lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 21, 2020 11:03:18 GMT
Not good for the Government, but it’s far from the silver bullet a lot of the campaigners for its release have seemingly hoped it would be. I think the most that can be said against the government is that it is refusing to investigate the possibility of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum in spite of the committee's recommendation that such an investigation is needed. For those opposed to brexit, that means the government are afraid of what an investigation might turn up and that the leave vote might be discredited. For leavers, it is just sour grapes on the part of remainers clutching at straws who want a fishing expedition to try and find some evidence to discredit the result.
There's no smoking gun, that much is clear, and the government aren't going to go looking for one. None of us knows what any hypothetical investigation might turn up and there isn't going to be one anyway. I don't think the report will change anyone's mind on either side of the argument, rather it will reinforce existing opinions/preconceptions. We'll only get real answers when future historians get access to the Kremlin papers long after we are all dead.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 21, 2020 11:39:12 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 21, 2020 11:52:34 GMT
Oh and the Government’s now responded, deciding that there’s no need to retrospectively investigate interference in the EU referendum and they’ve got no evidence of it (probably because they haven’t looked for any...) Even if there was evidence and an investigation took place, it still wouldn't prove anything. Leavers would say "OK, so the Russians interfered, but even without their interference we would still have voted to leave in 2016" whereas remainers will say the whole 2016 vote is now invalid (although many of them have already been saying since 2016 that it was invalid for other reasons anyway). Proving interference is the easy bit - accurately quantifying the impact of that interference in terms of numbers of votes cast and the referendum result is nigh on impossible.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 21, 2020 12:02:48 GMT
Oh and the Government’s now responded, deciding that there’s no need to retrospectively investigate interference in the EU referendum and they’ve got no evidence of it (probably because they haven’t looked for any...) Even if there was evidence and an investigation took place, it still wouldn't prove anything. Leavers would say "OK, so the Russians interfered, but even without their interference we would still have voted to leave in 2016" whereas remainers will say the whole 2016 vote is now invalid (although many of them have already been saying since 2016 that it was invalid for other reasons anyway). Proving interference is the easy bit - accurately quantifying the impact of that interference in terms of numbers of votes cast and the referendum result is nigh on impossible. That’s true, but it’s still worth investigating what form any alleged interference took so that might be countered in future, especially as we know interference in democratic processes has continued since then (according to the government itself last week). Denying it happened at all and sticking their head in the sand, as the government seems to be doing, only increases the likelihood of it happening again. There some militant remainers who will take any indication of interference as grounds to annul the whole thing, but they are radical minority.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jul 21, 2020 13:01:49 GMT
Considering the immense amount of time, money and effort that all sides in the UK spend on elections - and usually (as in 2019) to almost precisely zero effect on the polls across the campaign - I doubt a few foreign bots, tweets and fake posts would change anything, ever. Except in the minds of some of those on the losing side in a vote, obviously!
Of course "they" would want to interfere and no doubt have been trying to interfere since forever (regardless of their political system at the time) and we need to stop them as far as possible, but as long as we steer clear of the huge folly of electronic voting, and keep using old-fashioned and unhackable paper, I think our democracy is safe.
As for official government action/reaction/inaction, as the eternally quotable Sir Humphrey once told Jim Hacker: 'There are some things it is better for a Minister not to know.' He could have perhaps added the word 'officially'? 'Open government' has its limits - and I don't think I only believe this because I have insufficient layers of tin-foil in my hat... (No doubt we have many highly skilled people whose job it IS to know and react to such interference - and who prefer not to advertise what they know and do, or even that they know or do anything.)
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 21, 2020 14:15:47 GMT
Even if there was evidence and an investigation took place, it still wouldn't prove anything. Leavers would say "OK, so the Russians interfered, but even without their interference we would still have voted to leave in 2016" whereas remainers will say the whole 2016 vote is now invalid (although many of them have already been saying since 2016 that it was invalid for other reasons anyway). Proving interference is the easy bit - accurately quantifying the impact of that interference in terms of numbers of votes cast and the referendum result is nigh on impossible. That’s true, but it’s still worth investigating what form any alleged interference took so that might be countered in future, especially as we know interference in democratic processes has continued since then (according to the government itself last week). Denying it happened at all and sticking their head in the sand, as the government seems to be doing, only increases the likelihood of it happening again. There some militant remainers who will take any indication of interference as grounds to annul the whole thing, but they are radical minority. Well we know Leave broke the law, & lied. But now its a case of you reap what you sow. Like the giant truck car park in Kent. But I have still not heard anyone who voted leave provide a real tangible benefit from leaving the EU. I'm sure there must be something.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 21, 2020 14:39:19 GMT
Interestingly, Downing Street spokesman said at todays briefing there was no evidence of "successful" interference in the 2016 referendum, i.e. there might have been interference but it didn't sway the result.
Problem is we are now getting into the realm of the unproveable assertion on both sides of the argument, but I agree with Sherlock above that it is still worth investigating to reduce the risk of the same thing happening again
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 23, 2020 11:59:14 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 23, 2020 12:16:22 GMT
Meanwhile in other news Boris is on a recruitment drive for the SNP in Scotland today, telling Scots they are "too wee, too poor or too stupid" (Ian Blackford) to have coped with covid-19 had they been independent
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 25, 2020 11:27:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 26, 2020 7:17:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 29, 2020 13:54:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 5:27:13 GMT
Meanwhile in other news Boris is on a recruitment drive for the SNP in Scotland today, telling Scots they are "too wee, too poor or too stupid" (Ian Blackford) to have coped with covid-19 had they been independent English public opinion is swinging. Scotland’s becoming viewed as an irritancy by many and an ingrate by others. Let them go I say.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Aug 15, 2020 11:53:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Aug 16, 2020 10:43:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Aug 17, 2020 15:17:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Aug 17, 2020 15:37:49 GMT
Backhanded Apology Sorry for "A fair System" that "Produced more inconstancy" Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Aug 17, 2020 16:39:51 GMT
My neighbour will be a bit pissed at this news...... she was predicted to get get 1 a, 2 b’s and 2 C’s she was given 4 A’s and 1 b....... To me just goes to show it was always going to be a mess, what ever they did
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Aug 18, 2020 19:43:15 GMT
My neighbour will be a bit pissed at this news...... she was predicted to get get 1 a, 2 b’s and 2 C’s she was given 4 A’s and 1 b....... To me just goes to show it was always going to be a mess, what ever they did Given that people tend to do exams at individual desks, far enough away from others so there can be no copying, and that a lot of unis were willing to start the academic tear in January, not sur why the exams couldn't have been held, either in May/June as normal or in August.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Aug 19, 2020 11:03:19 GMT
My neighbour will be a bit pissed at this news...... she was predicted to get get 1 a, 2 b’s and 2 C’s she was given 4 A’s and 1 b....... To me just goes to show it was always going to be a mess, what ever they did Given that people tend to do exams at individual desks, far enough away from others so there can be no copying, and that a lot of unis were willing to start the academic tear in January, not sur why the exams couldn't have been held, either in May/June as normal or in August. I don't think the problem was so much the exams, as the run-up to them. There had already been news stories about how the amount of online teaching varied a lot from school to school. If exams had gone ahead, the story would then have been about how people from the wealthiest areas and private schools had gained an unfair advantage through having access to better preparation for exams. (As if this was anything new, even if the cause was different, though it would have been worse this year and I think clearly unfair.)
As it is, we now have the biggest example of grade inflation ever seen and no doubt that will make some people very happy.
Ultimately it makes no difference. Employers and universities will simply set their bars higher to compensate and introduce more testing of their own, but they must have been doing that every year anyway. It's several years now since someone who works in recruitment told me that for many (not extraordinary) posts they wouldn't even consider the CV of anyone without a First! Which seems absurd considering how few Firsts used to be awarded in percentage terms, but now they had no difficulty finding large enough shortlists.
|
|