Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 85 comments are related to the topic:
Glad to see Sir Neil of Andrew reads my rants here :)
Glad to see Sir Neil of Andrew reads my rants here :)
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 85
|
By:
how is that?
|
|
By:
But Brexit is "the establishment". Quite....
Are we still having this debate -really? You could not wish to find 2 people with a greater sense of entitlement and more fully ensconced in the establishment than JRM and Bozo for starters. Secondly 'the establishment' is not a single entity and there are different 'factions' - obviously - so while many in it did not want change there is very obviously a large group ( all the tory right wing brexiteers for example) in the establishment that did want it. The fact all those shadowy right wing 'lobby groups' have been exposed as basically all working as one and sharing a lot of the same funding streams and all having vociferous support amongst the brexiteers shows they know how to work the system at the very least. Sure they got a few un-establishment monkeys to do the dirty work at the coalface of brexit but i think we all know who will be making a packet out of the end result (whatever it is) and it aint Vera Postlethwait from Leeds! |
|
By:
thank you for at least acknowledging that i can construct some attempt at rational argument, i wish i say the same to you but alas i cant. your continued inability to actually reply to my points is rather telling. you are busy attributing views to me that i have not expressed or purposely misrepresenting what i say.
and not read it as an attempt to say that the BBC is not biased becaused it gives these people a platform to people who it does not agree with. - i have tried to decipher this. the bbc doesnt have a view that's why they invite on so called experts, sadly all too often the experts are experts in nothing so their lazy research goes unchallenged. that and the fact that these groups are not independent is, imo, more worrying than carp comedy shows. Fox news is very right wing biased. It gets left wing people one. Therefore it's not right wing biased. That's how that argument goes.... - a particularly weak argument imo. fox news carefully selects the liberals/lefties it puts on its shows, they make sure they get the least intelligent, least articulate people they can. they do this do make the opposing case look as weak as possible. this was revealed by one of their former talking heads (cant remember his name tobyn something i think), he was one of the right wingers who were always made to look good. he eventually tired of the circus and left revealing their tactics. so yes, they use to claim to be fair and balanced but no one thinks they are. I've foolishly let myself get distacted of course from the overwelmingly obvious and 100% true fact that BBC non-comedy is now a pile of biased left wing toss, with another generalised discussion that has been had many times. - again, this is just your opinion, its not fact. common ground though, the whole exchange is fairly pointless  if there was a labour government and there was a group of supposedly independent think tanks that were all spouting a line sympathetic to the labour party i cant see you being anything but apoplectic if they were repeatedly invited on to the bbc. should the leader of one of these groups be recorded pimping out access to government ministers and he and his organisation continued to be given lots of airtime by the bbc would you see that as another example of leftie bias at the bbc? that's a rhetorical question, obviously as you didnt answer my previous questions i cant expect you to answer this one, and we all know the answer anyway  of course there was little point interacting with you, your mind is decided, just like the lefties who complain that the bbc is the brexit broadcasting corporation. have a good evening. |
|
By:
anxious
More complete drivel , its the same old song I found this highly amusing from the man whose posts normally includes the same old tedious phrase of Tory spiv fanboys. |
|
By:
The News finished, I flick switch to c4 to see what the utterly sh1t "last leg" is on about assuming it'll be an attack on Brexit, Trump, or the Tories, and it's a "joke" about Trump's orange skin.
How hilarious. How much do these unfunny cant's get payed for this tired rubbish week in week out? |
|
By:
donny osmond 14 Nov 18 12:23 Joined: 02 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 79,461 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
so he can shut down people speaking the truth as long as it satisfies you The only person who has tried to shut people down in the Cambridge Analytica investigation investigation is Cadwalladr herself. She's notorious for the energy she's devoted to trying to stop other people pursuing their own investigations into the matter She even tried to take out an injunction against Channel 4: The Journalist Who Blew Open The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Threatened To Injunct Channel 4 News And Demanded They Hand Over Their Sources Carole Cadwalladr hired lawyers to threaten action against her broadcast partner and fell out with the New York Times and BBC in rows over access to sources. https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/carole-cadwalladr-cambridge-analytica-injunct-channel4 It's this behaviour which lies behind Neil's frustration with Cadwalladr. Neil's an old-school journalist, who, as editor of the Sunday Times, spent years fighting the government and the security services through the courts as they tried to silence him over the Spycatcher revelations. When he then goes and sees a hack like Cadwalladr doing the exactly the same thing to fellow journalists, you can see why he compares her to a complete nutcase. |
|
By:
so he fights in court and is good
she threatens to go to court and is bad......really? sounds a bit unfair of you the thing is he tried to shut her down, and she was proved to be right all along, then he posts abuse, fair enough hes now removed it, but no need. past good work doesnt mean he is always right, and why would he want to shut down a fellow journalist? ....why not let her get on with it, as he probably wanted for his own work when he was producing stuff of merit |
|
By:
Neil didn't go to court. He was taken to court, by the government, as they tried to suppress the revelations that, among other things, the security services had been trying to undermine Wilson's Labour administration.
Cadwalladr, by contrast, has gone to court herself, to try to prevent other journalists from investigating the Cambridge Analytica story. It makes her primary interest appear not to be whether there was any wrong-doing on Cambridge Analytica's part, but that she alone should get the credit for the story. |
|
By:
As I said if the tweet image from Cadwallder I saw the other day was true, she was making wild accusations about the BBC being part of a pro leave Brexit cover up conspiracy. She herself is to people coming across as a conspiracy nut. Certainly came across that way on TV the other day.
Also e.g.: https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/26/is-the-orwell-prize-rewarding-conspiracy-theories-now/ The thing about Neil is he is EVEN HANDED in who he gives flack to and he doesn't take sh1t or tolerate idiots. I've lost count of the amount of Tories etc he's eviscerated on TV. Everyone is scared of him as he is very good. Compare him to the awful Maitless, Brexiteer and leftie to the core. Watching her on Newsnight this week she looked like she's just licked p1ss, crossed with a snarl, such was her distaste when speaking to a Tory trying to talk up Brexit proceeding, and last night she said something amazing like "at what point do we overrule democracy (i.e. the leave vote) and stop brexit for the good of the country"!. |
|
By:
*Gives FLAK to: as everyone who has touched an Airfix kit should know, it's nothing to do with "Roberta", but "flak" comes from the German Flugabwehrkanone!
|
|
By:
What about your spiv mates littlejohhny , ferria, kussenberg , all signed up spiv fans , there none so blind as those that cannot see
|
|
By:
i think you protest to much tory boy
|
|
By:
if neil tries to shut her down and works for bbc then of course it looks like bbc is involved as he trades on past good reputation
bbc invite folk to slander her and do not give her a right to reply looks like bbc are involved are they involved ? who knows |
|
By:
Just a few things about the 'even-handed' Andrew Neil...
Neil was editor of The Sunday Times from 1983 to 1994. His hiring was controversial. It was argued that he was appointed by Rupert Murdoch over more experienced colleagues After his graduation, Neil briefly worked as a sports correspondent for local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, before working for the Conservative Party. Neil was editor of The Sunday Times from 1983 to 1994. His hiring was controversial. It was argued that he was appointed by Rupert Murdoch over more experienced colleagues. In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels. In 1988 he became founding chairman of Sky TV, also part of Murdoch's News Corporation. Neil was a vocal and enthusiastic proponent of British military involvement in Afghanistan, deriding those who opposed the war as "wimps with no will to fight", while labelling The Guardian as The Daily Terrorist and the New Statesman as the New Taliban I don't usually refer to or read the Guardian, but this article explains it nicely. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics Also https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-bias-jeremy-corbyn-labour-centre-right-robbie-gibb-theresa-may-laura-keunssberg-andrew-marr-a7844826.html This is interesting, though not about the BBC https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-persuasive-power-of-uk-right-wing.html Add the ACTUAL affiliation of virtually all major BBC political journalists and you will find almost all are, in some way, Conservative. They're all certainly anti Corbyn. This has ben proven time and again, over many years, but the perpetual mantra of The BBC is a left-wing mouthpiece is not only a deliberate lie, but it's boring. I wrote a long thread naming all the people and proving this and describing a meeting in 1966 (iirc) which only 2 people attended and the left-wing thing has stuck since then. When I did this the post was removed. In fact EVERY time I have disproved the BBC "leftie" statement the post has disappeared. So I'm not going into it again. The BBC has a dreadful diversity policy, is divisive instead of inclusive and fair. It discriminates, 'positively'. Which is still discriminatory. The fact that you think the VERY CONSERVATIVE Andrew Neil is moderate is complete explanation of why you think everyone else is left-leaning. That and the million mentions of the BBC being "liberal", which is almost Trumpesque in it's "If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth" style. The BBC is NOT left-leaning, never has been, probably never will be. It's proven but it suits them VERY much to keep the myth alive, so they do. Now I'll repeat myself, Just Checking. No-one sees what they want to see more than you do. You also don't want balance, you want to see tacit agreement with what you think, or it's all warped and anti-right. |
|
By:
jollyswagman, I wrote my previous post without properly reading your input.
Basically I'm saying the same thing. So, well said! |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcDIpk3AjmU
AN and TM. Nobody does it better. |
|
By:
Thank you akabula.
I can't remember the last time you posted straight after me without having a pop of some sort. Not only that but that link probably proves to everyone that they're right. |
|
By:
he was a good journalist way back when, and had some great stories.
he probably still is, but hes gone down a few roads that seem familiar to other peoples agendas such as iran war, hiv/aids and global warming that seem to be markers for other peoples influences and not a journalists investigations. tweeting abuse to a fellow journalist on a day bbc highlited abuse on social media seems bad timing at best |
|
By:
He is rarely, if ever, found wanting on whatever he is talking/interviewing about.
|
|
By:
I really am not sure if this is right, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to recollect hearing that Mr Neil is not at all a nice bloke and that he freely admits this.
Is that right? or did I imagine it? |
|
By:
If every you need an example of someone who can't follow a simple argument or reach a logical conclusion based on facts, exhibit A: "Studyform".
"Here is some examples from way back of why a journalist might be called right wing. Therefore despite all the evidence daily that this journalist is highty professional, even handed, and widely respected for it, I'll say that make him right wing now and biased, and therefore by extension the entire huge sprawling organisation the BBC, the journalists, editors, editorial policy, stated societal propaganda goals, must all not left wing and not biased, despite, again, all the evidence rammed down our throat daily". Jesus wept. And he no doubt thinks he's smart... |
|
By:
If every you need an example of someone who can't follow a simple argument or reach a logical conclusion based on facts, exhibit B
andrew neil hiv does not cause aids...... discus |
|
By:
I've never heard anything about that but what difference would it make unless it involved criminality.
I'm only interested in interviewers grilling their subjects and putting them under pressure. You can only do that by knowing in minute detail whatever you are discussing. BTW consciously or unconsciously I would think most people would be affected by the bias of their own beliefs no matter how hard they try to fight it. PS I don't try to fight it but I'm sure AN does. |
|
By:
what difference does it make , lol
none to you |
|
By:
Yesterday was classic BBC. 6 more men of a certain origin convicted of a horrifying long campaign r@ping and gang r@ping loads of vulnerable girls. If any one normal circumstances or country this would be huge news and on the national broadcaster - it's a big thing. But as expected it wasn't covered at ALL on the 6 or 10 news. but they found time for a long slot where an asian woman was making mere allegations (unproven) against a white old man of "sexual harrasment". THAT got it's own lengthy slot of course. That's right up the BBCs street.
Which is more important? Which is the worst crime? We all know which is and which isn't and which is actually mores newsworthy. This example of delibereate filtering what is and isn't covered and promoting what the BBC wants to cover and blanking out anything that affects their politically correct left wing sensibilities it a classic to sum this sick organisation up. And that was just one big verifiable example, yesterday. |
|
By:
not sure andrew neil was to blame for that just checking
unless you know otherwise. they were in news as they were sentenced... their conviction was news as were comments from home secretary not sure sentencing usually makes the news, unless the sentence is out of line with expected |
|
By:
So what difference would it make Donny.
Facts please and not your normal reply. TIA. |
|
By:
none to you....
facts ...well i wont bother , we both know its true |
|
By:
That's because it doesn't make a difference.
|
|
By:
iyo...
|
|
By:
people like osmond and porky are the ones who cheer on this editorial bias
|
|
By:
If Brexit doesn't happen the BBC staff will do themself an injury partying. If it does happen, I foresee doom and gloom and "I told you so" on ANYTHING they can spin to be negative about Brexit for the next few decades. So basically what we have now, made permanent.
|
|
By:
tweeting abuse to a fellow journalist on a day bbc highlited abuse on social media seems bad timing at best
Cadwalladr has managed to fall out with Channel 4 News, the BBC and the New York Times over this story, as she tried to stop them reporting it. She even tried to take out an injunction against ITN (and failed). Do you see the significance of this? A court injunction is what you use to silence an investigative journalist. It's the enemy of free journalism. Yet Cadwalladr tried to use it against journalists themselves. To call her 'mad' isn't the half of it. |
|
By:
but she didnt need to take legal action, and she was proved to be right.
of course those she has exposed , ans some yet to be exposed want to discredit her. which makes those that abuse her look odd |
|
By:
AN didn't abuse her on twitter.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Just for the record.
The BBC is possibly the least biased media outlet we have. Which isn't saying much. It's still a pretty useless organisation. |
|
By:
Switched "Mash Report" on by accident.
First "joke" = Brexit. Then a big pile of "jokes" about Trump. Then "jokes" at Boris. End of first segment. Exactly what anyone familiar with this excrement would expect. If it's a parody, it's a parody of unfunny left wing **** "comedians" given what is nothing other than a policital platform at license fee expense. |
|
By:
Could these morons explaing to me why the BBC should give an observer journalist a "right of reply" for a tweet by Andrew Neil?
Surely the "right of reply" is to reply to the ****ING TWEET you smug morons? |
|
By:
because bbc invited on to bbc somebody she was exposing, giving them a chance
to speak without giving her a chance to speak. so you have mixed up two situations to produce a post that suits you. but hey ho , why change your style. |