ot jeremy corbyn

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Clearly not.

[KerrAvon]

Clearly not.

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

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

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

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

[KerrAvon]

FFS! 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.