09-05-2024, 03:14 PM in response to #45607
09-05-2024, 03:14 PM in response to #45607 09-05-2024, 03:20 PM in response to #45580 Lenny Baryea Wrote: 13 Conservative MPs left and six (it looks like) of them in Scotland. Somebody just wanted an excuse to use their MS Paint for one last time. 09-05-2024, 03:30 PM in response to #45607 Lenny Baryea Wrote: You on a recent thread: Who funds Byline Times? Who funds the Centre for Policy Studies? 09-05-2024, 03:59 PM in response to #45612 DesCartes Wrote: Who funds Byline Times? You think a link to the begging bowl on the Byline Times website details who funds them?! LOL At one time, albeit some years ago, the Sunday Telegraph ran an article that stated Byline Times was funded by Hacked Off and, almost exclusively, by three billionaires, including one from China who'd called for more constraints on journalists in his homeland. Peter Jukes, the co-founder of Byline Times, filed a complaint with IPSO about the article. The complaint was not upheld. https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resol...d=02436-16 For the record, I don't care about Byline Times or who funds them. You can share their tweets if you must. But if you're going to do that, maybe leave off the 'shill' and 'obscure funding' accusations when someone quotes a source that is ideologically opposed to your rather blinkered worldview. 10-05-2024, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2024, 08:43 AM by DesCartes.) in response to #45617 Lenny Baryea Wrote: You think a link to the begging bowl on the Byline Times website details who funds them?! LOL I linked to a page which just happened to use an image of someone with a begging bowl as a mildly amusing way of supporting their clear statement on how they specifically crowdfund campaigns. Arguably, I should have linked to the one which talks about its subscriptions, which is what LS alluded to above. The point is that how they are funded is transparent. Lenny Baryea Wrote: The complaint was not upheld Ah, so, 'Move on, there's nothing to see here'. 😀 Lenny Baryea Wrote: But if you're going to do that, maybe leave off the 'shill' and 'obscure funding' accusations when someone quotes a source that is ideologically opposed to your rather blinkered worldview. Yeah, my bad, I would be the first poster ever on this forum or its predecessors, ever to go down that route. 🤣 The sources of funding of the right-wing think tanks, etc., that one might collectively refer to as the 'Tufton Street Mob' - the CPS, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Taxpayers Alliance. etc. - are at best opaque. They have been challenged regularly on the subject but have proved reluctant to divulge much. However, 'partial disclosure' points to funding from fossil fuel companies, the tobacco and drinks industries and wealthy individuals. This is reflected in the views expressed by their representatives - the likes of Colville, (the ubiquitous) Kate Andrews, Mark Littlewood, Fraser Nelson, Emily Carver, Annabel Denham, Reem Ibrahim, etc. - on their frequent appearances in the media. They are looking after the interests of these paymasters. So 'obscure funding' is not a biased accusation, it is a reality. And 'shill' is an accurate description - a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organisation without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organisation. And not my 'blinkered worldview'. 10-05-2024, 09:42 AM in response to #45696 DesCartes Wrote: The point is that how they are funded is transparent. Ah, OK. Who funds them has now morphed into how. How they're funded is transparent, so that's fine. *rolls eyes* The point is you're a sanctimonious blowhard. 'Right-wing' sources? Shills. Obscure funding. Your sources? Impeccable. Of course. 10-05-2024, 09:46 AM in response to #45725 Lenny Baryea Wrote: Ah, OK. Who funds them has now morphed into how. How they're funded is transparent, so that's fine. *rolls eyes* You didn't get where you are today by resorting to personal abuse. No sir... 10-05-2024, 09:51 AM in response to #45726 10-05-2024, 11:45 AM in response to #45610
It's Cllr Sanctimonious Blowhard, thank you
|
|