23 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Nonsense.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c729598n1d4o

No it's not.

53 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I guess I was holding the Guardian to a higher standard... 

 

😄😄

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

Comedy gold.

 

Atypical BS - pathetic...

 

The Guardian named news provider of the year at the British Journalism Awards. The Guardian has won five awards at the 2023 British Journalism Awards; the most of any publisher this year, including the coveted news provider of the year prize.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=guarian+reporting+awards&oq=guarian+reporting+awards&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAHSAQoxMDkwM2owajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

46 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Atypical BS - pathetic...

 

The Guardian named news provider of the year at the British Journalism Awards. The Guardian has won five awards at the 2023 British Journalism Awards; the most of any publisher this year, including the coveted news provider of the year prize.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=guarian+reporting+awards&oq=guarian+reporting+awards&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAHSAQoxMDkwM2owajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That of its own does not prove truthful reporting. if you check it just means they made a nice documentary/podcast etc. 

 

The awards are by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Gazette a magazine. Pre online circulation was 2,500.

 

https://awards-bja.pressgazette.co.uk/

 

'On 19 October 2006, Freud announced that the magazine was for sale, citing as a reason indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards'

 

Got that, indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards

 

So what does that mean? Do you know how these awards work? They organise an award ceremony and sell $50 catering tables for $XXX and people pay it to collect their awards. https://awards-bja.pressgazette.co.uk/on-the-night/

 

How do I know? I worked in publishing.

 

On 6 April 2009, Wilmington Group announced the May 2009 issue would be the last,^[8] but the magazine was purchased on 22 April 2009 by Mike Danson of the Progressive Media Group, shortly after he attained full control of the New Statesman, in April 2009.^[9] The Wilmington Group retained the British Press Awards.

 

'Progressive' Media Group - does that tell us anything?

 

New statesman from Wiki Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.^[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"^[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.

 

Not exactly unbiased are they?

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

British values? In what way do they differ from other countries' values?

What is British culture? I don't believe it exists now or ever. 

Charging the 2 thugs from the Manchester airport incident would be a start.

21 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

And so they should be able to unless they commited a crime. As far as I'm aware long beards, pride flags and English flags are perfectly legal. 

 

Calling for jihad and the elimination of Israel is a crime. 

 

Indecent exposure is a crime. 

 

Getting a short back and sides and waving your national flag is not a crime. 

56 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Atypical BS - pathetic...

 

The Guardian named news provider of the year at the British Journalism Awards. The Guardian has won five awards at the 2023 British Journalism Awards; the most of any publisher this year, including the coveted news provider of the year prize.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=guarian+reporting+awards&oq=guarian+reporting+awards&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAHSAQoxMDkwM2owajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

An insult and a link. As usual. This is what is truly pathetic. Every time, an attempted smear and a link. Where is your critical evaluation, where is you own synthesis?

36 minutes ago, mokwit said:

That of its own does not prove truthful reporting. if you check it just means they made a nice documentary/podcast etc. 

 

The awards are by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Gazette a magazine. Pre online circulation was 2,500.

 

https://awards-bja.pressgazette.co.uk/

 

'On 19 October 2006, Freud announced that the magazine was for sale, citing as a reason indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards'

 

Got that, indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards

 

So what does that mean? Do you know how these awards work? They organise an award ceremony and sell $50 catering tables for $XXX and people pay it to collect their awards. https://awards-bja.pressgazette.co.uk/on-the-night/

 

How do I know? I worked in publishing.

 

On 6 April 2009, Wilmington Group announced the May 2009 issue would be the last,^[8] but the magazine was purchased on 22 April 2009 by Mike Danson of the Progressive Media Group, shortly after he attained full control of the New Statesman, in April 2009.^[9] The Wilmington Group retained the British Press Awards.

 

'Progressive' Media Group - does that tell us anything?

 

New statesman from Wiki Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.^[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"^[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.

 

Not exactly unbiased are they?

 

 

You put a lot of effort to rabbit on about old news. Plus the Guardian is highly respected, but obviously not not by you and others from the right of centre.  The awards are for 2023 and include:

 

David Conn won news reporter of the year, Anna Isaac won business and finance journalist of the year and Tom Jenkins won the sports photographer of the year award for the Guardian. Chris Riddell was named cartoonist of the year and Laura Cumming won critic of the year for the Observer.

 

I hope you no longer work in media as your comments are highly biased and meet the current criteria for extreme right wing.

5 minutes ago, mokwit said:

An insult and a link. As usual. This is what is truly pathetic. Every time, an attempted smear and a link. Where is your critical evaluation, where is you own synthesis?

 

Look in the mirror

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

You put a lot of effort to rabbit on about old news. Plus the Guardian is highly respected, but obviously not not by you and others from the right of centre.  The awards are for 2023 and include:

 

David Conn won news reporter of the year, Anna Isaac won business and finance journalist of the year and Tom Jenkins won the sports photographer of the year award for the Guardian. Chris Riddell was named cartoonist of the year and Laura Cumming won critic of the year for the Observer.

 

I hope you no longer work in media as your comments are highly biased and meet the current criteria for extreme right wing.

How am I extreme right wing? Do I just not have to believe Leftist sources with and agenda to be 'extreme right wing'. I am not sure cartoonist of the year, sports photographer of the year and critic of the year are really what you would associate with hard hitting journalism.

 

About 'old news', does the fact that it is old somehow discount it if the facts are the facts and things that were so then are still so? Completely dishonest deflection attempt.

 

The Guardian is not respected by a very large part of the population because of its lack of editorial integrity. It is worse than Breitbart which I have not read since they stooped to the level of the Guardian.

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

The Guardian ....................is worse than Breitbart which I have not read since they stooped to the level of the Guardian.

....and you wonder why someone might think you are extreme right wing....555

9 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

....and you wonder why someone might think you are extreme right wing....555

You are just demonstrating your naivety, sometimes to get the truth/an alternative view you have to go to both the extremes of Left like The Guardian and Right like Breitbart, the mainstream might not want to cover certain truths, particularly with Immigration. Breitbart reported actual data that the MSM with its "families fleeing war" and "doctors and engineers" narrative would not. German court reports for example are facts. I am well aware that Breitbart has an agenda in publishing this data, but it is the data that interests me, not their narrative. Same apples to facts reported by the Left media.

 

This has to be explained?

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Look in the mirror

Nope. this applies 100% to you and not to me. No mirror image there.

36 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

.... waving your national flag is not a crime. 

As I said.

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

<Shipped for brevity>

 

The Guardian is not respected by a very large part of the population because of its lack of editorial integrity. It is worse than Breitbart which I have not read since they stooped to the level of the Guardian.

 

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

More details on the poll but key information needed to draaw any real conclusion is missing.

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/guardian-trusted-sun-least-trusted-online-news-brand-pamco-reveals/1492881

Pamco has released digital engagement figures for the first time alongside its reach data, breaking down how readers feel about the content they engage with online.

Based on interviews with 35,000 people by Ipsos Mori, the research found that 91% of people considered reading a publication as time well spent, 70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read.

In terms of trust for specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what I see in it", followed by i (83%) and The Independent (82%).

Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism.

 

 

 

As it says "readers" and does not say "those polled" I have to assume that 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles. That doesn't really mean anything as it is a poll of people who choose to buy/read the guardian, rather than a representative cross section of the population as a whole. Clearly if it just people who chose to read the Guardian then there is sample bias and it effectively means nothing. I am unable to clarify this from info available/wording. The best indicator is use of the term 'chosen publication' as in: '70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication

and 81% trusted what they read' To me there is little difference between the *4% for the Guardian and 81% overall.  I doubt that it is a statistically significant difference.

 

I am sure if you polled the 982,000  readers of Völkischer Beobachter or 750,000  Das Schwarze Korps readers you might find a similar percentage "trust what they see in it". If we apply your arguments then by extension if 84% of readers trust it, then it must be printing the truth/reliable.  Do you think Völkischer Beobachter and Das Schwarze Korps were printing the truth/reliable? If not, then why is it that they were not, but The Guardian is?

 

As detailed already, the above only holds if it is 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles.

 

What I find particularly interesting is this: Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism. My take on this is that their readers are not stupid, they know it is propaganda designed to influence them, whereas The middle class Guardian readers whose salary comes from a transfer payment from the wealth creation of others are too unworldly to see this, and 84% actually think they are getting the truth rather than just buying someone else's propaganda. In other words, 84% of Guardian readers are naive fools. I would not describe that class of people as particularly worldly.

 

What link will you post in response to this rather than counter my arguments directly?

Anyhow, now the sniveling little coward Yaxley-Lennon has gone on the lam, I guess we can look forward to news of his next arrest being accompanied by detained without bail, followed shortly afterwards by a stretch of his majesty’s hospitality.

 

 

On 7/30/2024 at 11:28 AM, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  The salary requirements are to show that you can feed your wife

A salary requirement of £29,000. Yet this salary figure is non obtainable for the majority of BRITISH workers especially if they live in the north. And if you add in pensioners on a gross pension of £9,000. It’s dream world.

39 minutes ago, Tiger1980 said:

A salary requirement of £29,000. Yet this salary figure is non obtainable for the majority of BRITISH workers especially if they live in the north. And if you add in pensioners on a gross pension of £9,000. It’s dream world.

 

  Even minimum wage in the UK is about £23,000 a year

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anyhow, now the sniveling little coward Yaxley-Lennon has gone on the lam, I guess we can look forward to news of his next arrest being accompanied by detained without bail, followed shortly afterwards by a stretch of his majesty’s hospitality.

 

 

Nothing like locking up opponents for the Left. I am referring to your gloating manner, rather than the law. Don't see how somebody who has stood up for what he believe in like TR can be called a 'sniveling little coward', especially by our resident web board warrior.

11 hours ago, mokwit said:

More details on the poll but key information needed to draaw any real conclusion is missing.

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/guardian-trusted-sun-least-trusted-online-news-brand-pamco-reveals/1492881

Pamco has released digital engagement figures for the first time alongside its reach data, breaking down how readers feel about the content they engage with online.

Based on interviews with 35,000 people by Ipsos Mori, the research found that 91% of people considered reading a publication as time well spent, 70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read.

In terms of trust for specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what I see in it", followed by i (83%) and The Independent (82%).

Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism.

 

 

 

As it says "readers" and does not say "those polled" I have to assume that 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles. That doesn't really mean anything as it is a poll of people who choose to buy/read the guardian, rather than a representative cross section of the population as a whole. Clearly if it just people who chose to read the Guardian then there is sample bias and it effectively means nothing. I am unable to clarify this from info available/wording. The best indicator is use of the term 'chosen publication' as in: '70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication

and 81% trusted what they read' To me there is little difference between the *4% for the Guardian and 81% overall.  I doubt that it is a statistically significant difference.

 

I am sure if you polled the 982,000  readers of Völkischer Beobachter or 750,000  Das Schwarze Korps readers you might find a similar percentage "trust what they see in it". If we apply your arguments then by extension if 84% of readers trust it, then it must be printing the truth/reliable.  Do you think Völkischer Beobachter and Das Schwarze Korps were printing the truth/reliable? If not, then why is it that they were not, but The Guardian is?

 

As detailed already, the above only holds if it is 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles.

 

What I find particularly interesting is this: Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism. My take on this is that their readers are not stupid, they know it is propaganda designed to influence them, whereas The middle class Guardian readers whose salary comes from a transfer payment from the wealth creation of others are too unworldly to see this, and 84% actually think they are getting the truth rather than just buying someone else's propaganda. In other words, 84% of Guardian readers are naive fools. I would not describe that class of people as particularly worldly.

 

What link will you post in response to this rather than counter my arguments directly?

 

can't be bothered to read your lengthy post. However, IMO, your argument is only based on opinion.

49 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Nothing like locking up opponents for the Left. I am referring to your gloating manner, rather than the law. Don't see how somebody who has stood up for what he believe in like TR can be called a 'sniveling little coward', especially by our resident web board warrior.

 

The guy broke the law and then jumped bail i.e. coward. He only appeals to the fringe of UK society causing division and conflict - waste of space...

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Where did you copy this from?

 

Here maybe ? The faces of the extremist far right of England

 

 

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

can't be bothered to read your lengthy post. However, IMO, your argument is only based on opinion.

Silly sausage, I am posting it for OTHERS to read so that they can see how empty/biased your supporting links always are.

 

You say my arguments are based on opinion but I actually sat in undergraduate lectures where we covered this type of sampling. Actually what is really going on here is that you are unable to counter any arguments, just post link, name call, or say it is beneath you to engage (a common Leftie tactic when intellectually unable to make a counter argument).

 

Lets let the web board decide for themselves shall we? I am sure your cop out above and lack of counter points will not weigh in your favour.

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

The guy broke the law and then jumped bail i.e. coward. He only appeals to the fringe of UK society causing division and conflict - waste of space...

How would you know, are you British? You are sitting there in Australia getting your views from the media. How many ordinary British people have you spoken to to form this view?. What TR says/stands for and what the media insinuates he stands for are not the same. He appeals to normal people who never asked for mass immigration to support the political strategy of the Left of top down enforced multiculturalism.

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

can't be bothered to read your lengthy post. However, IMO, your argument is only based on opinion.

So you didn't read it but you have an opinion on it. just confirms that everything of yours is just an opinion without any supporting arguments/data.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

The guy broke the law and then jumped bail i.e. coward. He only appeals to the fringe of UK society causing division and conflict - waste of space...

 

He is about as far from a coward as I have seen.  Cowards keep quiet, appease, turn a blind eye, excuse, the mass rape of children in various towns across the UK. 

 

If it was not for people like him and it was left to the various cowards in the councils, police and the politicians "running" this country the grooming rape gangs that were eventually apprehended would still be raping vulnerable children.   Thousands upon thousands of these rapes could have been prevented if not for the cowardice of the authorities.  

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Anyhow, now the sniveling little coward Yaxley-Lennon has gone on the lam, I guess we can look forward to news of his next arrest being accompanied by detained without bail, followed shortly afterwards by a stretch of his majesty’s hospitality.

 

 

He's got more balls than you- stands up out front and dares question the establishment knowing full well he could end up in hot water.

 

You however tap away on your keyboard all day....

48 minutes ago, sungod said:

He's got more balls than you- stands up out front and dares question the establishment knowing full well he could end up in hot water.

 

You however tap away on your keyboard all day....

He’s a carnival barker, raking in cash from his rubes.

 

A coward who runs away overseas when called to face the justice he demands others, but not him, are held accountable to.

He’ll be back behind bars again soon.

 

Despite your clear animosity I do have some friendly advice for you - don’t send Yaxley-Lennon any of your money.

 

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

Nothing like locking up opponents for the Left. I am referring to your gloating manner, rather than the law. Don't see how somebody who has stood up for what he believe in like TR can be called a 'sniveling little coward', especially by our resident web board warrior.

I’ve explained why he’s a sniveling little coward, refer my post directly above.