The dangers of skimming
Libby Brooks in today’s Guardian:
The swing implied by the figures suggests that as many 10 Labour seats [sic] could fall to the SNP.”
But that’s not what the figures suggest at all.
A couple of paragraphs later the piece goes on to cite analysis of the poll by Professor John Curtice, an obscure psephologist one or two of our more dedicated readers may have heard of. And as early as the fourth sentence of his blog post on the poll linked by the Guardian, he spells out what the figures REALLY say:
(Our emphasis.) Compared to the 2010 result that’s 37 Labour seats lost to the SNP, not 10. So where has “10” come from? We find out later in the Curtice article:
The damage to Labour would be as low as 10 seats only if they won over every single current SNP voter who says they’d even be prepared to consider voting Labour between now and May, and no Labour voters went the other way. Now, that might happen, but it seems fair to say that it’s a pretty optimistic assessment.
We can only speculate as to why the Guardian is presenting a best-case scenario as the poll’s actual current standings. It quotes Curtice’s article and refers directly to half of the last paragraph (in fact it cut-and-pastes it, complete with the same grammatical error), while glossing over the headline figures from the end of his very first paragraph. It’s a pretty odd way to speed-read something.
[…] Libby Brooks in today’s Guardian:“The recently elected leader of Scottish Labour, Jim Murphy, faces a daunting challenge to lift his party’s fortunes before next May’s general election as a poll shows support for Labour in Scotland is now half of that for the SNP.A Survation poll for Monday’s Daily Record, the first to be released since Murphy’s election on 13 December, found that 48% of Scottish voters plan to support the SNP in May, and 24% Labour. The swing implied by the figures suggests that as many 10 Labour seats could fall to the SNP.”But that’s not what the figures suggest at all. […]
Sums up the MSM rotten to the core.
You really do give great context to these misleadings Rev. If only the MSM did this…
If the SNP think they will have an easy fight against Jim Murphy they are deluded
he says his objective is to stop the SNP taking a single Labour seat.
Need to look up the word “deluded” maybe?
Revealing the facts just gets harder and harder for those so used to skewing them.
Thank you. error (yeh, right) pointed out – not sure how long it will remain in the BTL comments.
And so it begins.
I can only hope the media’s desperate scrambling to save New Labour in Scotland gets all the new SNP members galvanised, to ensure we get as many pro-indy MPs in Westminster as possible. The media’s going to be absolutely insufferable by May,and we NEED to counteract it.
Murphy was never the danger – in many ways, it didn’t matter who got elected. New Labour was never the danger, either. It’s the media. They’re the ones we have to fight – and they’re the ones who’ll be the greatest problem.
I really hope Poultice is right and as the worlds only living psephologist he can help get the message out that labour are toast. We might get folk thinking well if Poultice is saying it there is no point voting labour
Cockup, not conspiracy, guys. Journos working in London – even at the Guardian – have a feeling of Scotland being “A small country far away, of which we know little”. So they don’t bother checking.
Had it been a UKIP story, they’d have been far more meticulous. Or, as we used to put it, “professional”.
The election will happen. They will learn.
I read the Guardian until the referendum, so can’t even feign surprise.
“Cockup, not conspiracy, guys. Journos working in London – even at the Guardian – have a feeling of Scotland being “A small country far away, of which we know little”. So they don’t bother checking.”
I’d be inclined to believe that, as Libby Brooks’ coverage has been pretty fair (and she’s actually in Scotland), but the entire piece is based on Curtice’s blog and he gives the correct figure in the FIRST PARAGRAPH. The false one is buried in the middle of the last para. It’s actually quite a difficult mistake to make.
Just when you thought Grauns tawdry UKOK propaganda couldn’t get any worse. Personally I couldn’t believe my eyes reading Libby Carrell’s bizarre everyone’s going vote New MurphySLabour desperation. Its pretty unique for a broadsheet to have sunk this low, not. Anas Sarwar only given long thoughtful speech tonight on the Glasgow tragedy BBC R4 World Tonight news too. Airbrushed out of teamGB, SNP Sots.gov.
Well my fear in the wake of the referendum has only proven part true. At least the SNP administration wasn’t shaken, and quite the opposite has taken place. Instead of the media trying to shoehorn a Labour replacement, they are now trying to defend the party existentially.
Excellent shit.
As Taranaich says, it’s the media we’re up against, not Labour.
Taranaich says:
22 December, 2014 at 10:30 pm
I can only hope the media’s desperate scrambling to save New Labour in Scotland gets all the new SNP members galvanised, to ensure we get as many pro-indy MPs in Westminster as possible. The media’s going to be absolutely insufferable by May,and we NEED to counteract it.
Murphy was never the danger – in many ways, it didn’t matter who got elected. New Labour was never the danger, either. It’s the media. They’re the ones we have to fight – and they’re the ones who’ll be the greatest problem.
The fourth estate is merely an extension of the other tenets. But in these days of multimedia communications, its influence is the most insidious.
Why is the Guardian giving the best case scenario for Labour? Because Guardian staff believe all right-thinking people support Labour and its internationalist pretentions, as opposed to those decisive, reactionary nats, and so feel perfectly entitled to twist stories to their prejudices. It’s essentially the same reason they take down any politically incorrect postings in their laughably named “comment is free” section. Yes, yes, TECHNICALLY we shouldn’t, but it’s not really wrong when WE do it, is it? I mean, we’re just helping and guiding the ignorant an uneducated masses, right?
[…] The dangers of skimming […]
@ Taranaich 10:30 pm
Spot on
Some cracking comments on that Guardian story
‘Truthiness’ – the fusion of strong opinion with shaky statistics to present a falsehood.
Libby Brooks just tweeted that she’s having the piece changed. Fair play.
Rev. The piece HAS been changed – by removing any reference to seats at all. So the main point of Curtice’s analysis is gone (i.e. Labour’s potential wipeout)
Not sure that counts as “fair play”?
Taranaich
oh yes, spot on, MSM try to block voice of scots.
they will and are trying to paint a picture of ungrateful scot’s, for r.uk to view, to dishearten our resolve, within and outwith scotland.
hell will freeze over and then some, before that happen’s.
imv we have nothing to fear, let them do the panicking, stick to the plan and campaign hard @ the right moment.
I have just read her article on the Guardian website and it says nothing of the sort – in fact gives no estimates of seats. Is this the wrong article. Can you give a reference please?
“I have just read her article on the Guardian website and it says nothing of the sort – in fact gives no estimates of seats. Is this the wrong article. Can you give a reference please?”
Crazy idea, but you could try CLICKING ON THE LINK to the archived version, or READING THE COMMENTS where it’s noted that the Guardian has edited the piece after we pointed out the error.
Jeesh. Readers, they’ll be the bloody death of me.
For the 5 seats which might not be won by the SNP, we need high profile pro independence candidates, especially from the RIC in the Labour ‘heartlands’ constituencies.
There is no difference between The Guardian and The Record when it comes to lying about Scotland.
Essentially Libby sees the SNP as small fish in a very big pool – hence her unfocussed piece.
The Guardian has been cheer leading for Jim for the last couple of months. I’m surprised that Libby has taken this tack on this story though because she has been a lot more even handed than Severin.
I’m not sure what benefit there is in presenting quite such a skewed analysis of the Survation results. It is self evident that there has been no honeymoon period or even modest boost to Labour’s fortunes following the leadership election.
I wonder, will Asda, M & S, and all the other companies who attempted to undermine our democracy and blackmail us into voting the way they decided we should vote, will tell us that if we don’t vote Labour or Tory in the General election, prices will rise, jobs will be lost and companies will leave Scotland?
I wonder, which Unionist political party will these companies come out in favour of?
Labour and the media in Scotland are totally entwined. Weakening Labour at the GE is the first step, but the real blow to Labour will be if (or rather when) they lose control of Glasgow at the next Council elections. That I think would severely weaken the bond between Labour and the BBC.
You are the Boss.
Well done Rev, once again.
@Wee jock poo-pong mcplop
I would be more comfortable with the ‘honest mistake’ theory if there were fewer of them, and more went the other way.
Unfortunately, Labour has the same old advantage they always have at general elections. The very simple message of – The SNP can’t win power at Westminster – vote labour to kick out the Tories.
An SNP vote is more tactical and it’s harder to condense to a simple message.
This time around the situation seems to be:
Vote SNP, because they will back-up a UK labour government, and not the tories.. but so long as Labour keep to their promises on devolving significant powers.. And hope for a hung parliament, where pro-Scottish MP’s are needed and can’t just be ignored..
How to condense that into a simple message or slogan…??
Give Scotland the balance of power?
Onwards
proven; SNP fight for scotland.
OT Whatever their motivation, the Saudi’s stepped in to halt a rally on oil price today. They seem determined to hold it at about 60$ pb. How long they can hold it there remains to be seen.
I’m sorry to go off-topic quite so soon but I thought you’d all appreciate seeing what us in the cheap seats are having to tolerate now…
link to facebook.com
I almost read the Guardian article, I even opened the page. But then I thought, don’t be silly and read what James Kelly made of it on Scot Goes Pop.
Whatever happens is there any hope of it keeping Jackie Burd off my television…Too much to hope for? Ach well
She’s removed the sentence entirely. Not a breath of a whisper that the implied swing could see as many as 37 of Labour’s 41 seats falling to the SNP.
That doesn’t strike me as being very fair play at all.
Libby Brooks has now made further changes to the piece. The mistake about the seats was actually picked up BTL quite quickly, but of course by then she was involved in covering this dreadful business in Glasgow and presumably has not had time to get back to it.
She may also have not had the ability to look at Survation’s full tables either. Only the voting intenion results had been previously available. Curtice obviously already had a copy, but I think that is obligatory under the Declaration of Arbroath or something.
Pretty simple to change “10” to “37”, I’d have thought.
14% say they are MORE likely to vote Labour as a result of Jim Murphy being elected as leader in Scotland.
19% sat they are LESS likely!
It’s a bounce alright, but not in the direction Labour and the MSM hoped for!
Which is pleasing 🙂
R-type Grunt No one needs to tolerate abuse. Go to the three dots in the Facebook page’s cover photo then click report page and give your reason from the list. It is sick, disrespectful and predictable. Scotland bashing is what happens when the MSM create crude caricature and spread uninformed poison.
To a very considerable extent we have given ourselves a problem. We continually imply by word and by action that a Labour Government in London is less bad than Tory one.
So why should we wonder if the Unionists use this against us?
We have to argue strongly that any Westminster Government is bad for Scotland.
The division in Scotland is no longer right against left. It is unionist against nationalist. We must not let ourselves get dragged back into a left/right battle which is at this point a damaging diversion.
Our position must be that any Scottish Government is better for Scotland than any UK Government of whatever hue.
Well I know what result I am keeping my fingers crossed for.
In that event,labour will reap what it has sown. YES!
Don’t know if others remember the cries of delight and congratulations among commentators on Libby’s first articles – a breath of fresh air, real reporting etc.
Unfortunately she did her apprenticeship with Mr Carrell, and two weeks later, well, let’s just say it was like reading a different journalist.
Don’t give Guardian Scottish coverage the benefit of the doubt. They mean it.
@ Author
Aye, don’t worry. I did that right away. I’m only highlighting it here because I know there’s a fair few here who don’t use Facebook.
There is a fundamental difference between the SNP and Labour worth noting.
The Labour Party have been the party of Government on many occasions over many decades. As a result, Labour have acquired much knowledge in the art of gaining power and in exercising it. This applies in both Scotland as well as the UK as a whole.
In contrast, the SNP’s experience of power is a very different one. So far so good.
However, when we look only at Scotland, then it is clear to see that the SNP is a rising star, while Labour is very much a star on the wane. And while the SNP is still rising up the learning curve of power politics, Labour in Scotland have virtually lost it’s grip on the learning curve altogether.
The SNP is the party of the future while Labour’s best years are not only well and truly over, but may well be extinguished altogether in the very near future. Some time may be needed before these two sets of prospects become hard and fast political realities, but from here, no fortune-teller is required before placing a bet.
This is the background against which Jim Murphy arrives on the Scottish Political scene. Add his bizarre leadership campaign, his irn bru tour, his public utterances in the last few weeks and his decision to go it alone over Kinloss Search & Rescue, and we are confronted by the puzzling question of what is he up to?
One thing is certain, as with the NO Campaign, the State Propaganda machine has been turned on in his favour.
The NO mob did some pretty strange things which we struggled to make sense of at the time.
So also with Murphy. It does look like a re-run.
So all of Labour’s campaign know-how, amassed over many years and, of late, gleaned from far away places, may be in play already and hoping for a similar result as at the Referendum, only this time saving Labour in Scotland and thereby saving the Union – again.
And yet, what a difference 2014 has made to politics in Scotland.
Pre-Referendum and post-Referendum may be only a day apart on the calendar, but in the minds of the Scottish Electorate which has seen Labour and Tory join as one in the marriage bed of the Indy Union Alliance, that day is as a hundred years.
Between the broken Vows, the rigged NO result, the daily intercourse between the unionist newlyweds; Laborange orders and endless austerity; and a wealthy ruling elite who don’t give a **ck – Jim Murphy and his handlers may just be about to meet a ‘perfect storm’ come May 7th.
McQuarrie & Boothman, McTernan & Alexander, and the rest of the WM State Propaganda, may just find themselves pissin’ into a force 10.
Labour in Scotland – it’s over.
The SNP – and the Alliance for Scotland – they are the future.
I’ve archived the amended Guardian page, in case anyone will want to use the two versions to show how the national media twists the truth, even when it is told that it’s been rumbled.
link to archive.today
2am – primary story on BBC News Channel – sex slavery in Iraq.
2am – primary story on Sky News – Glasgow bin lorry crash.
On the BBC Channel, none of the 5 headline snippets was about Glasgow; Iraq, North Korea’s internet, Sydney funeral, Joe Cocker’s death were all mentioned, no mention of Glasgow.
Are they trying to pee us off?
As far as I’m concerned the more the papers predict “as much as 10 Labour seats going to the SNP ” all the better when we wipe the floor with them,
innit.
Quotes from CP Snow who was editor of the Manchester Guardian for fifty seven and a half years.
How does their selective reporting fit in with these ideas?
re slogans –
Vote SNP to save the UK
The Guardian ‘facts are sacred but comment is free’. Lying hypocrites who delete and ban posters who don’t agree with their editorial and have form tax evading, while publishing articles about the crime of tax evading.
No wonder the Press/Media are losing readers, and pricing themselves out of a job. Get with the Propaganda programme. Brooks is a questionable ‘journalist’. They want freedom of speech for themselves, but want to delete and ban everyone else. Total hypocrites, controlled by the Government. The only paper in Britain, with any independence of editorial, is still under Westminster control. Without a free and fair Press there is no democracy. The UK is not a democracy, but is run by a cartel and interest groups out to kill their fellow citizens and secretly destroy the world for their own gain. They will not get away with it.
Croompenstien says
“I really hope Poultice is right and as the worlds only living psephologist”
What?
If that’s true we need to get breeding him right away,
He’ll make us a fortune at stud,
who needs oil?
link to tinyurl.com
But your chingin the nappies!
Its labour’s media wing in action, usual scenario, painting gloss over sh!te
Facebook is suddenly awash with Slabber and Jim Murphy / Kezia Dugdale messages.
Last night there was one about Jim wanting to re-introduce drink at the football.
Many, like me stated that would be the end of taking the bairns along to watch the games, and wee clubs like Montrose need the youngsters, but I’ll no be taking them along to an aggressive atmosphere.
Slabber, back to the dark ages
Methinks ‘God hates Scotland’ Facebook page is being ironic. Taking the Piss. Can’t be totally sure with some of the rubbish on the internet. Scotland invented telephone and TV, led on to telecommunications. The Internet supports Scottish Independence. ‘Facts are sacred and comments is free’.
Kudos to Rev Stu and thank you, for keeping Scotland sane. A port in the storm. Honourable citizen. The first President of Scotland? All the choppers are coming home for Christmas, flying overhead. Thanks to all the people keeping the country going. Thank you for helping give Scotland back it’s confidence. The Campaign goes on. ‘God rest you merry gentlemen let nothing you dismay. To save your soul from Satan’s power’ and Westminster largess.
It was a careless bit of work and it’s good to see it being corrected.But wait a minute.While we’re on the subject….51% were meaning to vote Yes before they were bullied out of it.Current polls say 52% support independence but upto 10% of their number say they’re going to vote for a unionist party.Why? Maybe pundits should be saying “of course,it is very likely that come Election Day,these voters will come back into the pro Indy fold and vote SNP”.I know.We don’t want to get our hopes up.We don’t want to be seen to be triumphalist before the event.I get that.But ….it’s ours to lose and it will be all about getting our vote out.Big effort required from all of us!
This is where The National fails, it should jump on a misquoted story just as you did Stew, is it because there is a comfy agreement between newspaper reporters not to take others to task directly?, and that they’ll sort any difference of opinion together in their local “watering hole”.
The National has had a fair start, but for me it’s got to sharpen up a lot, and it needs someone like you Stew, and that wee yelpy dug!, to give it bit, I was very surprised when the paper invited that old dinosaur Simon Pia, to put his point of view regarding the Murphy fella.if ever an “empty barrel” exspression fitted someone it would be him.
I read the National today. I read the letters section and was not impressed with them giving a half page letter to a Sandy Wilkie, who described himself as a no voter and went on to give the we have got to come together as onescotland. He was fed up with all the conspiracy theories and other things.
I have the National on trial, I would feel better if tomorrow there is something that is in direct contrast to what I read in that letter today.
Sometimes it’s a case of not seeing the mist for the fog.
Scotland has decades of ignorance, arrogance and disrespect from London based media.
Now that gets mixed with bias, propaganda and manipulation!
So often we think we are being subjected to the latter when it’s just the same old former.
None of it has any place in a democracy. First we need to create a democracy.
These polls all have a purpose. First show how bad support for Labour currently is. Then come polling time when labour only lose 20 seats instead of 30+ seats it is a victory for Murphy and a failure for snp.
It’s hard not to disagree with Craig Murray’s view of the Guardian and Rusbridger in particular. I commented on Charlie Brooker’s end of year post last night and was about the fith ‘conversation’ down (under my user name DamePeggyMountJr). I said 2014 was the year I lost confidence in the Guardian after the tax-avoidance, Bitter Togetherness and the dispicable way they’ve treated Nafeez Ahmed (check it out at Medialens and Jonathan Cook’s blog). I kind of expected a ‘comminity rules’ removal. Instead my comment and all replied disappared completely.
James: the [letter writer] described himself as a no voter
I met another diehard No voter yesterday.
He had a falsehood for every reason he gave for voting against his country’s interests. I asked if he was happy working for his company and how long. 10 years was the reply and he was very happy. His company is Danish owned.
Quite dispiriting listening to the crapology they spout, but it is all, without question, based on the mistaken belief Scotland is too weak and too poor to return to full nationhood.
Let “The Girniad” print this. They’re effectively preventing the SNP from peaking too soon in the public mind.
(Different if we had been struggling at 15%.)
And the Unionist disaster won’t be so easily spun on the night.
James Caithness – read Sandy Wilkie in the National just now. He reminds me so much of Gerry Hassan – a lot words saying nothing!
@Rev ! What about another Press Complaint – so we see have the fun seeing what the reply might be ?????
HERE THE BBC REPLYING TO MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE BBC SAYING THERE ARE 14k SLAB BRANCH MEMBERS RATHER THAN <4k AS SHOWN BY THEIR RECENT LEADERSHIP ELECTION RESULTS – look at the timings – it took them 5 hours overnight NOTE the complaint was made 10 days ago – so it looks like they have a nightshift dealing with backlogs of complaints at this stage – I will of course be writing back to Tanya McKee pointing out that she has made no reference to my specific complaint – a matter of mathematical accuracy rather than opinion.
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REPLY
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:26 PM, bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Your Reference CAS-3063576-D8MC9P
Thanks for recently contacting the BBC. We aim to reply to complaints within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) and do so for most of them but cannot for all. The time taken depends on the nature of your complaint, how many others we are dealing with and can also be affected by practical issues such as whether a production team is available or away on location.
This is to let you know that we have referred your complaint to the relevant staff but that it may take longer than 10 working days to reply. We therefore ask you not to contact us further in the meantime. If it does prove necessary however, please use our webform, quoting any reference number we provided. This is an automatic email sent from an account which is not monitored so you cannot reply to this email address.
In order to use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue if it does not suggest a substantive breach of guidelines, or may send the same reply to everyone if others have complained about the same issue. You can read full details of our complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback at link to bbc.co.uk. In the meantime we’d like to thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints team
link to bbc.co.uk
2. RESULT OF INVESTIGATION 5 hours later
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:15 AM, bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Dear Cadogan
Reference CAS-3063576-D8MC9P
Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Radio 4’s ‘News and Weather’ broadcast 13th December 2014.
We understand you feel a recent report carried out concerning the Labour Party and Scottish National Party contained inaccurate statistics which you feel resulted in it seeming biased.
In all our reports we strive to provide the most accurate and up to date information as possible and this particular item was no different. We can assure you it was never our intention to appear biased in anyway, we seek to provide the information which will enable listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.
The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC’s reporting.
Thank you again for contacting us, we value your feedback. All complaints are sent to senior management every morning and we included your points in this overnight report.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.
Kind regards
Tanya McKee
BBC Complaints
link to bbc.co.uk
3. MY NEW COMPLAINT (summary only)
Your complaints department ‘s Tanya McKees reply said “we seek to provide the information which will enable listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.”
There is a substantial mathematical difference between less than 4000 Labour party members in Scotland, and the greater than 14000 figure reported by the BBC
Mis-reporting mathematical facts by the BBC does not help people make up their own minds, or reflect the political reality
AND – have any of you made a complaint to the Guardian or the press complaints over this article yet?
I used to work for the Irish National Press – I know people writing in to either makes a difference – even though it appears to make no difference at our end
Rev Stu – Another fine piece of analysis…and they (Grauniad) took notice!
So funny this, when you’ve read this all wrong as well. If you’re expecting the SNP to win anything like 54/59 seats, or to take 35 from Labour, you’re in for (another) rude awakening. The key is in the very important caveat that I have emboldened to help the hard of reading:
“If the swing since 2010 implied by these figures were to be replicated everywhere* the SNP would sweep the board with 54 of Scotland’s 59 seats, while Labour would have just four.”
*It won’t be. The smart money’s on Labour to retain between 20 and 30 seats, and probably around 25.
@Charliemurphy
So funny this, when YOU’VE read this all wrong as well!
If you read the article above properly you’ll discover that the Rev makes no comment whatsoever about the possibility of the SNP winning 50+ seats, he just reports what someone else (a staunch unionist, I believe) has claimed. What it IS about is how a supposed impartial journalist is anything but in her highly selective use of figures taken from another article, and which can only be explained as a deliberate attempt to minimise the potential SNP victory. In fact the Rev has stated elsewhere that he believes the number of seats Labour will lose to be “only” around 30 or so, I believe.
And while there is published polling evidence to suggest it could be up to 50-odd seats for the SNP, you seem to have pulled a number that “the smart money is on” out of your behind, unless you care to elaborate where all these smart gamblers you know are getting their information from?
A bit off topic I know but I wonder what people make of this article – Scottish people’s perceptions of political parties on a left-right axis. Interesting to note how SNP and Labour supporters see the other party as equally further to the right compared to the one they support. I wonder what the implications are for trying to win over people who still vote for Labour (and don’t support yes). Or are they simply to partisan for Labour and the left-right thing is just an excuse?? hmmm
link to britishelectionstudy.com
“The smart money’s on Labour to retain between 20 and 30 seats, and probably around 25.”
There is no “smart money”. Anyone who says they have the slightest idea how the 2015 election is going to pan out is a fucking idiot.
You mean Jim Murphy Rev?
Do you think the queen is still purring after the news about prince Andrew in the USA
@ pete the camera 4:18 pm
Think any goodwill to Lizzy has gone,,Any respect the rest did have ,even that’s questionable left about 1972