General Politics Thread

[The Master]

3 minutes ago, capybara said:

Baby box under attack again. Only in Scotland.......

It's not "only in Scotland". It's a letter in the BMJ expressing concerns over the general idea, no matter where they're given out.

People need to stop thinking that anything that's even remotely negative about something that happens to also be SNP policy is some kind of "SNPBAD" attack. It's counter-productive.

[capybara]

We even had the sun attack one with a blowtorch
I am not a member of the SNP.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

It's not "only in Scotland". It's a letter in the BMJ expressing concerns over the general idea, no matter where they're given out.
People need to stop thinking that anything that's even remotely negative about something that happens to also be SNP policy is some kind of "SNPBAD" attack. It's counter-productive.

Its the way its framed ‘experts’, which actually id one doctor writing a letter to the BMJ who actually doesnt say its dangerous just that there is not much in the way of study into its use.
Now theres two points to this, its blatant SNPbad from the bbc and secondly it stinks of arrogance from this ‘expert’.
The beeb are so desperate to discredit anything the Scottish government does. Its more than a baby box, its clean good quality clothes, its a bath and ear thermometer, its a baby carrier, its toys, books, its an introduction to music and most importantly its the same for every kid born in Scotland.

From a medical point of view imho the real experts are the RCNM who say that this is a great thing for babies, it encourages babies to sleep in a safe position with good quality bedding, things which are contributing factors to reducing SIDs in babies. There may be no academic work in the UK but the lasting evidence is in Finland, that when used along with the similar services to that which the Scottish Government is now implementing here, the whole package reduces infant mortality rates.

Only a shower of Wankers like the tories and tory media would attack something good for children with such vigour.

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Its the way its framed ‘experts’, which actually id one doctor writing a letter to the BMJ who actually doesnt say its dangerous just that there is not much in the way of study into its use.

No, it's a letter from him and his colleagues.

The article also doesn't say "dangerous". It simply says doubts have been expressed over the safety. 

5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

 

Now theres two points to this, its blatant SNPbad from the bbc and secondly it stinks of arrogance from this ‘expert’.

In what way is it "arrogance"? Because it happens to even slightly question an SNP policy?

As I said, jumping on things like this is counter-productive. 

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Its the way its framed ‘experts’, which actually id one doctor writing a letter to the BMJ who actually doesnt say its dangerous just that there is not much in the way of study into its use.
Now theres two points to this, its blatant SNPbad from the bbc and secondly it stinks of arrogance from this ‘expert’.
The beeb are so desperate to discredit anything the Scottish government does. Its more than a baby box, its clean good quality clothes, its a bath and ear thermometer, its a baby carrier, its toys, books, its an introduction to music and most importantly its the same for every kid born in Scotland.

From a medical point of view imho the real experts are the RCNM who say that this is a great thing for babies, it encourages babies to sleep in a safe position with good quality bedding, things which are contributing factors to reducing SIDs in babies. There may be no academic work in the UK but the lasting evidence is in Finland, that when used along with the similar services to that which the Scottish Government is now implementing here, the whole package reduces infant mortality rates.

Only a shower of Wankers like the tories and tory media would attack something good for children with such vigour.

Anyone reading the BBC article would come out thinking it was probably a good idea. Don't see the SNPbad angle myself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45889226

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

In what way is it "arrogance"? Because it happens to even slightly question an SNP policy?
As I said, jumping on things like this is counter-productive. 

If you express doubts over the safety of something then you are saying it is dangerous imo. If I say ‘I have doubts over the safety of something’ im also saying ‘that couldnt be dangerous’.
It is arrogance as there has been academic study with regards the Finn’s approach to baby provision and they are world leaders in combating infant mortality, the figures speak for themselves. I read the BMJ regularly and I know that the letters section is a very political animal, with doctors representing their opinion as fact to coincide with political belief.

These scare stories do nothing to improve confidence in the baby boxes and promoting the healthy start that the whole package provides children.
Many of the things Prof Blair points out are actually covered in the advice in the pamphlet which accompanies the baby box.

Its pretty clear that the BBC making it one of their top news stories is furthering their snpbad editorial stance.

Its a subject I feel passionate about, having dealt with several cot deaths and been traumatised by them anything which can reduce that risk and has been shown to contribute to reducing these instances is a great thing. Cheap politicking to stick the boot into the SNP could lead to someone deciding against getting a baby box, given they are of more benefit to vulnerable children who’s parents are more likely to read a headline article than understand the minutiae of one letter to the BMJ.

[Granny Danger]

I can understand the paranoia as would anyone who follows the BBC's coverage of Scottish politics.

I am a huge admirer of the BBC, pay my licence fee and think having a public broadcaster is well worth the money.  However their coverage of Scottish (and often national) politics leaves a lot to be desired.  Some of their attacks are overt, some far more subtle.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I can understand the paranoia as would anyone who follows the BBC's coverage of Scottish politics.
I am a huge admirer of the BBC, pay my licence fee and think having a public broadcaster is well worth the money.  However their coverage of Scottish (and often national) politics leaves a lot to be desired.  Some of their attacks are overt, some far more subtle.
 

Exactly, its constant subtle undermining of everything, generally speaking they frame their headlines in an snpbad context and keep the tone of the article in that vein, they do generally give a say to an alternative view but the damage is already done by that point imo. Hundreds of articles subtly attacking one party, encouraging assumption from the reader towards the editorial direction of the beeb works far better because the reader changes their mind gradually. Not knocking it, its been exceptionally successful for them over the years.

[Granny Danger]

I will give a wee indication of my SNP paranoia.  Sturgeon was speaking about Brexit at a conference in London earlier this week, for some reason the camera focused in on her drinking glass at the podium that clearly showed the words 'half pint' stamped on it. 

Can't recall if it was the BBC or SKY.  Pretty subtle and subliminal if meant.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Granny Danger

[The Master]

12 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

If you express doubts over the safety of something then you are saying it is dangerous imo. If I say ‘I have doubts over the safety of something’ im also saying ‘that couldnt be dangerous’.
It is arrogance as there has been academic study with regards the Finn’s approach to baby provision and they are world leaders in combating infant mortality, the figures speak for themselves. I read the BMJ regularly and I know that the letters section is a very political animal, with doctors representing their opinion as fact to coincide with political belief.

These scare stories do nothing to improve confidence in the baby boxes and promoting the healthy start that the whole package provides children.
Many of the things Prof Blair points out are actually covered in the advice in the pamphlet which accompanies the baby box.

Its pretty clear that the BBC making it one of their top news stories is furthering their snpbad editorial stance.

Its a subject I feel passionate about, having dealt with several cot deaths and been traumatised by them anything which can reduce that risk and has been shown to contribute to reducing these instances is a great thing. Cheap politicking to stick the boot into the SNP could lead to someone deciding against getting a baby box, given they are of more benefit to vulnerable children who’s parents are more likely to read a headline article than understand the minutiae of one letter to the BMJ.

Except the story has nothing to do with the SNP nor Scotland specifically.

It's been written by a "national" health correspondent - so it's not a Scotland-specific story - and it also mentions their use in parts of England. What it doesn't mention is the SNP.

You're reading too much into this, fuelled by your paranoia. By all means object to the content of the article, but to try and claim it as "SNPBAD" is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Except the story has nothing to do with the SNP nor Scotland specifically.
It's been written by a "national" health correspondent - so it's not a Scotland-specific story - and it also mentions their use in parts of England. What it doesn't mention is the SNP.
You're reading too much into this, fuelled by your paranoia. By all means object to the content of the article, but to try and claim it as "SNPBAD" is ridiculous in the extreme.
 

You clearly dont understand the argument. They dont need to mention the SNP. Im not an SNP member and didnt vote for them at the last Scottish election so im not blinded by paranoia, I am very happy to criticise the SNP on matters which deserve criticism such as the new exams process, the hiring of Stephen House and several other areas where they deserve actual criticism.

[BawWatchin]

21 minutes ago, The Master said:

Except the story has nothing to do with the SNP nor Scotland specifically.

It's been written by a "national" health correspondent - so it's not a Scotland-specific story - and it also mentions their use in parts of England. What it doesn't mention is the SNP.

You're reading too much into this, fuelled by your paranoia. By all means object to the content of the article, but to try and claim it as "SNPBAD" is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

Of course they don't openly attack the SNP. They're trying to influence the opinion of those who may wish to back the SNP, by subtly attacking policies that have been implimented by the SNP in Scotland. The BBC aren't daft. They know if they just all out attack the SNP it will be too obvious for most SNP supporters. So they take the subtile approach to plant ideas in peoples minds which grow and develop over time. They plant the seeds of doubt and allow those doubts to grow and manifest by themselves.

[The Master]

The paranoia is off the scale here. 

As I said, it ends up being counter-productive. Screaming "THIS IS SNPBAD" at anything that might even come close to remotely being a potential veiled attack on the Scottish Government alienates those that hold the key in any future vote on independence.

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, The Master said:

The paranoia is off the scale here. 

As I said, it ends up being counter-productive. Screaming "THIS IS SNPBAD" at anything that might even come close to remotely being a potential veiled attack on the Scottish Government alienates those that hold the key in any future vote on independence.

If they want to create negative articles on SNP policy, then surely it would make sense to reference the "experts" and their data and statistical findings in order to back up the narrative of their articles. Rather than simply expecting people just to go along with it without anything to back it up with?

If there's not an agenda, then why don't they back up their claims?

[The Master]

Just now, BawWatchin said:

If they want to create negative articles on SNP policy, then surely it would make sense to reference the "experts" and their data and statistical findings in order to back up the narrative of their articles. Rather than simply expecting people just to go along with it without anything to back it up with?

If there's not an agenda, then why don't they back up their claims?

They reported on a letter published in the British Medical Journal by Prof. Peter Blair, an expert in "infant and childhood care practices, child sleep and growth", and associated colleagues including representatives of a cot death charity.

They've also include a response from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

I'm not sure what else you want them to do. Ignore it?

[Detournement]

BSE in Aberdeenshire.

I was terrified of CJD when I was a kid.

[NotThePars]

lol

[Jambomo]

The baby boxes are inextricably linked with the SNP as it was their idea to introduce them in Scotland and one of the things they have most promoted, so the article I think is a slight attack on the SNP given this.

The BBC should really base an article like this on more extensive research. A letter to a journal, regardless of who writes it, is still based on an opinion of the facts at hand and whilst is it a more well informed opinion than most, it still doesn't show factual data i.e it doesn't link to the underpinning research data or reflect any sort of concensus in the field.

What I think is most interesting is that the BBC do not link directly to the article. The link given is a general link to the BMJ website which is not Open Access so the original letter is unlikely to be able to be read by the majority of people who read the BBC article. I don't think they have much intention of helping the general public to look at the underlying work.

I think the BBC here are gulity of sensationalising the article, I don't agree that the letter writers think they are dangerous, only that they might be if safety standards aren't met and that there is no evidence to suggest that they work better on SIDS as is promoted.

When I logged in and read the letter, I find that it is not critical of the baby boxes as a concept, on the contrary it says that "Any government or charity that is willing to provide a box full of free unbranded infant care items should be applauded, "  more that they shouldn't be promoted for sleeping in, particularly over traditional cots and baskets. The safety concerns are around the size of the boxes (so that parents can see the sleeping child) and that they should meet strict safety regulations (for fire etc) but mainly the concern is around lack of evidence that they are better or help SIDS. I don't get the impression that they think they are dangerous as long as the strict safety measures are adhered to but that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a better option. 

[Detournement]

Chukka is Lord Sainsbury's stooge.

An extra 65 grand a year changes nothing.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, The Master said:

They reported on a letter published in the British Medical Journal by Prof. Peter Blair, an expert in "infant and childhood care practices, child sleep and growth", and associated colleagues including representatives of a cot death charity.

They've also include a response from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

I'm not sure what else you want them to do. Ignore it?

Some people wrote a letter? What did it actually say in the letters? Did it provide any evidence or facts to give reliability to their opinions?

If not. Then why is it a news article?