Indy Mk II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Getintaethem

I can be wrong on many subjects but yes I am factually right on this one. If I am not, please tell me as I am more than happy to admit my mistake.

---

:D

Brian is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Getintaethem

Aye ok, you contradict me but offer no proof. Just saying that something is ****e is offering an opinion not a fact. There is a difference.

Can you provide one example where Ofcom have upheld a claim of political bias against SKY News and when you do show that this came from the Murdoch family.

Any resignations because of interference from the Murdoch family around political interference? No, none, never?

---

I don't know about OFCOM reports.
But if you don't think that Murdoch and his beliefs set the political direction, bias and tone of his news operations. You're living in denial.

It starts with hiring a head of news who believes in what you believe in.
Who then hires similar people and so on.

That, in all likelihood, is why you don't get complaints from Kay Burley but loads about her.

Or you can just talk sh1te about how digger doesn't influence the news coverage of the stations he owns.

We are moving into the 5th day after the English voted to leave the EU and still nobody in Westminster, I stress NOBODY, has a phukin clue what is going on or what to do. Even the brexitieers are back tracking and totally sh!tting themselves.

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation. Phukin retards more like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Grantland

I don't know about OFCOM reports.
But if you don't think that Murdoch and his beliefs set the political direction, bias and tone of his news operations. You're living in denial.

It starts with hiring a head of news who believes in what you believe in.
Who then hires similar people and so on.

That, in all likelihood, is why you don't get complaints from Kay Burley but loads about her.

Or you can just talk sh1te about how digger doesn't influence the news coverage of the stations he owns.

---

I never made the claim that Murdoch does not influence the news coverage of the stations he owns. Far from it, in fact. But I am not talking about "stations", I am talking about a station in the UK that has different laws to the ones in the US and elsewhere around the world. I am no Murdoch apologist. He also does not own SKY as he has a minority shareholding.

But back to your evidence that he has influence (which is illegal in this country). You have no evidence from OFCOM reports, you have no evidence of him hiring people who believes in what he believes politically and all the evidence you have is what you "think" is the situation.

But I do love a good conspiracy theory. You now suggest that Murdoch has hired his own men who believes in what he believes and they hire people and they hire people. Again you provide no evidence of this sadly.

Lets take evidence from someone that worked there. For example, Mehdi Hasan who now works at the New Statesman and author of a book on Ed Miliband. Not your usual Murdoch clone. A producer for SKY News for 3 years. "John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others." "But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim". Even going as far as to say "Left-wing conspiracy theorists can sleep in peace."

So the evidence so far on my side is: there are no OFCOM reports proving your case, no one ever resigned because of any hint of political direction coming from the Murdoch's and a left leaning journalist writing in a left wing magazine stating that there is no interference, that the bosses are not right wing tories and any such claim is just desperate stuff.

So, on balance, who is talking sh1te? No need to answer, the evidence speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Getintaethem

I never made the claim that Murdoch does not influence the news coverage of the stations he owns. Far from it, in fact. But I am not talking about "stations", I am talking about a station in the UK that has different laws to the ones in the US and elsewhere around the world. I am no Murdoch apologist. He also does not own SKY as he has a minority shareholding.

But back to your evidence that he has influence (which is illegal in this country). You have no evidence from OFCOM reports, you have no evidence of him hiring people who believes in what he believes politically and all the evidence you have is what you "think" is the situation.

But I do love a good conspiracy theory. You now suggest that Murdoch has hired his own men who believes in what he believes and they hire people and they hire people. Again you provide no evidence of this sadly.

Lets take evidence from someone that worked there. For example, Mehdi Hasan who now works at the New Statesman and author of a book on Ed Miliband. Not your usual Murdoch clone. A producer for SKY News for 3 years. "John Ryley, the Sky News boss, Chris Birkett, his executive editor, and Jonathan Levy, the head of the broadcaster's political unit in Millbank -- all of whom I consider friends of mine -- are not Tories, and, if they are, they've done a damn fine job of hiding it from me and countless others." "But to accuse Sky News of pursuing "political influence" is a desperate claim". Even going as far as to say "Left-wing conspiracy theorists can sleep in peace."

So the evidence so far on my side is: there are no OFCOM reports proving your case, no one ever resigned because of any hint of political direction coming from the Murdoch's and a left leaning journalist writing in a left wing magazine stating that there is no interference, that the bosses are not right wing tories and any such claim is just desperate stuff.

So, on balance, who is talking sh1te? No need to answer, the evidence speaks for itself.

---

Just so I'm clear

Your position is that Rupert Murdoch nor his family, in any way, shape or form influences the political or editorial positions of Sky News.

A genuine question here. If the SNP do hold a referendum on independence, will they also have to add a 2nd conditional question on the ballot paper, for remaining/leaving the EU? So the question maybe word something like : If Scotland were to be come an independent country, would you want it to remain in the EU.

I just cant see how we can solely have a referendum on independence without also asking the question over the EU. Despite 61% voting for the EU, not all will vote for independence, therefore the % of the "leave" EU votes, coupled with "yes" for independence, could be higher than people may think. Either that or it could be two completely separate referendums?

US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients: "Our base case is that Scotland will vote for independence and institute a new currency at that point (2019)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupie82

A genuine question here. If the SNP do hold a referendum on independence, will they also have to add a 2nd conditional question on the ballot paper, for remaining/leaving the EU? So the question maybe word something like : If Scotland were to be come an independent country, would you want it to remain in the EU.

I just cant see how we can solely have a referendum on independence without also asking the question over the EU. Despite 61% voting for the EU, not all will vote for independence, therefore the % of the "leave" EU votes, coupled with "yes" for independence, could be higher than people may think. Either that or it could be two completely separate referendums?

---

I believe it would have to be two referendums, last week's was for the UK, Scotland voted for the UK to remain, however we voted to remain in the UK in 2014 so it would seem reasonable to accept the result. If the question is to be asked of Scotland, it would have to be asked of Scotland as a separate entity from the UK. The SNP have succeed in brainwashing people into Treating Thursday's vote as a vote for Scotland on it's own, it was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rochead

I believe it would have to be two referendums, last week's was for the UK, Scotland voted for the UK to remain, however we voted to remain in the UK in 2014 so it would seem reasonable to accept the result. If the question is to be asked of Scotland, it would have to be asked of Scotland as a separate entity from the UK. The SNP have succeed in brainwashing people into Treating Thursday's vote as a vote for Scotland on it's own, it was not.

---

Nobody brainwashes more people!e than Westminster its what they are good at.
We aren't brainwashed we want change. And we will vote for it this time .

My wife's a staff nurse the Europeans who work where she is are angry and scared after being taken out the EU they voted no the last and won't vote no again they feel conned .now how many EU citizens are there living and working in Scotland 200.000 ish I'm led to believe..

http://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_i...the_facts_here


Thought I'd share this lads as I'm impartial