Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About altus

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    Nether Edge

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not just a story made up by some journalist. Even the Torygraph reported Boris threatening Ch4:
  2. To be fair, it was a reply to someone erroneously claiming it was the Tories who bailed out the banks.
  3. BT have signed up to Ofcom's automatic compensation scheme. BT details here. Ofcom details here. BT might try to fob you off because both services aren't completely down but the Ofcom page implies they are treated differently (the "If your landline and broadband both lose service at the same time, you will only receive one compensation payment." bit.). If you can get landline but not broadband from them then they must be separate services.
  4. Neither did failing to fund deradicalisation services by the look of it - London Bridge attacker had asked for help to deradicalise - lawyer
  5. I see Boris is now promising state aid for struggling firms. Can you imagine the fuss if Corbyn had proposed it? It will be interesting to see how the Tory supporting press report it. The Tories must really think brexit supporting Labour voters are stupid.
  6. They could easily have started it by now so don't hold your breath for that. Let's reserve judgement on how quick they'll be until they actually announce the results.
  7. They announced it but days after they were criticised for converting it into "general investigation into prejudice of all kinds". That sounds suspiciously like Corbyn's earlier attempts to broaden discussions of Labour anti-Semitism into discussion of all prejudice which he so was vilified for at the time. It's worth noting they haven't started the investigation yet so claiming it will be done relatively quickly is very premature.
  8. Whilst I think Corbyn's lack of strong leadership over dealing with anti-Semitism in the party has allowed this to continue to be an issue, there seems to be a wilful ignoring of the issue of Islamophobia within the Conservative party. To the extent that Sayeeda Warsi on Tory Islamophobia: 'It feels like I'm in an abusive relationship'. Yet most of the media don't seem to consider it important to report on that - definitely not to the extent that they report on anti-Semitism within Labour.
  9. I was referring to the "Facebook thinks would interest them" bit.
  10. No. The people who receive ads are those that the people paying for the ads would like to see them. Few people are interested in seeing ads. I agree with apelike. Ideally there should be a ban on social media based political advertising during an election - with the threat of all advertising being banned if they can't reliably tell which ads are political or not. As an absolute minimum, political ads shouldn't be allowed to be targeted. People need to see the whole of what a party is promising - not just selected bits of it the party thinks they'll like. Beyond that, at the moment a party could run two different ads promoting two mutually exclusive policies to different people.
  11. It said over 5 years on the news earlier today. Regardless, the amount is chicken feed compared to the hit the government's finances will take with Boris's hard brexit.
  12. As I said, they've continued it because they realise it's a popular policy. Would they have implemented it at all without the Lib Dems? It wasn't in their manifesto for the 2010 election, so I doubt they would.
  13. Let's not forget, that was the Lib Dems, not the Tories. It wasn't a Tory policy and they had to be persuaded to implement it. The fact that they've continued with it just shows they realise how popular it has turned out to be.
  14. Which election news that happened yesterday do you think the BBC shouldn't have included on their front page so a story from the previous day could still be there? On the news this morning they were saying the CCHQ twitter rebranding had backfired an were discussing twitter users ridiculing Dominic Raab over his response to the criticism of it. I think it was as much about making people distrustful of independent fact checking websites as anything else - hence them choosing a name that would likely be confused with fullfact.org.
  15. There are currently two reports on it linked to on the BBC's Election 2019 page which is itself prominently linked to from the BBC news home page. As others have pointed out, it was all over the news this morning. You're complaining that something that happened 20 hours ago should take prominence over election related news that has happened during today. You do your claims of media bias no favours by making false claims about things not being reported when they were reported with high prominence closer to when they happened and reports are still available on the web sites concerned.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.