G.B. to address G.B.

[Happy Face 29]

It'd be interesting to know whether the Sun is the Kingmaker or just has a tendency to back winners. A bit of both I imagine.

 

But what a joke of a paper making a mockery of our democratic process. Why should a supposedly independent newspaper 'back' any political party, shouldn't they at least try and pretend to have an unbiased editorial policy? Apparently not, can't wait for their smug self-congratulary headlines next May proclaiming 'it was the Sun wot wunnit'. The fact that a foreigner is behind this is an irony that will be lost on anyone brainless enough to read that rag.

 

*Sigh*

 

I guess the Sun has only become more powerful in political terms, as they've wiped out the opposition.

 

In 1956 there were 7 papers with a circulation of over a million.

 

In 1980 there were 6.

 

In 1992 there were 5.

 

By 2002 there were 4.

 

Today there are 3.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newsp..._by_circulation

 

At least their readership is dwindling quickly since the dawn of the internet. I just hope ex-readers aren't using the website to form political opinion.

[Renton 18559]

It'd be interesting to know whether the Sun is the Kingmaker or just has a tendency to back winners. A bit of both I imagine.

 

But what a joke of a paper making a mockery of our democratic process. Why should a supposedly independent newspaper 'back' any political party, shouldn't they at least try and pretend to have an unbiased editorial policy? Apparently not, can't wait for their smug self-congratulary headlines next May proclaiming 'it was the Sun wot wunnit'. The fact that a foreigner is behind this is an irony that will be lost on anyone brainless enough to read that rag.

 

*Sigh*

 

Backing the expected winner wouldn't be of any benefit to Murdoch, now would it?

 

As I said though they will influence the result, the only doubt is to what extent. Plus it keeps the perception that the Sun is a 'winner', and will help its circulation.

[Guest alex]

All newspapers, for better or for worse, have a dwindling readership and circulation now seemingly. I suppose it's difficult to assess how many of those readers now just read the same papers online but I would guess online readers 'dip into' papers more, looking at specific areas that are of interest to them (like football) rather than reading the whole thing. Whenever there's a copy of The Sun knocking about I'll read it like (as with just about any paper). It's hilarious although you have to wonder about anyone who takes a lot of what they say at face value. I suppose that's the same for any paper to a greater or lesser extent though.

[Renton 18559]

All newspapers, for better or for worse, have a dwindling readership and circulation now seemingly. I suppose it's difficult to assess how many of those readers now just read the same papers online but I would guess online readers 'dip into' papers more, looking at specific areas that are of interest to them (like football) rather than reading the whole thing. Whenever there's a copy of The Sun knocking about I'll read it like (as with just about any paper). It's hilarious although you have to wonder about anyone who takes a lot of what they say at face value. I suppose that's the same for any paper to a greater or lesser extent though.

 

I see the Daily Mail surpassed itself yesterday on it vaccination 'story'.

[AgentAxeman 94]

You're not really a fan of the daily mail are you Renton??

 

heres another one to get you frothing

 

from the mail this morning..

 

 

Financial experts last night accused the Prime Minister of misleading the public after he appeared to suggest that a decade-long spending spree could continue beyond the next election.

Free personal care for the most needy elderly, free childcare for two-year-olds and a new right to cancer tests within a week were among a string of costly new policies in yesterday’s conference speech.

Mr Brown reconfirmed Labour’s pledge to double the international aid budget and pledged to increase spending on child benefit and tax credits every year.

 

Mr Brown was accused of not making a credible plan to improve public finances

 

He also promised that Labour would continue to increase spending on schools, apparently reversing the recent pledge by Schools Secretary Ed Balls to make cuts of £2 billion.

But analysts warned that failure to produce a credible plan to improve the public finances could see international investors abandon Britain, driving up the cost of borrowing.

Robert Chote, of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, said Treasury figures suggested the long-term gap between tax revenues and public spending was £90billion a year.

 

Mr Chote said it was misleading to suggest that the huge hole in the public finances could be closed in a painless way, whichever party wins the coming election.

‘The rhetoric has not matched the arithmetic in spelling out the size of the challenge,’ he said. ‘The question you have to ask about Mr Brown’s speech is whether it is consistent with the figures the Government produced in the Budget.

‘If they want to persist with their policy of halving the deficit in four years then it is going to need tax increases, welfare cuts or cuts in public spending. I don’t think the public yet has any idea what that will mean.’

The Conservatives last night suggested Mr Brown’s spending pledges would cost more than £5billion, with the commitment on schools taking the total to more than £7billion.

The Premier identified new savings of just £500million by scrapping childcare vouchers for higher rate taxpayers.

Labour insisted most of the new programmes would be funded through savings but there was little detail on how this would work. Experts said many of the schemes would cost more than scheduled.

[Renton 18559]

You're not really a fan of the daily mail are you Renton??

 

heres another one to get you frothing

 

from the mail this morning..

 

 

Financial experts last night accused the Prime Minister of misleading the public after he appeared to suggest that a decade-long spending spree could continue beyond the next election.

Free personal care for the most needy elderly, free childcare for two-year-olds and a new right to cancer tests within a week were among a string of costly new policies in yesterday’s conference speech.

Mr Brown reconfirmed Labour’s pledge to double the international aid budget and pledged to increase spending on child benefit and tax credits every year.

 

Mr Brown was accused of not making a credible plan to improve public finances

 

He also promised that Labour would continue to increase spending on schools, apparently reversing the recent pledge by Schools Secretary Ed Balls to make cuts of £2 billion.

But analysts warned that failure to produce a credible plan to improve the public finances could see international investors abandon Britain, driving up the cost of borrowing.

Robert Chote, of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, said Treasury figures suggested the long-term gap between tax revenues and public spending was £90billion a year.

 

Mr Chote said it was misleading to suggest that the huge hole in the public finances could be closed in a painless way, whichever party wins the coming election.

‘The rhetoric has not matched the arithmetic in spelling out the size of the challenge,’ he said. ‘The question you have to ask about Mr Brown’s speech is whether it is consistent with the figures the Government produced in the Budget.

‘If they want to persist with their policy of halving the deficit in four years then it is going to need tax increases, welfare cuts or cuts in public spending. I don’t think the public yet has any idea what that will mean.’

The Conservatives last night suggested Mr Brown’s spending pledges would cost more than £5billion, with the commitment on schools taking the total to more than £7billion.

The Premier identified new savings of just £500million by scrapping childcare vouchers for higher rate taxpayers.

Labour insisted most of the new programmes would be funded through savings but there was little detail on how this would work. Experts said many of the schemes would cost more than scheduled.

 

I don't find that article particularly interesting or objectional tbh. Their article yesterday on the cervical cancer jab was intended purely to undermine the immunization programme and create panic though, before the facts were known. What type of scumbags are they? This is the same group of papers that are actively campaigning for the vaccination in Ireland. Make of that what you will, they are the lowest of the low imo.

[Guest alex]

Through stumbleupon I've received quite a few Science/Technology articles from the Mial that I've found interesting and also understandable for a layman like me. On the odd time I've picked up the actual paper most of the comment and news articles in it are from what I consider to be a pretty ridiculous viewpoint though. I actually think it's worse than The Sun for that sort of thing.

[Happy Face 29]

Forum aces prone to fluffing threads no longer have an excuse - after boffins yesterday unveiled a FORMULA for the perfect discussion.

 

University eggheads studied page after page of writing to deduce what makes a topic perfect. Researchers say the formula promises 100 per cent success.

 

Tottenham Hotspur fans will be gutted the findings emerged too late to prevent some cringeworthy debates around attendances and whether they are a big club. The equation would also have saved Jay-Z fans from heartbreak after they failed to troll their way into the gold section.

 

A research team at Liverpool John Moores University performed the research and Professor Tim Cable, director of WUM analysis sciences, declared: "Many factors make up a 'perfect thread'. But we've finally nailed the key elements."

 

That formula in full:

 

T-H-F+W=G

 

Where

 

T = Toontastic

H = Hova

F = Fop

W = Wikipedia evidence

G = Gold

[Fop 1]

Forum aces prone to fluffing threads no longer have an excuse - after boffins yesterday unveiled a FORMULA for the perfect discussion.

 

University eggheads studied page after page of writing to deduce what makes a topic perfect. Researchers say the formula promises 100 per cent success.

 

Tottenham Hotspur fans will be gutted the findings emerged too late to prevent some cringeworthy debates around attendances and whether they are a big club. The equation would also have saved Jay-Z fans from heartbreak after they failed to troll their way into the gold section.

 

A research team at Liverpool John Moores University performed the research and Professor Tim Cable, director of WUM analysis sciences, declared: "Many factors make up a 'perfect thread'. But we've finally nailed the key elements."

 

That formula in full:

 

T-H-F+W=G

 

Where

 

T = Toontastic

H = Hova

F = Fop

W = Wikipedia evidence

G = Gold

 

 

Remember to quote an eco-pressure group as a leading source on Nuclear proliferation too.