Jump to content

EU Referendum Discussion

lotita
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

Which makes electoral law appear ridiculous. Someone one with deep enough pockets can manipulate an election result with relative impunity.

 

Election results have been quashed in the past - at a local and national level.

 

The claims of overspending by the Leave campaign have been rumbling for months. In particular, one rather obscure Leave campaigner appears suddenly to have found himself with hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend.

 

I bet that's what Lutfur Rahman thought... ;)

 

True, but never one on this scale - and even then, it just causes a rerun, and that can backfire badly on whoever mounts the challenge...

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election,_1997

 

As for election spending - it's generally a can of worms that neither side wants to open, as just like germ warfare, it invites retaliation in kind.

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Views 67.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

If I may paraphrase Popchartfreak : 'This claim has no source, it's largely just opinion based on a few spurious claims and assumptions skewed towards preconceived "defend Remain at all costs" attitudes.' ;)

 

Nigel farage is being investigated for using EU funding in his campaign. Seems pretty fact-based to me. As he is bankrupt (morally and officially), his money comes from promoting his right-wing ideas on the radio and the EU, in between passing on propganda between various right-wing parties and Julian "I Love Vladimir" Assange and Donald "I really love Vladimir" Trump. This is all going to come out in the various ongoing investigations, just a matter of time.

Nigel farage is being investigated for using EU funding in his campaign. Seems pretty fact-based to me. As he is bankrupt (morally and officially), his money comes from promoting his right-wing ideas on the radio and the EU, in between passing on propganda between various right-wing parties and Julian "I Love Vladimir" Assange and Donald "I really love Vladimir" Trump. This is all going to come out in the various ongoing investigations, just a matter of time.

 

This goes right back to what I was saying my previous post - any claims by one side will be challenged by counter-claims by the other.

What are your claims then? :)

 

Another 'heads you win, tail I lose' situation. :rolleyes:

 

Any claims I provide will be rejected because Remainers don't like the source.

 

But if I don't post any, i'll then just get accused of blowing smoke... :coffee:

 

The Daily Mail or Torygrqph are not impartial reliable sites.

 

All newspapers are partisan, but that doesn't mean *everything* they print is lies.

They poisoned their own well with their inflammatory hate and bias. They only have themselves to blame. Boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
They poisoned their own well with their inflammatory hate and bias. They only have themselves to blame. Boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

 

Rubbish - the pro-Remain Guardian is as biased and inflamatory as anything the Mail posts - you just can't see it because you agree with their particular variety of bias.

And I'm going to say this whole issue is well over you head.

 

Attacking the judiciary, along with the EXACT FOOKING.WORDING!!!, is a tactic from the Nazi party. It is dictatorial and dangerous.

Rubbish - the pro-Remain Guardian is as biased and inflamatory as anything the Mail posts - you just can't see it because you agree with their particular variety of bias.

What you call bias and inflammatory I call a reasoned intellectual discussion of issues. Inflammatory is headlines and one sided propaganda. Still if you can't tell the diffTerence between the two because of your own inbuilt bias....

Oh the Guardian is just as bad as the Telegraph. But theyre like tier 1 bias. I find the I to be as close to unbiased as a paper gets.

 

The National and the tabloids are level 2. The National/Star/Sun maybe a 2.5/3. Mail and Express are probably a level 4

And I'm going to say this whole issue is well over you head.

 

Attacking the judiciary, along with the EXACT FOOKING.WORDING!!!, is a tactic from the Nazi party. It is dictatorial and dangerous.

 

I found it fairly apt myself - having judges overrule decisions made my a few hundred MP's is one thing, but to ignore that expressed wishes of a significant proportion of the population is quite another, IMO!

 

What you call bias and inflammatory I call a reasoned intellectual discussion of issues. Inflammatory is headlines and one sided propaganda. Still if you can't tell the diffTerence between the two because of your own inbuilt bias....

 

Yet invoking the Nazis *isn't* inflammatory?? :wacko:

 

Oh the Guardian is just as bad as the Telegraph. But theyre like tier 1 bias. I find the I to be as close to unbiased as a paper gets.

 

The National and the tabloids are level 2. The National/Star/Sun maybe a 2.5/3. Mail and Express are probably a level 4

 

If the Mail is a 4, then I can't possibly give the Guardian less than 4 too - IMO they are just as biased, only from the opposite direction.

 

From my pov I prefer to read articles that I consider more realistic (even if they over-egg the pudding a bit), than ones I consider naive.

 

To me, the Guardian seems to post on the basis of how they believe the world should be, rather than how it actually is.

Edited by vidcapper

Wasn't the Financial Times actually the biggest EU cheerleader during (and since) the referendum?

 

Anyway, the only print edition I trust these days is Private Eye! £1.80 every fortnight is very reasonable for what is very professional journalism and excellent satire.

The Guardian is in NO way anywhere near the bias of the tabloids. What i wrong with you!!

 

And no. It is NOT apt. They were defending the rule of law which Mad May was trying to overturn. It HAS to be voted on in parliament, not decided by her and her alone you idiot. Calling them Enemies of the People is a NAZI TACTIC, NOT GODWIN, ACTUAL NAZI FACT YOU IDIOT.

I found it fairly apt myself - having judges overrule decisions made my a few hundred MP's is one thing, but to ignore that expressed wishes of a significant proportion of the population is quite another, IMO!

Yet invoking the Nazis *isn't* inflammatory?? :wacko:

If the Mail is a 4, then I can't possibly give the Guardian less than 4 too - IMO they are just as biased, only from the opposite direction.

 

From my pov I prefer to read articles that I consider more realistic (even if they over-egg the pudding a bit), than ones I consider naive.

 

To me, the Guardian seems to post on the basis of how they believe the world should be, rather than how it actually is.

Can you give examples of Guardian from pages that come anywhere near "Enemies of the people" or "Smash the saboteurs" for bias?

The Guardian is in NO way anywhere near the bias of the tabloids. What i wrong with you!!

 

To be pedantic it is 'is' not 'i' :teresa: , but just because you perceive no bias in the Guardian, doesn't mean others don't. From my pov it is written by naive PC snowflakes, which make it almost unreadable to me.

 

And no. It is NOT apt. They were defending the rule of law which Mad May was trying to overturn. It HAS to be voted on in parliament, not decided by her and her alone you idiot. Calling them Enemies of the People is a NAZI TACTIC, NOT GODWIN, ACTUAL NAZI FACT YOU IDIOT.

 

You do yourself no credit when you resort to ad hominem attacks, when I myself always post politely!

Edited by vidcapper

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.