- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
It's a surprise to see how many take the DM as gospel, it conforms to their worldview so be damned with the facts.
Why does it take so long to clear Motorway incidents?
- Thread starter SirGalahad
- Start date
It's a surprise to see how many take the DM as gospel, it conforms to their worldview so be damned with the facts.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Its won journalism prizes and most recently for the Panama Papers. Dogg you really are barking up the wrong tree. Comparing the DM to the Guardian.
Also Guardian won the Pulitzer with the Washing Post for the NSA revelations.
You might as well quote Breitbart. lol
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,127
- Reaction score
- 2,744
- Country
Awards and prizes are irrelevant - if they swing in a political direction they have bias. The Guardian does and therefore its no different. Its human nature to consider your opinion is correct and others are barking. We even had a comment a few pages back saying someone's opinion had been corrected. You don't correct someone's opinion you change it to yours (at best).
I'd suggest this is about right, though a little surprising ..
I'd suggest this is about right, though a little surprising ..
Last edited:
D
Doggit
You've got to stop putting words in my mouth Kank, Now at what point did I compare the Guardian to the DM. Um, lets see, I didn't, but it's interesting how people see thing in a different perspective.
Odd how you dengrate the facts from the Daily Mail, but manage to selectively ignore the pretty much same facts from the BBC.
Sponsored Links
So why is enforcement "sneaky" when it is applied to limit-breaking drivers?
Are ticket inspectors on trains "sneaky?"
Traffic wardens?
Another one of the DM's accolades.....
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
You have to be quite the bottom feeder to get banned from Wiki. They cited "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication” as their reasons. No schitt.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
You have to be quite the bottom feeder to get banned from Wiki. They cited "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication” as their reasons. No schitt.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,127
- Reaction score
- 2,744
- Country
they are require
The code of practice requires them to be highly visible as a speeding deterrent. It's why cameras are yellow etc. So it's sneaky when they take their high vis van and hide it.
The code of practice requires them to be highly visible as a speeding deterrent. It's why cameras are yellow etc. So it's sneaky when they take their high vis van and hide it.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
You made an equivalence to dismiss the Guardian on the same basis that the DM is dismissed as a source which is a false equivalence.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
So if an award has any political bias it is irrelevant? Using that logic you can argue anything is political in nature from awards for science. The fact that the Pulitzer is held in high regard by all professional journalists will always have more relevance than you using some spurious logic to dismiss it.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
You don't see the irony and sensationalism in the reporting by the DM.
The DM which supports the government policies where departments can raise their own finance directly then doesn't like it when the Police do this. The government has repeatedly cut budgets and asked departments to raise finance themselves - this is the outcome.
Do they leave open cars with keys in and then lie in wait to catch car thieves, or
a house with front door open to catch burglars?
Is it because catching speeders is a nice little (big) earner?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
It is a big earner because they motivation is there to do so because of cuts. Lets be honest if you were in charge and they said ideas to raise revenue what would you say is easy way to do it?
Why do people complain about this and in the same breath agree with the idea of departments raising finance directly. You know the soundbite -well if you don't use the service why should you have to pay for it.
I was commenting on the thought that it was sneaky - which it is.
As all speed cameras (up to a limit) must surely make a profit, then why are there not more?
As all speed cameras (up to a limit) must surely make a profit, then why are there not more?
D
Doggit
There's one that they hide (sorry place) around the bend on a wide road that doesn't need to be 30mpm, so you don't see it till it's too late. Anyone noticed how many average speed cameras they've now got, and in areas where the speed limit seems inordinately low. Now they might argue that evidence that shows an increase in accidents when drivers see the camera and brake sharply, then justifies the average speed system, but being a cynic, I still think there's a lot of revenue gain going on.
Indeed; after all, it would not be of any use having a driver blasting down a road and having an accident / injuring someone, because they hadn't seen the camera in time to slow down.....
Sponsored Links