Parliament (mod edit: and the uncritical acceptance of internet memes)

[darmstadt]

Now you know where MPs interests lie:

[Bunk]

Not quite

Edit: Credit to SimonMac for me seeing this on his Facebook feed

[darmstadt]

Not quite

Edit: Credit to SimonMac for me seeing this on his Facebook feed

Yep, I should have checked that one first alhtough none of the pictures are fake and it seems only 2 are wrongly (falsely) captioned (not the MPs payrise which can be seen in this video: BBC News - MPs' pay rise: Mark Field, John Woodcock and Tom Brake and here: http://andrewhickeywriter.tumblr.com...e-reform-was-a) and someone is already working on debunking the Spectator piece apparently, i.e.

...a refutation from a Spectator blogger which misses the point of Internet memes altogether and is itself factually inaccurate on at least one point. The images at the bottom of the meme are sourced from such places as the Telegraph, the Guardian and the BBC, and the attributions are in both cases from the original sources.

The meme, as a meme, satirically encapsulates what we already know about our leaders in the three major parties; it is not evidence in a trial. For evidence of the venality of MPs regarding expenses and pay one needs only to look around. For evidence of their indifference to important issues affecting all our lives, likewise. Huffing and puffing about the accuracy of the meme is nothing but an ineffective distraction.

It does got to show though, that you can trust the left about as much as the right

[xoggoth]

I'd be happy with a bit of corruption if we got some competence and proper regard for the views of the electorate. Gordon Brown had to repay £12k of expenses for example, small beer compared to his sale of UK gold reserves, let alone the rest of his cockups.

[minestrone]

Yep, I should have checked that one first alhtough none of the pictures are fake and it seems only 2 are wrongly (falsely) captioned (not the MPs payrise which can be seen in this video: BBC News - MPs' pay rise: Mark Field, John Woodcock and Tom Brake and here: The Tumblr of Andrew Hickey) and someone is already working on debunking the Spectator piece apparently, i.e.



It does got to show though, that you can trust the left about as much as the right

Obviously none of the pictures are fake ya muppet.

I think you have made a complete tit out of yourself, again. I also picked up scooterscot for posting pish like this a few weeks ago.

One of the points of a tertiary education is to be able to filter information, when you have to learn on your own you have to know what source is valuable and what is not. You have not had the luxury of a tertiary education (quite probably as you did not have the ability to be offered tertiary education) and are clearly unable to distinguish pish from fact.

[darmstadt]

Obviously none of the pictures are fake ya muppet.

I think you have made a complete tit out of yourself, again. I also picked up scooterscot for posting pish like this a few weeks ago.

One of the points of a tertiary education is to be able to filter information, when you have to learn on your own you have to know what source is valuable and what is not. You have not had the luxury of a tertiary education (quite probably as you did not have the ability to be offered tertiary education) and are clearly unable to distinguish pish from fact.

Takes one to know one

[minestrone]

Takes one to know one

As far as I can see there was 286 MPs voted on the Palestinian question. Not quite what that image gives the impression of.

You want to look at your picture again and make some kind of comment? maybe apologise for trying to mislead the congregation? Or maybe you would like to comment on being mislead? or both?

[darmstadt]

As far as I can see there was 286 MPs voted on the Palestinian question. Not quite what that image gives the impression of.

You want to look at your picture again and make some kind of comment? maybe apologise for trying to mislead the congregation? Or maybe you would like to comment on being mislead? or both?

You know that tertiary education also includes nursing colleges, distance learning centers and community colleges and not only results in possibly a degree but also, gosh, eve sometime a certificate which you can put on your wall but still, to keep you happy even though I did comment later on in the thread but you might have just ignored that (actually I didn't write this but the person who posted it to me did but I feel the same way, so):

1. I will not be removing the image as many people have been demanding. Retroactively deleting things to pretend that I haven't made a mistake would be dishonest, and deleting dozens of comments that are anchored to the image would be a grotesque act of censorship. Deleting my mistakes would be a cowardly act of censorship.
2. The Spectator article that some people have posted in response is in itself quite misleading (and written in a snobbish appeal to authority laden tone). The article makes a truly feeble attempt to discredit the 9 images at the top (the perfectly accurate ones I've shared again in this image) with the absurd story that "it is more constructive to be outside the Chamber during those sessions". Then there's the fact that the Spectator journalist didn't make the faintest effort to establish why the two images at the bottom were used to illustrate debates on MPs pay and expenses. After literally seconds of research I found the second image on a BBC article relating to a 2010 debate about expenses. It would be hard to blame anyone for jumping to the conclusion that an image entitled "The MPs' expenses scheme was overhauled after last year's scandal" in an article about a debate over MPs expenses, that shows up as the first hit on Google Images for "MPs expenses debate" was actually an image of the debate rather than an old stock image blathered onto the expenses article by a lazy BBC journalist. I would suspect that the Spectator journalist was well aware that this misleadingly captioned BBC image was the source, but she chose to not mention it at all in order to reinforce the "don't trust anyone but paid journalists like me" narrative she weaved into her article. I'd say that the conclusion to her article (about who we should hold in low esteem) should be considered in light of the fact that she almost certainly chose to omit this information about the misleadingly captioned BBC image in order to strengthen her own narrative.
3. I apologise for sharing misleading content, and I'll make sure that I am a lot more careful next time I share content that is not my own on here.

As for tertiary education lets have a look who's running the country, doing a bloody good job aren't they?

[minestrone]

Sorry, if you want to put a point across don't do it in a text dump, I don't have the time to read volumes of pish from an idiot.

We have ascertained 2 things in this thread, you are a complete idiot and you are desperate to prove you are not an idiot.

[NickFitz]

I would suspect that the Spectator journalist was well aware that this misleadingly captioned BBC image was the source, but she chose to not mention it at all in order to reinforce the "don't trust anyone but paid journalists like me" narrative she weaved into her article.

She went to the trouble of tracking down the images to the original press agencies/photo libraries that published them. To suggest she should also have gone to the trouble of finding all the places that used the agency/library photos just to check if they were doing so out of context seems like a bit of an imposition - particularly when the suggestion comes from somebody who didn't bother to check the source of any of the images before posting them