Stop Funding Hate

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

I've just told you there isn't. Only 130k between them. There more people from each of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Germany, France, Poland, Jamaica, USA, Kenya, Australia, Italy, Nigeria and Sri Lanka than there is from those two combined.

As of 2015 it's over 200k check the edited post above.

[sphericalfox]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

I've just told you there isn't. Only 130k between them. There more people from each of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Germany, France, Poland, Jamaica, USA, Kenya, Australia, Italy, Nigeria and Sri Lanka than there is from those two combined.

yeah but 'hordes'...

[Barky]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So there aren't lots of Bulgarians and Romanians over here?

I suppose if you read and believe headlines like IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 20% without understanding that people coming into the country - immigrants - had actually only increased by 1% then you might think so

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029948/575-000-come-UK-year-despite-Government-pledge-curb-immigration-cash-strapped-Britons-abandon-dreams-retirement-abroad.html

[FireFox]

This thread has gotten so ridiculous. Exaggeration or lies, it doesn't matter. The question is if these newspapers are spreading hate, do people believe they are spreading hate, and do companies funding them want to continue to be associated with them?

 

Group W campaigns to stop funding X. 

Group W believes company Y does X.

Company Z funds company Y.

Group W wants company Z to stop funding company Y.

Company Z stops funding company Y.

Company Z doesn't want to be associated with funding X. Even if company Y doesn't necessarily do X, group W and many people believe so. Company Z respects this group and these people's opinion. Company Z doesn't want their public image harmed. Et cetera.

 

What is the problem?

That "company Y" happens to be part of the media? Are media companies not still part of "the free market"?

 

This isn't suppressing freedom of speech.

 

It would be the same as people campaigning for a newspaper to stop running a certain shoe company's ads because this shoe company uses Chinese sweatshops, and people don't agree with the use of these sweatshops. Would this shoe company's freedom of speech be in danger? Because a newspaper stops putting in their ads because the newspaper doesn't want to be associated with sweatshops?

[lgfualol]

55 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

YES! YES! YES! They have the guts to say it how it is! Like it, or lump it, but don't hide from it. Immigration is spiralling out of control, and affects housing, crime, education  and above all, the NHS.

The NHS is ****ed because the ***** in charge of the country, not immigrants. If the Tories had their way we'd have the American system, Jeremy Hunt even said it was an inspiration lol.  The NHS would not even function without all the foreign workers. Daily Mail wont tell you that though.

 

[Jimothy]

Just now, Webbo said:

As of 2015 it's over 200k check the edited post above.

Still hardly crippling the country is it. And it's not the 600k the Mail claimed had clogged up the planes on one day, especially considering there were already some here. That's why it was a lie, as there's clearly no chance those planes were booked up by 600k people, the quotes and the stats had to be made up.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

I don't know. Is it? I know if I was a centre right I'd be embarrassed by some of the shit the DM & Sun publish consistently. What you are suggesting is that Liberals will continue to protest, and inevitably that even nursery rhymes will be entirely PC by your reckoning. I asked for you to provide evidence that made you come to that conclusion. If you can't or it doesn't exist that's okay, no biggies.

This article is pretty funny in highlighting examples of pc going to far http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8513876/The-A-Z-of-political-correctness.html

 

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Barky said:

I suppose if you read and believe headlines like IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 20% without understanding that people coming into the country - immigrants - had actually only increased by 1% then you might think so

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029948/575-000-come-UK-year-despite-Government-pledge-curb-immigration-cash-strapped-Britons-abandon-dreams-retirement-abroad.html

According to that graph immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Still hardly crippling the country is it. And it's not the 600k the Mail claimed had clogged up the planes on one day, especially considering there were already some here. That's why it was a lie, as there's clearly no chance those planes were booked up by 600k people, the quotes and the stats had to be made up.

You said it was 130k, you weren't lying were you?

[Barky]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

According to that graph immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%

I was referring to the article I posted in which the Daily Mail lied, or being generous misled readers into thinking the number of immigrants entering the country had increased by 20% in one year when in fact it hadn't

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Barky said:

I was referring to the article I posted in which the Daily Mail lied, or being generous misled readers into thinking the number of immigrants entering the country had increased by 20% in one year when in fact it hadn't

But it had, according to that ONS graph. The graph was in the article you posted.

[sphericalfox]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

This article is pretty funny in highlighting examples of pc going to far http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8513876/The-A-Z-of-political-correctness.html

 

 

You've based your conclusion on this...okay. Well founded and utterly convincing. You're right, liberals objecting against things is leading us right down to rainbow sheep... No more evidence required.

[Jimothy]

Just now, Webbo said:

You said it was 130k, you weren't lying were you?

My source was out of date, but I'm not a national newspaper with millions of readers. 

 

And nice deflection, it's still not what they said is it, and they still clearly lied in that article. An exaggeration would be claiming there are going to be 600k immigrants coming but not actually backing up (which is still bad), the moment they create fake quotes and stats they overstep the mark.

[Jimothy]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

According to that graph immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%

Ups and downs, as you're at such pains the point out in every comment about the economy post Brexit.

 

Seems to me it was dropping under labour, shot up when the Tories got in

[Barky]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But it had, according to that ONS graph.

No, that's net immigration. The number of immigrants arriving increased by about 1%, not 20% as the headline claims. If the headline was talking about net immigration, it should have said net immigration, but it didn't because the Daily Mail just wanted a headline that scared their readers into thinking 20% more immigrants were coming in.

 

This is typical of the way the Daily Mail operates, you could argue that they've simply used unusual terminology and that it's not therefore a lie, but I'd expect anybody with half a brain to be able to see the blatant attempt at manipulation going on there.

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, sphericalfox said:

You've based your conclusion on this...okay. Well founded and utterly convincing. You're right, liberals objecting against things is leading us right down to rainbow sheep... No more evidence required.

The rainbow sheep is already a thing, I worked at an outdoor educational camp for kids a few years back and things like that were banned due to complaints. I'm on a forum, writing an essay and eating dinner I'm hardly going to trawl through the internet to ensure you have enough evidence for something glaringly obvious.

[Webbo]

Just now, Facecloth said:

Ups and downs, as you're at such pains the point out in every comment about the economy post Brexit.

 

Seems to me it was dropping under labour, shot up when the Tories got in

Of course. Who'd want to come here while Labour were in charge?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

No, that's net immigration. The number of immigrants arriving increased by about 1%, not 20% as the headline claims. If the headline was talking about net immigration, it should have said net immigration, but it didn't because the Daily Mail just wanted a headline that scared their readers into thinking 20% more immigrants were coming in.

 

This is typical of the way the Daily Mail operates, you could argue that they've simply used unusual terminology and that it's not therefore a lie, but I'd expect anybody with half a brain to be able to see the blatant attempt at manipulation going on there.

I understood what they meant. I think you should write a clarification.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, FireFox said:

This thread has gotten so ridiculous. Exaggeration or lies, it doesn't matter. The question is if these newspapers are spreading hate, do people believe they are spreading hate, and do companies funding them want to continue to be associated with them?

 

Group W campaigns to stop funding X. 

Group W believes company Y does X.

Company Z funds company Y.

Group W wants company Z to stop funding company Y.

Company Z stops funding company Y.

Company Z doesn't want to be associated with funding X. Even if company Y doesn't necessarily do X, group W and many people believe so. Company Z respects this group and these people's opinion. Company Z doesn't want their public image harmed. Et cetera.

 

What is the problem?

That "company Y" happens to be part of the media? Are media companies not still part of "the free market"?

 

This isn't suppressing freedom of speech.

 

It would be the same as people campaigning for a newspaper to stop running a certain shoe company's ads because this shoe company uses Chinese sweatshops, and people don't agree with the use of these sweatshops. Would this shoe company's freedom of speech be in danger? Because a newspaper stops putting in their ads because the newspaper doesn't want to be associated with sweatshops?

Quoted for truth.

 

Can people actually address this point rather than a back and forth about which paper lied about what?

 

This, right here, has happened to business in the past, is happening now and is why the campaign is ok, regardless of intent.

[Barky]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I understood what they meant. I think you should write a clarification.

I think I'm at what, about 20 lies so far, do you want any more or are you now in agreement that the Daily Mail do in fact tell lies?

[sphericalfox]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The rainbow sheep is already a thing, I worked at an outdoor educational camp for kids a few years back and things like that were banned due to complaints. I'm on a forum, writing an essay and eating dinner I'm hardly going to trawl through the internet to ensure you have enough evidence for something glaringly obvious.

okay, you said it was inevitable, but had first had knowledge at an outdoor educational camp for kids that liberal meddling had actually caused the inevitable. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Eat your dinner, do your paper, and good luck in the other 4 debates mate. You literally have enough on your plate.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

I think I'm at what, about 20 lies so far, do you want any more or are you now in agreement that the Daily Mail do in fact tell lies?

They twist fact, exaggerate and put their own slant on a story as do all papers. Btw there was nothing wrong with that last story you posted.

[Barky]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

They twist fact, exaggerate and put their own slant on a story as do all papers. Btw there was nothing wrong with that last story you posted.

"Twist fact", is that as close as you'll come to admit they tell lies?

 

Maybe one day, when this whole supposed backlash against the cheeky bastard students telling people that racism is wrong dies down, we'll have a backlash against middle aged blokes who can't admit that they base their views on absolute horseshit from the gutter press.

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

They twist fact, exaggerate and put their own slant on a story as do all papers. Btw there was nothing wrong with that last story you posted.

At times, but they lie a lot too. The fact you can't see that, or refuse to accept it is quite frankly worrying. I always thought you were intelligent despite the fact you refuse to even sway you're opinion me even slightly.

[Strokes]

• Our maths was flawed when we said that if 7.1% (1,236,162) of leave voters had voted to remain in the EU referendum, the leave margin of victory would have gone down from 1,269,501 to 33,339 (The Brexit week in numbers, 4 July, page 2, G2). That would have been the case if they hadn’t voted at all; if they switched their vote, it would have given a winning margin to remain of 1,202,823. The figure of 7.1% of leave voters who regretted their vote came from a survey by Survation on behalf of the Mail on Sunday. We should have noted that it also found that 4.4% of remain voters regretted the way they voted. We got the currency wrong and added six noughts too many to the figure for the value wiped off global markets in the first 24 hours after the referendum. The right figure was $2 trillion, and not £2,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

all papers make 'mistakes to suit there agendas, can we guess who this brexit hating paper is?

#stopfundinghate