November 7, 20177 yr Author On the subject of newspaper bias, here is an interesting example... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...e-tax-avoidance But from today's Mail... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...-hypocrite.html Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite: Labour rents its HQ from offshore firm ... but still attacks the Royals Corbyn suggested Queen apologise if she invested £10m of her wealth offshore Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell demanded an inquiry Labour council avoided paying millions in tax after it used an offshore company Party’s London headquarters is rented from a tax-exempted property trust fund ****** Has the Guardian reported the second part of the above?
November 7, 20177 yr Author I'm struggling to work out if this is a worse gaffe than Diane's: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...re_iOSApp_Other One was a minor point with no consequences whatsoever, and the other may lead to an innocent women spending additional years in jail. It's a tough one isn't it. BTW, the Mail did report this too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...-Ratcliffe.html
November 7, 20177 yr I'm struggling to work out if this is a worse gaffe than Diane's: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...re_iOSApp_Other One was a minor point with no consequences whatsoever, and the other may lead to an innocent women spending additional years in jail. It's a tough one isn't it. Hah! Game Set and Match...
November 7, 20177 yr BTW, the Mail did report this too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...-Ratcliffe.html That wasn't the issue (and it was online, not in print, in amongst a load of clickbait about scantily clad sexist celebrity drivel)
November 7, 20177 yr I'm struggling to work out if this is a worse gaffe than Diane's: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...re_iOSApp_Other One was a minor point with no consequences whatsoever, and the other may lead to an innocent women spending additional years in jail. It's a tough one isn't it. Then there's the International Development secretary Priti Patel. She held a series of unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. She first said there were only a couple and that she had informed the Foreign Office. It is now known that there were twelve meetings and Patel says that her claim about the FO knowing was "imprecise". In other words, a lie.
November 7, 20177 yr On the subject of newspaper bias, here is an interesting example... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...e-tax-avoidance But from today's Mail... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...-hypocrite.html Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite: Labour rents its HQ from offshore firm ... but still attacks the Royals Corbyn suggested Queen apologise if she invested £10m of her wealth offshore Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell demanded an inquiry Labour council avoided paying millions in tax after it used an offshore company Party’s London headquarters is rented from a tax-exempted property trust fund ****** Has the Guardian reported the second part of the above? Since when has a tenant been responsible for their landlord's tax affairs?
November 7, 20177 yr Author Hah! Game Set and Match... But a gaffe by a member of the opposition is almost inevitably consequence-free anyway, so is it really a fair comparison. :unsure: While I'm not excusing it, Boris's gaffe only involved one person, where Abbott's potentially involved hundreds of thousands. Edited November 7, 20177 yr by vidcapper
November 7, 20177 yr On the subject of newspaper bias, here is an interesting example... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...e-tax-avoidance But from today's Mail... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...-hypocrite.html Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite: Labour rents its HQ from offshore firm ... but still attacks the Royals Corbyn suggested Queen apologise if she invested £10m of her wealth offshore Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell demanded an inquiry Labour council avoided paying millions in tax after it used an offshore company Party’s London headquarters is rented from a tax-exempted property trust fund ****** Has the Guardian reported the second part of the above? renting property in a country where the government has allowed foreign tax dodgers to buy shitloads of UK assets up is not in any way the same as stuffing your actual money abroad, which the Fail takes great pains to quote Moggy as saying that rich people using these schemes make absolutely no money out of them. If that were true he would have no problem with the UK government closing all of them immediately. More likely he is preparing the groundwork to divert attention in case his finances ever come up for discussion (you know, his stakes in cancer-sticks among others)...
November 7, 20177 yr Yes, the Mail did report she was talking about lowering the voting age. As for what the Mail (or any other newspaper) reports, their space is not infinite (especially in the printed versions) so they *have* to be selective. Obviously, major stories are covered in all of them, but beyond those, it is up to the editors as to which stories they include - anything other method of deciding would be against the freedom of the press. The political spin put on stories is a somewhat separate issue, based on demographics, and the political persuasion of their core readership. That applies whether you're talking of a right-leaning paper like the Mail, or a left=leaning one like the Guardian. I address the issue of bias above, but iro reliability, they report real stories that other papers do not, because they think their readership will be interested in them - in that respect they are no different from any other newspaper. Also, as Suedehead says above, readers are capable of looking behind political bias, but I see no reason to believe that Mail readers are less capable of that then readers of any other newspaper. If you have evidence (rather than simply opinion) to suggest otherwise, I'd love to debate the issue further. You are trying to make excuses for the Mail for their selective bias and actual lies. Your assumptions that left-leaning papers are incapable of balance is not a balanced perspective. If it were a far-left paper providing click bait and propaganda then it would be a valid argument. You're right in that they pander to their older readership. You're not right in assuming propaganda has no effect. The evidence of thousands of years is that it very much does have an effect.
November 7, 20177 yr Author renting property in a country where the government has allowed foreign tax dodgers to buy shitloads of UK assets up is not in any way the same as stuffing your actual money abroad, which the Fail takes great pains to quote Moggy as saying that rich people using these schemes make absolutely no money out of them. If that were true he would have no problem with the UK government closing all of them immediately. More likely he is preparing the groundwork to divert attention in case his finances ever come up for discussion (you know, his stakes in cancer-sticks among others)... ISTM you're trying to overcomplicate this - it is either wrong to use tax havens, or it is not, regardless of whether we are talking about individuals or businesses.
November 7, 20177 yr But a gaffe by a member of the opposition is almost inevitably consequence-free anyway, so is it really a fair comparison. :unsure: While I'm not excusing it, Boris's gaffe only involved one person, where Abbott's potentially involved hundreds of thousands. Uh WUT? Her gaffe affects literally NO ONE because the TORIES affected them by dwnying parliamentary sovreignty and not allowing a VOTE!!!
November 7, 20177 yr Author Uh WUT? Her gaffe affects literally NO ONE because the TORIES affected them by dwnying parliamentary sovreignty and not allowing a VOTE!!! Hence my use of the word 'potentially'. If she hadn't been in opposition... Edited November 7, 20177 yr by vidcapper
November 7, 20177 yr ISTM you're trying to overcomplicate this - it is either wrong to use tax havens, or it is not, regardless of whether we are talking about individuals or businesses. Not if you need to rent and there is no alternative it isn't. The fault is the government that allows tax haven companies to buy up all the key assets in the country and stash their profits overseas. The fault of tax havens are the governments that allow it. They are not the same thing at all because the renter makes no profit out of it and they aren't evading tax they pay all they are supposed to pay, it's the BVI company that breaks the (spirit of) the law not the occupier who may not have ablind idea what or who they are (because these facts are not published and they are secretive). If everything was published and open then you MIGHT have an argument. That isn't the case and the Tories have lied continuously about doing anything about election after election. Wonder why.....
November 7, 20177 yr Hence my use of the word 'potentially'. If she hadn't been in opposition... How would her words have affected anyone if she was in government?
November 7, 20177 yr But a gaffe by a member of the opposition is almost inevitably consequence-free anyway, so is it really a fair comparison. :unsure: While I'm not excusing it, Boris's gaffe only involved one person, where Abbott's potentially involved hundreds of thousands. No. No. No. Getting a fact wrong is an error of memory that is quickly corrected by the whole of Fleet Street. making dangerous statements in public that have consequences for individuals immediately is unforgivable. Half of Fleet Street tend to try and make excuses for the inexscusable. Not the same at all.
November 7, 20177 yr ISTM you're trying to overcomplicate this - it is either wrong to use tax havens, or it is not, regardless of whether we are talking about individuals or businesses. Labour nor anyone else is under no obligation, nor should be, to investigate the holdings of their landlords though? And before these papers leaked ... how would they have known anyway? Lol. Also, if the government of the day's priviliges for the ultra wealthy basically promote this toxic culture, then it makes sense a lot of properties will be owned by firms like this. So? You point is completely biased and misses the um actual point of the scandal?
November 7, 20177 yr Author Labour or anyone else is under no obligation, nor should be, to investigate the holdings of their landlords though? No more so than the Queen should be expected to know exactly how royal money is being invested on her behalf. :unsure:
November 7, 20177 yr Again, that misses the point that THE RULING ELITE are stashing their money away, showin right wing neoliberal economics isn't working like um at all. The Queen SHOULD have more knowledge of her estate than tenants should have of their landlords'! But again, that is aside the point - the rich and powerful are stashing money away. This is helped by a Tory for-the-rich cosy environment.
November 7, 20177 yr No more so than the Queen should be expected to know exactly how royal money is being invested on her behalf. :unsure: Nonsense. The queen's money is indeed invested on her behalf by experts (Gove wouldn't approve). Anybody who employs people to invest their money can issue instructions, e.g. avoid companies involved in tobacco or the arms trade. Equally, they can say, e.g., "I'm the head of state. It would be a bit embarrassing if my money was invested in offshore trusts and people found out. With that in mind, please avoid them. After all, I'll still be loaded."
November 7, 20177 yr Whilst the tenants of a property would have no reason, ESPECIALLY, pre-papers to dig into the finance of their landlords, ESPECIALLY when almost ANYBODY or ANY ENTITY would have more important things to do. This is all very obvious? Also, this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901175 Prince Charles' lobbying for a rule change to benefit these companies was purely coincidence ... right?
Create an account or sign in to comment