Nice to see that no-one actually has any valid rebuttals to any of the points I have made. It's just stupid mutual liberal backslapping, as I stated originally.

This thread is completely pointless, and it's a clear display of why so many people in this country are utterly disillusioned with politics.

Nice to see that no-one actually has any valid rebuttals to any of the points I have made. It's just stupid mutual liberal backslapping, as I stated originally.

This thread is completely pointless, and it's a clear display of why so many people in this country are utterly disillusioned with politics.

Labour spent over £100,000 of taxpayers' money on research reports into immigration and when they didn't like the results they tried to brush it all under the carpet.

More Europe migrants to gain access to full UK benefits. Migrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 will be able to claim full benefits in the UK for the first time from May. Estimates in The Times suggest as many as 100,000 migrants could claim tens of millions of pounds in benefits.

The data show that the number of jobs in the UK has risen by 2.12 million since the first quarter of 1997. At the same time, the number of UK-born people in work has risen by 385,000, and the number of non-UK born in work has risen by 1.72m. So, roughly speaking, you can say 81% of net jobs created in the UK since 1997 have gone to people who were not born in the UK.

And yet the same people will still blindly support Labour in everything they do and claim that they are the party for the normal working-class Briton today. Unbelievable really. It's got to the stage where it is worse than religion. No evidence will ever be good enough to change their mind.

What people? Are you talking about anyone who posts in this thread?

But, again, who? You keep saying 'plenty of people' and 'Guardian-types' and so on, but never actually back it up. The way you're talking about it, it sounds like it's something that is a hugely regular thing - whereas I think it's a typical fear, but not one that can actually be backed up.

Oh, and why aren't foreign cultures 'equal to or better' than ours? Why isn't the British cultural legacy the fact that it's been exported world-wide?



So, you wouldn't include the Romans, Celts or Vikings?



Do many people suggest that it was much other than a product of the times? Surely it's seen as shameful BECAUSE it's a product of the times, and it's the people who wish it was a current situation that are seen as being in the wrong?

I'd like a country full of 60 million poles if it meant people like you were put in bags full of bricks and dropped in the sea.

Offence intended.

Hi Happ,

It's possible you've missed this post, so I thought I'd repost it.

Hugs and kisses.

Chris B.

PS - I haven't voted Labour since the nineties. Toodle-pip!

I haven't voted Labour since the 90s either.

An example of British culture being portrayed as "worthless" would be the BBC's "white season" from a few years ago where all working-class white characters were portrayed as stupid/uneducated etc and were all "taught something about themselves" through interaction with ethnic minorities. Patronising middle-class Guardianista bullshit, and guess what? We had to pay for it, whether we wanted to or not.

Just as we all are forced to subsidise the Guardian through the public sector and BBC recruitment ads placed in it. And guess what? Working-class British people are almost entirely excluded from those sectors of employment.

I would count descendents from the Saxons, Vikings or Celts as being indigenous Brits. If they want to say otherwise, it's up to them.

If you go back far enough, everyone is descended from immigrants, except for some people in whichever African country life was first born. But that would mean that such people as Aborigines, Native Americans, Palestinians etc had no right to their land any more than white Europeans do. Which I don't believe liberals would find it easy to accept.

I don't know. Are there any Labour voters in here? Or people in favour of mass immigration?

Are you seriously saying that white people are excluded from the BBC? REALLY? Count the black and brown faces hosting any show on BBC radio or TV. If you take out the Asian Network, it's overwhelmingly white and middle class. I'd be willing to bet that apart from the people cleaning the buildings, the BBC is not as ethnically diverse as any of the areas it has its biggest offices.

The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces.

Well then it's fundamentally racist. Excluding working class people means excluding a greater proportion of ethnic minorites than white people, since the higher up the social scale you go, the whiter it gets.

Actually, I do believe that the BBC has an irritatingly liberal slant to to it on most subjects, but that's a quite different issue from whether or not it's anti-white or anti-working class.

Just as we all are forced to subsidise the Guardian through the public sector and BBC recruitment ads placed in it.

Paying for an advertisement in a newspaper is a commercial transaction. It's the complete opposite of subsidization.

(Happ Hazzard @ Feb 28 2011, 17:38)
The [Guardian] might allow some opinions that deviate from the party line a little bit, in order to make it seem like their views are reasonable and well-considered. But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever.

One's argument would be made a little more convincing by even the tiniest shred of evidence. Rather than just adding it in because it happens to support the conclusion you wanted to draw.

What utter ignorance.

Insurance underwriting has always been based on the mathematics of risk and probablility - verifiable actuarial processes. To argue otherwise is to be deliberately perverse or particularly thick.

To argue otherwise is to be deliberately perverse or particularly thick.'

Congratulations! In one sentence you have brilliantly and perfectly encapsulated The Guardian's belief system.

I just love the way the pro European Guardian is trying to defend such a stupid decision.

Not once was the discussed in the UK parliament or UK courts. It's an absolute fucking joke.

Another thing to thank the Labour party for.

And whoosh goes the point about three hundred thousand million billion trillion miles above the writer's head.

I do love the Guardian. The writers are consistent and principled, even when those priniples are wrong and they are consistently wrong.

The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces.

Are you seriously saying that white people are excluded from the BBC? REALLY? Count the black and brown faces hosting any show on BBC radio or TV. If you take out the Asian Network, it's overwhelmingly white and middle class. I'd be willing to bet that apart from the people cleaning the buildings, the BBC is not as ethnically diverse as any of the areas it has its biggest offices.

Is the head of Ruthless Quashing & Banishing on holiday today?

That means you've had your commenting privileges disabled, right? So this is all just a personal grievance against CiF because you said something stupid and probably racist or offensive, and got punished.

The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces.

So, no response to the fact that this is an outright made up lie and that quotas are illegal then, Happ?

In what way are quotas "illegal"? They are not.

If the BBC does not use quotas per se, they certainly have an agenda in their hiring practices. The fact that they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias that runs all the way through the corporation has been exposed on several occasions, and was even reported on by their friends at the Guardian, another bastion of liberal bigotry.

There's a whole page of BBC quotas here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-...perations.shtml

But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever

Do you even read the contents of the links you post?

Those are quotas for the content of their programming.

Quotas are illegal for hiring under Diversity laws. Targets are acceptable.

Also, in your sentence:



Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "any"?

The fact that they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias that runs all the way through the corporation has been exposed on several occasions, and was even reported on by their friends at the Guardian, another bastion of liberal bigotry.

The report said that while there was no evidence of conscious bias at the BBC, "individuals exercise on occasion a largely unconscious self-censorship out of a misguided attempt to be 'correct' in their thinking".

As I said, some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness.

And who can deny that the BBC has declined in quality over the same period of time?

How many times do we see "occasional" bias going the other way in the corporation?

What was the last unabashedly right-wing programme aired on the BBC?

No.

Again, you are having trouble with the fact that people can read. In this case you don't even need to visit another site to see what was written. Or another page. Or, thanks you the quote function, another post.

What you said was not "some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness."

What you said was "But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever."

I then showed multiple posts from a single page that, erm, pointed out (in their minds) the utter ridiculousness of what the above the line contributor was saying.

Those posts were not ruthlessly quashed.

Those posters were not banished forever.

You're basically acting like a baby. Both in the sense that you are unable to engage in a sensible adult conversation, and partly in the fact that you are full of shit and not even trying to hide it.

You stated "quotas are illegal".

According to wikipedia there are several exceptions in the law that states that discrimination, quotas or favouritism on the grounds of sex, race and ethnicity is illegal.

Is there really any difference between targets and quotas? The BBC can effectively hire whoever they want. They have no bottom line. Diversity is more important to them than their responsibility to inform, educate and entertain.

It has today been announced that the Government has given the go ahead for Rupert Murdoch to take a controlling share of BSkyB. This decision, which most media analysts had predicted, comes after Murdoch yesterday announced that he would sell Sky News while continuing to ’subsidise’ it in order to help along today’s favourable outcome.

This is a dark day for the principle of a free press in this country, which prior to today’s decision was a principle that had already been compromised by Murdoch’s stranglehold. He currently owns 40 percent of the nation’s newspapers, along with significant shares in the media group which owns the Daily Mail. If this decision goes through this will add a major TV news network to his empire, opening the door to the possibility of a UK version of Fox News, the avowedly and aggressively right wing news channel he owns in the US.

The egregious influence which this modern day Crassus wields over the nation’s body politic and, given the controversy surrounding the ongoing phone hacking revelations in England, coupled with matters arising from the Sheridan investigation and trial north of the border, quite probably over the workings of the police, should be subject to a public inquiry.

This is a man with an estimated personal net worth of $6.3 billion who pays hardly a penny of income in the UK, and whose News Corporation has paid an annual tax on its profits since 1986 of just 7 percent.

Despite holding a foreign passport and being ineligible to vote in this country, every major politician and the leaders of all the mainstream parties dance a jig in an effort to win his approval and support. It is known that the current PM David Cameron and his wife are close personal friends of News International’s chief executive, Rebekah Wade, and that the Camerons also regularly socialise with Rupert Murdoch’s son, James Murdoch, as do George Osborne and his wife.

Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who approved the deal, had already made his feelings known in relation to the proposed takeover prior to taking over responsibilites for adjudicating on the issue from Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was ignominously stripped of them after relaying his private and negative thoughts on Murdoch and his takeover bid to two constituents who were in fact undercover reporters working for the Daily Telegraph. Hunt had described it as a “good idea.”

The fact that such a massive amount of media ownership should be given over to one man would at any time constitute a scandal. That it is being done at a time when Murdoch’s News International is mired in criminality and corruption over the culture of phone hacking that existed within his newspapers is nothing more than an insult to the very word democracy.

I can't see what difference it will make. People are free to get their news from whichever source they wish.