Rayvin

We should maybe have a thread on the media or something tbh, but I'm just going to drop in here that Elon Musk has declared war on the MSM He's going to set up a website that allows people to rate the credibility of news articles and the journalists writing them. http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/27/media/elon-musk-press-journalists-attacks-pravda/index.html

Indeed. I've maintained it was pragmatism for a long time, I guess in part because I remained optimistic about the situation, but following the discussion we had on here the other week I have more or less relinquished that position. I wouldn't be surprised if it is ideology. And if it is, it's a depressing statement.

Labour may be overestimating the influence of leave voters in its constituencies: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study EDIT - which incidentally does support the notion that Labour should go all in on the single market.

I give the Guardian 2 days before there's an opinion piece explaining to her about how she has internalised misogyny and that it's different when women objectify men because of the power dynamics in play.

This government ffs.

Ok, I was wrong to criticise him for commemorating his father's death with an assault rifle tattoo. I'm sure it'll end up being very tasteful. I don't actually care about this tbh, I just thought it was stupid.

I have an Arts degree but sure

@Howay

I didn't actually mean that to be offensive, it was more a statement of probable truth. I mean the man has tattooed an assault rifle on his leg to 'commemorate' how his father was shot dead. The only other possible arguments I think you could make would be that he has zero emotional intelligence, or that he lives in a world devoid of any social context. Tbf it could well be that last one.

I'm not sure you made that image large enough...

It's a fucking dumb way to honour his dead father, but he likely has a sub-100 IQ.

FFS Dan.. You made your first response post last night and this one at what... 3am? Was this literally keeping you up at night? You made a weird joke which everyone understood was a joke, and you copped some piss taking for it. No need to bring strawb's post into it and really no need to respond at all. In fact, you've probably now made sure that quiff will bring this up again in the future React less. For your own sake.

I suspect that 95% of all your reputation comes from posts like this tearing lumps out of the mackems Not that I disagree with any of it

I appreciate Looney's contributions tbh. They're a similar level of slightly bizarre to Essembee, but with a different focus.

Maybe its all part of the Govian dystopian nightmare. No experts, etc.

In tears apologising to the liverpool fans. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel a bit for Karius like. He's definitely done there now though.

Why do they have a thread called Newcastle FC? Is leaving 'United' out supposed to be a dig, or are they just retards?

I checked their website and I'm still good. If you watch anything live you're in trouble, and I don't

So presumably anyone with internet has to pay the license fee now? Funny that they've not sent me any letters since imposing this if that's true...?

What loophole? The iPlayer one? I don't watch that either. If they release anything worth watching I just get it on DVD or Netflix. They've left me alone for 6 years and counting now.

I don't actually pay the license fee But in fairness I don't use any of their services, so...

I can't recall the Mirror's political allegiance, is that a dig at Hopkins or a beautiful lack of self awareness? I think I'd actually prefer the latter.

Having spent some time trawling through youtube trying to find clips of 'robust' challenges on Brexiteers, tbf I did find this one: May well have been covered before, but to my view this is actually an interview of some substance. Perhaps the issue in my case is that I simply don't know where the BBC keeps it's 'intense' questioning of political figures. I don't watch terrestrial TV at all, so this is perhaps understandable in my case - and their web version is never going to actually commit on the same level I guess.

I believe that they take a pro-British view, and endorse views that they think will be in the best interests of supporting British policy wins. At this point, it presumably means not shooting holes through Brexit. The moment they haul a senior government minister in front of the country and resolutely sit there forcing them to answer some of the basic questions about things like 'how we get past the GFA' or 'why is the country £900 per household worse off' or 'how come the Americans are raping us in this trade deal' (and forcing them to answer these without accepting bullshit and fudging) is the moment they can return to impartiality on this issue. But they're not going to do so because ultimately, it will harm the ongoing negotiations for this insanity with the EU - or at least that is what they will have been told by the government.

As I've tried to say before, I don't think it's what the BBC says that makes it a tool for the government so much as what it doesn't say. And I'm very prepared to file "proper scrutiny of Brexit" under the category of lying by omission.