free hit
counters
World Politics, Protest votes and Anti Establishment feelings. - Page 3 - General Chat - The Lotus Forums - Lotus Community Partner #ForTheOwners Jump to content


IGNORED

World Politics, Protest votes and Anti Establishment feelings.


Kimbers

Recommended Posts

  • Gold FFM

Agreed especially the Chinese replacement Lamps. Absolute shite especially the dimmerable ones. 

I put 6 led down lights in my home office 6 years ago not had a problem with them never changed the lamps from Aurora 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.
21 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

The scheme in this country is nearly as bad - I know farmers making more money from heating sheds than the actual farming.......... it's a very very wrong and broken system

Ooo - Do tell - I have a nice barn that if heated could become a nice warm Lotus / Triumph  garage and workshop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

And the establishment "Mouthpeice" does it again, here's an excerpt from the full BBC article

A French soldier guarding the Louvre in Paris has shot a man who tried to attack a security patrol with a machete.  PM Bernard Cazeneuve said the attack was "terrorist in nature". The Louvre, home to numerous celebrated art works, is the world's most visited museum......blah blah blah.

Now lets get this into perspective. the man was carrying a " 2 rucksacks" he was also carrying a machette, attacked 4 soldiers when they confronted him and he was shouting "Allahu Akbar".

When are they going to start being honest instead of worrying about what normal decent people will think, call a spade a friggin spade and stop bandying with words. It was an Islamic terrorist attack FFS! the BBC goes on to talk about how footfall is down at the Louvre because of concerns but not anywhere, at any time does it speculate that this is a Terrorist attack. it then goes on to skirt around it by listing the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Is it just me or should the title read "Terrorist attack by ISIS or Islamist at the Louvre, soldiers injured". But no, that might make people upset and blame someone. GAH! 
 

full article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38853841

  • Like 1

Possibly save your life. Check out this website.
http://everyman-campaign.org/

 

Distributor for 'Every Male' grooming products. (Discounts for any TLF members hairier than I am!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM
1 hour ago, Barrykearley said:

The BBC doesn't get the truth

Fixed that for you.

  • Like 1

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

The truth hurts....

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"These are the real people who time has forgot ,not given a thought.

It`s the System ! Hate the System! .......What`s the System ?"

The Jam   "Saturday`s Kids " 1979 

In a world where 8 individuals own as much wealth as half the world`s population, something seems wrong even if one or two of those megarich like Bill Gates try to help others. (Reminds me of "Captain Cash" they used to have in The Sun only on a larger scale) .(This isn`t about people earning up to a million a year by the way which most find to be rich enough-but it is not they who are the problem. Its the people on a million a week. 

I think its common knowledge if not commonsense that the more money you have the more power and influence that you are likely to have. But can anyone prove this empirically ? That`s still doubtful. The fact that Trump is a billionaire does not seem to have hindered his procedural efforts to become President .

The more relevant consideration is therefore how people,  instead of thinking  "don`t vote for that rich bastard who doesn`t give a toss about anyone else " to : "it just doesn`t matter how much money he has or where he went to school , he has shown that he cares about those left behind by the political and economic elites" .

In the USA a bigmouthed go-getter is often  admired anyway ( although Trump did start with a million dollars in his pocket and makes no secret of the fact) and it is interesting that he can still be seen as an outsider.

The UK is a bit different in that  many rich people are seen as dodgy bigheaded snobs, but we are seeing some trends in thought related to the above inconsistent sentiments  that can be seen as responsible for the Brexit vote as a manifestation of discontent.  (I am neither questioning the result nor disputing that many had different reasons for voting the way they did )- but there was a overall  feeling of "sticking it to the Brussels Elite and their gravy-train acolytes, they`ve had it easy for too long ". Was that a coherent and well-reasoned response to the problems facing Britain in particular ? 

Am I saying that people are just sheep who were brainwashed into attacking just the politicians and not the businessmen who control those politicians (often one and the same) ? No, and that insults the people who voted either way.

The process is more subtle than that (although the "Alternative Fact movement " seem to be growing in a dangerous way). Its more a question of seeing a problem just from where you stand together with your own experience.People can see one side of a story as in "striking lefty teachers disrupt our kids` education" as opposed to "overworked and underpaid striking teachers lose a day`s pay and their own children miss out too ". Or, "Bolshy union boss earns over a hundred grand a year as opposed to "newspaper owner earns £4 million a year, so what ?"  

In summary, equal morality is artificially assigned to different situations with different backgrounds and motives .  

Obviously people have written books about less so this post might as well be on a postage stamp but I proceed from what I believe to be a reasonable view that the more money you have the more you have the power to influence events. In the British context this means that the billionaires Murdoch, Lord Rothermere Barclay Brothers and Richard Desmond owning 70% of the print media were able to have exponentially more say over their countrymens` opinions than other sources of info with less extensive distribution. There have been some totally unacceptable aspects of this which include the criminal phone-hacking antics of an editor who later became Cameron`s special advisor (elite member anyone?) to the vile slanders against Liverpool FC fans in the Hillsborough tragedy. Murdoch met in person with both May and Trump last year. The BBC offered some counterbalance but is committed to preserving the status quo if it can. Anyone else who wants a look-in has just got Facebook and Twitter. Trump played a blinder in using Twittter although now he is where he wants, that seems less advisable. 

Now for the militant bit. The idea that the above billionaires are somehow apart from or in a position to criticise "the Elite" must be nonsense. Tony Blair`s son`s Godfather is Rupert Murdoch FFS !  Nigel Farage was Murdoch`s dinner party guest after the referendum. 

The elite want to preserve their wealth and there is an again, a reasonable temptation to ascribe that motivation to some kind of psychopathology. Can the world be bettrer run by the people who actually just want to go off and play golf ?         

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 16:52, Barrykearley said:

The BBC doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story

Just like one of yesterday's headlines on their website

GERMANY WARNS UK BANKS OVER BREXIT

Well when you read the story it was ONE person at ONE German bank who expressed an opinion!!!!

HTF does that get converted into such am emotional headline:cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/02/2017 at 11:49, Mark Blanchard said:

I stopped watching the BBC news many years ago.  I've no time for their lefty pc bollox.

I don't think they are from the Left TBH. Dan is unashamedly left wing and is one of the most prolific posters when it comes to this topic. I think the BBC are something totally different and insidious as they hide behind the spectre of respectability and neutrality but are secretly both establishment mouth pieces whilst pushing their own agenda (which I think is Liberal with a sprinkling of "establishmentism").

I listen to 5 live all the time....except during the referendum as I would find myself shouting at the radio and getting angry after a total "Stay bias" to the point of having 2-3 stay "experts" for every "leave" and they try and convince you that the public are also behind what they want by having more MOP behind whatever it is they want you to think, than opposition. 

Then they say "We have taken a representative section of the public" when it is plainly not so.

Here is a absolute classic I heard the other day: a discussion about immigration. "We want you to call up and give us your views". I was listening to it and getting angrier and angrier after they put on one after another "MOP" who supported and agreed with mass immigration into the UK, whilst simultaniously letting onyone with the opposing view be abused, spoken over and called racists. Even worse, the number of people allowed on was slightly skewed in favour of immigration (I would say 60/40). Now that made me think that it must be the view of the public as the BBC would put a representative section of the public on.......oh no!!! I was so interested that I looked up both expert opinion and actual advisory briefings used by the govt and organisations by "The Migration Observatory" at the University of Oxford. Their brief is as follows: "Based at the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford, the Migration Observatory provides impartial, independent, authoritative, evidence-based analysis of data on migration and migrants in the UK, to inform media, public and policy debates, and to generate high quality research on international migration and public policy issues"

One of their salient reports is below but here's the headliner:   Approximately three quarters of people in Britain currently favour reducing immigration

Think about this every time you watch Question Time and they have 6 politicians, half backing each side and then a comedian and an Activist who then skew the figures in favour of what the BBC want you to hear and also the number of people in the audience who are meant to represent the views of the public. When was the last time you saw the audience actually 75% on one side? (Oh wait, they had that in the Brexit ones in favour of "Stay"). So Mr and Mrs Liberal BBC. "Representative section of society" My Arse!

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

Possibly save your life. Check out this website.
http://everyman-campaign.org/

 

Distributor for 'Every Male' grooming products. (Discounts for any TLF members hairier than I am!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

So for 2,000 years the Christian Church has believed and preached that marriage is the union of 1 man to 1 woman.  Now it seems, that in this political correct world that the Church is expected to change these beliefs and allow same sex marriages in churches, the place where these beliefs have been taught since those chruches opened.  

Now, I have no issue at all with the LGBT community, in fact, I and my wife have several friends in that community whom we cherish, but I do not see why it is valid for this group to "protest" that they cannot be married in a church that goes against other people's religious beliefs, the beliefs of that church and 2,000 years of teaching.  What happened to mutual respect for differing points of view or does that not count if you are from a "group" and everyone is just expected to tow the line and do what you demand?

Same sex marriage in the UK is legal and damn right it should be as same sex partners should have the same rights as other married couples. But to try to force someone else to bow to your beliefs is wrong. It's a bit like positive discrimination - the irony is it is still discrimination and does not cut to the core of the issue or address it in the long term.

  • Like 1

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What needs to be remembered is that the BBC is officially committed to "impartiality". However that concept is not without its problems. How do you be "impartial" when there is an agenda there as Kimbers rightly pointed out ? To take an extreme example, suppose many people still believed the earth to be flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary 

-the BBC would have to interview 2 members of the public who thought it was flat  and 2 who thought it round. That wouldn`t mean that arguments for and against the earth being flat were equally valid or had equal weight.  

What the BBC does to exhibit its bias is more subtle than that. If it`s a person in favour of it being flat make sure the interviewee is a blue - haired lesbian (ie a person most people tend not to identify with) . If its for the earth being round , make sure its a "respectable" person with neat hair. In Britain the image does a lot of the talking, where you can usually tell a person`s political views by their location, job and the way they dress and speak

 (unlike Italy for instance where the guys who bolt Ferraris together are just as likely (probably more so if they`re in a trades union)  to be Communists as much as anyone else).        

It`s worth mentioning that Sarah Sands is about to become Editor of the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme (a programme that loves to tell us all about how important it is). She was formerly editor of the "London Evening Standard" where her editorial bias was, believe me, undoubtedly Conservative (ie backing Zac Goldsmith to be Mayor). This is just one more reason amongst many why I believe the BBC to have a right-wing political bias but it probably

has a left-wing cultural bias (excluding Top Gear maybe !)  

 

        

Edited by basalte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...