ChatterBank0 min ago
Tommy Robinson Exposes Bbc Far Left Bias
Who will be first to 'dismiss' this because it's on Breitbart?
https:/
from where will you gain the facts if not there and on social media ?
https:/
from where will you gain the facts if not there and on social media ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Robinson is a nasty piece of work.
his real name (and the name that he has multiple convictions under) Stephen Yaxley-Lennon sounds too ‘posh’ for his ‘man of the people’ persona? Note also that he has more than one alias, being aka as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris, the former being the name on the passport he illegally tried to enter the US with.
Nothing more than a thug
his real name (and the name that he has multiple convictions under) Stephen Yaxley-Lennon sounds too ‘posh’ for his ‘man of the people’ persona? Note also that he has more than one alias, being aka as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris, the former being the name on the passport he illegally tried to enter the US with.
Nothing more than a thug
He didn't 'expose the muslim rape gangs' - he actually jeopardised their trial and damn nearly let them get off scot free.
The BBC does have some bias - perhaps a bit left-leaning - but is essentially still 'straight' and a useful counterbalance to the huge array of right-leaning mainstream media in the UK.
Breitbart is a ridiculous joke - stuffed with fakery, unfounded assertions masquerading as 'news' and deliberate politically motivated misinformation.
The BBC does have some bias - perhaps a bit left-leaning - but is essentially still 'straight' and a useful counterbalance to the huge array of right-leaning mainstream media in the UK.
Breitbart is a ridiculous joke - stuffed with fakery, unfounded assertions masquerading as 'news' and deliberate politically motivated misinformation.
The first attempt by the BNP to use the democratic process to get these issues addressed was blocked at every point, with the BBC even funding covert reporters to infiltrate the BNP and publicise what the BNP was saying in member-only meetings (the BBC made no attempt to infiltrate the mosques to see the grooming gangs pimping their schoolgirl victims). The joint actions by the far Left, Muslim organisations, the liberal establishment and the media to prevent the BNP from using democratic process to address the problem of Muslim gangs raping schoolgirls showed how little democracy there is in Britain. By 2009 the English Defence League took to the streets protesting about this scandal. Without the campaign by the EDL, there is no indication that the liberal establishment would have addressed this scandal.
I’ve not actually read anything he’s written or heard anything he’s said.
MSM for years has painted him as a far right thug and a convicted criminal to boot.
Does that make it true? Only if there is proper evidence and not the ‘its Widely reported in the media so must be true’
In his particular case I have two pretty opposing views on him. On the one hand I simply don’t think he will amount to much more than he already is. I think UKIP will try to utilise his ‘man of the working class’ persona with a large (?) following to get votes that defected when NF left and he joined.
On the other he will gain traction because he is articulate and will be able to blur enough peoples thoughts to get somewhere. I also think UKIP will at some point have him standing in a by-election somewhere and he will become main streem.
I’ve been watching the bias on MSM for a while now and don’t tend to believe just whatever is put out there. Where it is true we tend to gather round the news sources that generally agree with our standpoint (on any particular issue) but do believe we should in all watch and read opposing views. If you don’t you can’t make an informed decision.
MSM for years has painted him as a far right thug and a convicted criminal to boot.
Does that make it true? Only if there is proper evidence and not the ‘its Widely reported in the media so must be true’
In his particular case I have two pretty opposing views on him. On the one hand I simply don’t think he will amount to much more than he already is. I think UKIP will try to utilise his ‘man of the working class’ persona with a large (?) following to get votes that defected when NF left and he joined.
On the other he will gain traction because he is articulate and will be able to blur enough peoples thoughts to get somewhere. I also think UKIP will at some point have him standing in a by-election somewhere and he will become main streem.
I’ve been watching the bias on MSM for a while now and don’t tend to believe just whatever is put out there. Where it is true we tend to gather round the news sources that generally agree with our standpoint (on any particular issue) but do believe we should in all watch and read opposing views. If you don’t you can’t make an informed decision.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.