I'm sure you can summon up a stat or two to validate that claim.The far left loves to create hatred by blaming all rich people for the nation's tax revenues. More so, those lefties that can dodge as much tax as the richer people in society.
Is that question to me, JohnD or both of us? After all, JohnD is the statistician of the forum. When it suits him.I'm sure you can summon up a stat or two to validate that claim.
You're trying to compare the tax dodging 1% to the migrants arriving illegally as the cause for the economic problems in the UK ? Good luck with that.Is that question to me, JohnD or both of us? After all, JohnD is the statistician of the forum. When it suits him.
No need to apologise. I'm just trying to work out the equivalence between a tax dodger costing the Treasury billions of pounds, or the huge waste of resources by government officials, such as the £700 million wasted on the Rwanda scheme, to a skint migrant stepping off the boat.Apologies. It's clear you’re in the same camp as JohnD.
...people eagerly grab disinformation to fuel their criminal activity. Lies and disinformation mellifluously roll off their tongue like water to those sufficiently gullible to believe it. Look at the very recent criminal activity that has been taking place up and down the country fuelled by disinformation and bigotry.
It's pointless trying to persuade them out of their bigotry. All you can hope for, is to expose them in in their true light, and that the providers of the platform, which they exploit to foment their community division and hatred, will recognise their share of responsibility and curtail their hateful comments.
And the ultimate deterrent is proper punishment for their part in criminal activity.
Hope not Hate.
I normally don't pay much attention to interpreting the comment behind your presentation of such toons. But that one certainly encapsulates the probability of remarks, not illegal or defamatory per se, fuelling the prejudices of many who are easily led.Permit the cross-thread quote but it touches on the Jennings toon from yesterdays Grauniad where he points out the way tabloids like to exaggerate a headline that many 'readers' take in without really finding out the detail of an event.They need to sell papers as a business but also require stronger guidelines to make sure such a story doesn't trigger their audience into the kind of violence last weekend.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is an old industry adage that deserves closer scrutiny to what we expect from a news story, and few programmes like Mediawatch are dedicated to listening to their audience in order to improve the quality of reporting the news.
Most of the toons are self-explanatory, really but a broader caption for added context is useful, especially with a Rowson where he weaves several references into the narrative.I normally don't pay much attention to interpreting the comment behind your presentation of such toons. But that one certainly encapsulates the probability of remarks, not illegal or defamatory per se, fuelling the prejudices of many who are easily led.
Thanks for the pointer.