January 5, 20187 yr Author Famously, fascist regimes are able to apply these three things in moderation very successfully. Not the 'due process' part!
January 12, 20187 yr Author I never would have guessed everyone was so happy with the current one. :teresa: OK, to get the ball rolling, I'll say Richard Littlejohn. Another good article by him today - this time about having a referendum to abolish the House of Lords I know you won't read it, but here's the URL anyway : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...ouse-Lords.html
January 12, 20187 yr Another good article by him today - this time about having a referendum to abolish the House of Lords I know you won't read it, but here's the URL anyway : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...ouse-Lords.html Youre right I wont read it - not because it's the Mail, but because it takes too long to load with all those bloody adverts for breasts and other trivia. Better things to do with my limited time than wait 10 minutes. A refrendum on scrapping the House Of Lords would be pointless since most people would happily get rid of it in favour of an elected House. It exists for other reasons (political).
January 12, 20187 yr Author Youre right I wont read it - not because it's the Mail, but because it takes too long to load with all those bloody adverts for breasts and other trivia. Better things to do with my limited time than wait 10 minutes. That's why I use adblock. I suspect most people here would prefer a rightwing-BS-blocker before looking at the Mail... :heehee: [Please, no-one do the 'there would be nothing left' gag] :rolleyes: A refrendum on scrapping the House Of Lords would be pointless since most people would happily get rid of it in favour of an elected House. It exists for other reasons (political). I have no problem with an elected HoL that serves the same purpose as the current one does - at least that one would be slightly less out-of-touch than the current version. Edited January 12, 20187 yr by vidcapper
February 17, 20187 yr Richard Littlejohn really showed himself to be PM material this week. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20...t-all-equal-yet
February 17, 20187 yr Author Richard Littlejohn really showed himself to be PM material this week. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20...t-all-equal-yet Yes, I saw the original DM article, but I didn't want to give this forum even more reason to froth at the mouth... :teresa:
February 17, 20187 yr Is that the article about Tom Daley? The one that has caused advertisers to choose not to advertise in that rag or on their website?
February 17, 20187 yr Is that the article about Tom Daley? The one that has caused advertisers to choose not to advertise in that rag or on their website? Yes that's the one - written by Richard LittleBrain.
February 17, 20187 yr Author Is that the article about Tom Daley? The one that has caused advertisers to choose not to advertise in that rag or on their website? What did they *think* the Mail was like before they agreed to sponsor them? :huh:
February 17, 20187 yr What did they *think* the Mail was like before they agreed to sponsor them? :huh: From what I've read, they were particularly concerned about their advert appearing alongside John Littledick's latest nonsense. Ultimately it is a commercial decision. If they think that a continued association with the Daily Mail will cost them, they will act accordingly.
February 18, 20187 yr Author From what I've read, they were particularly concerned about their advert appearing alongside John Littledick's latest nonsense. Ultimately it is a commercial decision. If they think that a continued association with the Daily Mail will cost them, they will act accordingly. I would say 'opinion' rather than 'nonsense', as it is still (just about) a free press. As to the juxtaposition of the advert, I can't comment on that as I only read the online version.
February 18, 20187 yr Author I think it's the online version where it happened. Are we talking about the potted summary on the main page, or the full article, since the latter obviously takes up more space.
February 18, 20187 yr Are we talking about the potted summary on the main page, or the full article, since the latter obviously takes up more space. You've done quite an impressive job of failing to comment on the contents of the article in question.
February 19, 20187 yr Author You've done quite an impressive job of failing to comment on the contents of the article in question. But nobody *asked* me to comment on the content - and in most cases, members of this forum seem much happier making assumptions on what my comments would be, rather than waiting for my *actual* opinions on any given subject. Even when I do post my opinions, people go out of their way to misinterpret them, so why keep asking?
February 20, 20187 yr But nobody *asked* me to comment on the content - and in most cases, members of this forum seem much happier making assumptions on what my comments would be, rather than waiting for my *actual* opinions on any given subject. Even when I do post my opinions, people go out of their way to misinterpret them, so why keep asking? Presumably because you put his name forward as an 'alternate PM', and it would be interesting to see you justify your choice in light of the article. It's a discussion forum, not a non-sequiter forum.
February 20, 20187 yr Author Presumably because you put his name forward as an 'alternate PM', and it would be interesting to see you justify your choice in light of the article. It's a discussion forum, not a non-sequiter forum. It isn't? :heehee: Seriously though, ISTM supporting the right of everyone to express their opinions, even if they upset some people, should be justification enough. After all, you don't need to agree with someone's views, in order to support their right to say them : https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ Or perhaps you subscribe to the idea that : 'If you can't say something nice, then say nothing at all'? :unsure:
February 20, 20187 yr I perfectly understand the concept of free speech. Mr Littlejohn is entitled to hold those views, just as companies are entitled to withdraw their advertising from his newspaper if they think that what he's said is beyond the pale. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that, of all of the dozens of national newspaper columnists and thousands of people in the public eye in this country, you picked him as someone who you would like to see in charge.
February 20, 20187 yr Author I perfectly understand the concept of free speech. Mr Littlejohn is entitled to hold those views, just as companies are entitled to withdraw their advertising from his newspaper if they think that what he's said is beyond the pale. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that, of all of the dozens of national newspaper columnists and thousands of people in the public eye in this country, you picked him as someone who you would like to see in charge. I should point out that his latest controversial column was posted well after I started this thread though, and I cannot endorse the opinions he expressed in it.
February 20, 20187 yr Do you still support him for PM? Yes, in 2004 alone he wrote about gay issues 104 times. His gross opinions are well-known.
Create an account or sign in to comment