Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

No idea why you’d say that, but if you ask Google, William Hill or the BBC you’ll get much the same answer and my guess is it’ll be a woman, with Jayne Turton the current favourite.

Happier ‘engaging’ when you talk sense, GP.

Look at our exchange thus far. You’re intent on describing my comments as ‘anti right wing’ but they’re actually about individuals having too much influence over the UK media be they from the Right or the Left.

As it happens, in this instance, the individual concerned, Lord Rothermere, is Right wing. I’ve listed the publications/online sites he exerts enormous influence over and said that I find such a situation unhealthy in any democracy.

The fact is that any media bias in this country is very much in favour of the Right, with only the Guardian and the Mirror providing any sort of print based balance, and yet when the BBC messes up/makes an error the howls of outrage from those on the Right are both vociferous and limitless, including threats from the POTUS on this occasion.

Whereas, in this little microcosm, all we tend to see when it comes to comments on the media, are howls of outrage from yourself and Swale about the terrible actions of the right wing press. Everything seems to be their fault: I swear if you **** your pants on the way home from the pub one night you'd find a way to blame it on the right wing press.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

[swaledale]

Whereas, in this little microcosm, all we tend to see when it comes to comments on the media, are howls of outrage from yourself and Swale about the terrible actions of the right wing press. Everything seems to be their fault: I swear if you **** your pants on the way home from the pub one night you'd find a way to blame it on the right wing press.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

Oh dear, you seem to make a habit of making inaccurate generalist comments and then nit picking at other peoples points (and fail to acknowledge when your nit picking is incorrect, but I'll let that pass!).


Whether RA or myself have actually "howled in outrage" at the right wing press is open to question, but no doubt you will be able to come up with an example to back up your claim?

Speaking for myself, I've pointed out a few inconsistencies, falsehoods and heavily biased claims made by certain papers, notably the Telegraph which as I proved to you was hardly well placed to criticise the BBC for errors when it does not display the same adherence to accuracy in its own output. As for the Daily Fail, it pours out a mixture of idle and often unreliable gossip alongside a steady stream of false, misleading and often divisive articles and opinion pieces which irrespective of whether one is right or left leaning, you'd be foolish to take seriously.

To take Ra's point, that there are far more right wing media with an agenda, than the equivalent on the left isn't blaming the media for anything, its merely pointing out that the environment is skewed heavily towards a particular political angle, hence why Labour gets a level of attack and scrutiny which goes far beyond the Tory party and t seems the new darling of the right, Farage.

AS just an example, if a former Welsh leader of Labour had been convicted of accepting bribes from Russians what do you think the papers headlines would be and how long do you think that attack would have gone on for? There has been very little and what there has been low key reporting on this other than by the Guardian.

I mean **** me, the right wing media virtually called Ed Miliband a communist because his Father, his ****ing Father, not even a former member of the same party, was a Marxist academic.

It seems to me if you **** your pants and the Daily Mail told you it was your fault you'd nod your head and agree!

[ramAnag]

Whereas, in this little microcosm, all we tend to see when it comes to comments on the media, are howls of outrage from yourself and Swale about the terrible actions of the right wing press. Everything seems to be their fault: I swear if you **** your pants on the way home from the pub one night you'd find a way to blame it on the right wing press.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

Well I tried. If you’ve got no answers just admit it. Hoping for an intelligent discussion on such issues as media freedom, ownership and responsibility in a democratic society but today seems to be one of your jibberish days.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So the budget didnt turn out to be too hostile, vaguely sensible, but I dont see how it will finance labour's spending plans.

Dividend tax hikes continue to make self employment via a company less and less attractive so may well squash entrepreneurialism which isnt great for future tax planning/ revenues. I like the 2% hike on rental income, although I imagine others here wont agree - but it does raise the question about who is going to invest in private sector rentals to meet the escalating housing needs.

Scrapping the two child benefit cap I think is wrong as it encourages increasing birth rates amongst those who cannot afford to raise children, but Im probably in the minority here.

Finally the new mansion tax - bad luck for rA Towers facing a 2500 tax hike - but its quite well pitched as regards entry values. My concern is that its the thin end of a wedge and will slowly drag more and more people into the net, and at escalating costs. Not sure how it distinguishes between SE England house values and the equivalent property in other areas. There are many 3 bed homes in London costing over 2.5 million whereas the average price of a 3 bedroomed house in Wales is $ 209,000.... but who ever said Labour was about fairness.

Overall B+ it avoids controversy but it doesnt go far enough in revenue growth. I can see public sector borrowing on the rise again in true Labour style - cant afford the promises so dump it on future generations to pay for today's plans. the one day a year I'm happy to be an old git

[swaledale]

Regardless of who might be in the running for the role, I sincerely hope that a wan ker like Morgan gets nowhere near it

Indeed an Editor of a then left leaning publication (The Mirror), I mean **** knows which way it leans now, given it's owned by the same group that publishes The Express, and Star! Who apparently as Editor didn't know his journalists were hacking people's phones and then ran a front page splurge which accused UK Troops of atrocious actions, later proven to be false and resulted in him resigning.

The guy is a an oily **** and thats being kind. He won't even be in the running though.

[swaledale]

So the budget didnt turn out to be too hostile, vaguely sensible, but I dont see how it will finance labour's spending plans.

Dividend tax hikes continue to make self employment via a company less and less attractive so may well squash entrepreneurialism which isnt great for future tax planning/ revenues. I like the 2% hike on rental income, although I imagine others here wont agree - but it does raise the question about who is going to invest in private sector rentals to meet the escalating housing needs.

Scrapping the two child benefit cap I think is wrong as it encourages increasing birth rates amongst those who cannot afford to raise children, but Im probably in the minority here.

Finally the new mansion tax - bad luck for rA Towers facing a 2500 tax hike - but its quite well pitched as regards entry values. My concern is that its the thin end of a wedge and will slowly drag more and more people into the net, and at escalating costs. Not sure how it distinguishes between SE England house values and the equivalent property in other areas. There are many 3 bed homes in London costing over 2.5 million whereas the average price of a 3 bedroomed house in Wales is $ 209,000.... but who ever said Labour was about fairness.

Overall B+ it avoids controversy but it doesnt go far enough in revenue growth. I can see public sector borrowing on the rise again in true Labour style - cant afford the promises so dump it on future generations to pay for today's plans. the one day a year I'm happy to be an old git

Fair summary, though of course the devil is in the detail. Exactly how does investing in private sector rentals meet escalating housing needs?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ive yet to see a sensible question to answer. The only barrier to press freedom would be state control, and I dont see any of that. No one makes you listen to or read media content,, so if you dont like the opinions, dont read them. That is free press, you've got a choice of something to read etc that affirms your own views, and merging two voices that you dont want to listen to anyway doesnt lessen your choice

[Geoff Parkstone]

Fair summary, though of course the devil is in the detail. Exactly how does investing in private sector rentals meet escalating housing needs?

Im not sure that it does to be honest, but taxing it more wont improve the likelhood. Private sector landlords who are in it as a business (as opposed to simply letting a deceased parents property out for capital gain) have been hammered for tax over the last 10 years (mostly re changes to mortgage relief) which will no doubt have slowed interest in investing in the sector. What is puzzling is that corporation tax rates on companies investing in property havent been hiked, just income tax rates - although I suppose this is offset by increased dividend taxes.

[swaledale]

According to IPSO statistics, NO. But according to Swaleconomia YES, corroborated naturally by rA. However neither has provided any credible evidence of this. It may be true but it could be fabrication or regurgitated from online "sources". I actually don't know. I did ask Swale for source of the 100 and was referred to IPSO which clearly wasn't the source. I too would like to see evidence as opposed to heresay/anecdotal .....

The difficulty in getting at truth of the matter may well be retractions/corrections that never resulted in formal complaints and were settled "out of court". In which case I doubt there is any record short of some nerd trawling through all back copies

In point of fact, you were advised to do your own research, I mentioned IPSO as they were the errors that reached IPSO, most media try to avoid that and print corrections. But certain media and the telegraph and the Mail are infamous for doing this, though I'm sure its not a practice confined to those two alone, print a story with a headling which they know full well to be inaccurate, sometimes false and at best misleading and then print a correction a few days later at the bottom of an inside page usually.

They do this, because they are fully aware that it will be the original headline and false information that most people will remember and the correction will be seen by very few and hardly register.

Now before you make some stupid observation about an obsession with the right wing media, I know that The Times, the BBC, The Mirror make errors and have to print corrections, but they don't as far I have seen adopt the strategy described above.

The fact that over the same period, the BBC made 33 corrections and the Telegraph 114, suggests the telegraph is not the most accurate of publications, yet is a much simpler and smaller news organisation than the BBC is.

[swaledale]

so to know what it published in such detail you must be a reader and thus by your own definition sad and middle class yourself? Now there's irony

Well never assume, it makes an ass out of u and me! I do read a lot of material from a wide range of sources, I find it useful to understand what's going on. But claiming I read the Mail is an exaggeration, I skim through headlines online, and dip in occasionally where its not behind a pay wall.

I may well be classed as middle class, though I was brought up on a Council estate by hard working parents, 6 of us in a 3 bedroom house actually. But of course I'm not a SAD middle class reader. I can proudly state I have never paid for a copy of the Daily Mail.

Which reminds me of a time I embarrassed a work colleague who was ostensibly a quite serious left wing feminist, who I caught reading the Daily Mail and found out she did so daily, by asking why with her personal views she was reading and supporting a paper that was the very anthesis of what she believed in. She looked very sheepish.