RIchard Britten Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Would be interesting to find out how many times the world immigrant was used in the period of the Leave/Remain campaign and how many times in the same time period before the referendum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Would be interesting to find out how many times the world immigrant was used in the period of the Leave/Remain campaign and how many times in the same time period before the referendum... Living in a town or city in the UK I don't think the word 'immigrant' needs spelling out to you, the pressures on services are graphically illustrated every single day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Would be interesting to find out how many times the world immigrant was used in the period of the Leave/Remain campaign and how many times in the same time period before the referendum... Living in a town or city in the UK I don't think the word 'immigrant' needs spelling out to you, the pressures on services are graphically illustrated every single day. Keep peddling the "dream"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? I think the fact that major national newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly half since 2000 might tell it's own story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? Of course. The young are not all like you. Most are totally disengaged from politics. They glaze over at the mention. Look at the voting figures. It's uncool, Boooring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? I think the fact that major national newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly half since 2000 might tell it's own story. You don't suppose folks are reading their fave newspaper online do you? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? 12.8% of voters read a daily newspaper, hardly a massive impact when readers are set in their ways by which paper they read.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? I think the fact that major national newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly half since 2000 might tell it's own story. You don't suppose folks are reading their fave newspaper online do you? If they are, not much. Attention span of a gnat, most of 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Newspapers: Not the force they were and don't have huge pull on opinion. Most readers are older and have established views anyway. A declining influence. And you genuinely believe this? I think the fact that major national newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly half since 2000 might tell it's own story. You don't suppose folks are reading their fave newspaper online do you? If they are, not much. Attention span of a gnat, most of 'em. Hmmm, I didn't think a gnat's attention span was that short! We subscribe to an e-paper. Unfortunately then it's not so easy to discuss things over breakfast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 But the report divided the cross-party committee, with some members saying it was too pessimistic about Brexit. Some MPs walked out of a private meeting of the committee as the report was being finalised .But they were outnumbered by Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP committee members, all of whom backed Remain in last year's referendum. Mr Whittingdale said he thought the report was "unduly negative" and had "very much concentrated on the problems without really recognising the opportunities" of Brexit. Mr Raab added: "The report was rushed, skewed and partisan. After two reports that had strong support, it's regrettable that this one split the committee. "That undermines its credibility and influence, but I hope and expect the committee will learn the right lessons as we move forward." facts... Yes, committee wasn't fully in agreement on some items, nevertheless, the report by The National, was word for word lifted from the parliamentary report, that is incontrovertibly a fact. That is what we're currently arguing about. A simple apology is fine and we can move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) @ PK: We subscribe to an e-paper. Unfortunately then it's not so easy to discuss things over breakfast! True. Lots of things where the analogue solution has the edge. I'd cancel the subscription, though. I think it must be extremist. Edited April 4, 2017 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 But the report divided the cross-party committee, with some members saying it was too pessimistic about Brexit. Some MPs walked out of a private meeting of the committee as the report was being finalised .But they were outnumbered by Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP committee members, all of whom backed Remain in last year's referendum. Mr Whittingdale said he thought the report was "unduly negative" and had "very much concentrated on the problems without really recognising the opportunities" of Brexit. Mr Raab added: "The report was rushed, skewed and partisan. After two reports that had strong support, it's regrettable that this one split the committee. "That undermines its credibility and influence, but I hope and expect the committee will learn the right lessons as we move forward." facts... Yes, committee wasn't fully in agreement on some items, nevertheless, the report by The National, was word for word lifted from the parliamentary report, that is incontrovertibly a fact. That is what we're currently arguing about. A simple apology is fine and we can move on. "snp force change to unenforceable report that may must respond to snp's unreasonable demands over eu" fact.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 But the report divided the cross-party committee, with some members saying it was too pessimistic about Brexit. Some MPs walked out of a private meeting of the committee as the report was being finalised .But they were outnumbered by Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP committee members, all of whom backed Remain in last year's referendum. Mr Whittingdale said he thought the report was "unduly negative" and had "very much concentrated on the problems without really recognising the opportunities" of Brexit. Mr Raab added: "The report was rushed, skewed and partisan. After two reports that had strong support, it's regrettable that this one split the committee. "That undermines its credibility and influence, but I hope and expect the committee will learn the right lessons as we move forward." facts... Yes, committee wasn't fully in agreement on some items, nevertheless, the report by The National, was word for word lifted from the parliamentary report, that is incontrovertibly a fact. That is what we're currently arguing about. A simple apology is fine and we can move on. "snp force change to unenforceable report that may must respond to snp's unreasonable demands over eu" fact.... Did The National report verbatim the words in that report? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.