Channel 4 are a disgrace!

[mickd1961]

The way,during the Brexit interviews with the Tory ministers,that they allow that moron with the “remainer” type placards to stand three feet behind interviewees with his fellow campaigners is utterly ridiculous.

This guy was allowed to do exactly the same a few weeks ago and it’s always Channel 4.

No surprise considering Jon Snow’s rabid hatred of the Tory’s and his “f u c k the Tory’s” chant on stage at Glastonbury a couple of years ago as he tried to “get down” with the youth and the Leftie Elite and considering that channels Left Wing agenda!

If I’d been Rees-Mogg and the two ladies I would’ve told Channel 4 to stick their interview up their a r s e so in part I blame them for lack of nous and awareness.

I would be equally annoyed if it’d been “out” campaigners doing the same to a remain interview.

I thought it was a hideous spectacle.

[holmleighchris]

If you know their agenda why watch their news. There are several channels that broadcast news other than Channel 4.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

It's not just CH4. Last week on the BBC's Politics Live there was an interview on College Green with what I assume was the same idiot (fancy dress anti Brexit placard) constantly changing position so he was always in shot.

For me all it does is belittle whatever their cause is so let em carry on.

[mickd1961]

If you know their agenda why watch their news. There are several channels that broadcast news other than Channel 4.

That’s not the point I was trying to make.

I may be wrong but it’s my understanding that Channel 4 get a certain amount of public money,I may be wrong.

BBC are fully funded by public money and have a definite bias.

News on main channels should be fair and unbiased.

I do feel that right wing supporters would not have been allowed to turn such an interview into such a farce.

[WBA123]

That’s not the point I was trying to make.

I may be wrong but it’s my understanding that Channel 4 get a certain amount of public money,I may be wrong.

BBC are fully funded by public money and have a definite bias.

News on main channels should be fair and unbiased.

I do feel that right wing supporters would not have been allowed to turn such an interview into such a farce.

Channel 4 are publicly owned but commercially run. They don't take a public money.

Its ironic how both Remain and Leave sides accuse the BBC of Bias. Basically when they report something the reader or viewer doesn't like - then its labelled automatically as 'biased'..

[Albionic68]

Channel 4 are publicly owned but commercially run. They don't take a public money.

Its ironic how both Remain and Leave sides accuse the BBC of Bias. Basically when they report something the reader or viewer doesn't like - then its labelled automatically as 'biased'..

Funny you should mention talk of bias. You posted a link the other day from the EU Commission’s ‘EuroMyths’ site in reference to what you (rightly or wrongly) perceive as lies from the “right wing press” towards the EU from 1992 to 2017. I haven’t read through them all but there’s a good number of myths accredited to both the BBC and even the left wing Mirror via that link. How inconvenient O:) .

Now given that you provided the link I feel we may agree that poor reporting exists across a wide spectrum of outlets. Many perpetuate indignation and often anger. They sensationalise, attract attention, appeal to the collective moral compass of the masses and in so doing often promote division. On the other hand once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness. As I’m sure you’ll agree the trick is to read between the lines, do some research and find out what’s what.

Having looked up the terms army, defence, EU Army and even veto from the link you provided there’s very little in the way of denial from the EU Commission’s own ‘EuroMyths’ site on their reported plans for an EU Army. If said site is a fair and accurate reflection of the truth then how very unusual. Could that mean there’s been little bias or untruth on such reporting? Could the desires of Junker, Macron, Merkel, Blair and Chirac et.al regarding an EU Army have been accurately reported after all? Or is the link itself largely useless as it concentrates on trivia by sheer volume of nonsense, thus diverting attention from wider agendas encapsulating any number of issues and not just defence?

There is a link on ‘EuroMyths’ quoting the Telegraph’s story on an EU Rapid Reaction Force though, denying plans for an EU security force exist and which goes on to state the following: “The rapid response unit was set up inside the European Commission in May 2000 on the back of proposals from Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Relations. It aims to ensure that the Commission can react quickly to unfolding crises, such as earthquakes or other humanitarian disasters. This measure is categorically not linked to the decision by EU Member States to create a joint military capacity. The Commission does not perform any kind of military role”.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu-launches-its-own-army/

As you like links if you have the time feel free to explore the one below at your leisure. It’s from the European Union External Action site and lists a number of its operations to date. Although humanitarian interventions can of course take many guises, a European Union which uses “…… civilian and military instruments in several countries in three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia) as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)” doesn’t sound very humanitarian to me. There are some very interesting uses of common defence and police resources on said link worthy of further reading elsewhere.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/430/military-and-civilian-missions-and-operations_en

One final point, vetoes are only as useful as the governments entrusted with their use.

[WBA123]

Funny you should mention talk of bias. You posted a link the other day from the EU Commission’s ‘EuroMyths’ site in reference to what you (rightly or wrongly) perceive as lies from the “right wing press” towards the EU from 1992 to 2017. I haven’t read through them all but there’s a good number of myths accredited to both the BBC and even the left wing Mirror via that link. How inconvenient O:) .

Now given that you provided the link I feel we may agree that poor reporting exists across a wide spectrum of outlets. Many perpetuate indignation and often anger. They sensationalise, attract attention, appeal to the collective moral compass of the masses and in so doing often promote division. On the other hand once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness. As I’m sure you’ll agree the trick is to read between the lines, do some research and find out what’s what.

Having looked up the terms army, defence, EU Army and even veto from the link you provided there’s very little in the way of denial from the EU Commission’s own ‘EuroMyths’ site on their reported plans for an EU Army. If said site is a fair and accurate reflection of the truth then how very unusual. Could that mean there’s been little bias or untruth on such reporting? Could the desires of Junker, Macron, Merkel, Blair and Chirac et.al regarding an EU Army have been accurately reported after all? Or is the link itself largely useless as it concentrates on trivia by sheer volume of nonsense, thus diverting attention from wider agendas encapsulating any number of issues and not just defence?

There is a link on ‘EuroMyths’ quoting the Telegraph’s story on an EU Rapid Reaction Force though, denying plans for an EU security force exist and which goes on to state the following: “The rapid response unit was set up inside the European Commission in May 2000 on the back of proposals from Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Relations. It aims to ensure that the Commission can react quickly to unfolding crises, such as earthquakes or other humanitarian disasters. This measure is categorically not linked to the decision by EU Member States to create a joint military capacity. The Commission does not perform any kind of military role”.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu-launches-its-own-army/

As you like links if you have the time feel free to explore the one below at your leisure. It’s from the European Union External Action site and lists a number of its operations to date. Although humanitarian interventions can of course take many guises, a European Union which uses “…… civilian and military instruments in several countries in three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia) as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)” doesn’t sound very humanitarian to me. There are some very interesting uses of common defence and police resources on said link worthy of further reading elsewhere.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/430/military-and-civilian-missions-and-operations_en

One final point, vetoes are only as useful as the governments entrusted with their use.


Where do I start...firstly, every print media has an agenda and sensationalises headlines and the Mirror are no different. There is a line though where sensationalism turns into lies. RW media accounts for 8 of the top 10 print media outlets in the UK. Therefore its not a surprise that (some of) their 'sensationalist reporting' helped the Leave campaign during the campaigning for the referendum. And no doubt they have helped successive governments win elections in the last few decades. My opinion is that they manipulate perception of the wider UK public. So when I read on here people stating slogans from the Daily Mail, which happens quite frequently, I can't help but think they are being lead like a sheep by these media outlets.

My link (which I've only glossed over) was intended to highlight the lack of accurate information regarding the EU that is conveyed to the public by these media outlets. My opinion is that the BBC are impartial and they get unfairly labelled by both Leave and Remain supporters of bias.

"once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness"

I really hope that sentence refers to media who promote themselves as impartial and not the print media (Which includes the Mirror btw). Because they is very little in the way of 'accurate and unbiased reporting' that you mention in some of these toerag newspapers.

These newspapers are owned by foreign, tax dodging millionaires who are not scrutinised in the same way other individuals are and have undue influence on our political process and constitution. Why? They are as much to blame for this political mess as anyone. They have created an environment where our largest trade partner is now considered an enemy. But people will continue to purchase them and believe the general rubbish that they read. So perhaps that is one area where we differ.

An EU Army...perhaps it is on the agenda for Macron and Merkel etc. And if so it has probably gained more traction since we voted to leave, because we would be unable to veto it. My point was and still is, that if an EU army is so disastrous to us, then elected members of the UK had the option to veto it as members of the EU. There is nothing more democratic than that.

Your final point applies to any government or MP who is elected, or anyone voted into any position of power and decision making. We vote to give them power to make decisions on our behalf. The EU is a very democratic organisation in my opinion, just as democratic as the UK is. Does this now set a precedent for UK towns and counties to 'take back control' from Westminster?'

Anyhow, any Leave voter should know that May has put the best deal available to us on the table, if there was a better deal, why would she not have gone out and got it? Get ready for all Brexiters to start pointing fingers of blame to Remainers because we are in a worst position now than before....A no deal is a disaster, but when many people, not just on this message board, say statements like 'I would rather be poorer than be in the EU' or 'I've got my country back' then what hope is there...

[mickd1961]

Back on topic and avoiding the usual “hijacking” by Carolgees.

Other channels including SKY and BBC have been almost as bad as Channel 4 today in allowing the Work shy rabble with the placards and megaphones ruin the interviews.

There is absolutely no need to be conducting the interviews in the street,it’s ludicrous.

I’ve found the debate ( both ways ) fascinating today but I’ve got a migraine from the inane chanting from close by.

[Dubbag]

Yeah...the news is getting chaotic at the moment...we had a TD over here produce a pair of "Thongs" in the Dail...
Strange news alright...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304

[albion68]

Yeah...the news is getting chaotic at the moment...we had a TD over here produce a pair of "Thongs" in the Dail...
Strange news alright...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46207304 yes read that this morning dub,it’s about a alleged rape victim wearing a thong ,so if you wear a thong your up for it.

[kettering_baggie]

Why is anyone bothered about Channel 4? They show Naked Attraction, don’t they?

Okay, beer talking again!

[stripes39]

Where do I start...firstly, every print media has an agenda and sensationalises headlines and the Mirror are no different. There is a line though where sensationalism turns into lies. RW media accounts for 8 of the top 10 print media outlets in the UK. Therefore its not a surprise that (some of) their 'sensationalist reporting' helped the Leave campaign during the campaigning for the referendum. And no doubt they have helped successive governments win elections in the last few decades. My opinion is that they manipulate perception of the wider UK public. So when I read on here people stating slogans from the Daily Mail, which happens quite frequently, I can't help but think they are being lead like a sheep by these media outlets.

My link (which I've only glossed over) was intended to highlight the lack of accurate information regarding the EU that is conveyed to the public by these media outlets. My opinion is that the BBC are impartial and they get unfairly labelled by both Leave and Remain supporters of bias.

"once you get passed the headlines good reporting is often accurate, unbiased, to the point and able to raise awareness"

I really hope that sentence refers to media who promote themselves as impartial and not the print media (Which includes the Mirror btw). Because they is very little in the way of 'accurate and unbiased reporting' that you mention in some of these toerag newspapers.

These newspapers are owned by foreign, tax dodging millionaires who are not scrutinised in the same way other individuals are and have undue influence on our political process and constitution. Why? They are as much to blame for this political mess as anyone. They have created an environment where our largest trade partner is now considered an enemy. But people will continue to purchase them and believe the general rubbish that they read. So perhaps that is one area where we differ.

An EU Army...perhaps it is on the agenda for Macron and Merkel etc. And if so it has probably gained more traction since we voted to leave, because we would be unable to veto it. My point was and still is, that if an EU army is so disastrous to us, then elected members of the UK had the option to veto it as members of the EU. There is nothing more democratic than that.

Your final point applies to any government or MP who is elected, or anyone voted into any position of power and decision making. We vote to give them power to make decisions on our behalf. The EU is a very democratic organisation in my opinion, just as democratic as the UK is. Does this now set a precedent for UK towns and counties to 'take back control' from Westminster?'

Anyhow, any Leave voter should know that May has put the best deal available to us on the table, if there was a better deal, why would she not have gone out and got it? Get ready for all Brexiters to start pointing fingers of blame to Remainers because we are in a worst position now than before....A no deal is a disaster, but when many people, not just on this message board, say statements like 'I would rather be poorer than be in the EU' or 'I've got my country back' then what hope is there...

Hello 123. Please could you explain to a simple soul like me how the EU is “a very democratc organisation, just as democratic as the U.K. is”? Many thanks in advance

[WBA123]

Hello 123. Please could you explain to a simple soul like me how the EU is “a very democratc organisation, just as democratic as the U.K. is”? Many thanks in advance

Because the EU commission are appointed by the heads of government - who are elected, with approval from the European Parliament - who are elected. They then draft legislature and policy, before it goes to the European Parliament to approve, reject or change. We elect the Members of the European Parliament.

There are positions in the EU which are appointed and not elected. Simply because the public can't elect every official.

In the UK we don't elect the head of the civil service. Nor the head of the Police or security services. We don't elect judges who interpret and create law. We don't elect the House of Lords. All of these positions are ***** to uphold our constitution and they are all appointed.

The 'unelected bureaucrats' slogan applies exactly in the same way to how the UK is run, if not moreso

[stripes39]

Because the EU commission are appointed by the heads of government - who are elected, with approval from the European Parliament - who are elected. They then draft legislature and policy, before it goes to the European Parliament to approve, reject or change. We elect the Members of the European Parliament.

There are positions in the EU which are appointed and not elected. Simply because the public can't elect every official.

In the UK we don't elect the head of the civil service. Nor the head of the Police or security services. We don't elect judges who interpret and create law. We don't elect the House of Lords. All of these positions are ***** to uphold our constitution and they are all appointed.

The 'unelected bureaucrats' slogan applies exactly in the same way to how the UK is run, if not moreso

Much of the workings of the EU are often different in practise to the theory. Many of the big decisions when it suits them have been democratically deficient. Only the president of The EU Commission is elected by the European Parliament. At the last election Junker was the only name on the ballot paper as Merkel had stated she wanted him as president despite strong opposition to him lacking suitability. This type of election doesn't sound very democratic to me with only one runner.

The President of the European Parliament (Martin Schulz) was elected by the 700+ European MP's in a ballot which seems a democratic way of doing things. Problem was his was also the only name on the ballot paper. Again, one runner in a political race is expected in Liberia or Venezuela but not in the EU I would have thought?

In theory the Parliament can remove the Commission but this has never happened. The Commission at times has been full of dubious characters with cases to answer but none have ever been removed. How many organisations would appoint someone as their Anti-Fraud Commissioner who himself was charged with abuse of power, fraud and providing false evidence under oath when £5Million disappeared from a bank he headed up?

The European Parliament is just a front to make the EU look democratic. Despite being voted in by the people, The Commission holds the final say. MEP's can vote to amend laws passed by The Commission but The Commission must approve them before being passed. Once laws are passed becoming EU law, MEP's are powerless to change them so the democratically elected MEP's really serve merely as window dressing to where real power lies which again doesn't sound very democratic to me.

The European Court of Justice exists to ensure that EU laws are consistent with EU treaties. It has a history of doing its own thing and ignoring its own treaties when it suits. The Treaties state bailouts of EU nations are illegal. This didn't prevent bailouts been given when the Euro needed drastic support.

I could go on but much of this doesn't seem very democratic to me or have I got this all wrong?

[WBA123]

Much of the workings of the EU are often different in practise to the theory. Many of the big decisions when it suits them have been democratically deficient. Only the president of The EU Commission is elected by the European Parliament. At the last election Junker was the only name on the ballot paper as Merkel had stated she wanted him as president despite strong opposition to him lacking suitability. This type of election doesn't sound very democratic to me with only one runner.

The President of the European Parliament (Martin Schulz) was elected by the 700+ European MP's in a ballot which seems a democratic way of doing things. Problem was his was also the only name on the ballot paper. Again, one runner in a political race is expected in Liberia or Venezuela but not in the EU I would have thought?

In theory the Parliament can remove the Commission but this has never happened. The Commission at times has been full of dubious characters with cases to answer but none have ever been removed. How many organisations would appoint someone as their Anti-Fraud Commissioner who himself was charged with abuse of power, fraud and providing false evidence under oath when £5Million disappeared from a bank he headed up?

The European Parliament is just a front to make the EU look democratic. Despite being voted in by the people, The Commission holds the final say. MEP's can vote to amend laws passed by The Commission but The Commission must approve them before being passed. Once laws are passed becoming EU law, MEP's are powerless to change them so the democratically elected MEP's really serve merely as window dressing to where real power lies which again doesn't sound very democratic to me.

The European Court of Justice exists to ensure that EU laws are consistent with EU treaties. It has a history of doing its own thing and ignoring its own treaties when it suits. The Treaties state bailouts of EU nations are illegal. This didn't prevent bailouts been given when the Euro needed drastic support.

I could go on but much of this doesn't seem very democratic to me or have I got this all wrong?

The EU commissioner is nominated. Its not a ballot, Juncker was the only one nominated. And then approved by parliament. The only two countries who opposed were the UK and Hungary. So, 26 of 28 states thought he was suitable. That's part of European democracy.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, I found this about Martin Schulz on Wiki....

"On 17 January 2012, Schulz was elected as President of the European Parliament, with 387 votes in favour out of 670 cast.[13] Other candidates were Nirj Deva (142 votes) and Diana Wallis (141 votes)"

Name of this anti fraud commissioner? Are you talking about Edith Cresson? If so, I'm not too familiar with it but thought the case was thrown out...

I guess we just have different views, which is what politics is all about. The EU isn't perfect, by any means. But neither is the UK's political system. There aren't many more corrupt than our MPs who put though outrageous expenses claims. Abuses of power exist in all hierarchical formats. My point is that the UK is equal to the EU in terms of democracy, corruption and an imperfect world. Only we're better off financially remaining in the EU.

[stripes39]

The EU commissioner is nominated. Its not a ballot, Juncker was the only one nominated. And then approved by parliament. The only two countries who opposed were the UK and Hungary. So, 26 of 28 states thought he was suitable. That's part of European democracy.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, I found this about Martin Schulz on Wiki....

"On 17 January 2012, Schulz was elected as President of the European Parliament, with 387 votes in favour out of 670 cast.[13] Other candidates were Nirj Deva (142 votes) and Diana Wallis (141 votes)"

Name of this anti fraud commissioner? Are you talking about Edith Cresson? If so, I'm not too familiar with it but thought the case was thrown out...

I guess we just have different views, which is what politics is all about. The EU isn't perfect, by any means. But neither is the UK's political system. There aren't many more corrupt than our MPs who put though outrageous expenses claims. Abuses of power exist in all hierarchical formats. My point is that the UK is equal to the EU in terms of democracy, corruption and an imperfect world. Only we're better off financially remaining in the EU.

Yes. Not sure where I’m getting my information from. Let’s just agree I’m another thick racist who voted out and you’re a considerably better informed remainer. Siim Kallas. It involved £10M in Swiss gold.

[WBA123]

Yes. Not sure where I’m getting my information from. Let’s just agree I’m another thick racist who voted out and you’re a considerably better informed remainer. Siim Kallas. It involved £10M in Swiss gold.

I don't know why you're typecasting yourself, I haven't done that. Half of my family and friends voted to Leave and I've never called them thick or racist.

And you made some valid points, but I largely get involved when I hear rubbish spouted on here. Because ultimately people believed the countless lies and misleading statements in the last referendum and that's why we are where we are.

[talkSAFT]

Can anyone recall any mention of the Ireland problem pre Referendum?
The 1st time I heard any mention was a few months ago, and I remember thinking I hadn't thought of that! Did the intelligent Johnson mention it even once?

[WBA123]

Can anyone recall any mention of the Ireland problem pre Referendum?
The 1st time I heard any mention was a few months ago, and I remember thinking I hadn't thought of that! Did the intelligent Johnson mention it even once?

It will never end with any leading Brexiteer holding their hands up and taking responsibility. They'll just keep on blaming others for their failings.

Farage knew he was lying to people during the ref campaign, I have no idea how he has any credibility left.

[stripes39]

Can anyone recall any mention of the Ireland problem pre Referendum?
The 1st time I heard any mention was a few months ago, and I remember thinking I hadn't thought of that! Did the intelligent Johnson mention it even once?

No I don’t recall it being mentioned by leave or remain either. Funny how so many remain MP’s are wise after the event yet none of them thought it worth mentioning in the debates beforehand. I’m mistified why so many of them voted to give the public a vote in the first place also given so many of them are now claiming to have seen this chaos all along.

[WBA123]

No I don’t recall it being mentioned by leave or remain either. Funny how so many remain MP’s are wise after the event yet none of them thought it worth mentioning in the debates beforehand. I’m mistified why so many of them voted to give the public a vote in the first place also given so many of them are now claiming to have seen this chaos all along.

I think this statement was brushed off as 'project fear' wasn't it....

David Cameron responded: “If we vote to stay in we know what the situation is.

"We know that the Common Travel Area works, we know it can continue and everyone can have confidence in that.

"If we were to Leave, and, as the Leave campaigners want, make a big issue about our borders, then you’ve got a land border with Britain outside the European Union and the Republic of Ireland inside the EU.

"Therefore you can only either have new border controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, or, which I would regret hugely, you would have to have some sort of checks on people as they left Belfast or other parts of Northern Ireland to come to the rest of UK.

"Now we can avoid these risks, there are so many risks here, risks to our children’s job, risks to our borders, risks to the unity of the United Kingdom – I say avoid the risks and vote Remain next Thursday.”

[stripes39]

I think this statement was brushed off as 'project fear' wasn't it....

David Cameron responded: “If we vote to stay in we know what the situation is.

"We know that the Common Travel Area works, we know it can continue and everyone can have confidence in that.

"If we were to Leave, and, as the Leave campaigners want, make a big issue about our borders, then you’ve got a land border with Britain outside the European Union and the Republic of Ireland inside the EU.

"Therefore you can only either have new border controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, or, which I would regret hugely, you would have to have some sort of checks on people as they left Belfast or other parts of Northern Ireland to come to the rest of UK.

"Now we can avoid these risks, there are so many risks here, risks to our children’s job, risks to our borders, risks to the unity of the United Kingdom – I say avoid the risks and vote Remain next Thursday.”

Never liked Cameron 123. Couldn't stand the chap but every one to their own. Much preferred Maggie. We wouldn't be in this mess were she negotiating for us. Best PM we had in years.

[WBA123]

Never liked Cameron 123. Couldn't stand the chap but every one to their own. Much preferred Maggie. We wouldn't be in this mess were she negotiating for us. Best PM we had in years.

Blimey - Maggie! We truly are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I guess it would be boring if everyone agreed all the time though.

I do think Cameron will go down now as one of the worst PMs we have ever had because of the farce that was that referendum.

For me, the best PM we've had in my lifetime is Blair. His legacy will always be tainted by the Iraq war. But domestically the Labour Party under him actually achieved a great deal.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

My 2 favourite PM's of the last 40 years by a mile are Maggie & Blair (in that order.) Both made errors but compared to the rest!

[albion68]

Blimey - Maggie! We truly are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I guess it would be boring if everyone agreed all the time though.

I do think Cameron will go down now as one of the worst PMs we have ever had because of the farce that was that referendum.

For me, the best PM we've had in my lifetime is Blair. His legacy will always be tainted by the Iraq war. But domestically the Labour Party under him actually achieved a great deal. I’ve been a labour voter for 50 years,not any more with the clown in charge he his a clown you can’t have a circus without a clown.tony Blair was and still is the worst pm we have ever had,he is a classic champagne socialist.labour now are full of them.labour was formed for the working classes.not for pm,s to make personal gains.