Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

This Huw Edwards story has come at the perfect time for the establishment to bury the much more important news at the moment. Easy for the Daily Mail to run 10 stories on Huw Edwards' than talk about how the Tories and BofE have ****ed up our economy yet again 🤷‍♂️

Reminds me of that Thick of It episode when the government convince news producers to get one minor public scandal off the news but when they realise there's an even bigger scandal emerging, they go back again the news producers to convince them that the original scandal needs to be the headline after all to take the heat off the main scandal. They start cheering in their office when they watch the news and see they've succeeded.

 

We'ce possibly gone beyond Malcolm Tucker here people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Reminds me of that Thick of It episode when the government convince news producers to get one minor public scandal off the news but when they realise there's an even bigger scandal emerging, they go back again the news producers to convince them that the original scandal needs to be the headline after all to take the heat off the main scandal. They start cheering in their office when they watch the news and see they've succeeded.

 

We'ce possibly gone beyond Malcolm Tucker here people.

Armando Iannucci said he could not do any more Thick of It shows, because reality had surpassed fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I wonder if there is a case for a review of media in this country 

 

perhaps it should not be possible for the same ownership to have newspapers  plus tv stations and or radio stations 

 

I assume that this applies to the bbc too 

 

their radio network may have to be replaced with a different management model separated from the tv 

Nice in theory, impossible in practice. Notwithstanding the money flying about, you'd need enough people to be whiter than whiter than white to implement this. Newspapers and media will go after anyone who was behind such a move. They would savage them, destroy their character and make this Huw Edwards story seem like a half-page salacious Chat Magazine article in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mad nads frothing at not getting her peering needs more airtime imo. Funniest thing I've ever seen. 

 

I'm hoping that it eventually boils down to the fact that Boris didn't put her name forward in the first place. I think her head would explode 🤣🤣🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Reminds me of that Thick of It episode when the government convince news producers to get one minor public scandal off the news but when they realise there's an even bigger scandal emerging, they go back again the news producers to convince them that the original scandal needs to be the headline after all to take the heat off the main scandal. They start cheering in their office when they watch the news and see they've succeeded.

 

We'ce possibly gone beyond Malcolm Tucker here people.

"Your own mother's piss"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

Nice in theory, impossible in practice. Notwithstanding the money flying about, you'd need enough people to be whiter than whiter than white to implement this. Newspapers and media will go after anyone who was behind such a move. They would savage them, destroy their character and make this Huw Edwards story seem like a half-page salacious Chat Magazine article in comparison.

Agreed.

 

Though one might hope enough incorruptible people of that ilk exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Daggers said:

If I were a striking union official following Sunak’s pay statement yesterday, I’d be petitioning my membership to walk out on permanent, indefinite strike this morning. 
 

An offer of a real terms pay cut on the back of a decade of pay cuts - and for it to be unfunded too, so all frontline services are going to be cut back even further - I’ve no words, just a ball of molten rage. 


This is a clear attack with the aim of crippling all social services to the point of complete collapse. Services won’t be able to withstand it. It’s pure evil. 

The general public simply won't view it that way though. They'll see 6% and just scoff at what they perceive to be a healthy pay raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

The general public simply won't view it that way though. They'll see 6% and just scoff at what they perceive to be a healthy pay raise.

Which just shows how damaging perception being valued over fact is to the fabric of society.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

The general public simply won't view it that way though. They'll see 6% and just scoff at what they perceive to be a healthy pay raise.

They understand the word unfunded though.

 

They understand the concept of doubled class sizes meaning poorer education, fewer doctors means even longer wait times for appointments.

 

Aside from the one cell right wing gobshites, I think the public knows precisely what is going on here and supports everyone on strike.

Edited by Daggers
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RobHawk said:

Mad nads frothing at not getting her peering needs more airtime imo. Funniest thing I've ever seen. 

 

I'm hoping that it eventually boils down to the fact that Boris didn't put her name forward in the first place. I think her head would explode 🤣🤣🤣

I don’t like Victorian Circus but there are exceptions lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

The general public simply won't view it that way though. They'll see 6% and just scoff at what they perceive to be a healthy pay raise.

 

The Tories have been doing this for years. They love doing it with council tenant's rent. 

 

David Cameron back in the big austerity days did a 1% rent reduction for council tenants. 

 

This government have just put a cap on the amount local authorities can increase council rent that's way below inflation. 

 

Superficiality sounds great, right? Sounds like the government really care about the poorest! 

 

Never mind the fact that benefits from central government pay a massive amount of council rent so really it's just a backhanded way of reducing the amount you pay local authorities and the net result is reduction in front line services. And the average council tenant won't notice a fvcking thing in their own personal finances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The Tories have been doing this for years. They love doing it with council tenant's rent. 

 

David Cameron back in the big austerity days did a 1% rent reduction for council tenants. 

 

This government have just put a cap on the amount local authorities can increase council rent that's way below inflation. 

 

Superficiality sounds great, right? Sounds like the government really care about the poorest! 

 

Never mind the fact that benefits from central government pay a massive amount of council rent so really it's just a backhanded way of reducing the amount you pay local authorities and the net result is reduction in front line services. And the average council tenant won't notice a fvcking thing in their own personal finances. 

If only there were more council houses for ordinary working people paying a fair rent comparable to their income rather than vast amounts of money going to private landlords via housing benefit

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

If only there were more council houses for ordinary working people paying a fair rent comparable to their income rather than vast amounts of money going to private landlords via housing benefit

 

4950.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=forma

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A change of government and drastic policy changes in almost every area cannot come soon enough.

Yes. I worry that too many in this country are too apathetic to see this. Can you imagine the voters in 1945 wanting to go back to the old pre war days rather than new way forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Yes. I worry that too many in this country are too apathetic to see this. Can you imagine the voters in 1945 wanting to go back to the old pre war days rather than new way forward. 

Well, the way I see it is either that change is made or circumstances will force civil unrest that will make what is being seen now look like a picnic. Apathy will only hold out for so long against a changing world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, leicsmac said:

Well, the way I see it is either that change is made or circumstances will force civil unrest that will make what is being seen now look like a picnic. Apathy will only hold out for so long against a changing world.

I hope like you that the drastic changes are made quickly without the trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A change of government and drastic policy changes in almost every area cannot come soon enough.

This Government have broken our Country!!.. 

It will take Labour many years to get it back on track. 

The quickest way we can do that is by rejoining the EU!!. 

... But Labour aren't making the right noises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This annoys me.

We have given 100s of millions, even billions, in aid to India in recent years yet they can carryout moon shots.

Of course, it will be claimed that the money we've sent is targeted for development as well as aid. However, surely it could follow this then 'frees up' money in their own coffers to pursue things like this?

Given our own financial dire straits, I think we should be asking for a significant refund on past monies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

This annoys me.

We have given 100s of millions, even billions, in aid to India in recent years yet they can carryout moon shots.

Of course, it will be claimed that the money we've sent is targeted for development as well as aid. However, surely it could follow this then 'frees up' money in their own coffers to pursue things like this?

Given our own financial dire straits, I think we should be asking for a significant refund on past monies.

Space exploration is one area, among others, that shouldn't be subject to petty nationalism and should be funded internationally anyway. Then this whole question would not arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...