Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

[NicD]

eharding said:

To be fair though, a Brand vs. Farage popularity contest is on a par with a poll asking "Which do you think is the least disgusting type of turd - is it a) dog, b) cat or c) some cheeky fox crap your Labrador has just rolled in"?

You wouldn't want to spend time in close proximity of any of them.

speak for yourself, I would MUCH rather spend time with Mr Farage than be on the same bus as you.

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

NicD said:

an alternative reality.

Telegraph reckons Brand beat Farage as well. Not known for the left-leaning

I didn't watch it, but just a thought, is it perhaps the Kippers who are the only ones that think Farage won?

Dan Hodges of the Telegraph did best known for his campaign work for Hope Not Hate.

[eharding]

NicD said:

eharding said:

To be fair though, a Brand vs. Farage popularity contest is on a par with a poll asking "Which do you think is the least disgusting type of turd - is it a) dog, b) cat or c) some cheeky fox crap your Labrador has just rolled in"?

You wouldn't want to spend time in close proximity of any of them.

speak for yourself, I would MUCH rather spend time with Mr Farage than be on the same bus as you.

I'm sure you would. Spending some quality time fawning over Mister Farage must be the ultimate wet dream for a die-hard 'Kipper fanatic.

[NicD]

eharding said:

I'm sure you would. Spending some quality time fawning over Mister Farage must be the ultimate wet dream for a die-hard 'Kipper fanatic.

again, speak for yourself, maybe you would have some success there. Risible.

[JustAnotherLogin]

NicD said:

This seems a win for Mr Farage, what is your source?

Edited by NicD on Friday 12th December 20:28

Apologies, I meant to include a link but evidently forgot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11289686/...

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Apologies, I meant to include a link but evidently forgot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11289686/...

From the same chap who told us Clegg won the last debates with Farage. Read the comments there priceless.

[Einion Yrth]

JustAnotherLogin said:

NicD said:

This seems a win for Mr Farage, what is your source?

Edited by NicD on Friday 12th December 20:28

Apologies, I meant to include a link but evidently forgot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11289686/...

Dan Hodges? Seriously?

[NicD]

I saw that from ''says Dan Hodges'

as I said, alternative reality.

[Countdown]

eharding said:

To be fair though, a Brand vs. Farage popularity contest is on a par with a poll asking "Which do you think is the least disgusting type of turd - is it a) dog, b) cat or c) some cheeky fox crap your Labrador has just rolled in"?

You wouldn't want to spend time in close proximity of any of them.

I would disagree.

The Telegraph said:

. We no longer seem to have the capacity or inclination to pause and understand or quantify the offence. Russell Brand campaigns against poor housing, and then someone finds he lives in a million-pound penthouse. So he’s lumped together with Nigel Farage, who leads a party that believes in forced repatriation, stokes fears of “hidden migration”, talks up the terror of the immigrant next door and the foreigners speaking in tongues on your train.

[Derek Smith]

Halb said:

Derek Smith said:

Got to hand it to the BBC: the other channels must be hating the coverage.

It goes all over: right and left. Brilliant marketing. Using Murdoch's ire to up the viewing figures and comment is rather pleasant as well.

It is what the BBC does best.

What has Murdoch's Empire said?

Is that a serious question?

The Sun accuses Brand of sleeping around whilst in a relationship. He sues them. He wins, undisclosed amount but 'substantial' is mentioned, but then it always is.

The next thing we know, blazoned across The Sun, first in Nov last year and most recently a week ago, The Sun picks on him. (It made me wonder if they thought they would cost him more than he cost them. If so, then they missed the target.) The word hypocrite is used time and again for the fact that his landlord uses a tax haven.

Murdoch is anti BBC. His McTaggart lectures, where he gives into all sorts of moans, and is largely regarded as his shopping list for his papers' and media empire's support for any political party, picks on the BBC as he sees it as his biggest competitor.

BBC knows the footage that Brand has had recently so puts him on QT. There are suggestions that last night's episode had a massively high hit rate.

Everyone happy: Brand, BBC and those on PH who, very generously, also gave considerable publicity to QT as Brand was on it. Oh, perhaps not everyone. Murdoch for one, I would assume, is a bit miffed.

If they carry on with their accusations against Brand and he does win a civil case against them then for Brand it will be a double victory.

I would have thought that if a newspaper, a big, national newspaper, one with a high - albeit falling - circulation is hit with damages for criticising an individual without reason, then should they make another accusation and it be found groundless, they could be in for a big hit.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Independent says the blue haired woman won
(well apart from Farages editorial, but I assume even Kippers don't claim that as unbiased)

I can't see behind the Times paywall.

I can't see anything on the Sun, but they will probably think the Tory won (nicest cleavage)

[sidicks]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Apologies, I meant to include a link but evidently forgot

First sentence of the article says:
"Russell Brand won"

I think that says all you need to know about how seriously to take this article (or the people that cite it as evidence of anything meaningful).

Genuinely laughable.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 12th December 21:13

[JustAnotherLogin]

sidicks said:

First sentence of the article says:
"Russell Brand won"

I think that says all you need to know about how seriously to take this article (or the people that cite it as evidence of anything meaningful).

Genuinely laughable.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 12th December 21:13

I didn't see it. Obviously any assessment of who won such a debate is subjective. Evidently the kippers on here will have a view. I ws just looking through other papers trying to see what they said and see if I could get a balanced view

So far I have
Brand 3:
Farage 0
Blue Haired Woman: 0
No result: 3 (Express and Mail concentrate on the insults, especially on-line afterwords, in very similar words)

[don4l]

eharding said:

I'm not saying the bloke was a 'kipper stooge, but....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/question-time...

Dear God! This is a new low for the anti-kippers.

Are you really suggesting that disabled people who support UKIP should not be allowed to be heard?

The man simply pointed out that Farage had not blamed Britain's problems on disabled folk - which is what Brand had suggested.

Why do you feel that a disabled person should not be allowed to comment on this?

Another question. I'm an immigrant. Do you think that I should be denied the opportunity to comment on UKIP's immigration policy?

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I didn't see it. Obviously any assessment of who won such a debate is subjective. Evidently the kippers on here will have a view. I ws just looking through other papers trying to see what they said and see if I could get a balanced view

So far I have
Brand 3:
Farage 0
Blue Haired Woman: 0
No result: 3 (Express and Mail concentrate on the insults, especially on-line afterwords, in very similar words)

Tim Stanley is probably the most fairest I have read

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1128...

"So Nigel Farage “won” the big fight by default. Which also epitomises the rise of Ukip. As long as the Left remains incapable of speaking to people on their own terms, Farage will get the votes of the disgruntled with nowhere else to go. For Labour and its fellow travellers, Russell B isn’t part of the solution. He’s the problem personified."

[NicD]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I didn't see it. Obviously any assessment of who won such a debate is subjective. Evidently the kippers on here will have a view. I ws just looking through other papers trying to see what they said and see if I could get a balanced view

So far I have
Brand 3:
Farage 0
Blue Haired Woman: 0
No result: 3 (Express and Mail concentrate on the insults, especially on-line afterwords, in very similar words)

are you quoting editorial positions by the stated news outlets or tongue in cheek posturing by individual journalists?
why should anyone give a st?

[carinaman]

Camilla Cavendish was a joint winner of the 2008 Paul Foot award:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/paul_foot.php?detail=...

[eharding]

don4l said:

eharding said:

I'm not saying the bloke was a 'kipper stooge, but....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/question-time...

Dear God! This is a new low for the anti-kippers.

Are you really suggesting that disabled people who support UKIP should not be allowed to be heard?

The man simply pointed out that Farage had not blamed Britain's problems on disabled folk - which is what Brand had suggested.

Why do you feel that a disabled person should not be allowed to comment on this?

Another question. I'm an immigrant. Do you think that I should be denied the opportunity to comment on UKIP's immigration policy?

Either you're being obtuse for comic effect, or you're genuinely that soft in the head that you can't see the issue. In your case, the effect is much the same.

The issue isn't that this chap was disabled - the issue is that whilst the QT audience is ostensibly composed of ordinary members of the public, this fellow has a brother who is a UKIP MEP.

Hence his credentials as an ordinary member of the public are at best questionable, and given that after his sparring with Brand he briefly attempted a figurative bout of verbal fellatio for Farage, something positively stinks.

It's a small world, but it isn't that small that this is purely a coincidence.

[JustAnotherLogin]

NicD said:

are you quoting editorial positions by the stated news outlets or tongue in cheek posturing by individual journalists?
why should anyone give a st?

first hit that came up for each paper.

Why should anyone give a ****? Well this is the news, politics & economics forum. May be light on economics but 2 out 3 is better than many posts on here

[King Cnut]

Let's not forget the old UKIP manifesto where the disabled were feigning illness...

“The welfare state has also created a brazen culture of benefit “scrounging”, whereby individuals who are perfectly capable of working refuse to do so, and go on benefits instead. They frequently justify this by feigning illness.

“This gives rise to a parasitic underclass of “scroungers”, which represents both an unreasonable tax burden on the working population"

St Nigel would never think such a thing, though, would he?