Trevor Phillips - Tory mouthpiece or just thick?

Okay Casdon.
Left of centre if you prefer.

petal53

^There are no left wing newspapers ^

The Guardian is well known as a left wing newspaper.
The Daily Star (I’ve never even read it!Ever!) is said to be nearer a communist newspaper, but I can’t judge, only report what I’ve heard, since I’ve never read it.

The Guardian is left of centre. It’s not left wing?

There are no left wing newspapers

The Guardian is well known as a left wing newspaper.
The Daily Star (I’ve never even read it!Ever!) is said to be nearer a communist newspaper, but I can’t judge, only report what I’ve heard, since I’ve never read it.

I am absolutely furious with 'my' labour party at the moment and am quite happy to say that, I have also heard some Tories on here despairing of their party particularly with reference to Johnson. Oh and Truss for that matter.

Thats OK.

But one group seem to decry anyone who reads the DM, or doesn’t approve of every thing the LP does and that is very offensive.
There are no left-wing newspapers, unless you count the Morning Star or similar, but some are more right-wing than others. The Mail, being the obvious example of a very right wing one. I don't 'decry' anyone who reads it, but how anyone can object to its right wing bias being pointed out and simultaneously claim political objectivity is beyond me.

Mollygo

^Nit everyone^ is the same as ^some people^

No, but 'one group' is very, very similar .

As my partner just pointed out you should either write newspaper articles or you interview people: you can’t do both. Did Paxman write for newspapers? I don’t seem to remember people knowing where he stood politically at the time. Although, to be fair I think Peston is obviously more to the left politically but not sure if he writes newspaper articles?

In my experience Labour voters and party members are far more critical of their party than Conservative voters/party members and Labour MP’s are far more prone to voting against the whip, too.

Nit everyone is the same as some people

"WRT the means-testing of the WFP, there are several issues. I do not 'excuse' the way it was implemented, or the cut-off point being so low (because I believe that the strong should protect the weak) but I am not in favour of giving more money to the wealthy based purely on age, whilst the gap between rich and poor of all ages grows wider (because that is patently unfair). Again, not a party political stance." Doodledog

Such a good example.

It's a valid concern that media manipulation and bias can distort public perception, whether from the right or the left. When journalists selectively present data or rely on outdated sources, it undermines their credibility and misinforms the audience. While some may argue that left-leaning outlets tend to offer more impartial or transparent reporting, it's essential for consumers to critically evaluate all news sources and seek out diverse perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of current events. Ultimately, promoting a media ecosystem that values integrity and accountability is crucial for fostering informed public discourse.

But one group seem to decry anyone who reads the DM, or doesn’t approve of every thing the LP does and that is very offensive.

Not everyone thinks in terms of Labour = good, and Tory = bad (or vice versa), and it is offensive to suggest that they do.

I know what you mean Mollygo, which sounds to me the same as Doodledog is saying.

There are extremists who do condemn others and there are those who believe Labour can do no wrong. However, there are many people (not some, many) who realise that poor decisions are made by either colour of Government.

One group? Comprised of 'Some People'?

I would be far more convinced by this constant refrain if examples were pointed out as and when they occur, rather than as a generic insult to unidentified posters about unspecified 'excuses'.

Not everyone thinks in terms of Labour = good, and Tory = bad (or vice versa), and it is offensive to suggest that they do.

Hence
* Skewing of the truth, which was condemned in the last government, appeared almost immediately under this government, and was immediately excused by its supporters.*

But one group seem to decry anyone who reads the DM, or doesn’t approve of every thing the LP does and that is very offensive.

Hmmmm. It's easy to virtue signal about one's lack of bias, but the trouble with bias is that it is not always obvious to the person suffering from it. We all have political views that make some things understandable and others not (and a lot of fairly neutral things in the middle). To someone with different views ours may seem biased, and vice versa. Most people with a modicum of self- awareness can see that.

I could 'excuse' behaviour that is working towards a fairer society, but criticise the same behaviour if it works in reverse, so VAT on private schools is ok by me, but VAT on school uniforms for older children is not. There will be other (probably better) examples, but they are the first to come to mind. The point is that approving of one thing and not another similar one has nothing to do with 'excusing' one party, but is to do with the principle behind the action.

WRT the means-testing of the WFP, there are several issues. I do not 'excuse' the way it was implemented, or the cut-off point being so low (because I believe that the strong should protect the weak) but I am not in favour of giving more money to the wealthy based purely on age, whilst the gap between rich and poor of all ages grows wider (because that is patently unfair). Again, not a party political stance.

Not everyone thinks in terms of Labour = good, and Tory = bad (or vice versa), and it is offensive to suggest that they do.

I don’t excuse the skewing of the truth under either government.
👏👏👏

petal53

I know SkyNews are not unbiased PN.
And I’ll make of Trevor Phillips whatever I like, just like you do.
I like him. Always have done.
I think the title of this thread is exceptionally rude.

Petal53 it is rude, but will undoubtedly be excused by the OP and those who support PN’s views.
Skewing of the truth, which was condemned in the last government, appeared almost immediately under this government, and was immediately excused by its supporters.
I don’t excuse the skewing of the truth under either government.

PoliticsNerd

I think it's okay to be a little less than complimentary towards those who undermine democracy. The skewing of the truth will do that.

But, as I said before, currently, we still have the freedom to believe what we choose.

TP isn’t undermining democracy, what a silly idea.

Opinions may vary PoliticsNerd

Yours are not the only ones available and a truly valid opinion will not be biased.

petra

Why did Angela Eagle continually use the word illegal when referring to asylum seekers?
We are often told on GN that they aren’t illegal.
As Angela Eagle is the minister for border security I assume she is using the correct terminology.

I think she was referring to illegal immigrants, not everyone who comes here is an asylum seeker and people who are legally entitled to asylum are legally entitled to come here and seek asylum. In other words there are two groups of people and she was referring to one of them.

Clearly you do.
A little less than complimentary is much milder than what’s in the title.
Trevor Phillips is not undermining democracy.
That’s a ridiculous assertion, but is obviously an acceptable opinion. But nothing more than that, an opinion.

I think it's okay to be a little less than complimentary towards those who undermine democracy. The skewing of the truth will do that.

But, as I said before, currently, we still have the freedom to believe what we choose.

I know SkyNews are not unbiased PN.
And I’ll make of Trevor Phillips whatever I like, just like you do.
I like him. Always have done.
I think the title of this thread is exceptionally rude.

Neither he, nor Sky are unbiased and he is certainly economical with the truth.

Any you choose to believe them petal53 ...

Having said that, I have respect for him. I believe him to be unbiased and to the point. I liked him way back when he was head of the Commission for Racial Equality and then later on chairman of the EHRC.