British Politics

[Padme]

1 hour ago, AtariLegend said:

I don't see how we have freedom of the press when for years we had Murdoch running The News of the World, The Times, The Sun, Talk Radio, Sky News, others. We have haven't had an election in this country where someone that Murdoch hasn't backed won since Pre Thatcher in the 70s. Then there's the Telegraph (who owners run the Spectator) and Mail (which owns the I) ran by nom doms. All back the same political party. All of which do nothing but run storys attacking people of colour, the working class, immigrants, judges, police, fire, nhs and people who don't vote conservative.

The Express and Mirror are ran by the same people too.

I wouldn't put The Times in the same catgory with The Sun or The Mail. I know that Murdoch tried to buy Sky, there was controversy. But I don't know how that ended

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

I don't see how we have freedom of the press when for years we had Murdoch running The News of the World, The Times, The Sun, Talk Radio, Sky News, others. We have haven't had an election in this country where someone that Murdoch hasn't backed won since Pre Thatcher in the 70s. Then there's the Telegraph (who owners run the Spectator) and Mail (which owns the I) ran by nom doms. All back the same political party. All of which do nothing but run storys attacking people of colour, the working class, immigrants, judges, police, fire, nhs and people who don't vote conservative.

The Express and Mirror are ran by the same people too.

The irony is that in a country with free press you can end up with editorial homogeneity, if you get what I mean. Free press doesn't have to result in a diverse plethora of newspapers covering the entire range of politics. If people just want to read shite, then shite will dominate. 

[SoulMonster]

What you could do was to have the government subsidise the press, or at least press that qualifies. The qualification should of course be based on criteria as objectivity, journalistic integrity, and so on, and not political stance. Thus every newspaper that does proper journalistic work could get this financial support, whereas tabloid rags and propaganda channels, would find it harder to compete. 

Secondly, journalist should be a protected profession and to get a degree in journalism the curriculum should contain courses in objectivity, sourcing, etc, ensuring a higher quality of work. 

[Dazey]

Freedom of the press is key to a working democracy to hold those in power to account. I fail to see how that can't be tempered in cases of clear harassment. I think I counted over 30 articles on the Daily Mail front page today doing nothing more than bullying Harry's missus. Just makes me want to see some of these so called journalists given a good kicking quite frankly. 

[Padme]

9 hours ago, Dazey said:

Freedom of the press is key to a working democracy to hold those in power to account. I fail to see how that can't be tempered in cases of clear harassment. I think I counted over 30 articles on the Daily Mail front page today doing nothing more than bullying Harry's missus. Just makes me want to see some of these so called journalists given a good kicking quite frankly. 

It takes two to tango. They write articles about Harry and Meghan because they sell newspapers. You have to question both, the journalists and those who are interested in reading that kind of newspaper.

[Dazey]

35 minutes ago, Padme said:

It takes two to tango. They write articles about Harry and Meghan because they sell newspapers. You have to question both, the journalists and those who are interested in reading that kind of newspaper.

Oh, I think that the people who read this crap are filth as well.  

[DieselDaisy]

Ahh, the liberal left in action.

[Dazey]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Ahh, the liberal left in action.

How so?

[action]

11 hours ago, Dazey said:

Freedom of the press is key to a working democracy to hold those in power to account. I fail to see how that can't be tempered in cases of clear harassment. I think I counted over 30 articles on the Daily Mail front page today doing nothing more than bullying Harry's missus. Just makes me want to see some of these so called journalists given a good kicking quite frankly. 

when one wants to reach the final stage of "enlightment", one goes through a couple of phases: school (do as I say, not as I do), work (do as I say, not as I do), media (think as we tell you to think: trump is bad), experience (hmm, economy is at an all time high, peace with north korea, iranians of all people protesting in favor of the americans), then personal study (I want to know more about the history of relations between north korea and america, about the history of relations between iran and america), and finally:  understanding (the media is merely a propaganda machine for the left).

it seems to me, left people are stuck in the third stage: media, as a source of knowledge, therefore can never reach the final stage of enlightment.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

How so?

Calling someone ''filth'' just because they read a paper you don't agree with?

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Calling someone ''filth'' just because they read a paper you don't agree with?

If the cap fits and all that.

[action]

25 minutes ago, Dazey said:

If the cap fits and all that.

yeah, such filth, the people who read newspapers 

[Padme]

39 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Calling someone ''filth'' just because they read a paper you don't agree with?

The question is why there are people who need to read about Harry, Meghan, the whole royal family and celebrities in general all the time?

Do we need 100 articles and pictures about Hugh Grant or David Beckham? It is clear that millions of people around the world want that.

 

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Padme said:

The question is why there are people who need to read about Harry, Meghan, the whole royal family and celebrities in general all the time?

Do we need 100 articles and pictures about Hugh Grant or David Beckham? It is clear that millions of people around the world want that.

 

 

 

I am not interested in reading about the royals, Hugh Grant or Beckham, but I wouldn't call people who desire to read about it ''filth''. 

[action]

Just now, Padme said:

The question is why there are people who need to read about Harry, Meghan, the whole royal family and celebrities in general all the time?

Do we need 100 articles and pictures about Hugh Grant or David Beckham? It is clear that millions of people around the world want that.

 

 

 

people read, because they want to know about the subject, for the most diverse reasons you can think of.

for example, I've read "mein kampf" the other day. a highly anti-semetic, racist book that was the basis for killing 6 million people. one could wonder "the question is why people want to read mein kampf", but the answer is simple: because I wanted to know more, because the book was instrumental in the genocide and I generally want to know what I'm talking about (people bring up hitler all the time, so I thought that was a necessary exercise)

to label people "filth" because they read things, can't be anything else than a bad joke because it's litterally based on nothing.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

 

I cannot believe he's walking away from  the greatest gig in the world. Life of second in line to the throne is such sweet existence. He could just bomb around the countryside in a land rover just doing whatever he wants. Hole himself up in a castle in Scotland for months shooting anything that moves and pop  into London every few months for a photo opportunity with the press to keep them sweet. 

You don't get the pressure of actually having to do the main job. Which the way these royals manage to survive to these days is getting into your mid 70's to be given the really heavy job.

 

Fuckin' madness innit?  That job is the biggest doss in the fuckin' world, how fuckin' hard is it?  Grow some fuckin' bollocks, his missus as well, she must've known what she was fuckin' signing up for, oh what, you wannabe normal?  Y'know what fuckin' normal is, normal is sticking ten quid on the fuckin' meter to turn the electric on, normal is spaghetti hoops on toast for fuckin' tea, normal is zero hour contracts, flexi-time and seperating your cack into different coloured bins.  Fuck that shit.  I was born to be a royal, me, I'm a fuckin' good for nothing lazy malingering shitehawk that would love nothing more than a big castle that I could lay around all day in my underpants, stumbling around the botanical gardens with a double barrel shooting at foxes and stoats and fuckin'...any fuckin' cunt that moved.  And he wants to give that up, he should be fuckin' ashamed of himself, the ginger twat.  All you've gotta do is stand there and get your picture taken with the firm every fuckin' once in a blue moon, stand still and face forward, how fuckin' difficult is that?!

Edited January 13, 2020 by Len Cnut

[Dazey]

7 minutes ago, Padme said:

The question is why there are people who need to read about Harry, Meghan, the whole royal family and celebrities in general all the time?

Do we need 100 articles and pictures about Hugh Grant or David Beckham? It is clear that millions of people around the world want that.

Exactly! These people are filth!  

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not interested in reading about the royals, Hugh Grant or Beckham, but I wouldn't call people who desire to read about it ''filth''. 

I would.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I am not interested in reading about the royals, Hugh Grant or Beckham, but I wouldn't call people who desire to read about it ''filth''. 

I'd happily call the lot of em filth.  Sun, Mirror, Guardian, Indepedent, The Times, The Mail, any fuckin' papers readers out there.  The human race in general in fact.  'The man on the street is a cunt' S Vicious, 1977.

[action]

the left should make an "index librorum prohibitorum" so us plebeians can at least know what we can read and what not, on the risk of being called filth

 

[DieselDaisy]

The modern left are thoroughly illiberal. They simply cannot countenance another opinion from their own.

 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, action said:

the left should make an "index librorum prohibitorum" so us plebeians can at least know what we can read and what not, on the risk of being called filth

 

Wasn't the left concieved for the benefits of plebians?

[action]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The modern left are thoroughly illiberal. They simply cannot countenance another opinion from their own.

 

not only that, before there is even a chance to form a different opinion, they would also deny us the access to books / newspapers which they would deem "dangerous", by using social control and character assassination as effective means.

there'll sooner be democracy in china than in a left-controlled society

hell, even the iranians are allowed to protest against the regime of all places. here in the left-controlled west the water cannons would have already arrived

Edited January 13, 2020 by action

[action]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Wasn't the left concieved for the benefits of plebians?

the real left died somewhere in the middle of the 19th century, before it even had a chance to put their stamp on the government.

make no mistake, what goes as "the left" these days is anything but the real left. the left today does not act in the best interest of ordinary people, rather on the contrary. trade unions were created to silence the people, as they are controlled by the big companies.

[Padme]

9 minutes ago, action said:

people read, because they want to know about the subject, for the most diverse reasons you can think of.

for example, I've read "mein kampf" the other day. a highly anti-semetic, racist book that was the basis for killing 6 million people. one could wonder "the question is why people want to read mein kampf", but the answer is simple: because I wanted to know more, because the book was instrumental in the genocide and I generally want to know what I'm talking about (people bring up hitler all the time, so I thought that was a necessary exercise)

to label people "filth" because they read things, can't be anything else than a bad joke because it's litterally based on nothing.

We're not talking about books. We're talking about the people and the media who care about a picture of Jennifer Aniston naked in a beach. Don't you think there is something wrong with that kind of media and those people?

Do they have the right? Of course! But we have the right to question them

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not interested in reading about the royals, Hugh Grant or Beckham, but I wouldn't call people who desire to read about it ''filth''. 

Call them whatever you want. But it is clear something is wrong with them and with that kind of media. And this should be a matter of serious debate by sociology, psychology and people within the media themselves.

 

[action]

3 minutes ago, Padme said:

We're not talking about books. We're talking about the people and the media who care about a picture of Jennifer Aniston naked in a beach. Don't you think there is something wrong with that kind of media and those people?

Do they have the right? Of course! But we have the right to question them

Call them whatever you want. But it is clear something is wrong with them and with that kind of media. And this should be a matter of serious debate by sociology, psychology and people within the media themselves.

 

a lot of people care about jennifer aniston naked on the beach. I don't think there is nothing wrong with that. if jennifer aniston decides to ditch her bra in a public place, then it was her choice to begin with.

you can't expect to be showing boobs in a public place and expect people to look the other way, lol.

I see absolutely not problem whatsoever, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited January 13, 2020 by action