Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
hahahha, yes that is the path of least resistance.
But I am a fool, and disagree with my The Wife.
GB News Channel
- Thread starter droodzilla
- Start date
hahahha, yes that is the path of least resistance.
But I am a fool, and disagree with my The Wife.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
It needs to be banned of course! The single most important thing facing The Left is to shut down present gammon news media and replace it with media that is reasonable and decent ie not right wing. The last thing we need is more TV for scum!
Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
But if you close down freedom of expression, and political viewpoints from across the spectrum, aren’t you being right wing?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
People advocating banning stuff should always ask themselves one quick question: "If I give myself powers to do 'this thing', for 'the right reasons' (obvs), what happens when my opponent gets power and has access to the same powers?
Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
mmm...
Although labelled ’communist,’ I would argue that the USSR and China have always been dictatorships rather than true communist states.
Unless communism means a dictatorship? I don’t think so.
If The Wife was next to me she would probably explain it (degree in politics or something like that) to me.
Tony L
Administrator
Though that is what happens as so many people either don't want communism or it becomes instantly corrupt. Either way it ends up being enforced with state violence and oppression. It just does not work.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
Andrew Neil's Wikipedia entry is illuminating. He's been a nasty bigot for a very long time.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals. Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles. In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent". In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate." That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil#HIV/AIDS
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals. Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles. In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent". In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate." That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil#HIV/AIDS
kensalriser
pfm Member
I don't see any of these channels being a success. I just don't think there's the same appetite for toxic, irrational fury as there is in the US. Plus the UK is a much smaller market, so if something works economically on a 5% of the population audience in the US, the bar will be too high for the UK.
notaclue
pfm Member
Yawn. Looks like a very dull and boring team who will all be saying the same thing (which they say every day on radio, anyway).
They need to get a David Icke in to liven it up. Maybe get the David Icke in? Or how about getting Sir Desmond Swayne and Sir John Redwood?
That would be entertaining.
They need to get a David Icke in to liven it up. Maybe get the David Icke in? Or how about getting Sir Desmond Swayne and Sir John Redwood?
That would be entertaining.
Tony L
Administrator
Exhibit A: Brexit. There is a very deep mine of xenophobia and ethnic exceptionalism for a right-wing channel to dig into. Some remarkably ugly views knocking around. Just look at The Daily Mail comments page, huge swathes of Twitter, Facebook etc. Anti-science too, e.g. anti-maskers, the nutters convinced hospitals are empty and covid 19 is a fake etc. Initially at least this channel will be bound by Ofcom guidelines/alleged impartiality etc, but the likes of Ferrari, Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and the rest of them are masters of pushing their bigotry and ignorance right up to the line and keeping it there.
Cav
pfm Member
No state has ever tried to make communism work. All self-styled communist states were not. All states pejoratively called communist, were not either.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
and mad Christo with his continuous whinging about cycle lanes
Darmok
pfm Member
Great, I've been looking forward to getting even with him somehow after he wound me up during one of his end of chat show monologues!
Referencing the, "Bull and Gate" pub in Norf Landon.
https://www.bullandgatenw5.co.uk/
A watering hole for metalheads like me and other gig lovers
loading ourselves up with real ale before the show starts at "The Forum" music venue next door up or three.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Don't be ridiculous. Do you actually believe that it is either a good thing or even OK for a phalanx of right wing scum to be able to propagate racist, homophobic, xenophobic, jingoistic, nationalistic, anti poor, disabled, unemployed, anti immigrant propaganda even more so than they already are? "Hey we can buy more hate 'cos we're rich enough to set up a TV station!"
My greatest disdain is reserved for all the uber hypocrites and fence sitters we have here who in one post will rail against these forces of evil in the same way as myself but then do a complete turn coat jobby as soon as anyone suggests banning it or doing anything about it! Their answer to everything seems to boil down to "do nothing about anything lest someone somewhere is offended by it"
You can't simultaneously hate "Nazi's" whilst insisting they have as much right to free speech and human rights as anyone else does! It's a non sequitur.
I once naively would have said the old "I may not agree with you but I defend your right to say it" phrase but I am now wholly opposed to this. If you see some EDL thug shouting the N word and making threats against some black guy do you defend his right to free speech?
paulfromcamden
Baffled
I used to live opposite the Bull & Gate many years ago have many happy memories of wasted Sunday afternoons spent there (or Sunday afternoons spent there wasted if you prefer...)
I don't remember being able to book a 'hot-desking' space for £15 though - it looks like it's changed a bit!