Joining the dots up, I’d say Blair is responsible for the Terrorism in this country, the Islamaphobia,all ongoing. Which incorporates the release dates etc, all ongoing. Which the media would love to blame the government for, but can’t. Not relevant to Brexit? Which also applies to a lot of the above cartoons.
These comments are very well thought out.
I suppose you think that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for a well funded NHS.
You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been admitting for ages that they have an Islamophobia problem.
I am not sure why you would think that it is possible to blame previous PMs for anything, when we have had a Tory Government for 10 years.
Anything The Government is not happy with can be changed, and surely 10 years is long enough to do that.
The cartoons are relevant to Boris, and he owns Brexit.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Joining the dots up, I’d say Blair is responsible for the Terrorism in this country, the Islamaphobia,all ongoing. Which incorporates the release dates etc, all ongoing. Which the media would love to blame the government for, but can’t. Not relevant to Brexit? Which also applies to a lot of the above cartoons.
Tony Blair did it.
Man stabbed at mosque in London's Regent's Park
An elderly man has been stabbed at a mosque in central London during afternoon prayers. The man, in his 70s, was taken to hospital after he was stabbed at London Central Mosque in Regent's Park just after 3pm. Police said he is in a non-life threatening condition after being treated at the scene and taken to a major trauma centre. He is believed to be the muezzin who leads the call to prayer and was at the front of the hall when he was stabbed.
There were no Muslim terrorists in the U.K. before Blair’s ok for the illegal war, to my knowledge. This may or may not be a terrorist attack. Don’t jump the gun, you’re attacking like the media.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Don't hold you breath, he doesn't like questions.
I wonder why?
I’ll answer as many questions a you want. I don’t agree the media are pro-Conservative. Boris Johnson has only really been PM for a couple of months,as before then he had to battle to push home the democratic vote,finally putting it to bed. I think you’re getting confused,let me help. This Government/cabinet, aren’t made up of the same people as of the last ten years. Was this governments main priority to build flood defenses since December? I think not. From the different news agencies you get a split on whether the locals wanted the PM to visit. Of course the media 100% wanted him there. On the defenses themselves, the more you build, the more the water floods elsewhere. It’s quite clear that a lot of the homes have been built in the wrong areas,and others are under more threat than ever before. Should the tax payer pay for flood defenses?Whats your solution? Build barriers by every village or town, pushing flood water over farmland or meadows destroying crops and killing livestock. Take a look at the amount of rivers that are always susceptible to flooding in England alone. Looks a pricey project to me.May even take the Tories 20 years to complete.
Most of this thread has been compiled by someone who can’t accept the election result, or accept change.By someone who can’t see past problems or come up with any solutions. The thread is compiled,to the most part,by a staunch Labour voter with just the one viewpoint.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
I remember as a young boy, my Father asked me what I thought of something, and I replied "rubbish". He then pointed out to me that just to criticise something as being rubbish, was inadequate, and nobody would take me seriously. He explained that to have my opinion respected, I would need to be much more specific, and explain the reasons for my criticism. He was right of course.
You have reminded me of this conversation. You continually do this by criticising the media as if it was a single organisation, that was always completely out of touch, and had decided to publish slurs about Boris and The Government at every opportunity, and ignore any good deeds. They even have a single nose that has been put out of joint? You also blame Tony Blair for everything under the sun, despite the fact he no longer plays a part in day to day politics.
Yet you never explain anything.
Why is the media nose out of joint?
Which media tosh?
What media bait?
Which new lows?
Wouldn't you think that having a free press is fundamental to any democracy?
How do you hide behind freedom of the press?
Why would you describe the media as poor souls?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for all our terrorism?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for Islamophobia?
Is he responsible for all the terrorism, and Islamophobia throughout the world, or just in this country?
You have previous convictions for an unwillingness to answer questions, so I wont hold my breath.
There’s many a well know star from this country who know exactly what I mean when I’m referring to our press.Thats why they’re leaving or have already left. They are just so wrong with their facts, far too often. There’s always plenty of gullible readers ready to pay their wages though.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Boris going to the flooded areas would achieve nothing at all for anyone. Don’t kid yourself it would.Everyone would be overjoyed to see a PM that’s been in power for such a short time, turn up? Or is it the negative reaction from the locals , captured by the media, that folk want to view.
Many of Tuesday's newspapers continue to focus on the flooding caused by Storm Dennis, which an expert tells the Daily Mirror now represents a "national emergency". Angela Terry, an environmental scientist, says the response so far - including sending in the army to fill sandbags - amounts to a "sticking plaster". "Where the floody **** is Boris?" the Sun asks. "The prime minister is in danger of misjudging the public mood," its leader column says. "Whole communities are under water for the second time in months... but Boris Johnson is nowhere to be seen."
No 10 disagreement Meanwhile, the Times says Boris Johnson is at odds with senior Downing Street advisers, including Dominic Cummings, over plans to scrap the BBC licence fee and replace it with a voluntary subscription. On Sunday, it was reported that Downing Street wanted to "whack" the corporation. But the Times says it's been told by an ally of Mr Johnson that he's "not as gung-ho on the licence fee as Dom", adding: "With the PM it's more reform than revolution".
Many of the papers digest the resignation of the Downing Street adviser and self-styled "super-forecaster" Andrew Sabisky, following criticism of alleged past remarks on pregnancies, eugenics and race The Daily Mail says the 28-year-old had been one of the first to respond to an appeal from Dominic Cummings - the prime minister's most powerful aide - for "weirdos and misfits". The Daily Telegraph calls it an "embarrassing setback" for Mr Cummings - a man whose "abrasive approach" to government, the Guardian suggests, is causing "consternation" among some Tories.
"What is the point of saving?" is the Daily Mail's headline, as it reports that National Savings and Investments has "slashed" interest rates to "rock-bottom" levels, and cut its prizes. Instead of trying to reverse the "race to the bottom" savers face, the Mail says, the government is "joining it". Its editorial urges the new Chancellor Rishi Sunak to "make his mark" by overturning the cuts in the forthcoming budget. According to the Times, Mr Sunak could have other priorities, as it reports he and the prime minister are considering cutting pension tax relief for higher earners. It says the Treasury has drawn up plans to reduce it from 40 to 20 per cent, a move that would raise £10bn a year. Currently, the wealthy get more relief than lower earners. "If that's levelling up then I'm a flying pig," a government source tells the Times.
For Boris Johnson’s pantomime authoritarians, overt cruelty is a winning hand
The cabinet’s culture warriors are targeting ‘foreign criminals’ and ‘unelected judges’. Legal challenges alone won’t stop them
It has become received wisdom among Westminster pundits that the new winning formula in politics is to “move left on economics and right on culture”. Boris Johnson’s cabinet reshuffle looks like an attempt to put this lesson into practice: forcing Sajid Javid, an advocate of strict spending limits, out of the Treasury suggests that the prime minister wants to strategically splash money around – however superficial this moving “left” might prove to be. At the same time, Johnson’s government has sent a series of clear signals to the right – on immigration, on perceived liberal bias at the BBC, on the “free-speech crisis” in universities – the latest of which is the appointment of Suella Braverman as attorney general. This suggests that the government intends to pursue the pantomime authoritarianism displayed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, at last year’s party conference: an ostentatious cruelty, directed at people who supposedly threaten public safety, and waved like a taunt to the liberal elite that stands in the government’s way. Braverman comes from the hard-right milieu that has increasingly set the tone in the Conservative party since the EU referendum. Last year, she drew criticism from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others for saying the right was engaged in “a battle against cultural Marxism”, echoing a conspiracy theory with antisemitic connotations that has made its way from the extremist fringe into the mainstream via websites such as Breitbart.
"Without a level playing field on environment, labour, taxation and state aid, you cannot have the highest quality access to the world's largest single market," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech at the London School of Economics.
To what does a level playing field refer?
It is a trade-policy term for a set of common rules and standards that prevent businesses in one country undercutting their rivals and gaining a competitive advantage over those operating in other countries. In other words, it's about fair and open competition - and it's an important part of the EU single market (in which member countries allow the free movement of people, goods, services and money).
Part of a trade negotiation is working out how widespread level playing field provisions should be. But the areas in which the EU is most insistent they must be maintained are: workers' rights environmental protection taxation state aid (or subsidies for business)
What are the options?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he wants a zero-tariff zero-quota deal but also insists on the UK's right to diverge or move away from EU rules and regulations when it wants to. So that could mean sticking close to EU rules in some areas but not in others. The EU adds a third zero to the equation - "zero dumping", which means the strictest level playing field rules it can negotiate. One option is to have what are known as non-regression clauses, which means the two sides would agree not to water down the shared rules they currently have. Another, tougher, option is to insist on what's called dynamic alignment, which would mean if the EU changed its rules in the future, the UK would automatically make the same changes.
And that's partly what the trade negotiations will be about?
Yes. And both sides are - predictably - digging in a bit. The early signs are a number of EU countries, including those that do a lot of trade with the UK, are taking a tough line and insisting on dynamic alignment in several policy areas, including state aid and environmental regulations that affect businesses. But that won't be acceptable in London. Last week, Chancellor Sajid Javid told the Financial Times: "There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule taker." Former Prime Minister Theresa May's initial version of the withdrawal agreement with the EU contained a series of legally binding level playing field provisions within it. Boris Johnson's version doesn't - it relegates most of those rules (apart from some that relate to trade between Northern Ireland and the EU) to the non-binding political declaration. So agreement on a level playing field regime is going to have to be negotiated before the end of the post-Brexit transition period, in December 2020. And it is fair to say the two sides will begin a long way apart. Not only is there disagreement on what should be covered, there is also no meeting of minds yet on how any future disputes should be resolved. It's another reminder that, after Brexit, the UK will remain a friend and partner of the EU but it will also become a rival.
No, come July settle for no deal,early doors.Then move on. Its kinda strange that all the noise comes from Frenchman in the EU. Barnier and Macron. Remembering that they were liberated by us and others in WW2, then 30 odd years later, they openly sell Exocet missiles to Argentina to use against our forces. This is about five years after we joined the EU. On all accounts a very ungrateful nation,backstabbers,and I gather they don’t like the English full stop. I don’t think they’ve ever got over the Battle of Trafalgar. No deal, the wtg.
Btw Haysie, I don’t need or wish to be on here everyday like some. But I will try to squeeze you into my schedule if there’s anything interesting on this thread that’s worthy of a comment or two.
Btw Haysie, I don’t need or wish to be on here everyday like some. But I will try to squeeze you into my schedule if there’s anything interesting on this thread that’s worthy of a comment or two.
Btw Haysie, I don’t need or wish to be on here everyday like some. But I will try to squeeze you into my schedule if there’s anything interesting on this thread that’s worthy of a comment or two.
I am not sure of what you may think is worthy of a comment, but you don't appear to like facts.
It is a trade-policy term for a set of common rules and standards that prevent businesses in one country undercutting their rivals and gaining a competitive advantage over those operating in other countries. In other words, it's about fair and open competition - and it's an important part of the EU single market (in which member countries allow the free movement of people, goods, services and money).
Part of a trade negotiation is working out how widespread level playing field provisions should be. But the areas in which the EU is most insistent they must be maintained are: workers' rights environmental protection taxation state aid (or subsidies for business)
What are the options?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he wants a zero-tariff zero-quota deal but also insists on the UK's right to diverge or move away from EU rules and regulations when it wants to. So that could mean sticking close to EU rules in some areas but not in others. The EU adds a third zero to the equation - "zero dumping", which means the strictest level playing field rules it can negotiate. One option is to have what are known as non-regression clauses, which means the two sides would agree not to water down the shared rules they currently have. Another, tougher, option is to insist on what's called dynamic alignment, which would mean if the EU changed its rules in the future, the UK would automatically make the same changes.
And that's partly what the trade negotiations will be about?
Yes. And both sides are - predictably - digging in a bit. The early signs are a number of EU countries, including those that do a lot of trade with the UK, are taking a tough line and insisting on dynamic alignment in several policy areas, including state aid and environmental regulations that affect businesses. But that won't be acceptable in London. Last week, Chancellor Sajid Javid told the Financial Times: "There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule taker." Former Prime Minister Theresa May's initial version of the withdrawal agreement with the EU contained a series of legally binding level playing field provisions within it. Boris Johnson's version doesn't - it relegates most of those rules (apart from some that relate to trade between Northern Ireland and the EU) to the non-binding political declaration. So agreement on a level playing field regime is going to have to be negotiated before the end of the post-Brexit transition period, in December 2020. And it is fair to say the two sides will begin a long way apart. Not only is there disagreement on what should be covered, there is also no meeting of minds yet on how any future disputes should be resolved. It's another reminder that, after Brexit, the UK will remain a friend and partner of the EU but it will also become a rival.
No, come July settle for no deal,early doors.Then move on. Its kinda strange that all the noise comes from Frenchman in the EU. Barnier and Macron. Remembering that they were liberated by us and others in WW2, then 30 odd years later, they openly sell Exocet missiles to Argentina to use against our forces. This is about five years after we joined the EU. On all accounts a very ungrateful nation,backstabbers,and I gather they don’t like the English full stop. I don’t think they’ve ever got over the Battle of Trafalgar. No deal, the wtg.
Words of wisdom.
Everyone except you knows that no deal would be a disaster. Sorry I should have said you and Boris. Do you think you are being paranoid? Bringing WW2 into it is about as relevant as blaming Tony Blair for world wide terrorism. Michel Barnier is the EUs chief negotiator on Brexit, and despite the fact he is French, is entitled to discuss Brexit. Your comments seem to typical of the xenophobic, "expert on everything", leave voter. You may remember John Knox, he has a different, and less biased view than you. Although I don't suppose that you would concede that the Defence Secretary at the time, is more likely to have known a bit more than you.
You don't seem to allow the truth to get in the way of your comments.
Before the war, France sold Argentina's military junta five Exocet missiles. At the time, few suspected that the regime's longstanding claim on the Falklands would lead to war, and the sale went largely unnoticed.
How France helped us win Falklands war, by John Nott
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict. In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict. Although Lady Thatcher clashed with President Mitterrand over the future direction of Europe, he immediately came to her aid after Argentine forces invaded the Falklands in April 1982. "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them. The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.
"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says. "I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable." He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator."For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was." Caspar Weinberger, the US defence secretary, supported Britain but the State Department was "dominated by Latinos". "There was incredible pressure from the White House and the State Department to negotiate. It was hugely damaging," Sir John told The Telegraph. "They couldn't understand that to us any negotiated settlement would have seemed like a defeat." Asked if he found it irritating that the Americans expected Britain's total support in the war against terrorism, Sir John said: "I am against the Americans smashing things up with bombing raids, then letting us be the auxiliary policemen to pick up the pieces."
Sir John says he held the Foreign Office "in deep contempt" for the caution it displayed when Lady Thatcher proposed sending the Task Force to the Falklands.
Many of Tuesday's newspapers continue to focus on the flooding caused by Storm Dennis, which an expert tells the Daily Mirror now represents a "national emergency". Angela Terry, an environmental scientist, says the response so far - including sending in the army to fill sandbags - amounts to a "sticking plaster". "Where the floody **** is Boris?" the Sun asks. "The prime minister is in danger of misjudging the public mood," its leader column says. "Whole communities are under water for the second time in months... but Boris Johnson is nowhere to be seen."
No 10 disagreement Meanwhile, the Times says Boris Johnson is at odds with senior Downing Street advisers, including Dominic Cummings, over plans to scrap the BBC licence fee and replace it with a voluntary subscription. On Sunday, it was reported that Downing Street wanted to "whack" the corporation. But the Times says it's been told by an ally of Mr Johnson that he's "not as gung-ho on the licence fee as Dom", adding: "With the PM it's more reform than revolution".
Many of the papers digest the resignation of the Downing Street adviser and self-styled "super-forecaster" Andrew Sabisky, following criticism of alleged past remarks on pregnancies, eugenics and race The Daily Mail says the 28-year-old had been one of the first to respond to an appeal from Dominic Cummings - the prime minister's most powerful aide - for "weirdos and misfits". The Daily Telegraph calls it an "embarrassing setback" for Mr Cummings - a man whose "abrasive approach" to government, the Guardian suggests, is causing "consternation" among some Tories.
"What is the point of saving?" is the Daily Mail's headline, as it reports that National Savings and Investments has "slashed" interest rates to "rock-bottom" levels, and cut its prizes. Instead of trying to reverse the "race to the bottom" savers face, the Mail says, the government is "joining it". Its editorial urges the new Chancellor Rishi Sunak to "make his mark" by overturning the cuts in the forthcoming budget. According to the Times, Mr Sunak could have other priorities, as it reports he and the prime minister are considering cutting pension tax relief for higher earners. It says the Treasury has drawn up plans to reduce it from 40 to 20 per cent, a move that would raise £10bn a year. Currently, the wealthy get more relief than lower earners. "If that's levelling up then I'm a flying pig," a government source tells the Times.
For Boris Johnson’s pantomime authoritarians, overt cruelty is a winning hand
The cabinet’s culture warriors are targeting ‘foreign criminals’ and ‘unelected judges’. Legal challenges alone won’t stop them
It has become received wisdom among Westminster pundits that the new winning formula in politics is to “move left on economics and right on culture”. Boris Johnson’s cabinet reshuffle looks like an attempt to put this lesson into practice: forcing Sajid Javid, an advocate of strict spending limits, out of the Treasury suggests that the prime minister wants to strategically splash money around – however superficial this moving “left” might prove to be. At the same time, Johnson’s government has sent a series of clear signals to the right – on immigration, on perceived liberal bias at the BBC, on the “free-speech crisis” in universities – the latest of which is the appointment of Suella Braverman as attorney general. This suggests that the government intends to pursue the pantomime authoritarianism displayed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, at last year’s party conference: an ostentatious cruelty, directed at people who supposedly threaten public safety, and waved like a taunt to the liberal elite that stands in the government’s way. Braverman comes from the hard-right milieu that has increasingly set the tone in the Conservative party since the EU referendum. Last year, she drew criticism from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others for saying the right was engaged in “a battle against cultural Marxism”, echoing a conspiracy theory with antisemitic connotations that has made its way from the extremist fringe into the mainstream via websites such as Breitbart.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Boris going to the flooded areas would achieve nothing at all for anyone. Don’t kid yourself it would.Everyone would be overjoyed to see a PM that’s been in power for such a short time, turn up? Or is it the negative reaction from the locals , captured by the media, that folk want to view.
You completely ignore the point.
The point was that when the General Election campaign was in full swing Boris couldn't be stopped visiting the affected areas, and taking advantage of every photo opportunity, and all the publicity that followed. Some of the press made the point that even though the recent flooding was worse hide nor hair as been seen of Boris. That is a fact. However much you may dislike it.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
I remember as a young boy, my Father asked me what I thought of something, and I replied "rubbish". He then pointed out to me that just to criticise something as being rubbish, was inadequate, and nobody would take me seriously. He explained that to have my opinion respected, I would need to be much more specific, and explain the reasons for my criticism. He was right of course.
You have reminded me of this conversation. You continually do this by criticising the media as if it was a single organisation, that was always completely out of touch, and had decided to publish slurs about Boris and The Government at every opportunity, and ignore any good deeds. They even have a single nose that has been put out of joint? You also blame Tony Blair for everything under the sun, despite the fact he no longer plays a part in day to day politics.
Yet you never explain anything.
Why is the media nose out of joint?
Which media tosh?
What media bait?
Which new lows?
Wouldn't you think that having a free press is fundamental to any democracy?
How do you hide behind freedom of the press?
Why would you describe the media as poor souls?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for all our terrorism?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for Islamophobia?
Is he responsible for all the terrorism, and Islamophobia throughout the world, or just in this country?
You have previous convictions for an unwillingness to answer questions, so I wont hold my breath.
There’s many a well know star from this country who know exactly what I mean when I’m referring to our press.Thats why they’re leaving or have already left. They are just so wrong with their facts, far too often. There’s always plenty of gullible readers ready to pay their wages though.
Most of this thread has been compiled by someone who can’t accept the election result, or accept change.By someone who can’t see past problems or come up with any solutions. The thread is compiled,to the most part,by a staunch Labour voter with just the one viewpoint.
How can anyone not accept an election result?
I have never voted for Labour in my life.
I do think The Government are creating many of their problems themselves.
Brexit will be very interesting.
You don't seem to have a clue about the way Boris lies and misleads the public.
It will all come on top in the fairly near future.
Joining the dots up, I’d say Blair is responsible for the Terrorism in this country, the Islamaphobia,all ongoing. Which incorporates the release dates etc, all ongoing. Which the media would love to blame the government for, but can’t. Not relevant to Brexit? Which also applies to a lot of the above cartoons.
These comments are very well thought out.
I suppose you think that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for a well funded NHS.
You may not have noticed, but the Tories have been admitting for ages that they have an Islamophobia problem.
I am not sure why you would think that it is possible to blame previous PMs for anything, when we have had a Tory Government for 10 years.
Anything The Government is not happy with can be changed, and surely 10 years is long enough to do that.
The cartoons are relevant to Boris, and he owns Brexit.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Joining the dots up, I’d say Blair is responsible for the Terrorism in this country, the Islamaphobia,all ongoing. Which incorporates the release dates etc, all ongoing. Which the media would love to blame the government for, but can’t. Not relevant to Brexit? Which also applies to a lot of the above cartoons.
Tony Blair did it.
Man stabbed at mosque in London's Regent's Park
An elderly man has been stabbed at a mosque in central London during afternoon prayers. The man, in his 70s, was taken to hospital after he was stabbed at London Central Mosque in Regent's Park just after 3pm. Police said he is in a non-life threatening condition after being treated at the scene and taken to a major trauma centre. He is believed to be the muezzin who leads the call to prayer and was at the front of the hall when he was stabbed.
There were no Muslim terrorists in the U.K. before Blair’s ok for the illegal war, to my knowledge. This may or may not be a terrorist attack. Don’t jump the gun, you’re attacking like the media.
Your knowledge would therefore appear very limited.
If you follow your logic why would there be any terrorism elsewhere in Europe for instance, or come to that elsewhere in the world?
You are right of course, the white man might have had good reason for stabbing a Muslim man in his seventies, he may have just happened to have fallen out with him. The attacks on Muslims in Germany may not be terrorism either, just down to Tony Blair.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
The media are overwhelmingly pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit.
Which one do you classify as "media bait"? Expecting a PM to pretend to care about natural disasters in his own country? Or superforecasters-people who believe they know more than experts in every single field. 21st Century Mystic Megs. Pah.
Don't hold you breath, he doesn't like questions.
I wonder why?
I’ll answer as many questions a you want. I don’t agree the media are pro-Conservative.
This is absolutely obvious to most people
Boris Johnson has only really been PM for a couple of months,as before then he had to battle to push home the democratic vote,finally putting it to bed.
I am not sure what this means if anything?
What was he battling for?
What de put to bed (other than Carrie, and the pole dancer?
I think you’re getting confused,let me help.
I admire your optimism.
This Government/cabinet, aren’t made up of the same people as of the last ten years.
The Tory Government have been in power for 10 years.
That is whats called a fact.
Was this governments main priority to build flood defenses since December? I think not.
I don't either, this is a very silly suggestion.
From the different news agencies you get a split on whether the locals wanted the PM to visit.
No the point was he visited during the election campaign, but hasn't been seen anywhere near since.
Of course the media 100% wanted him there.
The media report on events, rather than create them.
Every time Boris opens his mouth he gives them ammunition.
Not their fault.
On the defenses themselves, the more you build, the more the water floods elsewhere. It’s quite clear that a lot of the homes have been built in the wrong areas,and others are under more threat than ever before.
And? Should the tax payer pay for flood defenses?Whats your solution?
I haven't got a solution that's the Governments job.
All I know is that nothing much seems to change, and Boris takes an interest when it suits him.
Build barriers by every village or town, pushing flood water over farmland or meadows destroying crops and killing livestock. Take a look at the amount of rivers that are always susceptible to flooding in England alone. Looks a pricey project to me.May even take the Tories 20 years to complete.
Let's look at the facts surrounding 1 sector of the media:-the Daily Newspapers.
The last time this was seriously questioned was by YouGov in 2017, and reported by The Times. Neither organisation has been regularly attacked for being Left Wing.This is where the British people were questioned about how they perceived the political leanings of the major newspapers. Let's examine the most popular answers:-
"Far Left":0. Readership:0 Fairly Left:2. The Guardian and The Mirror. Current daily copies sold: (2019). c.650k Neutral:1. The i. Copies: c.230K Fairly Right-Wing:3. Times/Telegraph/Sun (Sun was actually equal fairly/far right). Copies sold:2.2 million. Far Right:2. Mail/Express. Sales 1.6 million.
So-are the daily papers favouring the Left? Which statistic do you prefer? 1.6 million Far Right v 0 Far Left? 3.8 million Right v 650k Left?
So when the Mirror criticises the PM, one needs to take it with a large pinch of salt. But when the Mail and the Sun do, the PM needs to listen. Because people remember when a PM has a CBA attitude to disasters in his own electorate. And Labour will not always be as weak as they are now.
It’s good to see Boris and the Government not rising to the media bait, after they got their nose put out of joint. Deflecting all this media tosh will just make him a stronger PM. The media are sinking to new lows,poor souls.
I remember as a young boy, my Father asked me what I thought of something, and I replied "rubbish". He then pointed out to me that just to criticise something as being rubbish, was inadequate, and nobody would take me seriously. He explained that to have my opinion respected, I would need to be much more specific, and explain the reasons for my criticism. He was right of course.
You have reminded me of this conversation. You continually do this by criticising the media as if it was a single organisation, that was always completely out of touch, and had decided to publish slurs about Boris and The Government at every opportunity, and ignore any good deeds. They even have a single nose that has been put out of joint? You also blame Tony Blair for everything under the sun, despite the fact he no longer plays a part in day to day politics.
Yet you never explain anything.
Why is the media nose out of joint?
Which media tosh?
What media bait?
Which new lows?
Wouldn't you think that having a free press is fundamental to any democracy?
How do you hide behind freedom of the press?
Why would you describe the media as poor souls?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for all our terrorism?
Why is Tony Blair responsible for Islamophobia?
Is he responsible for all the terrorism, and Islamophobia throughout the world, or just in this country?
You have previous convictions for an unwillingness to answer questions, so I wont hold my breath.
There’s many a well know star from this country who know exactly what I mean when I’m referring to our press.Thats why they’re leaving or have already left. They are just so wrong with their facts, far too often. There’s always plenty of gullible readers ready to pay their wages though.
Our Press can be horrible. It is very easy to blame them. The reality is they are in the business of selling stories. If we weren't so keen to buy such tittle-tattle, they wouldn't do it. And for every 10 stars who claims they left the country because of the Press, 3 of them left for better pay, and 6 to avoid paying UK tax.
I detest people who bang on about this country while not contributing by paying tax. and to every single person who says "if Labour/Tories/Monster Raving Loonies win the next election, I'm off", just leave quietly.
Rant over
Better than listening to people banging on about Brexit
Comments
This may or may not be a terrorist attack. Don’t jump the gun, you’re attacking like the media.
I don’t agree the media are pro-Conservative.
Boris Johnson has only really been PM for a couple of months,as before then he had to battle to push home the democratic vote,finally putting it to bed.
I think you’re getting confused,let me help.
This Government/cabinet, aren’t made up of the same people as of the last ten years.
Was this governments main priority to build flood defenses since December? I think not.
From the different news agencies you get a split on whether the locals wanted the PM to visit.
Of course the media 100% wanted him there.
On the defenses themselves, the more you build, the more the water floods elsewhere.
It’s quite clear that a lot of the homes have been built in the wrong areas,and others are under more threat than ever before.
Should the tax payer pay for flood defenses?Whats your solution?
Build barriers by every village or town, pushing flood water over farmland or meadows destroying crops and killing livestock. Take a look at the amount of rivers that are always susceptible to flooding in England alone. Looks a pricey project to me.May even take the Tories 20 years to complete.
The thread is compiled,to the most part,by a staunch Labour voter with just the one viewpoint.
They are just so wrong with their facts, far too often.
There’s always plenty of gullible readers ready to pay their wages though.
Or is it the negative reaction from the locals , captured by the media, that folk want to view.
Its kinda strange that all the noise comes from Frenchman in the EU.
Barnier and Macron.
Remembering that they were liberated by us and others in WW2, then 30 odd years later, they openly sell Exocet missiles to Argentina to use against our forces. This is about five years after we joined the EU. On all accounts a very ungrateful nation,backstabbers,and I gather they don’t like the English full stop.
I don’t think they’ve ever got over the Battle of Trafalgar.
No deal, the wtg.
But I will try to squeeze you into my schedule if there’s anything interesting on this thread that’s worthy of a comment or two.
If we are to believe that
the older generations, in general voted leave
Immigration was a deciding factor for them
We want jobs back for us Brits
Etc, etc
Imagine the situation when the economically inactive Brits are forced to look after them in their old age?
To what does a level playing field refer?
It is a trade-policy term for a set of common rules and standards that prevent businesses in one country undercutting their rivals and gaining a competitive advantage over those operating in other countries.
In other words, it's about fair and open competition - and it's an important part of the EU single market (in which member countries allow the free movement of people, goods, services and money).
Part of a trade negotiation is working out how widespread level playing field provisions should be.
But the areas in which the EU is most insistent they must be maintained are:
workers' rights
environmental protection
taxation
state aid (or subsidies for business)
What are the options?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he wants a zero-tariff zero-quota deal but also insists on the UK's right to diverge or move away from EU rules and regulations when it wants to.
So that could mean sticking close to EU rules in some areas but not in others.
The EU adds a third zero to the equation - "zero dumping", which means the strictest level playing field rules it can negotiate.
One option is to have what are known as non-regression clauses, which means the two sides would agree not to water down the shared rules they currently have.
Another, tougher, option is to insist on what's called dynamic alignment, which would mean if the EU changed its rules in the future, the UK would automatically make the same changes.
And that's partly what the trade negotiations will be about?
Yes. And both sides are - predictably - digging in a bit.
The early signs are a number of EU countries, including those that do a lot of trade with the UK, are taking a tough line and insisting on dynamic alignment in several policy areas, including state aid and environmental regulations that affect businesses.
But that won't be acceptable in London. Last week, Chancellor Sajid Javid told the Financial Times: "There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule taker."
Former Prime Minister Theresa May's initial version of the withdrawal agreement with the EU contained a series of legally binding level playing field provisions within it.
Boris Johnson's version doesn't - it relegates most of those rules (apart from some that relate to trade between Northern Ireland and the EU) to the non-binding political declaration.
So agreement on a level playing field regime is going to have to be negotiated before the end of the post-Brexit transition period, in December 2020.
And it is fair to say the two sides will begin a long way apart.
Not only is there disagreement on what should be covered, there is also no meeting of minds yet on how any future disputes should be resolved.
It's another reminder that, after Brexit, the UK will remain a friend and partner of the EU but it will also become a rival.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51180282
No, come July settle for no deal,early doors.Then move on.
Its kinda strange that all the noise comes from Frenchman in the EU.
Barnier and Macron.
Remembering that they were liberated by us and others in WW2, then 30 odd years later, they openly sell Exocet missiles to Argentina to use against our forces. This is about five years after we joined the EU. On all accounts a very ungrateful nation,backstabbers,and I gather they don’t like the English full stop.
I don’t think they’ve ever got over the Battle of Trafalgar.
No deal, the wtg.
Words of wisdom.
Everyone except you knows that no deal would be a disaster.
Sorry I should have said you and Boris.
Do you think you are being paranoid?
Bringing WW2 into it is about as relevant as blaming Tony Blair for world wide terrorism.
Michel Barnier is the EUs chief negotiator on Brexit, and despite the fact he is French, is entitled to discuss Brexit.
Your comments seem to typical of the xenophobic, "expert on everything", leave voter.
You may remember John Knox, he has a different, and less biased view than you.
Although I don't suppose that you would concede that the Defence Secretary at the time, is more likely to have known a bit more than you.
You don't seem to allow the truth to get in the way of your comments.
Before the war, France sold Argentina's military junta five Exocet missiles.
At the time, few suspected that the regime's longstanding claim on the Falklands would lead to war, and the sale went largely unnoticed.
How France helped us win Falklands war, by John Nott
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
Although Lady Thatcher clashed with President Mitterrand over the future direction of Europe, he immediately came to her aid after Argentine forces invaded the Falklands in April 1982.
"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.
The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.
"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.
"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable."
He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator."For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."
Caspar Weinberger, the US defence secretary, supported Britain but the State Department was "dominated by Latinos".
"There was incredible pressure from the White House and the State Department to negotiate. It was hugely damaging," Sir John told The Telegraph. "They couldn't understand that to us any negotiated settlement would have seemed like a defeat."
Asked if he found it irritating that the Americans expected Britain's total support in the war against terrorism, Sir John said: "I am against the Americans smashing things up with bombing raids, then letting us be the auxiliary policemen to pick up the pieces."
Sir John says he held the Foreign Office "in deep contempt" for the caution it displayed when Lady Thatcher proposed sending the Task Force to the Falklands.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html
The point was that when the General Election campaign was in full swing Boris couldn't be stopped visiting the affected areas, and taking advantage of every photo opportunity, and all the publicity that followed.
Some of the press made the point that even though the recent flooding was worse hide nor hair as been seen of Boris.
That is a fact.
However much you may dislike it.
Facts cannot be wrong.
I have never voted for Labour in my life.
I do think The Government are creating many of their problems themselves.
Brexit will be very interesting.
You don't seem to have a clue about the way Boris lies and misleads the public.
It will all come on top in the fairly near future.
If you follow your logic why would there be any terrorism elsewhere in Europe for instance, or come to that elsewhere in the world?
You are right of course, the white man might have had good reason for stabbing a Muslim man in his seventies, he may have just happened to have fallen out with him.
The attacks on Muslims in Germany may not be terrorism either, just down to Tony Blair.
Let's look at the facts surrounding 1 sector of the media:-the Daily Newspapers.
The last time this was seriously questioned was by YouGov in 2017, and reported by The Times. Neither organisation has been regularly attacked for being Left Wing.This is where the British people were questioned about how they perceived the political leanings of the major newspapers. Let's examine the most popular answers:-
"Far Left":0. Readership:0
Fairly Left:2. The Guardian and The Mirror. Current daily copies sold: (2019). c.650k
Neutral:1. The i. Copies: c.230K
Fairly Right-Wing:3. Times/Telegraph/Sun (Sun was actually equal fairly/far right). Copies sold:2.2 million.
Far Right:2. Mail/Express. Sales 1.6 million.
So-are the daily papers favouring the Left?
Which statistic do you prefer? 1.6 million Far Right v 0 Far Left?
3.8 million Right v 650k Left?
So when the Mirror criticises the PM, one needs to take it with a large pinch of salt.
But when the Mail and the Sun do, the PM needs to listen.
Because people remember when a PM has a CBA attitude to disasters in his own electorate. And Labour will not always be as weak as they are now.
It is very easy to blame them. The reality is they are in the business of selling stories. If we weren't so keen to buy such tittle-tattle, they wouldn't do it.
And for every 10 stars who claims they left the country because of the Press, 3 of them left for better pay, and 6 to avoid paying UK tax.
I detest people who bang on about this country while not contributing by paying tax.
and to every single person who says "if Labour/Tories/Monster Raving Loonies win the next election, I'm off", just leave quietly.
Rant over
Better than listening to people banging on about Brexit