Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories." There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not only the paper's Was reading the stats on BBC question time seems remain were given a lot more airtime than leave." It's a lot different isn't it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum." I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could not give a shit about others my bizz flying at mo xx" That's a selfish and short sighted view! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not." You got any evidence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? " Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence." How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show." Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could not give a shit about others my bizz flying at mo xx" We've learned to expect that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie." You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence." Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IEA have stats that say 68% of panelist’s are remainers. In my mind they slightly undermine thisbfinding by suggesting this the only place that QT has bias despite showing that gender bias is 60/40. Given Brexit is just one subject, I’d expect more deviation from the underlying population here than gender. After all gender binary. And WT covers many things political, business and environmental. So given MPs are more likely to be remainers, it appears business are, and possibly eco types, I’d expect a bias. Also, worth noting UKIP are over represented when looking at MEPs or looking at vote share or seat share versus snp, greens and, I think, Lib Dem’s. " The stats i saw were airtime to talk pro bexit 6 32 seconds leave 10 22 seconds.The audience had double the airtime for remain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IEA have stats that say 68% of panelist’s are remainers. In my mind they slightly undermine thisbfinding by suggesting this the only place that QT has bias despite showing that gender bias is 60/40. Given Brexit is just one subject, I’d expect more deviation from the underlying population here than gender. After all gender binary. And WT covers many things political, business and environmental. So given MPs are more likely to be remainers, it appears business are, and possibly eco types, I’d expect a bias. Also, worth noting UKIP are over represented when looking at MEPs or looking at vote share or seat share versus snp, greens and, I think, Lib Dem’s. The stats i saw were airtime to talk pro bexit 6 32 seconds leave 10 22 seconds.The audience had double the airtime for remain." Was that the express and based on one episode (Fiona Bruce’s first ?) Maybe it’s not just bias but some speakers can hog the mic? And she is inexperienced in getting it back or monitoring timing. I’d say one episode is too few to claim bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias?" Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy." .That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could not give a shit about others my bizz flying at mo xx" Good for you. When things are tougher do you give a shit about others or are you always self absorbed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up." This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Could not give a shit about others my bizz flying at mo xx" if its you flying that bloody drone you will soon give a shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. " Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. " So, no credible political party then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! " You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. " No, you said it's members not the actual party line which is obviously Mays deal..stop playing your silly games. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. " Hes a troll mate just goes round and round in circles picking out little bits and starting a new argument when that runs out he calls you on grammar dont fall for it i have all day.All you end up doing is repeating yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. Hes a troll mate just goes round and round in circles picking out little bits and starting a new argument when that runs out he calls you on grammar dont fall for it i have all day.All you end up doing is repeating yourself." You've just described Centy there. What made you vote brexit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. Hes a troll mate just goes round and round in circles picking out little bits and starting a new argument when that runs out he calls you on grammar dont fall for it i have all day.All you end up doing is repeating yourself. You've just described Centy there. What made you vote brexit?" Costafun was referring to you Eddie. I'm sure he'll be happy to confirm it next time he's online and reads this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. " I saw it on points of view.Pity that program is not longer and on at a popular time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think much of our media exists to influence opinion and government strategy now. The actual role of provision of information/news is an also-ran. The level of contact between many of them and the government, including media staff who have become employees/involved with politicians, whether Boris or others, is very high. The somewhat hidden owners of media establishments obviously have influence on the direction that the country takes - and will be particularly interested in those elements that they can personally benefit from. I'm unsure how we get better control, although greater transparency would be ideal as a minimum.I think you are right but we all pay for the bbc and think they should be neutral which they clearly are not. You got any evidence? Well for one they use terms like crash out,cliffedge not really neutral when they can call it what it is "leave with no deal" so yes.Not everyone can spend alot of time researching politics they are to busy working come home and watch the news.These soundbits constantly repeated subtly sway their opinion as they are all negative.Take a look at the stats on fiona bruces 1st night,remainers were given far more airtime than leave so yes i call that evidence. How are you meant to present something as good that every credible source has predicted will be bad? Are they meant to not report this? Can you please post the stats and the source for Question Time? My initial reaction would be that leave guest on question tend to answer things as quickly as possible with soundbites as evidence doesn't usually back their arguments up, Also there is a distinct lack of credible leavers so it is harder to get them to appear on the show.Yes quiet happy for them to say so and so says this is bad so and so says this is good thats reporting.But to use negative terms for something you dont agree with when you are supposed to be neutral is bias.Look on google the stats are there i have no reason to lie. You could just post the link so we can actually see what sources you are using! As for using negative terms about no deal, I just can't see how it can be viewed as anything but a negative thing. It would be patronising to report with false equivalence.Exactly you cant see it thats what ive been telling you at last you have got it,so every night when you sat down for dinner after a days work and all you heard were negative words used about remaining would you not think that was bias? Not if remain was shown to be a lot worse than leaving and the news source was trustworthy..That is not neutral reporting ,what part of that dont you understand? they should be reporting and not using negatives about any point of view.I am not explaining to you any more if you cant understand that i give up. This is in the context of a no deal Brexit who want's a no deal Brexit? name them? You also are not getting my point. Who wants a no deal Brexit? Well the ERG group in the conservative party have said they'd be happy leaving with no deal, and a poll of Conservative party members said a majority of members would also prefer no deal compared to May's deal. Ukip would prefer a no deal rather than May's deal. The Leave means Leave Brexit campaign group have also said they'd be perfectly happy leaving the EU without a deal. So, no credible political party then! You think the Conservative party and it's members are not credible? Bizarre considering they got the highest number of votes and highest number of MP's at the last general election. Ukip also won the last European MEP elections In the UK. Hes a troll mate just goes round and round in circles picking out little bits and starting a new argument when that runs out he calls you on grammar dont fall for it i have all day.All you end up doing is repeating yourself. You've just described Centy there. What made you vote brexit? Costafun was referring to you Eddie. I'm sure he'll be happy to confirm it next time he's online and reads this. " It's a fair description for your modus operandi I think alot would agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. " Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"and i am sure it doesn't help when certain papers use words like "traitors" and "enemy of the people" either....." No your right _abio but the point about the bbc earlier is that is paid for by the public and should be impartial.We all know newspapers are depending on their owners political point of view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. " Of course there will be a bias they are all educated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. " I asked for specific examples to understand the headline point. Google doesn’t help. But as this thread shows I have already googled, found a source, put forward a possible reason for its findings, and critiques its conclusion (brexit is the only place it shows. It’s). I have also found compliants QT as a pro leave, pro UKIP bias when looking at MEP representation. I’ve just looked up an article with Preston and brexit bias. While not saying who is the “loonies” He did say “I do think that they went through a period of just not being confident enough. Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people, one of whom says ‘the world is flat’ and the other says ‘the earth is round’.” Not compelling argument for your viewpoint. Maybe not let me and my google skills out on the world and present your own data ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. I asked for specific examples to understand the headline point. Google doesn’t help. But as this thread shows I have already googled, found a source, put forward a possible reason for its findings, and critiques its conclusion (brexit is the only place it shows. It’s). I have also found compliants QT as a pro leave, pro UKIP bias when looking at MEP representation. I’ve just looked up an article with Preston and brexit bias. While not saying who is the “loonies” He did say “I do think that they went through a period of just not being confident enough. Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people, one of whom says ‘the world is flat’ and the other says ‘the earth is round’.” Not compelling argument for your viewpoint. Maybe not let me and my google skills out on the world and present your own data ?" sorry i must have posted the data on another thread.The other night on question time pro brexit 6,32 seconds airtime against 10,22 seconds airtime .The anti brexit audience were give double the amount of airtime and thepro brexit spokesman on the panel was interupted twice as many times as the anti brexit.,the world is flat argument doesnt really fit does it? we all know its not as for brexit no one really knows its all speculation depending which view you hold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. I asked for specific examples to understand the headline point. Google doesn’t help. But as this thread shows I have already googled, found a source, put forward a possible reason for its findings, and critiques its conclusion (brexit is the only place it shows. It’s). I have also found compliants QT as a pro leave, pro UKIP bias when looking at MEP representation. I’ve just looked up an article with Preston and brexit bias. While not saying who is the “loonies” He did say “I do think that they went through a period of just not being confident enough. Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people, one of whom says ‘the world is flat’ and the other says ‘the earth is round’.” Not compelling argument for your viewpoint. Maybe not let me and my google skills out on the world and present your own data ? sorry i must have posted the data on another thread.The other night on question time pro brexit 6,32 seconds airtime against 10,22 seconds airtime .The anti brexit audience were give double the amount of airtime and thepro brexit spokesman on the panel was interupted twice as many times as the anti brexit.,the world is flat argument doesnt really fit does it? we all know its not as for brexit no one really knows its all speculation depending which view you hold." It does when people like Tim Martin go on and like in a demonstrable fashion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you folks have links to examples of such language? I know there’s a push to remove “crash out on WTO” terms atm. Just Google 'BBC anti Brexit bias' and you'll get plenty of links to plenty of examples. Former BBC employee Robert Peston said there was a clear BBC bias towards remain when he worked there, he has now left the BBC and works for itv. The BBC has been reported to regulator Ofcom last month by a cross party group of 8 politicians so we shall see what happens after the investigation. I asked for specific examples to understand the headline point. Google doesn’t help. But as this thread shows I have already googled, found a source, put forward a possible reason for its findings, and critiques its conclusion (brexit is the only place it shows. It’s). I have also found compliants QT as a pro leave, pro UKIP bias when looking at MEP representation. I’ve just looked up an article with Preston and brexit bias. While not saying who is the “loonies” He did say “I do think that they went through a period of just not being confident enough. Impartial journalism is not giving equal airtime to two people, one of whom says ‘the world is flat’ and the other says ‘the earth is round’.” Not compelling argument for your viewpoint. Maybe not let me and my google skills out on the world and present your own data ? sorry i must have posted the data on another thread.The other night on question time pro brexit 6,32 seconds airtime against 10,22 seconds airtime .The anti brexit audience were give double the amount of airtime and thepro brexit spokesman on the panel was interupted twice as many times as the anti brexit.,the world is flat argument doesnt really fit does it? we all know its not as for brexit no one really knows its all speculation depending which view you hold." I saw your post on this and answered. I don’t think one episode is enough to prove bias, particularly on a presenters first episode in a show where people tend to hog the mic. The world is flat is not my argument but a quote from Robert Preston when it comes to BBC bias. I quoted him as his views was meant to be proof of bbc bias towards remain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. ." What were you in France for? If you are so confident about the EU breaking up why didn't you take me up the bet I offered on here a few weeks back? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok what's the bet and the deal...." The EU will be in existence in 5 years time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok what's the bet and the deal...." https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/832729 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. . What were you in France for? If you are so confident about the EU breaking up why didn't you take me up the bet I offered on here a few weeks back?" Maybe they went to France to hand out some more yellow vests  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. . What were you in France for? If you are so confident about the EU breaking up why didn't you take me up the bet I offered on here a few weeks back? Maybe they went to France to hand out some more yellow vests "Very funny ,you haven't posted on the question for leavers thread yet! In fact only 3 leavers have! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. . What were you in France for? If you are so confident about the EU breaking up why didn't you take me up the bet I offered on here a few weeks back? Maybe they went to France to hand out some more yellow vests
Very funny ,you haven't posted on the question for leavers thread yet! In fact only 3 leavers have!"Are you a leaver? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. ." The Italian coalition government have officially and publicly backed the yellow vest protesters in France against Macron (with Friends like that who needs enemies eh? Lol). Meanwhile Italy is in recession, the supposed economic powerhouse of the EU Germany is heading towards recession, and with Paris on fire and in protest virtually every weekend now, France look like they are headed towards recession too. The Flimsy, corrupt House of cards that the EU always has been looks increasingly unsteady, why anyone would want to be in this shitty bureaucratic club is anyone's guess? Time for the UK to get in that lifeboat called Brexit.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well I'm not bothered ...just got back from france ...macron in the shit and lots of talk that Italy will be next to walk from the great eu/Germany dictatorship...some people just want to save the world but it is not going to happen ...wake up ...its all about self self self and your family's.. . The Italian coalition government have officially and publicly backed the yellow vest protesters in France against Macron (with Friends like that who needs enemies eh? Lol). Meanwhile Italy is in recession, the supposed economic powerhouse of the EU Germany is heading towards recession, and with Paris on fire and in protest virtually every weekend now, France look like they are headed towards recession too. The Flimsy, corrupt House of cards that the EU always has been looks increasingly unsteady, why anyone would want to be in this shitty bureaucratic club is anyone's guess? Time for the UK to get in that lifeboat called Brexit. "The bets still open to you Centy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh dear ..seems like Toyota now looking to move more production to UK.." Source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The media dont help with phrases like "cliff edge".. " crash out" etc... " exactly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. " plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage"What's the biggest selling paper? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper? "Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up "Try again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again."Sun or daily mail? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail? "The Sun is correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail?
The Sun is correct."You reckon the media can influence what people think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail?
The Sun is correct.
You reckon the media can influence what people think? "Yes, do you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail?
The Sun is correct.
You reckon the media can influence what people think?
Yes, do you?"The disaffected i can see being more easily influenced | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail?
The Sun is correct.
You reckon the media can influence what people think?
Yes, do you?
The disaffected i can see being more easily influenced
"How did you come to your rather niche political position? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"going to love seeing the headlines tonight.... can you fit 400+ pictures of mps on a front page... oooh... maybe the mail or express will so super audacious and go double sided!!!! "One of them pages that pull out like a consetina, and ends up round your ankles | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it not time for a further tightening of Press regulation? It can’t be right that newspapers of any political leaning can be pumping out propaganda in the guise of news stories. There was a time when newspapers served a genuine purpose to inform and educate. Now people get there news from so many other sources. By the time someone buys a paper, they've already consumed enough real news for the day So newspapers have had to adapt. Most are comics now - existing to entertain, inflame and excite. Most are judgemental and very shouty. Just avoid them if you don't like them. I do. plus the owners use the their papers to serve political agenda and leverage
What's the biggest selling paper?
Sunday times? The pages are huge when you hold them up
Try again.
Sun or daily mail?
The Sun is correct.
You reckon the media can influence what people think?
Yes, do you?
The disaffected i can see being more easily influenced
How did you come to your rather niche political position? "Eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
