Sir Ralph

This is essentially softening or seeking to justify the attacks. This is frankly unbelievable. In modern times no other religion has individuals shooting innocent civilians in cold blood. Wake up you idiot. It’s people like you who discourage real debate about this issue. I take it back, you are an extremist yourself.

Is he describing SoG? Peterson is a legend

Well that’s wrong. I explained what I believed was far left (or looney left as you call it) and it isn’t close to the way you have defined it. My definition of far left is much narrower than your definition of far right. You don’t know what you are talking about and are trying to drag me into your broad definitions by misquoting me on what I define as far left. Also it’s not me that think Maitlis has been biased, there are a number of different groups and media outlets that have accused her of this. Please get your facts right next time.

Everyone is entitled to their own views and if you think increasing taxes and expanding the state is the way forward, that’s fine. I understand what you are saying but don’t agree with your view as increased day to day state spending has never got a country out of a hole that I know off. However, I think my point is these aren’t conservative views. im not saying that their voting patterns would all be right of centre (although a good proportion I suspect would). What I am saying is that when it comes to economic policy people I deal with day to day wants pro business policies which reduce obligation / restriction and cost for business and policies which encourage innovation and growth and reward. They never want higher taxes personally or for business and increase in state intervention because it often causes bureaucracy which stifles business. The tend to want less government intervention, other than maybe state intervention for capital projects which improve infrastructure. This includes a range of people including larger corporates, foreign investors, uk investors and SMEs. You and I have had this discussion before so happy to agree to disagree before we start going round in circles

So you would know then that Maitlis is one of the worst examples of a mainstream political commentator to use in this context as she has been caught in the crossfire of allegations of anti Tory bias, being a strong Remainer (whilst at the BBC when she should have been impartial) and left leaning bias. Whilst you say im so biased I can’t see the wood for the trees the below articles prove that other people have this view in relation to Maitlis (and there is plenty more on this topic). Therefore a bad example of a journalist to use for their definition of what is right wing. They do know more about politics than me but in principle it wouldn’t stop them being biased, which is the point being made. A suggestion, when you start talking aggressively about a subject, be sure to understand it first. Own it.😆 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/emily-maitlis-wants-a-remainer-bbc/#:~:text=There was her infamous Dominic,close to being over it. https://commentcentral.co.uk/one-rule-for-emily-maitlis-and-another-for-the-rest-of-us

Im saying that I wouldnt use Maitlis in particular in the context of this discussion. She has been accused by those on the centre right of bias more than once. Other journalists yes but not ones accused of bias to then define what is far right. Thats my point.

Thats fine, its obviously me that doesnt understand any of this but have a good day.

Great statement. I'm looking forward to your explanation of conservatism but somebody who wants to increase taxes for people and expand the state, which is constantly thrown by the relevant poster, is not a conservative. Its probably you that dont understand these terms but enlighten me

I dont think you're a lunatic lefite. I think you are somebody who says they have conservative values but have views that are closer to a socialist than a conservative. No conservative or business man I have ever met or worked with has the views you have. My issue with you is that you think you continue to say you have Conservative views but you constantly argue against them.

.

Emily Maitlis - yes she is really balanced, no agenda whatsoever! Spend the last few years having to defend her 'non-bias' BBC position on various matters. Jon Sopel is left of centre. Again read about their backgrounds before suggesting they are sufficiently balanced to be able to give reasonable views on such matters. Its quite impressive that most posters on here have barely any idea about the background of the people they post about or ask articles for.

Ouch, you really are turning the screw now. Please stop. This may actually be more painful that watching Reeves deliver a Budget.

Is that the best you've got?

Someone needs a beer.

Bad day? As its Friday night, this one's especially for you.

Getting personal again. Have you managed to structure a real point yet or are you still hanging onto the coat tails of your Forum 'friends'?

You didnt show the post becuase it isnt there. Where did I say I would be 'happy' for this. Good attempt at trying to twist your warped statement back onto me. your suggestion that reinstating the two child cap means I support the death of children is absolutely ludicrous, as highlighted by a few posters on here who took the piss out of you. If someone said that in normal society they would be laughed at. It may sound ok in your own little echo chamber but its BS. Can you send me another photo of your bookshelf?😆

The context was I talked about the rape gangs and that being his position. So you werent saying the grooming gang impact was 'perceived injury and injustice'?If thats not what you were referring to then fine.

I didnt say I would be happy to see them die. Point to where I said it. Its not mock outrage. I defy you to read about the grooming gangs and think that comparing that to the two child cap removal is ok.

Thats pretty disgusting to make a point about this. Gang rape and the two child cap removal are very different things. If you think otherwise your judgement is shit. Even more worryingly you also ignored my point about whether the grooming gang issue should be highlighted. I'll leave the ill informed gang to talk shit amongst themselves.

I said I agreed with some of what he said. So what. Do you think things like the grooming gangs scandal should be highlighted? If you dont agree with that I would say that is very, very worrying. Do you agree with him on this point?

At least I dont think that grooming gang rape is 'perceived injustice and injury'. Your words. You are well out of your depth on this subject.

He agreed with it. Putting aside semantics, its the same. Your statement is quite unbelievable. Maybe you think people who highlight rape gang issues are cunts. 'Perceived injustice and injury' - seriously fuck off. People that highlight young girls being targeted, hooked on drugs and raped in inexplicable ways have alternative agendas. Evidently another subject you know nothing about or otherwise you wouldnt make such stupid statements. Stop making ill informed statements when (self admittedly) you know nothing about this subject. Bye.