It sounds like you obtain a lot of your news from GB News Lincs.
Why look there if you don’t like it.
Why not just accept that people have different views to you and want to watch alternative news and current affairs.
Most of the stuff you complain about concerns local issues, just because you don’t live there doesn’t mean that people can’t draw their own conclusions as to what is important in their neck of the woods.
1 Like
There is nothing in my post, nor in the article shared, that says anything about critcising the views of people who watch GBNews or want to view different perspectives. The fact that you are claiming that is what thread is all about is itself quite telling.
I’ll repeat, this is about one channel becoming the mouthpiece for one political party. It is about a channel signing up to the conditions of broadcast then blatantly breaking the rules it signed up to. Its about a small number of politicians from one single party getting paid huge sums of money and given freedom to promote their party day after day.
The other channels adhere to the broadcast licence rules. The other parties only get space to promote their views in a few interviews, on a couple of discussion shows and very rare party political broadcasts (same broadcast on all channels). Why should Reform get to break the rules and gain significant advantage without challenge?
And you do not have a problem with this?
1 Like
Oh dear, you’re really upset about someone having a difference of opinion.
Never mind, Question Time is on tonight, you’ll be able to luxuriate in the company of a majority panel who (publicly) think like you do.
2 Likes
No, I am disappointed when people ignore a point being made and instead falsely claim I’m saying something that I am not. And here you continue that false claim with “upset about someone having a difference of opinion”. That is not true. So it would be very helpful if you could identify the post I made, the words I used, that apparently show such an upset.
1 Like
Added these to my post above in case anyone needs a reminder that the scumbag Farage is not your friend:
Extremely well put by this fella:
2 Likes
Sounds like a lot of control over freedom of the press. Telling them if you don’t get in step with the government, we will pull you license and silence our opponents.
Sounds like a government controlled broadcast.
1 Like
Sound factual to me. No offense taken.
1 Like
Wasn’t Nigel married to a foreigner Azz?
I think he’s courting a French lass now after the separation from his wife.
2 Likes
Yeah, he’s very odd - just like Trump! They lust over foreigners but want them out! 
Maybe they’re a bit like hitler - didn’t he get ‘hurt’ when he got dumped by a jewish girl and then decided to take it out on all of them? 
2 Likes
I’m not sure that was the reason for the holocaust Azz… 
1 Like
You have put a lot of effort into not understanding how TV broadcast rights and rules work in the UK. And how that differs from the way newspapers are free to print any political opinion and support. There is lots of commentary on this issue - worth checking out. Once you’ve understood it better you will be able to see that it is not about curtailing the freedom of the press, nor is it about silencing channels, nor is it about government control. Nor is there a problem with one or two billionaires (who support one party) owning pretty much all channels.
While you are gaining that knowledge you might also read up on the proposed changes to what is allowable donations to political parties. It looks like the UK is slowly moving towards more mature democracies where private and corporate funding is very limited and political parties obtain funding primarily from the treasury of that country. And where election campaign costs are strictly controlled. The UK is some way from that but every step in the right direction helps. No-one wants a democracy where the funding is uncontrolled, the most money counts, and the biggest donors gain enormous influence - do they?
1 Like
Back in the fifties your post would have been more or less correct, however, once radio, TV and now the internet has found it’s way into your homes and lives the establishment realise what a great tool it is. There is no escape from the constant barrage of news and current affairs, even in adverts and soaps the message is loud and clear and anyone who doesn’t tow the line will be closed down. Even google cannot be trusted to give an impartial view of anything, you will be maneuvered to the things the establishment want you to hear, and not allowed to display the things they don’t.
Somebody pays the wages, and calls the shots.
And you are quite correct…
It isn’t about one or two billionaires, there are a whole raft of them with tentacles stretching into the bowels of every government in the world and it is they who decides the agenda.
They have the economic power to close down almost every country in the world…I said ‘almost every country’
2 Likes
I agree, no one has as many right as the United States of America. It very clear:
Freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the right to publish information, opinions, and news—including in print, broadcast, and online—without government censorship, prior restraint, or intimidation.
And that sounds exactly what they are doing.
Don’t get me wrong, I can understand the confusion from those that have never experienced honest freedoms.
I can never understand why Americans think no other countries have just as much freedom as them, of course there are countries that are heavily suppressed, but most countries in the west are just as free…
Several instances exist of British individuals being arrested upon returning to the UK for online posts, often involving allegations of harassment or offensive communication under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003.
You can’t get arrested for this: allegations of harassment or offensive communication in the US.
The only time you can be arrested for flying flags are on government property. prosecuted in Birmingham for flying flags of the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) and Ulster Defence Association (UDA), which a proscribed (banned) terrorist organizations,
And the second amendment.
arrested for shouting racial abuse at demonstrators.
So, no I don’t think other countries have as many freedoms as Americans.
1 Like
Yet the US ranks very low in terms of a free, balanced democracy. The billionaire Ellison (and friend of Trump) now owns most of the broadcast media. The politicians are bought by billionaire money or foreign influencer money. Money determines elections. If people in the US cannot see how corrupt, how bent to the influence of a limited few, how it does not work for the ordinary people - then that explains why it is such a sorry excuse for democracy.
Oh, and its getting worse in the US. Which is why we must applaud the efforts to curtail the influence of money in UK politics.
1 Like
There is certainly some serious discussions and decisions around the internet and social media with regards to politics. I’ve skipped that (for now) because it is beyond the current issues with GBNews.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
For sure, the tech billionaires definitely influence searches, streams, social media and all the rest. I trust we all take a very sceptical view of the info we are pushed. I’ve seen stuff you’ve shared that perhaps you might have done a quick simple check on beforehand.
Hence the need to curtail the ability to buy influence and buy elections and buy politicians. Thanks for agreeing with that key point.
I am interested in what you mean by “almost every country”. My own view would be that countries that place strong limits of buying influence might be such countries. Perhaps Canada, Belgium, South Korea are examples.
I’ve never seen or heard of the in the bill of rights.
It’s a free economy.and they get to say what they want.
The rest is yadie yasie yadie. Nothing about freedom of other countries that are as equal to Americans freedoms.
1 Like
Check the ownership of other countries, same thing. Deflecting
1 Like
Yup, done that check. Many countries have billionaire owners of one or two broadcast channels, while the rest remain otherwise owned. No country, aside from the US and Russia and North Korea, has a single ownership of the majority of broadcast operations. I’m amazed that you are not worried about this.
1 Like