Press

[The Invisible Man]

Well, personally I differentiate between the left (I consider myself to lean to the left [which makes walking in a straight line difficult]) and the loony left. I also see a difference between the moderates and the right and the raving Daily Mail (or worse) right. It's true though that moderation canbe overdone...

 

I've forgotten what this was originally all about really. I see that Dartford's stadium has a capacity of over 4000 and is to Conference standard (are there enough seats I wonder?). This is perfectly sufficient I would have thought. Certainly they (the client, i.e. the body that paid for it) have included "green" or "sustainable" aspects, the total extra-over cost and pay-back period for which I could not guess, but they will have been calculated by the QS and the Services Engineers. Often you end up paying back more for the solar panels etc than they save, but there are grants available. There will have been a capital cost, certainly. The website might not be totally truthful in claiming that founds were cheaper because the gluelam beams are lighter. It depends on spans and all sorts of things, plus the "living" roof is heavier. The guff about the roof "breathing" is tosh. Gluelam beams are nothing new, they have been around for decades - the glue is probably not very green. Certainly this is all more expensive than "non-green" construction.

 

The moral is, don't believe all you read. Bottom line is that Dartford have a unique Conference level stadium that most seem to like, and is possibly relatively economic to run. So overall I don't think we are actually very much apart, LS!

[lovely stuff]

Originally Posted By: waggamick

More likely that the media is basically conservative...Murdoch, et al...they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Any radical changes(from the 'loony left') threaten their monopolistic/cartel like power bases and influence.

This in turn threatens their profitability.

I personally feel that the balance of power in the UK media is quite good.Murdoch controls Sky News and his newspapers sell in big numbers.This is countered by the fact that the BBC/ITV/CH4 have firm Left-wing stances (especially in their news coverage).The only place that the BBC advertise jobs for example,is through the weekly job section of The Guardian.Whilst Jon Snow basically reads out The Guardians editorial on CH4 news every weeknight.Most documentary output also has strong political influences.

Maybe the only difference is that people make an individual choice of whether to purchase a Right or Left-of-centre newspaper,whereas they cannnot choose or influence presentaion or political bias in mainstream TV.
Anyway, overall i don't think the balance is too bad in the UK media.Which is totally the opposite to The Civil service/The Schools system/public office..etc,which is almost exclusively controlled and run by an unelected liberal elite.

[Steph]

"is countered by the fact that the BBC/ITV/CH4 have firm Left-wing stances (especially in their news coverage)".

 

See what I mean about the raving right.

 

If the BBC has a left wing status why doesn't the Today programme on "what the papers say" or "newsnight" when it throws tomorrows papers on the table not point out what the Morning Star has to say. After all it is a national daily paper with a reasonable circulation and does give a different slant on the news.

 

I will come back with other omissions by the BBC with regard to left reporting.

 

It is the "raving right" that always consider that their views are "the moderate majority" which allows them to continually rave.

 

And LS I am including you in this ;-)

[Man From Mars]

Steph what can I say .A few good points there my old chum .

[Steph]

Ah but MFM one has to be careful not to live up to the "loony" label. ;-)

 

A case of the raving right meeting the loony left?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

[Mr Happy]

This thread has becone [****!!****] stupid!

[Steph]

There you go

 

Raving again!

[Man From Mars]

Hah god one Steph , Then why are you posting Mr Happy ,Do you feel left out . A bit too intellectual for you eh mate.

[lovely stuff]

Come on Steph.Only the true hardliner would try to deny the BBC and CH4 have some leftwing bias.The BeeB have been found guilty of it on at least four occassions in the last few years (once by their own internal enquiery).Just because they reflect your views and opinions doesn't mean they are neutral views.The very fact that activists like yourself and MFM try to defend the BBC speaks volumes.

 

Here is a typical Jon Snow interview.Please watch it all the way through and tell me there is no institutional bias in mainstream news coverage

 

 

 

[Steph]

I have watched the clip all the way through and I dont agree that Jon Snow showed left wing bias.

 

He allowed the ambassador to rant and rave for most of the interview. Many of his questions were not answered.

 

Is the demolition of a power station an act of terrorism?

 

Power is needed for water and sewage systems etc thus more people will die though loss of services.

 

How does the demolition of a power station stop people smuggling as surely people can be smuggled out under cover of darkness?

 

The ambassador would not answer that question.

 

The palestinians have inaccurate rockets and AK47's your government have carried out a sophisticated bombardment of palestinian services.

 

Only one palestinian has died was the reply omitting to take account the misery to other innocent people by the demolition of their services.

 

It is the fact that raving right wingers consider a straight forward - not hard interview - is evidence of left wing bias indicates that they dont really know, or possibly care, about how tragic the situation in the middle east is. I was in New York 4 years ago and turned on the TV. There were advertisements on TV from Jewish agencies asking for funds to send Russian Jews to Israel. Now those Russian Jews have settled in Israel many are saying that they are not real Jews and have been required to settle in lands conquered in 1967. Perhaps the BBC should have asked the ambassador about that situation but there again you would have accused him of left wing bias.

 

A man said at 6:20 am that the intelligence agencies were unhappy that the government had "sexed up" the Irag dossier. That man was subsequently sacked. Not one government minister has been sacked for lieing to us about the war. But a man who, perhaps, did not choose his words carefully was sacked but he was more right than Alistair Campbell and you say that the BBC is left wing. Dont make me laugh.

 

The BBC is the establishment and always have been since the days of Lord Reith.

[lovely stuff]

Steph.You are missing the point.It is not about the rights and wrongs of the subject matter AT ALL.It is about whether a mainstream news presenter can conduct an interview without showing bias and without putting his own personal beliefs across for all to see.With Jon Snow the answer is NO.

 

You say many of his questions were not answered? He DIDN'T ask any questions apart from 'Is this an act of Terrorism' three times.

 

'This is collective punishment and you are starving out the hospitals' - is not a question but personal opinion.

 

'Rockets are pretty pathetic things and nobody gets injured.They are homemade and they have nothing much stronger than an AK-47' -is not a question but personal opinion.

 

'You delivered some of the most safisticated weapons ever aimed at defensless people'- is not a question but personal opinion

 

As a presenter,ask hard questions for sure,but on mainstream TV you have a duty to be professional and too not allow you own personal beliefs to show through.All Snow had to do put IS THIS? and HAVE YOU? before his statements.Is this Collective punishment??Have you not targeted defensless people?..etc,and hide his contempt for the person he is interviewing.Its basic presenting.But he couldn't manage either.

 

As i said.Newspapers can get away with bias because people make an individual choice to purchase them.But mainstream News should at all cost remain neutral (even if most of the newsteams are far from it themselves).

 

 

 

[Steph]

To demolish a power station is not "collective punishment" Ok lets go to Russia and knock out one or two of their power stations for the uncontrolled import of plutonium. Not withstanding that it would be pretty foolhardy that is justifiable punishment of the state and is not "collective punishment".

 

Goods not getting to a hospital is not "starving"

 

The rockets cannot be targeted seems to me that they are pretty pathetic. What would you call them deadly weapons?

 

All of the above is not opinion but fact surely. If it is opinion it is opinion which the moderate majority would surely agree with.

 

As I said the raving right never consider that they are raving just as the loony left never consider that they are loony.

[lovely stuff]

The subject matter is not important.I'm sure most people would agree with what you say about this particular matter.If Jon Snow was questioning Mugabe in the same way he did the Israeli offical, i would still consider it bad journalism even if i happened to agree with everything Snow was implying and assuming.

 

Would Snow have been as rude,dogmatic and condemning towards an Hamas spokesman.I doubt it very much.Why? Because its plain to see where Snows sympathies lie in every subject he tackles.And for me that is poor journalism and the general public who can't choose their News presenters deserve a bit better.

 

[non-league fan]

Originally Posted By: The Invisible Man

Well, personally I differentiate between the left (I consider myself to lean to the left [which makes walking in a straight line difficult]) and the loony left. I also see a difference between the moderates and the right and the raving Daily Mail (or worse) right. It's true though that moderation canbe overdone...

I've forgotten what this was originally all about really. I see that Dartford's stadium has a capacity of over 4000 and is to Conference standard (are there enough seats I wonder?). This is perfectly sufficient I would have thought. Certainly they (the client, i.e. the body that paid for it) have included "green" or "sustainable" aspects, the total extra-over cost and pay-back period for which I could not guess, but they will have been calculated by the QS and the Services Engineers. Often you end up paying back more for the solar panels etc than they save, but there are grants available. There will have been a capital cost, certainly. The website might not be totally truthful in claiming that founds were cheaper because the gluelam beams are lighter. It depends on spans and all sorts of things, plus the "living" roof is heavier. The guff about the roof "breathing" is tosh. Gluelam beams are nothing new, they have been around for decades - the glue is probably not very green. Certainly this is all more expensive than "non-green" construction.

The moral is, don't believe all you read. Bottom line is that Dartford have a unique Conference level stadium that most seem to like, and is possibly relatively economic to run. So overall I don't think we are actually very much apart, LS!

The official capacity is 4097 because the woodman man uses 3 spaces. It was originally going to be 5000+ but cutbacks had to be made when there was a delay in the building start date which put it over budget. (Bloody Roman remains) Anyway it can be extended, and by keeping the capacity below 5000 you can qualify for FA grants. The only thing that needs to be done for the Conference is for the dugouts to be made slightly bigger.
There are things that could of been better with the design but how many councils build football grounds for their town. We have been very lucky. I hope things work out for Enfield.

[andyetfc]

What happened to the football content?

[Out_Of_Towner]

Originally Posted By: lovely stuff

My apologies.It must have been Sir Chuckle who posted the comments under the photo.

The last few posts certainly prove one thing.There is definately an element amonst us that will quite happily turn on their fellow fan at the drop of a hat,if anything is mentioned that does not completely fit into their own political stance. (and i'm talking about half a dozen people here).

And perversely, it is those who are the least likely to criticise rival teams and supporters,who are the ones most likely to turn on their own fans.

The Reason is its mostly old hat, unnecessary and embarrassing and puts our club in a bad light . Although i did agree with your W & F comments a few weeks back. One more thing L/S you put yourself on a pedestal to be shot at thats why people tend to jump on you more than most.

[lovely stuff]

Originally Posted By: andyetfc

What happened to the football content?

Hi Andy.

A bit rich coming from someone who's every second post is about golf.

[andyetfc]

Bit off course there LS or should I putt it another way? My signature contains golfing content rather than posts.

 

I think you have been bunkered in your comment and appear to be a fair way off mark.

[lovely stuff]

Quote:

The Reason is its mostly old hat, unnecessary and embarrassing and puts our club in a bad light .

 

OOT.I have to admit that you were one of the people i was thinking about when i made my assumption about certain fans becoming resistant and negative towards my post about ETFC,just because they disagreed with the few political observations i may have posted in the past.

 

 

Anyway ,putting politics aside (and i certainly won't be mentioning it again on here in the near future),i thought we produced a decent performance today,against what was admittedly a very average opponent.It seems we are now capable of beating all teams out of the top six.My worry is our cutting edge against the top sides in the league.Ozzie had a good game today,but i have doubts about his contribution against quality defenses. Tickner was my man of the match today,Jonesy and Kofi were very good.Campbell and Bastian were a bit dissapointing as the wide men today.

The atmosphere was very dead in the first half,but picked up a bit in the second half when we attacked the stand end.

 

[lovely stuff]

Originally Posted By: andyetfc

Bit off course there LS or should I putt it another way? My signature contains golfing content rather than posts.

I think you have been bunkered in your comment and appear to be a fair way off mark.

In a fairway,can i respectfully mention that i didn't spot much football content in this thread
http://www.nonleague.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1292486#Post1292486