NotThePars Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Would be good if the discourse in the UK and US wasn't unanimously focused on sabre rattling with the Russians tbh. I quite like the idea of avoiding nuclear armageddon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I wonder if dee the utter bellend calls the bbc may TV. Somehow I doubt it. It is true to say when they are bing biased on rt it'sIimmediately very obvious, the rest of the time the quality of the programmes is fantastic and shows you how diluted, safe, corrupt and biased the news we get in the UKIis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The rt stuff is a little bit of payback after the russian merchant bank bvv announced it was closing up and moving because of brexit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I wonder if dee the utter bellend calls the bbc may TV. Somehow I doubt it. It is true to say when they are bing biased on rt it'sIimmediately very obvious, the rest of the time the quality of the programmes is fantastic and shows you how diluted, safe, corrupt and biased the news we get in the UKIis. Currently reporting that Michelle Obama used to be a man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The reason I quite enjoy Russia Today is it's so so awful at pretending to be remotely impartial so it's easy to watch without taking anything in you shouldn't. Although if you were taken in, how would you know? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Assuming it doesn't affect RT's ability to operate in the UK, this will likely turn out to be a bonus for them in terms of publicity. It already has a large UK following but anyone who isn't aware of it may well have a nosey and may be surprised at the quality of the production and output (and let's be honest, the tidiness of some of the presenters). A year or two ago I probably would have said that, in terms of propaganda, it wasn't any worse than most of the western mainstream media. I'd go further than that now and say it's nowhere near as bad as much of it. As always though a balance is required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 On 10/4/2016 at 17:12, Randy Giles said: This "you voted for this" thing in reference to the referendum stuff needs to stop. Absolutely nobody seen the Tories getting a majority in the election and so nobody voted for that when they voted no, so stop with the bitter shite. On 10/4/2016 at 18:44, Alan Stubbs said: Generally speaking, this. But 'I support (present tense) staying in both parliaments' is a statement that deserves derision. Folk may as well say they support keeping Scotland's place at Westminster and the Galactic Empire because it's not happening. The spiteful stuff is unhelpful and pointless but if you support keeping Scotland in Britain as of now, you have absolutely no right to claim to support its place in Europe without getting laughed at. On 10/4/2016 at 18:49, Randy Giles said: Oh absolutely, and there's a lot of responsibility to be had there. But it's false to say they voted for a Tory majority. On 10/4/2016 at 19:08, strichener said: Of course they didn't vote for a Tory majority in the referendum but it was always a possibility. What they did vote to allow is that England can choose whomever they want. So indirectly their vote did allow the Tory government to govern Scotland. While I agree that there isn't a direct correlation in pure terms, it's also incorrect to suggest that there isn't any correlation, and I don't see why no voters should abrogate responsibility entirely. Firstly, anyone with the slightest interest and knowledge of UK & Scots politics will be aware of just how often the Scots' vote has materially affected a General Election outcome, i.e. not very often. Since WWII, the Scots' vote has made the difference in only 2 elections, 1964 and 1974. You could argue 2010 as well, although that was the difference only between the Tories having an absolute majority and having to play with the Lib Dems. If anyone want to make the case that the Lib Dems made a great deal of difference to anything other than their own collapsing poll numbers during that parliament, feel free. Secondly, again looking at the post-war pattern, Labour and the Tories have mainly shared the victories, with the Tories coming slightly ahead by 2 elections (I'm not counting both 1974 elections). Labour's greatest period of sustained success in all that time was under Blair, and I think it's fair to say that the party had to position itself somewhat to the right of what might be considered its "traditional position" to achieve that success. What does the above add up to? Well, while it's certainly not fair to say that No voters effectively voted for this Tory government, if it hadn't been this one, it would have been the next. We wouldn't have waited long. With the exception of 1955, there's not a single time the Conservatives (and Unionists) gained the majority of Scottish seats. So with the Tories and Labour mostly sharing power over the same time, and with there having been 17 governments in that period, No voters voted for us to be 17 times more likely to be run by Tories than if we were independent. And that's me being kind and ignoring the fact that their vote doesn't look anything like getting near to it's share in the 40s and 50s. No-one can be surprised that we have a UK Tory government. There was and is always a good chance of us having one. And the No voters kept us in that position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 5 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: Although if you were taken in, how would you know? Woah. I need to sit down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I wonder if dee the utter bellend calls the bbc may TV. Somehow I doubt it. It is true to say when they are bing biased on rt it'sIimmediately very obvious, the rest of the time the quality of the programmes is fantastic and shows you how diluted, safe, corrupt and biased the news we get in the UKIis. So says Fuzzy the resident bellend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 A pretty poor performance from May today at PMQs.It all started so well to when she made a rather 'carry on' style comment to Peter Bone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Dee the bellend in chief refuses to confirm if he has similar disdain for the British state broadcaster as he does the Russian one. Shockerooni. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Debate on eu nationals just now in the commons,its basically snp v the tories any labour types need to tune in and watch a real opposition in action 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 49 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: Dee the bellend in chief refuses to confirm if he has similar disdain for the British state broadcaster as he does the Russian one. Shockerooni. Which British state broadcaster? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The BBC is 100% a state broadcaster in every sense. Not surprised a 'staunch' type like you denies this. How is it Funded? Don't answer I prefer not to talk to bigots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Peppino Impastato said: The BBC is 100% a state broadcaster in every sense. Not surprised a 'staunch' type like you denies this. How is it Funded? Don't answer I prefer not to talk to bigots. I didn't. I asked you which state broadcaster you were referring to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 When you knew the answer already 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Westminster voting intention:CON: 47% (+7)LAB: 29% (-5)LDEM: 7% (+1)UKIP: 6% (-3)GRN: 4% (-1)(via Ipsos Mori / 14 - 17 Oct) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: When you knew the answer already I don't. How could I possibly know which British state-owned broadcaster you are referring to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Sooky said: Westminster voting intention: CON: 47% (+7) LAB: 29% (-5) LDEM: 7% (+1) UKIP: 6% (-3) GRN: 4% (-1) (via Ipsos Mori / 14 - 17 Oct) Its ok guys we are only a year or so into the 100 year rule of the tories that jmo and friends prefer to an indy scotland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The Kincardine is a trolling bigot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.