Brexit Deal

Zep

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,267
Indeed. The statistics are interesting in that they don’t seem to support one outcome over another and you can get a different result from the same information.

As for the independence of the poll, there is no evidence to suggest bias in my eyes, particularly as the article itself doesn’t support one outcome, doesn’t discuss the benefits of either outcome and seems to simply look at ways of interpreting polling data.

I think it could go either way at this point and you are right about someone having the hump!
 
MarkMas

MarkMas

Chief pedant
Messages
8,919
Wack61 said:
What
You're seriously comparing throwing a milkshake at somebody with murder .
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually I will have a go at that....

I think any kind of physical attack on a politician is not something to be celebrated (whatever you think of the politician involved). While a milkshake (Farage) or an egg (Prescott) might seem amusing and broadly harmless, it is motivated by the same sort of political aggression as, say, the murder of Cox. The idea that politicians should be 'fought' or 'attacked' (or shamed, abused, shouted-down or no-platformed) rather than merely defeated by argument or votes is (IMHO) intrinsically abhorrent and dangerous. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable abuse? A phoney P45, a custard pie, an egg, some spit, a shoe, a slap, a punch, a stick, a club, a knife, a gun, a bomb? Is the limit different depending on how vile the politician is, or how virtuous the perpetrator feels? Where would YOU draw the line?
 
Wattie

Wattie

Member
Messages
8,640
MarkMas said:
Yeah, actually I will have a go at that....

I think any kind of physical attack on a politician is not something to be celebrated (whatever you think of the politician involved). While a milkshake (Farage) or an egg (Prescott) might seem amusing and broadly harmless, it is motivated by the same sort of political aggression as, say, the murder of Cox. The idea that politicians should be 'fought' or 'attacked' (or shamed, abused, shouted-down or no-platformed) rather than merely defeated by argument or votes is (IMHO) intrinsically abhorrent and dangerous. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable abuse? A phoney P45, a custard pie, an egg, some spit, a shoe, a slap, a punch, a stick, a club, a knife, a gun, a bomb? Is the limit different depending on how vile the politician is, or how virtuous the perpetrator feels? Where would YOU draw the line?
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.