Civil unrest, what's really going on?

[Sadworld23]

My DH keeps chirping up with, there's riots here, protests there, immigrants have done assaults in xxx etc. He sees me as a bit of a do-gooder..

All UK places, but when I look at my regular news, there's very little reporting of it.

My DH has some MH issues currently and to confront him with 'what the heck are you reading?' isn't worth it right now.
I make comments such as, ooh that sounds grim and doesn't sound good, and that's very worrying, but I'd really like to know if it's really happening and where he's getting this info.

The "one out one in" deal was first tried between Greece and Turkey, for the few months the Turks stuck with it, worked very well and reduced migration.

35k people deported, dependents not allowed to come here, min income increased, bars and other businesses raided/closed down.

The issue is immense, for far too long, it was ignored, indeed encouraged, the Tories woke up to it in their final years, Labour are continuing that work....

But to say it isn't being addressed is simply wrong.

4 years until the next GE.... a lot can and will happen.

Why did Turkey not stick with it?

Bigger issues with the EU?

Erdoğan has backed out of agreements before.

France on the other hand, doesn't want its northern border to become a beacon for migrants from around Europe to head too.

Given that the BBC had to withdraw a whole documentary on Gaza because they didn't bother to check that the narrator was the child of a high ranking Hamas official, I think we should start with them. We could then move on to The Guardian, which outright lied about the Wi Spa incident, neglecting to mention that the man with his cock out in front of children (while pretending he was a woman) had five previous sex convictions.

Don't forget the Telegraph who made a whole story about a non existing family

And Hackney is more dangerous than Soweto:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1390799/Its-official-Hackney-is-more-dangerous-than-Soweto.html

Don't go out in London after 9 wearing jewellery, advice from Farage

In the good old days you could wear a Rolex and fly on Concorde

...and yet the BBC doc was found to be accurate and that the child telling the story didn't breach impartiality.

Also, the BBC didn't make the doc nor did they know about the child.... their failure was in not checking.

Did the Philippines cover it up for decades?

Omg lol 😭

Is that accurate?

My nearest city is 44th most dangerous. Baghdad is 96th 🙈

It is a really uncomfortable place to visit.

Even the BBC thinks its failure was damning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d4egk17l2o

Channel 4 showed it instead

Yeah, can't disagree with you there. The reports highlight failings in the commissioning and oversight process that the media model is based on.

BUT... the point I was making is that the mainstream media are often claimed to not be reporting on stuff and they are. They also are held to account when inaccuracies or misrepresentation are later found. The BBC news even reports on itself - showing that it too will publish even if it makes producers' toes curl. The same claims can't be made for citizen journalism. And there is a curious psychological bias that the first news you hear on the matter tends to be what sticks (which is why getting the facts out early is an important lesson).

[not claiming that citizen reporting doesn't have its place - it does - but it needs verifying before it is held up as "the truth" and claims made that the mainstream media are part of the cover up]

@Phobiaphobic

The Philippines are not exactly known for their shining human rights record and have their own ‘cover ups’ - such as their president who killed thousands and is now being tried for crimes against humanity.

You can’t accuse one news source of bias and then favour a more extreme news source that is more prone to bias/even less well regulated.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. You're not convinced of what? You're not convinced of the value of being able to distinguish between good and bad sources? You're not convinced of the value of seeking the truth? You're not convinced of the existence of accurate information?

I'm not sure I understand you. Regardless of whether something is local or national, there is certainly the possibility of information or sources that are accurate or not. There is also the possibility that even if someone is accurate, it can be misrepresented as frightening when it's not, widespread when it's not, etc.

I thought OP meant that she wasn't convinced they were good sources because she feels like she isn't up-to-date with the information. I can't know for sure what she meant, but that's how I interpreted it.

I must admit, I looked at that list and wasn't impressed. Reuters is okay for factual information, but obviously they're very selective about what they report. At the moment, an overview of what's going on in a range of localities is in England is key to the question asked by the original poster. I don't think there's really any major outlets covering that.

Some people have mentioned about citizen journalism being unreliable. It's been particularly useful to watch the live streams of some of the protests in the last few weeks because there are three locations that I'm familiar with. So it's handy for me because I can look at them and know exactly what street they're on and know what to look for to make sure it's a current video.

There have been quite a few things doing the rounds showing the Manchester protest as being a lot bigger than it actually was. it turns out they're using footage from an older event. I think the actual event was about 500 to 600 people. That was the only one that worries me because it was led by a worrying group.

I think they just wanted to do something off the back of the more local organic protests. I think at one point Tommy Robinson was talking about going down to Epping but I think - he hopefully realised it was more important to leave it as it was with local women and suffragette flags and stuff.

That was before he left the country, came back and got arrested.

Well, obviously, EVERYONE is selective about what is reported. That's often a good thing, especially given the modern attention span.

All I can say it, I don't find it difficult to tell good from bad. Finding good sources, I stick with them. I don't have "feeds." I keep in mind that the more sensationalist and unlikely something sounds, the less likely it is to be accurate. I check the background of the unfamiliar media sources. I check Snopes for things that sound factually dubious. And I discard - and won't re-post - any statement in a forum that isn't backed up by a link to a reliable source.

I think you missed my point. The UK had hundreds of men, not one, operating organised rape gangs involving tens of thousands of white British girls across 50 odd British cities, and the police, the councils, social services and all the rest of the establishment did their best to ignore it and cover it up. Anyone trying to bring attention to it was called a racist for pointing out that they were overwhelmingly Pakistani men.

You on the other hand - in a classic bit of whataboutery - named a single rogue UK serial offender in the Phillipines and tried to claim moral equivalence. Which makes you little better than all the other rape gang apologists.

The point is this isn’t being covered clearly by mainstream media. For whatever reason.

So the information sources are varying from Facebook to YouTube to TikTok’s etc.

These are not traditionally accepted sources as being the bastions of accurate information. They are locals talking, or citizen/ amateur journalists, or vested parties (ie. EDL types or antifa types).

So getting a clear picture is pretty difficult. But that doesn’t mean nothings happening. Something is clearly happening. The scale of which we are trying to establish on this thread. Hence the discussion.

Something that helps is following the main party leaders on your social media of choice. Theyll often link to govt reports

the way MSM portray govt reports is pretty crap. Always go to the source.

you get the PR fluff but you get some good things. I don't watch the videos usually.

you can have a quick scan and be done for the day and you have their words, not a mad headline with an insipid article

it's also worth following people who you know are good on your topics of choice that you're worried about, be it gender, business, or the current protests.

Okay, and my point was that anyone depending on YouTube and TikTok for news is unlikely to get a clear picture. Or, at least, unlikely to get a reliable picture.

I agree with you. And TikTok absolutely. Awful media platform imo.

But I am appreciating more and more the long form videos on YouTube to see what the situation is like around the country.

You know the thing that amazes me watching some of these videos this evening; is that we are a first world intelligence state. We have people who monitor other countries, spies, terror threats and all sorts of highly difficult and intellectual stuff. Yet Westminster seems to have absolutely no understanding of what is going on in this country; whether that’s public sentiment or the utter state that is vast swades of the country. And none of this is difficult. You just go up to someone on the street and they will tell you. You just need to look with your eyes and you can see it. It’s completely bananas tbh and I don’t know how we got here.

@Phobiaphobic

No - I agree wholeheartedly agree that there should have been no cover up and there should have been transparency over who was committing the crimes including ethnicity. It was absolutely disgusting.
But what troubles me is the way that Musk or Farage would present that situation for their own political agenda. In my opinion they would twist or present bias - much the same as people claim the BBC or the left have covered things up.
The case in the Philippines isn’t just a single rogue white male. And what he did had far reaching consequences in terms of internet crime. Figures state that 1 in 5 children in the Philippines are at risk of abuse - with some stating that 2 million children have suffered abuse.
Internet sex crimes or crimes by the clergy probably do have a high proportion of a particular ethnicity - shall I state what that ethnicity is, or will you get angry with me?
Sexual abuse to children is almost 90% committed by one gender.
In fact - pointing out which gender and addressing THAT issue is highly likely to have more impact…but would that be sexist?

Thanks again to everyone posting, it's the most balanced discussion I've seen about these stories.

I'm still not convinced that the traditional media sources I use are reliable, and I will try to widen my news input, thanks to some PP here for suggestions. I don't tikltok, not do I want to.
As I have serious hearing issues, I mainly read news, but you tube with CC can be Ok.