run up to election in May…the attack dogs are out and have the sent of blood, they have been starved for a while and so are utterly rabid.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-01-social-media-political-actors-industrial.html

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Navalny knows where he stands with the Putin-backing media in Russia. A kleptomaniac State with a corrupt broadcast and print media.

    Same in Scotland. A captive Scotland, handcuffed to an old Etonian oligarchy, with a media subjugated to the State point of view.

    Ethics in journalism? They probably think it’s the county next to Sussex!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. What a diabolical Covid Update, almost all working from the same crib sheet again presumably issued by Tory Spin HQ, but Alex Thomson’s C4 contribution was his Nick Robinson moment.

    The FM displayed remarkable patience, but two moments had me in stitches over quiet underling of the hypocrisy.

    A question over information briefed to journalists by Alister Jack – AJ was part of the 4 nations call which agreed no briefing press until agreement was reached on how to publish vaccine supplies (the previous evening ?).
    The nonsense of 1 Million doses available but not in peoples’ arms – Well proportionally that would be 10 M vaccinated in England, are there 10 M vaccinated ?
    She could have made much more of the OFFERED versus DONE vaccinations in England care homes bunkum, but given the childish outfit in charge they’d arrange an accident for vaccine supplies Scotland bound.
    Absolutely scandalous and horrific, and I believe the desperation of it all is blatantly obvious to the public.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I didn’t hear todays’s briefing. Mr Thomson is a rare participant in the interrogation by journalists. So I’m just about OK with his use of what might be called a ‘provocatively’ framed question – although when any says ‘the facts are’ when framing a question my warning signal goes off.

    However, having received an answer – and having done what I would expect in terms of basic comparative and contextual research on the issue – the critical thing now is how he reports what he has learned on the C4 News. Does he stick with the negatively framed provocation or does he properly/fully inform – and if not the latter, why not?

    This will be a good test of Mr Thomson’s and C4 News’ credentials – different/ better than the BBC or just BBC light?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. As far as I understand things, the only way you can support distributive justice is by respecting the Natural law of things. Which is why English Torydum, and agents of English Torydum, are intensely hostile towards Natural law jurisprudence and natural rights.

    Please try to remember the British constitution was a common law contract between equal nations, which Westminster has decided to amend arbitrarily, and in a manner that expunges Scotland’s contribution to the continual evolution of the Natural law. Which is a crime against humanity, not just Scotland.

    COMMON LAW and the LAW OF REASON
    http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/common-law

    Like

  8. I was surprised to hear Alex Thomson asking this imbecilic question,always considered him as a serious informed journalist.
    As others have said it will be interesting to see if he maintains the message from the Westminster Politburo or not.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Echo all thoughts on today’s media briefing questions – I really despair of the quality of journalism we’re seeing all the time now

    Re Joanna Cherry – for what it’s worth I think she is a very good politician but….is she a team player? has she consistently backed the party leadership in public? All parties reshuffle, all leaders of parties have to chose folk who will follow the party line especially in times of turmoil when only a united approach is going to see you through. JC seemed publicly unhappy about the direction the SNP were taking but unless she wins support for a leadership challenge possibly her only option is to stand as an independent. And as always we’re back to personality politics, the very thing NS is getting pelters for

    The timing sucks though as we will now have a pile on for the forseeable future agonising over what has happened and threatening to or actually leaving the party. The unionists and MSM will milk this for all its worth too. The knives are definitely out for NS and I still think the only people benefitting from bringing her down is the folk who don’t want independence at any cost. Indy supporters need to think long & hard at themselves – what is more important just now?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I’d suggest it is neither prudent nor legal, to unquestioningly support a party who is trashing the foundations of open democracy and the potential for justice in Scotland.

      Like

      1. And who says its unquestioning support? I have my own opinions but, since I’ve no intention of stepping forward to try and get backing for them, i can either support the nearest fit to my views or step ba k and whinge on social media. It’s very easy to carp and moan, and it might be that your concerns are justified but if you feel so strongly get out there and fight your case rather than rubbishing those brave enough to face the flak.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The SNP brought it upon themselves.

      e.g. from James Kelly
      ” Kirsty Blackman regularly lambasts her colleague Joanna Cherry on social media, and Hannah Bardell recently ‘liked’ a tweet boasting that Joan McAlpine had been no-platformed due to her non-existent ‘bigotry’ on the trans issue.”

      Like

  10. Some members resigned because of perceived lack of support for the trans/gender ID issues. Nicola made a statement supporting them. The young ones support gender ID.

    An advocate Sarah ? was critical on Twitter about trans rights and banned. Johanna Cherry criticises the ban. Kirsty Blackman supported the ban. Johanna Cherry blocked Kirsty Blackman. MP’s had a meeting about the issues. Supporting BAME and disabled candidates as SNP policy. Then the changes.

    Like

  11. Brobb
    Opinion has no substantive value, unless it is coherent with cognitive, ethical, reason. I’m fighting my case in the public domain, and can at least support my opinion through rational legal argument.

    Please try to remember that it isn’t possible to make effective claims to legal rights, if you are denied a defensible legal identity (see Brexit).

    Respect for the principle of gender equality in civil law
    http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11635&lang=EN

    Like

  12. Cameronb, I clearly don’t think about things the way you do. My thoughts are my own and yes, only thoughts not backed up by legal arguments or textbook jargon. But, as a voter, i have one vote just as you do and no need to justify why i think the way i do to you. If you want to debate and try to persuade me to aee things your way you will need to ditch the jargon and speak to me as someone with a different but acceptable alternative view. If you lecture or approach a debate convinced only you can be right i will iskip by your ideas

    Liked by 2 people

  13. The NEC and affiliated group yesterday accepted that the SNP would accept as preferred list candidates people who would self idntify as disabled.

    This was done in spite of legal advice from a QC that this would not be legal. Two people who wish to put themselves forward as potential list candidates for the election were allowed to vote in favour of this proposal despite the obvious conflict of interest.

    There is support for this among some. One MP, with no legal qualification I believe, rejects the legal advice in favour of this.

    Alison Thewliss
    @alisonthewliss
    · 21h
    When the Equalities Act was drawn up, it didn’t have the regional list in mind. It was based on Westminster FPTP selections.

    I see no reason why we as the SNP, as the biggest party in Scotland, should not try to test this and further the cause of underrepresented groups.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.