GB News

[shull]

Look to be on the way out.

Three presenters gone this week.

Ofcom are investigating them.

[rabuddies]

Hip, Hip .....................  Wait for it!!

[Scott-Leeds]

Look to be on the way out.
Three presenters gone this week.
Ofcom are investigating them.

They should be investigating the shite BBC and SKY put out

Bias/Woke nonsense we are peddled daily, our ‘news’ is just other people’s propaganda and agenda sadly

Gone are the days when Trevor Mcdonald, Alistair Burnett and Moira Stewart etc actually presented the news and left us to interpret it

[lenziebud]

1 hour ago, Scott-Leeds said:

They should be investigating the shite BBC and SKY put out

Bias/Woke nonsense we are peddled daily, our ‘news’ is just other people’s propaganda and agenda sadly

Gone are the days when Trevor Mcdonald, Alistair Burnett and Moira Stewart etc actually presented the news and left us to interpret it

What against the populist, racist, nationalist, anti immigrant. conspiracy theory "news" that GBNews represent. Maybe that's what you prefer right enough

Trevor Mcdonald, Alistair Burnett and Moira Stewart were a different era before social media, keep up

Edited September 29, 2023 by lenziebud

[W6er]

1 hour ago, lenziebud said:

What against the populist, racist, nationalist, anti immigrant. conspiracy theory "news" that GBNews represent. Maybe that's what you prefer right enough

Trevor Mcdonald, Alistair Burnett and Moira Stewart were a different era before social media, keep up

That's a bit of a hysterical rant. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what they news channel they can watch. It's blatant censorship disguised as regulation.

I think folk should be able to watch whatever news channel they like, whether it be Al Jazeera, PressTV, RT of GB News. When the government filters what news and opinions you can view, then you're basically living in a totalitarian society. My granddad always said that he fought for our freedom, but that seems to be disappearing and it is insidious. 

You watch what you like and let other people do the same.  

[ALBIONSAINT]

30 minutes ago, W6er said:

That's a bit of a hysterical rant. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what they news channel they can watch. It's blatant censorship disguised as regulation.

I think folk should be able to watch whatever news channel they like, whether it be Al Jazeera, PressTV, RT of GB News. When the government filters what news and opinions you can view, then you're basically living in a totalitarian society. My granddad always said that he fought for our freedom, but that seems to be disappearing and it is insidious. 

You watch what you like and let other people do the same.  

Careful, that sounds like counterrevolutionary language, you will be up on a hate crime charge with ideas like that. 

[lenziebud]

8 hours ago, W6er said:

That's a bit of a hysterical rant. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what they news channel they can watch. It's blatant censorship disguised as regulation.

I think folk should be able to watch whatever news channel they like, whether it be Al Jazeera, PressTV, RT of GB News. When the government filters what news and opinions you can view, then you're basically living in a totalitarian society. My granddad always said that he fought for our freedom, but that seems to be disappearing and it is insidious. 

You watch what you like and let other people do the same.  

I didn't tell him at any point what channel he could watch. I gave an opinion of GBNews and its content and its not a hysterical rant. I watch it quite a bit just to see how these people are thinking and the danger imo as to what they pose. So i am well able to give an opinion on its content and make a comparison with bbc and sky news. I dont want to live in a GBNews world

[faraway saint]

9 hours ago, W6er said:

That's a bit of a hysterical rant. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what they news channel they can watch. It's blatant censorship disguised as regulation.

I think folk should be able to watch whatever news channel they like, whether it be Al Jazeera, PressTV, RT of GB News. When the government filters what news and opinions you can view, then you're basically living in a totalitarian society. My granddad always said that he fought for our freedom, but that seems to be disappearing and it is insidious. 

You watch what you like and let other people do the same.  

A hysterical rant? 

A rather strange selection when you say people should be able to watch what they want?

Then you go on to say that the government filters news and opinions, can you fully explain and provide proof of this? 

Are you also indicating that ANYTHING can, or should, be allowed to be broadcast? 🍿

[Cookie Monster]

If 🫰GB news goes bust, where are all those tory mp's going to get their 2nd, 3rd etc wage from?

Oops forgot there's always Talk TV they could/would join.

[faraway saint]

[W6er]

2 hours ago, lenziebud said:

I didn't tell him at any point what channel he could watch. I gave an opinion of GBNews and its content and its not a hysterical rant. I watch it quite a bit just to see how these people are thinking and the danger imo as to what they pose. So i am well able to give an opinion on its content and make a comparison with bbc and sky news. I dont want to live in a GBNews world

Fair enough. But you think GB News is dangerous? Really? I don't watch much television, but from what I have seen of GB News it is basically television for Daily Mail readers and hardly likely to inspire some sort of revolution, so I wouldn't worry yourself too much.

I have seen Neil Oliver's monologues on YouTube and I think they're rather interesting, though perhaps a little paranoid. If you look at the vast majority of history, then you will see that there has almost always been a parasitic elite that has preyed on the 'little people' and he believes this elite fears the people and is gradually eroding our rights. He rather cynically examines proposals, trends and policies - e.g. 15 minute cities, coerced vaccination, a war on motorists - and warns that this is the thin end of the wedge. I think his level of criticism and cynicism far exceeds any other mainstream media commentator and I don't see that as a bad thing.

The banning of RT is the thing that really bugs me, to be honest. Aye, it is propaganda. However, so too is western media to a large extent. In a free society one should be able to access all sources of information and make up our own mind. Censorship like that belongs in the likes of North Korea and not the supposedly 'free' West. We're not children. We do not need 'Big Brother' to filter what news and opinions are 'good' for us. The clash of ideas is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Why should somebody decide that certain opinions are 'verboten'? 

Edited September 30, 2023 by W6er

[ALBIONSAINT]

2 hours ago, W6er said:

Fair enough. But you think GB News is dangerous? Really? I don't watch much television, but from what I have seen of GB News it is basically television for Daily Mail readers and hardly likely to inspire some sort of revolution, so I wouldn't worry yourself too much.

I have seen Neil Oliver's monologues on YouTube and I think they're rather interesting, though perhaps a little paranoid. If you look at the vast majority of history, then you will see that there has almost always been a parasitic elite that has preyed on the 'little people' and he believes this elite fears the people and is gradually eroding our rights. He rather cynically examines proposals, trends and policies - e.g. 15 minute cities, coerced vaccination, a war on motorists - and warns that this is the thin end of the wedge. I think his level of criticism and cynicism far exceeds any other mainstream media commentator and I don't see that as a bad thing.

The banning of RT is the thing that really bugs me, to be honest. Aye, it is propaganda. However, so too is western media to a large extent. In a free society one should be able to access all sources of information and make up our own mind. Censorship like that belongs in the likes of North Korea and not the supposedly 'free' West. We're not children. We do not need 'Big Brother' to filter what news and opinions are 'good' for us. The clash of ideas is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Why should somebody decide that certain opinions are 'verboten'? 

You don’t need any other news channel other than the BBC. They fact check and verify all the news for disinformation so you don’t need to 👍🏻

[faraway saint]

28 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You don’t need any other news channel other than the BBC. They fact check and verify all the news for disinformation so you don’t need to 👍🏻

Wow, crime of the century. 

[lenziebud]

55 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You don’t need any other news channel other than the BBC. They fact check and verify all the news for disinformation so you don’t need to 👍🏻

Check any major organisation in the uk and elsewhere and you will find evidence of this.

There have been multiple cabinet ministers who have lied on their cv in the past

Also why do you keep targeting the BBC ? Yes it has many areas it can improve in as do every organisation but why is it specifically the BBC you target or is it due to the sustained attack of the right that has been going on for quite a while
The interesting thing is that Corbyn types attack the BBC with the same venom which tends to tell me for all its faults it has it correct in the main.

Or is it just populist to attack it and you get a few likes for it ?

Edited September 30, 2023 by lenziebud

[antrin]

20 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Check any major organisation in the uk and elsewhere and you will find evidence of this.

There have been multiple cabinet ministers who have lied on their cv in the past

Also why do you keep targeting the BBC ? Yes it has many areas it can improve in as do every organisation but why is it specifically the BBC you target or is it due to the sustained attack of the right that has been going on for quite a while
The interesting thing is that Corbyn types attack the BBC with the same venom which tends to tell me for all its faults it has it correct in the main.

Or is it just populist to attack it and you get a few likes for it ?

It’s “populist”.

The irony is that the original source for the story is a left-leaning, pro-European publication (The New European), that used the irony of  Marianna’s new job in light of her youthful indiscretion.  They saw it as a good learning experience for a young person.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-the-bbcs-disinformation-correspondent-lied-on-her-cv/

No such humanity and magnanimity from ALL the right-wing rags and outlets.  A big NASTY pile-on cos THEY are scared that she/the bbc scrutinises THEM.  A co-ordinated “nasty” response looks obvious.

Just Google…

“bbc disinformation correspondent marianna spring lied”

….to see how many right-wing rags all share pretty much the same repetitive  patter…

 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by antrin

[ALBIONSAINT]

18 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Check any major organisation in the uk and elsewhere and you will find evidence of this.

There have been multiple cabinet ministers who have lied on their cv in the past

Also why do you keep targeting the BBC ? Yes it has many areas it can improve in as do every organisation but why is it specifically the BBC you target or is it due to the sustained attack of the right that has been going on for quite a while
The interesting thing is that Corbyn types attack the BBC with the same venom which tends to tell me for all its faults it has it correct in the main.

Or is it just populist to attack it and you get a few likes for it ?

The article I used was from the Nationalist, hardly known for its right wing views. Unfortunately I don’t have any skin in the game with other organisations but I do pay for a licence every month and expect impartiality. 
 

ps . plus a love the likes 💕 
 

[ALBIONSAINT]

4 minutes ago, antrin said:

It’s “populist”.

The irony is that the original source for the story is a left-leaning, pro-European publication (The New European), that used the irony of  Marianna’s new job in light of her youthful indiscretion.  They saw it as a good learning experience for a young person.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-the-bbcs-disinformation-correspondent-lied-on-her-cv/

No such humanity and magnanimity from ALL the right-wing rags and outlets.  A big NASTY pile-on cos THEY are scared that she/the bbc scrutinises THEM.  A co-ordinated “nasty” response looks obvious.

Just Google…

“bbc disinformation correspondent marianna spring lied”

….to see how many right-wing rags all share pretty much the same repetitive  patter…

 

 

Better tell Humza 😅 you guys crack me up, even when you’re wrong your right.

[W6er]

35 minutes ago, lenziebud said:

Check any major organisation in the uk and elsewhere and you will find evidence of this.

There have been multiple cabinet ministers who have lied on their cv in the past

Also why do you keep targeting the BBC ? Yes it has many areas it can improve in as do every organisation but why is it specifically the BBC you target or is it due to the sustained attack of the right that has been going on for quite a while
The interesting thing is that Corbyn types attack the BBC with the same venom which tends to tell me for all its faults it has it correct in the main.

Or is it just populist to attack it and you get a few likes for it ?

I think @ALBIONSAINT's perfectly entitled to point out the sheer idiocy of appointing a 'fact checker' who's clearly proven to be deceitful. Though I agree with you, that she is unlikely to be a singular example.

People, especially very ambitious people, are often keen on self-advancement to the detriment of their integrity, if they have any to begin with. I also agree that politicians are especially disingenuous, I think we all know that. It therefore boggles the mind why any sane individual would advocate for these people deciding what sources of information we are allowed to consult in order to form our own opinions. 

I read a variety of news sources, including The Guardian and the BBC. I would read the Daily Mail were it nor for the site being very slow. I consult non-mainstream sources, too, and tend to consider all the information in the round before forming an opinion on something. Relying upon a few sources, especially those that share the same bias, is likely to be unreliable. 

 

[beyond our ken]

14 hours ago, W6er said:

That's a bit of a hysterical rant. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what they news channel they can watch. It's blatant censorship disguised as regulation.

I think folk should be able to watch whatever news channel they like, whether it be Al Jazeera, PressTV, RT of GB News. When the government filters what news and opinions you can view, then you're basically living in a totalitarian society. My granddad always said that he fought for our freedom, but that seems to be disappearing and it is insidious. 

You watch what you like and let other people do the same.  

Freedom and free speech are rights that come with responsibility, because free-speech has the power to alienate and belittle.  If someone has misogynistic views then they should keep them tothemselves rather than trying to rally the other animals that agree with them, but because thay have these views they are not the sort of person to keep counsel or just be a little careful ariund what they say.

Telling unpleasant truths is often necessary and should be valued when the intention is to have a better debate.  To go out looking for things that you decide you disagree with, with the intention of attacking a person who you disagree with is actually pretty vile.

The trend now is to brand anyone with a moderate or even caring view as "woke" and people use the term freely without realising that the context they are using it in is unintentionally racist

As for GB news, i am afraid that they exist to further the reach and aims of extreme-right wingers who want to hijack the tory party as a way of gaining power.  They peddle untruths and only want to hear their own agenda.

[antrin]

33 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Better tell Humza 😅 you guys crack me up, even when you’re wrong your right.

Again… I don’t get your quibble….

I guess that you’re suggesting that a rabidly Nationalist “newspaper” isn’t right-wing?    

 

That’d be a first!

[W6er]

6 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Freedom and free speech are rights that come with responsibility, because free-speech has the power to alienate and belittle.  If someone has misogynistic views then they should keep them tothemselves rather than trying to rally the other animals that agree with them, but because thay have these views they are not the sort of person to keep counsel or just be a little careful ariund what they say.

Telling unpleasant truths is often necessary and should be valued when the intention is to have a better debate.  To go out looking for things that you decide you disagree with, with the intention of attacking a person who you disagree with is actually pretty vile.

The trend now is to brand anyone with a moderate or even caring view as "woke" and people use the term freely without realising that the context they are using it in is unintentionally racist

As for GB news, i am afraid that they exist to further the reach and aims of extreme-right wingers who want to hijack the tory party as a way of gaining power.  They peddle untruths and only want to hear their own agenda.

That first clause is simply a trite justification to impose restrictions on speech. Why not just state 'I don't believe in freedom of speech because it can hurt people's feelings', because that's what you appear to be stating?

I'm not sure there is a universal definition of woke, in which case what you perceive the word to mean maybe vastly different to someone else. Without an agreed definition lambasting people's use of the word is illogical.

Based upon your description of GB News, it is pretty much the same as any other commercial media outlet, then - The Guardian, The National, The Telegraph...I think only the BBC claims to be politically impartial. It would appear that you simply don't approve of their political bias, which is your right, of course.  

 

[W6er]

16 minutes ago, antrin said:

Again… I don’t get your quibble….

I guess that you’re suggesting that a rabidly Nationalist “newspaper” isn’t right-wing?    

 

That’d be a first!

Define right-wing?

What was the 1950s Labour Party's perspective on:

- homosexuality?

- gay marriage?

- trans rights?

-mass-immigration?

- capital punishment?

- corporal punishment in schools?

 

Was the 1950s Labour Party right-wing?

 

I'm not trying to be abrasive. My point is that either the definition has changed so that what was once considered left-wing is now right-wing, in which case it is a fluid definition and not something that is fixed, or the Labour Party was never left-wing in the first place.

Being left-wing used to be about advocating on behalf after the working classes. It has now seemingly morphed into something entirely different. I would suggest that the current definition is a misnomer.

[beyond our ken]

3 hours ago, lenziebud said:

Check any major organisation in the uk and elsewhere and you will find evidence of this.

There have been multiple cabinet ministers who have lied on their cv in the past

Also why do you keep targeting the BBC ? Yes it has many areas it can improve in as do every organisation but why is it specifically the BBC you target or is it due to the sustained attack of the right that has been going on for quite a while
The interesting thing is that Corbyn types attack the BBC with the same venom which tends to tell me for all its faults it has it correct in the main.

Or is it just populist to attack it and you get a few likes for it ?

My trainee in my last job has a CV and linkedin profile that has him as my manager for that time.  He got quite a way on that before his limitations crept back up on him and he is back in the job I signed him from 15 years ago  There is nothing that is harder to overcome in your work-life than overstating your credentials and ability once you are busted.

[beyond our ken]

2 hours ago, W6er said:

That first clause is simply a trite justification to impose restrictions on speech. Why not just state 'I don't believe in freedom of speech because it can hurt people's feelings', because that's what you appear to be stating?

I'm not sure there is a universal definition of woke, in which case what you perceive the word to mean maybe vastly different to someone else. Without an agreed definition lambasting people's use of the word is illogical.

Based upon your description of GB News, it is pretty much the same as any other commercial media outlet, then - The Guardian, The National, The Telegraph...I think only the BBC claims to be politically impartial. It would appear that you simply don't approve of their political bias, which is your right, of course.  

 

If you think I am against free speech because i believe every right comes with responsibility then it seems you cant read what is in front of you.  

So called free-speech can do a lot of harm and I guess you know that, I am not for censoring people.  I just know that society pays the check that these people's mouths write.  The damage this so-called "free-speech agenda" is causing is bad and will get way worse.  There seems to be a growing tendency for people to deliberately say provocative and unpleasant things about others so they can claim that their right to free speech is being impeded.  You do note, you never gat ANY of them saying something nice , though they all have the means and opportunity to do so.  GB news and Talk TV are wall-to-wall unpleasantness all day long. 

The word "woke" in the context of today is actually a smirkingly unpleasant misappropriation of a word that Black Americans used to described themselves in the 30s (that wonderful time for civil rights).  They used it to explain that they woke up to the unfairness, prejudice and oppression that they faced and started to act.  The phrase "I woke" became "I am woke", the oppressors and others initially used it to belittle black people who complained about their lot.  Now we have some wonderful people using a word that they are unaware of the context it was coined in to belittle anyone with an opposing view to beligerence, intolerance and indeed, greed.  The likes of the owners of GB news and also many of the publications you mentioned are on a mission to grab both the mainstream and the online media.  They deliberately court controversy and use intolerance to do so as they like to wave a martyr's banner of censorship and intolerance when they are pretty much intolerant of anyone else.

I dont agree with everything Frankie Boyle says, he got it right though when he said Brexit was Karma for people who voted Conservative thinking that it would only f**k other people up, and that is the right wing agenda .  Support any voice or cause that demonises or scews over other groups as it increases your chances of prospering over them.  They might be right but there is a very real prospect that their larger slice of the pie is going to be the lion's share of sod-all by the time they are done wrecking.

[W6er]

25 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

If you think I am against free speech because i believe every right comes with responsibility then it seems you cant read what is in front of you.  

So called free-speech can do a lot of harm and I guess you know that, I am not for censoring people.  I just know that society pays the check that these people's mouths write.  The damage this so-called "free-speech agenda" is causing is bad and will get way worse.  There seems to be a growing tendency for people to deliberately say provocative and unpleasant things about others so they can claim that their right to free speech is being impeded.  You do note, you never gat ANY of them saying something nice , though they all have the means and opportunity to do so.  GB news and Talk TV are wall-to-wall unpleasantness all day long. 

The word "woke" in the context of today is actually a smirkingly unpleasant misappropriation of a word that Black Americans used to described themselves in the 30s (that wonderful time for civil rights).  They used it to explain that they woke up to the unfairness, prejudice and oppression that they faced and started to act.  The phrase "I woke" became "I am woke", the oppressors and others initially used it to belittle black people who complained about their lot.  Now we have some wonderful people using a word that they are unaware of the context it was coined in to belittle anyone with an opposing view to beligerence, intolerance and indeed, greed.  The likes of the owners of GB news and also many of the publications you mentioned are on a mission to grab both the mainstream and the online media.  They deliberately court controversy and use intolerance to do so as they like to wave a martyr's banner of censorship and intolerance when they are pretty much intolerant of anyone else.

I dont agree with everything Frankie Boyle says, he got it right though when he said Brexit was Karma for people who voted Conservative thinking that it would only f**k other people up, and that is the right wing agenda .  Support any voice or cause that demonises or scews over other groups as it increases your chances of prospering over them.  They might be right but there is a very real prospect that their larger slice of the pie is going to be the lion's share of sod-all by the time they are done wrecking.

If there are conditions attached to what you define as 'free speech' I would suggest it's not entirely free. To quote George Orwell, 'if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' 

With respect to your definition of 'woke' I would very much appreciate it if you would provide sources when making factual claims; he who asserts must prove is a fundamental principle. However, I've looked at Wikipedia, not a reputable source, and it seems you're correct:

Quote

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial justice, sexism and LGBT rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States.[3][4][5]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

The same source states (my emphasis):

Quote

By 2019,[41] opponents of progressive social movements were often using the term mockingly or sarcastically,[4][42] implying that "wokeness" was an insincere form of performative activism.[4][43] British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock "overrighteous liberalism".[41] In this pejorative sense, woke means "following an intolerant and moralising ideology".[19]

I'm not sure you can misappropriate a word. Words' meanings change, for example 'gay', 'liberal' and 'F£nian' (I imagine that last word will be automatically censored, hence the '£')  had different meanings at one time.

I would stop watching GB News if I were you, as you appear to find it upsetting, and I mean that sincerely. Life's too short.

I used to care about politics, now I really cannot be bothered. Having Christian faith and reading the Bible, I am convinced that certain things which are prophesied are actually happening. I appreciate most folk on here will think that's ludicrous (also prophesied), but it has given me great peace of mind and I enjoy reading the news to watch it all unfold.