can I ask what the big deal is about the crowd sizes at the respective events yesterday ?
its not like only NO supporters attended the armed forces day and only YES supporters attended the Bannockburn event , i'm fairly sure there would have been a mix at both
I don't always agree with everything Black Sheep says but a few times he has brought up the issue of SNP and the YES campaign realising how important the emotional argument of Scottish history and playing it up in the run up to the vote , going for hearts rather than minds. every time he has said this he was shot down by YES supporters saying that was nonsense and that wouldn't be a factor in the referendum etc etc , but isn't that exactly what this futile disagreement about numbers at the respective events yesterday is doing ?
I don't think the majority of folk are concerned about Armed Forces Day. On occasions like the Olympics, the Jubilee, Royal Wedding etc it's evident that people are bothered and engaged in the event. Armed Forces Day isn't something that most folk bother about, simple as that. With regard to demographic profile I would hope I represent myself . . . . almost as much as you do.
Armed forces day is just propaganda to try and convince us the government cares about the troops. That this government, in 2011, reduced pension entitlement to crippled ex-soldiers and war widows shows what they really think.
Compare the crowd sizes to the Craig Murray one and you will see he is talking grade A bullshit.
Now I do doubt that there were 35000 people in the event photo, but event attendences count people who attend over the whole day and not just those that appear in a single snapshot. So it certainly is possible that 35000 attended over the day. For example, many of those who watched the parade will have gone on to the main event but would not have appeared in every photograph.
Maybe someone could, for comparison, post a photo of the 10000 people at the bannockburn event.
Compare the crowd sizes to the Craig Murray one and you will see he is talking grade A bullshit.
Now I do doubt that there were 35000 people in the event photo, but event attendences count people who attend over the whole day and not just those that appear in a single snapshot. So it certainly is possible that 35000 attended over the day. For example, many of those who watched the parade will have gone on to the main event but would not have appeared in every photograph.
Maybe someone could, for comparison, post a photo of the 10000 people at the bannockburn event.
there arent 2000 people in your photo, there would have to be 100 people in each of the 20 segments and there clearly isnt.
Compare the crowd sizes to the Craig Murray one and you will see he is talking grade A bullshit.
Now I do doubt that there were 35000 people in the event photo, but event attendences count people who attend over the whole day and not just those that appear in a single snapshot. So it certainly is possible that 35000 attended over the day. For example, many of those who watched the parade will have gone on to the main event but would not have appeared in every photograph.
Maybe someone could, for comparison, post a photo of the 10000 people at the bannockburn event.
Count the amount of folk in line then multiply that by rows of people. There's not 2000 people in that picture.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. This is a counted picture of 2000 teenage scouts. Hardly munchkins. They are all sitting down and between them taking up an area of land which is a fraction of the land in the armed forces event photo.
It is clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that the event was much more than 2000 people. If you are unable to be honest with yourself then that's your look out. But to try and mislead others is an other matter.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. This is a counted picture of 2000 teenage scouts. Hardly munchkins. They are all sitting down and between them taking up an area of land which is a fraction of the land in the armed forces event photo.
It is clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that the event was much more than 2000 people. If you are unable to be honest with yourself then that's your look out. But to try and mislead others is an other matter.
There could be 35,000 and I still wouldn't care. It's just amusing watching this desperate attempt to deny the press coverage has once again got it wrong.
can I ask what the big deal is about the crowd sizes at the respective events yesterday ?
its not like only NO supporters attended the armed forces day and only YES supporters attended the Bannockburn event , i'm fairly sure there would have been a mix at both
I don't always agree with everything Black Sheep says but a few times he has brought up the issue of SNP and the YES campaign realising how important the emotional argument of Scottish history and playing it up in the run up to the vote , going for hearts rather than minds. every time he has said this he was shot down by YES supporters saying that was nonsense and that wouldn't be a factor in the referendum etc etc , but isn't that exactly what this futile disagreement about numbers at the respective events yesterday is doing ?
No, I think this argument has more to do with perceptions of media bias than any hearts vs heads dichotomy.
its gone way beyond that here tbh and has turned into a "my dad's bigger than your dad" argument and I just cant see why its such a big deal
The numbers aren't a big deal but the bias in coverage of pro-British events in comparison to say, the independence march in September last year has to be noted.
The numbers aren't a big deal but the bias in coverage of pro-British events in comparison to say, the independence march in September last year has to be noted.
don't buy that argument at all tbh , sounds like paranoia
Nice to see all of the major issues are still being discussed.:kitty:
Media bias from a state broadcaster who is paid for by the license fee and legally bound to be impartial in its reporting, is actually a major issue.
If it was people griping about bias in the Daily Mail it would be trivial, but an accusation of bias against the yes campaign is a serious accusation when levelled at the BBC.
Media bias from a state broadcaster who is paid for by the license fee and legally bound to be impartial in its reporting, is actually a major issue.
If it was people griping about bias in the Daily Mail it would be trivial, but an accusation of bias against the yes campaign is a serious accusation when levelled at the BBC.
Perceived bias, very few around here could be objective about such a thing.:)
No not just in my opinion. If it was just in my, as you say less than objective opinion, then your point about paranoia might have stood. The bias in reporting is documented and I'm not going to sit and argue with you about whether you believe it exists or not. Make up your own mind because I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise.
From being there I can assure you there were a huge amount of people, certainly more than your 3000 claim, the place was packed, it was free and filled with people from Scotland that would not have been able to afford the Clan things that seemed to attract more tourists than anything else.
There are pictures of the event. There was virtually no crowd on the parade route and the field where the main events were held had a peak audience of 3000 with around 600 left for the finale.
You can't lie when there are pictures showing how dismal the attendance was.
Bannockburn Live of course was a sell out and had to turn people away. Maybe that's where the 3000 at Armed Forces Day came from.
There are pictures of the event. There was virtually no crowd on the parade route and the field where the main events were held had a peak audience of 3000 with around 600 left for the finale.
You can't lie when there are pictures showing how dismal the attendance was.
Bannockburn Live of course was a sell out and had to turn people away. Maybe that's where the 3000 at Armed Forces Day came from.
I would love to know what point you think you are making, and whether you believe it supports an independence argument.
Comments
its not like only NO supporters attended the armed forces day and only YES supporters attended the Bannockburn event , i'm fairly sure there would have been a mix at both
I don't always agree with everything Black Sheep says but a few times he has brought up the issue of SNP and the YES campaign realising how important the emotional argument of Scottish history and playing it up in the run up to the vote , going for hearts rather than minds. every time he has said this he was shot down by YES supporters saying that was nonsense and that wouldn't be a factor in the referendum etc etc , but isn't that exactly what this futile disagreement about numbers at the respective events yesterday is doing ?
Armed forces day is just propaganda to try and convince us the government cares about the troops. That this government, in 2011, reduced pension entitlement to crippled ex-soldiers and war widows shows what they really think.
http://www.hellyeahdetroit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/nh_20140222_0102.jpg
Or another one http://www.mootcanada2013.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AJ_wsmoot-20130817_DSC02500.jpg
Compare the crowd sizes to the Craig Murray one and you will see he is talking grade A bullshit.
Now I do doubt that there were 35000 people in the event photo, but event attendences count people who attend over the whole day and not just those that appear in a single snapshot. So it certainly is possible that 35000 attended over the day. For example, many of those who watched the parade will have gone on to the main event but would not have appeared in every photograph.
Maybe someone could, for comparison, post a photo of the 10000 people at the bannockburn event.
heres 2000
http://www.mootcanada2013.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AJ_wsmoot-20130817_DSC02500.jpg
Count the amount of folk in line then multiply that by rows of people. There's not 2000 people in that picture.
Here's another
http://www.mootcanada2013.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AJ_wsmoot-20130817_DSC02500.jpg
Notice they are all sitting down therefore taking up much more space than someone standing.
2000 munchkins?
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. This is a counted picture of 2000 teenage scouts. Hardly munchkins. They are all sitting down and between them taking up an area of land which is a fraction of the land in the armed forces event photo.
It is clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that the event was much more than 2000 people. If you are unable to be honest with yourself then that's your look out. But to try and mislead others is an other matter.
There could be 35,000 and I still wouldn't care. It's just amusing watching this desperate attempt to deny the press coverage has once again got it wrong.
No, I think this argument has more to do with perceptions of media bias than any hearts vs heads dichotomy.
its gone way beyond that here tbh and has turned into a "my dad's bigger than your dad" argument and I just cant see why its such a big deal
The numbers aren't a big deal but the bias in coverage of pro-British events in comparison to say, the independence march in September last year has to be noted.
don't buy that argument at all tbh , sounds like paranoia
I guess it can if you've not been following it over the past few years.
as I said to dare_allan yesterday its human nature to judge something as being biased when it doesn't agree with your own opinions ...
That is true but bias is bias and BBC Scotland's reporting is biased.
in your less than objective opinion ...
Media bias from a state broadcaster who is paid for by the license fee and legally bound to be impartial in its reporting, is actually a major issue.
If it was people griping about bias in the Daily Mail it would be trivial, but an accusation of bias against the yes campaign is a serious accusation when levelled at the BBC.
Perceived bias, very few around here could be objective about such a thing.:)
No not just in my opinion. If it was just in my, as you say less than objective opinion, then your point about paranoia might have stood. The bias in reporting is documented and I'm not going to sit and argue with you about whether you believe it exists or not. Make up your own mind because I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise.
lets see your photos then
Bit less than the 'over 1,000' predicted yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28079812
"Police said there was a maximum of 350 protesters"
To put that in perspective - East Stirlingshire (the worst supported team in Scottish football) gets around that as an average attendance.
There are pictures of the event. There was virtually no crowd on the parade route and the field where the main events were held had a peak audience of 3000 with around 600 left for the finale.
You can't lie when there are pictures showing how dismal the attendance was.
Bannockburn Live of course was a sell out and had to turn people away. Maybe that's where the 3000 at Armed Forces Day came from.
I would love to know what point you think you are making, and whether you believe it supports an independence argument.