Re: PM Boris
 

I'm sorry, but in attempting to criticise this headline you've adopted an approach that's clearly incorrect.
The newspaper has, itself, adopted a clear position with respect to Brexit and it's headline seeks to back Boris and at the same time harangue MPs into backing him as well. It does this by stating that in some way that he has acted honourably, note use of the word 'duty', and thereby implying that MPs who fail to back him are acting dishonourably. You might disagree with this but it doesn't mislead, the headline's a clear corollary of the newspaper's stance on brexit.
I suspect that your unstated fear is that headlines like this are treated as 'absolute truth' by the weak minded and you seek to protect us from ourselves. I'd suggest that there's a little too much of this about these days.

Re: PM Boris
 

I don't think one has to be weak minded at all to be persuaded when it's the only thing you read as if there is no alternative.

That old saying about repeat a lie often enough and it gets believed exists for a reason. Tell your readers there's only one sensible/moral/'right' choice using words like duty, surrender and then traitors if you don't go along with it...well it begins to sound like facts.

My mother laps up stuff like the Mail and Express and she's not weak minded at all.

Poorly served by such organs, certainly.

Re: PM Boris
 

You're in denial. Ask the DUP if he acted "honourably." He cobbled together a crummy deal in order to (attempt to) force through Brexit by the 31st, that's all. As Bristol said, many will only see the headline, and many more will only remember the headline. Boris = Duty, MPs = "Do yours too." Why do they have to? There's a presumption here that this deal is good and must be passed, and yet, it hasn't even been looked at. A few more hours and we'll be getting the "Parliament let us down BS.".

Re: PM Boris
 

You're too kind to Adolf Boris. He brought back a deal which he knew would be rejected by parliament; (May: "No British PM could ever accept a customs border in the Irish Sea") so as to delay progress until after Oct.31st, thereby causing No-Deal.

It's been little reported but it's worth looking up Section 55 of the Cross-Border Trade Act- 2018 as Amended , which states the "It would be unlawful if the UK government entered into an Agreement which resulted in Northern Ireland having a different customs regime to the rest of the UK",

That amendment was tabled by none other than Jakob Rees-Goebels so as to prevent May from agreeing to the above watery customs border when the EU proposed it in the same year.

Re: PM Boris
 

I take your point that where you have limited sources of information then what you come to believe can be strongly influenced by them.
But, this merely clouds the issue.
The statement made was that this headline was misleading.
My argument was that it couldn't be described as misleading because the headline contained opinion not facts.
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree that Boris is honourable in having done his duty because by definition it conveys the opinion of the newspaper. You might not agree with it but that's your opinion.
You might argue that because it appears on the front page of a newspaper then some may take it as fact and I agree with you but that doesn't make it factual.
The introduction of the DUP as evidence that I'm in denial seeks only to cloud the issue more and move the discussion away from the central point. As an aside I'd argue that neither DUP or Sinn Fein have little right to feel aggrieved since their never ending refusal to sit down and thrash out their differences has condemned their constituents to interminable conflict but that should be irrelevant here.

Re: PM Boris
 

Re: PM Boris
 

Was this to be Dr Evil's ace up his sleeve? As I commented upthread, he did seem remarkably coy about matters earlier in the week. The lunatics do seem hell bent on crashing out, despite public pronouncements to the contrary.

Re: PM Boris
 

The headline insinuates MPs duty is to pass the deal, when it's actually their duty to thoroughly scrutinise the proposed agreement then vote on it. Which the Letwin Amendment now allows them to do.

Re: PM Boris
 

Old DaveJ doesn't seem to get that simple fact.

Re: PM Boris
 

I agree that the newspaper uses it's headline to apply pressure to MPs but all that it states is that MPs should 'now' do their duty. The unwritten implication is that now they have a 'Boris' bill then they should vote for it but this is not explicitly stated although it's clear from the printed word what's actually meant.
I still fail to see how this misleads anyone, it plainly says what it's about.

Re: PM Boris
 

So you believe that some may be misled into believing it's fact because it's on the front page of a newspaper but you don't see it as misleading?
:unsure:

Re: PM Boris
 

Bonkers Boris seems to have taken us beyond this now, If I follow correctly, he's written to the EU asking for an extension and followed up with two letters saying "nah, not really". This really is Trumpian diplomacy.

Re: PM Boris
 

It's not MPs the headline is aimed at.

It's aimed at Leavers, so that when MPs do their actual duty and scrutinise the actual bill, and if they still decide this bill shouldn't pass, Leavers will have been primed that MPs didn't do their 'duty' (as defined by Leavers). The headline is yet another slow-burning fuse, MPs will be the target, and all in time for Bonfire Night. Thought the fireworks will start next week....

Re: PM Boris
 

If I were to write a news headline that clearly stated something like "Trump should stop behaving like an idiot", no doubt some would believe Trump to be an idiot, but that's not what the headline says, it would actually state that in my opinion Trump has been acting like an idiot and should stop.
The fact that some would choose to believe that Trump is an idiot reflects more on how they see Trump and would understand the headline as something that reinforced their own belief and there's not much you can do about that.
Trump supporters might choose to see the headline as misleading because they'd choose to argue that the headline 'misleadingly' infers that Trump is an idiot which it does not.
Unfortunately, logic disappears where strongly held convictions are concerned.

I agree that leavers figured in the thought process, but only as a second order effect that would come into play should MPs vote the bill down. In other words there is an unwritten threat, aimed at MPs to look to their constituents, especially I concede leavers, for when the election is called. In other words it's a reminder to MPs that their constituents read this newspaper and will remember.

Re: PM Boris
 

The headline is misleading because it claims that Johnson has a new Brexit deal. He doesn't. He has some warmed over nonsense he knows not to be legal. Even if we perceive his duty to be to achieve a deal, he's failed.

It's not the duty of MPs to blindly endorse the ideas of the Prime Minister but we don't have to go that far. Whatever Johnson's duty might be, pretending to have a lawful exit arrangement when he does not is plainly not his duty.

Re: PM Boris
 

Q. Is Boris' deal identical to May's deal?
A. No, therefore it is different and since it didn't exist before last week it can be described as being New. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Re: PM Boris
 

That's a different argument that you're having with others. The point I'm making, and one which you agree on, is the effect that one's newspaper - in this case the mail is the example used - has if one sees something as fact.

If your headline says "Trump should stop behaving like an idiot" and the sub headline gives an example of something idiotic and you don't clearly state this is your opinion in the same way that the Mail did not say it was their opinion, then it may come across as fact, just as you have agreed.

And why wouldn't it come across as fact. If someone "should stop doing something" it follows that they must be doing the something in order to stop it.
If they are behaving like an idiot and your sub heading was of something idiotic, then why would anyoe conclude they weren't an idiot?

Re: PM Boris
 

It's misrepresenting what an MPs duty is. What they'll expect is that MPs will pass the bill without question.

What's nonsense is claiming it's new. Its not, it's merely different, and worse.

Boris Johnson's Brexit deal is the 'same deal' offered to Theresa May three years ago

.

Re: PM Boris
 

If this is a reference to the Act that Novo has referred to above, this falls way short of your usual excellent arguments. One assumes that, if the new agreement breaches that Act, and I don't know that it does, the enabling legislation for the new agreement will simply need to have a section that states that the other Act is, "..hereby repealed with immediate effect." Parliament is supreme and it is impossible to bind future Parliaments. The remainers will have to do much better than that.

Re: PM Boris
 

You're entirely right, but it may take a ruling from the Scottish Court to point out the issue to Jakob and Boris. Jolyon Maugham has a time slot set aside by the Court for tomorrow.

I'm just looking forward to seeing JRM's face when he learns that the current deal is unlawful because of his own amendment.

Re: PM Boris
 

From what has been reported in the press, the EU went to great lengths to ensure that the terms were legal. That being the case, despite the indication that Boris and his advisers are incompetent, I do not believe it is really credible to suggest that the EU were too.

I don't know of the legal arguments being put forward, but I would be amazed if a Court decides that legislation that has not been passed yet is unconstitutional.

Re: PM Boris
 

If the reader chooses to read into a headline something that isn't there, it's not the fault of the newspaper but the reader. No doubt newspapers exploit this weakness but words are words, they have meaning. If the reader is prejudiced or has a strong bias, don't blame the messenger.

And... your point is that Boris' deal isn't the same as May's?

Re: PM Boris
 

No. You claimed this deal had never existed until last week, and I pointed out you were wrong.

Re: PM Boris
 

I applaud your persistence but arguing that black is white will not make it so.
To date there have been two deals agreed between the EU and the UK that could be a final Brexit leaving agreement.
Boris' deal was finally agreed with EU on 17th October, today is 20th October and less than a week has passed.
No doubt you argue that Boris' deal has been tabled before but this cannot be true, something similar may have been offered but it won't have entered detailed discussions and as such will not be comparable to Boris' deal and thus it cannot have existed before the 17th.

Re: PM Boris
 

That's hypocritical coming from you.

That's not what you originally stated, and were called out on. Here's your original post.

I proved that it did exist before. Just because the UK didn't agree to it, or debate it, does not make it non-existent. Again, it's you who is peddling nonsense.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'm losing the will to live. Can we just agree that:

- any Brexit is a daft idea and arguing about the manner of Brexit is deckchairs on the Titanic
- Boris Johnson is a loathsome careerist who doesn't himself think Brexit is a good idea except inasmuch as it advances him towards his personal goals
- Trump's deals are always lose-lose so pinning the country's future trade on an arrangement with him won't go well

Re: PM Boris
 

Me too.


Belfast Telegraph

Re: PM Boris
 

But that something is there. You gave an example. Trump must stop being an idiot. That was the one you gave. You cannot stop doing something if you are not doing it. It's not a personal interpretation that he is doing something idiotic it's the only interpretation.
Unless, of course, you write it as an opinion. "I believe Trump is acting like an idiot and he must stop it"...that would be a clear opinion.

But that's not the way you gave the example and you likely wrote it the way you did because that's the way the Mail would write it.

Remember this one?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...09ead41210.png
There's nothing there to say it's opinion. The judges apparently defied voters. No they didn't, they made a ruling upon the case brought before them. 17m voters were not involved in the case.

The accompanying text - for those that get that far and don't just roll their eyes thinking more treachery because that's what the paper has been telling them regularly - does say that a constitutional crisis might be triggered but it's the newspaper saying the judges are the enemies of the people and it's the newspaper with that 'out of touch' although that may be referred to on page 2 for those that get that far, so for that part you may be right in thinking the paper is taking advantage of its readers.

But the meaning of the words on that page is that the judges have defied (or betrayed) voters and are enemies of the people. Nowhere does it say it's opinion.

Re: PM Boris
 

Don't worry Canada will show the world the way tomorrow.

You will get your will back then.

Re: PM Boris
 

The example I gave was "Trump should stop behaving like an idiot" not "Trump must stop being an idiot". Do you note the difference? The first example likens Trump's actions to those of an idiot, whereas the misquote that you submitted expressly identifies Trump as being an idiot, a subtle but important difference. Anyone who's not an idiot can at times act like one whereas an idiot acts as the title suggests all of the time.

As for the second example about Judges, in the UK they are clearly not enemies of the people and yet the headline says so, so what are we to make of it?
If the headline is taken as fact then the newspaper is clearly making a false statement and no doubt you would argue that anyone who believes it is misled. But I would argue that you would have to be predisposed to believe the headline to be true in order to believe something that is patently not true.

It's an interesting discussion this. It's clear that newspapers seek to influence their readers whilst maintaining their readership. They do this by giving their readers what they believe their readers want to read. The likes of the Mail wouldn't last long if they lost support of those that pay the bills.
It's only when others, who disagree with what's being published are given the opportunity to comment on it that accusations such as 'it's misleading' are made.
Q. If a headline is considered misleading to some and not to others, can it be considered misleading at all? After all it's either misleading or it's not, and who's to judge? A Judge?

Re: PM Boris
 

Yes I do. Forgive my lack of accurate recollection but how does that change anything? How can he stop behaving like an idiot without behaving like an idiot in the first place. Therefore he must be behaving like an idiot. Your opinion has become a factual statement without anything to say it's just your opinion.

Of course there is also the added probability that someone who behaves like an idiot is an idiot. At least some of the time. :nod:

Re: PM Boris
 

Spot on there, the deal is a lot worse that the May deal that was defeated, all Johnson wants is a deal that will help his paymasters, the hedge funds that have bet a lot of money on a no deal by 31st October.

Re: PM Boris
 

Don't think it's quite that mercenary, but he does want whatever will give him power, and he believes delivering Brexit will do that. He's a politician of bold gestures, you can see it with his London history, big projects, costly or not, useful or not, wanted or not, that he can trumpet and evangelize on. Detail bores him, poverty bores him, stability bores him. He's a shambolic man and wants to make the country in his own image. The surprise is that so many support him in doing so.

Re: PM Boris
 

I wonder, is there evidence of this?
If we look at the recent history of brexit we see that May had a very slim majority following her catastrophic election mistake. For a few years this has meant that parliament hasn't had the will to make any decision and Boris now has a majority of minus forty something. What this means is that the Damocles like 31st October deadline rests not with Boris but the EU following his letter.
I'd have thought that the safe money would have been placed on an extension or any deal rather than no-deal.
If it's true that there's much betting on a no-deal then I'd rather look to Bercow today who's acted to prevent a vote that could have banished no-deal outright using a rule that he ignored when he allowed May three votes on a deal that he must have known would fail.
Is Bercow the Trojan Horse?

Re: PM Boris
 

Depends on what one considers evidence.
Calls for inquiry into claims Johnson backers benefit from no-deal Brexit
It's the guardian, of course, that means that some people will pay no attention to the fact that the claims came from others (including his sister) and won't give it any credence because it wasn't reported in their Mail ;)

Re: PM Boris
 

It's not only Johnson, but Rees-Mogg and Gove have got stakes in hedgefuds, and a lot of money invested in them as well, If Brexit DOESN'T happen on 31st October they stand to lose a lot of money (on paper). Well Brexit will NOT happen on 31st October, and the look on Rees-Mogg's face when the result of the second vote was announced was brilliant, he almost looked like bursting into tears.

Re: PM Boris
 

Please excuse me. It's been a bit of a morning.

I read that as

" --- have got their stakes in hedgehogs " :cry_smile:

Re: PM Boris
 

John McDonnell pushing an online conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked by anyone with any knowledge of how the financial markets work is not 'evidence'.

Re: PM Boris
 

Did he have Boris' sister in his pocket?

Re: PM Boris
 

Or the former top civil servant in the Treasury, Nick Macpherson? Not to mention Philip Hammond, no doubt another financial illiterate.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-deal-backers