ot jeremy corbyn

[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...-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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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!

[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

[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.

[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?