https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-sc...
Exactly. Also because this is easily gamed by attacking the media that is already biased in your favour to get an even more favourable treatment.
Dominic Cummings had a bunch of interview appearances online. His experience in office when he was working with Johnson (and many Ministers in general) is that they don't actually understand what they can and can't do in the job. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation is present under Starmer.
Johnson's incredibly colourful reaction to Starmers trade deal, in that he was 'acting like an orange-ball chewing manical gimp', speaks volumes about the discourse around Starmer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ld3qkz
Hislop is particularly scathing, albeit cynically pragmatic, since Starmers appointment - "“Keir Starmer is the man who likes to sit on the fence unless you don’t like fences and then maybe he can find a hedge, or if you don’t like hedges he’ll find a wall."
“People have suggested Keir Starmer is very boring, but I think that’s partly his superpower, in that being interesting in the way his predecessor was manages to lose you elections.
“You have to be careful when you dismiss people as boring. Everyone thought John Major was boring, but then you had him for two elections.”
He changed his mind on Johnson, but he seems to be of the view that nothing works and that there is nothing for it but to burn everything down and start again according to the Dominic Cummings vision.
Not exactly. I think you need to listen to the interviews.
Dominic Cummins has solid rationale for why he believes what he believes. I would need to listen to them again to remember what he said, but what you are describing was too simplistic.
Also his opinions on Brexit have nothing to do with some of the things he said about how COVID was handled.
> He changed his mind on Johnson, but he seems to be of the view that nothing works and that there is nothing for it but to burn everything down and start again according to the Dominic Cummings vision.
I don't remember him saying that exactly.
I've viewed and read an interminable number of interviews with Cummings.
He decided that a) Brexit was a good idea (we can see how that turned out), b) he decided to help get a Johnson government elected, and c) joined his administration as de facto chief of staff and chief advisor. If that's not a tacit approval of Johnson and his government, then what is? Of course, he backtracked later when it was a disaster.
I don't want to start another Brexit debate or even take position on it. However I'd like to point out that the key with Brexit is the plan on what to do afterwards and that is what has been completely lacking.
Whatever one's opinion of Cummings, he did put forward a plan and that plan was never attempted (probably too bold, shall we say, for politicians to touch it). I am not commenting on whether that would have worked or not, but at least he put forward a plan and strategy. On the other hand, Bojo's "plan" for Brexit seemed to have been limited to becoming PM...
But go on, tell me about how “free speech zones” are meaningfully different to this. You won’t be arrested so long as you stay in your zone down the street and round the corner and out of sight.
The UK has serious problems, but reading Americans catastrophising over this stuff as I have been for a couple of decades now is always incredible. Take the beam from your own eyes. And stop believing lies about the streets of London being a war zone.
I don't think there has to be any negative motive. I'm not from the US or the UK but have lived in both countries, so feel I can be somewhat objective. What's going on in both countries is disturbing to me, but they have differences with what they are doing.
> But go on, tell me about how “free speech zones” are meaningfully different to this. You won’t be arrested so long as you stay in your zone down the street and round the corner and out of sight.
That hasn't been a thing for a long time. There have been nationwide protests the last few days not restricted to any kind of 'free speech zone'.
Consider what you are trying to defend: holding up a blank sign. Are you really OK with that? You really think that is reasonable?
> The UK has serious problems, but reading Americans catastrophising over this stuff
Pointing out a legitimate concern is not catastrophising anything.
> And stop believing lies about the streets of London being a war zone.
I never mentioned anything like that.
It’s still the law, was expanded under Obama and is used widely. It is used to control dissent at events where protest would be unsightly, much as the UK incident you brought up.
> Consider what you are trying to defend:
Consider that I didn’t defend it.
Arresting people for holding up a blank sign is very different and much worse.
> Consider that I didn’t defend it.
Do you agree it was a problem?
On the contrary, it’s no different whatsoever from corralling away protest until it’s out of sight in an approved zone, and arresting anyone who expresses dissent in sight.
It’s exactly the same use of police in concealment of dissent by the state.
> Do you agree it was a problem
Of course, it’s fucking awful. It’s your contention that “nothing like this ever happened in the US” that I took issue with - it does and it’s entirely routine.
This is my very point - the UK is used as some sort of out-there example of Orwellian repression, but the US, often painted in contrast as some sort of bastion, albeit a troubled one, is usually doing exactly the same damn thing.
It’s in this thread. We have your assertions above, and below we have someone decrying how unimaginable it would have been for a government to attempt to wholesale spy on people’s communications two decades ago, seemingly completely unaware of the activities of the NSA in AT&T and other companies’ data infrastructure in the US, revealed in 2006.
It’s a weird mix of jingoism and ignorance.
BBC Caught Altering Budget Article to Be More Favourable to Labour - https://order-order.com/2024/11/01/bbc-caught-altering-budge...
When Ivor Caplin, the former Labour MP that, among other things, attacked Musk for talking about Pakistani rape gangs, was arrested for pedophilia [1], this is the article they published - no photo, no name, no party affiliation, and no followup article - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg45y4r0yngo
BBC omits identity of Nigerian murderer from article about how he killed his wife [2,3], making it entirely about "gendered violence" instead. Readers can't make the incorrect inference if you simply withhold information from them.
BBC omits all criticism of Starmer from their reporting on his meeting with Trump [4].
The famous Trump capitol speech splicing: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-revea...
When Farage's private bank account was closed due to his politics, the BBC first simply took the bank's word that this was entirely due to financial considerations. When Farage obtained internal documents of that bank, explicitly saying he met financial criteria for an account, but it was closed despite this due to his politics, the BBC issued a correction article trying to imply his politics were merely "also" considered [5].
BBC uses all-white stock photos to warn about obnoxiously loud phone use on trains [6].
But makes sure to use a racially-diverse cast for the 1066 Battle of Hastings [7].
This is not the only such instance, nor a coincidence, by their own admission: Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” [8,9]
"Piers Wenger said failing to update the classics with diverse characters would be a dereliction of duty" - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/bbc-drama-boss-d...
They cropped a photo to remove a weapon from a protester: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/bbc-cropping-out-weapon-black-...
They instruct white parents to teach their children about white privilege, and to examine their biases if their toddler has only white friends: https://www.bbc.co.uk/tiny-happy-people/articles/zrgcf82
They had and defended a no-whites-allowed internship (despite BAME-workers already being slightly over-represented at the BBC [10]): https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/19/bbc-criticised-for-banning-wh...
They censor their own shows to be more racially sensitive on re-broadcast - without mentioning it until pressed: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/the-bbc-quietly-censo...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Caplin
[2] https://www.surinenglish.com/malaga/benalmadena-torremolinos...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw7g4zxwzo
[4] https://x.com/chrismid/status/1950163250852540547 (contains links to full Trump-Starmer meeting and the BBC articles, on the off chance you don't trust a random tweet)
[5] "On 4 July, the BBC reported Mr Farage no longer met the financial requirements for Coutts, citing a source familiar with the matter. The former UKIP leader later obtained a Coutts report which indicated his political views were also considered." - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66288464
[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce83p1ej8j7o
[7] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/07/racially-diverse...
[8] https://www.themarysue.com/steven-moffat-on-doctor-who-diver...
[9] https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-diversity-in-doctor-...
[10] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-pe...
You are not being genuine here IMO, and this seems to be a case of the very tribalism I spoke of. The two are not remotely the same. One is restricting a protest to a zone. The other is punishing people for what they are saying, even when what they are saying is a blank piece of cardboard.
> It’s your contention that “nothing like this ever happened in the US” that I took issue with - it does and it’s entirely routine.
> ...
> the US, often painted in contrast as some sort of bastion, albeit a troubled one, is usually doing exactly the same damn thing.
Can you cite an example of people in the US being arrested for holding up a blank piece of cardboard?
> It’s a weird mix of jingoism and ignorance.
This only describes your behavior.
I can't imagine it's paid work because what would be the point? It's not like he is influencing anyone's opinions.
The most empirical and robust study regarding bias was performed by Cardiff University in 2013. Its major finding regarded the dominance of Conservative party political sources in BBC coverage; in coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, they accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012.
The data also showed that the Conservative Party received significantly more airtime than the Labour Party. In 2012, Conservative leader and then Prime Minister David Cameron outnumbered Labour leader Ed Miliband in appearances by a factor of nearly four to one (53 to 15), and governing Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).
In reporting of the EU the dominance was even more pronounced with party political sources accounting for 65% of source appearances in 2007 and 79.2% in 2012.
In strand two (reporting of all topics) Conservative politicians were featured more than 50% more often than Labour ones (24 vs 15) across the two time periods on the BBC News at Six
This is evident right up to the 2019 election - BBC Question Time editing out audience laughter at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's fumbling responses, and soft-shoeing his ascendancy by excusing him from the tender mercies of Andrew Neil - unlike his opposition.
https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...
This is the same BBC that's put Nigel Farage on Question Time more than any other politician
Or frequently gives a platform to the various think tanks of the Tufton St mafia
If you believe the most relevant political division in the UK is Labour vs Tory, then it does all seem a bit random.
Anyone can propose a brave or bold course of action. It’s very rare these people have any idea how to actually execute their plans.
On 12 September, Charles addressed parliament as king for the first time. The Metropolitan police called in reinforcements in case of protests. Powlesland, who works nearby, walked from Parliament Square to Downing Street and back with his blank piece of paper. “Then a guy from Norfolk police came up and spoke to me, and that was the video that went viral.” Powlesland recorded the encounter on his phone. “He asked for my details, I asked why and he said, ‘I want to check you’re OK on the Police National Computer.’ I said, ‘I’ve not done anything wrong, so I’m not giving you them.’ I wanted to test it without getting arrested. So I asked, ‘If I wrote “Not my king” on the paper, would I get arrested?’ and he said, ‘Probably, because it would be a breach of the Public Order Act; it would be offensive.’” Was he right? Powlesland laughs. “No! Just having something someone else finds offensive is not a criminal offence because then pretty much anything could be.”
Have you considered that by choosing different time periods you get different results.
Maybe the BBC bends the knee to whoever is calling the shots, that's what it looks like to me.
I agree with you but I think this idea of being "fair" is something that is said but no-one actually believes in. Most recent government is one of the most extreme examples of this: do things that annoys everyone, say you are just being "fair" because everyone is annoyed...it doesn't make sense.
To say this another way, there is genuinely an easier option: stop doing things that people do not want.
This is from 2024
https://www.thefire.org/news/how-milwaukee-and-chicago-circu...
Increasingly I see people offering simplistic solutions that don’t even pass basic smell tests.
And then when you point out the obvious flaws the response is that you just have to be brave or take a risk.
But I do agree - we seem to be in a world full of intractable problems and doing something may be better than nothing.
Of course, on the note of being attacked from "both" sides, there are often more than two sides to a story. Also, not every side has to be, or maybe even should be, considered with equal weight.
The statements you have made don't really line up with the interviews I've listened to.
The context around the events and what his involvement was and was not, is important.
You are leaving out key information that he mentioned in many interview appearances.
> He decided that a) Brexit was a good idea (we can see how that turned out)
Without re-litigating everything. It may have been different if the politicians and those that worked for them hadn't frustrated the process. I was genuinely disgusted by the attitudes that many of the politicians had after the Leave won. That was my interpretation of what happened. Your obviously differs.
It also says nothing about the validity of his other statements, which is what I was referring to.
> b) he decided to help get a Johnson government elected
Yes, but the way you are talking about it is omitting events both before and after the 2019 General Election.
Theresa May had been ousted by the Conservative Leadership. Earlier she ran an awful election campaign, squandered a huge lead in the polls and had to form a coalition Government with the DUP to maintain a majority.
Cummins said he was contacted by Johnson because Johnson had a minority government and couldn't call a re-election. His first job was to get Johnson out of that Quagmire, then prepare for re-election. He decided to help Johnson under certain guarantees / conditions. Which tells me that he didn't actually trust Johnson.
He claims to have been gradually forced out by Carrie Johnson and his team shortly after the election.
If you are being hampered by the Prime Minster's wife on the agenda that you are supposed to implement. It is likely to fail.
I've actually experienced something similar in my career where I was being blocked (for political reasons) by another team. It makes getting anything done impossible.
So there is no reason to believe he is lying, back tracking or retconning events.
This is because his statements about Carrie Johnson's involvement line up with other accounts from other people that I've heard during the time period shortly after his departure.
> c) joined his administration as de facto chief of staff and chief advisor. If that's not a tacit approval of Johnson and his government, then what is? Of course, he backtracked later when it was a disaster.
It not about it being an approval or disapproval of his government. Often you must work with people that you would rather not to, to achieve things.
His feelings about the Johnson government doesn't change his the validity of his statements about how Whitehall operate while he was present.
His comments about ossified organisations lines up with my past experience of working in both ossified Public and Private orgs.
His account of the events around COVID match up with the timeline of events, and I re-watched old interviews of him and he hasn't backtracked at all or changed his story around what happened. He has mentioned things he couldn't mention at the time e.g. his residence was broken into and he was advised not to mention this at the time.
I have no reason to not believe him, since his statements match up with both what I have experienced and a known timeline of events.
I think your dislike of Cummins and his involvement with Vote Leave. As a result is clouding your judgement on the validity of his statements about how Boris Johnson behaved and how Whitehall operates.
Generally there is a lot of stuff in his interviews that I've seen that quite honestly changed my opinion of him (which was somewhat negative). I believe he is telling the truth.
Just because a fascist and a communist agree that eating shit is bad, doesn't mean that eating shit is a good idea.
I think that the UK won't solve its issues until it gets a PM with a bold plan and great leadership, whatever side they may come from.
Regarding Cummins, Why exactly? Dominic Cummins is articulate, seems to be quite intelligent and seems to be very fact/data orientated. I've also heard him describe how he would action particular policy.
Therefore I find it hard to believe he had didn't have any idea on how to execute his plans.
BBC News on the web vs BBC News the programme, vs BBC worldwide (which is a seperate org inside the BBC), then there's regional BBC and the prime time talk shows (the hard hitting Andrew Neil and co).
So, when someone says "the BBC is biased against the left" or "the BBC is biased agains the right"; ironically they can both be right, and it's not an indicator of impartiality. It depends on which section of the BBC we're talking about.
And you're totally blind to the bits of the BBC you agree with; you will think those bits are the impartial ones.
All of this was widely reported in the British media and generally agreed to be a bad thing, so it doesn't really fit with your narrative of Brits being in denial about these problems.
By being sloppy with the facts you're only reinforcing Nursie's point that much of the discussion around these issues on HN is based on exaggeration and poorly sourced claims. That's what people actually object to, but you misinterpret these objections as a defense of police overreach.
* Pro the royal family since it is chartered by them.
* Against Scottish independence since it would lose 10% of its funding.
I was under the impression it was not a single incident, but that's great that it wasn't.
The bigger problem, though, was people being arrested for holding up "not my king" or similar signs. According to one site[0], there were 64 arrests that day. I don't think it matters that no charges were filed or whatever, what matters is they were taken at the time for expressing an opinion.
> All of this was widely reported in the British media and generally agreed to be a bad thing, so it doesn't really fit with your narrative of Brits being in denial about these problems.
That's also good to know. I should have been clearer, but I meant within the context of my experience online. I also don't know that they are truly in denial, it just seems they are overly defensive about it and want to point out the US is worse in various ways.
> That's what people actually object to, but you misinterpret these objections as a defense of police overreach.
I'm misinterpreting anything, and certainly not in this discussion. In past discussions, closer to the coronation, there were Brits being very active in downplaying the arrests, that to me would seem to be denying there was an issue. If it was widely reported in British media as a bad thing, it would seem these particular people being in denial were outliers.
[0] https://hnksolicitors.com/news/met-police-regrets-coronation...
[0] https://hnksolicitors.com/news/met-police-regrets-coronation...
In the UK? The police shoot very few people of any colour! Two in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_police_in_...
Is there even a bit enough sample to draw such conclusions (let alone that correlation does not imply causation)
I was talking about protestors being arrested for holding up signs, he said the same thing happened in the US but his evidence was the disproportionate shooting of black people by police in the US, which while very bad is an entirely different issue.
My facts here would have been previous HN discussions that would have been very hard to find.
> I promise you that a lot of the pushback you're getting from Brits is down to the factual inaccuracies and exaggerations in your posts
No, that isn't the case, and you're not in a position to promise that; it's an assumption you're making, and I would ask you to question your motivation for doing so.
In the previous posts I was using as an example discussion the coronation, people were downplaying protestors being arrested for holding up signs. Nothing was being exaggerated, all the facts were accurate as they had just happened - sources were abundant.
I've already stated my impression of what happened in Parliament leading during that time period, it was obvious that people were being obstructionist and that alone doomed any hope of a positive outcome.
> Police Scotland said the 22-year-old woman arrested outside St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh on Sunday had been arrested for “breach of the peace”.
> The woman was holding a sign reading “f** imperialism, abolish monarchy”, but the sign is not understood to be the reason for her arrest
And look at you - making incorrect assertions about both free speech zones (they are still used) and your central point about the arrest of a protestor who it turns out wasn't arrested.
It's sad that you're not going to walk away from this discussion thinking "Huh, maybe I wasn't very well informed, it's pretty terrible in both countries so calling out the UK as significantly worse might actually be wrong" but instead believe you were attacked by unreasonable, tribal British people defending authoritiarianism.
But that's arguing on the internet I guess.
By the way, here's another example of the use free speech zones and the arrests of people for having their say -
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/11/12/protesters-keep-gett...
"Since state officials created a “free speech zone,” local police continue to make arrests that have “no apparent purpose other than just intimidating people away from that line, and sending a message that they’re going to be controlling the area with force,” said civil rights attorney Joe DiCola."
Suppression of protest is unfortunately a popular thing for governments in a lot of places right now. It's as bad (if not worse) in Australia, where I live, especially in New South Wales where they seem determined to find a pretext to ban any and all marches.
And to make it absolutely clear - I do not support any of it nor am I defending the actions of the UK authorities. Also not a monarchist, that family of parasites needs to be stripped of all powers, lands and assets stolen from the British and other peoples, and I was disgusted by what the British authorities did to suppress dissent leading up to the coronation of King big-ears.
My assertion was that "they haven't been a thing", and they haven't. Your sentence implied they were a nationwide issue still, and they very simply haven't been. Again, the numerous nationwide protests easily demonstrate that point.
> your central point about the arrest of a protestor who it turns out wasn't arrested.
At least 64 people were for simply holding up signs saying "not my king". The guy holding up blank paper was intimidated by the cops, which sure, is better than being arrested, but not great.
> It's sad that you're not going to walk away from this discussion thinking "Huh, maybe I wasn't very well informed, it's pretty terrible in both countries so calling out the UK as significantly worse might actually be wrong"
What's sad is you're being the very example of someone being overly defensive about the UK's decline instead of just agreeing these are real issues. This isn't a competition, I think the US is going in a horrible direction as well, andnot once did I claim the UK was 'significantly worse' - that's a strawman birthed from your defensiveness.
> but instead believe you were attacked by unreasonable, tribal British people defending authoritiarianism.
I do think you are being tribal and unreasonable, yes.
> But that's arguing on the internet I guess.
Unfortunately, but it's honestly only a minority of people who act like that. Reasonable people wouldn't be this deep into the conversation and would just have agreed, yeah, the British government overreached against protestors and some other examples of overreach appear concerning if indicative of a trend.
But, nah, let's just defend King and Country without stopping to actually analyze or self-reflect.
I gave you another example from last year, but it was in an edit so you might have missed it.
> Again, the numerous nationwide protests easily demonstrate that point.
Protest marches occur regularly in the UK as well, so that's evidence it's fine there? People were arrested for protesting at an event, the coronation. This is the same sort of thing free speech zones have been used to suppress in the US. Sure, the last time they were used in the exact same way was probably under Bush Jnr, but they're still used where protest is considered inconvenient (like the ICE protests in the article I linked above).
> not once did I claim the UK was 'significantly worse'
Not with those exact words, but it was heavily implied with your repetition of emphasis on the guy being arrested (or not) for holding a piece of paper.
> being overly defensive about the UK
> Reasonable people wouldn't be this deep into the conversation and would just have agreed, yeah, the British government overreached against protestors and some other examples of overreach appear concerning if indicative of a trend.
> But, nah, let's just defend King and Country without stopping to actually analyze or self-reflect.
Do you have no reading comprehension at all? I have agreed with that, several times. I haven't defended the actions of the UK once. When you directly asked me if it was a problem, I said yes it's awful. The King can go #### himself.
OK, I'm done with this conversation, at some point dang will be along to put an end to it anyway I imagine, as it's fruitless.
It doesn't really matter though, the point was it hasn't been a national issue in over a decade, and that remains the case.
> Protest marches occur regularly in the UK as well, so that's evidence it's fine there?
The point was people were being arrested in the UK simply for holding up signs. You tried to equate free speech zones with that, but as I said it's an entirely unrelated matter, a desperate whataboutism sprung from defensiveness.
> Sure, the last time they were used in the exact same way was probably under Bush Jnr,
So, over a decade ago like I said.
> but they're still used where protest is considered inconvenient (like the ICE protests in the article I linked above).
There are giant protests all over the country. Free speech zones don't make the news because they are not an issue. No one is being impeded.
> Not with those exact words, but it was heavily implied with your repetition of emphasis on the guy being arrested (or not) for holding a piece of paper.
Not at all, you inferred it. I've been consistently clear that I think the UK is going down a bad path but in a very different way from the US, I never said worse.
> I have agreed with that, several times. I haven't defended the actions of the UK once. When you directly asked me if it was a problem, I said yes it's awful.
Honestly, only once that I'm aware of, and I had to drag it out of you. All your posts are pushing back, which gives the impression you want to defend the problems being mentioned.
> OK, I'm done with this conversation, at some point dang will be along to put an end to it anyway I imagine, as it's fruitless.
I shan't expect a reply then. Cheers. Hopefully we can have a more productive discussion on a different topic in the future.
The OP gave many examples but you only need to know one: the BBC broadcast fake footage of Trump created by splicing together different parts of a speech he gave. The parts were separated by more than 50 minutes and they hid the splice by cutting to the crowd. This manipulation of the public only came to light because an internal whistleblower tried to report what happened, then discovered the BBC institutionally supported this kind of video manipulation so blowing the whistle internally was useless. He reported it to the Telegraph instead.
In other words:
• The BBC broadcasts fake news clips.
• It does so deliberately, with the full approval of its board.
• They refused to apologize or clean house.
• They probably do it a lot and get away with it.
That's it. That's the only thing you need to know about the BBC's political bias.
And it's not just them. Channel 4 News broadcast an entirely fake video of Farage during the last election. It framed him by using an actor who was collaborating with an undercover film crew (and the actor was acting at the time). This was proven beyond all doubt and C4 refused to do anything about it. Once again, institutional fraud in service of election manipulation.
There's no real gap between using actors or mid-sentence splices and using AI, special effects or other standard Hollywood tactics. So the idea that British TV news is biased in favour of the right is farcical on its face. Let us know when they're regularly faking videos of Starmer! I grew up in Britain and the state of Britain's institutions is just shameful. It's tin pot third world stuff. British people need to understand that their state owned TV channels are completely unreliable sources to learn about the world from.
Which is exactly why any answer I give you would be unsatisfactory.
I did a long detailed response in this thread where I spent a lot of time detailing why I believed somebody's assessment of about about Dominic Cummings was incorrect (I actually listened to what he had to say). So I've already have put weight behind my opinions.
Your reply on this topic is essentially leading to a re-litigation of Brexit which happened a decade ago now, which isn't anything to do with Dominic Cumming's observations on how Whitehall worked while he was present during COVID.
Brexit isn't something I wanted to get into, but both you and the other person I was replying to seemed to be focused on Brexit when it isn't the topic of discussion. I made that abundantly clear in my long reply to them.
TBH. You can do a web search or ask an AI the various exit strategies that were present at the time. Many scenarios were proposed before and after the vote. This was discussed to death at the time. Loads has been written about it. Why do I have to summarise something that is easily found via a search engine for you?
That said however they can't make things up, or overtly bury critical stories...but putting a softer slant on them wouldn't be unreasonable.
Actually it wouldn't. There are many arguments from fringe figures to more mainstream with various rationales. Much has been written about it.
> If you’re not interested in someone’s question then you should probably just ignore it rather than write paragraphs about why you’re not interested in it, but you do you!
I answered your question. The way I answered while a bit sardonic is supposed to make you think a bit. Obviously you don't appreciate it, but it isn't in bad faith.
Not everything has to be some sort of logical back and forth debate to get the point across.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2019/dec/03/chun...
I have to also laugh at Channel 4 (decidedly not the BBC in the first instance) putting some small thumb on the scales of justice re: Nigel Farage and the Reform party generally - the biggest political and institutional frauds outside of the Reese-Moggs clan.
My favourite prominent example: footage originally taken from GB News was used by a local Reform Party to falsely claim a rival MP was abusive to Nigel Farage in Parliament
https://inews.co.uk/news/mp-falsely-accused-calling-farage-a...
Their coverage of the Scottish independence referendum was laughably biased and often clueless.
They do seem to have an odd attitude towards Nigel Farage (UKIP & Reform) though, and kept putting him on Questiontime and the radio. It seems unclear why they would promote him so much given much of their other content.
If it's not clear, I'm also heavily implying that you should be questioning the veracity of whatever source you're getting this easily-debunked tripe from.
I wouldn't say backtracked. I acknowledged a correction. The pont still stands, people are being arrested and/or intimidated by police for expressing a non-hatespeech, non-violent opinion.
> I'm pointing out that your "People were just arrested for holding up signs like 'abolish monarchy'" might be on similarly shaky ground.
I gave a source elsewhere in this thread.
> If it's not clear, I'm also heavily implying that you should be questioning the veracity of whatever source you're getting this easily-debunked tripe from.
It's not tripe, and if you want to attempt to go ahead and debunk it. I was wrong about the arrest for the blank sign as admitted, I'm not wrong about people being arrested for holding up signs expressing non-hatespeech, non-violent opinions, for which sources are abundant.