The media / print is very powerful in the UK. It's probably our most powerful institution.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65308769
"Just lay down, be poor and stop enjoying yourself! Think of the economy!"
"Just lay down, be poor and stop enjoying yourself! Think of the economy!"
what pisses me off about comments like this, I bet he’s richer per month than he were a few years ago
'And just to rub your impoverished noses in it, there's a Coronation coming up that's going to cost you a fecking fortune. Us rich nobs enjoy a good laugh.'
Thats pensions. Don't blindly believe the pie charts the Tories occasionally post out lumping pensions in with "welfare". So we can all blame the poor.
I'm pointing out other problems which should be more of a priority to tackle and give a better return to the tax payer.
Instead the this advert only 1) makes non claimants believe that welfare fraud is a bigger problem than it really is and 2) strikes fear into genuine disabled claimants who need to make a claim.
The real problem with the welfare system is in the articles below. No adverts about that is there? Why aren't they investing these funds for videos into preventing unnecessary deaths?
British minister accused of trying to hide reports on impact of Tory welfare reforms
Thérèse Coffey ‘set out to minimise evidence’ on studies including research into deaths of benefit claimants and help for vulnerable
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ide-reports-on-impact-of-tory-welfare-reforms
Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show
Campaigners demand welfare overhaul after statistics reveal 2,380 people died between 2011 and 2014 shortly after being declared able to work
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ied-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures
I will take this seriously when they apologise for a decade plus of unnecessary austerity that made everyone poorer.
Be kind, he'll only get about £160k a year including whatever savings he had from when he worked at Goldman Sachs.
This is also unfair. He's only got a personal wealth of a billion pounds. Do you expect him to pay for his own golden chariot or, even worse, cut the pomp and extravagance of the whole ceremony down a little?
optimistic. A quick google says he’s on around half a million +99k pension contribution.
Poor guy can't even get seven figures a year
we really are all in this together huhCouldn't we just eat him if it came to it? Man looks pretty porky
UK secretly deported 100 Nepali guards who protected staff in Kabul
Exclusive: People who risked their lives and were evacuated to Britain were forcibly removed to Nepal days later
More than 100 Nepali guards who risked their lives to protect British embassy staff in Afghanistan before the Taliban seized back control were secretly returned to Nepal against their wishes shortly after being airlifted to safety in the UK, the Guardian can reveal.
Hundreds of Nepali nationals and a smaller number of Indian nationals who protected key institutions in Kabul were brought to the UK on an RAF flight during the chaotic evacuation of the Afghan capital by western countries in August 2021, as victorious Taliban forces closed in.
It has now emerged that days after they arrived in the UK, more than 100 of these evacuees were forcibly removed to their home countries even though many had been issued with six-month visas on arrival.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ards-who-protected-staff-in-kabul-afghanistan
Exclusive: People who risked their lives and were evacuated to Britain were forcibly removed to Nepal days later
More than 100 Nepali guards who risked their lives to protect British embassy staff in Afghanistan before the Taliban seized back control were secretly returned to Nepal against their wishes shortly after being airlifted to safety in the UK, the Guardian can reveal.
Hundreds of Nepali nationals and a smaller number of Indian nationals who protected key institutions in Kabul were brought to the UK on an RAF flight during the chaotic evacuation of the Afghan capital by western countries in August 2021, as victorious Taliban forces closed in.
It has now emerged that days after they arrived in the UK, more than 100 of these evacuees were forcibly removed to their home countries even though many had been issued with six-month visas on arrival.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ards-who-protected-staff-in-kabul-afghanistan
This is simply brilliant.
Her contempt for him is palpable, which I think probably detracts from the words she is saying for some (all of the GB News audience)
"All" is doing a lot of heavy fecking lifting there.
Once again an "economist" trying to argue that entrenching the most vulnerable in poverty is their predefined role in society. The comparison between poor and rich as equally taking the brunt of covid and covid inflation is fecking appalling
Handed him his arse
I don't see that she accomplished anything. She attacked him and she defended himself like the sneaky cnutish weasel he is. She didn't say anything new and even made him a favour with the inflation data. This despicable human being went out unscathed and he will continue destroying the UK
Enjoyed the ending, basically "shut up shut up shut up lalalala bull shit"
Yeah that ending was perfect.
Jacob Rees-Mogg - saviour of (his) freedom of speech…
To be fair anything which goes against their thoughts and is usually the truth detracts from the thoughts of GB News viewers.
If more journalists called out the bullshit we may see a difference, one person calling him out on GB News isn't going to change any minds of views who watch that news channel. The problem has been he and others have been spouting their lies all of the time without being called out.
Ah the free speech acolytes triggered by you guessed it, free speech. Similar to the Gary Linekar stuff, they all like free speech until you say something they don't like.
Can't he ask corporations to accept they have to be less profitable now?
He sort of does... not that I'm defending him.
Compared to most British journalists who let the politicians get away with anything without challenge, at least she did have a mild go. 3/10.
JRM is slow witted, a liar and charlatan who is not well informed either. He let himself be wide open to be attacked on the SPS checks, the CPTTP and the other trade deals, inflation etc and many other things but either she didn''t have the knowledge to completely take him apart or was too scared, it was only a mild prod. She seemed more interested in Roald Dahl. Need some journalists or even other politicians with a backbone to really hold these people to account.
Braverman says people coming to UK illegally have ‘values at odds with our country’ as MPs prepare to debate illegal migration bill
Good morning. MPs will debate the illegal migration bill for the final time today before it goes to the Lords. The report stage debate is where significant amendments get passed and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tabled amendments to make the bill even more draconian (and potentially even more incompatible with international law), as a concession to the Tory right. (Concession is probably the wrong word; Braverman is the Tory right, and although Rishi Sunak may have needed some persuading to accept these, she didn’t.) The key one would allow the government to ignore interim injunctions from the European court of human rights (like the one used to block the first flight carrying migrants to Rwanda).
Conservative “moderates” have also been pushing for their own amendments to the bill. They have having less success with the Home Office, but in some respects they are in a better negotiating position than the anti-migrant hardliners. (If the “moderates” line up with the opposition, they could defeat the government; but hardliners don’t have parliamentary allies, and can’t win votes without government support.) Ministers may offer them something later. As Eleni Courea writes in the London Playbook briefing, two amendments are being discussed.
Normally governments pass legislation because they want to change the law, but sometimes legislation can have a performative function and that seems to be at least part of what is happening with this bill. “The bill is conceived more as a campaign aid than a workable policy measure,” Rafael Behr writes in his Guardian column today. And that may explain why yesterday Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, floated a new argument to defend the government’s anti small boats crusade. The people arriving weren’t just imposing an economic cost on the country, he argued; they were imposing a social cost. He told the Policy Exchange thinktank:
We are seeing heightened levels of criminality when related to the people who’ve come on boats related to drug dealing, exploitation, prostitution.
There are real challenges which go beyond the migration issue of people coming here illegally. We need to ensure that we bring an end to the boat crossings.
Good morning. MPs will debate the illegal migration bill for the final time today before it goes to the Lords. The report stage debate is where significant amendments get passed and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tabled amendments to make the bill even more draconian (and potentially even more incompatible with international law), as a concession to the Tory right. (Concession is probably the wrong word; Braverman is the Tory right, and although Rishi Sunak may have needed some persuading to accept these, she didn’t.) The key one would allow the government to ignore interim injunctions from the European court of human rights (like the one used to block the first flight carrying migrants to Rwanda).
Conservative “moderates” have also been pushing for their own amendments to the bill. They have having less success with the Home Office, but in some respects they are in a better negotiating position than the anti-migrant hardliners. (If the “moderates” line up with the opposition, they could defeat the government; but hardliners don’t have parliamentary allies, and can’t win votes without government support.) Ministers may offer them something later. As Eleni Courea writes in the London Playbook briefing, two amendments are being discussed.
You can read all the amendments that have been tabled for debate today here.
Normally governments pass legislation because they want to change the law, but sometimes legislation can have a performative function and that seems to be at least part of what is happening with this bill. “The bill is conceived more as a campaign aid than a workable policy measure,” Rafael Behr writes in his Guardian column today. And that may explain why yesterday Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, floated a new argument to defend the government’s anti small boats crusade. The people arriving weren’t just imposing an economic cost on the country, he argued; they were imposing a social cost. He told the Policy Exchange thinktank:
Braverman has been giving interviews this morning and she told LBC she agreed with Jenrick. She said:
Asked whether she agreed with Jenrick’s view that uncontrolled migration “threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public”, Braverman replied:
We are seeing heightened levels of criminality when related to the people who’ve come on boats related to drug dealing, exploitation, prostitution.
There are real challenges which go beyond the migration issue of people coming here illegally. We need to ensure that we bring an end to the boat crossings.
So this country has no influx of labour from the European Union thanks to Brexit. And now the illegal labour (aka slave labour) force will be decimated too because apparently they're all criminals.
I look forward to many small businesses shutting and a return to boarded up shops and bars as I walk down the high street. The Tories have gone full scorched earth for the incoming 8 years of Labour government.
I look forward to many small businesses shutting and a return to boarded up shops and bars as I walk down the high street. The Tories have gone full scorched earth for the incoming 8 years of Labour government.
Eight? That's optimistic.
"So out of touch that he looks at a petrol pump and debit card as if they've come from Mars"
Seen this doing the rounds on another forum. Absolute disgrace. How can they get away with it?
Because they've corrupted every institution put in place to hold them in check.
The same way Labour can basically accuse Sunak of being a supporter of paedophiles - electoral law allows a lot of leeway for speech.
I don't think they accused him of being a pedo. More so was just highlighting the lack of people being charged for such crimes. No different from the daily shit slinging from the tories where they try to suggest Thatchers best mate Jimmy Saville wasn't prosecuted by Starmer and that he let's pedos run free. All while Jimmy Saville was in bed with the tory party for years.
This is different from the shit slinging which has become normalised though. This is literally propoganda and knowingly spreading false information which will prevent people from having their say and a vote. Oppression in its finest form.
It's not lies to try and influence who someone votes for. It's lies to try and prevent someone from having their right to vote. And being spread by the governing party. It's a disgrace.
That won't happen because we're going to give old people the option to die in full time employment.
The point being electoral law dates back to the 19th century, and is spread over many statutes. So we have criminal offences covering some random acts, and nothing covering social media or even types of speech (like this leafllet) in the campaign. It is the reason why Corbyn was basically called a terrorist for months on end and he could do nothing about it.
I'm all for that personally as it is said old people who vote tory in their swathes for the last decade.
You reap what you sow lads.
This stupid bint hasnt even the decency to apologise after getting her facts wrong.
What applies to them will apply to me, and I'm in my mid-30s. I'd rather not have to work another 40 years.