REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Penk Wolf]

It is climbing for one reason. A certain court case yesterday. It shot up the moment Brexit had to be put in front of Parliament as the markets clearly hope that is hard Brexit dead in the water.

It was already going up first thing in the morning, which was down to the speculation on the economy and non- base rate change.

 

[Penk Wolf]

So the media should not be able to have an opinion? Opinions aren't fact and having an opinion about something that may happen requires speculation

What you are proposing is effectively a censorship of the media.

Why should one person push his opinion on people when it can have such an impact on people?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It was already going up first thing in the morning, which was down to the speculation on the economy and non- base rate change.

It went up a smidge. It shot up about ten points immediately the decision was publicised.

 

[Penk Wolf]

It was at 1.24 when I bought my dollars at 11.30. Not sure when the announcement was.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Why should one person push his opinion on people when it can have such an impact on people?

You could make the case that many people's opinion have an impact on other people. Where do you draw the line? Does the givernment get to decide who can and can't have their opinion reported? There are a few nation states who do exercise that sort of power of the media...

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Nothing wrong with op-ed pieces providing they're backed up with empirical facts and reason. When they're underpinned by blatant lies and in this specific case, rampant xenophobia, then in theory the regulator should step in. But governments of all hues in this country have been supine towards the media for decades, so the regulator has no meaningful power.

 

[Premier Quality]

Quite likely to be true sir:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remain-eu-theresa-may-article-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html

51 to 49 isn't a massive swing though is it, and as the article says, the difference is mainly people who couldn't be arsed to vote in the referendum...

 

[Premier Quality]

So the media should not be able to have an opinion? Opinions aren't fact and having an opinion about something that may happen requires speculation

What you are proposing is effectively a censorship of the media.

Absolutely agree with you tsb - which is why people should stop banging on about the right wing media all the time - everyone's free to ignore the daily mail and the guardian, the express and the independent and make up their own mind.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Absolutely agree with you tsb - which is why people should stop banging on about the right wing media all the time - everyone's free to ignore the daily mail and the guardian, the express and the independent and make up their own mind.

But they don't and take opinion as gospel, which the majority of the time has a negative effect on stuff. I wouldn't know which paper is left, right or centre.

 

[Tony Towner]

The two largest papers in the UK by readership are right wing and lurching further to the right as months go on. Too many people take their opinions from those institutions

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The two largest papers in the UK by readership are right wing and lurching further to the right as months go on. Too many people take their opinions from those institutions

Precisely. With that audience comes responsibility. They are exercising none.

 

[Premier Quality]

It's the same both ways - the number of my friends that post the guardian or the huffington post on Facebook - seriously, itheyre comics like the Mail, how can anyone take them (including the Mail and the express) seriously?

 

[Tony Towner]

It's the same both ways - the number of my friends that post the guardian or the huffington post on Facebook - seriously, itheyre comics like the Mail, how can anyone take them (including the Mail and the express) seriously?

I think the difference is in sheer volume of readership. The Guardian has 10%? Of the readership of the other two combined, difficult to judge online I know.

 

[Premier Quality]

True, but that's a personal choice. From what I can see, most daily mail readers choose it to see reality tv stories and celebs on the beach pictures.

 

[arklowolf]

Personally I don't buy a paper, when I did it was the telegraph.
As I've said before, having worked in the industry for nearly 30 years, papers write what their readers want to read. It really is that simple.
They write what sells.
Would anybody on here admit to buying The Mail? No. QED.

 

[arklowolf]

Anyway....Can anyone tell me why we need a Supreme Court and a High Court? Is it because the High Court is incompetent or is it just another layer of bureaucracy that we have to pay for?

 

[Parkins left foot]

Anyway....Can anyone tell me why we need a Supreme Court and a High Court? Is it because the High Court is incompetent or is it just another layer of bureaucracy that we have to pay for?

We have the High Court, Supreme Court & then the Chicken Supreme Court - have to keep us old buggers in employment somewhere :icon_smile:

Though would agree - not sure why there are that many levels to appeal upwards to on any decision (& not just in this case)

 

[arklowolf]

We have the High Court, Supreme Court & then the Chicken Supreme Court - have to keep us old buggers in employment somewhere :icon_smile:

Ha, like it. Can't get me in can you?.I reckon I could pass for an old bugger.

Though would agree - not sure why there are that many levels to appeal upwards to on any decision (& not just in this case)

Beats me!

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Checks and balances.

 

[leedswolf]

It replaced the House of Lords (IIRC) as the ultimate legal appeal arbiter.