Hugh Grant! Jim Royle! Little Mix! Gary Neville ! Norris McWhirter! Michael Foot!

[houseboy]

Always assuming Aliens can
A, Walk
B, Laugh

Well you manage it Boss.

[Bosscat]

Well you manage it Boss.

Ghygddcvg kko ffgdrrv*€/=

Translate into a language you earthlings might understand, that says "**** off you Carbon based lifeform"

[houseboy]

Ghygddcvg kko ffgdrrv*€/=

Translate into a language you earthlings might understand, that says "**** off you Carbon based lifeform"

That first word looks welsh Boss. Is it a town near Newport? And why on earth would an alien use a Euro symbol? Have the bloody Eurocrats spread their poison that far mate?

[Bosscat]

That first word looks welsh Boss. Is it a town near Newport? And why on earth would an alien use a Euro symbol? Have the bloody Eurocrats spread their poison that far mate?

[houseboy]

No one can ever say whether Labour would be smug as winners or not, they certainly can't be accused of being poor winners, can they? Yet they are certainly poor losers and seem proud about it and defending there leader and policies that has resulted in a horrendous result, how can anyone take these people serious?

It's just a shame that Corbyn was the victim of an unheard of hate campaign by the media and the right. No leader of a party in my lifetime has been so villified as he was. I'm not moaning about the result, that's democracy in action for you, but anyone with an ounce of decency must agree that Corbyn was the victim of the most terrible lies and half truths that we have ever seen the like of in British politics. If this is the way politics is going then we might as well give up on democracy and let the media decide government.

As far as the Tory win is concerned, as usual it won't mean a great hill of difference on the day to day, I just hope we still have an NHS and a social services left by the next general election, if we have then that will just be a bonus.

[Grumps]

It's just a shame that Corbyn was the victim of an unheard of hate campaign by the media and the right. No leader of a party in my lifetime has been so villified as he was. I'm not moaning about the result, that's democracy in action for you, but anyone with an ounce of decency must agree that Corbyn was the victim of the most terrible lies and half truths that we have ever seen the like of in British politics. If this is the way politics is going then we might as well give up on democracy and let the media decide government.

As far as the Tory win is concerned, as usual it won't mean a great hill of difference on the day to day, I just hope we still have an NHS and a social services left by the next general election, if we have then that will just be a bonus.

If he hadn't put himself in the position of supporting various terrorist outfits over the years, the press might have been kinder towards him

[houseboy]

If he hadn't put himself in the position of supporting various terrorist outfits over the years, the press might have been kinder towards him

That was the way the media slanted it all though. That is the whole point. You don't have to support terrorists to understand their cause, or even be sympathetic to it. The IRA were a hateful organisation that terorised and killed innocent people and that was wrong, absolutely, but their cause was no different than that of the SDP in Scotland now, i.e. independence from London rule. Corbyn also thinks that talking is better than fighting and even the gung-ho tactics of Thatcher ended with 'negotiations' with the IRA. Similarly criticising an organisation or country (Israel?) for it's actions does not make one anti-semitic. Corbyn is in no way anti-semitic.

The power of the media must never be underestimated (I used to work in it) and unfortunately the media in this country is overwhelmingly right of centre and (generally) Tory supporting. Too many people believe too much of what they read and the media know this and so does the Tory propaganda machine, they are brilliant at it. I would agree that the Labour party was a major part of it's own downfall but don't let the media take away from the fact that they destroyed a legitimate party leader in a way never seen before in this country, it was nothing short of a disgrace.

[AlargeClaret]

That was the way the media slanted it all though. That is the whole point. You don't have to support terrorists to understand their cause, or even be sympathetic to it. The IRA were a hateful organisation that terorised and killed innocent people and that was wrong, absolutely, but their cause was no different than that of the SDP in Scotland now, i.e. independence from London rule. Corbyn also thinks that talking is better than fighting and even the gung-ho tactics of Thatcher ended with 'negotiations' with the IRA. Similarly criticising an organisation or country (Israel?) for it's actions does not make one anti-semitic. Corbyn is in no way anti-semitic.

The power of the media must never be underestimated (I used to work in it) and unfortunately the media in this country is overwhelmingly right of centre and (generally) Tory supporting. Too many people believe too much of what they read and the media know this and so does the Tory propaganda machine, they are brilliant at it. I would agree that the Labour party was a major part of it's own downfall but don't let the media take away from the fact that they destroyed a legitimate party leader in a way never seen before in this country, it was nothing short of a disgrace.

BBC right of centre ???
Sky also is no Tory cheerleader
Channel 4 left
Guardian /Observer left
The Mirror left
The uks 2 biggest regionals
Evening Standard soft left of centre
Manc Eve news soft left
The Metro ( 2nd most read paper in Eng though free) soft left of centre

[dsr]

That was the way the media slanted it all though. That is the whole point. You don't have to support terrorists to understand their cause, or even be sympathetic to it. ...

But similarly, you don't have to attend a wreath laying ceremony for the people who murdered the athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games to understand why they did it. You don't have to invite IRA/Sinn Fein members to your place of work and symbolic home of democracy just after they have killed your work colleagues and tried to destroy that democracy.

Corbyn was an embarrassment to his own party when he invited the IRA/Sinn Fein members to the House of Commons after the Brighton bombing. It's only because his party has changed that he isn't an embarrassment to them now.

[Grumps]

But similarly, you don't have to attend a wreath laying ceremony for the people who murdered the athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games to understand why they did it. You don't have to invite IRA/Sinn Fein members to your place of work and symbolic home of democracy just after they have killed your work colleagues and tried to destroy that democracy.

Corbyn was an embarrassment to his own party when he invited the IRA/Sinn Fein members to the House of Commons after the Brighton bombing. It's only because his party has changed that he isn't an embarrassment to them now.

Exactly this. All true and not made up by the media, left, right or centre. I would never vote Labour whilst someone like this was its leader.

[Rowls]

Corbyn was an embarrassment to his own party when he invited the IRA/Sinn Fein members to the House of Commons after the Brighton bombing. It's only because his party has changed that he isn't an embarrassment to them now.

Exactly. And it's not the fact that he was willing to engage in talks with them (as his stooges have tried to insist was the case) it's the fact that he made a point of inviting the mouthpieces of murder and apologists for terrorism into the heart of the UK government days after they had attempted to murder the Prime Minister.

[claret2018]

Who are the gammons going to get into a froth over for 8 hours a day after Corbyn goes?

I mean, obviously it will be whoever the Mail/Express tells them to, but just putting it out there.

[claretandy]

Who are the gammons going to get into a froth over for 8 hours a day after Corbyn goes?

I mean, obviously it will be whoever the Mail/Express tells them to, but just putting it out there.

And the hard left wonder why they lost, good grief.

[houseboy]

BBC right of centre ???
Sky also is no Tory cheerleader
Channel 4 left
Guardian /Observer left
The Mirror left
The uks 2 biggest regionals
Evening Standard soft left of centre
Manc Eve news soft left
The Metro ( 2nd most read paper in Eng though free) soft left of centre

Sky no Tory cheerleader? You'll be saying it's physical counterpart The Sun isn't next. Alas the journals you mention were, in many ways, reporting what was being said but even they stand accused of sheer character assasination. There is no doubt whatsoever that the media destroyed Corbyn, whether they are right leaning or not (and despite your claims the media in this country is overwhelmingly right of centre), everyone accepts that. Whatever your feelings about the media do you believe that they do not stand accused of targeting a political leader in a way that has never before been done in this country and do you believe that that vilification served democracy? That is the whole point. Reporting things in the media is one thing but seemingly making it up as they went along is another. He was reported as being anti-semitic despite sharing many platforms with Jews and supporting many Jewish causes. He was called more than once a racist, a man who on may occasions in the past has supported anti-racist causes.

Corbyn became unelectable because of all this and maybe the party should have dropped him for that, but in a world of lying, cheating politicians (of ALL colours) it is my belief that Corbyn is actually too honest and could have defended himself better, but I believe that as a man he stands a good deal higher than many other so-called resectable politicians (if such a thing exists - which I doubt).

For what it's worth I didn't vote for him at the election because to me his only major failing is that he wouldn't have delivered Brexit, which I am absolutely passionate about. People can believe what they like, it's a free country, but Brexit apart I think that 5 years under Corbyn would be better than 5 years under the Tories, but I do hope I'm wrong.

[Bosscat]

Sky no Tory cheerleader? You'll be saying it's physical counterpart The Sun isn't next.

Didn't the Sun print in 1997 the headline...

It was the Sun what done it when Tony B Liar was swept into power.... the Media is mostly Left of centre I would have thought

[houseboy]

But similarly, you don't have to attend a wreath laying ceremony for the people who murdered the athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games to understand why they did it. You don't have to invite IRA/Sinn Fein members to your place of work and symbolic home of democracy just after they have killed your work colleagues and tried to destroy that democracy.

Corbyn was an embarrassment to his own party when he invited the IRA/Sinn Fein members to the House of Commons after the Brighton bombing. It's only because his party has changed that he isn't an embarrassment to them now.

Sinn Fein have members in the house of commons even though they don't attend, did you know this? Thatcher in the end negotiated with the IRA. As for attending a wreath laying ceremony nearly 50 years ago, who doesn't change in 50 years? Corbyn was in his early 20's in '72 - are you the same person now as you were at 22, I know I'm not. What about the Tory MPs who stand accused of, in the past, being members of the British National party? 40-odd years ago I was a drug using, drinking, football hooligan who was anti-just about everything. I am not that person now. How far back do we have to go to destroy someone's credibility? Corbyn has made some odd decisions in many people's eyes but do you not think that negotiating, even with your enemy, is better than keeping up the deadly status quo that allows the killing to continue? How many people have to die before we swallow our pride and say 'okay, let's talk'? Terrorists never stop and are rarely really defeated because as some die or are imprisoned others take their place, the killing continues, and the whole circle of fear is never broken until someone somewhere is brave enough to say 'we need to negotiate before many more people lose their lives'.

Corbyn was destroyed by those who hated him - perhaps he should have resigned in favour of the party - who knows if that would have made a difference, but that he was destroyed is not in doubt.

[SammyBoy]

Sky no Tory cheerleader? You'll be saying it's physical counterpart The Sun isn't next. Alas the journals you mention were, in many ways, reporting what was being said but even they stand accused of sheer character assasination. There is no doubt whatsoever that the media destroyed Corbyn, whether they are right leaning or not (and despite your claims the media in this country is overwhelmingly right of centre), everyone accepts that. Whatever your feelings about the media do you believe that they do not stand accused of targeting a political leader in a way that has never before been done in this country and do you believe that that vilification served democracy? That is the whole point. Reporting things in the media is one thing but seemingly making it up as they went along is another. He was reported as being anti-semitic despite sharing many platforms with Jews and supporting many Jewish causes. He was called more than once a racist, a man who on may occasions in the past has supported anti-racist causes.

Corbyn became unelectable because of all this and maybe the party should have dropped him for that, but in a world of lying, cheating politicians (of ALL colours) it is my belief that Corbyn is actually too honest and could have defended himself better, but I believe that as a man he stands a good deal higher than many other so-called resectable politicians (if such a thing exists - which I doubt).

For what it's worth I didn't vote for him at the election because to me his only major failing is that he wouldn't have delivered Brexit, which I am absolutely passionate about. People can believe what they like, it's a free country, but Brexit apart I think that 5 years under Corbyn would be better than 5 years under the Tories, but I do hope I'm wrong.

Pretty much agree with all of this, the gutter press are probably already working on various angles for the list of MPs currently being touted for the Labour leadership. I think one of the absolute low points for me was the character assassination the Daily Mail did on Ed Miliband's deceased father. Truly awful and one of the reasons I'll likely never vote Tory is that would almost tacitly endorse this conduct.

[houseboy]

Didn't the Sun print in 1997 the headline...

It was the Sun what done it when Tony B Liar was swept into power.... the Media is mostly Left of centre I would have thought

They did indeed Boss but two things. It is just about the only real time they supported Labour (under Blair they generally did) and, importantly, a look into the Sun's 'leanings' and people's voting trends a few years ago found that the Sun has a habit of supporting that party which would seem to have the best chance of winning an election, thus appearing to have the 'voice of the people'. That then gives it the appearance of being more influential than it is. Oddly this means that the Sun is probably not as right leaning as many people think, they just like to back a winner and then say they influenced the outcome. They are very good at it.

[RMutt]

They did indeed Boss but two things. It is just about the only real time they supported Labour (under Blair they generally did) and, importantly, a look into the Sun's 'leanings' and people's voting trends a few years ago found that the Sun has a habit of supporting that party which would seem to have the best chance of winning an election, thus appearing to have the 'voice of the people'. That then gives it the appearance of being more influential than it is. Oddly this means that the Sun is probably not as right leaning as many people think, they just like to back a winner and then say they influenced the outcome. They are very good at it.

I think it was when Jon Major won that The Sun said ‘It’s The Sun wot won it’ They have also had different headlines in Scotland to the ones in England as a way of splitting the Labour vote. I think they have the power to influence. Just walking into a supermarket and seeing the array of headlines in front of you must have some effect over time. Many of these attacks go on for years slowly influencing the way we vote. I read The Mail and the Mirror regularly and the completely different way they present the same ‘news’ is astonishing. I suppose some will say it is conformation bias or whatever but I reckon if the press had decided to, they could have had Corbyn elected.

[RMutt]

In fact take something like immigration. You can present it as a positive, filling jobs nobody wants, helping the health service etc. or you can present it as a negative, changing our culture, overwhelming services etc. If The Mail had chosen to present it in the former way it might have changed a few xenophobic minds.

[randomclaret2]

Does anybody read newspapers these days ?

[Bosscat]

Does anybody read newspapers these days ?

Cheaper than toilet roll m8 ....

and lets face it, it feels great wiping your @rse on some celeb/politico's grinning mug

[houseboy]

I think it was when Jon Major won that The Sun said ‘It’s The Sun wot won it’ They have also had different headlines in Scotland to the ones in England as a way of splitting the Labour vote. I think they have the power to influence. Just walking into a supermarket and seeing the array of headlines in front of you must have some effect over time. Many of these attacks go on for years slowly influencing the way we vote. I read The Mail and the Mirror regularly and the completely different way they present the same ‘news’ is astonishing. I suppose some will say it is conformation bias or whatever but I reckon if the press had decided to, they could have had Corbyn elected.

Various surveys over the years have failed to come to any proper conclusion about the media and it's influence on elections. What is fairly certain is that people generally read the paper (or online version these days) that reinforces their views. I think you have it right with the term 'conformation bias'. People love to have their views reinforced and that makes the reading of media that makes you 'comfortable' a usual thing. The media (generally) supporting the Tories is not unusual (the Mail being a particularly rabid exponent of that) with a generally smaller percentage supporting Labour. The Independent is probably one of the few genuinely unbiased reads. Surprisingly the Times does not overly support anyone and still tries it's best to 'report' rather than 'create' the news. In this particular instance though I do believe the treatment of Corbyn was a factor in the election. Whether they would have won without it is of course open to speculation.

[dsr]

Does anybody read newspapers these days ?

It seems that many more people read newspapers than read Twitter and other social media, by the sound of it. Because the very much left leaning bias of Twitter posters appears to have had little effect.

[RMutt]

Does anybody read newspapers these days ?

Whether it’s on paper or on their website its the same message. Often picked up by TV and given a helping hand too. The Matt Hancock ‘ assault’ was reported on the TV news before they did their investigating and found it to be nonsense.

[TVC15]

It seems that many more people read newspapers than read Twitter and other social media, by the sound of it. Because the very much left leaning bias of Twitter posters appears to have had little effect.

Probably many more people who read the papers bother to vote than those who are on social media. Evidenced by the fact that you have to get up off your arse and go out of the house to vote....and buy a paper !

[houseboy]

Exactly this. All true and not made up by the media, left, right or centre. I would never vote Labour whilst someone like this was its leader.

See my post about how people change. Is man at 70 the same as he was at 22?

[randomclaret2]

If Labour's take on the election result is that the press is responsible they can forget about winnng the next election as well.

[summitclaret]

I see that the hard left are still struggling to understand why they lost. Try looking closer to home and you will see why. This country will never ever elect you because you are only interested in overthrowing everything this country stands for.

If you want to get anywhere near power listen to Jon Mann, Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint and Melanie Onn et el.

[dsr]

They seem to be tending towards the approach of "You lot were stupid for voting Conservative. Next time do as you're told."

I wonder if it will work?

[RMutt]

If Labour's take on the election result is that the press is responsible they can forget about winnng the next election as well.

Agreed. But probably in a different way to you. If newspapers had little effect then neither would advertising. People have been persuaded to buy things they don’t need or sometimes are actually bad for them for years.

[houseboy]

Cheaper than toilet roll m8 ....

and lets face it, it feels great wiping your @rse on some celeb/politico's grinning mug

Do you still have newspaper behind the down pipe of your toilet mate? Aah, I remember it well. My dad used to say one piece to wipe and another to 'polish'. Newspaper was also used in our house to get the fire going, using it as kindling and then putting a sheet over the shovel in front of the fire to make the fire blaze, a ridiculous action that often saw the paper catch fire and cause a small emergency, happened about 3 times a week in our house.

[houseboy]

If Labour's take on the election result is that the press is responsible they can forget about winnng the next election as well.

I don't think the media caused the result but they definitely made it worse I believe.

[houseboy]

I see that the hard left are still struggling to understand why they lost. Try looking closer to home and you will see why. This country will never ever elect you because you are only interested in overthrowing everything this country stands for.

If you want to get anywhere near power listen to Jon Mann, Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint and Melanie Onn et el.

What does this country stand for?

[RMutt]

I see that the hard left are still struggling to understand why they lost. Try looking closer to home and you will see why. This country will never ever elect you because you are only interested in overthrowing everything this country stands for.

If you want to get anywhere near power listen to Jon Mann, Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint and Melanie Onn et el.

We’ve had soft left before. Foot, Kinnock and Milliband. It didn’t do them any good.

[houseboy]

They seem to be tending towards the approach of "You lot were stupid for voting Conservative. Next time do as you're told."

I wonder if it will work?

Whatever gives you that idea? I think you are getting them confused with the Remainers. What have they said to make you think that, that the Tories wouldn't have said had the result been different?

[RMutt]

They seem to be tending towards the approach of "You lot were stupid for voting Conservative. Next time do as you're told."

I wonder if it will work?

Go on then dsr. Which paper do you read most often? If you say it’s the Mirror, I’ll happily hold my hand up.

[Grumps]

See my post about how people change. Is man at 70 the same as he was at 22?

Doesn't matter, he did it whatever his age. Would Hitler have been ok had he lived longer? Do we let James Boulgers killers teach our children because they've got older?

[houseboy]

Doesn't matter, he did it whatever his age. Would Hitler have been ok had he lived longer? Do we let James Boulgers killers teach our children because they've got older?

So I am still a hard drinking, drug taking football hooligan? People grow up bud (or most do).
You're post doesn't make a lot of sense really. Hitler died in his bunker at 56, not 22. And who said anything about letting Boulger's killers teach anyone? And they have been released by people who do believe change happens. A young man at 20/22 cannot be held responsible for his views when he is 70, or even 50 or 60. Nothing in this life is permanent, things change all the time, so do you if you could only but realise it. The only thing in life that doesn't change is change, it is a fact of life that is inescapable. The man who saved peoples lives on London bridge recently using the fire extinguisher had not too long been out of prison for murder. If he hadn't been there others may have died. Was it wrong to release him when they did?

[summitclaret]

What does this country stand for?

Things like

Democracy, such as accepting referendum outcomes.

Equal opportunity.

A good education and 'free' health care for it's own people.

A free press and expecting that people are able to decide for themselves what is best for them. For example of people choose to buy a particular paper, what has that got to do with anyone else?
.
Security of the state and its people is paramount.

Rewarding hardwork and endeavour, whilst supporting those that are unable to support themselves.

Facilitatating a mixed economy.

Ensuring that crime does not pay.

Providing leadership to the world on key issues such as climate change.

[houseboy]

Things like

Democracy, such as accepting referendum outcomes.

Equal opportunity.

A good education and 'free' health care for it's own people.

A free press and expecting that people are able to decide for themselves what is best for them. For example of people choose to buy a particular paper, what has that got to do with anyone else?
.
Security of the state and its people is paramount.

Rewarding hardwork and endeavour, whilst supporting those that are unable to support themselves.

Facilitatating a mixed economy.

Ensuring that crime does not pay.

Providing leadership to the world on key issues such as climate change.

Excellent points.
Point one. I agree.
Two: this country has never stood for equal opportunity. How many high court judges (for instance) didn't go to public school?
Three: the Labour party is THE party for equality in education and the ONLY party that would protect free health care via the NHS.
Four: I agree.
Five: Agree but that does not include the overthrow of a nation's leader based on lies (admittedly done to my eternal shame under Labour).
Six: hard work in what way? You can work hard and get nowhere or work hard and become successful. You can also be successful and do very little.
Seven: Agreed but the Tories do not believe in that. The privatisation of water was criminal and the railways not much better.
Eight: we have lost 20k policemen off the streets due to Tory cuts, burglary is no longer investigated, crime IS paying mate and no more so than under the current regime.
On balance mate I would say that if you believe in all the above Labour would protect it better than the Tories.

[Grumps]

So I am still a hard drinking, drug taking football hooligan? People grow up bud (or most do).
You're post doesn't make a lot of sense really. Hitler died in his bunker at 56, not 22. And who said anything about letting Boulger's killers teach anyone? And they have been released by people who do believe change happens. A young man at 20/22 cannot be held responsible for his views when he is 70, or even 50 or 60. Nothing in this life is permanent, things change all the time, so do you if you could only but realise it. The only thing in life that doesn't change is change, it is a fact of life that is inescapable. The man who saved peoples lives on London bridge recently using the fire extinguisher had not too long been out of prison for murder. If he hadn't been there others may have died. Was it wrong to release him when they did?

Corbyn wasn't 22 when he did the things I dislike about him
People might change, but their beliefs might not. You may have sympathy for a hard drinking, druggie hooligan that gets in trouble today because you've been there, I don't want a PM who would have sympathy with terrorists
In my opinion prisoners should be released when they have served their sentences, if they had would the London Bridge attacker have been there in the first place?

[houseboy]

Corbyn wasn't 22 when he did the things I dislike about him
People might change, but their beliefs might not. You may have sympathy for a hard drinking, druggie hooligan that gets in trouble today because you've been there, I don't want a PM who would have sympathy with terrorists
In my opinion prisoners should be released when they have served their sentences, if they had would the London Bridge attacker have been there in the first place?

I think you need to stop digging that hole mate. Corbyn was 22 at the wreath laying business. When he was older he was attempting to STOP terrorism as opposed to continue the endless cycle of death it was causing.
I didn't say I had sympathy for drug taking hooligans, it is wrong to hurt people and violence is bad, I was saying that I changed in the years that have past because I realised I was wrong.
The ex-killer was there to save lives because he was released due to a change in the law. He didn't actually kill anyone but was part of a burglary where an old lady was murdered and he was guilty by association, which has now been deemed as unfair unless they were in a known attempt to kill.
I simply don't understand your idea that if you do something at 20 you are guilty of having the same ideas 40 or fifty years later.

The only bit where I agree is where you say their beliefs 'might not' change. Absolutely but you are not allowing for the majority who do.

[Grumps]

I think you need to stop digging that hole mate. Corbyn was 22 at the wreath laying business. When he was older he was attempting to STOP terrorism as opposed to continue the endless cycle of death it was causing.
I didn't say I had sympathy for drug taking hooligans, it is wrong to hurt people and violence is bad, I was saying that I changed in the years that have past because I realised I was wrong.
The ex-killer was there to save lives because he was released due to a change in the law. He didn't actually kill anyone but was part of a burglary where an old lady was murdered and he was guilty by association, which has now been deemed as unfair unless they were in a known attempt to kill.
I simply don't understand your idea that if you do something at 20 you are guilty of having the same ideas 40 or fifty years later.

The only bit where I agree is where you say their beliefs 'might not' change. Absolutely but you are not allowing for the majority who do.

Have you missed the point where had the London Bridge attacker served his full sentence, there would have been no requirement for the released killer to save lives, as none would have been under threat

[Devils_Advocate]

Have you missed the point where had the London Bridge attacker served his full sentence, there would have been no requirement for the released killer to save lives, as none would have been under threat

First of all the wreath laying incident is far from being conclusive and cut and dried

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row

Secondly you are then comparing the laying of a wreath to Hitler, the Bulger murderers and a terrorist who carried out a murderous attack on innocent civilians

Houseboy should be thanking you cos you kinda prove the point he was making in the first place. Now take your meds and have a nap

[Grumps]

First of all the wreath laying incident is far from being conclusive and cut and dried

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row

Secondly you are then comparing the laying of a wreath to Hitler, the Bulger murderers and a terrorist who carried out a murderous attack on innocent civilians

Houseboy should be thanking you cos you kinda prove the point he was making in the first place. Now take your meds and have a nap

If you actually read my post, I was replying to the point made that everyone can change, and should be given a second chance, so I wasn't comparing it to anything, perhaps it's your meds kicking in

[Devils_Advocate]

If you actually read my post, I was replying to the point made that everyone can change, and should be given a second chance, so I wasn't comparing it to anything, perhaps it's your meds kicking in

How do your examples of Hitler, the Bulger murderers and the terrorist support your point?

[Grumps]

How do your examples of Hitler, the Bulger murderers and the terrorist support your point?

You need to read all the posts because you've got it completely wrong

[Devils_Advocate]

You need to read all the posts because you've got it completely wrong

I have and all you've done is talk a load of boll*cks like you normally do. My original advice still stands - take your meds and have a nap

[AndrewJB]

BBC right of centre ???
Sky also is no Tory cheerleader
Channel 4 left
Guardian /Observer left
The Mirror left
The uks 2 biggest regionals
Evening Standard soft left of centre
Manc Eve news soft left
The Metro ( 2nd most read paper in Eng though free) soft left of centre

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communic ... emy-corbyn

This study took place in 2016, and nothing has changed since then. The skewed reporting is off the scale, and as the study concludes it’s just bad for British democracy.

All parties should have the right to have their voices heard via the media. The public have the right to hear the unvarnished words of people in every party. That should just be a simple bottom line, but we don’t have that in this country. It doesn’t matter what you or I personally think about a particular party. We should support fair reporting, so people can make decisions based on what parties actually say. Of course there should still be opinion pieces, where political journalists can rubbish or big up different parties, but actual news should be truthful and accurate as far as possible. A lot of the British media doesn’t do this. Regarding Corbyn, you won’t find a single article in any rightwing redtop that reported Corbyn without bias (and the Guardian and Mirror were still frequently hostile to him). If he, and his policies were so bad, why did the rightwing media not simply report him honestly and let the public reach their natural conclusion? My opinion is the billionaire owned press weren’t taking any chances with democracy when it came to them being taxed more (along with Leveson, and other things Corbyn threatened them with), so hit him as hard as they could. We deserve a better media than this.