Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The last 2 posts I have written that have been removed:
Is someone OUTSIDE of BF as is claimed, removing the posts, or are you SO BAD at moderating the forums that you remove inoffensive stuff because you're running the forum to nothing?
On a thread called 'where the remainiacs went wrong' by Burt06.
The post was merely an analogy which drew parallels between the brexit thing and a Football cup final.
Something along the lines of;
I don't know why you started this thread.
It's like your team won the cup final after extra time and penalties, but you want the losing side's supporters to agree your side was best and deserved the win.
Even to support your team!
Isn't it enough that your side won the match?
WHY WAS THIS REMOVED?????
The replies to it are there, it broke NO rules and wasn't remotely offensive.
The longer one was on a thread called 'should there be another brexit vote?'
This was it:
Just Checking • January 27, 2018 6:07 PM GMT
Total rubbish. LOL because remain was so positive, right and not horrendous scare mongering? And it was cross party, every party bar UKIP was essentialy pro remain so why attack the Tories? Well that's explained next sentence, you like Corbyn. Well any credibility goes right there, the guy is skum.
And fleet street and the media are sooooooo pro May and Boris? He's roundly ridiculed and has been for years. What planet are you on?
I ignore some garbage on here, not always, but The above garbage takes the biscuit and it can't go unremarked upon.
Before you start rounding on me as a "remoaner" or any other perceived sleight, I frankly couldn't care less if we stay or leave.
The chip on your shoulder is so big, Just Checking, you must have to lean to one side.
Nearly every post on any thread has an anti-Corbyn, The BBC/C4/radio/papers are left-wing collaborators, etc etc
If ANYTHING is wrong in the country or the world, it's the fault of the lefties, or the Guardian, or Corbyn. They can NEVER be right about anything, can they?
The Corbyn sentence above leaves NO room for Father Maguire to respond to or reason with you. That he did manage a polite answer is creditworthy.
Boris has been ridiculed, but no-one from Labour (especially Corbyn) has. Right?
Some (Freely available & factual) information and education, as I'm off today:
The BBC political team is largely made up from former Conservative party activists and supporters. As listed many times, yet ignored as it doesn't suit the mantra.
Just look up, Andrew Neil, Nick Robertson, Kuenssberg, Paxman (though he moved from Lab to Con).
Newspapers with biggest circulation (IN ORDER OF CIRCULATION NUMBERS) and their ownership and political leanings:
The Sun - 1.7 million - Conservative - supported Brexit, Slated Corbyn, influential
Daily Mail - 1.5 million - Conservative except when Ukip, (In the 30's Supported Mosely, Pro Mussolini & Hitler Appealed to blackshirts then, still does.), Supported Brexit, Slated Corbyn, Wikipedia no longer links to Mail because of so much made up stuff, still influential.
Metro - 1.5 million - Owned by the same group as the Daily Mail, not very influential.
Evening Standard - 880,000 - Conservative - Edited by George Osborne, Very Conservative, especially in London Mayoral elections - look it up! A bit influentisl
Daily Mirror - 725,000 - Labour - was biggest selling paper until Robert Maxwell's nonsense, now mostly toothless. Slated Boris.
Telegraph - 475,000 - The Torygraph - Only a complete idiot could suggest this was a leftie rag.
Times - 450,000 - Generally Conservative, had some moments of 'New Labour' but not for long. Owned by Murdoch, MANY links to Conservative party
Star - 440,000 - not very political, but anti-labour.
Express - 400,000 - Like the Star, owned by Richard Desmond, who donated £1.3 million to Ukip - slightly influential.
i - 260,000 - Deliberately non political, doesn't take any stance, wouldn't say Yes OR No about Brexit. - nothing to influence anyone with.
Financial Times - 195,000 - Currently Conservative, I'd suggest it's mostly read by Conservative voters anyway.
Guardian (SO powerful
but with a circulation of less than 160,000) - Labour. Though was never Pro-Corbyn
Not that ANY of these facts will filter through, because it would ruin your reason for existing on here.
But, as you can see, virtually all your assertions are fundamentally wrong.
Feel free to tell me you couldn't be bothered to read all this... (same for the rest of the gang!).
Perhaps you can say why these posts AND SO MANY OTHERS are being removed so regularly.
Is someone OUTSIDE of BF as is claimed, removing the posts, or are you SO BAD at moderating the forums that you remove inoffensive stuff because you're running the forum to nothing?
On a thread called 'where the remainiacs went wrong' by Burt06.
The post was merely an analogy which drew parallels between the brexit thing and a Football cup final.
Something along the lines of;
I don't know why you started this thread.
It's like your team won the cup final after extra time and penalties, but you want the losing side's supporters to agree your side was best and deserved the win.
Even to support your team!
Isn't it enough that your side won the match?
WHY WAS THIS REMOVED?????
The replies to it are there, it broke NO rules and wasn't remotely offensive.
The longer one was on a thread called 'should there be another brexit vote?'
This was it:
Just Checking • January 27, 2018 6:07 PM GMT
Total rubbish. LOL because remain was so positive, right and not horrendous scare mongering? And it was cross party, every party bar UKIP was essentialy pro remain so why attack the Tories? Well that's explained next sentence, you like Corbyn. Well any credibility goes right there, the guy is skum.
And fleet street and the media are sooooooo pro May and Boris? He's roundly ridiculed and has been for years. What planet are you on?
I ignore some garbage on here, not always, but The above garbage takes the biscuit and it can't go unremarked upon.
Before you start rounding on me as a "remoaner" or any other perceived sleight, I frankly couldn't care less if we stay or leave.
The chip on your shoulder is so big, Just Checking, you must have to lean to one side.
Nearly every post on any thread has an anti-Corbyn, The BBC/C4/radio/papers are left-wing collaborators, etc etc
If ANYTHING is wrong in the country or the world, it's the fault of the lefties, or the Guardian, or Corbyn. They can NEVER be right about anything, can they?
The Corbyn sentence above leaves NO room for Father Maguire to respond to or reason with you. That he did manage a polite answer is creditworthy.
Boris has been ridiculed, but no-one from Labour (especially Corbyn) has. Right?
Some (Freely available & factual) information and education, as I'm off today:
The BBC political team is largely made up from former Conservative party activists and supporters. As listed many times, yet ignored as it doesn't suit the mantra.
Just look up, Andrew Neil, Nick Robertson, Kuenssberg, Paxman (though he moved from Lab to Con).
Newspapers with biggest circulation (IN ORDER OF CIRCULATION NUMBERS) and their ownership and political leanings:
The Sun - 1.7 million - Conservative - supported Brexit, Slated Corbyn, influential
Daily Mail - 1.5 million - Conservative except when Ukip, (In the 30's Supported Mosely, Pro Mussolini & Hitler Appealed to blackshirts then, still does.), Supported Brexit, Slated Corbyn, Wikipedia no longer links to Mail because of so much made up stuff, still influential.
Metro - 1.5 million - Owned by the same group as the Daily Mail, not very influential.
Evening Standard - 880,000 - Conservative - Edited by George Osborne, Very Conservative, especially in London Mayoral elections - look it up! A bit influentisl
Daily Mirror - 725,000 - Labour - was biggest selling paper until Robert Maxwell's nonsense, now mostly toothless. Slated Boris.
Telegraph - 475,000 - The Torygraph - Only a complete idiot could suggest this was a leftie rag.
Times - 450,000 - Generally Conservative, had some moments of 'New Labour' but not for long. Owned by Murdoch, MANY links to Conservative party
Star - 440,000 - not very political, but anti-labour.
Express - 400,000 - Like the Star, owned by Richard Desmond, who donated £1.3 million to Ukip - slightly influential.
i - 260,000 - Deliberately non political, doesn't take any stance, wouldn't say Yes OR No about Brexit. - nothing to influence anyone with.
Financial Times - 195,000 - Currently Conservative, I'd suggest it's mostly read by Conservative voters anyway.
Guardian (SO powerful
but with a circulation of less than 160,000) - Labour. Though was never Pro-CorbynNot that ANY of these facts will filter through, because it would ruin your reason for existing on here.
But, as you can see, virtually all your assertions are fundamentally wrong.
Feel free to tell me you couldn't be bothered to read all this... (same for the rest of the gang!).
Perhaps you can say why these posts AND SO MANY OTHERS are being removed so regularly.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 34
|
By:
See my comment on Burt06's thread.
|
|
By:
I responded on there, foinavon. Assuming it's still there.
Just look at the lack of traffic on this forum. I reckon it's about 10% of ten years ago. Maybe less. They've killed their own forum. It'll cost custom for sure. |
|
By:
Feel free to tell me you couldn't be bothered to read all this... (same for the rest of the gang!).
Removed for Being too long no one read it |
|
By:
No-one's twisting your arm to read anything.
|
|
By:
Didnt say they were, But most people will look at a Post if its too long they wont read it .FACT.. That post is too long
 |
|
By:
Online viewing of news more significant :
. http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites |
|
By:
It was reposted because it was removed. FACT. It's not even relevant on this thread
|
|
By:
Leopard, millions of (old, in particular) people don't have computers or read online.
They have the same vote as younger ones and are still influenced by the papers. Where each person is registered as they click online, one paper can serve lots of people. I'm not sure how mailonline gets 53million viewers or over what timeframe, I don't know if I was missing something but I found it hard to decipher those numbers. |
|
By:
Yes, they say "Estimated Unique Monthly Visitors" ...... I suppose you divide by 30 to get approx. Unique daily visitors
|
|
By:
8 | Mail Online
144 - eBizMBA Rank | 53,000,000 - Estimated Unique Monthly Visitors | 117 - Compete Rank | 219 - Quantcast Rank | 97 - Alexa Rank | Last Updated: July 1, 2017. 10 | The Guardian 193 - eBizMBA Rank | 42,000,000 - Estimated Unique Monthly Visitors | 327 - Compete Rank | 103 - Quantcast Rank | 148 - Alexa Rank | Last Updated: July 1, 2017. So Guardian's print circulation 160,000 doesn't seem quite so small if adding on 1.4million (42M divided by 30) |
|
By:
Beware the Tory Lie Machine in operation over 150 years
|
|
By:
Social media is gaining in importance and is a big influence on the young. What You tube, Facebook, and Twitter put in their trending lists and Google put in search results matters. Even Wikipedia has an "in the news" box on its home page.
Many old people I know don't have broadband or a smartphone, their main sources of information are the BBC and a preferred newspaper. Most people just aren't interested in politics unless there is a big event like the referendum, or a controversial one like the rise of Corbyn. You only need to look at election turnouts to know that. |
|
By:
grey pound matters
|
|
By:
woof woof
|
|
By:
Every paper has online presence leopard. Especially the Mail.
Even adding the 1.4 million you mention, doesn't really make fleet street anti-Conservative, does it? |
|
By:
do you read the mail study?
|
|
By:
Not if I can avoid it. I have done though.
The only papers I have never read are the Guardian & the FT I used to subscribe to the Times, for my shop. 15 years ago the Express, when I first went to work (long ago) the Sun or Mirror & the Standard on the way home. I don't like any papers - people think they have some sort of duty to be fair or truthful. In reality they are just businesses selling advertising. Online news just downloads loads of extraneous crap on to my computer so I don't read online 'papers' either. Full answer pre-empting any other questions. |
|
By:
I don't understand the castigation either
|
|
By:
I don't understand the castigation either
|
|
By:
No, you said.
If my posts could stay here and not be removed, you also wouldn't need to keep repeating yourself. |
|
By:
Voting brexit has had a very benefical effect short term- its stopped government legislating too much whilst distracted very good thing imo.
|
|
By:
STUDYFORM Who's removing the posts if not BF?
|
|
By:
STUDYFORM I posted the above as I had posts removed 1 of which I quoted you in agreement
|
|
By:
Regardless of what is happening to the posts, these forums are not a patch on what they used to be. Hours can go by without any postings. My newsagent tells me most newspaper companies want to go paperless!! Internet only presence is what they want. The takeover of the Express by the Mirror group just demonstrates that not all newspapers can survive. With everything going on in the UK today, the Battle for common sense and decency is already lost. It is ridiculous that one cannot comment on religion without being accused of a phobia or on the sudden appearance of a multitude of transvestites (one just appeared on Judge Rinder on ITV), transgenders or mixed race partnerships on adverts on tv without being accused of goodness knows what. I always said that the constant chipping away at standards will result in no standards. And that is what has happened. It's hardly worth posting on any forums these days. Just my thoughts.
|
|
By:
Very good post ^^^^^
|
|
By:
I defend myself on that one Study by saying I tuned in early to watch the highly edumacational Dickinson's Real Deal! I never liked Judge Rinder until I found out the extent of his charity work.
|
|
By:
slicer, i think mr saville used to do a lot for charidee. !
|
|
By:
Mr Calling- it is alleged that Mr Saville once warned that if his misdemeanours were brought to the attention of the authorities, the charidees would lose out on a lot of monet. It appears that this threat added to the delay in outing his badness. Judge Rinder is a genuinely good egg if one is able to overlook the fact that he is married to a man!
|
|
By:
including the one where slicer demeaned himself televisually
 |
|
By:
It certainly looks like someone has got it in for you Study! It is very strange.
|
|
By:
It's been going on for ages, slicer.
|
|
By:
I cant believe it's the moderators. Someone must be acting stoopid and reporting you for nothing. Its people like that who have ruined the forum.
|
|
By:
I think there's a chance the forum can actually be hacked. once gone the mods don't even know it's happened.
The moderators take loads down too, mind you, but they don't obey the report button THIS much. |
|
By:
Anyway Study, let's face it, the opinions of a bunch of gambollers posting anonymously don't carry much importance in the scheme of things! Have a good evening.
|