david_carnell

I'll withdraw it if you say that you don't believe it. Tell me you think public sector workers work as hard as anyone else and deserve their pay and benefits....

And then we get this sort of shit too (from the Press Assoc): Controversial plans to water down National Minimum Wage legislation have come under fire in the Commons. Tory former minister Christopher Chope tabled proposals which would allow adult employees to receive wages below the ?5.93 hourly rate. He said current laws prevented British workers selling their labour "at a price of their own choosing". And you want to tell me about fairness and equality from this govt?!

I'm happy to have a debate. Let's go. Can't afford it? I just told you - due to changes to pensions under the Labour govt that unions agreed to, public sector pension pots are mostly making money. We are working longer, and putting more money into the pot. Speak to the ATL....in 127 years they have never been on strike. This isn't some Trots in the NUT - these are reasonable people. Teachers. And yet they now feel they have no choice but to draw a line in the sand and say "no - no more". These attacks on public sector workers are not pragmatic. This government is embarking on an ideological vendetta to destroy both the unions and the workforce. To see someone as clever as you buy into this makes my blood boil. Insults? Your being equally so. I'm seeing colleagues all around me being made redundant, families shattered and those who are left behind being metaphorically flogged. And your insults are there.....you just veil them behind a veneer of reasonableness.

First they came from the Trade Unions and I didn't speak up....

Occasionally winding people up. And being a pompous arse to often.

Ahh....here we go again with the "waaah, waaah.....it's not fair *stamps feet*.....why should someone else get what I can't have?" attitude. Quids, your continued protrayal of public sector workers as malingering idlers who somehow don't deserve their pay and benefits is really getting irksome. As Otta says, if you sign a contract, and it's then breached you have the right to legal recompense. Employees should have the same protection. Changing the rules half way through is disgraceful. Not only that, but current public sector pension funds, due to earluier changes agreed by unions, are making money - not losing it. My concern is the state of private sector pensions, but I'd rather look to raise up than dumb down. Fairness for society? You've got a nerve - you couldn't give a shit about a fair society.....all you want is to see the public sector workforce decimated and for everyone to be in the same shit state. Your constant harping negativity is tiring me out, so god knows how it makes you feel.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I find disturbing is when people defined > themselves by what newspapers they choose to buy. > As if it would make them more intelligent or > socially acceptable in hierarchy organisations. > The Sun has more Oxbridge journalists than any > other newspapers. Yet Sun readers are likely to > despise Oxbridge graduates for not being working > class. People, or at least I, don't define themselves soley by this marker but your media choices undoubtably part of how you see yourself in the world. And I'd also doubt your stat about the Sun. I can't find any figures to suggest that and even if it were true I'd suggest that the Sun employs more journos than many other papers and is therefore likely to be over represented. You probably need a degree in Creative Writing to invent the crap they do anyway.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree spin is low but I do think editorial > political bias is quite strong in the graudian and > torygraph toward their natural political leanings > and in the Times to Rupert Murdoch's interests. Which I've mentioned all along. Editorials/columnists = obviously political > All 3 do provide decent nwes coverage however. Which has been my point all along. Although there are 4. > The independent is the least identifiabley > politically (with a capital p) biased of the > three, though it has a strongly left > leaning/liberal sensibility. it also has the most > balanced range of commentators, but it was almost > unreadable during it's holier than thou > campaigning period. I still find it fairly unreadable based on its design. It hurts my eyes to look at it most days. Endless front pages of nothing but a giant picture and an ambiguous question to which John Rentoul should have already told them the answer to.

Really? You don't care if I criticise your personal choices/purchases? Hmmm....I somehow doubt that. And it's not about being some corporate spokesperson or buying into the "brand" of being a Guardian reader or a newspaper buyer. It's about saying Quids original post was little better than spittle-flecked ranting and you're now tilting at windmills over media bias and ideology getting in the way of "getting the facts". I just don't buy it. I mean, if you only bought the Sunday People, then I'd get it. You'd learn feck all about everything except Jordan's tits. But buy any of the 4 quality papers in this country and I think that the news reporting is both of a high standard and low on political spin.

Quids hasn't commented on this since it started. Which speaks volumes. A late night stella-fuelled post I suspect. And I'm not picking on you. Just the argument you're siding with. The idea that all papers are equally bad, I believe, is flawed. Also I think that newspapers continue to provide a quality product and that other media sources contain equal bias. And of course it is an attack on the readers. If I said that all of a certain make of guitars were crap and sounded awful and you owned said instrument you'd feel affronted because it is an attack on your tastes and choices. It's just petty-minded stereotyping from Quids to try and rile people.

I shall have to do my best. I've bought the buckets, demijohns etc and champagne yeast. Anything else to make with it instead? And a cheap place to obtain bottles suitable for champagne? Thanks.

I don't think you can slate a publication and somehow not criticise its readers all in one go, but there you go. And I know it was Quids quote which is why it's in speech marks and why I said that you agreed with it. I think comparing the Guardian to the Mail is a crass generalisation and a lazy argument that cannot be backed up back any evidence. Prove me wrong.

Are these still in flower? I've just had some home-brew equipment delivered....

I'm not sure I understand? Well you said: But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that passes no judgement on those who do read it. I get that if you read the Sun, immigrants are "swamping" or "invading" compared to broadsheets using less inflammatory language but comparing one broadsheet to another, I think the reporting of the facts are broadly similar. The Times tends to have more in depth international coverage and the Guardian and Indy often do more aid/development stuff but I'm struggling to see some vast political agenda outside of the columnists. Now, granted, in that area there is a chasm between a Polly Toynbee and a Peter Oborne but I'm not convinced that alters the reporting on Syria for e.g. And I'm happy to be advised on your non-biased online sources too....

Like this seemingly. Seems a bit unlikely..... Insane though.

I disagree. I don't think newspapers (at least the broadsheets) are any less accurate with their facts than any other online media. In fact, I would say they are often more so due to their accountability. And I think "one-sided debate" is harsh. From neither the Guardian or, say, the Telegraph do you get much political comment outside of columnists. Disregard those and the articles are pretty similar. Writing style and presentation differs a little but not much. You can dislike the readers of a paper (if you want to stereotype on hackneyed cliches) but I think the actual papers themselves are rarely as polemic or extreme as often made out. I've even been known to take the Telegraph occasionally!

Which media outlet do you use to get your "facts" that doesn't have an agenda, editorial standpoint or bias? I'd love to see one.

Don't go..... I've not had a go yet. *Bob*

Dik. Are we still playing? Oh, and look at me hiding behind my witty and original user name. Seriously, 118118 could probably track me down.

wang

A Leeds academy star has just been snaffled by Barca. Good luck to the fella but a bitter blow as he's rumoured to be the bees knees. We lost a couple to Chelsea a few years ago and their careers are interesting. One, Taiwo, has fallen and now plies his trade for Carlisle. Another, Woods, is still at the Bridge and has made a few first team appearances although not in the League. We got ?5 million for the pair which seems decent in hindsight. Wonder what Kebbie's future holds.....the new Messi? Or the new Cherno Samba?

Perhaps back to the General Issues section then? And a removal of all this superfluous gunk?

Arse. Oh, no, wait. Explain it again....

This is now a duplicate of the other thread.

Only this morning I was told I resembled this fella in his youth. Worrying. http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/PrincePhil_415.jpg