Making the news today....

[Johnsond]

30 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Okey dokey.

 

I talk for the decent, law abiding citizens of this country… do you really want to hear this shit? Rhetoric, nothing more, nothing less. Scurge and a invasion. Get a grip!

🤪

[Retired Climber]

7 hours ago, eggsarascal said:

Okey dokey.

 

I talk for the decent, law abiding citizens of this country… do you really want to hear this shit? Rhetoric, nothing more, nothing less. Scurge and a invasion. Get a grip!

What makes you think we want you as our spokesperson? To be honest, I think we can do better, a lot better. 😁

[eggsarascal]

4 hours ago, Retired Climber said:

What makes you think we want you as our spokesperson? To be honest, I think we can do better, a lot better. 😁

I was repeating what Suella said yesterday, seems it went over your head. Strange considering you know what others are thinking before they do.

[coppice cutter]

So here we have another example, look at the headline.

 

Minister warns on language after Suella Braverman 'invasion' comment

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Robert Jenrick's comments come after the home secretary described the situation as an "invasion".

 

So firstly, he didn't "warn" on anything, and the (very brief) comment he did make on the word "invasion" was only made after repeated hassling and frequent interruptions by the interviewer along that specific line.

 

When you actually listen to the interview, Mr Jenrick was 100% in support of the Home Secretary and the rest of the interview was spent reaffirming that it is a huge problem, any measures taken so far have been entirely inadequate, and it's time for more robust action.

 

This is plainly yet another attempt by the state broadcaster* to influence peoples thinking and perception in a particular way rather than simply report "news".

 

It should bother any right minded person for that reason alone.

 

* - edited for clarity

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by coppice cutter

[Johnsond]

54 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

So here we have another example, look at the headline.

 

Minister warns on language after Suella Braverman 'invasion' comment

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Robert Jenrick's comments come after the home secretary described the situation as an "invasion".

 

So firstly, he didn't "warn" on anything, and the (very brief) comment he did make on the word "invasion" was only made after repeated hassling and frequent interruptions by the interviewer along that specific line.

 

When you actually listen to the interview, Mr Jenrick was 100% in support of the Home Secretary and the rest of the interview was spent reaffirming that it is a huge problem, any measures taken so far have been entirely inadequate, and it's time for more robust action.

 

This is plainly yet another attempt to influence peoples thinking and perception in a particular way rather than simply report "news".

 

It should bother any right minded person for that reason alone.

 

 

100% agree, I watched the bbc team hassling him with relentless interruptions and petty focus on one word. Minutes later there was a Sky news feed saying he’d condemned the use of the word “ Invasion” this was nothing more than a blatant lie designed to swing the narrative a certain way. Quite frankly they are absolutely not all refugees or asylum seekers and the cost to the taxpayer is insane. BBC didn’t even attempt to hide its bias this morning.  I hear figures ranging from between 5-7 million per day, plus the whole dubious sub industry  of human rights lawyers etc. 365 days a year UK taxpayers have to fund this. It’s long since gone past  the point of being about asylum or persecution. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Johnsond

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

100% agree, I watched the bbc team hassling him with relentless interruptions and petty focus on one word. Minutes later there was a Sky news feed saying he’d condemned the use of the word “ Invasion” this was literally a blatant lie designed to swing the narrative a certain way. Quite frankly they are absolutely not all refugees or asylum seekers and the cost to the taxpayer is insane. BBC didn’t even attempt to hide its bias this morning.  I hear figures ranging from between 5-7 million per day, plus the whole dubious sub industry  of human rights lawyers etc. 365 days a year UK taxpayers have to fund this. 

This we can agree on, now, how do we fix it? They aren’t just going to stop crossing the channel so we need a legal way of sorting it, any ideas?

[Sutton]

19 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

This we can agree on, now, how do we fix it? They aren’t just going to stop crossing the channel so we need a legal way of sorting it, any ideas?

I've got a very bad one!

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, Sutton said:

I've got a very bad one!

Run it by us.

[Sutton]

5 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Run it by us.

It's anti-news and meant as a joke. I'll put it together tonight. You wont like it.🤣

[Bolt]

53 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

This we can agree on, now, how do we fix it? They aren’t just going to stop crossing the channel so we need a legal way of sorting it, any ideas?

How about getting everyone to bang on about how sh it the housing, healthcare, roads, water quality, tv, education, weather,  Devon, politicians, railways, covid response etc. etc. etc. are?

 

No one will want to come here.