Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

It'd only be an Internet ****!

 

You can add up with the aid of a calculator, well done you.

Operating out a high end City office, also known as Pete's spare room, the sign over your garage is as classy as **** though mate, what a high flyer, someone we can all aspire to.

 

Way to insult an entire religion, stay classy Kustard.

 

I dont recall naming a religion, you must have more knowledge on the subject Tobes, do tell us

 

No mate, you tell me what you were referring to when you made the comment that the attack was allegedly carried out by a 'religious pig ****er'.

In your own time like

 

David Cameron?

Seriously though. Sad news that one deranged man can cause so much harm.

 

What religion am I alleged to be referring to Tobes, tell us.

 

Spot on

 

... utterly depressing ...will just be a catalyst for even more loss of life ...

 

Quite right, some of the pics on facebook are quite shocking on the damage the nutter has done to the French people.

 

On a lighter note made a lovely sherry trifle over night ... soaked the sponge fingers in a rather generous amount of Amontillado ... no corner cutting ..

@HRH Custard VC ... please do not, I repeat ... do not ... go into one ... no need for panic and outrage ... breath ... breath ...it is not what you think

please log in to view this image

... that is an "Armadillo" ...

 

Crunchy on the outside soft in the middle

 

The murders in Nice are tragic. I admit I'm jumping the gun, but the indications seem to suggest it's another event that can be linked to so called I.S.

I hope that the media show more coverage of the many Muslims that are condemning these actions out of hand and saying that it's not done in their name. The media coverage seems limited to a few muslims saying "we condemn it, but..."

I had to search to find if these muslims condemning it outright existed, and they do. There are many muslims, such as the northern alliance and the kurds leading the fight against I.S. at the front line
More media coverage of this would isolate the cause of IS further.

The media should also look in more detail at the actions, or lack of it, from other states in that region, but also at the imbalance in reporting the deaths and suffering caused by the actions of us in the west. We're not always the good guys.

The current coverage serves to promote the cause and views of far right groups and isolates moderate muslims further, which seems to be a major aim of the I.S. actions. Most if not all of the perpetrators have been petty criminals, rather than radically religious, so it seems to be an indication of how these people are targeted.

RIP all victims of the current conflicts.

 

Unfortunately none of this is going to happen. Scapegoating all Muslims and [in your words] 'isolate[ing] moderate muslims further' is our media's goal. They can then blame all the worlds problems on them (in much the same way as it was the Communists in the 60s/70s, people taking drugs during Regans 'War on Drugs' reign in the late 80s/90s, the Jews (in most countries) during the 30s, the blacks ect. This then allows justification to take away our civil liberties and start wars/invasions.

Another reason why a white man doing something terrible (like the Jo Cox murder) has 'mental problems', while a dark skinned/ME person doing the same (the gay nightclub shooting in Orlando) is a terrorist.

ISIS does the same to develop and 'us against them' mentality and to say that the West hates all Arabs and must be destroyed. Plus ISIS are nuts, evil terrorists, rather than freedom fighters.

 

Which one's the Deputy Leader?

 

I agree, and without wanting to fall into the domain of cranks and conspiracy theorists, and I realise I'm generalising with 'their', but why do the media do this, and who sets their agenda?

It was very apparent during the referendum coverage that the media didn't so much cover the issues, but the personalities, talking over uncomfortable answers and pushing non-issues.

Even the BBC coverage of the new cabinet described some as 'leaving' but in the same list, others were described as 'sacked'.

That is not unbiased reporting. Is it simply pandering to what they think are the opinions of the viewers, or something more?

 

The first bit went over his head!... I was gonna go back and say, "You've finally bored the poor ****er to death" but I thought that would probably be wasted too.

 

Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is an interesting read for this - it's a bit dated now, but a lot of his points are still relevant. As you say, I don't want to go down the conspiracy theory avenue, but you need to remember that media organisations are massive conglomerates - only multi-billionaires or multinationals can afford to run a media organisation. You can't do it on a shoestring or on donations. As a result people like Rupert Murdoch (Times, Sky News, Sun), the Barclay Brothers (The Telegraph, The Spectator), Richard Desmond (Daily Express, Channel 5 News), Lord Rothemere (Daily Mail, Metro, London Evening Standard) and Trinity Mirror (Daily Mirror, The People) control practically all the press in the country - interestingly the readership of right wing titles is around 14m before you include the free Metro, for left wing titles it's 2-3m. All are called the MSM - Main Stream Media

But these conglomerates are reliant on 1) other multinationals to advertise in them, as this is what pays for the titles - so they work hand in hand with the multinationals (it's one reason you see so little bad press about Coca Cola or Nestle) and 2) the Government - for access to information, interviews and press releases ect.

But the Government (in particular) and the other multinationals also depend on the MSM to get their messages out. In this country the Government is even dependant on the MSM to get elected, as no party has gotten elected without the support of Rupert Murdoch in the last 35 years!

To answer your question, if you can keep the populace fearing some 'other' be they Muslims, Communists, blacks, immigrants, young 'hoodies', druggies, terrorists, lazy benefit cheats ect then you can keep them distracted while their civil liberties are taken away (Snoopers Bill, British Bill of Rights, Terrorism Act, Trade Unions Act ect) and while more power and money is transferred to the rich, ie those who own the multinationals - tax breaks for the rich, austerity programmes designed to make the poor poorer and the rich richer, deregulation of the industries (look at how Cameron did the opposite of the Leveson enquiry recommendations to empower the press and increase press monopolies).

 

I'd also say the BBC is so far into the pocket of the Tories they may as well be cupping their balls!

They are so terrified of the Tories getting rid of the BBC that they won't say anything to upset them. But all it has done has been to destroy any credibility the BBC has. The Tories are going to destroy the BBC no matter what. At least go out with a bang!

 

please log in to view this image