UKC

Ian Lavery. For those who accuse the BBC of left wing bias

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 TMM 20 Oct 2017
Very interesting story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280

Those are some highly unusual arrangements by anyone's standards.

Happy to see pigs in the trough being exposed on all side off the political spectrum. Will look forward to some further digging from Private Eye.
 GregCHF 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

You just need to look at the left's reaction to Laura Kuenssberg to see there is not a left wing bias to the BBC.

I would also argue that the BBC does not have a right wing bias either.

I feel the BBC walks a pretty fine tight rope of impartiality that it may fall off of some times, but overall it is remarkably good.
2
OP TMM 20 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:

Agreed. She actually needed to have protection at the Labour conference. Truly a 'different kind of politics'.

Cannot abide the BBC bashing from the right wing press or from Momentum. I think they do a pretty decent job in challenging circumstances and as a result I am happy to pay my licence fee rather than allow the free market to dictate media presence.
2
 MonkeyPuzzle 20 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:

I'd argue that they're centrist rather than impartial. Their 'balance' on issues where in reality there is none (especially climate change) demonstrates this.
 Jon Stewart 20 Oct 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think they do a good effort on the impossible task of impartiality. But they do make obvious mistakes when they fail to see the difference between facts, opinions, and outright lies - they played a part in Brexit, as well as the climate change nonsense they allow.
3
 Greasy Prusiks 20 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:

> I feel the BBC walks a pretty fine tight rope of impartiality that it may fall off of some times, but overall it is remarkably good.


No yes absolutely, very strong.
OP TMM 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think they do a good effort on the impossible task of impartiality. But they do make obvious mistakes when they fail to see the difference between facts, opinions, and outright lies - they played a part in Brexit, as well as the climate change nonsense they allow.

I agree. The need for balance does not take into account the credentials of the participants on some of these contentious subjects. That is something that will be very difficult to counter short of offering a validated CV before each person ventures and opinion.
 rj_townsend 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I think they do a good effort on the impossible task of impartiality. But they do make obvious mistakes when they fail to see the difference between facts, opinions, and outright lies - they played a part in Brexit, as well as the climate change nonsense they allow.

I very much agree. My concern with the BBC is that they now take the route of providing "analysis", which I do not regard as their function. It's their role to present what has been said, by whom, and when. It is then up to the viewer/listener to decide what their opinion is of those facts.
Post edited at 14:36
1
 alastairmac 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

The BBC are certainly not impartial in Scotland or good value for money.. They take every opportunity to talk down the Scottish government and anything resembling good news about our country. They see their role as protecting the UK union and generating a negative bias towards anything that supports the cause of Scottish sovereignty. That's compounded by the proportion of BBC income generated in Scotland that is channelled into Scottish content. It's insultingly low. So time for a new Scottish state broadcaster.
17
 Rob Parsons 20 Oct 2017
In reply to rj_townsend:

> I very much agree. My concern with the BBC is that they now take the route of providing "analysis", which I do not regard as their function. It's their role to present what has been said, by whom, and when. It is then up to the viewer/listener to decide what their opinion is of those facts.

Since no broadcaster or newspaper can present *everything* said by *everybody*, there will always a need for some editorial analysis - if only to decide who or what's to be reported on. So even a 'straight facts' presentation will invariably sin (in the eyes of some) by omission, at least.
 pec 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

> Very interesting story.


In what way does this tell us anything about BBC bias?
 Greenbanks 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

Give me Fox News or Sky any time for clear, balanced and non-partisan reporting.

Err. I have got that right, haven't I?
1
OP TMM 20 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

> In what way does this tell us anything about BBC bias?

Because if you believed the rhetoric of the right wing media you would believe that the BBC gives lefties an easier ride. The article itself and the somewhat incredulous tone of voice suggests that the journalist and publisher are happy to challenge failings in public figures where they see fit regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
1
 Si_G 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

I generally see them as the PR agency of UKIP. Furrage is never off the telly. And I regard myself as pretty centrist, generally.
i.e. I think all the main parties stink, just different smells.
2
 The New NickB 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

I think they tend to be quite deferential to power. The whole lack of coverage of the Tory election expenses scandal was quite telling.
1
Tanke 20 Oct 2017


Left and right ? Don't make me laugh.
There is no left in UK just like there is non in USA. You are so far to right you think Momentum are left when they are just social democrat. The BBC British and American empire voice is so lie about everything.
5
 Siward 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Yes, exactly, no. George!
 FactorXXX 20 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

Because if you believed the rhetoric of the right wing media you would believe that the BBC gives lefties an easier ride.

Strange, weren't people complaining of the BBC being anti Corbyn until very recently?
 Robert Durran 21 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:

> The BBC are certainly not impartial in Scotland or good value for money.. They take every opportunity to talk down the Scottish government and anything resembling good news about our country.

Sorry, but I just don't see this. They seem pretty evenhanded to me and they certainly don't talk down good news.

> So time for a new Scottish state broadcaster.

Would you be happy with a Scottish state broadcaster that you saw as even handed between the Union and independence?

 alastairmac 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes. Absolutely. Comprehensive, honest and impartial journalism with Scottish affairs and interests as the point of reference.
2
 pec 21 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

> Because if you believed the rhetoric of the right wing media you would believe that the BBC gives lefties an easier ride. The article itself and the somewhat incredulous tone of voice suggests that the journalist and publisher are happy to challenge failings in public figures where they see fit regardless of their position on the political spectrum. >

One article about a Labour MP who's been up to something quite dodgy which they probably couldn't ignore even if they wanted to proves absolutely nothing about BBC bias. The fact you think it does says far more about your bias than the BBC's.
Bias in the BBC isn't like the sort of state propaganda we see in China or Russia, it's much more subtle than that. Choice of interviewees, time given to each side of a debate, selection of audience, loading of questions, opinions stated as accepted facts as the premise of a question and that sort of thing is where bias creeps in.
For what its worth I find the BBC's news coverage pretty even handed from a left/right perspective, on the radio at least, I don't watch TV.
On the other hand I'd say it definitely has a liberal (small l) metropolitan bias, probably because its packed out with liberal metropolitan types who all confirm each other's bias and therefore can't see it, much as Tanke in his post above thinks there's no left in the UK and Momentum and centre ground! Lets guess who he hangs out with.

4
 Dr.S at work 21 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:

How will that be judged objectively? And more generally, how can we objectively judge the degree of overt or unconscious bias in any media organisation?
 PATTISON Bill 21 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

Never knew 136 seconds equated to 10 minutes.
 krikoman 21 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:

> You just need to look at the left's reaction to Laura Kuenssberg to see there is not a left wing bias to the BBC.

> I would also argue that the BBC does not have a right wing bias either.

> I feel the BBC walks a pretty fine tight rope of impartiality that it may fall off of some times, but overall it is remarkably good.

Take an interest in the middle east, and you'll soon see bias within the BBC and how things are reported!
1
 krikoman 21 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

> Agreed. She actually needed to have protection at the Labour conference. Truly a 'different kind of politics'.

Or did she? Was this just a smoke screen to take some lustre off the conference and focus the media away from what was actually, sound political alternatives to what we're dealing with now.

I don't really know the answer, but THIS is what became a major news item not the conference or what was being said.

4
Tanke 21 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

If you know media from China Russia they tell thing straight but BBC fool people that they are imprtial when they the opposite.BBCs represent British establishment in Uk and tbe world by spreading lies about places USA and UK want war on. This hheard on British BBC radio and tv news and articles of a news all the time constant when talk of Russia,Syria,Ukraine and rest BBC are not different to CNNs or Fox same lies and yellow journalist.
It is so obvious I don't believe I need to tell this as you must know or have they done such a good work to fool you?
2
 pec 21 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Or did she? Was this just a smoke screen to take some lustre off the conference and focus the media away from what was actually, sound political alternatives to what we're dealing with now. >

No, she did need protection
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/laura-kuenssberg-body...

" there is a small, self-righteous and aggressively entitled minority within the left . . . . whose behaviour now risks tarnishing that wider movement. They may grudgingly accept that Kuenssberg needs physical protection – and it’s amazing how many people are confident in declaring from the comfort of their armchairs that she doesn’t really, despite not having a clue about her situation"

Sounds like you that does.

"(For the record, she has been targeted by both far right and far left; and the BBC doesn’t employ security just for laughs.) The rage against her in some quarters is visceral, frenzied, beyond all reason."

And this is from the Grauniad, not the Torygraph.

 pec 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Tanke:

> If you know media from China Russia they tell thing straight but BBC fool people that they are imprtial when they the opposite.BBCs represent British establishment in Uk and tbe world by spreading lies about places USA and UK want war on. This hheard on British BBC radio and tv news and articles of a news all the time constant when talk of Russia,Syria,Ukraine and rest BBC are not different to CNNs or Fox same lies and yellow journalist.

> It is so obvious I don't believe I need to tell this as you must know or have they done such a good work to fool you?

Well this post confirms it, you really do live in a parallel universe (in more ways than one).
Tanke 21 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:
> Well this post confirms it, you really do live in a parallel universe (in more ways than one).

Try play game not man unless you fail at that.
Post edited at 13:43
3
 krikoman 21 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:
Like I said I didn't know, and it's very sad that anyone should need a bodyguard in our country, whoever they are.

I think a lot of "the rage against" her was misdirected rage, which would be more fairly directed at the BBC editorial department. There are examples of Kuenssburg being biased against Corbyn.

In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines. A viewer had complained about her item, which featured an interview with Jeremy Corbyn on the BBC News at Six which was edited to give the incorrect impression that Corbyn disagreed with the use of firearms by police in incidents such as that month's terrorist attacks in Paris. His purported answer to a question as broadcast in the report was in fact his reply to a more general (unbroadcast) question, not specifically about that terrorist attack.[23] The BBC Trust said that the inaccuracy was "compounded" when Kuenssberg went on to state that Corbyn's message "couldn't be more different" from that of the prime minister Theresa May, who was about to publish anti-terrorism proposals. The trust said that accuracy was particularly important when dealing "with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern".

So not exactly unbiased reporting, or that she was unaware of its implications. It wasn't just the editing which made the interview false.
Post edited at 14:08
1
In reply to GregCHF:

The BBC simply reflect the views of the British establishment. If the establishment swung a little left it would move left.
It tries to be independent of other bodies but somebody, somewhere, generally public school, white, male and Oxbridge educated is making decisions every day about what is news and what priority each piece of news has. This is one of the methods the establishment uses to keep power.
This is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing. Change would simply give that power to somebody else.
But to say the BBC is not biased is categorically untrue. Its views on, for example Scottish independence, the Middle East, the USA reflect the establishment's bias and tastes.
 Postmanpat 21 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:
"The standard glib response to accusations of BBC bias is to point out that “left-wingers and right-wingers both think the BBC is biased against them, so it must be getting things about right.” But what this misses is that both sides’ charges are in fact correct. BBC reporting is shaped by the prevailing consensus among the political and social elite – which nowadays means that it is biased to the left on some issues (eg sexuality, gender politics), and to the right on others (eg economics, the monarchy). On most issues, though, the BBC is biased towards the centre and against both left and right (see e.g. its routine use of ‘moderate’ as a term of approval, especially in foreign reporting)."
quote,unquote
Post edited at 16:44
Tanke 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (see e.g. its routine use of ‘moderate’ as a term of approval, especially in foreign reporting).

Yes the BBC reports their friends whos cut head off Syrians as"Moderate rebels"and when they come over to your one then they are changed to a terrorist. example
Post edited at 16:54
 alastairmac 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:

There have been a number of academic studies published which rely on qualitative and quantitative analysis. Some desk work based around story counts and focus groups to gauge perception and interpretation. And they're pretty conclusive. But if you watch Reporting Scotland regularly you probably don't need an academic study to tell you that. A topical example. The announcement in the run up to the 2014 referendum that 13 modern naval vessels were to be built on the Clyde making it a "warship factory". Wall to wall coverage. Promise broken and the previous order massively downgraded by the same Defence Minister. Deafening silence. The bottom line is Scotland does not have its own broadcast media or Scottish owned print media. We rely on the state broadcaster of a neighbouring country which doesn't see Scottish interests as a priority and is actively antagonistic to anything that supports Scottish sovereignty. Oh..and we also pay to support it despite getting little value from it in terms of news and current affairs.
 MG 21 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:
Cobblers. The (British, note) BBC spends almost 50% more per head in Scotland than England. The Scotsman, as one example, is Scottish owned.
Post edited at 17:48
2
 alastairmac 21 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

That's all wrong I'm afraid. The 50% figure is completely off the mark. Of all the revenue raised by the BBC in Scotland less than 35% of it is channelled into Scottish programming. The lowest proportion of any of the UK nations. And while the owners of The Scotsman, Johnston Press, has its registered office in Edinburgh, its rapid expansion in the late 80's and early 90's means that most of its titles are now in other parts of the UK and its management operations are based elsewhere. And it's currently the subject of a fairly hostile takeover by a Scandinavian media mogul. Incidentally if you've read it recently it is the most virulently unionist and Un Scottish of newspapers. Not surprising given the content sharing structures operated across the Johnston Press regional newspaper portfolio. As a result it now sells just over 20,000 copies about half of which are at a discounted price.
 alastairmac 21 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
Figures used by James Purnell representing the BBC! I think you've just made my point. Firstly the figures are from 2014 are are massively skewed by the referendum and the Commonwealth Games. Secondly, as I've said, they in no way reflect the meagre amount of the licence fee taken out of Scotland and channelled into Scottish programming. The figures you're quoting relate to the BBC dishing up whatever coverage it wants to Scottish viewers regardless of relevance or the origin or focus of content. That's why there is so much demand in Scotland for our own public service broadcaster.
Post edited at 19:18
1
 MG 21 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:

No doubt the SNP goverment will start one if you are right.
In reply to alastairmac:

You'll have the figure to back that statement (last sentence) up?
 Dr.S at work 22 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:

Could be worse - take the midlands for instance:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/outrage-91-midland-b...

Or a lot better - like in Wales where nearly 90% of income is spent on Welsh programming vs the just over 50% for Scotland.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/BBC-FS-2016...

In fact from the report above spending in Wales and Scotland is almost equal at around 170 million in 15/16. No doubt this reflects the fact that the services offered by the BBC to Wales are similar to those offered to Scotland - Welsh and Gaelic programming and channels, radio channels, TV programming. Do you think it's reasonable that the two nations get similar amounts of devolved programming, or should Scotland get more because of its larger population?

 GregCHF 23 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines.

>The BBC Trust said that the inaccuracy was "compounded" when Kuenssberg went on to state that Corbyn's message "couldn't be more different" from that of the prime minister Theresa May, who was about to publish anti-terrorism proposals.

>The trust said that accuracy was particularly important when dealing "with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern".


The BBC has recognized that the reporting wasn't up to standard, had an investigation and acted accordingly.

It has not shied away from it's mistake, it stated the story was inaccurate and Kuenssberg was in the wrong.

Your argument backs the rhetoric that BBC is impartial.

Is that what you were going for?
 krikoman 23 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:

> Your argument backs the rhetoric that BBC is impartial.

> Is that what you were going for?

Not really no, I was going for the revelation that Kuenssberg, isn't impartial and some people might have genuine grievances against her and therefore the BBC. She's not stupid and she must have known what she was doing, so why do it? That fact that she's still got a job must mean something isn't quite right. What right has she to distort the truth? And for what purpose?

To say the BBC is impartial because they offered and apology doesn't really follow. It did what it had to do. Like newspapers tapping peoples phones they knew what they were doing, apologising doesn't mean they're innocent.
1
 Postmanpat 23 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Not really no, I was going for the revelation that Kuenssberg, isn't impartial and some people might have genuine grievances against her and therefore the BBC. She's not stupid and she must have known what she was doing, so why do it?
>
Probably because it was a reasonable interpretation of Corbyn's pusillanimous answers and was also a good story.
The BBC rejected the complaint four times before the Trust eventually accepted it.

So, it was a marginal error that the loony left has blown out of all proportion thus necessitating bodyguards for her.
1
 GregCHF 23 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Kuenssberg is on TV everyday, covering a range of stories. You are siting 1 story form 2 years ago she made a mistake on. That is 1 story in probably about 500 (and that is generous to you) since that was not up to standard, this does not take in to account all the stories she published before that date. The BBC has published an investigation in to it (it is also important to take in to account what postmanpat said), demonstrating impartiality. Using one data point as evidence for a trend does not work.

Are you saying that no one ever makes mistakes in there job? You must be bloody good at yours.

I also think that comparing analysis on a story you don't like, to the illegal phone tapping of vulnerable people is a massive extrapolation that does not align. If she had done something illegal, she would not still have her job. You are using an unrelated emotive issue to try and win argument, that is not a valid position.

Edited for spelling and clarity.
Post edited at 13:50
1
 krikoman 23 Oct 2017
In reply to GregCHF:
> Are you saying that no one ever makes mistakes in there job? You must be bloody good at yours.

There's making mistakes, and then there's making stuff up, I think you'll agree there's a difference.

> I also think that comparing analysis on a story you don't like, to the illegal phone tapping of vulnerable people is a massive extrapolation that does not align. If she had done something illegal, she would not still have her job. You are using an unrelated emotive issue to try and win argument, that is not a valid position.

I'm not suggesting the two things are similar in legality, I'm suggesting that apologising after the fact, in both these cases, doesn't make it right.

I mentioned this "one" story because I was replying to the second post in the thread (remember the one you wrote - the one mentioning Kunessburg). I have plenty of other examples of BBC bias, especially in relation to Palestine (which is when I first became aware of it). This just happened to be the one mentioned in the thread when I read it, and to be honest you we the one who first brought it up!!

I realise that Kunessburg is the darling of the Tories, but that doesn't mean she honest.
Post edited at 14:22
 krikoman 24 Oct 2017
In reply to TMM:

When did you last here about this on theSix O'clock news?

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelVsJudaism/posts/311260169279806
 Postmanpat 24 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> I realise that Kunessburg is the darling of the Tories, but that doesn't mean she honest.
>
Only in your head and those of your lefty chums does she meet this description.

1
In reply to TMM:

Some on the right complain that the BBC is biased towards the left. Some on the left complain it is biased towards the right.

Which tells me that they are probably striking a decent balance.
 Postmanpat 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

LOL. See my comment of 16.38 Saturday.....
 krikoman 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Only in your head and those of your lefty chums does she meet this description.

What, the honesty bit?
In reply to Postmanpat:

> LOL. See my comment of 16.38 Saturday.....

Haha! Guilty! It was a glib comment, but I do think they generally do a good job of walking a very difficult line.
1
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> What, the honesty bit?

No, "the daring of the Tories" bit.

By the way, how did you feel about Paul Mason as business editor of Newsnight for all those years?
 krikoman 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, "the daring of the Tories" bit.

"The daring" of the Tories, is very appropriate.

> By the way, how did you feel about Paul Mason as business editor of Newsnight for all those years?

Great
1
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Great

And Andrew Marr, he of the infamous Lenin hat?

And Ian Katz, deputy editor of the garianad as editor of Newsnight?

Equally great one assumes
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat: and krikoman

A loony right poster and loony left poster each arguing the BBC is biased against them. I think that tells what we need to know!

2
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> and krikoman

> A loony right poster and loony left poster each arguing the BBC is biased against them. I think that tells what we need to know!

I noticed from this and the brexit thread that you have now apparently abandoned reading what is written. I think that tells us what we need to know....!
 krikoman 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> and krikoman

> A loony right poster and loony left poster each arguing the BBC is biased against them. I think that tells what we need to know!

Oi Oi less of the loony thanks
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

You saying PMP isn't a right wing loon?
1
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> You saying PMP isn't a right wing loon?

I though getting your Irish passport may have helped you regain your sanity! Apparently not.....
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> You saying PMP isn't a right wing loon?

I'll have you know, I'm in the same political quadrant as Ghandi!!
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Hardly surprising, he was obsessed with smashing up political systems too.
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> Hardly surprising, he was obsessed with smashing up political systems too.

He was obsessed with democracy........if that makes one a "right wing loon" then I'll sign up.

You seem to imagine brexit is "right wing", despite all the evidence that it is not.
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Eye-roll. You yourself lumped it in with Trump and other populist politicians. It was led by Farage, Gove, Cummings Banks, et al. If you don't think they are right wing, fine use another term. You're still a loon.
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> Eye-roll. You yourself lumped it in with Trump and other populist politicians. It was led by Farage, Gove, Cummings Banks, et al. If you don't think they are right wing, fine use another term. You're still a loon.
>
Doh! As anti-elite undemocratic establishment, not right wing. Sheesh...get with the programme!

What is weird is not that you disagree with the arguments but you don't even register them.

Anyway I'll leave you to extract your head from that sand.....
Post edited at 20:42
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Doh! As anti-elite undemocratic establishment,

My apologies, you are an anti-elite undemocratic establishment, loon.

 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> My apologies, you are an anti-elite undemocratic establishment, loon.

Happy with that. Wouldn't want to be one of you sheeple
Post edited at 20:45
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Good god, that was joke! But if you accept the label and support democracy, how can you the accept increasingly certain effects of Russia on all the elections those you support benefited from while obsessing over minor deficiencies there are in the EU system? How can you possibly accept the attacks of brexiteers on the judiciary, the newspapers, universities and individuals if you support democracy? If you don't like the elite, why tolerate the economic effects on everyone who isn't wealthy of brexit? It's just mad.ness
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> Good god, that was joke! But if you accept the label and support democracy, how can you the accept increasingly certain effects of Russia on all the elections those you support benefited from while obsessing over minor deficiencies there are in the EU system? How can you possibly accept the attacks of brexiteers on the judiciary, the newspapers, universities and individuals if you support democracy? If you don't like the elite, why tolerate the economic effects on everyone who isn't wealthy of brexit? It's just mad.ness

You're a loony!! I don't accept those things. They are a symptom of the frustration of ordinary people with the "system". The system therefore needs to change to stop these things happening. Look at the real right wingers getting voted for or elected all over Europe. There's a reason they are popular and it's because the existing structures and attitudes of the elites are obsolescent.
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You're a loony!! I don't accept those things.

So you don't support the effects of Brexit but support Brexit! As I said utter maddness. Most right-wing groups have strong support, financial in many cases, of Russia, like the Brexit campaign. You claim to be worried by these groups but are fully signed up to and brainwashed by one of them!
https://www.ft.com/content/ff1f1cdc-9227-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923?mhq5j=e7
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> So you don't support the effects of Brexit but support Brexit! As I said utter maddness.
>
So Russian support for continental right wing groups is the result of brexit. And I'm the mad one!
Really, you need to calm down. I'll leave you to it because I don't think I have a calming effect.
Post edited at 21:18
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So Russian support for continental right wing groups is the result of brexit.

I'm sure it hasn't hurt them, but no, that's not what I said. Brexit is the result of the British version of these groups winning a referendum, very likely with Russian support. That you miss this, and see it has a deference against them is just bizarre.
 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> I'm sure it hasn't hurt them, but no, that's not what I said. Brexit is the result of the British version of these groups winning a referendum, very likely with Russian support. That you miss this, and see it has a deference against them is just bizarre.

Ah right, brexit was a russian plot. I see.
 MG 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat: Again, that’s clearly not what I said. That you resort to this sort of childishness now when Brexit is discussed does suggest some dissonance going on.

 Postmanpat 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> Again, that’s clearly not what I said. That you resort to this sort of childishness now when Brexit is discussed does suggest some dissonance going on.

Surely you're not suggesting this is a serious discussion? I thought you were were taking the piss!
 krikoman 26 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> You saying PMP isn't a right wing loon?

Obviously, not

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...