-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
PJV3
Member
Dispatches on Channel 4 last night was rather entertaining, Tax avoiding cabinet ministers, tax avoiding tory supporters and the "we're all in this together" repeated every 2 minutes.
The best one was the international development secretary, for every £1 of tax invested in a third world country £10 exits and goes into tax havens, The programme at certain points makes you want to fucking kick your telly to bits.
The best one was the international development secretary, for every £1 of tax invested in a third world country £10 exits and goes into tax havens, The programme at certain points makes you want to fucking kick your telly to bits.
blazinglord
Member
Just to spite the lefties who think Murdoch is the source of all that is wrong with the world (always blaming someone else - Thatcher, Murdoch, the weather on Monday), I really hope that Vince Cable lets the deal through just so that people can see that Murdoch isn't in fact the Antichrist planning to rule the world until the second coming.offshore said:
Seriously, the supposed nefarious intentions people accord to Murdoch is just ridiculous. Dr Evil he ain't.
Reducing tax liability is very common, and not really the same as tax evasion. Yes it might be morally questionable to have your accountant to find loopholes in the tax system, but can you really blame them? If you were given the choice of reducing taxes or paying the full eye-watering amount, would you really choose the latter? Individuals and companies are really just exploiting a system that already exists.PJV3 said:
The real blame lies with governments who are reluctant, for whatever reason, to close these loopholes. And before you place the blame solely on the Tories, Labour did nothing about these loopholes for 13 years!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
blazinglord said:
After paying top rate income tax for many years, I have paid none at all for the last few years by the simple expedient of not having a job.
That's tax avoidance. And it isn't illegal. It isn't even immoral.
Not unless the government somehow decides to tax me on what I should have been earning had I been earning anything.
There is absolutely no difference, in law, between this and some of the dodgier-sounding tax-avoidance schemes. If you go down the route of 'closing loopholes' rather than wholesale reform of the tax system it is likely you will end up with even bigger anomalies. One persons loophole is another person's entirely sensible and moral reason for not paying over in tax money he hasn't got and never earned.
J Tourettes
Banned
Dispatches si about two years behind the Private Eye on this. I go through periods of reading it but become increasingly disillusioned and have to take breaks.
I'm the same. I can't bring myself to read Private Eye any more.
Here's their website if anybody wants to thoroughly depress themselves.
Here's their website if anybody wants to thoroughly depress themselves.
By the way anyone else heard about the Independent bringing out a sister paper, "i"?
As someone who gets fed up of buying newspapers if I know I'm only going to have 10-15 minutes, or turning to the web for news, a condensed "briefing" (to copy their marketing stance) for 20p would suit me pretty well.
As someone who gets fed up of buying newspapers if I know I'm only going to have 10-15 minutes, or turning to the web for news, a condensed "briefing" (to copy their marketing stance) for 20p would suit me pretty well.
Cosmonaut X
Member
Wes said:
Ugh. I'm disappointed to see how far the Indy has slid, and I'm not sure that grabbing at ideas like this will do it any good.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html
The worst thing is is that most of the armed forces cuts would be eliminated if they dropped that fucking ridiculous £20 billion Trident renewal. The papers have been full of tories defending the cuts saying aircraft and tanks are for fighting a now non-existant Cold War, and yet totally seem to think nukes are practical. A technologically and politicially outdated weapon. It's only reason for being is ideology.
blazinglord
Member
And Murdoch doesn't already have considerable influence over Sky indirectly through deals with existing shareholders? Full ownership of BSkyB would at least hold News Intentional directly responsible for the BSkyB's actions, rather than allow NI to hide behind the shareholders and operate behind closed doors.Salazar said:
As for concentration of cross-media ownership, it is more common that people probably realise. The company that owns the Guardian for instance, also owns a large number of magazines, radio stations and even some TV channels I believe. And what of the BBC? A number of TV channels completely owned by BBC, magazines, radio stations and book publishing companies. It's really not that much of a big deal. Before anyone says BBC is publicly-funded, a number of its ventures are commercial enterprises - only the BBC channels and radio stations are free to licence fee payers (which let us not forget, everyone who has a TV has to pay). Then there is the Barclay Brothers, Richard Desmond and so on.
Murdoch didn't create The Sun and nobody is forced to watch Sky News. Isn't Sky News only available to Sky subscribers anyway? As for Fox News, the channel only reinforces the views of its viewers who would still be ignorant right-wing nuts irrespective of whether the channel existed or not. In other words, Fox News fills in a gap in the market, it doesn't brainwash social democrats like yourself into thinking Obama is a Muslim Trotsky intent on bringing communism to America and 'destroying America's way of life'. You must remember that News International is a business intending to make money, not a charity wanting to make the world a better place.Zenith said:
Nor do I think people would want to go back to a world where gentlemanly cover-ups were the norm between newspapers editors and government ministers. The government should live in fear of the press and treat the fourth estate accordingly.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Media moguls and their empires are 15 hundred times the threat to democracy that our Politicians are. Politicians careers live and die on the whim of the electorate, on the cycles of boom and bust that always eventually sees the public tire of their current masters.
Media owners meanwhile just continually adapt. They become dynasties - like the Murdochs. They change their alliegances like the wind, all the while exerting their massive, unavoidable and incontractable voice to influence as many people as possible the entire time. Looser regulation on ownership, weaker public service broadcasting and/or lower standards of impartiality in public service broadcasting will DAMAGE this democracy. It will DAMAGE this country.
The United States is a fucking joke in this respect. Particularly with that SCOTUS ruling on campaign financing in the recent past. Basically, the men and women with the most money to throw about are the ones who make all the fucking opinion on the entire continent, they just throw money at senators and congressmen, at campaigns and TV ads, and synchronise their message with the talking points of outrageously biased media outlets like Fox. In the end its almost fucking tantamount to attempted brainwashing. Its propaganda.
At least here there is a modicum of balance, our individual voices have more freedom to be heard, they are not drowned out by money or baseless editorialised broadcasting that bows to lobbyists and commercial benefactors.
Rupert and James Murdoch want a weaker BBC because they want a stronger Sky/NewsCorp, and he wants a stronger NewsCorp because its how he earns his coin and it is the tool with which he exerts his influence all over the world.
The government may live in fear of the press, and yes they should, but so should we.
They are NOT on our side, blazinglord. And I am fucking horrified that this government might seek to diminish our greatest public service broadcaster and our only independent oversight (OFCOM). OFCOM is a quango that should NOT be on the bonfire.
Media owners meanwhile just continually adapt. They become dynasties - like the Murdochs. They change their alliegances like the wind, all the while exerting their massive, unavoidable and incontractable voice to influence as many people as possible the entire time. Looser regulation on ownership, weaker public service broadcasting and/or lower standards of impartiality in public service broadcasting will DAMAGE this democracy. It will DAMAGE this country.
The United States is a fucking joke in this respect. Particularly with that SCOTUS ruling on campaign financing in the recent past. Basically, the men and women with the most money to throw about are the ones who make all the fucking opinion on the entire continent, they just throw money at senators and congressmen, at campaigns and TV ads, and synchronise their message with the talking points of outrageously biased media outlets like Fox. In the end its almost fucking tantamount to attempted brainwashing. Its propaganda.
At least here there is a modicum of balance, our individual voices have more freedom to be heard, they are not drowned out by money or baseless editorialised broadcasting that bows to lobbyists and commercial benefactors.
Rupert and James Murdoch want a weaker BBC because they want a stronger Sky/NewsCorp, and he wants a stronger NewsCorp because its how he earns his coin and it is the tool with which he exerts his influence all over the world.
The government may live in fear of the press, and yes they should, but so should we.
They are NOT on our side, blazinglord. And I am fucking horrified that this government might seek to diminish our greatest public service broadcaster and our only independent oversight (OFCOM). OFCOM is a quango that should NOT be on the bonfire.
blazinglord
Member
An impressive response of which I am unlikely to do it proper justice but I shall try. I get that corporations such as News Intentional are immensely powerful and wield a great deal of influence. But I don't feel that Murdoch is any more dangerous today to democracy than Lord Beaverbrook was in the early 20th Century. His reputation is a ridiculous caricature and seriously overestimates Murdoch as an individual at the expense of society's intelligence, which it underestimates. But ultimately, we obviously disagree two points.radioheadrule83 said:
First, we disagree on the extent the media has on people's perceptions and opinions. In my view, people in this country know where the papers stand and what interests they serve. For instance, it is unlikely that a Tory will pick up The Mirror and will be suddenly converted to the social democratic cause, nor is it likely that a Labour supporter will pick up the Daily Mail and suddenly become convinced that we are being besieged by eastern Europeans. The same applies to television. Doesn't the very existence of your virulent opposition show that the alleged brainwashing of self-interest groups doesn't work? Or do you put yourself on a higher pedestal to the rest of society who are so gormless that they will believe anything? Personally, I like to credit society with a bit more self-awareness than that.
The second point of disagreement is your exalted view of public service broadcasting. While I am not suggesting that the BBC is nothing but benevolent (despite its undeniable left-wing slant), public service broadcasting as part of the establishment is far more dangerous to democracy that media corporations whose only interests they serve is their own. Like you say, they are flexible and adaptable, Murdoch backs winners, he doesn't win elections for them. So I don't share your view of public service broadcasting, because I don't think that as part of the establishment, it ought to have the monopoly of the truth. Yeah Murdoch is not on our side, but nor is anybody else and I think democracy is all the better for having differing versions of the truth.
One last point I'd make though, is that without Murdoch, it is unlikely we would have the wealth of newspapers are available to us today. A number of his papers are actually losing money, and it is only the money News International makes through other areas of the company that keeps papers such as The Times in print. I think it is unlikely if Murdoch decided tomorrow to sell all his papers, to individual buyers in the interest of 'media plurality', that all the papers currently owned by NI would still be in existence for much longer. It is the same story across the publishing industry, and I think the future of print, which is extremely important to democracy in my view, lies with cross-media corporations such as News International who can sustain money-losing ventures.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
Zenith said:
Eye-ran can attack us in 45 minutes
J Tourettes
Banned
blazinglord said:
Now we have gentlemenly cover-ups between owners of different newspapers instead.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Cannot believe they're axing ark royal, fucking insanity.
i bet the botox evita kirchner can't believe her luck.
hey yanks, instead of wasting money on israhell and pakistan how about you spread that money to a real ally, because we're in deep fucking shit over here.
i bet the botox evita kirchner can't believe her luck.
hey yanks, instead of wasting money on israhell and pakistan how about you spread that money to a real ally, because we're in deep fucking shit over here.
The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of its drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has accidently disclosed.
Alexander inadvertently allowed two pages of tomorrow's spending review to be photographed as he left the Treasury building.
:lol
Alexander inadvertently allowed two pages of tomorrow's spending review to be photographed as he left the Treasury building.
:lol
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Harriers, the flagship and almost 50,000 members of the Armed Forces (both enlisted and civillians) to get the axe. This is a sad day for the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom.
I actually hope that the Argentinians start some shit with us again in order for us to keep our naval forces - because at the end of the day they're the most important. IIRC it was during similar cuts during which the Falklands were invaded.
I actually hope that the Argentinians start some shit with us again in order for us to keep our naval forces - because at the end of the day they're the most important. IIRC it was during similar cuts during which the Falklands were invaded.
On a different note I'm getting sick of people complaining about the coming cuts. Every single interview, voxpop, article I've read have had people say:
"I understand the need for cuts. Our defecit is out of control. But why can't they cut from other areas rather than this one."
By this one they mean the one they have a vested interest in. Everyone is going to feel the pinch. That's the point. The only people, so far, that genuinely have a point is those who earn over £45k and wont get child benefits where-as a couple, both earning £44k, would. That is just unfair.
Also just saying "get the banks to pay us our money back", whilst very apt, isn't going to cut it. If there's no hit on bankers or the ultra-wealthy tax dodgers tomorrow then sure, lambast them then.
(How obvious is it that I listen to the radio all day?)
"I understand the need for cuts. Our defecit is out of control. But why can't they cut from other areas rather than this one."
By this one they mean the one they have a vested interest in. Everyone is going to feel the pinch. That's the point. The only people, so far, that genuinely have a point is those who earn over £45k and wont get child benefits where-as a couple, both earning £44k, would. That is just unfair.
Also just saying "get the banks to pay us our money back", whilst very apt, isn't going to cut it. If there's no hit on bankers or the ultra-wealthy tax dodgers tomorrow then sure, lambast them then.
(How obvious is it that I listen to the radio all day?)
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Wes said:
All I'm going to say is that I'm glad I don't plan to reside in the UK for longer than 6 months in the next 4 years as I sense rough times are coming. These cuts are going to be hard and painful. Time will tell if they're the cross we have to carry in order to save our economy though.
travisbickle
Member
blazinglord said:
The banks, which are run by rich people, are to blame for the position we are in along with the rich who do not contribute fairly towards the country. I can blame them, and I will.
And as for "eye-watering" amount, what do you think the 10p tax rise was like for people?
How is that unfair? (other than the fact that the 44k couple don't deserve benefits either). There has to be a cutoff point somewhere and some people are always going to be just under or just over it.Wes said:
Personally, I don't care what they cut (although I'm annoyed about some of the things they haven't cut). As a single, childless male earning a decent wage, they're already fucking me fairly hard anyway.
travisbickle
Member
SmokyDave said:
As a single, childless male earning a decent wage you probably cost the government a lot of money.
From your avatar I assume you drink a lot and go out at the weekend, so that's police spending for your security on a night out, cleaning the streets after the night out...plus future NHS expense for liver problems you will have.
Your childless so you're not contributing to the future of our society; you are just an extra expense as you get older with no offspring to bring in the money, plus you will need counselling for depression because your life will seem unfulfilled without a family.
This is all based on research, you do and will cost the government a lot of money now and in the future.
industrian said:
The cuts are absolutely ridiculous
from militaryphotos.net
-Number of frigates and destroyers would drop from 23 to 19 by 2020
-The Army will lose 7,000 personnel, the RAF 5,000, the Navy 5,000 and the MoD 25,000 civilian staff over the next five years.
-Nimrod MR4 is axed.
-Carrier Ark Royal axed.
-Tanks/Artillery down by 40%
-Carrier to be CATOBAR.
-12 new Chinooks.
-Harriers scrapped.
-Refurbishing the Puma helicopters.
-Nuclear Warheads held down to 120 from 160
-Trident replacement to go ahead, but will carry only 40 warheads down from 48.
That's a spectacular (and inaccurate) set of assumptions you've compiled there. I especially liked my necessity for counselling and my impending liver problemstravisbickle said:
My lungs will kill me long before and before you even think it, check taxation revenue on cigarettes vs. healthcare costs.
As I said before though, I'm past caring. This isn't an appeal for sympathy, it's simply me saying 'cut what you like, tax what you like, I'm past caring'. I'll bring it up in my counselling sessions.
Meadows said:
You are short sighted, and probably don't understand the meaning of the word, deterrence.
When the Conservatives got rid of our strike carriers, F4's and Buccaneers, it gave Argentina the impetus to invade the Falklands, they where in the process of getting rid of our remaining smaller carriers when the Falklands was invaded
It is arguable that if we had kept our strike carriers, the Falklands war would have never happened, and over 1000 people wouldn't have lost their lives
radioheadrule83
Banned
blazinglord said:
Society is self-aware for the most part. That's true. Many stories only appeal to the deep rooted sentiments and prejudices that people already have. Like you say, left wing people might buy the Mirror, and right wing people The Daily Mail. The idea that we're overrun by eastern Europeans and that they somehow negatively impact our lives by being here is the kind of idea that would gain traction no matter what paper it was in, or if it was in no paper at all. That kind of sentiment is rife all over the world. I'm not concerned so much about that..
What concerns me is the idea of the printed, online and broadcast media being any more politicised than they already are. They should observe and report opinion, not conspire to construct it.
Editorialised opinion disguised as news and strong editorial news bias are something we don't actually see that much of in this country. I honestly think that we're very lucky in that respect. But that can change. Assertions made by the media are like genies from a bottle. The truth in such stories can be variable: from not true at all to almost certainly true. But even if a story is a load of bollocks -- once certain messages are out there, they are absorbed in a widespread way and gain traction - they are not going back in the bottle. A man could be accused of being a pedophile for example, only to later have his name cleared -- the odds are that his acquittal would not be as widely reported as his arrest, and his life would still be in ruins in any case. Not because people are reactionary, ignorant or stupid (although they often are), but simply because outrage and moral panic is more interesting for us to indulge in.
I'm reminded of assertions in the US media that Barack Obama might be a Muslim, or otherwise not eligible for the Presidency. That was a deliberate and scurrilous message put out there by his opponents to try and damage his campaign by galvanising peoples' prejudices. And in some respect, despite his winning the election - its worked, because more people believe those things now than ever before. That is the power of the media.
I'm not saying that the public are gormless or trying to put myself above the common man, but I do believe in the power of propaganda and the power of persuasion. In the 1940s it was the state that propagandised the masses, as with the nationalised German film industry output under Joeseph Goebbels, or the equivalent content that was made by the Allies. In the 1950s it was McCarthyism vs Communism. NOW we have globalised media organisations, and they have their own interests and their own 'ideal' world view. They are multi-national propaganda machines. They don't need the backing of a state to function, they play to their viewers for the benefit of their shareholders and their commercial benefactors. They are often run in a way that reflects the ideological beliefs of the people at the top of the company. Why is that any less dangerous than state controlled propaganda?
Libertarians and many conservative minded people don't like the idea of a regulated media because they oppose regulation generally, and I can understand that... and many people don't like our libel laws in the UK either, for reasons that I understand a little less (the most common reason is that people who are wealthy enough to employ an army of lawyers can hide their mis-deeds with the threat of libel). My argument is that these things are valuable counterbalances to an invisible menace: the possibility of media organisations abusing the public trust, and abusing their reach.
For whatever reason -- all people of all ideologies seem willing to place a lot of trust in the media. Much more trust than they place in their politicians. In light of the references to Goebbels and McCarthyism that I highlighted earlier -- does that not scare you?
I seldom see or hear everyday people, those without vested interests, questioning what they see or hear the media suggest when it comes to politics. If its a story about their favourite football team, sure, it could be bullshit -- but when it comes to politics, we consider our media organisations to be our righteous heroic whistleblowers or some shit. They do no wrong! Yet surely we all know that the media is capable of whipping up public fury on a whim. Surely we all know their motivation is attention. The longer a story runs the better. The more passions it incites, the better. With political debates, its almost as though their main goal is to turn *all* narratives into some kind of Us vs Them game; a sport in which you can take a 'side'. Something to keep you watching/reading, nodding your head and agreeing with them about what an outrage everything is.
Anyway. My core assertion is this:
Broadcasters and media owners should be responsible with and responsible for the content they put out -- particularly the terrestrial broadcasters that are paid for by the public purse. On matters of democratic political discourse - commercial broadcasters should be responsible too. There is absolutely nothing unjust or wrong about requiring a broadcaster to allow equal campaign time and allowing the opportunity of response for the different political parties we have. It is absolutely right and just that we should have a mechanism to complain about the abuse of power in the media. Having a means for upholding those complaints is vital to ensure they are not tempted to nefariously intefere with or frustrate the natural discourse of our democracy.
No man, broadcaster or newspaper should be able to weild the kind of inequitable and inscrutible power that Murdoch does, the power to select and amplify the consumption of political views. Why should I be content that he or his foreign-owned organisation are able to impose his views on others with greater ease than I can? Than the majority of my fellow taxpayers and people actually living in this country can?
Why should I be content or unafraid of the fact that his voice is louder than others?
We should not allow ourselves to be propagandised by anyone, regardless of their ideological persuasion. Period. We should fight any such move in that direction with every fibre of our being. If we don't, God only knows what kind of mess we'll end up in. Weakening the BBC, as much as you might hate the BBC, empowers and strengthens an already incredibly strong News International. Weakening or dissolving OFCOM and our power to hold media organisations to account weakens us, and -- I put this to you all to consider -- will weaken our democracy.
blazinglord said:
I agree with the very last sentence completely, but not much of the rest of it.
The BBC might be percieved to have a 'left-slant' but its fairly straight as an arrow, and fairly in line with what the great majority of the public expect. At least prior to changes proposed by this government, OFCOM is there as an independent organisation to hear complaints about the BBC should it ever step out of line.
Believe what you may about their 'leaning', at least the BBC never really goes out of its way to try and 'shape' narrative -- yes they will harp on about whatever the popular discourse is at the time just like everyone else (ie Blair's power struggle with Brown, a future 'rift' in the coalition government etc) but they never try to create the story themselves. That is to their credit.
To contrast that with an example: during the leadership election debates, the host on Sky News blatantly tried to intefere with questioning by baiting nick clegg with assertions that were made in News International papers a day earlier... a blatant and co-ordinated attempt by News International to assassinate Clegg's character live on television, and in complete disregard for the established rules that every other broadcaster respected!
The BBC don't do that for the left, and ITN don't do that for the right. Codes and practices that have been in place for almost the entire history of British television have prevented it... why change now?
If the media are our watchmen, watching the politicians for us, as though we can't watch them for ourselves -- who is watching the watchmen?
blazinglord said:
Without him, if those papers failed - wouldn't that just be the free-market in action?
travisbickle
Member
SmokyDave said:
You should care. Pick a member of society and champion their cause.
For example, BlazingLord has picked the filthy-rich-tax-dodging-scumbags of our society and is doing his best to defend their assets.
Last year, I was working for a charity and met a wheelchair bound guy who had not left his house for a month because the local council hadn't fixed the ramp at his front door. Since then I have been completing some "pro-bono" design work for a charity that help the less-fortunate.
SmokyDave said:
Single parent on 45k not getting benefits. Couple on 88 (44+44) would. There is a way to solve this by doing further calculations but unfortunately it costs a lot to do so that's why there's a flat number. Hence why I can understand why some people are aggrieved.
jamieson87
Member
Sad day when you have to resort to cutting your military.
Do you think Cameron will go for a time victory now?
Do you think Cameron will go for a time victory now?
Was tempting to post a new thread for this but I'll let you guys garner opinion on it first:
"I'm Proud of the BBC" song, I guess in response to all the haters like the Daily Mail. I just like the list of BBC institutions
"I'm Proud of the BBC" song, I guess in response to all the haters like the Daily Mail. I just like the list of BBC institutions
That is why it's unfair. Neither sets of people 'deserve' benefits.SmokyDave said:
Bad news about the cuts, as a public sector worker myself (programmer for the police - trying to automate things and cut down on the paperwork etc they have to do) I must say I'm a little worried right now. Pretty sure my job does help save the organisation a lot of time and money so fingers crossed I'll avoid the cull though!
(edit) also cost the NHS some money last week, operation on my ear, sorry guys from me too.
Well, there will be cuts from the NHS, the police force and the fire service too. Maybe I'm being biased here but I'd genuinely place those three above military right now.jamieson87 said:
Killamangiro
Member
Nice post radioheadrule83, totally agree. Also some of your views about media narratives reminded me of the Jeremy Paxman interview with Russell Brand, don't know how you feel about the guy but he actually mentions Rupert Murdock/Daily Mail/BBC