ot jeremy corbyn

[welovebooth]

This thread has been moved to the Internet Millers board.

If you don't wan't to participate on this thread click here to return to MillersMad

http://boards.footymad.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2602

********** ************* *********** *********** ************ ********** ************ ************


Laid a wreath at the site were a convicted homeless pedophile who had been deported twice was found dead outside Westminster.

You know what this means.

Top jobs in cabinet for the pedophile covering up ex labour rotherham councill.

[animallittle3]

I've read reports Mr Corbyn laid a wreath at the spot where a homeless man died and had a history of mental health issues but I've yet to read the man was a pedophile .

[millmoormagic]

Pathetic as ever...

It's actually quite an eye opener how far the establishment is going to try and smear Corbyn, i wonder, really wonder why that would be, any one got any ideas???

I've got one, maybe, just maybe the Labour party's policy of closing the loopholes of tax dodging billionaire newspaper owners eh...just a thought...

Oh, one more thing, Corbyn has shown more class and leadership qualities over the last few years than Theresa May could ever do. He has handled unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusation and insinuation with dignity and confidence.

WLB, GF, and all the other corbyn haters, the more you try, the more you fail, the more pathetic you look, the more power you give to Corbyn.

[mikemiller]

WLB, GF, and all the other corbyn haters, the more you try, the more you fail, the more pathetic you look, the more power you give to Corbyn.

Welovebooth - user name alone signals a wind-up , and not a source of reliable information. Many of the "misinformation merchants" on this site are probably just one person. Welovebooth posts usually have additional spelling/grammatical errors in them to make them look a bit different from some of the other rubbish, eh Kempo?

[animallittle3]

They tell me some of the things they have on Mogg will make the campaign against Corbyn look positively tame .

I couldn't say how authentic they are because I don't walk in those circles but that's what I was told anyway .

[sawmiller]

...and finally, in case WLB missed it, 17 innocent young people were gunned down whilst at school recently in Florida...


OK though, gunman not a pedo - just exercising his right to bear arms, including an assault rifle with more than adequate force

[KerrAvon]

Oh, one more thing, Corbyn has shown more class and leadership qualities over the last few years than Theresa May could ever do. He has handled unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusation and insinuation with dignity and confidence.
What unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations has he handled, MMM?

[KerrAvon]

They tell me some of the things they have on Mogg will make the campaign against Corbyn look positively tame .

I couldn't say how authentic they are because I don't walk in those circles but that's what I was told anyway .Unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations perchance?

[animallittle3]

Unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations perchance?

What part of I couldn't say how authentic they are didn't you understand ??

[KerrAvon]

What part of I couldn't say how authentic they are didn't you understand ??I understood every word, animal. That's why I am loving the irony of MMM complaining of unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations and you then giving tantalising hints of scandal that you don't even know are true.

It is very funny, if you step back and think about it.

[rolymiller]

I have no evidence but my gut reaction is mogg is a selfish upper class tw at lets see how it pans out eh?

[millmoormagic]

What unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations has he handled, MMM?

Where shall i start, and you do know exactly what i'm saying, shall we start with terrorist sympathiser?, or a commie spy, or a marxist whose gunna eat your babies, or has bought a bycycle worth £475 while tories get away with claiming all sorts, pickle with £10000 of taxi fares etc.etc etc.
But the fact is that the mainstream media at every turn is either
1. Trying to smear Corbyn with something or, 2. Not actually talking about Labour party policies etc.

[KerrAvon]

That's a well reasoned point, Roly. Well done. You should go into politics.

[rolymiller]

No, no MMM Kerr reckons that the playing field is level and we have the fairest press in the world so that can't be reight can it? Same with the judicial system ya can't beat it for fairness..my arse...

[millmoormagic]

The fact that Corbyn has never ever risen to the bile churned out by the scum and daily fail shows his qualities, what do you think kerr, honestly, he has had continuous dog abuse ever since his win in the leadership campaign. The media started by trying to ridicule, because they didn't think him viable, just like theresa may, when the shock result of the elction came in they've ramped it up further to this point where it's quite frankly ridiculous, and if you have any kind of fairness in you then ypu'd admit that to be honest.

[animallittle3]

I understood every word, animal. That's why I am loving the irony of MMM complaining of unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations and you then giving tantalising hints of scandal that you don't even know are true.

It is very funny, if you step back and think about it.

There's nothing tantalising about it except in your head .

Calm down dear there's no need for the hint of paranoia .

[KerrAvon]

Where shall i start, and you do know exactly what i'm saying, shall we start with terrorist sympathiser?, or a commie spy, or a marxist whose gunna eat your babies, or has bought a bycycle worth £475 while tories get away with claiming all sorts, pickle with £10000 of taxi fares etc.etc etc.
But the fact is that the mainstream media at every turn is either
1. Trying to smear Corbyn with something or, 2. Not actually talking about Labour party policies etc.Is he not a terrorist sympathiser? MMM? His links with the pIRA are well known and they did have the habit of blowing up the centre of British Towns along with the people in them. I appreciate that the line now adopted is that he was opening lines of dialogue – it’s just strange how it was only with the Republican side of the dispute. He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

I have seen nothing to suggest he was a 'commie spy'. What secrets was he going to give? His formulae for making compost on his allotment?

I can't recall anything to do with eating babies. If there were so many unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations, why do you have to come out with stuff like that?

The £475 bike is a new one. What's that about?

[KerrAvon]

The fact that Corbyn has never ever risen to the bile churned out by the scum and daily fail shows his qualities, what do you think kerr, honestly, he has had continuous dog abuse ever since his win in the leadership campaign. The media started by trying to ridicule, because they didn't think him viable, just like theresa may, when the shock result of the elction came in they've ramped it up further to this point where it's quite frankly ridiculous, and if you have any kind of fairness in you then ypu'd admit that to be honest.Continuous Dog's abuse? He doesn't get a fair hearing in the Daily Mail, but who does?

The press used to have a whale of a time just by reporting the things that he said. Do you remember Trident submarines without missiles? Labour have cottoned on now and he doesn't say much. What is Labour’s policy on Brexit - the biggest issue face by the UK since 1945? Who knows?

[millmoormagic]

Is he not a terrorist sympathiser? MMM? His links with the pIRA are well known and they did have the habit of blowing up the centre of British Towns along with the people in them. I appreciate that the line now adopted is that he was opening lines of dialogue – it’s just strange how it was only with the Republican side of the dispute. He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

I have seen nothing to suggest he was a 'commie spy'. What secrets was he going to give? His formulae for making compost on his allotment?

I can't recall anything to do with eating babies. If there were so many unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations, why do you have to come out with stuff like that?

The £475 bike is a new one. What's that about?

I'll be honest kerr, i thought more of you than to actually side with the likes of the right wing press, tommy robinson, raheem kasan et al, please please please post some FACT that actually proves Corbyn's involvement in any terrorist organisation, that's all i ask, no spin, no bull, pure fact, prove it kerr, because it really is pathetic, and the fact that you're now doing it shows you up for what you are really, a GF wannabe.

[rolymiller]

Its interesting that your pals in government are nicely palled up with UDP are these not linked to terrorists or dunt it matter Kerr?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dup-conservatives-northern-ireland-coalition-ulster-defence-association-paramilitaries-peace-process-a7782631.html

[animallittle3]

Is he not a terrorist sympathiser? MMM? His links with the pIRA are well known and they did have the habit of blowing up the centre of British Towns along with the people in them. I appreciate that the line now adopted is that he was opening lines of dialogue – it’s just strange how it was only with the Republican side of the dispute. He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

I have seen nothing to suggest he was a 'commie spy'. What secrets was he going to give? His formulae for making compost on his allotment?

I can't recall anything to do with eating babies. If there were so many unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations, why do you have to come out with stuff like that?

The £475 bike is a new one. What's that about?

But Mo Mowlem sat in the same Westminster office as Adams and McGuiness was perfectly ok then which it was but apparently Corbyn meeting with the IRA is somehow sympathising with terrorists .

[great_fire]

To be fair Corbyn didn't know he was a child abuser.

But wouldn't have cared he was an illegal immigrant.

And I don't think Labour care what kind of immigrants come into the country as long as they vote Labour which the vast majority do.

What annoys me about Corbyn is he is one of the most opportunistic politicians going as seen from this and the Virgin trains scam but he pretends to be something better.

[millmoormagic]

Continuous Dog's abuse? He doesn't get a fair hearing in the Daily Mail, but who does?

The press used to have a whale of a time just by reporting the things that he said. Do you remember Trident submarines without missiles? Labour have cottoned on now and he doesn't say much. What is Labour’s policy on Brexit - the biggest issue face by the UK since 1945? Who knows?

I'll tell you who doesn't get dogs abuse from the mail, rich, tax dodging, nazi loving billionaires...,anyone threatening that, gets it...

What would you rather spend money on, a fully funded military, or a nuclear deterrent never to be used....

Back to brexit are we, the tories absolutley f*ck up a referendum and all negotiation that follows, the tory party is a shambles, leading the country into a bigger shambles, if it wasn't so tragic it'd be funny, but wait, what's the labour party's stance??? What the hell has that got to do with it, typical deflection again from you kerr, and you know what, you're brilliant at it, but you know just as well as i do, you're talking shyte.

[John2]

But wouldn't have cared he was an illegal immigrant.

Dear lord, in you world is it a personality flaw to sympathise with the plight of an illegal immigrant who dies on the street?

[millmoormagic]

To be fair Corbyn didn't know he was a child abuser.

But wouldn't have cared he was an illegal immigrant.

And I don't think Labour care what kind of immigrants come into the country as long as they vote Labour which the vast majority do.

What annoys me about Corbyn is he is one of the most opportunistic politicians going as seen from this and the Virgin trains scam but he pretends to be something better.

Opportunistic?? He's got the most consistent voting record than anyone, he's consistently followed his heart when voting, just like any public servant should, and once again, your views on immigrants is pathetic...

[rolymiller]

You have to feel sorry for the likes of Kerr on here b ecause he knows when Corbyn gets in he is gonna be hit in the pocket and he is sh!t scared. Money is all and it may mean one less day on the piste for him. He won't take account of the fact that massive numbers of ordinary people have been hit in the pocket by the tw ats in power and have not been able to afford decent holidays for years. My heart will bleed for him and his ilk. I suspect a lot of tories will bugger off abroad if corbyn gets in so that will be an extra bonus eh? Lets hope they piss off for good. As regards gf, i dont believe he is wealthy just someone who prefers to blame his poor circumstances by scapegoating groups pf people as extreme right wingers do.

[millmoormagic]

You have to feel sorry for the likes of Kerr on here b ecause he knows when Corbyn gets in he is gonna be hit in the pocket and he is sh!t scared. Money is all and it may mean one less day on the piste for him. He won't take account of the fact that massive numbers of ordinary people have been hit in the pocket by the tw ats in power and have not been able to afford decent holidays for years. My heart will bleed for him and his ilk. I suspect a lot of tories will bugger off abroad if corbyn gets in so that will be an extra bonus eh? Lets hope they piss off for good. As regatds gf i dont believe he is wealthy just someone who prefers to blame his poor circumstances on the wrong people. If it wasn's so pathetic I would laugh.

Don't be fooled by kerrs story about posting on his phone from the piste roly, is that what you'd do when on hols? You know, troll a message board and do some in depth research to prove your point?? The only time you'd do that on hols is if you were a real sad act....

[animallittle3]

To be fair Corbyn didn't know he was a child abuser.

But wouldn't have cared he was an illegal immigrant.

And I don't think Labour care what kind of immigrants come into the country as long as they vote Labour which the vast majority do.

What annoys me about Corbyn is he is one of the most opportunistic politicians going as seen from this and the Virgin trains scam but he pretends to be something better.


Yeh 30 odd years on the backbencher's is a real clue on his opportunist character fire , that opportunist I'd never heard of him till his name appeared on the list of candidates for the labour leadership .

I actually heard one of his early speeches when he first contested the labour leadership at a austerity demo in london , I hardly noticed he was on the stage that particular day .

The members seemed in my opinion to come to him and it ran from there .

There was nobody more surprised than Mr Corbyn when he won the labour leadership that I do know .

[great_fire]

Twice deported child molester, woo-hoo another vote!

[great_fire]

Dear lord, in you world is it a personality flaw to sympathise with the plight of an illegal immigrant who dies on the street?

If our immigration system had been working properly he wouldn't have died would he?

Plus he was a child abuser, a danger to our children.

[animallittle3]

If our immigration system had been working properly he wouldn't have died would he?

Plus he was a child abuser, a danger to our children.

You should take that up with the home office fire , perhaps the current PM could shed some light on it , she tended to lose quite a few things during her tenure .

[great_fire]

You should take that up with the home office fire , perhaps the current PM could shed some light on it , she tended to lose quite a few things during her tenure .

I'm no fan of hers if that's what you think, not many are, they only vote for her because the alternative has never met an enemy of the UK he hasn't supported.

[WanChaiMiller]

Is he not a terrorist sympathiser? MMM? His links with the pIRA are well known and they did have the habit of blowing up the centre of British Towns along with the people in them. I appreciate that the line now adopted is that he was opening lines of dialogue – it’s just strange how it was only with the Republican side of the dispute. He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.


Interesting use of language. 'Fond of talking to Hamas' against 'very little contact with Isreali government'. Really? Was he actually fond of talking to Hamas? Did he really have any less contact with Israeli government?

But this isnt my point. Id like to know what was discussed in these meetings with Hamas and the IRA?

If he discussed which target to blow up next - then ok - Id agree, it would be outrageous. But that scenario is highly unlikely (unless you have specific evidence). My guess the topic under discussion was how to put and end to the violence. Much more likely.

Does that make him a 'terrorist sympathiser'? Or an MP doing his job?

[animallittle3]

You have to feel sorry for the likes of Kerr on here b ecause he knows when Corbyn gets in he is gonna be hit in the pocket and he is sh!t scared. Money is all and it may mean one less day on the piste for him. He won't take account of the fact that massive numbers of ordinary people have been hit in the pocket by the tw ats in power and have not been able to afford decent holidays for years. My heart will bleed for him and his ilk. I suspect a lot of tories will bugger off abroad if corbyn gets in so that will be an extra bonus eh? Lets hope they piss off for good. As regards gf, i dont believe he is wealthy just someone who prefers to blame his poor circumstances by scapegoating groups pf people as extreme right wingers do.

The UK certainly isn't short of people pushing the ladder away after benefiting from free higher education , affordable housing and live lifes outside the austerity zone .

[rolymiller]

Yep as my old mum , bless her,used to say about such people "I'm alright Jack sod everyone else". Her other phrase was "they forget where they came from". I want my lads to do well but I hope that they will always remember the sacrifices ordinary folk have made for them and the people they grew up with. I'm confident they will because i hope me and the mrs have brought up our kids to care about the world and not just about themselves.

[Slimchance]

You have to feel sorry for the likes of Kerr on here b ecause he knows when Corbyn gets in he is gonna be hit in the pocket and he is sh!t scared. Money is all and it may mean one less day on the piste for him. He won't take account of the fact that massive numbers of ordinary people have been hit in the pocket by the tw ats in power and have not been able to afford decent holidays for years. My heart will bleed for him and his ilk. I suspect a lot of tories will bugger off abroad if corbyn gets in so that will be an extra bonus eh? Lets hope they piss off for good. As regards gf, i dont believe he is wealthy just someone who prefers to blame his poor circumstances by scapegoating groups pf people as extreme right wingers do.

The shadow chancellor confirmed on Peston on Sunday that Labour support was emeraging, so how are they to form the next government ?

[great_fire]

If Corbyn doesn't go back into the lead in polls then Labour will look to replace him, if they still can with all the Momentum entryists.

If he does go into a significant lead the Conservative will look to replace May.

[rolymiller]

Your clutching at straws boys better hide ya money under yer beds...or piss off abroad no tories will be missed...

[mikemiller]

The shadow chancellor confirmed on Peston on Sunday that Labour support was emeraging, so how are they to form the next government ?

Peston ? Are you sure that it wasn't on the Dick Emerage show? - "Oooh you are awful, but I like you" . There's one for the ****agers...

[great_fire]

I warned some months ago how Momentum were planning to infiltrate football messageboards and that's exactly what they've done.

The Corbyn cultists politicise everything.

[millmoormagic]

I warned some months ago how Momentum were planning to infiltrate football messageboards and that's exactly what they've done.

The Corbyn cultists politicise everything.

😂😂😂 how pathetic is that.

[mikemiller]

I warned some months ago how Momentum were planning to infiltrate football messageboards and that's exactly what they've done.

The Corbyn cultists politicise everything.

Taliking rubbish as usual

Did you read that on "Squawker" - the conspiracy theory website with links to the far right? Which appears to be one of your usual bedtime reads.... or was it on "Twitter"?

[great_fire]

All the Corbynistas on here are going on the ignore list because they're almost as annoying as Owen Jones.

[millmoormagic]

All the Corbynistas on here are going on the ignore list because they're almost as annoying as Owen Jones.

Run away fella, bottled it.

[animallittle3]

Message on a high ranking Tories Twitter removed this morning after Corbyn's legal team blew in his ear concerning the spy allegation .

Read into that what you will .

[animallittle3]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-jan-sarkocy-communist-spies-ken-livingstone-a8218506.html

[rolymiller]

Its the usual made up nonsense pedalled by the likes of gfire and kerr as being the truth and Kerr says we have a fair press...hmm..

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

He's great kerr lol. He never fully addresses the points made. I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.

[KerrAvon]

Its the usual made up nonsense pedalled by the likes of gfire and kerr as being the truth and Kerr says we have a fair press...hmm..I dipped out of this thread when it descended to the usual circular hate-fest (with the exception of John's contribution) between the usual suspects, but I'll come back in for this.

I don't think I've ever said that we have a fair press, but you'll doubtless correct me if I'm wrong about that. I've certainly said that we have a free press and long may that continue. A free press inevitably means that different newspapers etc. will hold editorial viewpoints that reflect those of their owners and editorial teams. How could that not be the case? What is the alternative? A state controlled media? That would hardly be unbiased, so what are you proposing?

I've also said that I don't believe that the media has much of an influence on voting habits, because people choose their news sources to suit their own views, by which I mean that not many members of Momentum will be regular readers of the Daily Mail, whilst hard-core Tories probably don't nip out to get their copy of The Guardian every morning.

That second point it, I think, neatly demonstrated by some of the posts on this thread. You posted a link to an article from The Independent (a member of the ‘mainstream media), because it suited your purposes, as did animal. And because it suited your purpose you are willing to accept it and hold it out as fact, whereas anything that is critical of The Great Leader is dismissed as smear or unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations (although MMM seemed to struggle a little when asked for examples of that). Guardian articles are regularly held out as indisputable fact by those with an inclination to the Left of politics.

Again, you will doubtless correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you complaining about press bias against the Tories when the media ran stories about Cameron’s alleged activities with pig heads or allegations of child abuse against Heath or of **** being found on Damien Green’s computer. animal certainly posted about Cameron and Heath on Tyke’s Mad without even a hint of the indignation or scepticism that he seems to feel when the press runs stories that suggest that The Great Leader is anything other than perfect and the saviour in waiting.

You say that the Czech spy story is made up nonsense, which may be your opinion, but you cannot state is as being fact, can you? As I understand it, a former member of the Czech secret service is saying that The Great Leader was recruited by them in the 80s. What are you saying? Should the press have refused to print the story because it might upset you and others who hold your political stance? If so, why were you not onto the press over Cameron, Heath and Green?

As it happens, I am of the opinion that the Czech story is probably nonsense. What secrets would he have been able to pass in the 80s? His recipe for compost as I, mentioned above, or perhaps details of the winners in the North London Labour Party Christmas raffle? I think it more likely that they swapped views about their shared hopes for World Socialism until the Czechs got bored and went looking for someone more interesting.

Think about it, Roly . When you talk about media bias, is the factual position simply that you are intolerant of people holding and expressing views that you don’t agree with? You certainly give that impression on here. Read more Orwell would be my suggested antidote. He was, of course, a person with deep Left leanings who became disillusioned with the intolerance of that wing of politics.

[KerrAvon]

He's great kerr lol. He never fully addresses the points made. I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.If people can make points without being rude and/or silly and I have the time, I am generally happy to respond.

So are you saying that The Great Leader was right to have nothing to do with the Israelis because they drop bombs and shell people, but it was ok for him to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as friends even though they set off bombs on buses etc. and fire rockets onto random targets in Israeli towns?

Blimey, how do you square that circle?

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Clearly not.

[rolymiller]

Would you accept then that the owners of most national newspapers are likely to be very wealthy so are very unlikely to support any left leaning party? Why would they want Corbyn to get in? Probably for the same reason as you they dont want to be hit in the pocket.

I'm glad you agree we dont have a fair press? How can you say that doesn't have an effect on how people vote? How many national newspapers come out and say they support Corbyn? Is there any national newspaper that supports Corbyn ?

Its all to do with power reations. Study a bit of sociology owd lad. The people with theb most power have the loudest voice thats why they get heard most.

What would you say if the boot was on the other foot and all the newspapers supported Corbyn?Would you accept that because by your own argument that would mean you would be intolerant of others views yoursejf if you didnt.

[millmoormagic]

I dipped out of this thread when it descended to the usual circular hate-fest (with the exception of John's contribution) between the usual suspects, but I'll come back in for this.

I don't think I've ever said that we have a fair press, but you'll doubtless correct me if I'm wrong about that. I've certainly said that we have a free press and long may that continue. A free press inevitably means that different newspapers etc. will hold editorial viewpoints that reflect those of their owners and editorial teams. How could that not be the case? What is the alternative? A state controlled media? That would hardly be unbiased, so what are you proposing?

I've also said that I don't believe that the media has much of an influence on voting habits, because people choose their news sources to suit their own views, by which I mean that not many members of Momentum will be regular readers of the Daily Mail, whilst hard-core Tories probably don't nip out to get their copy of The Guardian every morning.

That second point it, I think, neatly demonstrated by some of the posts on this thread. You posted a link to an article from The Independent (a member of the ‘mainstream media), because it suited your purposes, as did animal. And because it suited your purpose you are willing to accept it and hold it out as fact, whereas anything that is critical of The Great Leader is dismissed as smear or unbelievable, untrue and scurrilous accusations and insinuations (although MMM seemed to struggle a little when asked for examples of that). Guardian articles are regularly held out as indisputable fact by those with an inclination to the Left of politics.

Again, you will doubtless correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you complaining about press bias against the Tories when the media ran stories about Cameron’s alleged activities with pig heads or allegations of child abuse against Heath or of **** being found on Damien Green’s computer. animal certainly posted about Cameron and Heath on Tyke’s Mad without even a hint of the indignation or scepticism that he seems to feel when the press runs stories that suggest that The Great Leader is anything other than perfect and the saviour in waiting.

You say that the Czech spy story is made up nonsense, which may be your opinion, but you cannot state is as being fact, can you? As I understand it, a former member of the Czech secret service is saying that The Great Leader was recruited by them in the 80s. What are you saying? Should the press have refused to print the story because it might upset you and others who hold your political stance? If so, why were you not onto the press over Cameron, Heath and Green?

As it happens, I am of the opinion that the Czech story is probably nonsense. What secrets would he have been able to pass in the 80s? His recipe for compost as I, mentioned above, or perhaps details of the winners in the North London Labour Party Christmas raffle? I think it more likely that they swapped views about their shared hopes for World Socialism until the Czechs got bored and went looking for someone more interesting.

Think about it, Roly . When you talk about media bias, is the factual position simply that you are intolerant of people holding and expressing views that you don’t agree with? You certainly give that impression on here. Read more Orwell would be my suggested antidote. He was, of course, a person with deep Left leanings who became disillusioned with the intolerance of that wing of politics.

I don't struggle with anything you post to be fair, because it's usually full of deflection and clever use of words that lawyers use, doesn't make you right because you can dress up your words kerr.
I reckon just lately you'd be far more use as the editor of the daily fail, have you answered any of the questions yet about ypur ascertion about Corbyn and the pira?? Nope, you havent because you know you're wrong, alongside the rest of the shyte posted about Corbyn.
Come back when you want to be honest about stuff rather than continuing this absurd media con trick against Corbyn, pathetic kind of sums it up.

[rolymiller]

8631

For someone who works in the legal system you have a strange view of what a level playing field is kerr. The rich and powerful are the ones kicking downhill by the way.The poor and underprivileged are the ones kicking uphill. Things against them? Education/ health/ housing/ life chances/ career opportunities -yeah I know you were working class made good.. I can go on.

Can't get the evidence for you at the moment but why is it that if your born into the middle classes your children are I believe 10 times more likely to become middle class themselves than someone born into a working class family. Yeah fair right.

[rolymiller]

I have a sneaky feeling we might be being conned by another kempo incarnation by the way MMM. Something you said on an earlier post about Kerr on the piste could be a load of balls made me think this. It makes sense. There is no way a Doctor is going to come on here giving advice about medical problems because it would compromise him professionally. Likewise there is no way someone from the legal trade would come on here arguing from a biased political standpoint because that would too be professionally compromising. It would be very naive if they did. If Kerr is that Smart he just wouldn;t get involved in football messageboard arguments. Look at Poddington. Admits he's a teacher but just keeps low key- hardly posts now. That makes sense though. It wouldnt look good if a teacher got involved in slanging matches on here or became abusive etc not that I am suggesting Pod would but you know what I mean.I'm Convinced now Kerr aint real. We have been had and fallen for it. One of your best ones yet Kemps.

[mikemiller]

"Red scare" stories are nothing new . Same thing happened in the 1960s/70s with members of the British secret service "dirty tricks" department feeding lies to the Daily Mail, etc , about Harold Wilson being a Russian spy. Of course, the press printed them without worrying about checking what evidence there was... some things never change

By the way, Kempo has previously said several times, that KerrAvon is a fake... he could actually be telling the truth (for once) as a double-bluff

[KerrAvon]

Clearly not.Clearly not what? What is the point you are seeking to make?

[KerrAvon]

8631

For someone who works in the legal system you have a strange view of what a level playing field is kerr. The rich and powerful are the ones kicking downhill by the way.The poor and underprivileged are the ones kicking uphill. Things against them? Education/ health/ housing/ life chances/ career opportunities -yeah I know you were working class made good.. I can go on.

Can't get the evidence for you at the moment but why is it that if your born into the middle classes your children are I believe 10 times more likely to become middle class themselves than someone born into a working class family. Yeah fair right.Well that's great (by which I mean the usual empty rhetoric), but what about the points that I made? Where are your posts about the press treatment of Cameron, Heath and Green? Where was the level playing field for them? Was the media being biased against Labour when they ran those stories?

Were the press wrong to run stories about them in the way that they ran the Greater Leader/Czech spy story? ‘Tic toc’ as you have taken to saying.

As I say, you confuse bias with people printing things that you don’t agree with.

I went to South Grove. Not many 'middle class' there, but what is that to do with your views on media bias?

[rolymiller]

Nice one Mr Kempo. You have been exposed at last...

[KerrAvon]

"Red scare" stories are nothing new . Same thing happened in the 1960s/70s with members of the British secret service "dirty tricks" department feeding lies to the Daily Mail, etc , about Harold Wilson being a Russian spy. Of course, the press printed them without worrying about checking what evidence there was... some things never change

By the way, Kempo has previously said several times, that KerrAvon is a fake... he could actually be telling the truth (for once) as a double-bluffSame question to you as the ones that Roly has side stepped with all the guile and trickery of Gijsbert Bos on an off day. What of the Cameron, Heath and Green stories? How do they fit with the notion of one way traffic in the media?

[KerrAvon]

Nice one Mr Kempo. You have been exposed at last...Gijsbert Bos on an off day on tranquilisers. Come on Roly - Tic Toc.

[rolymiller]

Shut up silly person. You've had your bit of fun.You fooled us credit to you for that at least. we know now what you say can be taken with a pinch of salt. You are spot on mikemiller.

[millmoormagic]

Lets be fair, if you took just about every front page from the scum or daily fail everyday since Corbyn has been leader then there's all the evidence you'd ever need, you can even go back through other labour leaders, Miliband got it, Kinnock got it, Foot got special treatment, and i could keep going back. It's an affront to democracy, you can include the torygraph and express to a lesser degree but it's plain as day. Add to that the tory loving BBC and hey presto you're influencing minds, luckily, the interweb came along where folk can find the facts for themselves, the rabid press Corbyn is now getting is the realisation of those whove always had the power knowing they've been found out.

[rolymiller]

Don't indulge him MMM.

[KerrAvon]

Don't indulge him MMM.Gijsbert Bos on an off day on tranquilisers with his eyes tight shut and fingers in his ears going La La La, I can't hear you.

You could just address the points that I made. I had the courtesy to address yours.

[great_fire]

Not worth arguing with these Corbynista zealots.

They wouldn't have had a bad word said against Stalin when he was murdering millions.

"Left good, Right bad", that's all that goes through their heads.

Would be more productive arguing with a watermelon.

[millmoormagic]

Gijsbert Bos on an off day on tranquilisers with his eyes tight shut and fingers in his ears going La La La, I can't hear you.

You could just address the points that I made. I had the courtesy to address yours.

Wanna substantiate the pira thing, have you took a look through the newspapers lately ( news?)....talking about courtesy when you're the one deflecting again, post facts kerr, be honest for a change and stop looking for an angle to for your flannel.

[millmoormagic]

Not worth arguing with these Corbynista zealots.

They wouldn't have had a bad word said against Stalin when he was murdering millions.

"Left good, Right bad", that's all that goes through their heads.

Would be more productive arguing with a watermelon.

Right on cue the other partner in the double act turns up.....see what your politics really is Kerr? In the flesh, like a very poor two ronnies you and gf.

[millmoormagic]

Not worth arguing with these Corbynista zealots.

They wouldn't have had a bad word said against Stalin when he was murdering millions.

"Left good, Right bad", that's all that goes through their heads.

Would be more productive arguing with a watermelon.

I've no problem condemning Stalin for all the evil he did, what about you and Hitler, you seem to have a similar outlook on immigration/race...

[rolymiller]

Its just complete bollax int it? As Harry Corbett would say to his puppets, bye bye everyone, bye bye.

[animallittle3]

I'm struggling to think what utterly fantastic state secrets Mr Corbyn could have passed on as a opposition back bencher facing down a tory government under Thatcher every day .

Even chuffin Thatcher herself wouldn't have known half of what was going on at that time within MI5 never mind a labour backbencher in opposition .

Maybe he got wind that George Graham was to become the new Arsenal manager in 1986 at best .

[millmoormagic]

Breaking news, i've just seen Jeremy Corbyn with a boat load of KFC chicken...

[animallittle3]

Not worth arguing with these Corbynista zealots.

They wouldn't have had a bad word said against Stalin when he was murdering millions.

"Left good, Right bad", that's all that goes through their heads.

Would be more productive arguing with a watermelon.

Don't you worry fire , the revolution is coming , this time next year Scargill will be home secretary and Mogg will be on trial for his life charged with treason .

The only cars on the road will be Trabants , although there won't be any petrol to put in them and failure to salute Comrade Corbyn when he appears daily on state television will be 30 years hard labour .

Elections will be a thing of the past and our only trade will be with North Korea , Cuba and Venezuela .

I'd get out whilst you can before the wall goes up and become a refugee seeking political asylum .

[great_fire]

Yet another Corbyn lie in his statement today:

"A free press is essential for democracy and we don't want to close it down, we want to open it up."

When in fact they are going ahead with the second part of Leveson and will get the Sun, Mail, Express shut down if they can.

[KerrAvon]

Would you accept then that the owners of most national newspapers are likely to be very wealthy so are very unlikely to support any left leaning party? Why would they want Corbyn to get in? Probably for the same reason as you they dont want to be hit in the pocket.

I'm glad you agree we dont have a fair press? How can you say that doesn't have an effect on how people vote? How many national newspapers come out and say they support Corbyn? Is there any national newspaper that supports Corbyn ?

Its all to do with power reations. Study a bit of sociology owd lad. The people with theb most power have the loudest voice thats why they get heard most.

What would you say if the boot was on the other foot and all the newspapers supported Corbyn?Would you accept that because by your own argument that would mean you would be intolerant of others views yoursejf if you didnt.

I missed this post in all the excitement of you deciding that answering the points that I made was a wee bit too difficult for you and coming up with a silly excuse not to do so

The Guardian and Independent are both left leaning. I haven't read the Mirror in years (who has?), but that was certainly Left leaning when it was run by Maxwell (former Labour MP and certainly wealthy - particularly after he had taken cash from the Mirror Group Pension fund).

I haven't agreed with you that we don’t have a fair press. I was pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed that I previously said that we did. Talking about a fair press is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ point. The press is not an amorphous mass and is capable of being fair at times and unfair at others. I suspect that members of Heath’s family will feel their treatment of him – printing details of allegations against him that he can’t address – is particularly unfair. The Great Leader had the opportunity to address the Czceh spy allegations and the MSM printed his denials as per the article that animal linked to.

As for my point about the limited effect of media bias, consider this: how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did?

I’m really not sure where you are going with the ‘if all newspapers supported The Great Leader’ point? How does that hypothetical argument help? Not all newspapers support May (very few do) and so it is as unrealistic as it is hypothetical. As for my views, have you heard me complain that the media are biased because The Guardian is pro-Labour? I don’t think you have. That’s the difference between you and me on this point. I accept that a free press means freedom for proprietors and editorial teams to hold and express views, irrespective of whether I agree with them.

As for me not wanting to be hit in the pocket, you should read my posts. What I object to about the current Labour Party is that it is proposing to hit everyone in the pockets by re-running the failed, inflation and unemployment creating policies of the 70s. I also object to it proposing to buy middle class votes with a policy that is likely to reduce the quality and availability of university places in this country.

[KerrAvon]

I'm struggling to think what utterly fantastic state secrets Mr Corbyn could have passed on as a opposition back bencher facing down a tory government under Thatcher every day .

Even chuffin Thatcher herself wouldn't have known half of what was going on at that time within MI5 never mind a labour backbencher in opposition .

Maybe he got wind that George Graham was to become the new Arsenal manager in 1986 at best .What a good point, animal. I wish I'd made it... oh, I did.

As I said above, I think it far more likely that the Czech spy and The Great Leader were talking about their common belief in the advancement of World Socialism, because that ideology was working out so well for the Czech people at the time.

[mikemiller]

Yet another Corbyn lie in his statement today:

"A free press is essential for democracy and we don't want to close it down, we want to open it up."

When in fact they are going ahead with the second part of Leveson and will get the Sun, Mail, Express shut down if they can.

Wow, and we'd all miss that high quality journalism (LOL!). Phew, what a scorcher and a pack of lies - as per usual.
Which conspiracy theory website with links to the far right did you get that from.... or , let me guess...it was "on Twitter"?

[rolymiller]

No Mike miller, remove the "ter" off the end and you'll be about right.

[millmoormagic]

Still absolutely no proof about Corbyn's alleged links to the pira then Kerr....it's like you're dodging it or summat....

As for the 'free press' thing, what's happening right now is nothing to do with free press and everything to do with control, and how these people can call themselves journalists is beyond me.

Your views on what the labour party policies would do to the country? You mean actually fund the NHS properly, and the schools, and the welfare state, you mean stop unscrupulous employers squeezing every inch out of the zero hour paid staff? You've got your head in the sand, the ordinary folk of this country is being shafted massively by your beloved tories.
Your jibe about uni education also shows your snobbery, claiming the quality of education would be reduced, pathetic that.
Do you wanna post some proof about the czech spy meeting then Kerr? I think you'll struggle with that one also.

[great_fire]

As crap as May is, Corbyn is not going to get elected.

Even with the dumbed-down education system we have, run by Marxist teachers, people are not that stupid.

[mikemiller]

As crap as May is, Corbyn is not going to get elected.



So why are you so obsessed with him, you sad little drooler-over-conspiracy-theory-sites-linked-to the-far-right?

..and another question - whenever the topic of Hitler or Mussolini is mentioned, your motor-mouth suddenly goes suspiciously silent -why is that? Nothing about them on "Twitter"? (LOL!)

[millmoormagic]

As crap as May is, Corbyn is not going to get elected.

Even with the dumbed-down education system we have, run by Marxist teachers, people are not that stupid.

Getting desperate now gf arent you, just like the establishment, getting ever so desperate that they're openly publishing lie after lie after lie. To be fair, it's a powerful enemy that the Labour party is taking on, it's the REAL enemy within, and what you're doing gf, is aiding and abetting it by believing their bull****. The fact is, by believing their shyte and actively promoting it on here and elswhere, you're just as much to blame for all the ills that are happening to this country as anyone, you should be ashamed.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Clearly not what? What is the point you are seeking to make?

FFS! :blue::blue: You've clearly never educated yourself on the subject.

[ragingpup]

As crap as May is, Corbyn is not going to get elected.

Even with the dumbed-down education system we have, run by Marxist teachers, people are not that stupid.

Eh? Marxist teachers?

I've worked with 100s of them and not met one. Left wing is as far as it goes but most I think have never read Marx. Not in my experience anyway.

[ragingpup]

Not worth arguing with these Corbynista zealots.

They wouldn't have had a bad word said against Stalin when he was murdering millions.

"Left good, Right bad", that's all that goes through their heads.

Would be more productive arguing with a watermelon.



You don't really argue though do you Fire?

You just rant out a few 2nd hand views from the mass media and far right web sites and then when you get challenged on the views, stop responding - implying that you are not able to justify your opinions with any kind of reason.

So much so that I believe you have added me to your 'Ignore' list so that you aren't troubled with your replies being coherently challenged... That's a whole new level in censorship for you! the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly!

Top man!

[ragingpup]

I missed this post in all the excitement of you deciding that answering the points that I made was a wee bit too difficult for you and coming up with a silly excuse not to do so

The Guardian and Independent are both left leaning. I haven't read the Mirror in years (who has?), but that was certainly Left leaning when it was run by Maxwell (former Labour MP and certainly wealthy - particularly after he had taken cash from the Mirror Group Pension fund).

I haven't agreed with you that we don’t have a fair press. I was pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed that I previously said that we did. Talking about a fair press is a ‘how long is a piece of string’ point. The press is not an amorphous mass and is capable of being fair at times and unfair at others. I suspect that members of Heath’s family will feel their treatment of him – printing details of allegations against him that he can’t address – is particularly unfair. The Great Leader had the opportunity to address the Czceh spy allegations and the MSM printed his denials as per the article that animal linked to.

As for my point about the limited effect of media bias, consider this: how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did?

I’m really not sure where you are going with the ‘if all newspapers supported The Great Leader’ point? How does that hypothetical argument help? Not all newspapers support May (very few do) and so it is as unrealistic as it is hypothetical. As for my views, have you heard me complain that the media are biased because The Guardian is pro-Labour? I don’t think you have. That’s the difference between you and me on this point. I accept that a free press means freedom for proprietors and editorial teams to hold and express views, irrespective of whether I agree with them.

As for me not wanting to be hit in the pocket, you should read my posts. What I object to about the current Labour Party is that it is proposing to hit everyone in the pockets by re-running the failed, inflation and unemployment creating policies of the 70s. I also object to it proposing to buy middle class votes with a policy that is likely to reduce the quality and availability of university places in this country.

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

[rolymiller]

tory supporting press 8643 labour supporting press


I wonder who will win this game Mr Kemps?


The rich/powerful/priviliged 8643 The poor/ underprivileged/ weak

Another sure fire winner.

Who would you put your money on to win the games eh? (unfortunately there is no half time turn around in these games-one half only).

[great_fire]

Abbott now says she's going to scrap more immigration controls to let many more immigrants in, because there are many coming in ATM.

At least she's being honest I suppose, although not about her reason for doing it, to increase their voter base.

Hardly a vote-winning policy outside London though, well not yet anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5418525/Diane-Abbott-Labour-let-immigrants-in.html

[sickly_child]

Must be exhausting being you GF.

[animallittle3]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/02/labour-s-renationalisation-plans-look-nothing-1970s

[animallittle3]

Abbott now says she's going to scrap more immigration controls to let many more immigrants in, because there are many coming in ATM.

At least she's being honest I suppose, although not about her reason for doing it, to increase their voter base.

Hardly a vote-winning policy outside London though, well not yet anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5418525/Diane-Abbott-Labour-let-immigrants-in.html

Current unfilled vacancies within the NHS stand at 100k .

Any progress regarding how we can fill them fire ? .

[great_fire]

Wow, I'm an extremist because I think 300,000 net immigrants a year is too much and Abbott and these people actually want more!

It's already a huge amount, without historical precedent.

[ragingpup]

Abbott now says she's going to scrap more immigration controls to let many more immigrants in, because there are many coming in ATM.

At least she's being honest I suppose, although not about her reason for doing it, to increase their voter base.

Hardly a vote-winning policy outside London though, well not yet anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5418525/Diane-Abbott-Labour-let-immigrants-in.html

Sickening spin from the Mail here - even more sickening to see how people like Fire swallow it hook lline and sinker.

Look at the points the Mail raise in their headlines:

1. Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK

GF - do you know how many separated child refugees we took in last year?

in 2015 2100 applications were made for separated child asylum in the UK - of which 94% were refused. Not got my calculator but is that about 120??
In a government statement a couple of weeks ago, 900 were accepted in 2016, 200 of which remained in the UK, the remainder being resettled in Dublin under the Dublin regulation

It is a TINY amount of vulnerable people. Does that matter?


2. She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18

Again, a tiny amount. In 2016, the figure was that 2748 18 year olds had been deported from the UK in the previous NINE YEARS! This pretty much matches with the incoming numbers of accepted child asylum seekers of 250 per year.

Note how the Mail are spinning a major news story, implying that Labour are further opening the migrant 'floodgates' and completely distorting the numbers of migrants that Abbott is talking about here.

And I love how the Mail manage to scrape in the 3rd bullet point headline:

3. The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

The dreadful thing is that the Tories got the vote of GF and many like him just on this pledge alone. And of course we all know they made this pledge many years ago and it has got worse even with the non-EU immigration that always was, and still is, completely in their control. Horrific that we can see the Mail actively manipulating the likes of GF on the issue that they know the white working classes are particularly interested in, and voting accordingly.

Here we see the Government supporting right wing mass media machine in action...

[KerrAvon]

FFS! :blue::blue: You've clearly never educated yourself on the subject.Educated or not, I’m really struggling to follow the point that you are trying to make, Amanda. It may be me, but let’s wind it back to see if we can get on track:

In post 17, I observed that: He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

In post 48, you responded by saying: I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.

In post 50, I repled: So are you saying that The Great Leader was right to have nothing to do with the Israelis because they drop bombs and shell people, but it was ok for him to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as friends even though they set off bombs on buses etc. and fire rockets onto random targets in Israeli towns?

Your response in post 51 was: Clearly not.

I’m simply asking what you meant by ‘clearly not’.

Distilled down, the issue is this: The Great Leader invited representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah to Westminster and referred to them as friends when he did. Hamas and Hezbollah are organisations that are committed to the destruction of Israel (irrespective of the views of its 8.5 million inhabitants) and which have engaged in bombings, assassinations and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli towns. So how is it that you feel that The Great Leader was justified in not wanting much to do with Israel, but raise no criticism of his dealings with his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah? Maybe you do, but I’ve missed them.

The spin being put out on behalf of the Great Leader now is that he was talking to Sinn Fein (but not pIRA – lol) to pursue peace and was talking to Hamas and Hezbollah for the same reason. I think that is as demonstrably nonsensical as the notion that he had secrets to give to the Czechs in the 80s. How can you be a peace broker when you demonstrate support for the aims of one side of a conflict (in the case of the Great Leader, for the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause) and by only talking to one side? It makes no sense.

I have no issue with The Great Leader holding the views that he does on the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause. It may be that his views and mine are not a million miles apart upon them; it is the re-writing of history to try to paint over the inconvenience of his past words and actions of the slating of the media for reporting them that troubles me.

[KerrAvon]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Firstly, I don't accept the premise that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties. Frankly, I think it slightly desperate of you to try to argue that they are. As I have explained previously, I am of the view that people choose their media source to suit their pre-existing leanings. As I asked young Gisjbert before he picked up his ball and ran off to the corner of the playground with it: How often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did? It is clear from your latest response to gf that you have read the Daily Mail article that he referred to (putting money into their coffers by clicking on the link). Is that something that you regularly do and does it make you want to vote Tory when you do?

If more people want to buy The Sun rather than the Daily Mirror, that’s their choice, raging, just as the editorial position of those papers is the choice of their proprietors and editorial teams. Where does the concept of ‘fairness’ come into it? I’d love to know how you would seek to override those choices.

How people voted in the election was their choice too.

As you’ve pointed out previously, when Momentum aren’t chanting The Greater Leader’s name in Grime clubs, they have a pretty slick digital operation going. The Tories’ digital presence, on the other hand, is utterly lame. So is that unfair in your view or is Labour merely using an advantage they they have?

I’m loving the way that you think it CRUCIAL that the media had a feeding frenzy around the pig’s head allegations four months after the election and, as I understand it, are seeking to argue that timing was carefully selected. In reality, the reason for the timing is that it coincided with the publication of the book in which the allegation was made…

I confess that you have the advantage on me in that I rarely read the print media these days and didn’t at all in the run up to the election. Do you have examples that you can link to of pictures of The Great Leader caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists? And are you saying that the pictures of his hands around terrorist were photoshopped? Or are you exaggerating?

In reality, The Great Leader turns inconvenient stories about him in the press to his advantage by painting himself as the victim, as he did with his response to the Czech stories. It’s a strategy that comes straight out of the Trump playbook and fair play to him, it’s a neat bit of politicking.

I’m looking forward to your ideas upon how the free press can be managed. A Ministry of Truth?

[KerrAvon]

Sickening spin from the Mail here - even more sickening to see how people like Fire swallow it hook lline and sinker.

Look at the points the Mail raise in their headlines:

1. Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK

GF - do you know how many separated child refugees we took in last year?

in 2015 2100 applications were made for separated child asylum in the UK - of which 94% were refused. Not got my calculator but is that about 120??
In a government statement a couple of weeks ago, 900 were accepted in 2016, 200 of which remained in the UK, the remainder being resettled in Dublin under the Dublin regulation

It is a TINY amount of vulnerable people. Does that matter?


2. She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18

Again, a tiny amount. In 2016, the figure was that 2748 18 year olds had been deported from the UK in the previous NINE YEARS! This pretty much matches with the incoming numbers of accepted child asylum seekers of 250 per year.

Note how the Mail are spinning a major news story, implying that Labour are further opening the migrant 'floodgates' and completely distorting the numbers of migrants that Abbott is talking about here.

And I love how the Mail manage to scrape in the 3rd bullet point headline:

3. The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

The dreadful thing is that the Tories got the vote of GF and many like him just on this pledge alone. And of course we all know they made this pledge many years ago and it has got worse even with the non-EU immigration that always was, and still is, completely in their control. Horrific that we can see the Mail actively manipulating the likes of GF on the issue that they know the white working classes are particularly interested in, and voting accordingly.

Here we see the Government supporting right wing mass media machine in action...Damn, you've had me clicking on the link too.

Sickening spin? As far as I can see, Diane Abbott announced a Labour policy - a statement of what Labour would do if the electorate chose to put them in power - and the Daily Mail reported it.

I've not checked the figures that you give, but have no reason to doubt them (though, ironically, perhaps, in a post alleging spin, you've chosen not to mention the Tory response that the policy would encourage an increase in numbers) and agree that it is hardly a significant change, but Abbott clearly though it significant enough to announce it, so why wouldn't the press report it?

What are you saying? That the electorate shouldn't be made aware of Labour policy announcements or that reporting Labour policy announcements is an act of manipulation?

Is reporting Labour policy announcements the sort of bias that you are concerned about? Blimey.

[rolymiller]

8644... from the king himself. Wow royalty on here!

[great_fire]

Of course the Tories have failed to control immigration, if they even tried, but Labour would be even worse.

That's why they're still ahead in the polls.

EDIT: Just seen it's fallen to 244,000 so at least it's gone down, not up as it would under Corbyn.

But pre-Blair it was only 50,000.

[Slimchance]

I think the main issues here regarding political bias are:

1. The sheer volume of political control of the mass media on 'advising' voters how to vote. If we accept that most readers are to an extent influenced by the concentrated, repeated and quite urgent arguments made for/against the different political parties, then let's look at how far this 'control' might go. Of the mass newspapers here is how they breakdown with political support and readership:

The Guardian Labour (although lib dem in 2010) 300k readers
FT Conservatives 400k
Telegraph Tories 700k
The Sun Tories 3 million
Mail Tories 2, 120k
Express Tories 700k
Mirror Labour 1, 200k
Times Tories 500k
Daily Star Tories (albeit very slyly!) 800k

That by my reckoning means that there are 8 million 200 thousand people who receive sustained political arguments advising them to vote Conservative versus 1 million and 500 thousand who receive labour political 'advisement'.

If we further accept that these newspapers are owned by just a handful of businessmen who in themselves are very fearful of any government that might threaten even a small cut of their (and their funding big business advertisers) profits, then you have a very effective historically effective 'machine' that aims to persuade a huge % of the voting public to vote conservative.

Is that a fair, balanced press? Are we all happy with that?

2) The examples you give, of some right wing newspapers attacking Cameron, Heath and Green and the other fella - is that the best you can do? These conservative newspapers offer a systematic personality slaughter of not just Corbyn but any Labour leader that does not explicitly distance themselves from threatening corporate wealth and any semblance of even slight wealth redistribution (hence how Murdoch accepted Blair and smoothed his way into the role). Some ran half of their newspapers in election week with pictures of Corbyn caricatured as the devil, hands around terrorists. And all you can offer as a way of making it appear that they treat parties equally is that they have gone for a PM at the time (Cameron) on a scandal, but CRUCIALLY only 4 months after his safe re-election as PM and therefore not a scandal to ever shake the establishment was it?, a dead former leader from decades ago and a relatively insignificant, easily replaceable MP who had been caught with ****o on his PC. Do you really think this compares? If Green had been Corbyn, with a bit of ****o on his PC instead of "Shed Weekly" or with his old fella in a hog's gob, do you think we'd have heard the end of it at the time that matters, in the run up to election? Come on lad, you're bright enough to know that these were mere 'storms in easily managed tea cups' and no threat at all to the Conservative led establishment.

I have a couple of ideas for how a 'free press' could be more satisfactorily managed in what struggles to think of itself as a democracy but gotta go now - daughter bedtime. Tata

Fake statistics yet again.

Why have you not included the circulation of The Morning Star, whose sales must have increased by many millions due to ALL the NEW born again Lefties that our Great Leader has brainwashed....sorry recruited.

[mikemiller]

Wow, I'm an extremist because I think 300,000 net immigrants a year is too much and Abbott and these people actually want more!

It's already a huge amount, without historical precedent.

I notice that, although you have an answer for a lot of stuff (usually an entirely wrong answer) you didn't answer the question about Hitler and Mussolini - I wonder why

[rolymiller]

I would guess if you went round to gfires house it would be full of nazi memorobilia: flags, pennants, videos, books the lot. Bit llke the father ted nazi episode. He certainly knows enough about nazi politics to suggest he is one. Mind you you would have to get through the machine gun posts, barbed wire and alsatian dogs first. Not keen on strangers is our greatfire unless they have a swastika badge.

[Slimchance]

I would guess if you went round to gfires house it would be full of nazi memorobilia: flags, pennants, videos, books the lot. Bit llke the father ted nazi episode. He certainly knows enough about nazi politics to suggest he is one. Mind you you would have to get through the machine gun posts, barbed wire and alsatian dogs first. Not keen on strangers is our greatfire unless they have a swastika badge.

I havent read the post by gf about Hitler and friends but I do think your personal attacks are going a little too far IMHO.

[millmoormagic]

Fake statistics yet again.

Why have you not included the circulation of The Morning Star, whose sales must have increased by many millions due to ALL the NEW born again Lefties that our Great Leader has brainwashed....sorry recruited.

Wow, you post actual facts 'Pup and they still call it fake news, the neanderthals are back with a vengeance.
Why would the circulation of the morning star be included when the circulation is around 10K....please try and post something that has some kind of credence eh, otherwise you're in danger of being tagged alongside gf and kerr, speaking of which Kerr, any news on the Corbyn and pira thing yet?

[Slimchance]

Wow, you post actual facts 'Pup and they still call it fake news, the neanderthals are back with a vengeance.
Why would the circulation of the morning star be included when the circulation is around 10K....please try and post something that has some kind of credence eh, otherwise you're in danger of being tagged alongside gf and kerr, speaking of which Kerr, any news on the Corbyn and pira thing yet?

I know its not side splitting but its to lighten the atmosphere, I'm sure you must have a sense of humour.

[KerrAvon]

If it helps, Slimchance, I got it.

[rolymiller]

My god slimchance another kempo incarnation it's like dawn of the dead on here.

[rolymiller]

By the way I think his constant personal attacks on immigrants is far more offensive mr kempo. Stupid boy.

[Slimchance]

My god slimchance another kempo incarnation it's like dawn of the dead on here.

Attack the argument not the person.

[KerrAvon]

I've tried to tell him the same thing, but I don't think he can see the distinction.

[Slimchance]

By the way I think his constant personal attacks on immigrants is far more offensive mr kempo. Stupid boy.

How can they be personal attacks on immigrants, as immigrants is a general term ?

[rolymiller]

Why are you talking to yourself kempo you need to see a doctor. Whoops you are one eh? You've been sussed get used to it.

[KerrAvon]

Lol. Is there anyone that you don't think is kempo?

[rolymiller]

No the tell tale signs come from those who post unsubstantiated right wing crap and have obviously never been to amillers game in their lives. Don't think gf is a clone because he can obviously name 3 miller's players. Right wing nasty yes but kempo clone no.

[rolymiller]

Fortunately their are only a few whofit that bill on here. you should know who they are eh?

[ragingpup]

Damn, you've had me clicking on the link too.

Sickening spin? As far as I can see, Diane Abbott announced a Labour policy - a statement of what Labour would do if the electorate chose to put them in power - and the Daily Mail reported it.

I've not checked the figures that you give, but have no reason to doubt them (though, ironically, perhaps, in a post alleging spin, you've chosen not to mention the Tory response that the policy would encourage an increase in numbers) and agree that it is hardly a significant change, but Abbott clearly though it significant enough to announce it, so why wouldn't the press report it?

What are you saying? That the electorate shouldn't be made aware of Labour policy announcements or that reporting Labour policy announcements is an act of manipulation?

Is reporting Labour policy announcements the sort of bias that you are concerned about? Blimey.

Blimey Kerr, surprised I have to give elementary media studies lessons. Are you saying that what you are reading is an altogether unbalanced, even handed review of Abbott's announcement that informs the readers without any attempt to play on and exacerbate their existing fears?

I'm sure that at the very least you are aware that the most powerful elements in a persuasive news item, one with an agenda, is to summarise the key point(s) in the headline and strap lines, to try and make it so that the readers, many of whom will not read further into the article, will absorb the point or the argument that you as a writer wishes to make, with no real effort on their part. It's pretty basic stuff - all news people know this.

So what was the headline:

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott says Labour will let MORE immigrants into Britain if they get into Number 10


Look at the capital letters on MORE. Why do you think they have done that Kerr? What do you think the average Mail reader will make of that? Is that a fair reflection of the content of Abbott's announcement?

And then the three strap lines underneath the heading:

- Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK
- She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18
- The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

Points 1 and 2 are factually accurate but what of point 3? True that the Tories have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands and true that right at the bottom of the article it states that they have yet to do so. But they well know that most readers will have made their minds up about the article, have all of the info they need from the title and the three straps: Labour are going to let MORE immigrants into the country and the implication is that the Tories are the party that's going to do something about that. So the clear inference is: the Labour party are going to let even MORE immigrants into the country, and we know you hate that kind of thing, so VOTE TORY!

Our media studies students can read political bias in news article structure Kerr. Surprised you apparently can't!

Bit rushed - up to me ears!

[great_fire]

I would guess if you went round to gfires house it would be full of nazi memorobilia: flags, pennants, videos, books the lot. Bit llke the father ted nazi episode. He certainly knows enough about nazi politics to suggest he is one. Mind you you would have to get through the machine gun posts, barbed wire and alsatian dogs first. Not keen on strangers is our greatfire unless they have a swastika badge.

LOL at an extremist trying to paint everyone else as extreme.

In the Ed Miliband days Labour admitted that they had been wrong to call anyone concerned with high levels of immigration a racist, under Corbyn it looks like we have gone back to the good old days.

[great_fire]

Blimey Kerr, surprised I have to give elementary media studies lessons. Are you saying that what you are reading is an altogether unbalanced, even handed review of Abbott's announcement that informs the readers without any attempt to play on and exacerbate their existing fears?

I'm sure that at the very least you are aware that the most powerful elements in a persuasive news item, one with an agenda, is to summarise the key point(s) in the headline and strap lines, to try and make it so that the readers, many of whom will not read further into the article, will absorb the point or the argument that you as a writer wishes to make, with no real effort on their part. It's pretty basic stuff - all news people know this.

So what was the headline:

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott says Labour will let MORE immigrants into Britain if they get into Number 10


Look at the capital letters on MORE. Why do you think they have done that Kerr? What do you think the average Mail reader will make of that? Is that a fair reflection of the content of Abbott's announcement?

And then the three strap lines underneath the heading:

- Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK
- She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18
- The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

Points 1 and 2 are factually accurate but what of point 3? True that the Tories have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands and true that right at the bottom of the article it states that they have yet to do so. But they well know that most readers will have made their minds up about the article, have all of the info they need from the title and the three straps: Labour are going to let MORE immigrants into the country and the implication is that the Tories are the party that's going to do something about that. So the clear inference is: the Labour party are going to let even MORE immigrants into the country, and we know you hate that kind of thing, so VOTE TORY!

Our media studies students can read political bias in news article structure Kerr. Surprised you apparently can't!

Bit rushed - up to me ears!

No-one is saying the Mail isn't biased but the headline is accurate, Labour is going to increase immigration, Abbott admits it and indeed believes it's desirable.

One of the first things Labour did after being elected in 1997 was to scrap the "Primary Purpose" rule which kept a lid on chain migration. They did this to increase their voter base and "rub the right's noses in diversity" (according to a former Blair adviser).

Immigration doubled almost straight away and kept on rising.

[KerrAvon]

Blimey Kerr, surprised I have to give elementary media studies lessons. Are you saying that what you are reading is an altogether unbalanced, even handed review of Abbott's announcement that informs the readers without any attempt to play on and exacerbate their existing fears?

I'm sure that at the very least you are aware that the most powerful elements in a persuasive news item, one with an agenda, is to summarise the key point(s) in the headline and strap lines, to try and make it so that the readers, many of whom will not read further into the article, will absorb the point or the argument that you as a writer wishes to make, with no real effort on their part. It's pretty basic stuff - all news people know this.

So what was the headline:

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott says Labour will let MORE immigrants into Britain if they get into Number 10


Look at the capital letters on MORE. Why do you think they have done that Kerr? What do you think the average Mail reader will make of that? Is that a fair reflection of the content of Abbott's announcement?

And then the three strap lines underneath the heading:

- Diane Abbott said Labour would let child refugees bring parents to the UK
- She said they would also end policy of deporting children when they turn 18
- The Conservatives have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands

Points 1 and 2 are factually accurate but what of point 3? True that the Tories have pledged to get immigration down to tens of thousands and true that right at the bottom of the article it states that they have yet to do so. But they well know that most readers will have made their minds up about the article, have all of the info they need from the title and the three straps: Labour are going to let MORE immigrants into the country and the implication is that the Tories are the party that's going to do something about that. So the clear inference is: the Labour party are going to let even MORE immigrants into the country, and we know you hate that kind of thing, so VOTE TORY!

Our media studies students can read political bias in news article structure Kerr. Surprised you apparently can't!

Bit rushed - up to me ears!
Anyone who suggests that the Mail isn't biased and that the articles that it publishes don't reflect that would be slightly bonkers - possibly more so than young Gisjbert appears to be - but your suggestion of 'sickening spin' is, being as kind as I can be, a gross exaggeration.

The capitalisation of MORE, emphasises the editorial stance of that paper and of the Mail reading audience it seeks to persuade to buy copy.

As you concede, the article is factually correct, including the failure of the Tories to meet their hopeless tens of thousands target, which has been well publicised in the supposedly hopelessly biased media.

Does it come to this then, that you are upset that the Mail ran a factually correct article about a Labour policy announcement, but capitalised a word in the headline? And the capitalisation of the word MORE amounts to sickening spin?

I await your ideas for 'managing' the free press and links to pre-election images of The Great Leader' as a devil hand in hand with terrorists with renewed interest.

[great_fire]

LOL at an extremist trying to paint everyone else as extreme.

In the Ed Miliband days Labour admitted that they had been wrong to call anyone concerned with high levels of immigration a racist, under Corbyn it looks like we have gone back to the good old days.

Bad old days that should say.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Educated or not, I’m really struggling to follow the point that you are trying to make, Amanda. It may be me, but let’s wind it back to see if we can get on track:

In post 17, I observed that: He also seems to be fond of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, but seems to have very little contact with the Israeli government.

In post 48, you responded by saying: I wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either, you only have to look at the death toll they're by far the bigger terrorists, it's being friends with them that makes you a terrorist sympathiser.

In post 50, I repled: So are you saying that The Great Leader was right to have nothing to do with the Israelis because they drop bombs and shell people, but it was ok for him to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as friends even though they set off bombs on buses etc. and fire rockets onto random targets in Israeli towns?

Your response in post 51 was: Clearly not.

I’m simply asking what you meant by ‘clearly not’.

Distilled down, the issue is this: The Great Leader invited representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah to Westminster and referred to them as friends when he did. Hamas and Hezbollah are organisations that are committed to the destruction of Israel (irrespective of the views of its 8.5 million inhabitants) and which have engaged in bombings, assassinations and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli towns. So how is it that you feel that The Great Leader was justified in not wanting much to do with Israel, but raise no criticism of his dealings with his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah? Maybe you do, but I’ve missed them.

The spin being put out on behalf of the Great Leader now is that he was talking to Sinn Fein (but not pIRA – lol) to pursue peace and was talking to Hamas and Hezbollah for the same reason. I think that is as demonstrably nonsensical as the notion that he had secrets to give to the Czechs in the 80s. How can you be a peace broker when you demonstrate support for the aims of one side of a conflict (in the case of the Great Leader, for the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause) and by only talking to one side? It makes no sense.

I have no issue with The Great Leader holding the views that he does on the reunification of Ireland and for the Palestinian cause. It may be that his views and mine are not a million miles apart upon them; it is the re-writing of history to try to paint over the inconvenience of his past words and actions of the slating of the media for reporting them that troubles me.

I said clearly not because I was clearly not saying what you wrote in post 50. Funny how you use the word 'spin' because you seem pretty good at it. I was saying what the post said, Mostly pointing out the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur.
I didn't say anything much about Corbyn.

[KerrAvon]

I said clearly not because I was clearly not saying what you wrote in post 50. Funny how you use the word 'spin' because you seem pretty good at it. I was saying what the post said, Mostly pointing out the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur.
I didn't say anything much about Corbyn.I'm glad that you know what you were saying.

Ok. So when you said that you wouldn't want to meet with the Israelis, that was nothing much to do with my observation that The Great Leader seemed happy to meet with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah and to refer to them as friends and was, instead, a seemingly random comment upon your part.

So where do you stand on The Great Leader meeting with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah and to referring to them as friends? Was that appropriate given their aim to eliminate the state of Israel and their willingness to bomb and fire rockets on civilian targets and, in the case of Hezbollah, to continually destabilise Lebanon with its campaign of assassination and intimidations?

[KerrAvon]

@ ragingpup

I'm not sure that I can ever forgive you for getting me to look at the Daily Mail website and to put money in their pocket by doing so, but you left me curious. Can you assist me with your knowledge of media studies and comment upon the capitalisation of the words RISES and DOUBLE in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5421127/Net-immigration-RISES-244-000-year.html

And with the capitalisation of the word WHEN in the headline of this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4522160/Tories-refuse-say-migration-target-hit.html

And finally with the capitalisation of the word AGAIN in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3699359/Theresa-waters-immigration-target-says-goal-cut-net-migration-100-000-belief-time-achieve.html

Applying your logic, these articles must represent 'sickening spin' against the Tories, particularly the middle one, which ran during the 2017 election campaign.

N.B. The article in the final link does go on to slag off The Great Leader, but only at the end of the article, which your knowledge of media studies reveals won't have been read.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

A proper class act. :)

I made it obvious, you mentioning that gave me the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur. It's not only Corbyn who gets called this and I love bringing that point up and love watching folk avoid addressing it.

I'll let you continue to assume where I stand as I'm off to bed.

[great_fire]

Barnsley's forum has recently seen an influx of Momentumites, as has entertainment forum Digital Spy and no doubt many others, it's obviously part of a campaign, actually quite slick which confirms for me that Corbyn is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[mikemiller]

Barnsley's forum has recently seen an influx of Momentumites, as has entertainment forum Digital Spy and no doubt many others, it's obviously part of a campaign, actually quite slick which confirms for me that Corbyn is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

You've STILL not answered the question about Hitler and Mussolini ... in the words of Harry Enfield (almost) - eat ship you Nazi motherfunster... also regarding teachers - thank f*ck you and your knuckledragging mates from the EDL, BNP, NF etc are too "fick" to ever qualify as teachers (LOL!). Takes three or four years minimum - much more than for an NHS beancounter, , eh, Kempo, IBS, GreatFascist, etc. ..and you are all still 57 years old , probably LOL)

[KerrAvon]

A proper class act. :)

I made it obvious, you mentioning that gave me the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur. It's not only Corbyn who gets called this and I love bringing that point up and love watching folk avoid addressing it.

I'll let you continue to assume where I stand as I'm off to bed.Erm.... I still have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Let's simplify things a bit more. Two questions:

1. So where do you stand on The Great Leader meeting with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah and to referring to them as friends?

2. Was that appropriate given their aim is to eliminate the state of Israel and their willingness to bomb and fire rockets on civilian targets and, in the case of Hezbollah, to continually destabilise Lebanon with its campaign of assassination and intimidations?

[rolymiller]

He won't admit that mike he'll be waiting for his edl, bnp,nf kempo zombies to stick Up For Him And Say how cruel you are being to him first. He Has A Right To Spread Hatred You Know Even people Who Represent The legal System agree On This Apparently.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Erm.... I still have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Let's simplify things a bit more. Two questions:

1. So where do you stand on The Great Leader meeting with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah and to referring to them as friends?

2. Was that appropriate given their aim is to eliminate the state of Israel and their willingness to bomb and fire rockets on civilian targets and, in the case of Hezbollah, to continually destabilise Lebanon with its campaign of assassination and intimidations?

You'll not strawman me sweetie. xx

[animallittle3]

Barnsley's forum has recently seen an influx of Momentumites, as has entertainment forum Digital Spy and no doubt many others, it's obviously part of a campaign, actually quite slick which confirms for me that Corbyn is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

You think we are sinister fire , you should check out Mogg's little £2k membership group , they'd terrify the Gestapo .

Last bloke who resembled Mogg was Heinrich Himmler both in looks and ideology .

It never ends well for the far right mate when the left-wing tanks roll into town , we might lose our wall when it goes tyts up but you lot , oh dear me , I can see Mussolini now strung up on that market stall , not pleasant .

Only kiddin fire only kiddin !!

[animallittle3]

My final thoughts on the smear campaign conducted by Fleet Street's finest and endorsed by Mr Baker is this .

If you have to sell your product using the words commie , marxist , spy , 1970's , Venezuela , strikes and so forth then maybe your product ain't very good .

Worrying about the opposition would be pretty weird if you were the Barca of politics .

Do try not to be so scared of the opposition and play your own game dear tories .

You do have a game ........ dont you ???

[millmoormagic]

If it helps, Slimchance, I got it.

Lovely, did you get that proof of the link between Corbyn and the pira by any chance, must be the 4th time of asking this.....

[KerrAvon]

You'll not strawman me sweetie. xxWhere is the strawman, darling?

I made a comment about The Great Leader meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah, but not with Israeli representatives and you responded by saying that you [/I] wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either.[/I]. It seems only reasonable that you should address the other half of my point concerning the people from Hamas and Hezbollah that he referred to as friends.

I can understand why you don’t want to answer my question, because to do so would say something about your or The Great Leader’s hypocrisy on the point, but that is not an excuse for not answering.

[KerrAvon]

My final thoughts on the smear campaign conducted by Fleet Street's finest and endorsed by Mr Baker is this .

If you have to sell your product using the words commie , marxist , spy , 1970's , Venezuela , strikes and so forth then maybe your product ain't very good .

Worrying about the opposition would be pretty weird if you were the Barca of politics .

Do try not to be so scared of the opposition and play your own game dear tories .

You do have a game ........ dont you ???I agree that Commie and Marxist don’t help as I’ve never been a fan of labelling people (hence my frustration with those on the Left who continually use the fascist or Nazi tags, or, indeed, liken people to Himmler). I don’t understand your issue with comments about Venezuela or the 70s, though.

The Great Leader has made repeated comments about his admiration for the Socialist utopia that has been created in Venezuela. He brought that country into the equation, surely you can’t complain that he is now asked about it. The Independent has been quoted by you with approval, so I’m sure you won’t mind me linking to this piece: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-venezuela-must-condemn-richard-burgon-us-ken-livingstone-a7875451.html

As for the 70s, again, he wants to reintroduce the policies that made this country such a raging success in the decade – it’s his preferred route. Surely you can’t expect that won’t be pointed out?

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

It being an argument I was never having would be the excuse my love.

[animallittle3]

@ Kerr

You fail to acknowledge consistently that the UK today both culturally and the workplace are vastly different to the 1970's .

If you actually think there are thousands upon thousands of workers just chomping at the bit ready for the signal to bring the country to it's kness then you are deluded .

People just want to go to work , pay their bills , find decent housing , actually get a doctors appointment this week instead of next month , feel safe and see a police presence and not see their wages consistently falling .

Not the 70's something that's actually a dam sight more fairer than they are receiving today .

Your lot have their fingers in their ears , your mob created Corbyn and your policies have placed him right where he is today .

Instead of smearing him why don't they try playing the game on the pitch ? .

The truth is they can't , neither the talent or the will to address any of the issues I've mentioned .

Your voters and membership are old or extremely wealthy , your doomed if you don't start changing your ways .

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

My argument again was the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur because it's funny how a lot of the folk who use this are sympathisers with by far worse terrorists.

[millmoormagic]

Kerr, Corbyn and the Pira.....

[ragingpup]

@ ragingpup

I'm not sure that I can ever forgive you for getting me to look at the Daily Mail website and to put money in their pocket by doing so, but you left me curious. Can you assist me with your knowledge of media studies and comment upon the capitalisation of the words RISES and DOUBLE in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5421127/Net-immigration-RISES-244-000-year.html

And with the capitalisation of the word WHEN in the headline of this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4522160/Tories-refuse-say-migration-target-hit.html

And finally with the capitalisation of the word AGAIN in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3699359/Theresa-waters-immigration-target-says-goal-cut-net-migration-100-000-belief-time-achieve.html

Applying your logic, these articles must represent 'sickening spin' against the Tories, particularly the middle one, which ran during the 2017 election campaign.

N.B. The article in the final link does go on to slag off The Great Leader, but only at the end of the article, which your knowledge of media studies reveals won't have been read.

Dearest Kerr,

Sorry for delayed responses to this and others. Snowed under at work. Limited time for what I fear will be a long post trying to deal with 2 or 3 thread issues, so anyone else, please avoid if easily bored! Impossible to deal with this in short burst, and even this will be a mere skim, but here goes...

Sorry for the sickly feeling I imposed on you with the Mail link. But you sent me THREE! Dirty trick! I've visited them and lost all sense of humanity!

In summary, yes these are all slanted twists on news stories with emphasises you've mentioned putting pressure on the PM to move in the direction that the owner wants over Brexit. I haven't had chance to read the full articles and don't know the context of the articles that they were commenting on, but the slant of the stories are obvious. I never said that they only target Corbyn or Labour leaders. In my opinion, the newspaper owners will of course stop at nothing to use their newspaper as a vehicle to affect public opinion to achieve whatever ends they want to achieve. And in these articles, they are doing so again, but with a different issue.

One thing we will never agree on is the influence of editorials on pubic consciousness and/or the debate on to what extent the public buys a newspaper because of its political leaning, whether the newspaper controls the political 'minds' of their readers etc. I hear your opinion on this, but quite simply disagree with you. I think that people choose a newspaper for a whole host of reasons, sports, columnists, readability, accessibility etc but it isn't necessarily due to the political leanings of it's owner. A huge factor here too is that the huge wealth of an owner can be a factor in how a newspaper can attract large numbers of readerships in being able to fund better market research, higher quality product, advertising, outlet sources, all of which help attract their readers over other newspapers. However, bottom line is that I believe that the political arguments that the owners make via their editors is a hugely powerful shaper of the way their readers vote, and is of course the result of years of manipulation and shaping of their news stories in the political context.

On a broad scale, any good dictator, anywhere in the world, left or right wing, will tell you that if you are to take and maintain your political control over a country, then the first thing you do is take control of the newspapers. From here you can effectively shape public opinion in any way you like, as we can see from the great dictators who have done this to horrific effect.

My argument would be, which I know you will not accept, is that exactly the same thing happens here, only the context is very different. Here the aim is to maintain a (increasingly neo liberal) free market capitalist structure where the power and wealth is owned by very few and it comes at the expense of the majority of people. I accept this is a crude simplification but I am limited by both time (and a limited ability to express complex matters - Chomsky obviously is much better at getting to the root of how it works, although as I've said before, Owen Jones summarises well in 'The Establishment and How they Get Away With It').

The effect of this, crudely put, is that when any political figure aims to challenge this political structure, then the newspaper owners, whom I have shown hugely outnumber the opposition in their readership numbers, combine to oppose this politician and use whatever means necessary to discredit, falsify and ultimately convince their reading public that they and their ideas are unworthy of consideration.

This is not to say that I am offended that any publication should oppose/challenge anyone wishing to go for public office. that would be absurd. But what I object to is the use of mass media, owned by very few people with connections both to the political leaders, who give funds to the political leaders (I would object to the Unions funding labour if this gave Labour an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion), and are in turn funded by the large corporations. For me it is a huge, self-serving machine that, whilst systematically, theoretically, as capitalism, should provide an economic incentive for all people in society, in actuality doesn't.

In short, no real challenge to the system has been allowed, at least until very recently when interestingly we have seen social media at least going some way to spreading opposition to mainstream thought. It most likely will be no where near enough, as even social media will I think become more controlled (if it proves a threat to the establishment).

Interestingly (for me anyway) that the only time Labour had a look in in the last 50 years is when Tony Blair convinced Murdoch and the newspaper owners that Labour were not a threat and that any social reforms that he made would take place without any imposition on wealth taxes. Very telling in my opinion that as soon as Murdoch received this assurance from Blair, Murdoch's paper recommended Blair to the public in two elections and lo! the very public that you argue choose the newspaper because of their political leanings, go out and vote in Labour! Of course there were other factors, Blair's smiley appeal on TV etc, but for me this shows the link between editorial/owner voice in the mass media and the voting patterns of the public.

How to address this? Well, of course there are no easy, simple solutions and of course any attempt to offer a refinement to a free market based mass media/political voice system will always be open to immediate accusations of restraint of free speech. But my opinion is (which again I know you will disagree with and why, but I still hold my opinion I'm afraid!) that the so called 'democratic' model of 'free press' simply is an illusion - it is not a free press, it is owned by less than 10 people, and is hugely slanted to the right wing free market neo liberal capitalists who fund them (who as we can see are pushing for a Brexit which I think is in their own interests as well as the more (generally) bigoted interests of their readers)

So if you start with the premise (which I do and you don't, up yours I say! :-)) that our current model is not fit for purpose of serving the interests of the majority of people in the country, I think we would need to be moving in the direction much further than the Leverson enquiry, more into controlling the ownership and balance of the mass market communication. I'd be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. We can’t say that this is unachievable, as we see with the BBC that they are closely monitored to achieve a politically even stance in their reporting. I am not bright enough, nor do I have time enough to think through and express detailed solutions but I would suggest that the ‘solution’ be a collusion of cross party, cross cultural discussion with the ultimate aim of balancing single interest ownership of mass news outlets expressing their political interests, or even enforcing balance in political reporting in the way that the BBC is subjected to.

You can find immediately lots of problems with this (I could and I am proposing it!) but I am not proposing a complete solution, just a direction of travel. As it is, in reality, we are MILES away as a society from even contemplating a change in the way our mass media are engaged with our political organisations. If you want to know more, and expressed better, read Chomsky:

"Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products."

You can say all that you want about me coming over all Orwellian and attempting to ‘mind control’ the public, but the whole point of this reasoning is that we are predominantly mind controlled already. That’s the bottom line.

Lunch break over and out…

[great_fire]

You think we are sinister fire , you should check out Mogg's little £2k membership group , they'd terrify the Gestapo .

Last bloke who resembled Mogg was Heinrich Himmler both in looks and ideology .

It never ends well for the far right mate when the left-wing tanks roll into town , we might lose our wall when it goes tyts up but you lot , oh dear me , I can see Mussolini now strung up on that market stall , not pleasant .

Only kiddin fire only kiddin !!

Mussolini started off a Communist like your hero Corbyn.

[great_fire]

@ Kerr

You fail to acknowledge consistently that the UK today both culturally and the workplace are vastly different to the 1970's .

If you actually think there are thousands upon thousands of workers just chomping at the bit ready for the signal to bring the country to it's kness then you are deluded .



Perhaps you could tell Len McCluskey that?

[animallittle3]

Perhaps you could tell Len McCluskey that?

Back in the day every workplace had a McCluskey fire .

[great_fire]

If only there was some sort of clue that Corbyn is a Communist:

8660

[millmoormagic]

Haha, you really do need professional help fella.

[animallittle3]

If only there was some sort of clue that Corbyn is a Communist:

8660

Michael's an interesting character fire , he's got his views which he is fully entitled to of course .

His Red Pepper publication started 20 years ago and it's fair to say he's fairly consistent with how he sees the world , some of it chimes some of it doesn't .

I can only comment on my own group who are perfectly decent people seeking something better .

People to the left of Scargill will be attracted and I wouldn't deny that , how much influence they have is pretty minimal from what I've personally witnessed .

Could be worse fire , we could have people such as Mogg who are extremely right wing calling the shots within this backbench government and it's deputy PM from Belfast .

One poster doesn't define the party fire but hey ho go for it mate .

The canning of Corbyn tends to be about the right not able to provide solutions or policies to tackle the problems we are facing today .

It's high time you guys parked Corbyn and showed us what you have to make all our lives better and more prosperous .

Obviously I'll not be holding my breath .

[KerrAvon]

@ Kerr

You fail to acknowledge consistently that the UK today both culturally and the workplace are vastly different to the 1970's .

If you actually think there are thousands upon thousands of workers just chomping at the bit ready for the signal to bring the country to it's kness then you are deluded .

People just want to go to work , pay their bills , find decent housing , actually get a doctors appointment this week instead of next month , feel safe and see a police presence and not see their wages consistently falling .

Not the 70's something that's actually a dam sight more fairer than they are receiving today .

Your lot have their fingers in their ears , your mob created Corbyn and your policies have placed him right where he is today .

Instead of smearing him why don't they try playing the game on the pitch ? .

The truth is they can't , neither the talent or the will to address any of the issues I've mentioned .

Your voters and membership are old or extremely wealthy , your doomed if you don't start changing your ways .

With all due respect, I have always been clear that the country has changed since the 70s - that's exactly why I will not vote for a Labour Party that seeks to return us to those days.

The Thatcher government ended the closed shop protection racket, imposed democracy on the unions and curbed the intimidation of working people by mass and secondary picketing. Just as importantly, she had the will to face the unions down as you will recall from 1984/5. To be fair to Labour, their 2017 manifesto only promised to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, but would it stop there? Why should anyone believe that to be so given The Great Leader’s politics, the source of his funding and that he and Len McCluskey appear to be joined at the hip?

If your argument is that people’s attitudes have changed. Take a look at this post of yours from 14 months ago: http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=38178604

So there you are, a member of the Labour Party and of what you imply is a ‘moderate’ Momentum unit, endorsing an article from The Guardian that calls for increased militancy and relishes industrial action.

The enemy within hasn’t disappeared, it’s just waiting for a government that is willing to slip the leash on it.

You mention a number of things that you think people want. You’re probably right, but are they willing to pay for it? The Lib Dems stood on a 1% increase in income tax to increase funding for the NHS and got nowhere in 2017. And when the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner secured a referendum for an increase in council tax funding for the police, this is what happened:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166.

At the time of that referendum, I saw a number of ‘vox pop’ interviews with members of the Bedfordshire public, who pretty much universally said ‘No – we pay enough already’. I suppose that’s why Labour did better than expected in 2017 with their ‘you can have all that you want and more and someone else will pay’ message. The sad thing is that in most other areas of their life, they would recognise that to be a ‘too good to be true’ proposition

People might not want the 70s, but that’s what they risk getting if they return The Great Leader to power. The Great Leader wants to be PM. Whilst it may be inconvenient for him to have some his past words reported, it’s unrealistic of you to expect it not to happen.

[KerrAvon]

P.s. The next time you are chasing gf around the board, remember this thread:

http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=37815245

Ordinarily that sort of thing you would have Gisjbert and Mikey calling you a fascist, but I expect they will find a reason not to.

[KerrAvon]

@ragingpup

Blimey, you have too much time on your hands.

I’m not reproducing your post in full as it would probably only leave a handful of characters left for me to respond with, but will pick out some bits to respond to. No doubt this will have some of your more rabid comrades up in arms, but I’ll live with it.


In summary, yes these are all slanted twists on news stories with emphasises you've mentioned putting pressure on the PM to move in the direction that the owner wants over Brexit. I haven't had chance to read the full articles and don't know the context of the articles that they were commenting on, but the slant of the stories are obvious. I never said that they only target Corbyn or Labour leaders. In my opinion, the newspaper owners will of course stop at nothing to use their newspaper as a vehicle to affect public opinion to achieve whatever ends they want to achieve. And in these articles, they are doing so again, but with a different issue.The links that I put up are not focused on Brexit. They represent the anti-immigration editorial stance of the Daily Mail, with both Labour and the Tories coming in for fire.

The anti-immigration position of the Mail is interesting in that it flies in the face of one of the main arguments advanced on this board by those of a Left leaning political persuasion, which is that mass immigration is some sort of conspiracy between business and the Tories to provide a cheap supply of Labour (animal recently drew a parallel between immigration from Eastern Europe and people trafficking, which shows a shocking lack of understanding of that crime). So how does that work? The Mail is some sort of creature of big business, but is vehemently anti-immigration... It doesn’t take a media studies A-level to see the contradiction there.

The fact is that the Mail ploughs its own furrow and will use 'sickening spin' (i.e. the capitalisation of words in headlines) against anyone who gets in front of the tractor. And what is the end it wants to achieve? Assuming that the paper is being run to make money for its owner, then they do it because they are seeking to appeal to people with a particular mind-set – people who share its particular flavour of political basis – in order to sell copy.

To repeat the questions that Gisjbert swerved and which you too have ignored: ‘how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did? To help you, the answer is: ‘I don’t and no, it wouldn’t’. That’s because people buy their papers to suit their own political view point. And even if you did decide to go mad and started to buy the Mail, because you liked the football reporting, would that make you froth at the mouth every time you heard the word immigrant and some headlines had capitalised words? No, it wouldn’t.


Interestingly (for me anyway) that the only time Labour had a look in in the last 50 years is when Tony Blair convinced Murdoch and the newspaper owners that Labour were not a threat and that any social reforms that he made would take place without any imposition on wealth taxes. Very telling in my opinion that as soon as Murdoch received this assurance from Blair, Murdoch's paper recommended Blair to the public in two elections and lo! the very public that you argue choose the newspaper because of their political leanings, go out and vote in Labour! Of course there were other factors, Blair's smiley appeal on TV etc, but for me this shows the link between editorial/owner voice in the mass media and the voting patterns of the public. .In addition to the Blair/Brown years. Labour was also in power from 1974 to 1979 within the last 50 years. What’s your explanation for that? Were the press barons asleep in 1974 (twice). And what about 1945, 1950, 1964 and 1966, when Labour were running on ‘old Labour’ policies?

You seem to think that Blair was successful because of the support from Murdoch. On the other hand, perhaps your argument is a non sequitur and he was successful because he was running on policies that the public found palatable in the same way that Murdoch apparently did.


So if you start with the premise (which I do and you don't, up yours I say! :-)) that our current model is not fit for purpose of serving the interests of the majority of people in the country, I think we would need to be moving in the direction much further than the Leverson enquiry, more into controlling the ownership and balance of the mass market communication. I'd be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. We can’t say that this is unachievable, as we see with the BBC that they are closely monitored to achieve a politically even stance in their reporting. I am not bright enough, nor do I have time enough to think through and express detailed solutions but I would suggest that the ‘solution’ be a collusion of cross party, cross cultural discussion with the ultimate aim of balancing single interest ownership of mass news outlets expressing their political interests, or even enforcing balance in political reporting in the way that the BBC is subjected to. So, in essence, you are arguing for a degree of state (for which read political) control of the media? Please tell me that you aren’t serious. For the record, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you. We are lucky enough to live enjoy living in a free and democratic country with a free press. That is not something to lightly give up, simply because some politicians don’t like what is printed. You are yet to give any examples of The Great Leader being caricatured as a devil hand in hand with terrorists. Are you really contemplating giving up a free press because some papers capitalise words in the headline of articles about Labour policy announcements?


You can say all that you want about me coming over all Orwellian and attempting to ‘mind control’ the public, but the whole point of this reasoning is that we are predominantly mind controlled already. That’s the bottom line. If you are mind controlled, perhaps you should watch less of the social media stuff pumped out by Labour. It is nonsense to suggest that we are mind controlled when people have a range of media sources of all political leanings to choose from.

[ragingpup]

@ragingpup

So, in essence, you are arguing for a degree of state (for which read political) control of the media? Please tell me that you aren’t serious. For the record, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you. We are lucky enough to live enjoy living in a free and democratic country with a free press. That is not something to lightly give up, simply because some politicians don’t like what is printed. You are yet to give any examples of The Great Leader being caricatured as a devil hand in hand with terrorists. Are you really contemplating giving up a free press because some papers capitalise words in the headline of articles about Labour policy announcements?

If you are mind controlled, perhaps you should watch less of the social media stuff pumped out by Labour. It is nonsense to suggest that we are mind controlled when people have a range of media sources of all political leanings to choose from.

In haste. You're right, I don't have enough time for this! Interesting though.

The whole point of what I was arguing is that, as the Chomsky quote was dealing with, we are NOT "living in a free and democratic country with a free press" - that, in my opinion, is an illusion. The 'democracy' in our country is limited by the less than dozen mass media owners and their links with major corporation owners. They effectively limit the scope of argument that is able to be accessed to the masses of people. You are free to continue believing that it is a free democracy and a free press but I completely disagree, simple as that. And therefore I propose that we should move in the direction of rethinking that system, simply because the press is not free.

That might be fraught with difficulty, and I'm well aware that you might say that I only want a media that agrees with me. But that's not true, I just think that there should be a greater balance of political perspectives and arguments reaching the mass media market and that in 200-300 years time, our future inheritors (planet permitting!) will look back on this age and see it as very primitive in it's thinking regarding political/economic structures. Unlike you, I do not think that the current 'free market' neo liberal democracy is the best way of organising society and that it's straining at the seams. A reasoned, intelligent challenge that looks at trying to make a fairer society to the one that you support I think is a healthy thing. I welcome it.

[rolymiller]

You don' t do yourself a very good job of selling yourself to represent workers in dispute with management on here Mr Kerr kempo because you obviously are not interested in workers rights one bit. So I have to conclude all you miller's madders if you are in dispute with management use someone else who might defend you who actually cares. Makes me wonder who you do defend unless you are just motivated by money rather than what you believe in. Hmm? A man of no substance. Pathetic. Sad.

[rolymiller]

By the way greed is killing this planet but you obviously don't care just blame it on the weak and poor eh? Never do you address poverty except to glibly say the wealth will trickle down well there is no evidence to say it does and you know it never will. Stick to your selfish ways it suits you but it makes you a very poor specimen of a human being.

[rolymiller]

Your argument is that the capitalists in this world should be free to make a big pie so that it can all be shared out. The problem is that they keep having a nibble of that pie until there's none left to share and that is being kind to them because most will just eat the pie and say Sid the rest. Are you a pie eater Mr kerrkemps?

[ragingpup]

@ragingpup

The fact is that the Mail ploughs its own furrow and will use 'sickening spin' (i.e. the capitalisation of words in headlines) against anyone who gets in front of the tractor. And what is the end it wants to achieve? Assuming that the paper is being run to make money for its owner, then they do it because they are seeking to appeal to people with a particular mind-set – people who share its particular flavour of political basis – in order to sell copy.


Just one other thing before I go about my day.

You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? If we sidestep the debate about whether we're happy if, as you say, one of our largest news sources is simply pandering to the tastes of a "particular mind set" (just say bigots Kerr, for the love of God!), I disagree that this is their motive. I think that the owner shares the political motives of Mogg and friends in the ERG who are currently using their private capital and privilege in parliament, to campaign for a hard Brexit. I don't think it is about trying to stop immigration affecting native workers, it is simply about removing us from EU legislation so that we can redefine our own position on rights, environmental and safety standards so that we can further maximise business profits. This is really what the owner wants. The stance on immigration, increasing pressure on May from the public, is just a means to that end I'm afraid.

[great_fire]

Got to laugh at "principled" Corbyn selling out his working class voters and betraying Brexit in favour of students and middle-class Guardianistas.

[animallittle3]

With all due respect, I have always been clear that the country has changed since the 70s - that's exactly why I will not vote for a Labour Party that seeks to return us to those days.

The Thatcher government ended the closed shop protection racket, imposed democracy on the unions and curbed the intimidation of working people by mass and secondary picketing. Just as importantly, she had the will to face the unions down as you will recall from 1984/5. To be fair to Labour, their 2017 manifesto only promised to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, but would it stop there? Why should anyone believe that to be so given The Great Leader’s politics, the source of his funding and that he and Len McCluskey appear to be joined at the hip?

If your argument is that people’s attitudes have changed. Take a look at this post of yours from 14 months ago: http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=38178604

So there you are, a member of the Labour Party and of what you imply is a ‘moderate’ Momentum unit, endorsing an article from The Guardian that calls for increased militancy and relishes industrial action.

The enemy within hasn’t disappeared, it’s just waiting for a government that is willing to slip the leash on it.

You mention a number of things that you think people want. You’re probably right, but are they willing to pay for it? The Lib Dems stood on a 1% increase in income tax to increase funding for the NHS and got nowhere in 2017. And when the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner secured a referendum for an increase in council tax funding for the police, this is what happened:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166.

At the time of that referendum, I saw a number of ‘vox pop’ interviews with members of the Bedfordshire public, who pretty much universally said ‘No – we pay enough already’. I suppose that’s why Labour did better than expected in 2017 with their ‘you can have all that you want and more and someone else will pay’ message. The sad thing is that in most other areas of their life, they would recognise that to be a ‘too good to be true’ proposition

People might not want the 70s, but that’s what they risk getting if they return The Great Leader to power. The Great Leader wants to be PM. Whilst it may be inconvenient for him to have some his past words reported, it’s unrealistic of you to expect it not to happen.



So going on strike despite it's legality is militant and harmful to the health of the country ?

Militant university lecturers perhaps !!!

Simple solution of course is to pay people a reasonable wage and keep pay at the rate of inflation .

Stop expecting the NHS staff to work every hour in a day under extreme pressure and stress whilst not offering them anything in return .

Why not work to achieving a culture of respect , dignity and fairness in the workplace ? , one of May's aims before doing the u turn .

If you keep poking people with a stick then they will react .

Almost every industrial action in this day and age is simply reactionary .

Never see you post anything towards achieving better working relations , you simply condemn people for reacting .

Always the way , never the fault of people higher up the chain with you .

Thatcher government provokes miners strike , our fault , naturally !!! .

Perhaps we should have all just shrugged our shoulders , mutted " oh well " and got into line outside the dole office along with the other millions in 1980's Britain looking at years on benefits because there was **** all else round here .

Your Thatcher wet dream is drawing to a close , instigated by the man you have wrote off more times than Thatcher put folk on the dole .

Largest vote for the Tories since Thatcher and still couldn't get a majority , you believe they are going to vote for them again ?

1970's man just had this morning an endorsement from business , directors and the TUC .

[KerrAvon]

In haste. You're right, I don't have enough time for this! Interesting though.

The whole point of what I was arguing is that, as the Chomsky quote was dealing with, we are NOT "living in a free and democratic country with a free press" - that, in my opinion, is an illusion. The 'democracy' in our country is limited by the less than dozen mass media owners and their links with major corporation owners. They effectively limit the scope of argument that is able to be accessed to the masses of people. You are free to continue believing that it is a free democracy and a free press but I completely disagree, simple as that. And therefore I propose that we should move in the direction of rethinking that system, simply because the press is not free.

That might be fraught with difficulty, and I'm well aware that you might say that I only want a media that agrees with me. But that's not true, I just think that there should be a greater balance of political perspectives and arguments reaching the mass media market and that in 200-300 years time, our future inheritors (planet permitting!) will look back on this age and see it as very primitive in it's thinking regarding political/economic structures. Unlike you, I do not think that the current 'free market' neo liberal democracy is the best way of organising society and that it's straining at the seams. A reasoned, intelligent challenge that looks at trying to make a fairer society to the one that you support I think is a healthy thing. I welcome it.I rather hoped that we could leave Chomsky out of it. You misunderstand him and misuse his words.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, who disagrees with the notion of government as we know it. If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May. He would argue that they both represent a political elite who hoard economic power and withhold it from the masses. When he talked within your quote about other devices [being] required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs he wasn’t taking a shot at the Tories or the political right. He was taking a shot at politics and the notion of government generally.

If you believe that Chomsky would support your desire for an element of political control of the press then you really need to look more closely at his writings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you don’t believe me ask IBS, who is a massive Chomsky fan.

Meanwhile, in the real world, or at least in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them.

[KerrAvon]

You don' t do yourself a very good job of selling yourself to represent workers in dispute with management on here Mr Kerr kempo because you obviously are not interested in workers rights one bit. So I have to conclude all you miller's madders if you are in dispute with management use someone else who might defend you who actually cares. Makes me wonder who you do defend unless you are just motivated by money rather than what you believe in. Hmm? A man of no substance. Pathetic. Sad.I’ll make sure to let my clients know about your views. Some of them might respond by saying that I actually do something about fairness, equality and protecting people from the state as opposed to running around on message boards calling people names. Who knows?

[KerrAvon]

By the way greed is killing this planet but you obviously don't care just blame it on the weak and poor eh? Never do you address poverty except to glibly say the wealth will trickle down well there is no evidence to say it does and you know it never will. Stick to your selfish ways it suits you but it makes you a very poor specimen of a human being.We’ve moved onto environmental issues, I see. What is The Great Leader planning to do about such things? Within post 26 you seem to be arguing that everyone is entitled to a ‘decent holiday’. If that isn’t a ‘first world problem’ I really don’t know what is, but how do you think all that travel fits with your environmental concerns?

If you can find a post in which I have said that say ‘the wealth will trickle down’, either glibly or otherwise, let me know and I will stop posting on this site for good. I’ve never said it.

[KerrAvon]

Your argument is that the capitalists in this world should be free to make a big pie so that it can all be shared out. The problem is that they keep having a nibble of that pie until there's none left to share and that is being kind to them because most will just eat the pie and say Sid the rest. Are you a pie eater Mr kerrkemps?I’m fond of a pie, but try not to eat too many, Gisjbert.

[KerrAvon]

Just one other thing before I go about my day.

You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? If we sidestep the debate about whether we're happy if, as you say, one of our largest news sources is simply pandering to the tastes of a "particular mind set" (just say bigots Kerr, for the love of God!), I disagree that this is their motive. I think that the owner shares the political motives of Mogg and friends in the ERG who are currently using their private capital and privilege in parliament, to campaign for a hard Brexit. I don't think it is about trying to stop immigration affecting native workers, it is simply about removing us from EU legislation so that we can redefine our own position on rights, environmental and safety standards so that we can further maximise business profits. This is really what the owner wants. The stance on immigration, increasing pressure on May from the public, is just a means to that end I'm afraid.A bigot is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions to theirs. Given your willingness to brand all Mail readers as being bigots simply because many of them will hold different views on immigration to you, I think you may see one in the mirror.

I see that you have a least tried to square the circle that I gave you, but the fact remains that you are trying to argue in one breath that the Tories and ‘big business’ favour immigration as a source of cheap labour, whilst being forced in the next breath to acknowledge that the supposedly pro Tory ‘big business’ that runs the Mail is vehemently anti-immigration. That you are reduced to a somewhat fanciful impenetrable conspiracy theory to explain that away smacks of desperation.

[KerrAvon]

So going on strike despite it's legality is militant and harmful to the health of the country ?

Militant university lecturers perhaps !!!

Simple solution of course is to pay people a reasonable wage and keep pay at the rate of inflation .

Stop expecting the NHS staff to work every hour in a day under extreme pressure and stress whilst not offering them anything in return .

Why not work to achieving a culture of respect , dignity and fairness in the workplace ? , one of May's aims before doing the u turn .

If you keep poking people with a stick then they will react .

Almost every industrial action in this day and age is simply reactionary .

Never see you post anything towards achieving better working relations , you simply condemn people for reacting .

Always the way , never the fault of people higher up the chain with you .

Thatcher government provokes miners strike , our fault , naturally !!! .

Perhaps we should have all just shrugged our shoulders , mutted " oh well " and got into line outside the dole office along with the other millions in 1980's Britain looking at years on benefits because there was **** all else round here .

Your Thatcher wet dream is drawing to a close , instigated by the man you have wrote off more times than Thatcher put folk on the dole .

Largest vote for the Tories since Thatcher and still couldn't get a majority , you believe they are going to vote for them again ?

1970's man just had this morning an endorsement from business , directors and the TUC . I think going on strike is a fairly militant act. Don’t you? It’s a pretty confrontational act. Militancy doesn't necessarily involve throwing bricks at the police and people who want to work.. I also think strikes are generally harmful to the economic health of a country. How could they not be?

When you were whooping it up in December 2016 about the Southern Rail strike, and people getting on their bikes, did you spare a thought for the many people who would be left struggling to get to work, some of them low paid and lacking the means to use more expensive forms of transport? Apparently not given your glee at that dispute.

Thatcher prepared for the miners’ strike with the single intention of taking on and defeating a major union, but the NUM were hardly shrinking violets in the affair. What should you have done? It’s more about what the union should have done, which would to have been to respect the rights of its members by seeking a mandate for official strike action in a national and secret ballot rather than trying to intimidate those members who wouldn’t follow their diktat. As I’ve said before, perhaps the industry would have received a softer landing but for the failure to do that.

The CBI and IOD made encouraging noise about Labours announcement today because they are generally pro EU membership and are, therefore, enthusiastic about proposed policies that tend towards ‘Brexit’ meaning leaving the EU in name only. Whether the Labour voters who gave the party the benefit of the doubt and returned to them from UKIP last year will be equally as keen remains to be seen.

[rolymiller]

Wow, mr kemp, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that you said that wealth created by the rich would tricklo down to the poor so it seems that you are now suggesting wealth created by the rich doesn't get to the poor not even as a trickle. So are you saying the rich keep it all then?

Nice deflection on the caipitalist pie comment by the way just a glib answer to something which is very serious. Millions starving/ homeless/war torn etc. in the world and the best you can come up with is a flippant comment. Plainly you don't care. So lets put it more simply for you: how do we stop these problems in the world (if you do care)_?

[KerrAvon]

Wow, mr kemp, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that you said that wealth created by the rich would tricklo down to the poor so it seems that you are now suggesting wealth created by the rich doesn't get to the poor not even as a trickle. So are you saying the rich keep it all then?

Nice deflection on the caipitalist pie comment by the way just a glib answer to something which is very serious. Millions starving/ homeless/war torn etc. in the world and the best you can come up with is a flippant comment. Plainly you don't care. So lets put it more simply for you: how do we stop these problems in the world (if you do care)_?

You were not giving me the benefit of the doubt when you said that I claimed a trickle-down effect - you were making it up.

What have you done about millions starving/ homeless/war torn etc. in the world? Do you find calling people fascist on this website helps?

[rolymiller]

Answer my question first eh? How do we stop the problems in the world? Prove you at least care even if you don't know the answer. The trickle down comment by the way was not contested by you the last time i made it but in any case you are avoiding my point.

How wealthy should people be allowed to be in a world where there is poverty? Its a straight forward question? Do people need excess wealth? Why? Whats your view?

Do you deserve the wealth you have? Why? Are you more valuable to society than other people who work a lot harder and are a lot more valuable but earn a lot less?eg nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.

[Shark27]

Just one other thing before I go about my day.

You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? If we sidestep the debate about whether we're happy if, as you say, one of our largest news sources is simply pandering to the tastes of a "particular mind set" (just say bigots Kerr, for the love of God!), I disagree that this is their motive. I think that the owner shares the political motives of Mogg and friends in the ERG who are currently using their private capital and privilege in parliament, to campaign for a hard Brexit. I don't think it is about trying to stop immigration affecting native workers, it is simply about removing us from EU legislation so that we can redefine our own position on rights, environmental and safety standards so that we can further maximise business profits. This is really what the owner wants. The stance on immigration, increasing pressure on May from the public, is just a means to that end I'm afraid.

Why should he say bigots?

[great_fire]

He's chosen Islington over Rotherham and these suckers are still supporting him!

[great_fire]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-brexit-plan-hasnt-12093689

[ragingpup]

A bigot is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions to theirs. Given your willingness to brand all Mail readers as being bigots simply because many of them will hold different views on immigration to you, I think you may see one in the mirror.

I see that you have a least tried to square the circle that I gave you, but the fact remains that you are trying to argue in one breath that the Tories and ‘big business’ favour immigration as a source of cheap labour, whilst being forced in the next breath to acknowledge that the supposedly pro Tory ‘big business’ that runs the Mail is vehemently anti-immigration. That you are reduced to a somewhat fanciful impenetrable conspiracy theory to explain that away smacks of desperation.

I haven't called all Mail readers bigots Kerr - I was pulling you up on your statement that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set" - in other words saying why don't you just call them bigots?! (hence "just say .bigots Kerr, for the love of God"). So don't put words in my mouth fella when you don't like that from others.

In my opinion Mogg and a minority of extremely wealthy individuals are bucking the general trend of business (that support the current status quo, a SMALL PART of which is the use of immigration as a means of cheap labour (I accept that this is quite small scale, very few employers do it but it still needs tackling for those that do) by weighing up that if we leave the EU, even in an economically damaging hard Brexit, Mogg et al stand to make a relatively large difference to their ability to make profits by stripping away work, environmental and health standards at home and by cutting deals with any sweatshop market willing to trade with us.

In short, I don't think that Mogg and the Mail owner's stance on a hard Brexit is for our economic and cultural good. Their proposals are the worst possible move for the majority of people in our country but they are capable of using their privilege and power to push us in that direction, first of all forcing the Brexit in the first place (some of which I agree would be a good thing) but then going further and forcing us over an economic cliff, damaging the vast majority of people (businesses too) for the free gain of the super wealthy.

[ragingpup]

I rather hoped that we could leave Chomsky out of it. You misunderstand him and misuse his words.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, who disagrees with the notion of government as we know it. If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May. He would argue that they both represent a political elite who hoard economic power and withhold it from the masses. When he talked within your quote about other devices [being] required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs he wasn’t taking a shot at the Tories or the political right. He was taking a shot at politics and the notion of government generally.

If you believe that Chomsky would support your desire for an element of political control of the press then you really need to look more closely at his writings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you don’t believe me ask IBS, who is a massive Chomsky fan.

Meanwhile, in the real world, or at least in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them.


Oh my God - look at what you have just said: "in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them".

So you are arguing that the huge range of views between the Guardian (who advised us to vote Lib Dem as recently as 2010 amd slaughtered Corbyn in his first 2 years actively encouraging the PLP to depose him) is the full scope of political opinion that you are delighted with??! You are saying that this is the range of mass media views to be celebrated?

I know Chomsky's over arching views and what he would ideally like in his society. But as you say, he knows he has to live in the real world and accepts that we are no where near that now. It's about direction of travel. Unlike you, he would not accept that our mass media is as good as we can get it where there are "a wide range of political views freely available" - he's trying to influence a long term game, a movement away from the illusion of free press that we are under.

You say: "If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May."

Oh really?

Why did he say that he would vote for Corbyn if he was British? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/noam-chomsky-jeremy-corbyn-vote-labour-british-general-election-2017-uk-a7729526.html

Chompers knows that he lives in "the real world" and that to get to where he would like to be (which will never happen in his and even my lifetime) then you have to make whatever small strides that would at least stop the movement in the other direction. To start us going in the way that we think is better for greater society.

Maybe a bit of research before you make such completely wrong assertions on a person/subject, you try desperately to appear knowledgeable on?

[one_a_day]

9 pages on a man who has just sold the vast majority of his voters down the river for political gain.

[ragingpup]

Why should he say bigots?

See earlier response to Kerr on this. Just trying to get him to express what he means by the people who he terms as having a "particular mind set" (namely Daily Mail readers!). Maybe bigot is the wrong one by Kerr's definition but Kerr certainly used it to describe Great Fire so it sprang to mind!

[ragingpup]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-brexit-plan-hasnt-12093689

I actually sympathise to an extent with your feelings on this Fire. Over the last few months, as negotiations have slowly developed and the parties have attempted to define their stances (or not, some might feel!), I have personally had very mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand I have read the various sides of the economic arguments and have come to the conclusion that the evidence for substantial economic damage that would be caused by a hard brexit (leaving the Customs Union with no agreement) seems to outweigh, quite substantially any possible benefits from leaving without a deal and attempting to compensate with trade deals worldwide. Probably the most compelling summarised data is:

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-02-09/jacob-rees-mogg-s-brexit-dreamland-is-a-nightmare-for-many

although there are many other reports that back this scenario up.


I have argued on here about my concerns over immigration, especially into Northern towns such as my home town being used to undercut local work forces and pin wages down. However, last week’s episode of the Mash Report (of all things!) brought to my attention the report from the Centre for Economic Performance in 2016 that researched the economic impact of immigration to the UK overall (from 1995 to 2015) and found that, in contrast to making regions with heavy EU immigration poorer, it actually helped made the regions wealthier. It actually makes a very interesting read:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

It can still be said that this positive economic data can be negated by the slightly less positive immigration data from the rest of the world (which we have discussed previously and I know your feelings on this!), which tend on balance to have an older workforce with greater integration challenges. However, crucially, when you put all of this together, the net economic +/- of immigration is minimal and looking at it purely from an economic point of view there is little there to persuade me away from the softer Brexit option with as much CU/SM benefit as possible, with the obvious trade-offs on free movement or whatever we are bargaining with/against.

That leaves the very important aspect of the cultural impact of immigration and again focused on the Northern towns. I have made clear on here my concerns about unstructured and unfocused immigration that has allowed segregated cultures to develop in many towns and in my opinion this issue will remain and escalate until politicians lead a strong initiative to integrate. I can totally understand how these areas, with large Leave voters will feel disappointed with Corbyn’s policy shift and were quietly (or vociferously!) hoping that he would put the pressure on May also for a hard Brexit and a solid halt to immigration. However, there is far more to consider than this when balancing up final stances.

In fairness to Corbyn on his decision here, the former bland non committed approach up to now has allowed him to keep his cards on the table, look at research data as it has unfolded, examine the stance of the Tories and monitor the range of opinions in his own party before making this, relatively small, policy development. That way he has avoided any accusations of U-turns and this fits within the party’s general ‘jobs first Brexit’ that they have blandly stuck to so far. He has played, and continues to plays a savvy approach to Brexit, even now getting many plaudits from business and economic leaders in response to his speech, in contrast to the Tories perceived ‘irresponsible’ and ‘business wrecking’ plunge towards a hard Brexit. These times are not strange – they are downright ****ing weird!

It will of course cause a huge backlash from the former labour supporting Leave voters, but Corbyn at the same time has to balance that with the huge strength of feeling within party members, his own cabinet and even his own former convictions to arrive at this policy shift that at least, and at last puts some clear water between the two parties. I support it but with a heavy heart and not without reservations, just through the balance of evidence presented so far.

[frogmiller]

This thread has been moved to the Internet Millers Board. It is something that I'm trying out on the main board that will give visability to the O/T subjects but not over the football subjects.

The football subjects will have a full line of info yet these O/T topics won't.

It may change back and if it does then normal access with information will return

[great_fire]

On the one hand I have read the various sides of the economic arguments and have come to the conclusion that the evidence for substantial economic damage that would be caused by a hard brexit (leaving the Customs Union with no agreement) seems to outweigh, quite substantially any possible benefits from leaving without a deal and attempting to compensate with trade deals worldwide. Probably the most compelling summarised data is:



How is that relevant?

Whether the economy gets better or worse we voted to leave not leave in name only.

Corbyn knows the EU won't accept his "Customs Union" idea anyway, he's just politicking to try and bring down the government, the lie of him being a "principled" politician has been busted forever, it's a Blair-like move.

[rolymiller]

Wow kerrempo. 4 right wing terror plots foiled recently yet it's still naughty of me to call em fascists. At what point can I call them names then? As for your pal Mr gfirehow can you be sure he is not recruiting for these organisations ?You take that risk when you appear to encourage him to make extreme right wing comments on here. Hope You have a good lawyer to defend you on that one If it turns out to be right and someone accused you of supporting terrorist activities.

[frogmiller]

Kerr Avon is not kempo neither are any of the other names strangely linked with kempo. Let's leave it out regarding kempo he hasn't posted on this thread and doesn't merit it!

[rolymiller]

If he ain't then I suspect another multi it does not make sense for a member of the legal profession to come on here joining in with knockabout political arguments on a football message board don't you think? It compromises him professionally it's like Kempo giving out medical advice on a footy message board as a doctor. If Kerr does work in the legal trade and he feels he needs to post on here surely his opinions would be Slap Down the centre to show his lack of bias. It's like poddington. He never joins in political debate because he's a teacher. What would the kids and parents say to him If they disagreed with his views on here? What if he started swearing or making offensive statements ? They are both public figures surely.

[great_fire]

Trans***ual model Munroe Bergdorf sacked by L'Oreal for calling white people "he most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth" has just been appointed a Labour Party LGBT advisor.

Wow, just wow.

Gee I wonder why it's thought there may be up to 10,000 grooming gang victims in Rotherham now?

[frogmiller]

If he ain't then I suspect another multi it does not make sense for a member of the legal profession to come on here joining in with knockabout political arguments on a football message board don't you think? It compromises him professionally it's like Kempo giving out medical advice on a footy message board as a doctor. If Kerr does work in the legal trade and he feels he needs to post on here surely his opinions would be Slap Down the centre to show his lack of bias. It's like poddington. He never joins in political debate because he's a teacher. What would the kids and parents say to him If they disagreed with his views on here? What if he started swearing or making offensive statements ? They are both public figures surely.

Kerr has been posting for as long as I can remember and his IP addy hasn't changed and there aren't any other poster with that IP address. I've had arguments with him in the past but I would never say he's not entitled to give his view whether it is legal or otherwise. I have also learnt from him which isn't a bad thing.

What people do at work and get paid for isn't the same as what they do in their private life surely. Everyone behaves as society excepts. If they don't and it doesn't break the law or hurt anyone doing it what right do we have to condenm them? Each to their own.

As for being public figures then the user name just allows us to guess what they do with them keeping their identity secret. Unless they let you know what they do for a living then we can only guess.

[rolymiller]

Kerr openly says he in the legal business Frog. My argument is his views on here makes me suspicious he isn't. Maybe he is who he says he is, all I would say is that if he is, he doesn't represent the legal profession very well in my opinion. I'm sure he will be on shortly arguing his case eh?

[rolymiller]

You are also getting into a deeply philosophical debate about "breaking the law" Frog. What is the law? Who makes the laws? Why? Who do they serve to protect? Can laws be changed? What IS breaking the law? I could go on...all very subjective stuff. My arguments with Kerr are often based on me believing the law is unfair to certain groups of people he plainly thinks it is fair to all-no he'll pick me up on that..as fair as it can be in his opinion. Get ya sen a book on sociology and law and you'll understand what i'm getting at.

[great_fire]

Poddington hasn't posted on here in years.

Love this thread though, every day Corbyn does something incredibly stupid, cynical or nasty and his supporters struggle to justify it.

8696

[frogmiller]

You are also getting into a deeply philosophical debate about "breaking the law" Frog. What is the law? Who makes the laws? Why? Who do they serve to protect? Can laws be changed? What IS breaking the law? I could go on...all very subjective stuff. My arguments with Kerr are often based on me believing the law is unfair to certain groups of people he plainly thinks it is fair to all-no he'll pick me up on that..as fair as it can be in his opinion. Get ya sen a book on sociology and law and you'll understand what i'm getting at.

Too busy responding to folk on here Roly :P. If someone isn't what they're saying they are on here then they're making a rod for their own backs.

You know what I'm like. As long as there is not too much personal abuse or unnormal behaviour for other members to feel unwelcome then I'm Ok with most things.

[rolymiller]

Yep fair enough Frog.

[animallittle3]

Poddington hasn't posted on here in years.

Love this thread though, every day Corbyn does something incredibly stupid, cynical or nasty and his supporters struggle to justify it.

8696


I said earlier fire only people to blame for Jeremy Corbyn are the Tories themselves .

They wanted power so badly they told a pack lies about New Labour aided by their media on the 2008 crash and aftermath and the mud stuck making them unelectable .

Their austerity driven ideology , the less well off and the disabled paying for the wealthy's pay increases brought Mr Corbyn into the game .

Clearly Liz Kendall and co weren't trusted enough to take the tories on by the membership and Mr Corbyn clearly was , twice in fact .

They might want to change their tactics if they want to defeat him and get some policies out there that appeal to the many and not the few .

The latest smear campaign saw yet another significant increase in momentum and party membership , it always does following one of their little escapades .

So now not only did the tories create Corbyn they are also responsible for his funding .

Laughing so much it hurts pal .

[ragingpup]

How is that relevant?

Whether the economy gets better or worse we voted to leave not leave in name only.

Corbyn knows the EU won't accept his "Customs Union" idea anyway, he's just politicking to try and bring down the government, the lie of him being a "principled" politician has been busted forever, it's a Blair-like move.


But does that mean a hard Brexit at any price? Would you personally be willing to send us into a substantial recession to curtail free movement within the EU? Especially when we can and do recruit as many as we need immigrants from non eu countries and therefore there is likely to be limited impact.

Comes down to the level of risk you're willing to take and it's too big in my opinion based on current information to leave without a deal on the CU.

[great_fire]

I said earlier fire only people to blame for Jeremy Corbyn are the Tories themselves .

They wanted power so badly they told a pack lies about New Labour aided by their media on the 2008 crash and aftermath and the mud stuck making them unelectable .

Laughing so much it hurts pal .

Erm, they have been elected, the last 2 times.

[KerrAvon]

Answer my question first eh? How do we stop the problems in the world? Prove you at least care even if you don't know the answer. The trickle down comment by the way was not contested by you the last time i made it but in any case you are avoiding my point.

How wealthy should people be allowed to be in a world where there is poverty? Its a straight forward question? Do people need excess wealth? Why? Whats your view?

Do you deserve the wealth you have? Why? Are you more valuable to society than other people who work a lot harder and are a lot more valuable but earn a lot less?eg nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.You haven’t really got the hang of this debate things have you Roly? I ask you questions and you do a Gisjbert body swerve, get all upset, start calling me names and then run off without answering them. And yet I’m supposed to answer yours at the drop of a hat, irrespective of whether they are on the topic of the thread.

You don’t ask for much do you? I’m supposed to offer solutions for all the problems of the world? Blimey. Given that you are asking the question, I’m guessing that you have solutions? If you want to chunk it down a bit, let us have your solution for Syria first.

On the subject of wealth, perhaps you’d care to explain how you define it and ’excess wealth’ in particular? As I think I’ve mentioned before, in my experience ‘Socialists’ tend to define ‘wealthy’ as meaning ‘having more money than they have’. Take animal, for example, when he’s not blaming Muslims for all the ills of the country he likes to tell the Tykes board that he has a fund with which he intends to retire to Spain. Now I don’t have a problem with that as I’m planning to retire to France, but the point is that he also likes to wring his hands about, say, the homeless. Retiring to Spain is beyond the means of the majority of people in this country, so why isn’t he putting his money where his keyboard is and giving up his stash rather than demanding that others do?

You have referred on this thread to people not being able to afford a decent holiday as thought that is some sort of Human Right. As you point out there are people starving in this world and yet you are concerned with whether people get their fortnight in Benidorm. Don’t you think there is more than a touch of hypocrisy there?

I can’t say whether I deserve the wealth that I have. Some of it is down to the luck of being born in a stable and relatively wealthy country like the UK to parents who taught me the value of education and hard work. I also have the luck of having an above average IQ (that’s not arrogance – it’s fact). But I’ve worked hard – 60+ hour weeks are certainly not unusual for me - if I pick up a case at 6pm for the next day, I have to be ready and on the ball before the sun comes up- not being isn’t an option. I would observe that not many people can do what I do, which helps.

As for the value of what I do – that’s for others to judge. You will have noticed on other threads that I have repeatedly made the point that I think that non-academic work is not valued as it should be in this country.

You don’t know how much I earn, so how can you say that I earn a lot more than e.g. nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.? We do know about some of the earnings of others though:

The Great Leader earns £137 000 per year, (but does the Socialist thing of not regarding himself as being wealthy) - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-corbyn-says-not-wealthy-despite-130k-salary-labour-scotland-out-of-touch-a7212811.html And, of course, he gets other gigs, such as when he presented a TV programme on Iranian state controlled TV and trousered £20 000. Do you think he is more valuable than nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.?

What about the union leaders on six figure salaries? http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/who-are-the-trade-union-fat-cats-on-six-figure-remuneration-packages Do you think they are more valuable than the workers that they are supposed to represent, the majority of whom will get nowhere near their income?

Write to them to ask them their views on wealth, publish their responses on here and then we can talk about my wealth.

[KerrAvon]

I haven't called all Mail readers bigots Kerr - I was pulling you up on your statement that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set" - in other words saying why don't you just call them bigots?! (hence "just say .bigots Kerr, for the love of God"). So don't put words in my mouth fella when you don't like that from others.

In my opinion Mogg and a minority of extremely wealthy individuals are bucking the general trend of business (that support the current status quo, a SMALL PART of which is the use of immigration as a means of cheap labour (I accept that this is quite small scale, very few employers do it but it still needs tackling for those that do) by weighing up that if we leave the EU, even in an economically damaging hard Brexit, Mogg et al stand to make a relatively large difference to their ability to make profits by stripping away work, environmental and health standards at home and by cutting deals with any sweatshop market willing to trade with us.

In short, I don't think that Mogg and the Mail owner's stance on a hard Brexit is for our economic and cultural good. Their proposals are the worst possible move for the majority of people in our country but they are capable of using their privilege and power to push us in that direction, first of all forcing the Brexit in the first place (some of which I agree would be a good thing) but then going further and forcing us over an economic cliff, damaging the vast majority of people (businesses too) for the free gain of the super wealthy.Assuming that anyone other than us is still actually reading this thread, they will be able to see what you wrote about Mail readers and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what you were saying, just as Shark27 and I have. How is a post that begins You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? not accusing Mail readers of being bigots?

As I mentioned earlier, your Rees-Mogg conspiracy theory smacks of desperation. Do you have any evidence to support it or is it just something you have made up to explain the apparent contradiction between the Mail’s clear anti-immigration stance and the repeated assertion from the Left that the Tories and big business like mass immigration?

[KerrAvon]

Oh my God - look at what you have just said: "in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them".

So you are arguing that the huge range of views between the Guardian (who advised us to vote Lib Dem as recently as 2010 amd slaughtered Corbyn in his first 2 years actively encouraging the PLP to depose him) is the full scope of political opinion that you are delighted with??! You are saying that this is the range of mass media views to be celebrated?

I know Chomsky's over arching views and what he would ideally like in his society. But as you say, he knows he has to live in the real world and accepts that we are no where near that now. It's about direction of travel. Unlike you, he would not accept that our mass media is as good as we can get it where there are "a wide range of political views freely available" - he's trying to influence a long term game, a movement away from the illusion of free press that we are under.

You say: "If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May."

Oh really?

Why did he say that he would vote for Corbyn if he was British? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/noam-chomsky-jeremy-corbyn-vote-labour-british-general-election-2017-uk-a7729526.html

Chompers knows that he lives in "the real world" and that to get to where he would like to be (which will never happen in his and even my lifetime) then you have to make whatever small strides that would at least stop the movement in the other direction. To start us going in the way that we think is better for greater society.

Maybe a bit of research before you make such completely wrong assertions on a person/subject, you try desperately to appear knowledgeable on?I think the Guardian to the Mail covers a spectrum of views. There is also the internet so that people can plug themselves directly into Labour propaganda if they wish. They can also go out and buy a copy of The Socialist Worker if they want to.

I’d remind you that the best you can do is to propose an element of state (for which read political) control of the media, apparently to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Mail capitalising words in the headlines of factual articles about Labour policy announcements.

I know which I prefer, a media that offers a range of views or one that reports what politicians will allow it to.

Are you sure that you aren’t just sore that people prefer The Sun to The Mirror?

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

[KerrAvon]

This thread has been moved to the Internet Millers Board. It is something that I'm trying out on the main board that will give visability to the O/T subjects but not over the football subjects.

The football subjects will have a full line of info yet these O/T topics won't.

It may change back and if it does then normal access with information will returnI think that is a sound move, Frog. I get irritated by these threads so I can understand how non-participants must feel.

[rolymiller]

Your a feisty foe Mr Kerr but you make some reasonable points there to make me think you are not all bad. I don't think you are a Nazi by the way nor a racist but it rankles when you defend those who seem to be like that. I Dont Expect you To Know the answers To solve world Poverty I Certainly Dont But You Would Come Across a lot better To All the Leftys On here If you Showed a little More compassion to the Poor Eh?

[rolymiller]

By the way i appreciate your attempts to answer my questions and if it's any comfort to you i know quite a few Tories as pals and family members and generally don't attempt to eat em for breakfast.

[rolymiller]

Oh one last thing before beddy byes you are obviously an educated chap my advice To You Is To put away your adam Smith books and instead read some books on sociology and you might be a bit more aware of where us leftys are coming from. Nighty Night.

[KerrAvon]

Erm, they have been elected, the last 2 times.I think he meant that 'New Labour' were rendered unelectable. That's not really the case. In 2010 they had a manager rather than a leader in the form of Gordon Brown and the country was in a recession for which they would inevitably take some of the blame. Despite that the Tories needed to form a coalition government.

The more interesting issue is why Labour didn't win in 2015 and 2017, after years of austerity and lack lustre economic performance and with the Tories seemingly choosing not to contest the 2017 competition.. I'd argue that they didn't have leaders who inspire enough people in the country, just as in 2010.

[ragingpup]

Assuming that anyone other than us is still actually reading this thread, they will be able to see what you wrote about Mail readers and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what you were saying, just as Shark27 and I have. How is a post that begins You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? not accusing Mail readers of being bigots?

As I mentioned earlier, your Rees-Mogg conspiracy theory smacks of desperation. Do you have any evidence to support it or is it just something you have made up to explain the apparent contradiction between the Mail’s clear anti-immigration stance and the repeated assertion from the Left that the Tories and big business like mass immigration?

Okm then, help me out - what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set"? What exactly is that mind set with which you are tarnishing the names of our good Mail reading friends? Be specific and cc Shark27 into the reply. Thanks.

[ragingpup]

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.


Kerr - Did Chomsky say that "If I were British I would vote for Corbyn"? Yes or no?

There are videos of the interview online if you don't believe the report I linked to. You could even ask IBS if you like if you need help...

[ragingpup]

I think the Guardian to the Mail covers a spectrum of views. There is also the internet so that people can plug themselves directly into Labour propaganda if they wish. They can also go out and buy a copy of The Socialist Worker if they want to.

I’d remind you that the best you can do is to propose an element of state (for which read political) control of the media, apparently to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Mail capitalising words in the headlines of factual articles about Labour policy announcements.

I know which I prefer, a media that offers a range of views or one that reports what politicians will allow it to.

Are you sure that you aren’t just sore that people prefer The Sun to The Mirror?

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

I think I can see your problem. You simply can't imagine any other alternative to the here and now can you? It's either free market neo liberalism or state controlled hell! In this you are frighteningly similar to Great Fire.

Who said anything about politicians controlling the press? They are the last people that should be involved, for the reasons that you have stated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives.

I can see that you are happy with the status quo of a handful of individuals effectively being able to reach and influence the views and votes of over 10 million people, and the illusion of 'democracy' that this represents. Well done, you must be very happy. But I think I'll keep pushing for long term alternatives for a mass press that fairly represents it's society.

[ragingpup]

I think that is a sound move, Frog. I get irritated by these threads so I can understand how non-participants must feel.

It's not the threads that irritate you Kerr. It's just the posters that point out the huge flaws in your world-view! ;D x

[great_fire]

I think he meant that 'New Labour' were rendered unelectable. That's not really the case. In 2010 they had a manager rather than a leader in the form of Gordon Brown and the country was in a recession for which they would inevitably take some of the blame. Despite that the Tories needed to form a coalition government.

The more interesting issue is why Labour didn't win in 2015 and 2017, after years of austerity and lack lustre economic performance and with the Tories seemingly choosing not to contest the 2017 competition.. I'd argue that they didn't have leaders who inspire enough people in the country, just as in 2010.

None of them are inspiring that's true.

Mogg would be much more so but the press will go after him for his religious views particularly on abortion, which they wouldn't do if he was any other religion, abortion is forbidden in many religions including the establishment's favourite one, Islam.

[ragingpup]

None of them are inspiring that's true.

Mogg would be much more so but the press will go after him for his religious views particularly on abortion, which they wouldn't do if he was any other religion, abortion is forbidden in many religions including the establishment's favourite one, Islam.

Which press are out to get Mogg? Where are these public atacks coming from?

Taking a scan through the newspapers, the Mail, Express and Sun are all reporting stories from him favorably (as they are backing his stance on Brexit) and all except the Guardian and the Mirror in the mass media are pretty supportive of him as far as I can see. Even the Sun, Mail and Express supporting him means that the vast majority of newspaper readers in the UK (by way of the number of sales of these 3 papers outselling the others) will be receiving news opinion supporting him.

So where is this press of which you speak that will be going after him? The Mirro and the Guardian (especially the Guardian) have tiny readerships by comparison...

[KerrAvon]

Okm then, help me out - what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set"? What exactly is that mind set with which you are tarnishing the names of our good Mail reading friends? Be specific and cc Shark27 into the reply. Thanks.In what way have I tarnished the name of Mail Readers? I said that the Mail panders to a particular mind-set. I made no comment upon whether I considered that to be a desirable or undesirable mind-set. You are reading something into my words that isn’t there, perhaps as a result of your own prejudices.

At a basic level, the most obvious aspect of a Mail reader is that they have an inclination to read the Mail. From my limited experience of the paper (I sometimes read it when waiting for a haircut as my barber puts it out), I would say that other common traits of readers would be:

1. Opposition to immigration;
2. Support for the reintroduction of the death penalty;
3. A degree of contempt for ‘political correctness gone made’; and
4. An inability to see how unpleasant Katie Hopkins is.

Whilst I would disagree with all of those points to one extent or another, none of those traits automatically makes Mail readers bigots, which is what you clearly asserted when you said You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots. I can’t make out whether that isn’t what you meant to say or whether you are taking a leaf out of The Great Leader’s book and are twisting and turning when confronted with something that you now regret saying.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr - Did Chomsky say that "If I were British I would vote for Corbyn"? Yes or no?

There are videos of the interview online if you don't believe the report I linked to. You could even ask IBS if you like if you need help...I have no doubt that he said it. I’m just surprised that he would given his view on politics. One assumes that it was an expression of opinion based upon a lesser of two evils type approach.

[KerrAvon]

I think I can see your problem. You simply can't imagine any other alternative to the here and now can you? It's either free market neo liberalism or state controlled hell! In this you are frighteningly similar to Great Fire.

Who said anything about politicians controlling the press? They are the last people that should be involved, for the reasons that you have stated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives.

I can see that you are happy with the status quo of a handful of individuals effectively being able to reach and influence the views and votes of over 10 million people, and the illusion of 'democracy' that this represents. Well done, you must be very happy. But I think I'll keep pushing for long term alternatives for a mass press that fairly represents it's society.Well what exactly is it that you do want by way of press control? Back in the mists of time in post 138 you said that you would be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the expression ‘cross party’ clearly implies political involvement unless we are using different versions of the English language.

I see that you have now dropped the word political and it is now ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ that you are after. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Who is going to appoint the people who operate your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’, if it isn’t going to be politicians? And I’ve got the strangest feeling that when you set up your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’ it will be quickly infiltrated by politically active individuals who will seek to ensure that their version of the truth is what is printed.

I’m also curious about how the ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate. Would newspapers have to run their proposed articles past a committee before they publish? That would make ‘breaking news’ something that happens several days after the event.

I wonder if the Telegraph would have been allowed to run its MP expenses scandal expose or the Guardian it’s Panama Papers articles if they had to be run by a ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’.

I prefer the current system where people can choose their source of news, with animal picking up his Guardian and gf picking up his Daily Mail. If more people choose the Mail than The Guardian then that’s the way it is and in that way the media reflects the choice that society makes. So, yes, I prefer the status quo, because there isn’t a better alternative. If you want to explain how your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and am assuming you don’t mean that people would be made to read The Guardian), I’d be fascinated.

[KerrAvon]

It's not the threads that irritate you Kerr. It's just the posters that point out the huge flaws in your world-view! ;D xWhich huge flaws have you pointed out, raging? I think that’s something that’s happened in your dreams alongside your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’.

I don’t like these threads because they always descend into abuse and cheap point scoring (and yes, I do a bit of the latter sometimes).

[KerrAvon]

None of them are inspiring that's true.

Mogg would be much more so but the press will go after him for his religious views particularly on abortion, which they wouldn't do if he was any other religion, abortion is forbidden in many religions including the establishment's favourite one, Islam.I don’t think Rees-Mogg would be widely attractive to the electorate. He’s a bit too Victorian for most people and certainly for me. The ‘Left wing’ press would have a field day with him, because of things that he has said, in much the same way that the ‘Right wing’ press do with The Great Leader. It's just that not as many people would read it as when The Sun has a pop at The Great Leader, which, in simple terms, is what upsets raging.

[ragingpup]

I have no doubt that he said it. I’m just surprised that he would given his view on politics. One assumes that it was an expression of opinion based upon a lesser of two evils type approach.

It's more an acceptance that, as I said earlier, it's one thing to draw up detailed theories of mass media, it's flaws and where we'd like to go from here, and as you quite condescendingly put it having to live "back in the real world", and make whatever decisions we can do now, with what we have, that might move us (very long term) to where we'd like to be.

Or at least opposing the existing trend that is seeing the concentration of mass media influence falling increasingly into the hands of fewer people with interests not for the benefit of society overall.

[ragingpup]

Well what exactly is it that you do want by way of press control? Back in the mists of time in post 138 you said that you would be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the expression ‘cross party’ clearly implies political involvement unless we are using different versions of the English language.

I see that you have now dropped the word political and it is now ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ that you are after. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Who is going to appoint the people who operate your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’, if it isn’t going to be politicians? And I’ve got the strangest feeling that when you set up your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’ it will be quickly infiltrated by politically active individuals who will seek to ensure that their version of the truth is what is printed.

I’m also curious about how the ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate. Would newspapers have to run their proposed articles past a committee before they publish? That would make ‘breaking news’ something that happens several days after the event.

I wonder if the Telegraph would have been allowed to run its MP expenses scandal expose or the Guardian it’s Panama Papers articles if they had to be run by a ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternative’.

I prefer the current system where people can choose their source of news, with animal picking up his Guardian and gf picking up his Daily Mail. If more people choose the Mail than The Guardian then that’s the way it is and in that way the media reflects the choice that society makes. So, yes, I prefer the status quo, because there isn’t a better alternative. If you want to explain how your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’ would operate (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and am assuming you don’t mean that people would be made to read The Guardian), I’d be fascinated.

I think I wrote that post at 7am in the morning before I’d had even half of my cup of coffee, rushing to get the points over before daughter tumbles down the stairs demanding her porridge!

As I’ve said before I am FAR from being an academic and am not great with the written word, just do my best. And in saying phrases like “reflected the interests of all political parties”, “ultimate cross party balance” and “socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives” what I am clumsily saying is that whatever the solution would be that we move towards it has to reflect all voices in society.

Couple of questions for you:

1. Do you think it would be better if we had a free press serve to benefit and enhance the public good (a good whose production has positive effects on society beyond the effects on the specific people who directly consume the good) of the society it exists in? To help reinforce democracy through a range of views being freely and equally available to the consumers?

2. Are you ultimately happy that a handful of people own the media and use their property as a vehicle to influence both government and the voting public?

Obviously, my answers are 1) Yes and 2) No. So obviously I’d look for alternative ways of doing things. Wouldn’t anyone if they came to the same conclusions.

The question is of course what can we do about it? As you have quoted me above, I have pointed out that to explore this path is “hugely fraught with difficulties and complex issues” and your questions highlight these.

But does that mean that solutions are impossible? That we shouldn’t try when these questions are so important and our illusion of democracy is so flawed.

I am personally not bright nor eloquent enough to solve these huge problems in my lunch breaks but I think I can identify some directions of travel.

Maybe we can look at the elements of our own BBC? The idea here is that all of us pay into a national mass media service that is responsible for providing a balanced and fair news coverage and a range of political opinion and is accountable to public scrutiny in terms of it’s balance. It’s not ideal, gets accused of political bias from both sides but ultimately takes it’s responsibility for a fair balanced news and opinion service seriously and does a good job of it. Maybe the way we should travel is in this direction, with all public paying in towards a range of national news publications, of different styles and media types that the paying public can select from but each with a responsibility to report within an agreed framework and an over riding body that ensures that x views expressed over there (say right wing source) are counter balanced by x views expressed over here by a left wing source.

In the meantime, these news outlets report as normal, in real time just as the BBC does now. Did the BBC investigate on MPs expenses scandal? Does the BBC do undercover reporting and exposes of scurrilous individuals? Of course.

This linked report has some interesting ideas, some along these lines I mention but with other ideas (yet worth noting that even they recognise the inherent difficulty in going into the further detail of working out such initiatives! It’s a logistical nightmare but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore it and move in that direction does it when our current mass media is not fit for purpose (of serving the greater good of society)):

https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ContemporaryAmericanSociety/Chapter%2019%20--%20The%20Media%20--%20Norton%20August.pdf

In the meantime, “back in the real world”, of course we’re ages, decades, millennia away from such a possibility. The here and now is more concerned with:

1. Protecting the BBC from predominantly right wing press attacks (for these owners know the potential dangers in a mass news organisation that actually represents it’s people and presents two or more arguments instead of the one that they want to dominate)

2. Keep arguing the fact that the current illusion of a democratic free press is not fit for purpose and does not present a true range of perspectives so that people recognise the necessity for an alternative.

Huge uphill battle, but for me, if the essential structure of something so important is corrupt and broken, it’s just lazy thinking that just dismisses it as the ‘best we can do’.

***(You’re right, only just me and you reading this so not much chance of influencing public debate here! So much for the great leveller of social media!)***

[ragingpup]

I don’t think Rees-Mogg would be widely attractive to the electorate. He’s a bit too Victorian for most people and certainly for me. The ‘Left wing’ press would have a field day with him, because of things that he has said, in much the same way that the ‘Right wing’ press do with The Great Leader. It's just that not as many people would read it as when The Sun has a pop at The Great Leader, which, in simple terms, is what upsets raging.

Blimey, crowbarring me into a discussion with another poster - you are rattled aren't you?! O:)

[ragingpup]

Which huge flaws have you pointed out, raging? I think that’s something that’s happened in your dreams alongside your ‘socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives’.

I don’t like these threads because they always descend into abuse and cheap point scoring (and yes, I do a bit of the latter sometimes).

I haven't abused you Kerr. Note the winking smiley!

Blo*dy snowflake! >;)

[animallittle3]

Liar liar pants on fire Mr Mogg , a Christian indeed .



https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/03/jacob-rees-mogg-caught-out-lying-about-jeremy-corbyn-live-tv

[great_fire]

Liar liar pants on fire Mr Mogg , a Christian indeed .



https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/03/jacob-rees-mogg-caught-out-lying-about-jeremy-corbyn-live-tv

At least he apologised.

Corbyn hasn't apologised for supporting the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah.

[ragingpup]

At least he apologised.

Corbyn hasn't apologised for supporting the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Can you link me to any evidence of Mogg actually apologising Fire? I can't find it...

[millmoormagic]

Can you link me to any evidence of Mogg actually apologising Fire? I can't find it...

While you're at it gf, can you post any links that show Corbyn's support of the said organisations, i think you're forgetting you've been proven wrong on many occasions on the same topic.

Still waiting for the wonderful Kerr to prove any Corbyn links to the ira.....tick tock.

[great_fire]

I don’t think Rees-Mogg would be widely attractive to the electorate. He’s a bit too Victorian for most people and certainly for me. The ‘Left wing’ press would have a field day with him, because of things that he has said, in much the same way that the ‘Right wing’ press do with The Great Leader. It's just that not as many people would read it as when The Sun has a pop at The Great Leader, which, in simple terms, is what upsets raging.

He's actually popular with people of all ages, younger people feel very protective of him because he's so polite and nice.

And what's wrong with being old-fashioned?

Today's politicians are political pygmies compared to politicians of the past.

[great_fire]

Going to the Costa in Corbyn's Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-43176522/venezuelan-cash-crisis-where-a-coffee-costs-wads-of-banknotes

[great_fire]

Corbyn update:

Even his new allies in the Communist party think he's too extreme!

https://order-order.com/2018/03/07/communist-party-corbyn-extreme-hamas-ira/


Corbynistas, ever get the feeling you may be wrong about the fella?

[ragingpup]

Corbyn update:

Even his new allies in the Communist party think he's too extreme!

https://order-order.com/2018/03/07/communist-party-corbyn-extreme-hamas-ira/


Corbynistas, ever get the feeling you may be wrong about the fella?


The same article you link to (incidentally taking one quote out of context of the rest of the interview!) also kindly links to a page that shows the CPB's true stance on Corbyn and quotes:

"...the CPB’s Susan Michie said that ‘several comrades’ had left the Communist Party and joined the Labour Party under Corbyn where they can make more of a difference, therefore her party would extend its pact not to stand candidates against Corbyn’s Labour."

That's very opposed to Corbyn isn't it!

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

History will record that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't the messiah, just a very naughty boy