[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Whereas robinson is neither journalist or political activist.. he has no political allegiance. He's just a rabble rouser.

As much as you want that to be true, the fact is it's not, is it?

Robinson was a journalist for Rebel media, he was thrown in prison for reporting on a sex grooming gang case as an independent journalist.

He's not going away, trying to shut him up makes him stronger.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If they're reporting on something, they can use whatever sources they desire.
I'm not even sure what article you're referring to, when did they cite Breitbart with no counterpoints?

Well no they can't if they want to be seen as independent and impartial they can't be relying on sources like that.

If you're not sure what I'm referring to what are you basing your argument on?
Educate yourself and then come back with a more informed opinion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

As much as you want that to be true, the fact is it's not, is it?

Robinson was a journalist for Rebel media, he was thrown in prison for reporting on a sex grooming gang case as an independent journalist.

He's not going away, trying to shut him up makes him stronger.

I see you are feeling suitably roused

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I see you are feeling suitably roused

Nick Griffin was ended by appearing on Question time, why don't you want Tommy to be given a platform on mainstream television?

Ye have little faith in the people

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well no they can't if they want to be seen as independent and impartial they can't be relying on sources like that.

What sources should they use?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to what are you basing your argument on?

I'm talking generally - if they're reporting on something, of course they're going to use sources, I don't need to know what you're referring to.
So in which article did they cite Breitbart?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nick Griffin was ended by appearing on Question time, why don't you want Tommy to be given a platform on mainstream television?

Ye have little faith in the people

Yeah that's part of the reason all sides should support giving platforms to vile people - until that creature appeared on Question Time, the BNP controlled several councils, and they basically evaporated when people saw what he believed.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nick Griffin was ended by appearing on Question time, why don't you want Tommy to be given a platform on mainstream television?

Ye have little faith in the people

I don't, you're right... I think that people are easily led... spoonfed rhetoric and prejudice by the alt right via mediums like breitbart. As well as adopting views espoused by robinson.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

What sources should they use?


I'm talking generally - if they're reporting on something, of course they're going to use sources, I don't need to know what you're referring to.
So in which article did they cite Breitbart?

Not an alt right one..

you are approaching this debate from a position of pure ignorance as you haven't even attempted to research where I'm coming from in relation to this issue. I'm not minded to lay out the facts for you here.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not an alt right one..

you are approaching this debate from a position of pure ignorance as you haven't even attempted to research where I'm coming from in relation to this issue. I'm not minded to lay out the facts for you here.

Have you turned into Dezzy or something, why can't you link the article you're talking about? I did a quick google, did you mean this? It's hardly glowing with praise.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't, you're right... I think that people are easily led... spoonfed rhetoric and prejudice by the alt right via mediums like breitbart. As well as adopting views espoused by robinson.

And people will say the same about far-left socialist rhetoric and prejudice via mediums like The Guardian. Why not just let the people be free to listen and make up their own mind freely?

Your solution of censoring certain opinions is quite a fascist solution. That doesn't mean I think you're fascist, because I don't think you are, It just means that I think you're wrong on this.

[user104658]

The Guardian is "far left socialist"?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The Guardian is "far left socialist"?

Breibart is far-right

Anyone can do that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

And people will say the same about far-left socialist rhetoric and prejudice via mediums like The Guardian. Why not just let the people be free to listen and make up their own mind freely?

Your solution of censoring certain opinions is quite a fascist solution. That doesn't mean I think you're fascist, because I don't think you are, It just means that I think you're wrong on this.

The Guardian is not far left socialist rhetoric ... :/

It's not a fascist solution to suggest that an independent broadcaster doesn't give a platform to the alt right.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Breibart is far-right

Anyone can do that.

The Guardian is a mainstream tabloid; it's left, but it's the flipside of something like the Daily Mail, not a niche right-wing opinion piece site like Breitbart.

If you're looking for a lefty comparison to Breitbart, it would be Huffington Post... not The Guardian.

[Beso]

I think the FACT that ALL mainstream media has reported on this, and the FACT that NONE are owned by jews is very telling on the way the public are seeing this.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The Guardian is not far left socialist rhetoric ... :/

It's not a fascist solution to suggest that an independent broadcaster doesn't give a platform to the alt right.

Did I say it was? or did I say that's what some people say? Just in the same way people say Breitbart is far-right, alt-right.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The Guardian is a mainstream tabloid; it's left, but it's the flipside of something like the Daily Mail, not a niche right-wing opinion piece site like Breitbart.

If you're looking for a lefty comparison to Breitbart, it would be Huffington Post... not The Guardian.

It gives a platform to far-left socialists to contribute to it, does it not? Do you think it should be stopped from doing that?

[arista]

[Labour drops investigation into Margaret Hodge
row with Jeremy Corbyn]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-dr...orbyn-11463699

[Beso]

Originally Posted by arista

[Labour drops investigation into Margaret Hodge
row with Jeremy Corbyn]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-dr...orbyn-11463699

So he has basically admitted to being a racist old bastard.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

It gives a platform to far-left socialists to contribute to it, does it not? Do you think it should be stopped from doing that?

Nope. If socialists or fascists want to expose themselves, I say give them the platform so we can all see. I'm all for there being more opinions visible, not less.

And if the Graniaud were to turn into an outlet exclusively for the far left, then the market would respond and they'd either lose massive business or gain twice the readership. Either way, it'd be on their heads!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Did I say it was? or did I say that's what some people say? Just in the same way people say Breitbart is far-right, alt-right.

It's not down to personal interpretation. Breitbart is unashamedly far right.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by arista

[Labour drops investigation into Margaret Hodge
row with Jeremy Corbyn]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-dr...orbyn-11463699

I'm really disappointed in that, should he or any other male MP have delivered such an attack on a female member it would've been a national scandal!
She shouldn't be allowed to be so offensive without recourse.

[smudgie]

More fibs about Mrs.Hodge.
Labour first saying that she apologised, now saying she had showed regret. Statements from both her and her solicitors denying both the apology and her “being regretful “.
You couldn’t make it up....oh hang on.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

It gives a platform to far-left socialists to contribute to it, does it not? Do you think it should be stopped from doing that?

I think that anyone who puts any stock in any tabloid is a mouth-breathing idiot, quite frankly Alf. I don't think anyone should be "stopped" from doing anything as that would be political censorship, however, I do think people - everyone - should stop buying and reading them.