UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

Zod said:

I love how you always dismiss any report of unrest within UKIP. Much of the time, it turns out to be true.

cite examples please?

(and please start by showing my dismissal)

Erm, it's a couple of posts above or is your doubting the source's credibility somehow not a dismissal?

I really cannot be bothered to search for examples, but the post-election mess is likely to have produced several. Of course you could show me to be wrong by telling me that you didn't doubt a single story of UKIP's internal shenanigans during that period.

Edited by Zod on Wednesday 26th August 17:23

[Scuffers]

Zod said:

Erm, it's a couple of posts above or is your doubting the source's credibility somehow not a dismissal?

try again, you said previous.

back to this one, I have not dismissed it as such, just called into question the validity of it considering the source.

I take it you think it's 100% gospel and beyond questioning?

[anonymous-user]

Who were Prince Philip and treepke before they started their current user accounts? Anyone know what they were banned for last time?

[Prince Philip]

Greg66 said:

Who were Prince Philip and treepke before they started their current user accounts? Anyone know what they were banned for last time?

I was a member years ago (about 2002-4) and I forgot my password and my old hotmail account disappeared though lack of use. I have been an avid lurker since.

My first post was about a 1966 TVR Grantura which had the wrong body and a RV8 as well as griffith features. I ummed and erred about buying it for £2k. I was a bloody fool not to.

"220 posts, 152 months"

[Axionknight]

Greg66 said:

Who were Prince Philip and treepke before they started their current user accounts? Anyone know what they were banned for last time?

One of them might be JALI, perhaps he has signed back up with yet another username but is on the other side of the fence for the sts n' giggles this time.

Although they haven't verbally (is it even verbal, I guess not?) abused anybody yet, so the jury is still out.

[treepke]

Normally only play this at Xmas

[steveT350C]

[NicD]

Eamon Holms couldn't make Corbyn 'look extreme'. He should be a hand model or hosting a shopping channel.
He is wet, housewife fodder.

[steveT350C]

Maybe I am reading too much into what Holmes said in the quote above; admitting that it was MSM's job to portray Farage and UKIP in a certain light..

[FiF]

Considering his interview of Farage in the run up to the GE it's interesting that Evan Davis is now saying that adversarial interviews in the style of Paxman and Humphrys is worn out and old hat.

[steveT350C]

Whatever next; PMQ's being taken seriously?

[Scuffers]

FiF said:

Considering his interview of Farage in the run up to the GE it's interesting that Evan Davis is now saying that adversarial interviews in the style of Paxman and Humphrys is worn out and old hat.

Link?

[PRTVR]

Scuffers said:

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uQl2Qh3IGA

its also worth hunting out Nicola Sturgeons interview as a comparison.

[FiF]

Scuffers said:

FiF said:

Considering his interview of Farage in the run up to the GE it's interesting that Evan Davis is now saying that adversarial interviews in the style of Paxman and Humphrys is worn out and old hat.

Link?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/evan-davis-says-jeremy-paxmans-combative-interviewing-style-is-overdone-and-worn-out-10477297.html

Think it was originally in FT or Times but link to Indy. Also in Wail.

Mind you not the first time Davis has seemed a steaming hypocrite. Dislike.

[brenflys777]

I think there is a good case now we are due to have a referendum that any programme or organisation that receives any EU funding should prominently display one of those Funded by EU boards you get on road projects. The impartial BBC would be a good start.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/eu_spends_more_th...

[Strawman]

brenflys777 said:

I think there is a good case now we are due to have a referendum that any programme or organisation that receives any EU funding should prominently display one of those Funded by EU boards you get on road projects. The impartial BBC would be a good start.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/eu_spends_more_th...

Are any of those programmes scheduled to show on a BBC channel? I looked up the first five then got bored since they don't appear to be.

[brenflys777]

Strawman said:

brenflys777 said:

I think there is a good case now we are due to have a referendum that any programme or organisation that receives any EU funding should prominently display one of those Funded by EU boards you get on road projects. The impartial BBC would be a good start.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/eu_spends_more_th...

Are any of those programmes scheduled to show on a BBC channel? I looked up the first five then got bored since they don't appear to be.

Yes. Pity you got too bored to read the article but feel your comment is worth the effort.

In the case of the EU funding, some BBC programmes like The Great European Disaster film (10 on the list) receive direct funding, but as the BBC operates as a subsidised commercial operation, the funding of one area may free up funding of other items. I think there is a fair case to say all BBC output is subsidised by the EU to some extent therefore all programming output should state EU funding before a referendum.

[Strawman]

brenflys777 said:

I think there is a fair case to say all BBC output is subsidised by the EU to some extent therefore all programming output should state EU funding before a referendum.

That sounds very dramatic but out of £3.7 billion of funding received you can identify how much is via the EU? You think this is a source of bias or something? By the same logic UKIP receives a greater proportion of EU funding for it's MEP's so it is even more biased.

[brenflys777]

Strawman said:

brenflys777 said:

I think there is a fair case to say all BBC output is subsidised by the EU to some extent therefore all programming output should state EU funding before a referendum.

That sounds very dramatic but out of £3.7 billion of funding received you can identify how much is via the EU? You think this is a source of bias or something? By the same logic UKIP receives a greater proportion of EU funding for it's MEP's so it is even more biased.

If the BBC did a programme about electronic cigarettes and their merits, it would be relevant to know if the BBC in general and that programme in particular received funding from the manufacturers.

Funding from the EU to an organisation that produces news and documentaries (also mockumentories) which may influence opinions in the referendum is noteworthy. If the organisation is the BBC and they receive direct UK taxpayer funding to maintain impartial broadcasting then it seems fair that they make the parallel sponsorship from the EU obvious.

Your point about UKIP MEPs receiving funding from the EU is not relevant as they aren't attempting to present an unbiased argument or material. UKIP acknowledge the MPs receive funding from the EU but are actively campaigning to leave the EU. People can make an informed decision if this is something they support.

[NicD]

Strawman said:

That sounds very dramatic but out of £3.7 billion of funding received you can identify how much is via the EU? You think this is a source of bias or something? By the same logic UKIP receives a greater proportion of EU funding for it's MEP's so it is even more biased.

How is this 'logic'?