Lost Seasider
Well-known member
We'll have to test it with some BFC related Q&A - who's your favourite, Quested or Watts? etc
Did anyone ever firebomb that barbers shop in Watford?
Those who were there will know what I'm talking about.
Be Proud of what you've done says Johnson
- Thread starter catinstalbans
- Start date
Did anyone ever firebomb that barbers shop in Watford?
Those who were there will know what I'm talking about.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Nice one Mark, now that's what I call quality, independent journalism.
It's certainly about as accurate as what passes for journalism in this country, AKA completely wrong.
Mark_GT
Well-known member
Looks like our dogged friend was a politico robobore back then too
Atletico_Seasider
Well-known member
It's easier to say which ones are independent Lost. Out of the newspapers (for those that read them anymore) I would say the Guardian and Independent are reasonably independent. As for the rest, the Mirror is left biased and the rest are right wing biased (see wikepedia link below). One stat that may interest you is that 90% of UK media is owned by three companies, so don't be fooled by the numbers in your list. The Murdoch clan, even though they owned a newspaper that sunk to the depraved depths of hacking Milly Dowler's phone while she was still missing, still own or control Sky, The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times and The Sunday Sun for example.
It has never been a level playing field in terms of newspaper coverage of politics in the UK. Probably because newspapers tend to be owned by very wealthy, powerful individuals and we all know which class of people the CONservative party look after!
Furthermore, another very significant factor has come into play over the last couple of years, which is government spending (of your hard earned taxes) on advertising. In 2020, the UK government spent more on ads then any company. So, you could argue that this might have 'some' influence on the editorial content. For example, if a newspaper ran a negative story on the government then they may find their biggest client suddenly disappears.
In terms of the TV companies, The BBC dominates and is totally in the pocket of the government when it come to news and politics as a reuslt of strategically placed appointments by the Cameron government and the huge indirect leverage over the license fee and the threat to abolish them. As for the ad based TV companies, I make the same point as I did for the newspapers. Owned by billionaires and not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.
To summarise, I think the number of media outlets don't matter. I tend to focus on which ones dominate the market, who owns them and who controls them either directly or indirectly. But, you are totally entitled to believe that the media in the UK are independent....
Mass media in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Mark_GT
Well-known member
In summary, the ones I agree with are independent and the ones who disagree with me are biased.It's easier to say which ones are independent Lost. Out of the newspapers (for those that read them anymore) I would say the Guardian and Independent are reasonably independent. As for the rest, the Mirror is left biased and the rest are right wing biased (see wikepedia link below). One stat that may interest you is that 90% of UK media is owned by three companies, so don't be fooled by the numbers in your list. The Murdoch clan, even though they owned a newspaper that sunk to the depraved depths of hacking Milly Dowler's phone while she was still missing, still own or control Sky, The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times and The Sunday Sun for example.
It has never been a level playing field in terms of newspaper coverage of politics in the UK. Probably because newspapers tend to be owned by very wealthy, powerful individuals and we all know which class of people the CONservative party look after!
Furthermore, another very significant factor has come into play over the last couple of years, which is government spending (of your hard earned taxes) on advertising. In 2020, the UK government spent more on ads then any company. So, you could argue that this might have 'some' influence on the editorial content. For example, if a newspaper ran a negative story on the government then they may find their biggest client suddenly disappears.
In terms of the TV companies, The BBC dominates and is totally in the pocket of the government when it come to news and politics as a reuslt of strategically placed appointments by the Cameron government and the huge indirect leverage over the license fee and the threat to abolish them. As for the ad based TV companies, I make the same point as I did for the newspapers. Owned by billionaires and not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.
To summarise, I think the number of media outlets don't matter. I tend to focus on which ones dominate the market, who owns them and who controls them either directly or indirectly. But, you are totally entitled to believe that the media in the UK are independent....
Mass media in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Atletico_Seasider
Well-known member
PS you haven't been a fan since the age of two have you Lost?
catinstalbans
Well-known member
So LS 24 hours later and no answer to the simple questions I put to you.
We have had time for Boris Johnson to further his reputation for lying by claiming he acted decisively to remove Hancock somehow forgetting that he had said the matter was closed on Friday night. More lies from the Prime Minister.
Oh and what about the use of personal e mails to conduct government business including the discussion of contracts. The evidence of corruption continues to stack up, doesn't it?
Atletico_Seasider
Well-known member
The question was which ones I felt were independent Bamber, not which ones I agree with or disagree with, if that makes any sense? I like to keep an open mind when it comes to my views, I think it's the best way forward. For example, I could agree with an article in The Sun (most likely if it was a positive story on Blackpool FC) and I could also agree with an article in the Mirror (most likely if it informed people of what a corrupt government is currently in place). Too many of us have become pigeon holed over the last few years and have planted their flags in one camp or another. And no matter what happens they will not be swayed. I think that's unhealthy and divisive...
20togo
Well-known member
once again absolute totally biased moderation by deleting my post. Do you nor think that Cat has made the same point many times? You should be ashamed of yourself. Cat has been making the same hate filled agenda driven comments for years. So din't tell me to give it a rest with your awful moderating.
catinstalbans
Well-known member
Whinge whinge whinge!
Recidivist3
Well-known member
20togo
Well-known member
pot, kettle from one trick pony Cat.
20togo
Well-known member
that you as a little baby rec? Tubby little thing aren't you?
Shandypants
Well-known member
People may or may not agree with Cat. He has a point of view, this is a the politics side of the board so it's legitimate to discuss politics and its hardly a hate filled agenda. Is that how you describe criticism of the government?
I'll ask for clarity, in what way are Cats posts hate filled?
20togo
Well-known member
personal abuse of the PM. Nothing positve to say, talks about nothing else. He doesn't discuss politics. He only voices his views. A one trick pony. Ahate filled agenda.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Personally I think that 'hate filled' is a term that can be used to describe personalised comments about other posters. For instance, some posters on here have repeatedly questioned Cat's professionalism in his / her work without one iota of evidence and it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. I would call that sort of thing 'hate filled' and also anti-British in the sense that these people are trying to close down someone else's freedom of expression. It's almost like they want to cancel Cat, it is snowflakery at its worst.
If Cat can be described as being obsessed with Johnson then you 20's are also obsessed - but you are obsessed with Cat. At least Johnson is a legitimate subject for discussion on a politics board. Why not engage with what he / she says and keep the personalised stuff out of it. We are allowed to disagree on here, that is what the board is for, but stooping to personal comments is not at all classy and breaks the rules of engagement on here. And that is perhaps why some posts get removed rather than it being a left wing mods conspiracy.
Last edited:
Irony alert!!
Tedious, hate-filled one trick pony, rarely with anything positive to say and little interest in nuanced political discussions, yet prone to dishing out personal abuse and obsessing on one person - accuses another poster of the same.
You really couldn`t make this shit up!
"He only voices his own views"
Of, course he does. Who else`s views would you expect him to voice?
Perhaps you could voice your own political views and try to engage with Cat`s points rather than abuse him.
Or are you intellectually insecure?
Tedious, hate-filled one trick pony, rarely with anything positive to say and little interest in nuanced political discussions, yet prone to dishing out personal abuse and obsessing on one person - accuses another poster of the same.
You really couldn`t make this shit up!
"He only voices his own views"
Of, course he does. Who else`s views would you expect him to voice?
Perhaps you could voice your own political views and try to engage with Cat`s points rather than abuse him.
Or are you intellectually insecure?
20togo
Well-known member
you can't even quote me right. I didn't use the word "own". In other words he posts his hate filled rants and that's all he does. He quotes links to the Antifa group. He's used the emblem of the Communist party and tried to deny it. Earlier in the thread, he asked for a reply to a simple question. Well here's a few simple questions for him. Does he hate the PM? Does he hate the Tory party?. This is a poster who when the PM was seriously ill in hospital refused to wish him well and said he didn't wish him dead as he didn't believe in the death penalty. What a sick comment. All evidence to show he's a political activist with extreme views. So ESBN, if he's made those comments and had those links why shouldn't I quote them. After all they are all personal to him are they not?
And spud, I think you are a pompous **** who thinks you are intellectually superior to others. A horrible trait and a Baines thing no doubt. So I really don't have a problem calling you out And no doubt you hold me in the same contempt that I hold for you. So there you go, that's life..
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
20's - do you realise that what you have posted above looks very much like a hate filled rant?
And if Cat is a 'political activist with extreme views' he still has every right to post on here. Why are you trying to cancel him / her?
Anyway I am out.
20togo
Well-known member
I
I'm not trying to cancel him and it is a him, don't fall for that one., He can post what he wants, never said otherwise. And you might say my post is a hate filled rant but is any part of it inaccurate? I'd like to be out too because I'd much rather focus on an important football match tonight and talk about that unlike others.who barely venture to the football side of the board. Not you I may add.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
You don't have to post on here or answer every comment. Or even read it, especially if you'd rather be doing something else.
B_Side_The_C_Side
Well-known member
It's bloody Deja Vu again on here.......seriously, it's just the same thread, saying the same things over and over again........
BUT...we all know Cat is blinded by his love of everything Labour.....he's blinkered and that's why nobody listens.
But when he does have a real and genuine point......go back to his 1st post......Those to the right are just as blinkered as Cat is to the left.
You have a go at him......but you're just the same.....blinkered to what's going on around you and subservient to Boris and his cronies.
Seriously, we need a new section of AVFTT....Arguments with Cat & 20's.
Sorry lads......but time you both got a new string to your bows'
BUT...we all know Cat is blinded by his love of everything Labour.....he's blinkered and that's why nobody listens.
But when he does have a real and genuine point......go back to his 1st post......Those to the right are just as blinkered as Cat is to the left.
You have a go at him......but you're just the same.....blinkered to what's going on around you and subservient to Boris and his cronies.
Seriously, we need a new section of AVFTT....Arguments with Cat & 20's.
Sorry lads......but time you both got a new string to your bows'
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
Perhaps B Side but I can't help but think that this defence of all things Cat has more to do with folk agreeing with him politically than any quest to ensure that every poster is allowed to freely express their views.
It's fine for people to call other posters racist despite the fact they have never made a racist post but 20's suggests that Cat has an agenda or is a one trick pony or whatever - not quoting as I don't know his exact words - and everybody can't defend Cat quick enough.
Nope, it is about common decency, 2020; personally, I rarely engage with Cat`s posts.
I believe that everybody should be free to post whatever they want (within the guidelines) and as often as they want without being subject to bullying.
They should not be subject to personal abuse, but challenged on the merit of their post alone.
If we all did that then AVFTT would be the better for it...
20togo
Well-known member
I think you'll find I already have plenty of strings to my bow. You see, I comment much more on the football forum than I do on here. Tell me is that the case for the likes of others on this thread. I think you'll find that not to be the case. Oh and I'm not subservient to anybody, I just simply get on with my life.
20togo
Well-known member
Why shouldn't political extremists be challenged? Why is poining out him posting links to Antifa material and his use of the communist avatar personal abuse?
Shandypants
Well-known member
If he wants to link to antifa and use a communist avatar so what? I don't get the issue, I can however see that the PM does impact my life and runs a government who are proven liars and feather their nest by using our money. That bothers me a lot more than a he/she who posts on a political board on a football forum.
Wizaard
Well-known member
To be fair, if I remember right, the avatar wasn't on this board, it was elsewhere that you'd gone and found. That's a bit stalky...
20togo
Well-known member
not really. I recalled some-one had linked to it a few years back. .
20togo
Well-known member
You're right with "so what". But then you call me out for linking that with political extremism. Antifa were questioned about their aims to force their views on you, talk about only one subject, twist everything to racism. So yep, I see that in a helluva lot of Cats posts.
Last edited:
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
Spud
I fully agree with what you say but I am surprised that you should choose to direct what you say at me ?
I think it is common decency to provide evidence of frivolous accusations when politely requested to do so but I don't see anybody particularly interested in defending those who face such allegations.
Yes, I agree with what you say but I remain of the opinion that the defence of Cat comes almost exclusively from those who agree with him politically and that's the reason for the defence and nothing to do with free speech.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Well those who don't agree with him aren't going to defend him and will happily forgo his right to free speech in a woke, cancel culture way.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
20's genuine question. Did you get turned down for Baines or expelled or something? This isn't the first time you have had a pop at Baines, you seem to be the only poster who has a go at someone's school.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
FTFY, because lets be honest, it's the likes of Whitty, Vallance and Van Tam who are really calling the shots (plus their equivilents in the other nations), ministers are really just there to explain things to you.
My posts are motivated by a firm belief that the media, as a body, are for whatever reason promoting a false narrative that these were simple and obvious decisions that for whatever reason the goverment bungled or ignored, the reality is far removed from this; they are increadibly complex choices with substantical costs attached to them, both economic and in terms of lives lost, and I believe the advice and decisions were made in good faith, to the best of their abilities given the information available at the time.
Would things have been done differently with the benefit of perfect information or the 20/20 hindsight that is applied? Of course so, but that simply wasn't available to the decision makers at the time.
In terms of have the government done things wrong? Essentially they've outsourced the decision making to the scientific advisers, so the question is was that the right thing to do? Since the alternative is to base the pandemic response on whatever is trending on Twitter I'm inclined to back them on that.
Last edited:
catinstalbans
Well-known member
He won't answer the questions about the National Audit Office comments on government contracts or about Boris Johnson's incessant lies. I know that much.
20togo
Well-known member
I have to laugh at spud preaching about personal abuse in an earlier post. In a post before that he'd called me "intellectually insecure" and in a previous thread he's called me "intellectually inept". That's fine if that's his opinion but it is somewhat hypcritical. No big deal though.
Nope, I'm intellectually inept, so I only went to Blackpool Grammar. Anyway, to answer your question as to why I occasionally mention Baines it's because a certain iconic poster on here who had an element of condescending pomposity about him went to Baines and that's how I see spudgun as coming accross who also went to that school as well. So apologies to anyone else who went to Baines.
Nope, another lie.Never contributed a single penny to the Oyston coffers under NAPM. And I was one of only a very few posters who were criticising Oyston going back fifteen years on here. See if anyone else can back you up on that,eh!.So stop embarrassing yourself.
Maybe so, but can you confirm that you did not legitimise the Oystain regime by attending matches during the NAPM era?
You are the one who should be embarrassed!
Lala
Well-known member
Oh move on fgs !
20togo
Well-known member
Not maybe so, definitely so.
Mark_GT
Well-known member
I
In the net
Guest
Give it a rest.
I
In the net
Guest
Try Sky News Australia for the best UK news. They tell it as it is and the lefty Guardian readers don’t like it. Far better than GB news.It's easier to say which ones are independent Lost. Out of the newspapers (for those that read them anymore) I would say the Guardian and Independent are reasonably independent. As for the rest, the Mirror is left biased and the rest are right wing biased (see wikepedia link below). One stat that may interest you is that 90% of UK media is owned by three companies, so don't be fooled by the numbers in your list. The Murdoch clan, even though they owned a newspaper that sunk to the depraved depths of hacking Milly Dowler's phone while she was still missing, still own or control Sky, The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times and The Sunday Sun for example.
It has never been a level playing field in terms of newspaper coverage of politics in the UK. Probably because newspapers tend to be owned by very wealthy, powerful individuals and we all know which class of people the CONservative party look after!
Furthermore, another very significant factor has come into play over the last couple of years, which is government spending (of your hard earned taxes) on advertising. In 2020, the UK government spent more on ads then any company. So, you could argue that this might have 'some' influence on the editorial content. For example, if a newspaper ran a negative story on the government then they may find their biggest client suddenly disappears.
In terms of the TV companies, The BBC dominates and is totally in the pocket of the government when it come to news and politics as a reuslt of strategically placed appointments by the Cameron government and the huge indirect leverage over the license fee and the threat to abolish them. As for the ad based TV companies, I make the same point as I did for the newspapers. Owned by billionaires and not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.
To summarise, I think the number of media outlets don't matter. I tend to focus on which ones dominate the market, who owns them and who controls them either directly or indirectly. But, you are totally entitled to believe that the media in the UK are independent....
Mass media in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia