Do You Hope TV News and Newspaper Are Losing Influence to Social Media?

Do You Hope TV News Media is Losing Influence?

Nowadays, I’m a street cleansing operative. It certainly is a fancy name we go by. It never used to be. But this title sounds much more impressive. Basically, I’m litter bin emptier and a road sweeper. James Callaghan was prime minister when I started work in 1977. I love my country of Britain and I’m not a right winger or a left winger as people seem to get categorised. Left-wing supporters (I mean extreme politically correct) call me fascist – populist – intolerant. Right wingers (I mean extreme anti-Black or anti-anything un-British in their view) call me Commie or Socialist. Well, what a pile of old pants.

Am I a plebe of the land? Yes, of course, I am.  I don’t always vote for the Labour party. I have on occasion. I’ve voted Conservative in many elections. I’ve voted UKIP during the EU elections to fight the unelected council that impose the four fundamental freedoms upon us. The UK was not free to vote upon these freedoms. The UK had them whether we wanted the rules or not via this un-elected EU council. Some nations did get a vote. When treaties were rejected, these nations were forced to vote again because the un-elected EU council did not like the results.

I never liked the idea of the retro project of the Common Market. When I was a kid at school, I can remember my Grandfather not liking the idea of entering it. I suppose that was what influenced me. I remember Edward Heath was the Prime Minister and a TV programme for kids about decimalization of our currency. I think decimalization was a good idea in the long run. The teachers in school told us that the Common Market was a wonderful idea, but my parents and grandparents were insistent that it was a path to a united Europe under one government. Even as little children in the classroom we mentioned this to a teacher called Mister Richards. He was a fine upright and very moral Englishman. Jacket and tie and an ex-war veteran. He laughed at us and said that such a thing would never happen. Eventually, we accepted that it did not seem to change things much. At the time it did not.

My working-class grandparents and my parents were right. My fine and very likeable school teacher, Mister Richards, was wrong. Like many of the teachers who said the same things as he did. I think if he could have seen what was going to happen he would have changed his mind.

I can remember the new Prime Minister, Harold Wilson allowing a referendum in 1975. I can clearly remember that same argument about no political unification as one European country. It was just a Common Market. The Common Market supporters won the argument and the anti-Common Market politicians who peddled losing national political power were so wrong - at the time. The old retro Britsh ways were about to slowly die. We were told to embrace the change. If anyone voiced discontent a growing band of liberals would talk such a person down. So too, did the newspapers. They owned the debate.

TV News Media Can't Own the Debate.

Then over the decades, little by little, treaty by treaty, slowly, slowly catch the monkey. This Common Market became the EEC then the EU. I was working for an Israeli Reinsurance company as a coding clerk in 1978 and the new EEC with its regulation forced Sahar Reinsurance to pack up shop and go back to Tel-Aviv. This was due to new EEC regulations. I had to find a new job. It was easy there was a lot of work at the time. I did not think anything of it. One did not see the old retro British ways change from day to day.

Fast forward a few decades and just a few years prior to the EU Referendum and Brexit of 2016, I listened to Leon Brittan boasting that he knew this political union was going to happen in a TV debate. He was chairing a panel of people who were trying to get an audience to vote to stay in the EU in this TV experiment. They had a group that was staunchly pro-EU and another group that was anti-EU. There was also a third of undecided voters. I was filled with anger about Leon Brittan's smug boast. He had been peddling the notion of only a Common Market back in the 1975 referendum and then decades later had the audacity to grin and say he knew this was coming about in 1975 when he was advocating for us to remain. 

At the end of the debate, most of the swing vote from undecided members of the audience came down on the leave EU side. It was to be the way the 2016 referendum would go. There are millions of us out there, seething with anger over partial truths peddled by our TV media.

Like the vast majority of British people, I’ve never known poverty. I mean true poverty. I’ve known blokes who send their wives to food banks because they spent their earnings on an Xbox game. I’ve seen beggars who sit in shopping precincts chatting on their mobile phones. That is what I mean by not knowing true poverty. I hear the concerns about the number of people using food banks. I agree it is a concern but there should be more than one concern. People should not be in a position to have to use these food banks. I also think people should not use food banks as a means of getting free food that they can afford to buy. No one mentions the second problem because they refuse to accept such a thing is so.  I have witnessed it. Many of us plebs know they must not dare to mention this. Especially on TV. You’ll get an actor or another self-opinionated celebrity practising their professional skills on shutting you out of the argument.   

I’ve never known great riches. I own my house. Mortgage paid on a detached bungalow in the Fenland. I've worked for forty years. I've been fortunate to live in a country where I have had work. I also had some idea of a budget each week. Sometimes I squandered. I have even got myself into debt once. But I got out of it. My house is a smashing little place of my dreams. 

I’m so lucky. Some people in other parts of the world have to flee war and terror. Some of these people come here and then they want to change it into the place they have fled from. Not all, but a sizable number. We must not dare to mention this. That causes me great concern and I no longer trust the TV debating gangs who try to play these things down or berate people who try to bring the issue up. I don’t trust the so-called left-wing media that only report partial truths. The bits they want you to know and omit the issues they decide you should not be allowed to debate. I feel the free society I’m supposed to live in is 'not so free' after all.

There are no secret police, but we do have verbal bullies. Articulate people - educated people - overbearing people who can denounce you as ignorant or Fascist. People who berate you from a platform. I see political debates with actors or other celebrities getting a platform to air their views because it suits those who try to own the news and decide what we are allowed to speak of and not allowed to speak of. Why? It all comes across as cheaply acquired nobility. Why not have someone who lives with the problems at a grassroots level day in and day out? Someone who must clean the human defecation on a daily basis and pick up the discarded beer cans from unemployed migrants who realise they are being exploited. The migrants who understandably say no to the landowners who impose long hours upon them at the drop of a hat. The migrants who voice dissatisfaction get sacked and are put onto our benefits system because back home they would not get the same support. Why can’t we do a documentary on how many of them sign on and spend their money on booze because they just want to sit around and drink? Not all of them do this, but a sizable number are like this. Enough to wreck the hamlets of Eastern England. The parks, the churchyards, public benches are full of them. Don’t say a thing or you’ll turn into a fascist and will not be allowed to go to the TV media platform’s Ball.

I’m originally from East London’s Bow and Poplar district. I’m not unhappy because in my country I have been a postal worker for twenty years in London. I could have advanced within the service but never wanted to. I was happy being a postal worker with a vote and an opinion. I remember putting money into the miner's bucket every week. I did not agree with the strike, but I was not a fan of Margaret Thatcher either. I did not like Scargill or Thatcher. I felt sorry for the miners.

I moved to Leigh-on-Sea after getting a mortgage on a nice terraced house there. I continued to travel to London and work for the Post Office. Then in 1998, I took voluntary redundancy and got work in the local council. I moved from one council after another. I got fed up and liked to move. Local councils pay low wages but they are basically decent places if one is only doing domestic bills as I do now.

When I moved to the Fenland, I was able to seek out employment with the council here too. I’m grateful. The reason I left London was that I sincerely felt uncomfortable with mass immigration. My retro Britain was dead and I was not allowed to say so. If I did, I would become a racist. But I felt there were far too many people migrating to Britain in my muffled silence. I met many wonderful people from many parts of the world. However, there were too many migrants coming here. It is an opinion I’ve had for many years. The areas of London where I grew up in are completely different today. I hate it when politically correct white people tell me to embrace this multiculturalism that has been enforced upon me. I hate it with a passion but I do not dislike people who are from somewhere different than Britain. I just resent my British country being changed to something different and being called a right-wing fascist for not liking it. 

I moved away because I did not like multiculturalism on such an intense scale. I did not like the threat of being branded fascist by fellow whites. I did not like being shouted down by these intolerant people who labelled me. I hated listening to some of the black people pretending they were victims all of the time. I’m not saying everyone did, but I was certainly intimidated by the vocal ones.  

It slowly dawned on me that our TV news media would not touch certain subjects about de-socialisation of British people’s way of life. I’ve spoken to lots of people who say this. Not just white people but the Caribbean and Asian people seem concerned too. I’m white and think that many white working class people are getting a rum deal out of mass uncontrolled migration. I think many second and third generation none-white British people do too. The wheel as turned full circle. The TV news media continuously avoid or, at best, play down this enforced problem of multiculturalism.

Every time I hear someone who is prepared to voice an opinion they get labelled. I thought Anne Marie Waters was a breath of fresh air and now the TV media is either vilifying her or shutting her out of the debate. However, the social media tells a different story. Now there are plans to restrain or police social media too. I’m not sure if this will work. I hope it does not.

I think social media is what led to the Brexit vote. Many of us realised we were not alone. The EU with its unelected body imposing founding principles upon nations without electoral consent has added to an already growing problem for British plebs, like me. This time there was an influx of almost four million Eastern Europeans to the UK. That number is what is admitted to, but I no longer trust the people who peddle the numbers. This along with the continued migration outside of Europe. The rural communities of the Fenland are devastated by this because the wages in the agricultural industry have been depreciated to an extent whereby many British people can’t afford to work these industries. The old Brits who remain are gradually got read of via natural wastage and replaced with Eastern Europeans. New contracts have been imposed and the employment agencies as middlemen are making a fortune by distributing these migrants out to the various processing factories and fields.

We can’t allow so many left-wing radicals to own journalism completely when they report on ‘who will pick the fruit?’ when they predict migrant people leaving after Brexit. Who picked the fruit before these migrants came here? Who took nursing jobs before the British government stopped training British people and importing nurses trained from abroad? Many of the TV news platforms of the past have cultivated an ultra-economical presentation of the truth. I support a lot of what some left of centre politicians bring to light. Especially where topics like social housing or the NHS is concerned. But sometimes their justification for migrant workers is so flawed and they think they have the right to own the debate. We plebs can’t say anything against the notion of migration because the TV media always gets to decide what the debate will be or what direction it must take. Even when we voice the notion of training British people, we are quickly told that Brits will not accept the wage. That is because the wage needs to be better and the resources of the NHS are being squandered at a diabolical level. We have people from abroad who have never paid into the system getting treatment and National Insurance contributors who paid for decades of their working life put in queues to get hip replacements. It’s our National Health Service, not the Worlds. The TV media will not go deep enough into the debate because they want to own it from the start. They say where it begins and where it stops.

The problems that stem from the economic truths that the TV media peddle are a major concern for the simmering social problems in our country. What I find frustrating is when someone else (Not Left Wing) picks up on a subject that has been made taboo. A subject that has racial implications or someone else unfairly playing a victim card. I’m not saying there are no victims. What I am saying is that some victims of society are not always victims while others that are victimised are brushed under the rug and must not be talked about. Our TV news media platforms of the past owned this and they would present victims of their choosing. Even when some victims may not have been so in the first place. Sometimes victims are artificially packaged and presented to us. Especially racial or of gender equality.

I watched the way Donald Trump was vilified for daring to mention that some of the horrendous things at the Charlottesville demonstration were also committed by the ultra-left protesters. He spoke of bad groups on both sides of the equation. He was right and very responsible to do so. For what it is worth. I can understand why some people would feel a statue of Robert E. Lee should be taken down. I think it was a lost cause. A dead cause. However, many of the so-called decent protesters that are referred to as the left wing had people intent upon violence within their ranks (mob rule). As did the right of centre who wanted to keep the statues of Robert E. Lee. One of them, (Right wing element) intent upon right-wing violence killed – murdered. Donald Trump was right to point this out. The news media should hang its head in shame. They only wanted to peddle the right-wing violence. Omit what they did not want to present. There is clearly one type of agenda here and many people know this.

I noticed in the UK, where I live, that Tommy Robinson tries to draw attention to a strong fact that gangs of Muslim men of Pakistani and Afghanistan origin are grooming predominantly young white girls or girls outside of their cultural society. They lure them with alcohol and drugs and put them into prostitution. A number of men from these backgrounds against the ratio of other men doing this thing is staggering. It has been for years but no news media of the day would go anywhere near the story. That is until social media took off and people began to highlight the problem.

Tommy Robinson was branded fascist – racist and all manner of things for daring to speak out about it. The news media went for him tooth and nail. So did the establishment with charges of mortgage fraud. If they perused everyone with a mortgage with the same intensity; what would they find among the ethnic none-white population? Or is one not allowed to mention such a thing? I know the police with orders via the establishment, would not go near it. I know that and so do the vast majority of fed up people in the country. 

As a reporter, Tommy Robinson could not get on board a train to visit and report upon an anti-Brexit march in London. This was because Muslims began to intimidate him at Luton train station. Did the TV media report this? Did the Guardian or did the Independent? No, but on social media it was. What's the point of buying a newspaper? They want to own the debate and will only peddle the things they want you to know about. When the police come, they allowed the Muslim lawbreakers to have they day and forbad Tommy Robinson his right to travel. This is what is slowly creeping into the country now. However, social media is highlighting this. I watched one interview with Tommy Robinson working for Rebel Media. He walked up to a Guardian reporter and asked him if he noticed the ultra left-wing ANTIFA protesters and what they were doing at this march. The Guardian reporter denied seeing anything. Then later when the newspaper report was published it was sculptured to another economic presentation.

This type of news is played down or not mentioned by many centre-left political believers. They feel such news would be detrimental in some way to their belief or cause. They quickly label anyone who dares to express concern on such issues as fascist or right-wing without allowing the debate. This is because the left of centre media wants to own the debate and set out the rules in the first place. 

Look at the way the reporters tried to twist and put new statements into President Trump’s mouth. I think these huge news media platforms are beginning to be exposed on the social media. We get to see a bigger picture. True there are a lot of fruitcakes too. But some sites are great for the exposure to the biased way some of the television news medias are presenting constant watered down truths and omitting issues that are also concerning. It has enabled many people to see things in a more truthful light. A less biased presentation - a more focused presentation. A picture that some platforms wanted us to see that TV media does not want. Even when we walked our streets and could see things that were not touched upon.

Sometimes we get groups of thugs who shout a person down. Sometimes we get media stations that will only allow portions of truth while omitting other things that out way arguments detrimental to their conviction. They try to pretend that some issues do not exist.

Debate on the EU disaster movie.

The heat is turning up in the UK concerning EU membership. It does seem, to me, that the anti-EU are winning the argument concerning the lack of democratic accountability. Every time the media get the pro-EU on to argue with the anti-EU; the anti always seem to walk away with the points from my point of view. Maybe there are things I'm missing, but I think the UK may leave. I also believe there could be civil unrest in some of the southern European countries.

UK's Official Migration Watch Tells the Truth about Uncontrollable Migration of Millions Pouring Into Britain.

Migration Watch telling the truth. The cold hard facts of what is happening and how the EU hamstrings the UK and its electorate from being able to govern their boarders and prevent this. We MUST LEAVE THE E.U.

Please bring the referendum forward and vote UKIP.

A Dangerous Gamble - EU without Britain - Splendid Debate on German t.v.

This is a great debate on German t.v. One of the best I've seen yet. Sensible talk by rational people. Well worth a watch. No one gets over excited and no one butts in. Everyone gets to talk and is listened to. Also the presenter is A-one with questions to each person.

My own conclusion is that the UK cannot avoid leaving the EU now because both sides of the argument are locked in a paradox. The pro-European German and don't budge on concessions man sees the UK as never being satisfied, no matter how many concessions she wins. It will never be enough. He does have a point.

The other pro - European German man is more for allowing concessions and is understanding of British concerns. He seems more ready to try and persuade the UK to remain. Although he does not like the immigration angle of the UK. Unfortunate because it is the dominating one. Wrong or right; immigration is the main issue for the overall UK electorate.

The young British man who is also pro-European sees the sad reality of why the UK might leave the EU concerning uncontrolled migration, which will dominate the referendum vote, regardless of losing power and influence on the world stage. The UK electorate will prioritise reasons for and against. He tries to point out that all though the reasons against leaving are sound economically, in some ways, the UK will not put that above other issues and also many in the city of London are beginning to regard the finance industry as being hamstrung.

It is also agreed that the EU might lose more and be forced to change anyway by a UK withdrawal. Also the UK is not afraid of going out into the big wide world. The island nation has never feared this. Something the German man who fears making concessions admitted too.

Its a great debate with many different points of view spoken by articulate people on all sides of the discussion. I really enjoyed this and it does leave me feeling sad that the UK will probably leave the EU, but is also a very necessary thing.

Can Britain Make the EU Adapt or will UK lose Time and be forced to Leave?

I think we are seeing the birth of diverse new European parties and this is because the electorate of Europe are taking the EU more seriously (on the left and the right.) They have to because they are getting too many governing bodies that they feel are unaccountable to them. This is the the last time it will be jobs for the boys in the closed EU committee rooms. The EU electorate are forcing the EU parliament down this road and no one will get what they entirely want. In the long run this is good for all Europeans. Cameron is serving his own interests and will not win his argument, but the ripples of his flawed argument will pan out and the EU will need to change. The EU will find it difficult to continue the same old way and Junker is irrelevant. Whoever was nominated for this post would always be a target. Junker is just unlucky to be on the spot. He'll probably still get the job, but the post is unlikely to come about in the same way in future. This has been made politically costly to Chancellor Merkel too. Both sides have lost the argument. Both sides should not be able to have their way. The EU needs to develop more and will do. I just don't think it will include the UK though. Our nation state is running out of time and we might be getting too impatient.

For the UK in the EU, we must be able to voice our differences and we can ill afford to fall out with other nation states. However, we are not always being taken into account, especially with the free movement of people act. (Well intentioned as it is) There are far too many problems with it at the moment and these things are plain to see. If member states are hamstrung to this degree, (unable to control borders) they'll find other ways of sabotaging the mechanism of the EU, or anti-EU parties will destabilise the member states. This is what is now happening in the UK, France, Netherlands and Denmark. Other nations are feeling the impact too.

Cameron is trying to stay afloat in this wreckage and is looking for arguments within the EU system, while at home he is losing his battle on all fronts. This guy is pro-European within his party, but he could be the last of the Tories to be one. He is seen to be making no gains, but what he is doing with his flawed argument over Junker, is creating an inadvertent wind of change in the EU. He is being seen to put all this internal national strife (concerning uncontrolled and irresponsible immigration and national banking industries) on the EU's doormat. Which is where it belongs. The EU will not listen to reason so he has to create a storm on other fronts. I think Junker is more of a strategic target while Cameron wrestles for time at home with a pro-EU battle he is sadly losing to more radical and permanent British solutions to the EU problem.

The significance of Ed Balls's speech, and what it means for Ukip » Spectator Blogs

 

 

 

 

 

The significance of Ed Balls's speech, and what it means for Ukip » Spectator Blogs

 

Ed Balls’s speech today is significant for two reasons. First, it implied that a Labour government in 2015 would not spend more on current spending. But, rather, it would borrow more to fund higher capital spending—what Gordon Brown used to calling ‘borrowing to invest’. This, I take it, means that a 2015 Labour government wouldn’t introduce the five point plan for the economy that Balls has previously outlined.

The second was the announcement that Labour would stop winter fuel payments to higher and top rate taxpayers. This will save about a £100 million a year, which is hardly enough to give Labour a reputation for fiscal rectitude.

But it does concede crucial ground on universality. It accepts that in these times, benefits should be targeted on those who need them most. There is no intellectual difference between Balls’s position on winter fuel payments and the coalition’s on child benefit.

The Labour leadership is hotly denying they’ve abandoned universality. But it is hard to see on what grounds they’re arguing this. This provides an opening for the Tories to offer a scaled back version of the welfare state that is more of a safety net than a universal system.

Finally, I suspect that this speech has provided some political space for Ukip. I’d be surprised if it didn’t go into the next election as the party committed to protecting pensioner and middle class benefits.

Labour Full of Ed Balls

What a shower of something; horrendous, insulting, tedious and of course; complete Ed Balls. 

Heaven protect us from Lab/Con/Libs in this new age of ours. We need something dynamic and new.

I am angry at the Independent article about scraping fuel payments for OAPs.

Rich Pensioners... ? 

Are there so many rich pensioners that these great savings will bring the country out of crisis. Leave poor and rich pensioners alone and concentrate on getting the health service working, proper housing for young people with rents that can be paid on minimum wage. 

Allow people in work to get on housing lists instead of prioritising unemployed or other types of needy. Think of rents that can be paid back into the system first.

Don't punish people that work, don't punish pensioners that have paid their dues. 

What's wrong with the Labour party? I'm not going to vote for you. I can't afford too.

Getting bolshy with rich OAPs is not going to sort things out. How rich does an OAP have to be before coming under scrutiny? 

Why have this minimum wage? Too many companies now work to it and young people can't afford to work because they can't live on this minimum wage. It is one of the reasons why the welfare bill is too high. 

Affordable rents that can be paid by workers doesn't exist and you have to be needy to get on the lists and once in rented homes you dare not work because you can't afford to pay the rent. Everything is messed up and the Labour party wants to pick on wealthy OAPs - Wow! Problem solved.