• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

UK PoliGaf: The Sun's headline today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nexus Zero said:
Of course they're biased but a) they're are far less biased than any other news organisation bar perhaps Al-Jazeera and b) they're not allowed to blatantly take sides. If it wasn't for the BBC your primary news organisations on TV would be ITV and Sky. Do you people think this through?


Listen, this is the BBC that edits its news footage to suit itself. Think Benazeer Bhutto admitting to david frost that osama was dead. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, the BBC should of showed it. One bias is no better than another bias.

I do believe i thought things through, why havent you?
 
Messypandas said:
Labour is bad but i've always imagined the tories as worse. Typically its the lesser of two evils in our elections


this is my problem. I remember when Labour came to power - the tories had really lost it - infighting, drifting with no clear policies etc. And Labour were a credible opposition - new labour, blair etc.

But this time is very different. Labour aren't as bad as I remember the tories were previously, but they're still clearly drifting a bit. But the tories are just as fucked up. Its like they're doing almost nothing in the hope they'll get in by default. I'm a grown man, with kids, and a middle income earner. I should be prime conservative voting material but I don't trust them, and they have no substantive policies at all.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Anyone that wants to abolish the BBC (getting rid of the license fee would do it) should be punched repeatedly in the face.

What about people that think the BBC should be funded by adverts as it's moved in a populist, commercial direction anyway? Just a light slapping or do I still get decked?
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Anyone that wants to abolish the BBC (getting rid of the license fee would do it) should be punched repeatedly in the face.

Why does getting rid of the license fee mean getting rid of the BBC? Make them fend for themselves.
Why should i pay for channels i dont want to watch? Give me the option to subscribe to it and i may do.

You my friend are an arse.
 
mrklaw said:
this is my problem. I remember when Labour came to power - the tories had really lost it - infighting, drifting with no clear policies etc. And Labour were a credible opposition - new labour, blair etc.

But this time is very different. Labour aren't as bad as I remember the tories were previously, but they're still clearly drifting a bit. But the tories are just as fucked up. Its like they're doing almost nothing in the hope they'll get in by default. I'm a grown man, with kids, and a middle income earner. I should be prime conservative voting material but I don't trust them, and they have no substantive policies at all.

They are all as bad as each other. I see labour are trying to stop teachers voting BNP along with police etc.
I dont defend the BNP but how can anyone be stopped voting for a LEGAL political party? Its the thin end of the wedge. If the current political parties had anything useful to offer then fringe parties wouldnt get a look in.
 
donkeyspank said:
Why should i pay for channels i dont want to watch?

Not everything in civilization needs to be justified to every one of its occupants and participants, not least because a great many of them are Sun-reading tasteless motherfuckers.
 
donkeyspank said:
Why does getting rid of the license fee mean getting rid of the BBC? Make them fend for themselves.
Why should i pay for channels i dont want to watch? Give me the option to subscribe to it and i may do.

You my friend are an arse.
Their programming output would completely change and they'd begin chasing ratings which is certainly not a good indicator of quality (as reality tv will tell you).

They'd also have to eliminate a whole bunch of other non-television services because there isn't enough money in advertising to support them.
 
Because we'd end up with even more crap on tv. And do you really think they'd scrap the licence fee, they'd just use it for something else like moats and duck houses
 
Salazar said:
Not everything in civilization needs to be justified to every one of its occupants and participants, not least because a great many of them are Sun-reading tasteless motherfuckers.


In the digital age there is no excuse for the way the bbc operate. Do i want to contribute to chris moyles 500,000 pound salary, or jonathan ross? No but i do appreciate some people may, just not me.

Now listen, i agree there are good programs but there is an awful load of shit associated with the bbc. Stephen Fry can wax lyrical through his rose tinted glasses but it doesnt fool me, modern broadcasting is changing. We are no longer a three channel country, i want to pay to play, not be force fed.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Their programming output would completely change and they'd begin chasing ratings which is certainly not a good indicator of quality (as reality tv will tell you).

They'd also have to eliminate a whole bunch of other non-television services because there isn't enough money in advertising to support them.

Yes, because the BBC really doesn't chase ratings.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Their programming output would completely change and they'd begin chasing ratings which is certainly not a good indicator of quality (as reality tv will tell you).

They'd also have to eliminate a whole bunch of other non-television services because there isn't enough money in advertising to support them.


Chasing ratings, as in strictly come dancing which is on for about a million hours a week (slight exaggeration).

No, the bbc dont do it do they?
 
J Tourettes said:
Yes, because the BBC really doesn't chase ratings.
Not in the same sense as ITV which regularly orders programmes designed around the response from audience testing. As a result their programmes are shoddy at best.

There is no more money left in television advertising which is why ITV are in enormous financial difficulty.

If you can't see how getting rid of the license fee would completely alter the BBC beyond recognition then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Ofc the shouldn't do it as thats a commerical decision, but then ofcom should stop it. But the tories will be getting rid of that.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Not in the same sense as ITV which regularly orders programmes designed around the response from audience testing. As a result their programmes are shoddy at best.

Just because they're not as abd as ITv, it doesn't mean they're not guilty of the same thing. As someone previously mentioned, you only have to look at how bloated and flogged to death 'Strictly' has become to see a prime example.
 
donkeyspank said:
They are all as bad as each other. I see labour are trying to stop teachers voting BNP along with police etc.
I dont defend the BNP but how can anyone be stopped voting for a LEGAL political party? Its the thin end of the wedge. If the current political parties had anything useful to offer then fringe parties wouldnt get a look in.

No, they aren't trying to stop teachers and policemen voting BNP, they're trying to stop people in those occupations that have already done it. And don't give me any of this "Bu..bu..bu democracy" stuff.

Yeah everyone should be allowed their choice, however if you work in a position of authority, and you vote for (and let's not kid ourselves here) a racist political party, then you should be sacked. If a police officer was part of the KKK in the USA I'm sure the same would happen.
 
J Tourettes said:
Just because they're not as abd as ITv, it doesn't mean they're not guilty of the same thing. As someone previously mentioned, you only have to look at how bloated and flogged to death 'Strictly' has become to see a prime example.
What about their documentary programmes as well as the national and international radio stations? The BBC offer services which other companies can't match because it isn't profitable to do so.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Not in the same sense as ITV which regularly orders programmes designed around the response from audience testing. As a result their programmes are shoddy at best.

There is no more money left in television advertising which is why ITV are in enormous financial difficulty.

If you can't see how getting rid of the license fee would completely alter the BBC beyond recognition then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course it will alter it, but that is evolution and the bbc would have to evolve to survive. Cut down on salaries, bonuses and jolly ups that would be a start. Cut out excess channels which just repeat older stuff would also help. Also you dont need countless radio stations just for 'asian' or 'black' music. Many ways to cut your cloth as they say.

Cant remember the politician a few years ago, but he admitted that the bbc was a tv tax.

And dont get me started to how crooked the whole bbc/goverment/lottery thing is.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
What about their documentary programmes as well as the national and international radio stations? The BBC offer services which other companies can't match because it isn't profitable to do so.

I'm not saying that the BBC doesn't produce good programmes as well but that doesn't mean that everybody should be forced to pay for it as standard. It's ludicrous in this day and age. The fact that if you have a TV you have to also have a TV licence (there are legal ways around it but you have to jump through hoops and be prepared for constant harassment) is simply wrong.
 
Meadows said:
No, they aren't trying to stop teachers and policemen voting BNP, they're trying to stop people in those occupations that have already done it. And don't give me any of this "Bu..bu..bu democracy" stuff.

Yeah everyone should be allowed their choice, however if you work in a position of authority, and you vote for (and let's not kid ourselves here) a racist political party, then you should be sacked. If a police officer was part of the KKK in the USA I'm sure the same would happen.

You are right, so why not ban the party?

Because that wouldnt be democratic would it? You could argue if you voted labour that would make you an immigration lover and perhaps not fit to work in immigration positions.
 
donkeyspank said:
You are right, so why not ban the party?

Because that wouldnt be democratic would it? You could argue if you voted labour that would make you an immigration lover and perhaps not fit to work in immigration positions.

Stop asking me questions and then answering my response to them before I get to make my response. No the BNP shouldn't be banned. Simple as that.

But if you are a policeman you should not be allowed to vote for a white power party that is incredibly racist. Why? Because for fucks sake, they're in a position to arrest anyone they want and can easily plant evidence on ethnic minority citizens and arrest them for it.

And if you're a teacher, well don't get me started, that's almost worse as the fucker could constantly negatively mark the students work, give them less confidence and fuck up their future.

Listen, I'm about to go to university (to York to study Sociology) after having studied Sociology and Criminology for 4 years, I know a thing or two about institutional racism and how it fucks over people who don't deserve it. Sure let the policemen and teachers vote BNP, as they currently are allowed to do; but make it clear to them, that if they do, they will be sacked as a result.
 
mrklaw said:
this is my problem. I remember when Labour came to power - the tories had really lost it - infighting, drifting with no clear policies etc. And Labour were a credible opposition - new labour, blair etc.

But this time is very different. Labour aren't as bad as I remember the tories were previously, but they're still clearly drifting a bit. But the tories are just as fucked up. Its like they're doing almost nothing in the hope they'll get in by default. I'm a grown man, with kids, and a middle income earner. I should be prime conservative voting material but I don't trust them, and they have no substantive policies at all.
erm bro INHERITANCE TAX you know the shit that is on the tip of the tongue of Britain!
 
Surely voting in elections are secret, so how the hell would we know. Yes they shouldn't be allowed to be members of groups like this, but you can vote for whom you like.
 
Meadows said:
Stop asking me questions and then answering my response to them before I get to make my response. No the BNP shouldn't be banned. Simple as that.

But if you are a policeman you should not be allowed to vote for a white power party that is incredibly racist. Why? Because for fucks sake, they're in a position to arrest anyone they want and can easily plant evidence on ethnic minority citizens and arrest them for it.

And if you're a teacher, well don't get me started, that's almost worse as the fucker could constantly negatively mark the students work, give them less confidence and fuck up their future.

Listen, I'm about to go to university (to York to study Sociology) after having studied Sociology and Criminology for 4 years, I know a thing or two about institutional racism and how it fucks over people who don't deserve it. Sure let the policemen and teachers vote BNP, as they currently are allowed to do; but make it clear to them, that if they do, they will be sacked as a result.

Well shit, if you are going to university there is no point arguing with you is there? You are the definitive book of knowledge.

So, if i own my own company can i refuse to employ people who vote for a specific party just because i dont agree?

I am just asking this, where do you draw the line? Nobody agrees with everything every party says. When someone says to you, close the borders for mass imigration because the country is struggling on an infrastructure level, does that mean they are racist? If you answer yes to that then i will quietly go about my business elsewhere because i believe it doesnt and we will never see eye to eye.
 
operon said:
Surely voting in elections are secret, so how the hell would we know. Yes they shouldn't be allowed to be members of groups like this, but you can vote for whom you like.

I don't think members of authority (policemen and teachers) should be allowed to vote for them. But you are right there are some privacy issues that would have to be worked around. I suppose that's something that would have to be worked out and something that I don't have a way for that to be done in a way that doesn't infringe on their civil liberties. Still I still stand by my point, however difficult the logistics are.
 
donkeyspank said:
Well shit, if you are going to university there is no point arguing with you is there? You are the definitive book of knowledge.

Yup

donkeyspank said:
So, if i own my own company can i refuse to employ people who vote for a specific party just because i dont agree?

If you intended to police the streets and try and keep equality, or give a child a fair education, then I suspect you should. However, if they want to work in a factory or work in an office, then no, you shouldn't be able to.

donkeyspank said:
I am just asking this, where do you draw the line? Nobody agrees with everything every party says. When someone says to you, close the borders for mass imigration because the country is struggling on an infrastructure level, does that mean they are racist? If you answer yes to that then i will quietly go about my business elsewhere because i believe it doesnt and we will never see eye to eye.

No, tough immigration =/= racism. I have never said that. However, if you look at the BNP's policies, they are CLEARLY a racist party.

immigration.jpg


Taken from their own website.
 
Meadows said:
Stop asking me questions and then answering my response to them before I get to make my response. No the BNP shouldn't be banned. Simple as that.

But if you are a policeman you should not be allowed to vote for a white power party that is incredibly racist. Why? Because for fucks sake, they're in a position to arrest anyone they want and can easily plant evidence on ethnic minority citizens and arrest them for it.

And if you're a teacher, well don't get me started, that's almost worse as the fucker could constantly negatively mark the students work, give them less confidence and fuck up their future.

Listen, I'm about to go to university (to York to study Sociology) after having studied Sociology and Criminology for 4 years, I know a thing or two about institutional racism and how it fucks over people who don't deserve it. Sure let the policemen and teachers vote BNP, as they currently are allowed to do; but make it clear to them, that if they do, they will be sacked as a result.

:lol

I'm sure you do.
 
Prine said:
My mate was screwing Jordan, he was on the front page 3 weeks ago. They lied about everything in there (apart from them seeing each other).

Here he is.
jor_280x390_875529a.jpg

Lol i hope he wore a condom as Jordans latest 'fella' has a penchant for shemales he was addicted to them while he was training in thailand.
 
J Tourettes said:
:lol

I'm sure you do.

If you have something smart to say to me which you'd like to have a debate about then I'd gladly do that. However if you want to make smart arse comments like that, well, you're just making yourself look bad.
 
Cerebral Assassin said:
I'm assuming that you don't know that Cameron was involved in the last Tory government, the economic policies(the few that they have) are taken from that era(I mean Cameron thinks Thatcher didn't go far enough to reduce public spending in the 80's).
I'm assuming that you don't realise that Thatcher was booted out of office by her colleagues in 1990. Most people's hatred of the Tories stems mostly from Thatcher's administration. John Major as a person wasn't a bad bloke, he was just ineffectual and weak in keeping a tight rein on his party - rather like Gordon Brown now.

Napoleonthechimp said:
What about their documentary programmes as well as the national and international radio stations? The BBC offer services which other companies can't match because it isn't profitable to do so.
I agree with you that the BBC offers some excellent television and radio services. But that is all they should be doing. Anyone can see that they have gotten way too big. Just remind us again, why exactly did the BBC buy Lonely Planet travel company? Also the licence fee is extortionate, and their method of chasing up non-payments by sending badgering letters to old pensioners is most unbecoming, and usually they are unwarranted due to mistakes on their behalf.

What I think the BBC should do, is go back to just offering two channels on terrestrial and radio 2, 3 and 4 (selling off the other stations and channels). The BBC should then create a HBO-esque premium service with extra high quality programming that people can choose to pay extra for if they are that way inclined.
 
Meadows said:
If you have something smart to say to me which you'd like to have a debate about then I'd gladly do that. However if you want to make smart arse comments like that, well, you're just making yourself look bad.

I don't want to get into a debate about criminology and institutional racism I was merely laughing at your boast as it was ignorance at best. How much can you actually know about institutional racism having only studied it at school/college? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you're a white, middle-class male as well.
 
J Tourettes said:
I don't want to get into a debate about criminology and institutional racism I was merely laughing at your boast as it was ignorance at best. How much can you actually know about institutional racism having only studied it at school/college? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that you're a white, middle-class male as well.

I am white yeah, but I don't know what class I'd put myself in.

EDIT: I suppose you are right about that in many ways, I am fortunate not to have experienced it first hand, but I have studied it for long enough to know it is a problem and in particular which areas of the police force and which areas of the country it IS a problem.
 
Meadows said:
Yup



If you intended to police the streets and try and keep equality, or give a child a fair education, then I suspect you should. However, if they want to work in a factory or work in an office, then no, you shouldn't be able to.



No, tough immigration =/= racism. I have never said that. However, if you look at the BNP's policies, they are CLEARLY a racist party.

immigration.jpg


Taken from their own website.

What is you're point? They think it isnt working, plenty agree, plenty dont. I cant see the bit where it says coloured people are scum or is it a hidden message?

But that is a moot point, my argument is that if the party is legal then you should be able to vote for them. If they are a racist party then fine, they need to be banned dont they. I was just making the point that we now have a government telling certain sectors who they can/cant vote for. THIN/ END/ OF/ WEDGE!

I agree with all your points on racism etc, i cant deny that, so either ban the party for being illegal or offer the voters something worth voting for. Simples innit?
 
donkeyspank said:
I cant see the bit where it says coloured people are scum or is it a hidden message?

immigration.jpg


Okay I'll bite. How many white people can you see in that image? (this is on their website)

Now if you notice in the line formed by these ethic minority people, there seems to be a terrorist with an RPG and, a less noticeable terrorist hidden in the line (here's your hidden message) towards the back. Now some might say that "it isn't racist, they dislike immigration". Maybe, but no white people? Really? I'd guess that at LEAST 10% of immigrants are white, at LEAST, yet none of those people are. Hmmm .
 
operon said:
Cameron helped the sun decision by promising to abolish offcom and curb the bbc.
What murdochs wants.

With ofcom and the beeb out of the way Murdoch would be free to transform Sky into a right wing Fox-esque propaganda and slander machine and basically contribute to the running of the country.

Yet another reason to vote against Cameron.

blazinglord said:
Basically, some people still blame the Conservative party for the actions of Conservative MPs over a decade ago who have since either died or have retired (or intending to in the next election). To use an example, it would be like Americans still blaming the Democrat party for their support of slavery.

Camerson was advisor to Norman Lamont and Michael Howard, who accepted an amendment to the Local Government Act in the 1980s (Section 28) that stated: [Local authorities] shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"... the same Michael Howard, who like many in the party opposed the basic minimum wage right up until Labour implemented it. There are plenty of old guard filling his benches who had a say in those governments, so yes, I still blame them -- retiring in 2010 doesn't absolve them of blame. They could have softened the blow for miners as the only industry they knew collapsed around their ears, but they're not a welfare-minded party. They could have privatised the rail network to create competing operators but kept Railtrack's infrastructure and the safety of the railways as a matter of public concern -- maybe then we wouldn't have had Paddington! They are a party of elites and elitists, populated by the kind of men who have duck ponds and moats on their estate, 15 old etonians on the front benches, a party that brought about the poll tax and post code lotteries, pushed against progressive policies like the minimum wage for years, a party that is STILL full of bigots, homophobes and euro-skeptics, a party that proposes lucky breaks for the few and implies less support and services for the many. I was only 5/6 as the early 90s recession hit and my parents nearly had to up sticks with their three kids and move because life was that uncomfortable -- how is it people have coped better now, in supposedly the deepest recession in modern history? Could it be because of the support infrastructure we have built in this country under Labour leadership?

Coming back to Cameron:

He voted against banning fox hunting, he voted against the smoking ban in restaurants and public places, he voted against NHS foundation trusts. He voted against a motion that the case had not been made for war with Iraq, and voted FOR the declaration of war. As is his snively politically convenient nature, he then voted for an inquiry into the Iraq war less than a year later. He was slow to condemn a member of his party who claimed that Enoch Powell's "River of Blood" speech was right. To his credit he isn't the bigot some in his party are, he's realistic about immigration (helping to marganlise the likes of UKIP and BNP) and he voted in favour of the civil partnerships bill. AND YET, he has aligned himself with dubious characters in Europe who have called homosexuality a "pathology", and basically - his party would have us work at the fringes of Europe instead of at the heart of Europe, working with Europe. A Europe, which against all Euro-skeptics hopes', has only marganalised us and grown stronger without us in its single currency.

WORSE than all of this though...

The man is basically running his party like the kind of PR spin-machine people these days supposedly hate... he's a tory response to Tony Blair. Changing clothes four times in the space of a few hours at the 06 Tory conference, cycling-to-work-with-a-car-following behind with his belongings, hugging-hoodies, audaciously stealing Barack Obama's mantra of "change" which the whole world knows was used to great effect less than 12 months ago... its pathetic. Gordon Brown might be a bit more popular if he knew how to pull that kind of crap, but I'm actually glad he doesn't really know how to.

He is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and if people vote the conservatives in again in 2010, it'll only be because they're voting AGAINST Brown, or because they have no idea what they're actually voting for.
 
The man is basically running his party like the kind of PR spin-machine people these days supposedly hate... he's a tory response to Tony Blair. Changing clothes four times in the space of a few hours at the 06 Tory conference, cycling-to-work-with-a-car-following behind with his belongings, hugging-hoodies, audaciously stealing Barack Obama's mantra of "change" which the whole world knows was used to great effect less than 12 months ago... its pathetic. Gordon Brown might be a bit more popular if he knew how to pull that kind of crap, but I'm actually glad he doesn't really know how to.

http://dailyelection.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/cameron-schweppes.jpg

warning huge img
 
Meadows said:
immigration.jpg


Okay I'll bite. How many white people can you see in that image? (this is on their website)

Now if you notice in the line formed by these ethic minority people, there seems to be a terrorist with an RPG and, a less noticeable terrorist hidden in the line (here's your hidden message) towards the back. Now some might say that "it isn't racist, they dislike immigration". Maybe, but no white people? Really? I'd guess that at LEAST 10% of immigrants are white, at LEAST, yet none of those people are. Hmmm .


Okay, so i see your point about a lack of white people in the message, you see i am accepting of points of view although the terrorist one is valid. Why should they be here.

So would you rather your 'guess' at 10% be the majority showing in the advert? Would that make you feel better?

And as for the terrorist image, it would be largely accepted i think that terrorism is perpetrated by a particular stereotype these days, especially since the IRA is pretty much disbanded. If you are going to tell me that it is racist to display a terrorist this way then i laugh at you hard.


But i still want the bbc cut down to size :-)
 
donkeyspank said:
Okay, so i see your point about a lack of white people in the message, you see i am accepting of points of view although the terrorist one is valid. Why should they be here.

So would you rather your 'guess' at 10% be the majority showing in the advert? Would that make you feel better?

And as for the terrorist image, it would be largely accepted i think that terrorism is perpetrated by a particular stereotype these days, especially since the IRA is pretty much disbanded. If you are going to tell me that it is racist to display a terrorist this way then i laugh at you hard.


But i still want the bbc cut down to size :-)

That depiction of terrorists is absolutely racist. They clearly want to say that "Yo, look at all these non-white people coming into our country, yeah, well also TERRORISM". That is racism. If there was a SINGLE white person there, my point would be invalid, however there isn't one.
 
Nexus Zero said:
Oh my god. You stupid motherfucker.

Charming I'm sure, i'm entitled ask as being from the Republic of Ireland and living in Northern Ireland, I'm an immigrant in the UK. So either he's saying I shouldn't be here or hes pointing out the fallacy of that BNP picture which is perfectly fine.
And your insult is well ignored.
Edit noted and forgiven.
 
fortified_concept said:
Blame the stupid masses. I used to want to escape my country but after reading about each country I wanted to go to, I decided to stay in my shithole of a country. Thing is, it's not the countries, it's the human species. They are retarded. It's so easy for the corporate media to distract them, that it becomes infuriating.
You have captured my feelings, perfectly. Let's become supervillains and push the reset buttons on these savages. For the Greater Good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom