UK: The Telegraph: Friend or Foe? - by P A Murphy - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-29T06:18:43Zhttp://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/uk-the-telegraph-friend-or-foe-by-p-a-murphy?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A141669&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A108934&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJoe, couldn't you just contac…tag:4freedoms.com,2014-06-23:3766518:Comment:1508092014-06-23T06:41:22.319ZPaul Austin Murphyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PaulAustinMurphy
<p>Joe, couldn't you just contact The Telegraph and ask it what its general policy is on comments?</p>
<p>Was Umma's point that all UKIP supporters are old or that they are thick?</p>
<p>“The BBC has carried out some very interesting research on this - 1 in 5 people in our economy cannot do the full basics online of sending and receiving an email, browsing the internet, filling in an online form."</p>
<p>Where is there a mention of UKIP in that? He has moved from this evidence (if it is…</p>
<p>Joe, couldn't you just contact The Telegraph and ask it what its general policy is on comments?</p>
<p>Was Umma's point that all UKIP supporters are old or that they are thick?</p>
<p>“The BBC has carried out some very interesting research on this - 1 in 5 people in our economy cannot do the full basics online of sending and receiving an email, browsing the internet, filling in an online form."</p>
<p>Where is there a mention of UKIP in that? He has moved from this evidence (if it is evidence), to an assumption that it MUST particularly apply to UKIP supporters... but why?</p> Disqus tells me there has bee…tag:4freedoms.com,2014-06-22:3766518:Comment:1508032014-06-22T17:38:16.297ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>Disqus tells me there has been a reply to a comment I left here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voters-feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voters-feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html</a></p>
<p>When I visit that story, all the comments have been deleted. Not just closed. Deleted. Within 4 hours of…</p>
<p>Disqus tells me there has been a reply to a comment I left here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voters-feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voters-feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html</a></p>
<p>When I visit that story, all the comments have been deleted. Not just closed. Deleted. Within 4 hours of permitting comments, The Telegraph deletes them all.<br/><br/>What can that mean? Nothing except the comments were full of UKIPPERS demonstrating they were very much not disconnected because of lack of IT skills.</p> Once again, The Telegraph all…tag:4freedoms.com,2014-05-25:3766518:Comment:1476982014-05-25T10:54:49.100ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>Once again, The Telegraph allowed comments on a story, only to close this within 4 hours. By that point, there were 243 comments. Other stories have had comments open for days on end, with 3000 or more comments.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805618?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805618?profile=original" width="670"></img></a></p>
<p>Here's another story about islam, where The Telegraph closed comments within 2 hours.…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Once again, The Telegraph allowed comments on a story, only to close this within 4 hours. By that point, there were 243 comments. Other stories have had comments open for days on end, with 3000 or more comments.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805618?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805618?profile=original" width="670"/></a></p>
<p>Here's another story about islam, where The Telegraph closed comments within 2 hours.</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805621?profile=original"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54805621?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"/></a></p> Its always the case that so…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-30:3766518:Comment:1416772013-11-30T17:24:14.567Zpaul collingshttp://4freedoms.com/profile/paulcollings
<p></p>
<p>Its always the case that so much is said by news papers, just like politicians, that doesn't fit with their supposed belief system.</p>
<p>wouldn't it be easier if news papers reported news, and weren't pushing an agenda. The Telegraph is right wing, in so far as it isn't left wing. I find most things that are right wing today would have been called leftwing 40/50 years ago. I feel its all relative.</p>
<p>The news papers, the politicians, this country has been moving further…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Its always the case that so much is said by news papers, just like politicians, that doesn't fit with their supposed belief system.</p>
<p>wouldn't it be easier if news papers reported news, and weren't pushing an agenda. The Telegraph is right wing, in so far as it isn't left wing. I find most things that are right wing today would have been called leftwing 40/50 years ago. I feel its all relative.</p>
<p>The news papers, the politicians, this country has been moving further left for decades, its not going to stop.</p>
<p>Lets face it, we had a little play with democracy last century, where the common people were allowed to vote, where as before it was men of property who voted. This itself was a recent system of govenment. Before that Kings and Queens along with their Lords and Barons decided things.</p>
<p>People vote for the speed that we travel down the path to socialism, not 'if'. I'm sure David Cameron could have been quite comfortable in Harold Wilson's government and the Telegraph of today would have happily supported them. </p> Joe,
How different, exactly,…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-29:3766518:Comment:1416722013-11-29T13:33:51.336ZPaul Austin Murphyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PaulAustinMurphy
<p>Joe,</p>
<p>How different, exactly, is the hard copy from the Internet version (The Telegraph)? Are there different articles? Are the journalists different? Or is the editorial line different? I haven't read the hard version for years. In fact, I'm not an expert on any daily newspaper because I don't read any of them every day and never have. I almost hate journalese as much as I hate academic writing although that doesn't apply to news items; just to "commentaries" and "opinion…</p>
<p>Joe,</p>
<p>How different, exactly, is the hard copy from the Internet version (The Telegraph)? Are there different articles? Are the journalists different? Or is the editorial line different? I haven't read the hard version for years. In fact, I'm not an expert on any daily newspaper because I don't read any of them every day and never have. I almost hate journalese as much as I hate academic writing although that doesn't apply to news items; just to "commentaries" and "opinion pieces".</p>
<p>I wouldn't go so far as to call either the Telegraph or its journalists "socialist". I don't think they are economic or political socialists - on the whole. But they are, as I said, "cultural Leftists". This is a very convenient term. And, like all such terms, it can be over-used and also used without much thought. Nonetheless, it does capture something important. You get some people on the Liberty GB comments section classing everyone who disagree with them as "cultural Marxists". Then again, I guy called me a "liberal nationalist" the other day. He said it as a criticism but I quite like it.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/uk-the-telegraph-friend-or-foe-by-p-a-murphy?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A141670&xg_source=msg_com_gr_forum#3766518Comment141753"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Comment by Joe Bloggs</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Since PAM drew my attention to his article on The Telegraph, I thought I'd go and see what he objected to.</span><br/><a rel="nofollow" href="http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6181-the-tory-party-and-telegraph-full-of-leftists-you-re-joking">http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6181-...</a><br/><br/><span>I mentioned that I curse The Telegraph several times a week (and The Spectator, I might add). I curse them for exactly the reasons that PAM criticises The Telegraph. However, I will use this opportunity to once again pimp out Friedrich Hayek's "Why I Am Not A Conservative". As I've mentioned many times, by 1960 Hayek, von Mises and James Burnham were all independently describing the British Tory party as "a socialist party". The recent documentary on Thatcher the revolutionary made the same point: between the 1930s and 1980 (Thatcher) the British Tories were happy to be socialists (indeed, that documentary pointed out that they were drawn to that 20th century brand of socialism called "fascism") ...</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> That's useful info. I'll try…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-29:3766518:Comment:1416702013-11-29T13:13:56.031ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>That's useful info. I'll try submit an article to them!<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Paul Austin Murphy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/uk-the-telegraph-friend-or-foe-by-p-a-murphy?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A141669&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A108934#3766518Comment141756"><p>Alan/Joe,</p>
<p>I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's useful info. I'll try submit an article to them!<br/> <br/> <cite>Paul Austin Murphy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/uk-the-telegraph-friend-or-foe-by-p-a-murphy?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A141669&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A108934#3766518Comment141756"><p>Alan/Joe,</p>
<p>I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too pro-EDL").</p>
</blockquote> Antony,
I can understand peop…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-29:3766518:Comment:1416692013-11-29T10:28:45.507ZPaul Austin Murphyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PaulAustinMurphy
<p>Antony,</p>
<p>I can understand people having a problem with the restrictions and box-thinking implied by using the words “Right” and “Left” all the time. Despite that, I still think they are relevant and sometimes accurate. What usually happens is a person thinks of a particular belief, or even a theory, which is neither Left nor Right and he thereby thinks that this stops him being either Left or Right in total. You will often find that those who de-stress the Right-Left distinction/s in…</p>
<p>Antony,</p>
<p>I can understand people having a problem with the restrictions and box-thinking implied by using the words “Right” and “Left” all the time. Despite that, I still think they are relevant and sometimes accurate. What usually happens is a person thinks of a particular belief, or even a theory, which is neither Left nor Right and he thereby thinks that this stops him being either Left or Right in total. You will often find that those who de-stress the Right-Left distinction/s in one small area can nevertheless be classed as Leftist or Rightist in just about all other (political) areas. (The same happens with those who same that “Islamism is a 20<sup>th</sup> century phenomenon” and justify that claim by singling out, say, Muslims using mobile phones USING democratic processes.)</p>
<p></p>
<p>The other thing that's done is to go back to the French Revolution and its peculiarities and say that's when the terms “Right” and “Left” were coined. That's true, literally speaking. But the divisions pre-date the French Revolution - it's just that the words, “Right” and “Left” don't. But they are only words in this respect. Just take one example. Conservatism and radicalism, however they are cashed out, most certainly pre-dated the French revolution, as did collectivism/totalitarianism (Plato) and liberalism (Locke, etc.) Most of the Right-Left distinctions pre-date the French Revolution and the use of those precise words.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Having said, even if they can be classed as psychologically and sociologically “natural” distinctions, they are not by that fact necessary ones. That's the mistake Marxists made when the criticised those who said that “capitalism was natural” or that the family was. They said “natural” – not “necessary”. That is, something can be quite natural but still NATURALLY change over time. That is, something natural, such as various and ancient Left-Right distinctions, may well change over time and still be fairly natural. What is natural is a factor of society; and society is a factor of what's natural.</p>
<p><cite>Antony said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.com/group/freespeech/forum/topic/show?id=3766518%3ATopic%3A141750&xg_source=msg#3766518Comment141582"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Maybe this is ot - or maybe not - a few weeks ago I caught a snatch of a debate on the BBC news channel, a german newspaper editor looked exasperated at the usual Left vs Right debate and said "people don't believe in 'Left' and 'Right' anymore... they believe in Right and Wrong" ...something which I support the gist of, people are seeing that the establishment just use the tweedle dum/tweedle dee of left and right to pursue their aims, most notably with mass immigration - the left cheerleaded it to get more votes ( or more sinisterly, rioters and political goon squads) and to enable them to smear their opponents as "racist" etc), and the right supported it to get cheap labour and more sinisterly to operate a "strategy of tension" within society by inviting in certain disliked groups of immigrants and playing them off against the indiginous population.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Alan/Joe,
I've only had two a…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-29:3766518:Comment:1417562013-11-29T10:08:28.697ZPaul Austin Murphyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PaulAustinMurphy
<p>Alan/Joe,</p>
<p>I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too pro-EDL").</p>
<p>One of the editors said that it simply wasn't on to criticise "fellow conservatives". I can only think that he assumes that the British Conservative Party is the EXACT counterpart of the Republican Party. But why should anyone believe that?</p>
<p>I'm not an expert on the Republicans, but I suppose some of the stuff I say about the Tories may well be said…</p>
<p>Alan/Joe,</p>
<p>I've only had two articles rejected by American Thinker - this was one of them. (The other was "too pro-EDL").</p>
<p>One of the editors said that it simply wasn't on to criticise "fellow conservatives". I can only think that he assumes that the British Conservative Party is the EXACT counterpart of the Republican Party. But why should anyone believe that?</p>
<p>I'm not an expert on the Republicans, but I suppose some of the stuff I say about the Tories may well be said about the Republicans too.</p> Maybe this is ot - or maybe n…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-29:3766518:Comment:1415822013-11-29T08:14:22.140ZAntonyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/Antony
<p>Maybe this is ot - or maybe not - a few weeks ago I caught a snatch of a debate on the BBC news channel, a german newspaper editor looked exasperated at the usual Left vs Right debate and said "people don't believe in 'Left' and 'Right' anymore... they believe in Right and Wrong" ...something which I support the gist of, people are seeing that the establishment just use the tweedle dum/tweedle dee of left and right to pursue their aims, most notably with mass immigration - the left…</p>
<p>Maybe this is ot - or maybe not - a few weeks ago I caught a snatch of a debate on the BBC news channel, a german newspaper editor looked exasperated at the usual Left vs Right debate and said "people don't believe in 'Left' and 'Right' anymore... they believe in Right and Wrong" ...something which I support the gist of, people are seeing that the establishment just use the tweedle dum/tweedle dee of left and right to pursue their aims, most notably with mass immigration - the left cheerleaded it to get more votes ( or more sinisterly, rioters and political goon squads) and to enable them to smear their opponents as "racist" etc), and the right supported it to get cheap labour and more sinisterly to operate a "strategy of tension" within society by inviting in certain disliked groups of immigrants and playing them off against the indiginous population.</p> I too noted the comment on th…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-11-28:3766518:Comment:1415792013-11-28T21:30:01.499ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>I too noted the comment on the Telegraph, and thought "Yeah, whatever". I've got a cheap online subscription to the Telegraph, but what can you do? Its the best of a bad bunch.</p>
<p>Then I went back and read the full article on Liberty GB and paid more attention. Then, as if to drive the point home, I read this article, which is pure Leftist propaganda designed to mislead and obfuscate:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>I too noted the comment on the Telegraph, and thought "Yeah, whatever". I've got a cheap online subscription to the Telegraph, but what can you do? Its the best of a bad bunch.</p>
<p>Then I went back and read the full article on Liberty GB and paid more attention. Then, as if to drive the point home, I read this article, which is pure Leftist propaganda designed to mislead and obfuscate:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10478464/Iran-nuclear-deal-ill-informed-friends-of-Israel-are-refusing-to-face-facts.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1047846...</a></p>
<p>Where do I begin with this article?</p>
<p>(1) There is a cheap attempt to split Jews from Israel and the Likud</p>
<p>(2) This doesn't sound like parrotting overblown rhetoric, but more like a simple statement of fact:</p>
<blockquote><p>I have obtained this briefing, which parroted the overblown rhetoric with which Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, responded to the deal in Geneva. The CFI warned Tory MPs that “the world’s most dangerous regime has taken a significant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon” – echoing Mr Netanyahu almost verbatim.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(3) The above statement is supposed to be refuted by this:</p>
<blockquote><p>This was not merely propaganda. It was ignorant and poorly informed. Under the accord reached in Geneva, Iran must convert all uranium enriched to the 20 per cent level (the closest to weapons grade) into harmless oxide. That cannot fairly be described as a “step towards” a nuclear bomb. It’s obviously a welcome step in the opposite direction</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is just unbelievably childish. At what point since the Ayatollah took power, has Iran shown any indication that it will abide by its agreements? How often has it agreed to a temporary truce for re-stocking, then gone back to its old ways? When has it allowed full and fair inspections of the whole country and atomic facilities (known and unknown)?</p>
<p>(4) When has Iran not lied and deceived the West / its enemies? We do not have any reason to believe that this treaty is signed in good faith, just as we don't have any reason to believe that Iran will not continue to conduct a proxy war in the Middle East.</p>
<p>(5) Is Peter Oborne a totally naive idiot, or is he now receiving a stipend from the Iranian government? </p>
<blockquote><p>The briefing goes on to claim that “Iran has actively enriched uranium to 20 per cent fissile purity, far exceeding civilian purposes”. In fact, there certainly is a civilian purpose for such uranium: it can be used to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor, a facility that produces medical isotopes and nothing else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why do I have to say that this is a very convenient excuse? Also, why do I also have to point out that the quantities required for "medical isotopes" can be bought far cheaper than building your own reactor? </p>
<p>(6) Finally, because there are more deceptions, but I've run out of patience for dealing with them:</p>
<blockquote><p>Most misleading of all, the CFI told Tory MPs that “Iran is operating as many as 18,000 centrifuges, including more than 1,000 new models (IR-2m) that are far more efficient”. In fact, Iran is running 10,000 centrifuges. It does have another 9,500, including those advanced ones, but they are standing idle. Under the Geneva agreement, they will remain that way, since Iran has agreed not to use them.</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The CFI said "as many as", so their statement of 18000 is true</li>
<li>Is Iran really running 10,000 centrifuges. For God's sake, this is pitiful Oborne. How much are they paying you? See (3) and (4) above.</li>
<li>Are you sure the advanced ones are standing idle? Do we just take Oborne's word for it? Ridiculous.</li>
<li>"Iran has agreed not to use them". Once again, this is so infantile, we have to ask who is wiping Oborne's bottom for him. See (3) and (4) above again.</li>
</ul>
<p>I think I need to review my Telegraph subscription. Its better to have nothing than to have this kind of misleading drivel.</p>